HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/09/19 RDA Item 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRe)
MEETING JOINTLY WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
July 13, 2006
6:00 P.M.
A Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista
meeting jointly with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, was called to order
at 6:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
California.
CVRC ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Board Members: Chavez (arrived at 6:10 p.m.), Desrochers, Lewis, Paul,
Rindone (arrived at 6:07 p.m.), Rooney and Vice Chairman McCann
Board Members: Castaneda, Chairman Padilla
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Agency Members: Chavez (arrived at 6:10 p.m.), Rindone (arrived at 6:07
p.m.), and Vice Chairman McCann
ABSENT: Agency Members: Castaneda, Chairman Padilla
ALSO PRESENT: Secretary Smith, General Counsel Moore, Acting Community
Development Director Hix, Redevelopment Manager Crockett
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Item 1)
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 22, 2006
Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC approve the minutes of June 22,2006.
ACTION:
Director Desrochers offered Consent Calendar Item 1. Director Lewis, seconded
the motion, and it carried 5-0 with Directors Castaneda, Chavez, Rindone and
Chairman Padilla absent.
Director/Agency member Rindone arrived at 6:07 p.m.
Director/Agency Chavez arrived at 6:10 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pat Aguilar stated that due to the Jade Bay Mobilehome Park zoning being changed by the Urban
Core Specific Plan to high density residential, the mobilehome residents are being given notices
to vacate by April 2007, and are not being provided relocation assistance due to the bankruptcy.
Ms. Aguilar requested the CVRC provide whatever assistance possible to the residents.
lA-I
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Vice Chairman McCann inquired of General Counsel Moore as to whether those wishing to
speak regarding the Jade Bay Mobilehome Park should speak under Public Comments or during
Item 3, the closure of the public review period for the draft Environmental Impact Report for the
City ofChula Vista's Draft Urban Core Specific Plan.
Ms. Moore responded that Item 3 is geared towards the EIR itself. The Jade Bay comments
could be made under Public Comments, or, if they pertain to the EIR, during Item 3.
Steve Molski inquired as to the meaning of relocation assistance, and whether it included the
moving of furniture, a mobilehome, and/or assistance to purchase a new place. He then stated
that the park owners are making a profit when they rent and sell their property, which is not a
humanitarian effort. He requested the CVRC make it clear as to what assistance will actually be
available for people who are dislocated.
Pat LaPierre stated there were 5 parks in the Urban Core Specific Plan area that will be affected
by mobilehome park zoning changes, and inquired as to what happened to the 1980 initiative to
protect mobilehome parks and residents. He further expressed concerns that if the mobilehome
park zoning is lifted, it will start a wave of potential park closures and 60 I citizens would be
displaced. He then requested consideration of keeping the mobilehome park zoning and limiting
the rents that could be charged.
Vice Chairman McCann stated that staff was looking into the Jade Bay issues, and there would
be additional time for those wishing to speak regarding the mbbilehome parks under Item 3.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DRC-05-50) AND
OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS TO MODIFY AN EXISTING STRUCTURE LOCATED
AT 320 TillRD AVENUE FOR THE OPERATION OF A NEW FITNESS HEALTH
CLUB
On May 25, 2006, the CVRC reviewed the proposed exterior and interior tenant modifications to
an existing structure located at 320 Third Avenue for the purpose of opening a 24 Hour Fitness
Center. Based on concerns raised regarding the proposed exterior facade changes, the CVRC
requested that the applicant meet with community representatives, including the Third Avenue
Village Association, Town Centre PAC, and community organizations to consider their design
input. Based upon the community input the applicant has incorporated a number of design
element changes.
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Page 2 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
1A--2.
July 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
Acting Community Development Department Director Hix provided an introduction of the item,
which was initially considered at the May 25th CVRC meeting, noting that staff had been
directed to gather additional community input on the design of the proposed facility.
Community Development Specialist Lukes presented the staff report and responded to questions
of the CVRC members.
Richard Tanaka, project architect, provided a brief PowerPoint presentation showing the
transition in the building design, based on incorporation of community and CVRC input, and
responded to questions of the CVRC members.
Ms. Lukes noted that the changes described, were consistent with the Town Centre Design
Guidelines and the Urban Core Specific Plan design guidelines. Further, that upon completion of
the Third Avenue Streetscape Master Plan, street furniture and other sidewalk/outside features
will be determined.
Director Paul inquired of the architect, whether there would be rooftop equipment. Mr. Tanaka
responded that screening would be provided, but it would not change the outward appearance of
what was presented in his renderings.
Vice Chairman McCann opened the public hearing.
Beckey Smiser, representing the Smiser Family Properties, owners of Park Plaza, and property
manager of the parking garage, inquired as to what was meant by the release of the easement on
the existing parking structure. She stated she had spent 3 years working with Redevelopment
Agency staff to rewrite a poorly written Reciprocal Grant Establishing Restrictions and
Covenants document, which was designed to say who could use, control and maintain the
parking structure. Presently, all tenants have ratified an amendment to the document, except for
ABG partners, the building owners, who have never paid their fair share. She encouraged staff
to address and resolve the existing problems prior to approval of the 24 Hour Fitness, as their
membership will increase the usage of the parking structure.
Vice Chairman McCann requested Redevelopment Manager Crockett meet with Ms. Smiser to
discuss the issues she raised.
Pamela Bensoussan, representing the Northwest Civic Association, thanked the project
developer, owner and City staff for facilitating the meetings so the community could provide
input. She then stated concerns with the entrance portal, which still seemed dominating, and
recommended the parking garage be looked at and enhancements encouraged. She spoke in
support of the public art component, and inquired as to whether the revisions to the resolution
that were discussed on May 25th would be tied into the final resolution. Ms. Lukes responded in
the affirmative, noting that a revised resolution had been provided on the dais, which
incorporated the May 25th revisions.
Page 3 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov
/A-3
July 13,2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
Pat Aguilar, representing Crossroads II, distributed a handout of the original 24 Hour Fitness
Center design rendering, beside the final design rendering, depicting the value of community
input. She stated that Crossroads II supports the revised project in terms of architecture.
There being no further members of the public wishing to speak, Vice Chairman McCarm closed
the public hearing.
Staff Recommendation: The CVRC adopt the following resolution:
ACTION:
Director Rindone offered the resolution, heading read, text waived:
CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2006-030, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECOMMENDING THAT THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (I) APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
(DRC-05-50); AND (2) ADOPT AN OWNER P ARTICIP A TION AGREEMENT
FOR EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS TO MODIFY
AN EXISTING 25,742 SQUARE-FOOT STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 320
TIDRD AVENUE FOR THE OPERATION OF A NEW ATHLETIC FITNESS
HEALTH CLUB (FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES)
Vice Chairman McCarm seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0 with Director
Castaneda and Chairman Padilla absent.
3. CONSIDERATION OF THE CLOSURE OF THE 45-DA Y PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-06-01) FOR THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S DRAFT URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
On May 30, 2006, a Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse and a Notice
of Availability was distributed and posted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
allowing the City to begin the formal process of requesting comments on Draft Environmental
Impact Report 06-0 I for the City of Chula Vista's Draft Urban Core Specific Plan.
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
General Counsel Moore stated for the record that the City had received an opinion from the Fair
Political Practices Commission, dated December 16, 2003, which provided that even through
Councilmember Rindone owns property within 500 feet of the Urban Core Specific Plan Area,
he falls within the public general exception, and can participate in this matter.
Acting Community Development Director Hix, introduced Plarming Manager Ladiana, who
provided the staff report.
Page 4 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov
fA -Lf
July 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
Ms. Ladiana explained that the item before the CVRC was a public hearing to accept public
testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for the Urban Core
Specific Plan (UCSP). The public hearing would close the 45-day public review period, which
started on May 30, 2006. Oral testimony and written comments submitted during the 45-day
public review period will be responded to in written form as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and will comprise the Final EIR. The Draft UCSP and
Final UCSP ErR will be the subject of a public hearing later this summer. Ms. Ladiana
elaborated further that oral testimony should be limited specifically to the information in the
EIR, and project-specific questions should be held for the future meetings on the specific plan.
Vice Chairman McCann opened the public hearing.
