Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCVRC Min 2007/02/08 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) February 8, 2007 6;00 P.M. A Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation was called to order at 6:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. CVRC ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors: Castaneda, Desrochers, McCann, Paul, Ramirez, Rooney, Rindone, and Chair Cox ABSENT: Director: Lewis (excused), McCann ALSO PRESENT: Interim Executive Director/City Manager Thomson, General Counsell City Attorney Moore, Assistant General Counsel/Assistant City Attorney Hull, Redevelopment Project Manager Crockett, Senior Community Development Specialist Hines, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Community Development Administrative Assistant Donnelly PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE I. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS a. Memorandum from Jerry Rindone requesting and excused absence from the CVRC meeting of January 11,2007. b. Memorandum from Christopher Rooney requesting an excused absence from the CVRC meeting of January 25, 2007. c. Memorandum from Chris Lewis requesting an excused absence from the CVRC meeting of February 8, 2007. Staff recommendation: That the CVRC excuse the absences. ACTION: Director Castaneda moved approval of the requests for excused absences. Director Paul seconded the motion. Item la carried 6-0-1 with Vice Chair Rindone abstaining, and Directors Lewis and McCann absent. Items I b and I c carried 7-0 with Directors Lewis and McCann absent. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. ACTION ITEMS 2. PROPOSED REFERRAL FROM THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL REGARDING CVRC BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBERSHIP ISSUES At the February 6, 2007, Council meeting the Council CVRC subcommittee made an oral report to the Council. The subcommittee recommended the council refer to the CVRC for discussion the possibility ofremoving all city Directors (City council members) from the CVRC Board of Directors. The subcommittee also requested that the council refer to the CVRC for discussion the future composition of the Board of Directors and to review appointing criteria. After a brief discussion, the Council referred the matter to the CVRC for discussion at its February 8, 2007 meeting. Before the CVRC this evening are redline drafts of the original organizing documents that require amendment in order to implement the removal of the City Directors (City Council members). The redline draft does not change the current number of directors or membership criteria. Chair Cox provided an overview of the item, stating that she and Councilmember Rindone had volunteered to serve on a Council Subcommittee that was confirmed by the City Council several weeks ago, to look at the structure of the Board of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRe). She then provided background information, stating that she and Director Lewis had served on a committee of ten independent people, who worked for approximately two years to create a plan for submittal to the City Council, for a redevelopment entity that would mirror CCDC in the City of San Diego. The City of Chula Vista had achieved it's Redevelopment Agency status within one year of the City of San Diego achieving its, and the committee of independent people thought that one of the reasons San Diego had accomplished so much, was that they had an independent corporation assisting them. This concept was submitted to the City Council, who accepted the report a year and a half ago, February. However, the actual implementation of that report was different than the report submitted, because the Council at that time, ultimately decided to include as directors on the independent corporation, the five members of the City Council, which were never part of the initial recommendation. Chair Cox stated that when she and Director Rindone met as the Council Subcommittee, they looked at one element only, which was the membership of the CVRC Board of Directors, and they concluded that the placement of the City Councilmembers on that CVRC board, was a reiteration of what was already there, as the City Council sitting as the Redevelopment Agency always has the ultimate authority over redevelopment projects. It is not an authority that can be given away, so any independent board, commission, or in this case corporation, cannot take final action without the City Council as a whole having an opportunity to hear that action and either accept or reject it. The request of the City Council by the Council Subcommittee this past Tuesday, was to take the notion of removing City Councilmembers from the CVRC Board of Directors, to this evenings CVRC meeting to allow for interaction with the audience. Final action being taken this evening is not anticipated, the intent is to see what the Council and CVRC Directors and the publics thoughts were, regarding the construct of the Board only, who should be the membership on the Board only, knowing that the City Council always has the final authority. This has nothing to do with the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAe). Page 2 - CVRC Minutes http://wv..'W .chulavistaca. gov February 8, 2007 ACTION ITEMS (continued) Vice Chair Rindone stated that the goals and efforts of the Subcommittee, was to look at the big picture of the role of the City Council. The goal tonight was to obtain lots of input early in the process from the independent and regular directors, and members of the community, regarding the structure ofthe CVRC. Vice Chair Rindone then reiterated that the item under discussion did not involve the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC). Chair Cox clarified that the recommendation to remove the Councilmembers from the CVRC Board was not taken lightly; however, there were actually two very solid reasons for doing so, one being due to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other has to do with appeals of decisions. With the Council still on the CVRC Board, appeals of decisions would be presented to the same people who participated in the initial decision. Vice Chair Rindone stated he had initially raised the appeal of CEQA requirements concern in December when another Redevelopment Agency became involved in litigation because of the CEQA review process they had taken. Vice Chair Rindone explained to Director Ramirez that tonight's topic for discussion, the beginning of the process, as previously explained, was to gather information early-on from the members of the RAC, members of the community, Council colleagues, and independent directors. Director Rooney expressed encouragement in the Boards review of the structure. Director Desrochers expressed encouragement by the public participation process being undertaken to provide a fully functional organization to assist redevelopment in moving forward without some ofthe bureaucratic snags currently being experienced. Director Castaneda stated that the public participation element was the most important part of any government decision-making body. Further, that he had never thought that the City Council should be on the Board, but was curious to know the public views, as he wanted to maintain the protections and the ability for the public to weigh in on what would be happening in their community. Director Paul stated he had the same feelings as those expressed by the other independent directors, that it was important that the process be addressed, and was looking forward to hearing from the public. Further, his understanding of the establishment of the CVRC was to assist in developing some processes and degree of certainty to aid in the objective of redeveloping areas of the community that needed some help organizing, planning and administering the process. The RAC has a key role as is the role of City staff, but the independent corporation was formed to provide fair and open minded review of the facts and help to develop a certainty that will assure developers that there really is a continuum of interest in their process is important, and having independent directors is a valuable part of the process. Additionally, he felt the combination of elected and independent directors on the same board has become confusing. Page 3 - CVRC Minutes http://wv.'W .chulavi staca. gOV February 8, 2007 ACTION ITEMS (continued) Chair Cox stated that the following twenty Chula Vista residents had submitted speaker cards in opposition to the removal of the City Council from the CVRC, but did not wish to speak: One person, no name given Karen Rattiff Elizabeth Reed Bettie Lupi James Hunt David Street Steve Hilmer Sandy Duncan Sam Longanecker Ivan Loebs Gert Thomson Richard Thomson Helen Cassell Carol Smith Willard Howard Olga Durazo Terry Hanvey, indicated he opposed removal of the Councilmembers, and ifremoved, stated the CVRC should be disbanded. Charles Ulrich, Chula Vista resident, indicated the CVRC should be disbanded. Jeanette Cassel Tayson, indicated she opposed removal of Council members, and if removed, the CVRC should be disbanded. Joan Johnson, indicated she opposed removal of Councilmembers, and if removed, the CVRC should be disbanded. The following people were present wishing to speak: John Moot, Chula Vista resident, stated his was encouraged by the review of the CVRC structure and expressed his view that the CCDC in San Diego worked well without elected officials serving on the board. Further that like the RAC, there are separate community groups that provide input, and noted that ultimately the elected officials make the final decision. Russ Hall, Chula Vista resident, provided a brief overview of why the CVRC was created to begin with, stating that the main issue expressed by developers, was how City staff was conducting business and their lack of certain redevelopment expertise. Additionally, he did not feel that a CVRC was needed if the Redevelopment Agency were properly staffed and able to function, as it should. Also, that the City Council should not remain on the CVRC. Mr. Hall then suggested that the new City Manager be allowed to assess staff and the process of how the City conducts business, and then move forward on making a decision as to whether the CVRC was needed or not. Page 4 - CVRC Minutes http://www.chulavistaca.gov February 8, 2007 ACTION ITEMS (continued) Director Castaneda requested future speakers state whether or not they feel the CVRC should be eliminated, the Council should be removed from the CVRC, or the Council be removed and additional people