Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1983/11/10 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, November lO, 1983 Public Services Building 4:00 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 and 3 ROLL CALL Councilmembers present: Mayor Cox, Councilmembers Scott, Moore, McCandliss Councilmembers absent: Malcolm Staff present: City Manager Goss, City Attorney Harron, Assistant City Manager Asmus No. 1. REPORT CONFERENCE WITH THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES RELATED TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES (Community Development Director) Mayor Cox welcomed the members of the steering committee and the Chamber of Commerce to the conference. Community Development Director Desrochers introduced the members of the Committee and explained the Business and Industry Development Commission was established by the Council approximately one year ago with the goal to consider the feasibility of establishing a Commission which will stimulate growth of business and industry in Chula Vista. The Steering Committee has reviewed all information and is now considering alternatives for the development of a permanent organizational structure to carry out the economic development planning and marketing activities. Mr. Desrochers referred to the Coldwell Banker report submitted to the Commission in September, in which they recommended the sum of $1 million dollars to be spent over the next five years for promotional activities. Mr. Desrochers remarked the purpose of today's meeting was to present the alternatives to the City Council and to receive input (strengths and weaknesses) regarding the options. Mr. Desrochers added that for an economic development program, there must be desirable characteristics, development of technical assistance, credibility and access to government. In the developing procesS, the main functions would include public relations, advertising and information dissemination; financing assistance; developed planning; use of public and legal powers to facilitate development; and an ombudsman and liaison person. Council Conference - 2 - November lO, 1983 Mr. Bob Santos, Vice President East Lake Development Company, presented Option No. 1 (attached). Mr. Santos noted Chula Vista will have approximately 330 acres of industrial land available in the next ten years. The rate of quality growth is important - the City is in need of light industrial development for this land. Option No. 1 composes a public/private consortium which would involve having the Mayor's office as the central point. Mr. Santos added Chula Vista should capitalize on its own economic growth and the Mayor's office should be the major entity inasmuch as he is a full-time, elected person, has maximum credibility and status and commands the attention which developers look for. Community Development Director Desrochers presented Option No. 2 (attached) explaining it would comprise a seven member Advisory Committee; a three member Strike Force using the Mayor and City Manager in the luring process; and a one staff support person from the City. Option No. 3 (attached) was presented by Joe Davis, President of Watt Industries, San Diego. Mr. Davis explained his proposal as having an eight member BIDC; the Mayor to be the Controller and have a Coordinator; BIDC Director in the Community Development office with staff support. Mr. Davis talked about the Committee's goals - to have a system which would improve Chula Vista's name to the outside world. BIDC focused on (1) the redevelopmerit areas; (2) to take advantage of the under-utilized areas that have tremendous resources in the City; to streamline the governmental functions for developers; and for Chula Vista to have a progressive attitude by getting people on the Committee who have a recognized name to the outside world which would give Chula Vista this recognition. Mr. Davis added the Mayor should be the controller of this particular option since he is a full-time person; however; there should be a Coordinator under his direction. Mr. Dave Nuffer, Nuffer and Smith Associates, stated the three Options presented have some overlapping elements. The budgets for the Options are not mentioned since the Committee would develop this after Council input. Mr. Carey Tucker from Nuffer Smith then asked for input from the Council and the Committee members asking for strength and weaknesses of each option presented. Councilman Scott questioned the role of the Mayor (Option No. 1) indicating it may be in conflict with the City Charter since the Mayor cannot direct assignments to staff - this is the City Manager's role in government. Mr. Tucker responded the Committee is just talking about the concepts of the there is a conflict with the City Charter, the O.tion would be Councilwoman McCandliss discussed Option No. 1 noting the City Council is not given a select role in this alternative. It lures businesses into the City but forms a superficial group to do the luring. Option No. 2 recognizes the realities of processing within the City structure. Council Conference - 3 - November lO, 1983 Mr. Bud Chase, Chula Vista Sanitary Service, remarked it was desirable to have the Mayor's office as the central entity so that the Mayor can direct all the activities. Councilman Moore indicated the City Manager be the central focal point rather than the Mayor in Alternate No. 1. Mr. Santos remarked it was important that one person in the City have this responsibility. Mr. Norm Willjams, member of the Committee, declared Option No. 1 is similar to what is now going on in the City. The one thing that makes a client most comfortable is when that person can come in and sit down and talk with the Mayor of the City. Councilman Moore felt the only flaw in Option No. 1 was the direct contact from the Mayor's office to the City staff. Councilman Scott noted this option reflects the incumbent Mayor's