The following is a verbatim transcript of the people who spoke under this item:
Jackie Lancaster, representing Grandparents of America. CVRC members, and members of the
public. If ever Chula Vista had a crisis in front of them, today is that day. The people of Jade
Park and other mobilehome parks are not exaggerating when they tell you they have no one to
turn to and nowhere to go. Some weeks ago at the mobilehome park meeting here, I read off
some of the facts that I had discovered. If you apply for rental assistance, the wait is 5 to 7 years.
If you apply for Section 8, the wait is 7 to II years. If you look into affordable housing, the
Community Development Department has a 3-page list and the cheapest available unit on that
list is $700. Not many people in Jade Park or any other senior mobilehome park could pay that
plus utilities, plus food, plus medication, plus transportation. I even called about shared housing
and even that process would not be useful to most people that live in mobilehome parks. When I
spoke of these facts at the mobilehome park meeting some weeks ago, I was told by the Mayor -
Mrs. Lancaster, you're scaring the living daylights out of these people - and I was referred to
City staff who tried to be helpful. But the plain fact is that there is no safety net for the many,
many people who will be displaced by redevelopment. Even Mandy Mills of Redevelopment
said there is not enough relocation funding and that's just through the normal process. But in the
case of Jade Bay where the owner has found a way to get around what safety net or what
relocation ordinances the City has. Now what? It is a crisis because this is just the first domino,
the other parks will likely follow suit if nothing is done now to address this tragedy of throwing
elderly and disabled people out onto the street. I have asked several authorities whether
displacement of human beings is considered an environmental impact issue or not. The answers
are unclear. Therefore, it is my strong recommendation that this EIR in Item 3 not be accepted
until these legal issues about displacement of human beings are addressed. Because this is only
the beginning. We must face the issue of the Jade Bay residents for their sake and because the
floodgates need to be closed to other park owners who would take advantage of the elderly and
disabled out of sheer greed. Frankly, I think the situation falls under the category of elder abuse
and we need someone to step in and stop it. So please, hold up on the EIR, at least until we
know whether throwing sick people out on the street qualifies as an environmental impact.
Thank you.
Page 5 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
http://www.chulavistaca.gov
IA-5
July 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
Frank Zimmerly. First I would like to say thank you to CVRC and to the Councilmembers that
are here. I appreciate the job you are trying to take on. and I realize the City needs
redevelopment, so despite some of my comments perhaps, I do appreciate the job you are taking
on. On reading the ErR, I became concerned and interested in the fact that you used the 2.58 on
deciding how large our population would increase in downtown, well, west Chula Vista, you
used the 2.58 times 7,100 units which would be expected to increase the population to around
18,318. And so, I started looking around for the 2.58 and I went to the census bureau and they
use the factor of 2.59 which I thought OK that's reasonably close but unfortunately the 2.59
applies for allover the United States. When you look at California, the household unit would be
2.87 and, if you look at Chula Vista, that multiplication factor should be 2.99. So I was
wondering how applicable the number is for Chula Vista. Also, I was looking at the traffic
report, traffic analysis, and I saw the information used to determine in the traffic analysis was
from 2001, February 13, and I became concerned at how accurate then the forecast will be for
traffic, especially when you consider that especially for between H Street and E Street, you
figure there will be a LOS level of E, and could it be worse now, I mean 2001 is fairly old.
Which brings up another a question that I have is on reading the ErR I saw that we have a
Municipal Code, which I am sure you are all aware of, 19.09.040, which determines the quality
of life factor that we have here within the City. It is required within the City to maintain a LOS
level of C, no worse than D, during peak hours, and if it's already an economic degrade any
worse than 1991 levels. Now, if the ErR is approved, the courts can go to the CVRC and they
will be under State legislation, which falls under SB 1636, which can override our own
Municipal Code. But I am wondering, can our City Council, realizing the factors that will come
upon the ErR the way it's written, they'd be overriding their own Municipal Code. Anyway,
thank you very much.
Greg Moser, of Foley Attorneys at Law, representing Earl Jentz. We've submitted comments in
writing to the Project Manager and distributed to you this evening my comments and I think
Joanne has with her comments. I just want to highlight a couple of those things. The first is how
the EIR deals with historical resources. You have actually a wealth of knowledge in the City
about historical resources. For your 75th City anniversary, you actually did a book that was
available for sale that identifies a lot of buildings that are of historical value. Somehow that isn't
picked up in the EIR at all. You also did a historical, your Park and Rec Department did a
historical resources inventory, again it doesn't seem to be in the EIR. And then we contacted the
historical society, which gave us a list of other properties in this study area that are of historic
interest. So we have given you in our handout some excerpts that show where those properties
are and what they are and we think that, in order to have a comprehensive picture of the
historical cultural resource that you have in this area, that needs to be reflected in your EIR so
that you know what area you might impact and in effects what kind of mitigation you'd do. So
that's just seems to be an omission in the EIR there is some kind of survey done but it's a small
portion of what the City's already identified itself as being historical stuff. Land use consistency
- three quick comments on that. One is that the Cummings Initiative seems to be inconsistent
with what you are describing in the ErR in a couple of respects. First, the Cummings Initiative,
the whole purpose of it was to prevent - one of the purposes - was to prevent traffic from getting
Page 6 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
f 1+ -b
July 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
worse and so all of your plans are supposed to be consistent with not making your traffic worse
and, as we know from reading the ErR, you have concluded that there are adverse traffic
impacts. So the document describes - it doesn't mention the Cummings Initiative, so I think
that's a problem. The Cummings Initiative also prevents upzoning more than one level for
residential properties. Again that isn't referenced in the document and the document seems to
allow bigger steps than that, in fact, encourage bigger steps than what the Cummings Initiative
allows. The character of the village district we think would be adversely affected by allowing
the intrusion of your 84 foot height limit into really your downtown village area there in a couple
of areas. Really on the ends of the V -II designation that those ought to be extended up to E and
down to G to really to avoid conflicts between adjacent land uses. And then your General Plan
has language about harmonizing and blending in different kinds of uses that are next to each
other and again when you look at the juxtaposition of some of the designations you don't you
know you have some language like that in the General Plan but there is nothing in the Specific
Plan that really emphasizes that part of it. Lastly, the housing and population displacement, you
acknowledge pretty clearly that you don't have a Housing Element yet that you have adopted
which really should prevent you from moving forward on other General Plan changes. But the
worst part of that is that you don't really have a factual basis for the conclusions in the EIR that
say that yes, there's going to be a displacement of people, yes, there's going to be replacement of
housing or change of housing - but there's no factual basis for it. That's what would be in your
Housing Element, or it would be in the EIR, but it's not there so instead you make the problem
invisible in this EIR and obviously we've got a number of people here tonight who don't think
they are invisible and who think that you ought to have the details of what the affect is going to
be on low and moderate income housing in the downtown area. If you read the EIR, it basically
says it's a temporary phenomenon so we aren't going to worry about it, and there's really again no
factual basis for those conclusions. In fact, it concludes that, even though you're increasing
dramatically the number of housing units, that it's not going to have any effect on the people that
currently live there and you can't just ignore, the EIR shouldn't ignore, the existing conditions.
So with that I am going to turn it over to Joanne.
Joanne Hadfeld of the Planning Center, representing Earl Jentz. Good evening Chairman and
Board Members. My name is Joanne Hadfeld. I did cut it very, very tight, but I got here right
when you started this item. I am the Director of Environmental Services for the Planning Center
located at 1580 Metro Drive in Costa Mesa, California. My testimony is tonight on behalf of
Earl Jentz, a Chula Vista resident since 1976, and a property owner of three properties in the
downtown area. We were retained to conduct a third party review of this Environmental Impact
Report. My focus is on California Environmental Quality Act compliance. I don't pretend to
know the City inside out; I am very directly looking at CEQA issues and compliance. The
Planning Center has 30 years of experience preparing General Plans, Specific Plans, and EIRs,
including recently the General Plan for the City of Anaheim, the County of Riverside, and the
City of Rancho Cucamonga. We received an award from the APA for outstanding planning for a
large jurisdiction for the general plan for Riverside County. As primary reviewer for the EIR, I
personally have 25 years of experience preparing EIRs and a background in urban planning and
civil engineering. We have in-house air quality and noise specialists that did a technical review
of those topical areas and we worked with a firm - Urban Crossroads traffic engineering firm -
Page 7 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
http://www.chulavistaca.gov
IA-7
July 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
to evaluate traffic and parking impacts. And I will give you the copies of the comments as soon
as I have finished this presentation and we have submitted them to the City Planning
Department. As noted in our letter, we found the EIR to be a well-written, organized and
meaningful analysis of the project. For the most part, very impressed with the document and the
analysis - it's easy to follow, it's very well organized - so as a fellow practitioner, I'm impressed
with the document overall. My comments, I want to focus first a little bit on the environmental
process and some of our questions that we hope could be addressed in the final EIR, followed by
individual comments on topical sections addressed in the document. We agree that the
appropriate documentation is a program EIR and that subsequent review should be addressed for
individual projects in the urban core in accordance with the program EIR in the CEQA process.