be added to the eVRe. Chair Cox reiterated that the item under discussion was the composition of the CVRC Board only. Director Ramirez requested those speaking, state whether they thought the CVRC should be fixed or dissolved. Jerry Livingston, representing the Building Industry Association and the National Association of Industrial & Office Properties, stated it was important to have the CVRC, but far more important to have the right people with background skills and expertise on the board. He expressed his opinion that City staff was skilled in Greenfield development but not redevelopment and infill development. Further, the only way to have successful redevelopment is to have the people with the needed expertise on the CVRC Board. Peter Watry, Chula Vista resident representing Crossroads II, stated that his organization recommended the CVRC be eliminated as it had not worked, and that the RAC should be retained. Vice Chair Rindone confirmed that the Crossroads recommendation was to eliminate the CVRC and retain the RAC, and inquired as to whether Mr. Watry felt the Planning Commission, Design Review Commission and Resource Conservation Commission should be reinstated, to which Mr. Watry replied yes. Ian Gill, office on Bay Boulevard, stated he had participated in the workshops that led up to the formation of the CVRC, was involved in negotiating one of the first largest redevelopment agreements for the Rohr property in 1987, has been an applicant to CCDC and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, and served as an outsource project executive for the ballpark district for CCDC, so has had an opportunity to see the process from both sides. Mr. Gill spoke in support of the removal of the City Council from the CVRC, and the retaining of the current number of directors under the selection criteria established. Director Ramirez inquired of Mr. Gill as to whether he felt there was a role for the citizens of Chula Vista to play in the redevelopment of the City. Mr. Gill responded that the RAC was appropriate to obtain citizen input, and the CVRC should be comprised of those with technical expertise. Charles Moore, Chula Vista resident, stated he supported the retaining of the RAC and the CVRC with the Councilmembers removed and their positions replaced with experts with a proven track record of finance, design and the other disciplines that make redevelopment viable. Lisa Cohen, Chula Vista resident and CEO of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, stated that the primary responsibility of the CVRC is an independent review and the Council should be removed. Further, that the replacement positions should be filled based on qualifications of knowledge, training and experience, to provide the expertise for the projects, and the RAC should remain to provide for community input. Page 5 - CVRC Minutes http://www .chulavistaca.gov February 8, 2007 ACTION ITEMS (continued) Richard D' Ascoli, Chula Vista resident, representative of the Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors, member of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, and member of the RAC, stated that developers appreciate the upfront input from the RAC, but the CVRC should be made up of professionals who are skilled in the building of sensible, environmentally-friendly developments that the community would like and be proud of, with City Council making the final decision. Pamela Bensoussan, Chula Vista resident representing Northwest Civic Association, and Chair of the RAC, stated that the RAC was the only part of the CVRC structure that was working efficiently and should be used to advise the RDA, and the CVRC should be disbanded as it is an unwarranted burden to the taxpayers. Jackie Lancaster, Chula Vista resident, stated that the CVRC should be eliminated, as it is redundant. Earl Jentz, Chula Vista resident stated that the RAC should be retained, the CVRC eliminated, and more transparency provided in redevelopment deals. Margaret Tuite, Chula Vista resident, stated she supported the disbanding of the CVRC and the retaining of the RAC. Bob Crane, Chula Vista resident, stated he supported the comments made by Russ Hall. Further, that the CVRC should be under the Chamber of Commerce, and recommended that the CVRC be eliminated and the RAC retained. Sal Salas, Chula Vista resident, spoke in support of retaining and restructuring the CVRC. Tommy Stedball, Chula Vista resident and property owner in the redevelopment area, stated that the Council should remain on the CVRC Board. Laura Hunter, representing the Environmental Health Coalition, stated that her organization had participated in the original creation of the CVRC and their biggest concern was that it would end up like the CCDC in San Diego. Ms. Hunter then stated that Council should remain on the CVRC as protection for the community residents, and questioned whether a CVRC was necessary separate from the Redevelopment Agency. Further, if determined to be necessary, Ms. Hunter stated the CVRC should be redesigned and residents of affordable housing should be represented on the Board as well. Her number one suggestion was to not have a CVRC and refocus the funds, keep the RAC, and if the CVRC is kept, the Council should remain on it. Jack Stanley, Chula Vista Resident, stated that the Council