position; however, it must be taken into consideration the present Mayor will not be in office for all time. Therefore, the Option needs to flow for a longer period of time. It could focus on the Mayor's office; however, it should give the Council a stronger role. Council and Committee discussion followed regarding the structure being a flexible one; having the options cost-effective; to achieve the goals with a minimum amount of financing; the role of the City Council should be brought in early in the process; the Mayor does not make these decisions without ratification of the City Council; the role of the staff person which would be assigned under one of the options should be under the City Manager's office; there is no City leadership in Option No. 2 - people who come into the City do not ordinarily go directly to the City Manager they go to the Mayor. Councilman Moore added another weakness in No. 2 is that they would have to pay for another person on this staff. Under Option 3 discussion centered on: (1) the Mayor being the focal point in giving directions to the Committee; the staff's process in the option; the weakness being two people would be doing the same type of work - the Mayor and the BIDC Director; there should be a strike force and there is no difference between the role of the City Council and the Mayor in this particular option. Mr. Dick Brown, associated with Getsten Company, stated Chula Vista has more potential than any other City in the County, even more than the City of San Diego. The amount of land available for development is above average and the attitude on the part of the City Council and the Manager is significant and unusual. This attitude translates to the general public. Mr. Brown questioned what happens when a potential developer comes into the City. The developer should be able to contact one single person who has the authority to deal with this person's needs. This perhaps could be the City Manager or his assistant. Perhaps there is also a need for a half-time person to coordinate all the aspects that the developer has to go through. That person and the Mayor must be able to work very closely together. Mr. Brown indicated that to get the City Council involved in the early stages would be a weakness which most cities recognize. This can it be overcome by perhaps having the Council meet one half hour prior to their regular meetings to discuss the proposals or perhaps an advisory committee be selected on which the ideas could be bounced Council Conference ~ 4 - November lO, 1983 off and presented to the Council. One weakness in all cities, Mr. Brown added, is for a developer to go through all the different departments in the City and get confusing documents. He felt the City Manager's office could clear this process. City Attorney Harron noted that part of the Subdivision Map Act was to designate one person to work with developers and help process plans through the various departments of the City. Councilman Scott declared some criteria must be set up for this process. Mr. Dick Kau, Realtor, said National City has such a person. A developer coming into that City contacts one person who will take the plans through all the departments in the City. City Manager Goss commented the options presented today seem to over-simplify the task. It seems static but things are changing all the time. There are day to day activities going on in all departments of the City and in some cases there would perhaps be a need to act immediately on some proposals brought in in other cases, several departments may be involved and the process would take longer. He felt that the key to all of these options was the necessity of getting a commitment by the Mayor and the Council; those on the higher levels of government. Mr. Nuffer thanked the Council and the staff for their input today stating these comments will now go back to the steering committee for refinement and a report will be presented to the Council some time in December. The Mayor and the Council thanked the Committee for the work they have put into this proposal. 2. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (None) 3. MAYOR'S REPORT (None) 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS a. Councilman Scott noted the "Season's Restaurant" formerly "Sambo's" is now going to be "Coco's". b. Councilman Scott discussed the continued item of a 4/5's vote of the City Council to override Planning Commission decisions. He noted approximately four years ago the City contracted with Booz/Allen/Hamilton for an audit of the Planning Department. As a result of the consultants study, changes were made in the department such as giving the Planning Director items to take on his own and the Planning Commission were given items for which they could make the final decision without coming to the Council. Mr. Scott continued that by considering deleting the 4/5's vote at this time, the Council may be going back to doing things on a piecemeal basis. He felt it would be more productive to bring back the Booz/Allen/Hamilton report and see whether or not it was still viable. Council Conference - 5 - November lO, 1983 MSUC (Scott/McCandliss) to bring the Booz/Allen/Hamilton report back or at least have the City Manager look at it, and get a staff report on how many things (Council) has implemented and after that to bring back any changes the staff would recommend (permanent c anges). The item for the deletion of the 4/5's vote which was continued to the Council meeting is to be deferred until after the Council gets a full report from staff. Mr. Jim Thomson, Director of Management Services suggested this report be done in conjunction with a Development Processing study. This will come to the Council some time in January. The Council concurred with this recommendation. ADJOURNMENT at 6 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 15, 1983 atTp.m. , C e~k ' WPG:0366C PAG