One question we did have is we did not understand why an initial study was not prepared for this
EIR. As far as we know an initial study was not prepared. CEQA does not mandate that an
initial study be prepared once a lead agency knows that they are going to prepare an EIR, but
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provide a checklist that ensure if you do an initial study
that you comprehensively address all of the potential environmental impacts. As I go through
my comments, you'll see that, because an initial study wasn't prepared, we believe that some
important environmental impaots were not addressed, but were overlooked. We are also
recommending that more subsequent review in the urban core area that the secondary study
identified for the development review process consists or at least includes environmental
checklist for the same reasons. We found that the EIR did not address construction related
impacts for noise at all, did not address vibration impacts. These are very specific significant
thresholds in the CEQA Guidelines in the Appendix G threshold and, if the preparer did go
through all those questions, somewhat forced to address some of these issues that I bring up now.
So comments by EIR section, we are hoping, we do feel it's a good document, hoping that these
issues can be addressed in the final EIR with supplemental analysis and mitigation as necessary.
Noise and Vibration - The CEQA initial study checklist includes a threshold related to potential
vibration impacts and also a threshold regarding temporary or periodic noise. The EIR does not
address potential vibration impacts or construction related noise impacts at all. Vibration levels
by existing and future use of the rail line should be evaluated for those proposed residences in
proximity to the rail line. The noise analysis also needs to evaluate vibration levels generated
from construction equipment, which may result in damage to fragile historic or potentially
historic structures. The noise analysis doesn't address sensitive uses, existing sensitive risk
issues uses, it focuses on those units that will be built and future uses. Needs to address the
potential impacts to existing uses. May I have maybe a minute and half or two and gloss over
my other comments? [McCann] I'll give you one more minute and then just clarify it I have this
document from Mr. Moser is this include your comments. [Hadfeld] I have copies here.
[McCann] OK, then we can make sure that the City Attorney and everybody gets your written
statement as well. [Hadfeld] OK, very quickly then - population and housing, I agree with Mr.
Moser's comments. The potential impact for those potentially displaced housing units and
people, not adequately addressed. It is a CEQA issue; it is a specific significant threshold in the
initial study. Parking issues - although fully described in the project description they are not
analyzed in the document and a very important issue that also is a significant threshold from
CEQA that if it followed the initial study would have been forced to be addressed. Land use
compatibility - we disagree with the conclusion that impacts would be less than significant given
potentially significant noise, traffic, parking, vibration and air quality issues. Alternatives - see
Page 8 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov
I A--8
July 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
my comments. We disagree with the conclusions there, although we don't disagree with the
preferred superior alternative. In summary, we look forward to formal responses and, hopefully,
some supplemental analysis in the final EIR. In general, I think it's done a great job. Thank you.
Walter Doughty, resident of Jade Bay Lodge. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank all of you people
here. I may, you may not be so happy to see me after I get through. Well, we have a condition
here that you don't seem to understand. We have 75 units in the Jade Bay and this high density I
seem to be getting a runaround when I ask what is high density. Now I realize you are not going
to build 40 story hotels down there where the trailer park is but what do you mean by high
density. Because we have 75 families living on about 3 or 4 acres, now how many families do
you want to live on 3 or 4 acres. I'm waiting for an answer. Now somebody should know this,
now obviously none of you do. Now are you running things properly because this should be,
shall we say in the building code or the you know, how you're going write it, you're going to
have it R4 or whatever. But high density, let's define that. Can somebody defme that for me?
Well, there you go. [McCann] Mr. Doughty [Doughty] Now I've been in the real estate
business for 20 or 30 years and I'm not in that business anymore and, if a project doesn't make
money, you don't do it. Now if Kubota can run all these 75 people out and build 150 units there,
then perhaps he can make some money. But now if you people say he can only building 20 units
there, and remember a unit is one family. If you have an apartment house that has six units you
got six families living there. Now we got 75 as I said living there now. If you want to cram 150
people in there, fine, and I don't care because I'm going to be gone pretty soon, thank the lord.
And, I'm not going to have to put up with it. But if you are making a slum there, which you very
well may, you have to think seriously of what you are doing to Chula Vista. Because I've been
living there about 15 years and, gee, I think it's the greatest place in the world. But if we have
300 people living there where 200 live in there now, this isn't going to be so good. So think
about what you're doing 'cause Chula Vista is a nice little town. OK?
Candelaria Orozco, resident of Jade Bay Lodge. [Patricia Chavez translating] She wants to know
what is going to be done. She has invested all her money into that area and she wants to know
what kind of help is going to come to her. She can't work like the youth now and...She's happy
where she is, she's retired, she had to retire because she's disabled and she doesn't want to move
anywhere else. She's happy there, she's invested all her money there and she needs our help.
She says she loves this country, this country has given her opportunities and she's never asked
for help, she's been able to work, she's been able to maintain herself, she has invested her money
in her home now and she's coming to us for help, the first time she's ever asked for help. Just
because she wants a place to live, she can support herself, she just needs her home.
Irene Amick. I'm an endangered species, I'm old. When you get old, you're out priced. You
~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~
expensive, and when we found our home out here at Jade Bay, we thought, wow, this is the place
for us. But, now, there is no place for us in Chula Vista. I have to leave, I'm going to have to
relocate back to the Antelope Valley, but I look at you and you guys are young and you think,
boy, these seniors aren't real smart with their money. Well, I'll tell ya, you save your money, but
you don't count on illness. Illness can take and rob your bank account when a spouse gets sick.
There's many reasons why we're all in mobile homes - they're easy to take care of, the price is
right for us and, if you change the zone on all of these mobilehome parks, you're putting old
Page 9 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov
/A-q
July 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
people out in the street and one day you too will be old and you'll be thinking, well, I'm not
going to be in that position, but you don't know. So, I think, think twice about rezoning our area.
Thank you.
Barbara Nunnelee. Hi guys, I've seen you before. I'll make this as brief as I usually do, but I did
talk to Stacey to get some more information and I have never seen so much short handing of
what it took so far to come to trying to relocate us out of here. I'm looking at everyone of you,
not one of you from the last meeting had any indication to keep our park, help us if we get a non-
profitable association, we can own the park or whatever. You buy the park; we'll pay it for you.
But the only indication I got that night was relocation. We do not; I repeat again, we do not want
to be relocated. I've been here too many years and a lot of them behind me. We clean our own
yard, we do our own thing, we work, we ask nothing, just this lady before me and after me. We
maintain our little bit of medication and food we can afford. I'm on Section 8, it's not killing me,
not yet, and I do my best with what I can. But what I'm asking you guys, I want you to turn the
page over, don't get us relocated, we don't want to be relocated. What do we have to do to do
that? We are, myself, have tried to look into these non-profitable associations, maybe they can
come in. Would you guys help these guys together so we could keep our park and live where we
are? Is that much to ask, please? Thank you.