should not be removed from the CVRC. If removed, distrust would be created. Joe Wavra, Chula Vista resident, stated that the Council should remain on the CVRC. Frank Zimmerly, Chula Vista resident, stated that the Council should remain on the CVRC. Page 6 - CVRC Minutes htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov February 8, 2007 ACTION ITEMS (continued) Mitch Thompson, Chula Vista resident and past Chair of the General Plan Update Committee, stated that the CVRC should be eliminated and the existing structures should be reviewed for streamlining. Chair Cox clarified that of the written comments submitted, 16 opposed taking the Council off the CVRC and four comments indicated that without the Councilmembers, the CVRC should be disbanded. Chair Cox stated that this concluded the public comments, and now was the opportunity for members of the CVRC to weigh in, and asked them to keep in mind that the intent was for the Council Subcommittee to gather information and come up with something to bring back to the City Council. Director Ramirez expressed his disagreement with those present suggesting Chula Vista follow the San Diego CCDC model as Chula Vista has more residential properties than San Diego did, so having a Board that may or may not have Chula Vista residents would be inappropriate. Additionally, he stated it was not just about bringing in redevelopment, but also about quality and character, which requires input from the residents. Director Ramirez then expressed his support for the removal of the Council from the CVRC, with their replacements being qualified Chula Vista community members. With regards to the work of the Council Subcommittee, he hoped that the Subcommittee would take the question on as to whether the CVRC should be eliminated in its entirety. Director Desrochers stated that the comments were well taken, but that based on his over forty years experience in redevelopment, the Council is the regulatory body, and cannot effectively be proactive and have successful redevelopment, whereas an independent board can. Director Castaneda stated that the Council should not be part of the CVRC and should be removed and replaced with community members, but due to budget concerns, the City may not be able to afford a separate entity, and should possibly consider retaining the RAC as a community based advisory committee to assist the Redevelopment Agency and reinstating the Resource Conservation Commission, Design Review Commission, and Planning Commission. Director Paul spoke to the issue of having professional independent directors on the CVRC, noting that they do not have a personal interest by serving, but can bring independent thoughts and provide the open, fair minded review that developers need. Further, the independent directors are not politically or neighborhood motivated, and it is the RAC's role is to provide the neighborhood perspective. Director Rooney stated he would like to see the politics removed from the decision-making process, noting that the creation of the RAC was one of the best accomplishments resulting from the process. Further, that he would like to see an independent CVRC without the Page 7 - CVRC Minutes htto://www.chulavistaca.gov February 8, 2007 ACTION ITEMS (continued) Councilmembers, and the remaining positions balanced with qualified residents and community members. Vice Chair Rindone thanked everyone for their input and stated that the RAC was unique, unlike the Planning Commission, Design Review Commission, or Resource Conservation Commission, as it was not created with Council appointments, and thus has provided a different kind of input from the community. He then spoke regarding three central themes he heard throughout the discussion that he will be taking to the Subcommittee meeting to assist in the forming of a recommendation. The first being the need for streamlining to be maintained, which is the purpose of the RAC; second, experts are needed to provide assistance with the elected officials ultimately responsible for the final decisions; and third, whether the RAC/CVRC/RDA or City Council, each has a distinct role and value, and the goal is how to best to address the benefit of all diverse roles into a mechanism that streamlines, keeps the elected officials responsible and accountable. Vice Chair Rindone then committed to the public that their input was critical and will continue to be received, as well as on-going due diligence, with the bottom line of what is best for the community as a whole. Chair Cox thanked those in attendance for their participation and stated that the Council Subcommittee would be taking all of the input received and framing a recommendation with the best interests of the community in mind, to be an opinion to the City Council for consideration. 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS There were none. 4. CHAIR'S REPORTS There were none. 5. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS Director Desrochers stated he would be unable to be present at the February 22, 2007 meeting and would be submitting a request for an excused absence. ADJOURNMENT At 8:15 p.m., Chair Cox adjourned the meeting to the next Regular Meeting on February 22, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ~~ /If ~::/ Dana M. Smith, Secretary ov February 8, 2007