Ken Wright. Hi, my name is Ken Wright. I'm a resident of Chula Vista. I've lived here all my
life. There's some things that I wanted to say regarding the adoption of the Urban Core Specific
Plan Draft EIR. First, I wanted to hit on one thing the lady just said and at the Northwest Civic
Association meeting just this last Monday, the housing representative from the City spoke. And
one of the items I brought up was that maybe the City should go out and solicit some of the
apartment owners and/or mobilehome owners and offer them some kind of incentive to maybe
keep their properties or to actually provide low income or affordable housing in the existing
apartments that are already within the City and maybe that could expedite the whole process of
getting more affordable housing, especially when you have instances of the bankruptcy at Jade
Bay, which just throws 70 plus people out on the street - well, not out on the street, but they
have to look for somewhere else to live. And, if the City had a program where they could go out
to existing property owners and say - heh, we'll give you an incentive or some kind of a bonus if
you can provide us with maybe five units of affordable housing in your complex. Because you
don't want to have just one whole apartment complex of affordable housing because now you're
just pushing all of the low income people into one big bundle. With that being said I wanted to
go onto the other items I had and one of them ends up dealing with that. I feel that the Draft EIR
should include a well-defined housing outline as to how relocation assistance will be provided by
the City or developers or both for all tenants who would be affected by the changes in zoning,
redevelopment, or even the bankruptcy. Secondly, I feel that the parking and traffic impacts on
the neighboring residences of the Urban Core Specific Plan areas have not been outlined or
resolved. Most of these neighboring residential streets have already achieved this walkability
theme that we were going for in the Urban Core Specific Plan. And, also, these neighboring
streets are of disrepair, a lot of them need to be repaved, a lot of them need to be reworked
altogether, and if you add a lot of traffic onto that then its just going to make it a lot worse. And
finally, I think that the height limit along Third A venue should stay at 45 feet throughout the
Page 10- CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
/ A-f{)
July 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
whole village area 'and just get rid of the whole 84 feet in the select areas because I think you
want to keep the uniformity and just keep it that downtown feel.
Jose Preciado, representing the South Bay Forum. Chairman, Council, other Directors - I think
what's most challenging to myself and those I represent - my name is Jose Preciado, I'm a
resident of Chula Vista, 60 I Myra Avenue. I think what's most challenging for those - you have
a lot of wonderful people here speaking out for themselves. But I'm thinking of those families
and those poor unfortunate who are not here speaking for themselves, able to read an EIR, able
to understand all the nuances and all the particulars that come with CEQAs and other regulations
that you must observe. What I do think is - and I appreciate Ms. Orozco's presentation in
particular - we're talking about the dignity of families who have made a commitment to be
citizens of Chula Vista. They were not looking for handouts, they are not looking for anything,
they are just looking for a fair shake. When we look at redevelopment typically the biggest
problem with it is gentrification which does cause displacements and so in some of your
documents you are planning for that type issue by requiring some sort of percentages set asides,
if you will, for low income housing. But we have an issue that we have a fully populated area
now that I don't believe that any of them think - oh what a squalor we live in, or what a problem
we live in, or couldn't we look better or anything like that. I think you have families that need to
be respected and some of us some of our organizations will be committed to looking to the issues
associated with displacement. There has to be a process. These EIR - I know some of us have
been calling on - not just in this City but in others - to build into these discussions the impact on
the community, the impact on the humans, if you will, not just the built-in environment and we
need to look at it the housing situation in this fair county of ours is extreme. We cannot simply
look to how do we improve our tax base. What we should be doing is how will we improve our
total community and that includes those who are least among us. I am hopeful that as you act
today and in future meetings you will be considering what is happening to these families. Thank
you.
Pamela Bensoussan, representing the Northwest Civic Association. Thank you, my name is
Pamela Bensoussan, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Northwest Civic Association and I'm
speaking about the historic element to the draft ElR. In the and I must start by saying that staff
has been very helpful. I have met with them, I have met with the project manager and with the
historic preservation person in Planning and they have come up with an idea that that may be a
way to solve some of these problems so they looked at as impossible to attain the right mix in the
EIR but it I nonetheless wanted to get these concerns on the record so that is why I am here
tonight. In the entire urban core, which the EIR analyzed, only 50 properties were evaluated
representing just five or six blocks evaluated for historical significance. One block on Third, two
blocks E, one block on Landis, and two blocks on Church and the document lacks a detailed
explanation of why only 50 properties were evaluated. Without this explanation, an inaccurate
picture is painted of the historic resources in the urban core. A gigantic flaw in the EIR is the
failure to identify the work that was done previously which has an enormous wealth of
information even though it's an outdated survey dating from 1985. The quite a few properties in
that survey in the urban core boundaries, the project boundaries, that have already been identified
as eligible for historic designation and this was entirely absent in the EIR. So this is something
Page 11 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov
lA-II
July 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
that I think is where the dOl;ument is lacking. And in seeking to understand why those particular
blocks were chosen other than the economic reasons that they only had so much money to spend
on evaluating so many properties, it occurred to me that these properties are the ones in the
village that are the most likely to be close to some soon to be redeveloped projects. But I would
like to point out that there's properties scattered all throughout the urban core. In particular,
there's one of the oldest Victorian houses in Chula Vista is in the 700 block of Broadway and the
Chula Vista City Council voted unanimously to come to the rescue of this house when it was
threatened by demolition several years ago and went on record as stating that funds would be
found to move the house to save it because the owner at the time was seeking a demolition
permit. Such a fuss was raised by the community about the potential loss of the structure that the
owner began to change his mind and actually he ended up by deciding that was a cool thing to
own and he then was convinced that it shouldn't be tom down and it's still standing. But it's
sandwiched, partially obscured, behind a small car lot that will is definitely a prime candidate for
a redevelopment project - it's right in the heart of the redevelopment part of the urban core. So
the fact that these types of properties that are already listed in as eligible for historic designation
in an existing survey - this needs to be corrected. Other obvious historic properties that were not
identified - things like the EI Primero Hotel, the Memorial Park Bowl, which is a WP A project,
cultural landscape so I feel that the document is inadequate in the historic element. And one of
the solutions that we came up with talking with staff was to create a whole other chapter in the
EIR that addresses buildings that are listed in the '85 survey that got left out that weren't in the
EIR. And another thing that I find in the EIR that's lacking. Am lout of time already? Well,
can I just say very quickly - OK, I'll summarize - from the bibliography in the DPR text they
reveal that there was not a local criteria that was actually used to determine to evaluate these
properties as historically significant. The criteria that was used was what is standard on the state
and national level, and; when Chula Vista adopted the strategic plan, it included a local and
regional criteria that needs to be these properties need to be re-Iooked at on a local level, some of
them that were passed over because they aren't of national significance or of local significance.
Thank you.
Lisa Moctezuma, representing the Third A venue Village Association. Hello - Hi everybody -
thanks for listening to us. My name is Lisa Moctezuma, I'm a Chula Vista resident, I'm speaking
on behalf of the Third Avenue Village Association, I'm their current president. First I would like
to convey the organization's support for the UCSP and the EIR. We are eagerly looking forward
to the revitalization that this redevelopment tool can provide. We'd also like to thank the City for
its recent support of the PBID, including the expansion of its boundaries. I really wanted to
express our sincerest thanks. We had a couple of constructive criticisms about the UCSP and the
EIR that I'd just like to note. We were hoping that the City and the CVRC would consider
raising the maximum height limits within the V-I and V-2 areas to 60 feet with a proportional
increase in the F ARs. The Board feels that the proposed 45-foot restriction almost guarantees
that no redevelopment will occur because it does not provide sufficient economic incentive to
demolish or to add onto existing structures. We don't have vacant land that we're developing so
that's a real challenge in the V-I and V-2, especially the V-2 areas. We certainly understand
many of the community groups wish to reduce the height in the specific portion of the Third
Avenue frontage from 84 feet down. We certainly can accept lowering that to 60 feet, but we
Page 12 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
http://www.chulavistaca. gov
IA-rz
July 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
would like to see the rest of the Third Avenue frontage be allowed to go to 60 feet. However,
having said that, we really feel that it's important to have stepback requirements and other strict
design guidelines that would require high quality design and materials that would be in keeping
with the historic qualities of the Village. The Board feels that with, even though this is a
proposed height increase, if there are stringent guidelines on maintaining the historic character
and the appropriateness of projects that would be between 45 and 60 feet, that that would still
maintain the Village character, which is very important, and I just want to reiterate that that's
paramount. While we do wish to see the height be increased so that the economic viability will
be there for the projects, the historic quality is absolutely essential. The second concern that we
have is that we are concerned that pending and future projects within the Village that have a low
urban standard parking requirement and that displace current existing public parking may cause
an undesirable parking shortage that would negatively affect the businesses in the district.
Before these particular projects are approved, the City should have a plan in place that will
address the Village parking needs with the funding sources identified and, if the parking study
hasn't been completed, we feel that the City should either require developers or provide on its
own those funds set aside so that if when the parking study is completed there's the conclusion
that additional parking is necessary the funds are available. Just one quick personal note,
speaking for myself, I was extremely touched by the speakers on behalf of Jade Bay and I
certainly hope there's some way to think outside of the box for them. Thank you.
Patricia Aguilar, representing Crossroad II. Thank you. Patricia Aguilar, representing
Crossroads II, again. We believe that the EIR on the Urban Core Specific Plan is inadequate in
at least three respects. Those respects are the following: #1 is a procedural issue. The Notice of
Preparation, which is a Notice of Preparation that goes to the public letting everyone know that
you are preparing an EIR so that the public can tell you what issues they believe should be
covered in the EIR. The Notice of Preparation was issued I'd say, I'm not sure of the time but a
long time, maybe a year or so before the actual plan document was available. Our belief is that
is inappropriate, if not illegal. You cannot adequately comment on issues that should be covered
in the EIR unless you understand the project and you cannot understand the project when the
document that describes the project is not available. Second issue is the Cummings Initiative.
When the General Plan EIR was up for review, we asked well why doesn't it address the
Cummings Initiative. The answer was that the Cummings Initiative deals with zoning; therefore,
since the Urban Core Specific Plan will replace the zoning ordinance for areas covered by the
plan that will be addressed in the Urban Core Specific Plan EIR. Well, it isn't in that EIR either.
This is a major, major inadequacy in that document. The third point is the displacement issue
and I would just like to read you two sentences from the EIR. This is on page 5-128 - The
Urban Core Specific Plan will not displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Although the removal of existing housing may
result in a temporary displacement of some people, the displacement is not considered a
significant impact because the numbers of units planned in the Urban Core Specific Plan are
sufficient to accommodate the affected population. That is a boldface lie; there is no other way
to put it. Even though the numbers are sufficient, the fact of the matter is, because the Urban
Core Specific Plan is a gentrification plan, the problem is the people who are displaced will not
be able to find new housing in the same area. This is a critical issue with which the EIR ignores.
Page 13 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
tA--/;3
July 13,2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
When we raised this issue with the General Plan, former City Attorney Mullen told us, this is at
the Planning Commission, that that was a socioeconomic impact, not an environmental impact.
And I don't know if that is true or not, I am not an attorney. But whether it's addressed in the
EIR, or whether it's addressed in some other document, this issue of what happens to these
people now that the owners of the land that they sit on have been given a huge windfall by this
rezoning. What happens to those people has got to be addressed somehow, someplace,
somewhere. So those are our comments on the inadequacies in the EIR and we hope that we
look forward to seeing their responses. Thank you.
Emilia Perez, rest of Bayscene Park Mobile Home Park. I came from Bayscene Mobile Home
and our question is it is happening that to us also. Only in another way. The owner is increasing
the rent and we're never going to be able to pay. Its only different, I think he thinks its smarter
not to say it clearly. But, I mean, we are paying too much when any reason taxes, trash. He
increased all those tiles whenever he can even the electricity. He's increasing everything and
soon also we are going to be ending on the street because now you can see empty spaces because
the people can't afford to pay the rent. And also, I mean for us, for the Jade Bay, it is a crime.
Really, please do something.
Steve Molski. Steve Molski, Terry's Mobilehome Park, Chula Vista. You know, over the last
several months, several years, I've been listening to people in different parks and the problems
they have. This is getting to be a travesty any way you look at it. If you take people who have
lived in an area for five, 10, 15, 20 years and all of a sudden you kick them out, they don't have
any place to go. Isn't there a possible way that you could put off implementing the EIR as
regards to the mobilehome parks in Chula Vista? Get them incorporated in little at a time.
When the City gets more money, which they say they're close to being broke now, when they get
more money, they can buy these parks and then sell them back to the residents and get later
model mobilehomes in there. They won't become a slum, they'll be an asset and the people will
continue to have a place to live of their choice, not being tossed out on the street. Please, take
that in consideration. The EIR is not a cure all, it is an enhancement of an area in which you live
and I'm sure everybody is in for that same situation. While I'm here, I know I've mentioned this
before, could you lengthen these doggone speaking gizmos here at least another foot or 12 inches
because I'm six feet, I've got to bend over and the little woman, five feet, she can't reach it
either. It won't cost that much and when someone looks that way, you can still hear them, they
look that way, you can hear them. But ifI start talking over here, you can't hear me on the mike,
can you? Please, lengthen them all, it won't hurt. Thank you.
Jose Cortez. My name is Jose Cortez, I'm a landowner on 3 lIto 325 G Street. I want to thank
City staff for their Urban Core EIR. I have thoroughly reviewed that; I think they are doing a
wonderful job. I think the City is going through a big change. There is a lot of people corning
into the City, there's going to be an increase in population and I think the redevelopment of the
west side, being a native Chula Vistan and growing up in Chula Vista all my life, I think you
guys are doing a wonderful job. I think you should continue to go forward with the EIR. I
thoroughly support it and would like to include my property into the V-3 area to build more
Page 14 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
/A--ILf
July 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
housing that will benefit the people that are moving in and maybe the people with concerns or
that will be displaced. Thank you very much.
William Cox, resident of Jade Bay Mobilehome Park. Yeah, I'm William Cox, I live at Jade
Bay. They talk about affordable housing but San Diego just built some, they can't even afford to
get in it. These people that was run out down there, they're talking about $1,200-$1,300 a month
and a lot of these ladies here are on their minimum social security and that's all the income they
got. They got to pay for their medicine. OK, the last thing I got to say and we're full of veterans
in there. We fought for you guys, now its time you fight for us in there. Help us out. That's it.
Staff Recommendation: The CVRC:
ACTION:
Director Rindone moved to approve staffs recommendation to accept oral
comments on the Draft EIR for written responses by City staff in the final EIR,
and to close the 45-day public review and comment period.
a. ACCEPT ORAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT UCSP EIR FOR
WRITTEN RESPONSE BY CITY STAFF IN THE FINAL EIR; AND
b. UPON RECEIPT OF ORAL TESTIMONY, CLOSE THE 45-DA Y
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD.
The motion carried 7-0, with Director Castaneda and Chairman Padilla absent.
Vice-Chairman McCann expressed concerns with set backs and the need to ensure there is
sufficient parking.
ACTION ITEMS
Vice-Chairman/Deputy Mayor McCann stated that, per conversation with General Counsel
Moore, Item 4 requires a 4/5ths vote and, due to the absence of Agency member Castaneda and
Chairman Padilla, the Agency would not have the ability for a 4/5ths vote. He then requested
concurrence to move the item to the next Regular meeting of August 10th.
4. CONSIDERATION OF EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT AND
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR AN AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT AREA - (Continued
from the meeting of June 22, 2006)
Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation is interested in developing an affordable,
family rental project on the former Tower Lodge Motel site located at 1151 Broadway.
Currently vacant, the former Tower Lodge Motel represents an opportunity to remove an existing
blighted property and the provision of new housing opportunities for predominately very low-
income households. In order to determine the feasibility of this project, staff is proposing
financial assistance in the form of a predevelopment loan. The Agency is requested to consider a
Predevelopment Loan Agreement for $200,000.
Page 15 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
lit -15
July 13, 2006
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
Sta./fRecommendation: The CVRC adopt thefollowing resolutions (4.a.) and (4.b.):
a. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND
WAKELAND HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
REGARDING THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A REAL ESTATE
PROJECT LOCATED AT 1501 BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA
b. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION RECOMMENDING [A] APPROVAL OF A
PREDEVELOPMENT LOAN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WAKELAND HOUSING AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT
1501 BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND AUTHORIZING
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT; AND [B] APPROPRIATION OF $200,000 FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE IN THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING FUND FOR SAID PREDEVELOPMENT LOAN TO WAKELAND
HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
The Redevelopment Agency adopt resolution (4.c.):
ACTION:
c.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING [A] A PREDEVELOPMENT LOAN
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AND WAKELAND HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF AN AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 1501
BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT; AND [B] APPROPRIATION OF $200,000 FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE IN THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING FUND FOR THE PREDEVELOPMENT LOAN TO WAKELAND
HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Vice ChairmanlDeputy Mayor McCann moved to continue Item 4 to the first
meeting in August. Director! Agency member Chavez seconded the motion and it
carried 6-1-0 with Director Lewis voting no and Director! Agency member
Castaneda and ChairmanlMayor Padilla absent.
Page 16 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto:!!www.chulavistaca.gov
/,4 -/0
July 13,2006
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
5. CONSIDERATION OF RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMATION AND
OPERATION OF THE CVRC REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
("RAC")
On June 22, 2006, the CVRC approved the procedural framework for CVRC project review and
established the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAe) model to serve as the appropriate
vehicle for facilitating public participation within the CVRC process. As part of that action, the
Board and public held significant dialogue about the details of the RAC, including composition
and operations, and directed staff to return with more specific procedures for forming and
operating the RAC. This report summarizes the key elements of the Rules and Procedures for
the Formation and Operation of the RAC.
Acting Community Development Director Hix provided an introduction of the staff report and
the five major themes staff heard from the CVRC, public, and developers.
Redevelopment Manager Crockett provided the staff report covering the various sections of the
proposed rules and procedures as well as the proposed membership structure. The presentation
included the purpose and duties, membership, selection process, and terms. Mr. Crockett then
explained the definitions of the three different categories of advisory bodies and eligibility
requirements (business, community and technical), and staff s proposal that the organizations
take on the responsibility for ensuring a balanced representation from all parties and areas of the
City. Mr. Crockett then covered the proposed annual selection of RAC officers, quorum
requirements of a simple majority, meeting time of 4:30 the first Thursday of the month and
location being encouraged neighborhood meetings; the proposed initial membership as directed
by the CVRC Board, leaving the third position of Business Association as well as the third
position of Community Organization vacant, which would still allow the RAC to meet with an
odd number to form a quorum, and to allow for consideration of the Environmental Health
Coalition or Healthy Eating and Active Communities to serve in interim until another was
identified. The first meeting of the RAC was proposed for September 7, 2006, as was a one-year
review of the rules and procedures for the formation and operation.
Director Rindone noted that it would be desirable to anticipate all areas of potential concern, and
that the concept presented is trying to ensure that the various different areas have proportionate
representation. He then stated that the RAC is being created to provide a resource to accept and
provide input to the Directors of the CVRC, and that even if an organization is not a member of
the RAC, they can still come and speak to the RAC and the CVRC. Further, that the document
must be flexible to allow for organizations to develop in the community, and he hoped what
would occur would be that a process would be developed to allow and encourage new
organizations to participate and not exclude anyone from the process. Additionally, he suggested
staff look at the third Thursday of the month to hold their meetings.
Director Lewis stated that although the structure of the RAC has to do with composition, his
comments are with regards to procedures. He would like to see the Chamber of Commerce
participate and the Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors. Further, that the RAC has the
potential to be an enabling or restrictive body. It can be restrictive by overloading it with people
and slowing down the process, and by freezing people out. He then stated he felt the meetings
must be facilitated, and expressed concern with the number of people that might be on the RAC
at any particular time, stating that going beyond 15 would affect the ability to proceed with
projects. The ultimate goal being to see that the RAC flows smoothly and is effective.
Page 17 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
fA -/7
July 13, 2006
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
Director Desrochers stated that any more than 11 members on the RAC would be chaotic; and
that the alternates are an excellent way to handle quorums, but should not participate in the
meetings. Additionally, regarding residents, the Southwest area is not represented and does not
have a redevelopment project area or specific plan going on now, but he would like to see a PAC
type of representation such as a resident owner and resident tenant be represented in the future.
He also spoke in support of the Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors serving as a
representative as well as someone such as the Environmental Health Coalition.
Director Rooney concurred with Director Desrochers on the need for resident owner and resident
tenant representatives who could perhaps be the two at large resident representatives
recommended by the Environmental Health Coalition. He also expressed the need to get people
that represent the Northwest and Southwest, as well as people to represent the bilingual
community, and bilingual meeting noticing. Director Rooney then stated that he shared Director
Lewis' concerns with the feedback loop procedure, and how results of the RAC meetings will be
reported back to the CVRC and developers.
Director Paul expressed agreement with Directors Desrochers and Rooney regarding the need to
not overload the RAC with such large attendance that the business does not get done, but at the
same time allow for as many opportunities for representatives from different parts of the
community as possible. He liked the idea of the Chamber of Commerce being involved, and the
need to amend the language to allow the 501-(c)-6 organizations to participate as long as they are
done legally and within the confines of what the tax requirements dictate. Additionally, he stated
that he felt the Environmental Health Coalition had a place at the table due to the redevelopment
of the Bayfront in the future and their vested interest. In closing, he stated he was not a big
supporter of the need for alternates, and liked the idea of having an odd number of members and
felt 11 to be an appropriate number.
Director Rindone reiterated that adjustments could be made to the procedures in the future if
things were not working the way they were anticipated, noting that community input is what was
important and being a member of the RAC is not necessary to provide input. Further, Director
Rindone stated that 9 seemed to be a good number to start with.
Director Paul stated that the concept advanced by Mr. Desrochers of 1 I had to do with 2 at large
members, and although not opposed to having at large members, would not want to have their
consideration delay getting the RAC started.
Assistant City Attorney Hull stated that the City Attorney's Office provided comments on the
draft but did not have an opportunity to review the final version, which contains provisions that
are inconsistent or repetitive with the Brown Act and should be deleted. These items are on page
5-21 of the strikeout version and relate to the calling of meetings and posting of notices. She
recommended that anything that's included in the procedures be consistent with the Brown Act.
The second area of concern is on page 5- I 9 pertaining to the conflicts language. There are many
other conflict of interest laws they would need to comply with in addition to the section stated.
The third thing is the language regarding involvement in the political process. Ms. Hull
requested the CVRC direct these items back to the City Attorney's office for review.
Director Chavez inquired as to whether the proposed direction back to the City Attorney's Office
for review would delay the formation of the RAC.
Page 18 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
/ A- -18
July 13, 2006
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
Assistant City Attorney Hull suggested the CVRC, as part of their motion, direct the City
Attomey's Office to ensure that the final draft is consistent with the particular laws, however the
one regarding the political process and involvement therein would require some time for review
to determine constitutionality.
General Counsel Moore offered the deletion of the political language tonight with direction to
the City Attorney's office to research and bring a report back saying whether or not it could be
done, the rules and procedures being amended at that time if so decided.
Acting Community Development Director Hix offered that if the Board decided they did not
want that clause in there, it would eliminate the need for the City Attorney's Office review.
Vice Chairman McCann stated he would still be concerned with involvement with Political
Action Committees, and supported the need for the City Attorney's Office to review these.
Allison Rolfe, Land Use and Coastal Policy Advisor to Mayor Padilla, read a statement from
Chairman Padilla into the record (copy on file). Chairman Padilla's comments supported the
proposed one-year review as well as the fact that the RAC would be advisory to the CVRC and
as such could be formed by resolution, and suggested the following:
1. As per Environmental Health Coalition's comments, I support the addition of two "at-
large" seats to be filled by one resident tenant and one resident owner from the areas
impacted by redevelopment (either Northwest, Southwest, or both). These
individuals should be selected at a caucus or town hall meeting by direct election, but
should not delay the formation of the RAC. The RAC should be formed by Sept. 7'11
as proposed by staff, and the two "at-large" members can join the RAC after an
election some time in the future.
2. I recommend the removal of any language limiting the RAC's scope to design issues.
The public will want to engage on a myriad of issues and we should create a structure
that effectively supports free and open dialogue.
3. I support Pamela Bensoussan's suggestion on behalf of the Northwest Civic
Association that restrictions, if they are to be applied, must be applied equally to each
category. Related to this, I would recommend removing any restriction limiting
participation by community organizations also involved in the political process,
provided they are abiding by all applicable state laws and ordinances.
4. I suggest removal of the language under 7 "Duties" that "the RAC will give due
consideration to all responsible community attitudes insofar as these are deemed to be
in the best long-range interest of the community at large." This language could be
viewed as trying to restrict thoughts or opinions, something I do not support. It
should be taken out.
5. I recommend removal of the sentence in section 10 "Meetings" that reads: "Notice of
all regular meetings may be dispensed with, as may be determined by the RAC."
Meetings will be properly noticed and we should not permit otherwise.
Page 19 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
I A- -/q
July 13, 2006
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
6. It should be clarified that city staff will support the RAC as is done with any other
advisory body, and to that end, I request the addition of clarifying language in section
8 "RAC Officers," that staff will support the Chairperson with the preparation of
agendas, noticing and all other information responsible and proper for the conduct of
business of the RAC.
7. I personally agree with Dana Richardson's comments, from HEAC, that filling the
third "community organization" seat should not be a choice between Environmental
Health Coalition (EHC) and Healthy Eating and Active Communities (HEAC). Both
organizations have something to offer. There are other organizations such as South
Bay Forum that should be considered. I propose collapsing the "community
organizations" and "business organizations" categories. This would reduce the
appearance of "factions" and encourage collaboration. The Third A venue Village
Association is no less a community organization than the Northwest Civic
Association, for example. Maybe we are segregating groups into categories
somewhat artificially and unintentionally polarizing the group. If we were to collapse
the two categories, I would support 8 organization/association seats (in addition to the
technical and elected seats) and recommend all of the following organizations be
appointed: South Bay PartnershiplHEAC, Chamber of Commerce, Environmental
Health Coalition, Third Avenue Village Association, Northwest Civic Association,
Crossroads II, South Bay Forum, and the Broadway Business Association. That
brings the total to 13."
Tony LoPresti, representing the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), spoke in support of
Chairman Padilla's' suggestion to fold the community and business categories into one assigning
8 seats total, and suggested that organizations with a history in Southwest Chula Vista, such as
EHC and HEAC be given priority. Additionally, one owner and one tenant at large seat, to be
phased in after a 6 month period is also important, as the need for additional elected seats for
residents who don't want to be a part of an organization is absolutely necessary, and both
resident owner and tenant representatives come from the Southwest, being elected solely by
residents of the Southwest to ensure direct representation on important redevelopment issues.
Mr. LoPresti then requested and received clarification from Redevelopment Manager Crockett,
on the intent of the language stating that an organization that has to exist within Chula Vista
refers to it being located or having an existence within, or representing a wide-based
constituency of the Chula Vista residents.
Dave Ruch, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the
development of the RAC and spoke to page 5-15 for the business associations, stating that the
Chamber would like to have the ability to have any of their members participate in that seat, and
limiting it to business property owners or operators would not be the best advantage for their
membership, requesting business leader be defined as "someone who holds a position on a
business association's board of directors." Another issue was with whether or not to take a stand
on exercising their rights to endorse candidates and removal of the language pertaining to that
restriction, and lastly, on page 5-19, regarding conflicts of interest, many people don't know
what conflicts are and as a business owner, this would limit input into the RAC, and requested
that as long as they disclose publicly what that conflict is, they should still be allowed to vote.
Assistant City Attorney Hull stated that State Law sets out when disclosure is sufficient, when
recusal is required, and when an item can't proceed at all. This would require review on a case-
by-case basis.
Page 20 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
http://www.chulavistaca.gov
IA-20
July 13, 2006
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
Patricia Aguilar, representing Crossroads II, stated that her organization was satisfied with the
rules and procedures as drafted by staff, with two exceptions. The meetings of the RAC need to
be held in the evening in order to give working people the opportunity to attend. Second on page
5-13 of the draft rules and procedures, she suggested amending the language of the first
paragraph to read "A Community Organization is defined as any not-for-profit association of
persons whose membership is comprised primarily of Chula Vista residents and entities which
represent a significant number of constituents in Chula Vista, and are organized to engage in
activities with the primary purpose of the physical, economic, or social environment of Chula
Vista. . ." as Crossroads II felt the language too broad as currently written (a copy of the strike-
out version was provided and is on file). Additionally, Ms. Aguilar noted that Crossroads initial
proposal was for geographic representation, with two people from the Northwest and two from
the Southwest. This has been eliminated from the current staff proposal. Crossroads II is a
citywide organization and has many members throughout the City including in the Southwest
and they would be happy to appoint a representative from Southwest Chula Vista as they are
unsure how the Chairman's proposal to have elections to appoint someone would take place. In
terms of the membership of the initial body, Crossroads concurs with Director Rindone that there
needs to be room for expansion as new organizations come along, and therefore have no
objection to the staff recommendation to leave 2 slots vacant. In closing, Ms. Aguilar noted that
the Chairman's memo proposes a 13 member RAC, and among the organizations recommended
for appointment are the South Bay Partnership/HEAC which Crossroads is not sure they are
representative as they are an initiative, whereas the Chula Vista Community Collaborative is a
Chula Vista based organization whose mission is about Chula Vista. Additionally, Ms. Aguilar
respectfully stated that the Environmental Health Coalition is focused on environmental justice,
not Chula Vista, and their representative, Ms. Hunter, had previously spoken in support of a
memo written by Mayor Padilla in August that proposed allowing high-rise along H Street, thus
taking a public position opposed to what is in the Urban Core Specific Plan, and Crossroads
questions how that organization as a member, could support use of the plan at this time.
Director Rindone requested Ms. Aguilar clarify her organizations recommendations.
Ms. Aguilar stated that Crossroads had two requests in regards to the RAC procedures, one was
to change the meeting time and the other was to eliminate a clause from the procedures.
Director Lewis inquired as to if it was the intention of Crossroads II with regards to the
representation of Southwest Chula Vista being one tenant and one property owner, to select one
person from the Southwest area or both of them? Ms. Aguilar responded that staff's
recommendation does not call for geographic representation at all, and should the CVRC decide
they want geographic representation, and that since the Northwest Civic Association only
represented the Northwest, Crossroads II could provide Southwest representatives from their
organization. Director Lewis then inquired as to Ms. Aguilar's reference to the South Bay
Partnership. Ms. Aguilar responded that her understanding of the South Bay Partnership/HEAC
was that it was not an organization of people, but rather an initiative, however, connected to
them was the Chula Vista Collaborative who is a legitimate Chula Vista-based organization.
Director Lewis then inquired as to whether Crossroads II would be in favor of the Chula Vista
Collaborative being a geographic entity of the RAC. Ms. Aguilar responded that in terms of
geographic representation, Crossroads had initially felt that it was important to have geographic
representation, however, the way the procedures are currently structured there are no geographic
restrictions. Director Lewis stated his thoughts were that any resident tenant or resident owner in
the Southwest could become part of the coalition and then become a part of the RAC in that
regard.
Page 21 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
fA ~ZI
July 13, 2006
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
Dana Richardson representing the South Bay Partnership, formed in 1996, to improve the health
and well being of residents throughout the South Bay. They are actually a community coalition
of community partners in National City, Imperial Beach and Coronado. Mr. Richardson further
stated that the Chula Vista Community Collaborative was also their community partner, so
selection of either the Chula Vista Community Collaborative or South Bay Partnership to serve
on the RAC, would probably yield the same representatives, and would add the public health
perspective into the dialogue.
Director Rindone inquired, and Mr. Richardson responded that his organization had members
living in Southwest Chula Vista.
Jose Preciado, representing the South Bay Forum, stated his organization had a history of
supporting the interest of the entire South Bay, and expressed his interest in personally serving
on the RAC. Mr. Preciado then spoke regarding the need to hear from different organizations as
they can provide different perspectives. With regards to the free speech issues discussed, his
group formed as a PAC and they do take positions on candidates. Further, the South Bay Forum
was interested in participating on the RAC because of concerns with the human landscape, what
is happening to the people when decisions are being made about development.
Director Rindone responded to Mr. Preciados' comments clarifying that to him, it was not so
much what organizations are selected, but the fact that any individual in the City of Chula Vista
could be represented by participating.
Pamela Bensoussan, representing the Northwest Civic Association, thanked staff for working
with her organization and incorporating a lot of their suggestions in a very short amount of time.
She spoke in support of the meeting being held on the third Thursday at 6:00 p.m.; all members
should represent organizations with a membership base on the focus of Chula Vista; opposed to
the individual at large idea, but if it is determined to have them, they should be both from the
Southwest and the Northwest; community organizations should not include entities as a
community organization; all members of the RAC should be Chula Vista residents; meetings
should not be facilitated; the language of the political affiliations or endorsements should be
stricken to allow the Chamber of Commerce to participate; too much emphasis is given to the
odd number; it is good for alternates to attend to keep current, but not participate; streaming
video is important to encourage public participation; CVRC should consider a mobilehome park
association being included as a community organization. In closing, Ms. Bensoussan expressed
support of the Mayor's recommendations with exception to the individuals at large.
Laura Hunter, representing the Environmental Health Coalition, stated it is a community based
organization who has worked in the South Bay communities and Mexico for 26 years, herself
working in West Chula Vista for 16 years, and her organization longer. They are an
environmental justice organization and their membership is predominantly low-income people,
people of color, people who are often left out of the discussion and process, people who are
impacted by redevelopment. She spoke in support of the Mayor's memo, which provided for
more voices being represented. Ms. Hunter then reaffirmed that her organization supported the
special study area for H Street being reviewed, as the general plan update proposed new
residential housing adjacent to the freeways.
Lisa Cohen, CEO representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, requested consideration
of holding of the meetings on the first Thursday of each month as the third Thursday conflicts
with their ability to participate.
Page 22 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
{ A- -2-2-
July 13, 2006
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
Tanya Rovira-Osterwalder, Project Coordinator representing Healthy Eating, Active
Conununities Initiatives (HEAC), explained that HEAC was an initiative looking at the
environment and food provided in the City of Chula Vista and their headquarters are in
Southwest Chula Vista. Further, they have a huge interest in the Southwest conununity,
especially the bilingual conununity.
Vice-Chairman McCann closed the public hearing, and requested Director's conunents.
Director Chavez expressed support for HEAC and the Environmental Health Coalition, noting
that they go out into the conununity, to the bayfront and walk the streets talking to individuals
and providing a voice for them. She requested the addition of the EHC and HEAC to the groups
listed until there is a group specifically formed to represent Southwest Chula Vista. Director
Chavez also expressed support for having 11 members at the most, and doing a one-year review.
Director Desrochers spoke in support of having no more than 11 members to include the
Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, Resource Conservation, TA V A, the
Chamber, the Southwestern Realtors, EHC, So. Bay Conununity Forum, NWCA, Crossroads and
the Chula Vista Collaborative.
Vice-Chairman McCann stated the goal of the RAC was to bring conununity input in, was as
inclusive as possible to bring in different opinions and perspective so that everyone felt they had
a seat at the table or someone to represent their point of view. He then expressed support for
term limits, stating that 2 terms was a good opportunity; a geographic component for the
members to ensure representation from Northwest and Southwest; the number of members
voting did not matter that much; room for alternates as non-voting members; should include
groups like EHC and the Pacific Southwest Realtors, Broadway Business Association is no
longer functioning; a facilitator is not necessary; strike the language about "significant
membership"; meetings to be held at 6:00 p.m.; the selection of the groups needs to be done in an
open, transparent manner; conflicts of interest are very important as is a code of ethics; and
disagreed that a Political Action Conunittee should be on the RAC.
Assistant City Attorney Hull stated that the members would have to fill out a Statement of
Economic Interests.
Director Rindone expressed sincere appreciation on behalf of himself and his colleagues to staff,
for their hard work on the direction to come up with conununity participation and input.
Page 23 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
http://www.chulavistaca.gov
IA-23
July 13, 2006
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
Staff Recommendation: The CVRC adopt the following resolutions:
ACTION:
Director Rindone moved to support staffs recommendation as presented in the
summary chart, to include the three groups of technical, business and community.
Each group to have 3 votes. The composition of the technical group is to include
one member of the Planning Commission, Design Review Commission and
Resource Conservation Commission, and they will each select a member and an
alternate who only votes when their member is not present. The business group is
to include T A V A, Chamber and Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors. The
community group will include the NWCA, Crossroads II, and the remaining
group will be from HEAC/EHC and their delegate will come from Southwest
Chula Vista. The language on 5-13, second sentence that starts with "an" is to be
stricken as presented by Crossroads II; the meeting will be the first Thursday of
the month at 6:00 p.m.; a two-term restriction on representatives to apply; the
decision of whether or not a facilitator is necessary to be decided upon at their
first meeting of the RAC; a review of the structure to be brought back for review
in 9 months.
Director Lewis seconded the motion for discussion.
Vice-Chairman McCann requested inclusion of the strikeout of the language
pertaining to political support for candidates and having the City Attorney
evaluate that, include the elimination of Political Action Committees, and making
sure the group is in compliance with the Brown Act and conflicts of interest.
The maker and second agreed with the inclusion.
Acting Community Development Director Hix requested and received
clarification that the third seat would be shared by HEAC and EHC, the term
limits referred to the individual not the organization, and the elimination of P ACS
from being able to be one of the community groups.
a. CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2006-031, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CREATING A REDEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND ADOPTING THE RULES AND
PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMATION AND OPERATION OF SUCH
COMMITTEE
b. CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2006-032, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPOINTING THE INITIAL MEMBER
ORGANIZATIONS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The motion carried 6-0-1, with Director Desrochers voting no, and Director
Castaneda and Chairman Padilla absent.
Page 24 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
1A--2Lf
July 13, 2006
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
Vice-Chairman McCann then requested and received clarification that Item 9 was being held in
Closed Session specifically due to the review of personal information of the applicants. City
Attorney Moore clarified that this action was consistent with the Brown Act.
6. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS
Secretary Smith requested and received concurrence to cancel the July 27th meeting of the
CVRC, as many of the Directors will be attending the League of California Cities meeting in
Monterey.
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS
There were none.
8. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS
Director Desrochers inquired as to the status of the affordable housing project on Broadway and
was informed that their representatives would not be available until the first meeting in August.
CLOSED SESSION
9. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
54957 (b)
Recruitment/selection of Chief Executive Officer of the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation.
No reportable action was taken on this item.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:45 p.m., Vice-Chairman McCann adjourned the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
to its next regularly scheduled meeting on August 10, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.; and the Redevelopment
Agency to its next regularly scheduled meeting on July 18, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
~ #t-/..:/
Dana M. Smith, Secretary
Page 25 - CVRC/RDA Minutes
htto://www.chulavistaca.gov
July 13, 2006
14-25
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
August 1,2006
4:00 P.M.
Adjourned Regular Meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista were called to order at 6:17 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: CounciVAgency Members:
Mayor/Chair Padilla
Castaneda, Chavez, McCann, and
ABSENT:
CounciV Agency/Authority Members: Rindone (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Interim City Manager/Executive Director Thomson, City Attomey/
Agency Counsel Moore, and City Clerk Bigelow
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. CONSIDERATION OF A DESIGN REVmW APPLICATION FOR TENANT
IMPROVEMENTS TO MODIFY AN EXISTING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 320
THIRD AVENUE FOR THE OPERATION OF A NEW FITNESS HEALTH CLUB
(FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.)
The applicant, Fancher Development Services, Inc., filed an application to perform
exterior and interior tenant modifications to the existing structure, located at 320 Third
Avenue, to open a fitness health club. (Acting Community Development Director)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Mayor/Chair Padilla opened the public hearing.
Principal Community Development Specialist Lukes presented the desigu review application for
a proposed fitness health club.
There being no members of the public who wished to speak, Mayor/Chair Padilla closed the
public hearing.
18-1
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued)
ACTION:
Council/Agencymember McCann offered Agency Resolution No. 2006-1954,
heading read, text waived:
RDA RESOLUTION NO. 2006-1954, RESOLUTION OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA I)
APPROVING DESIGN REvmw PERMIT (DRC-05-50); AND 2)
ADOPTING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR
EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS TO
MODIFY AN EXISTING 25,742 SQUARE-FOOT STRUCTURE
LOCATED AT 320 THIRD AVENUE FOR THE OPERATION OF A
NEW ATHLETIC FITNESS HEALTH CLUB (FANCHER
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES)
The motion carried 3-0, with Agencymember Castaneda absent from the dais.
OTHER BUSINESS
2. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
There were none.
3. CHAIR'S REPORTS
There were none.
4. AGENCY MEMBER'S COMMENTS
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:21 p.m., Mayor/Chair Padilla adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of August 15,
2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
~w~~
Susan Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
Page 2 - RDA Minutes
//8-z
August 1, 2006