Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1991/10/01 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, October 1, 1991 Council Chambers 5:33 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Grasser Horton, Malcolm, Moore, and Chairman Nader ABSENT: Member Rindone ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Ruth Fritsch, Assistant Agency Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 24, 1991 MSC (Moore/Grasser Hmton) to approve the minutes of September 24, 1991 as submitted. Approved 4-0-1 with Member Rindone absent. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: none) CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-Oq with Member Rindone absent. 3. WRiTI'EN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4. RESOLUTION 1200 APPROVING AN AGRIqlqMENT WrltI REMY & THOMAS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE- The Redevelopment Agency requires specialized services from attorneys specializing in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues. Several major Agency projects are currently undergoing the environmental review process and thus, on-going consultation with attorneys specializing in CEQA issues is necessary to ensure that legally adequate Negative Declarations, Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring Programs, and Statements of Overriding Consideration are prepared. Staff recommends that the Agency adopt the resolution approving an agreement with Remy & Thomas for legal services and appropriate funds therefor. (4/5ths Vote Required) Chairman Nader questioned why the additional appropriation was needed at this point. Robin Putnam, Principal Community Development Specialist, responded that position papers and the planning process to bring the sub-committee, with all the citizens on it, up to speed had resulted in the need for additional services. The development of several sets of interim alternatives were well beyond the scope of services expected. Chairman Nader stated he was surprised that the scope of work was expanded for the sub-committee just becauso it had been expanded. Hc was also concerned that it was nol anticipated that a number of alternatives Minutes October 1, 1991 Page 2 would have to be developed and presented by the consultant in the original scope of work. He questioned whether the Agency Attorney had reviewed the item and why the original contract needed to be amended. Assistant Agency Attorney Fritsch responded that she would have to review the original contract. Member Malcolm stated that he did not know how anyone could have anticipated what the sub-committee would do. The sub-committee needed to bring forward a plan and recommendations for review. The biggest portion of the contract was for the plan, recommendations, and presentation. He did not believe anyone could have see.n the number of delays, changes, etc. Ms. Putnam stated that pages 6-12 and 6-13 outlined the additional work being requested that was not included in the original contract. Member Malcolm expressed concern over the hiring of a law firm from outside the San Diego area and the costs of travel, etc. He felt there were qualified firms in San Diego and opposed representation outside of San Diego unless staff could show the expertise was not available in the area. He would vote for this item only as a courtesy if the other three Members voted yes. Ms. Putnam responded that proposals were sought from five different law firms specializing in CEQA issues. Four of the firms declined to submit proposals due to conflicts of interest. The City received only one proposal from a San Diego firm and Ibis firm in Sacramento. The firm in Sacramento prepared lhe book on Ihe California Environmental Quality Act and staff felt that it had not been that expensive and had been well worth it to have the foremost legal experts on CEQA giving advice on some of the more controversial projects· 'Assistant Agency Attorney Fritsch stated that this was a very specialized area of law with a limited number of experts. It was important that the people representing the Agency not be recused by opponents for a conflict· Member Malcolm questioned whether Staff had met with any of the law firms stating they had a potential conflict to see if any of the conflicts could be waived. Chairman Nader responded that even if the Agency Attorney and Agency agreed to waive a conflict an opponent could use a recusal motion to declare a conflict. Member Malcolm stated that he did not feel much effort was put in to see it' a san Diego law firm could be obtained. He felt there were qualified people in San Diego and there was an obligation to look here first and talk to each one of tho law firms to see if a waiver could be obtained. Assistant Agency Attorney Fritsch stated that attorneys had ethical constraints, they were bound by rules of prot'essional conduct not to represent conflicting sides and she suspected that could have been part of the problem when soliciting proposals. Member Malcolm stated that may be true but no one could say that anyone sat down to discuss these conflicts. Assistant Agency Attorney Fritsch stated it was her understanding that Agency Attorney Boogaard had contacted each of the firms regarding conflicts. Ms. Putnam responded that the Agency Attorney did contact any firm wishing to propose that felt they may have a conflict. It was her understanding that the main reason for conflicts was because they were representing "clients on the other side of various projects that may have been opponents. Minutes October 1, 1991 Page 3 Member Malcolm requested a list of each of the five law firms and stated that he would follow through with this. He felt he could show that each of the law firms were not contacted individually and asked specifically what their conflicts were and were not specifically negotiated regarding waivers. He would discuss this with the Agency Attorney when he was back in town. Member Grasser Horton stated that Member Malcolm had made a good point but hoISed that their qualifications in such a specialized field would also be taken into consideration. 5. RESOLUTION 1201 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH JHK & ASSOCIATES FOR THE PROVISION OF TRAt,'IqC ANALYSIS SERVICES RELATED TO THE BAYFRONT PLANNING EFFORT - JHK & Associates prepared the Traffic section of the Midbayfront Final Environmental Report (EIR) and has done some minor additional traffic analyses related to Midbayfront development for the Agency. Because of their familiarity with Bayfront traffic issues, which are extremely complex, it is recommended that JHK & Associates be retained to perform the traffic analysis of the alternative plan(s) developed by the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee. Staff recommends that the Agency adopt the resolution approving the agreement with JHK & Associates for the provision of traffic analysis services related to the Bayfront planning effort. 6. RESOLUTION 1202 APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH CINTI & ASSOCIATES FOR PROVISION OF PLANNING SERVICES AND APPROPRIATING $51,100 THEREFOR - On January 17, 1991 the Agency entered into an agreement with Cinti & Associates for the provision of planning services. At the time, the agreement was approved it was anticipated that Cinti & Associates would be supporting staff in the preparation of an alternative development plan for the Midbayfront. This approach was outlined in the agreement and budget was approved by the Agency. Subsequently, the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee was established and an expanded community input approach to create an alternative plan is underway. Cinti & Associates has been providing services in support of the Subcommittee, assisting staff in providing materials and presentations, and preparing development alternatives for consideration by the Subcommittee. The amount of work required of Cimi & Associates for the Subcommittee planning process has been greater than the scope and budget anticipated to complete the considerable amount of additional work required by the Subcommittee to meet the January 1992 deadline established by the City Council. Staff recommends that the Agency adopt the resolution approving Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Cinti & Associates for provision of planning services and appropriating $51,000 therefor. (4/Sths Vote Required) Member Grasser Horton stated that she had a hard time voting on the expenditure of an additional $51,000 and questioned whether there was anyone "in-house" that could perform the duties that Cinti was contracted for. Robin Putnam, Principal Community Development Specialist, responded that Cinti provided unique design services and not the type of services that city staff could provide. The City also does not have adequate planning staff to dedicate a planner to the amount of time necessary to review the project. Mr. Cinti also attends many of the meetings and makes the presentations. Member Grasser Horton questioned that if the current staff person working on the project was available full- time, if the City would have to spend the additional $51,000. She expressed her concern over spending so much money when it could be done in-house. Ms. Putnam responded that if Mr. Lee worked full-time on this project, the Agency would then only have to expend $20,000 to $30,000. M~nut4s October 1, 1991 Page 4 Member Moore stated that whether the Agency pays a consultant or staff, time was money. The majority of money spent was for attendance at meetings required by the Council or Agency. Member Malcolm stated he hoped that the Januapj 1st deadline would be met. He did not know how staff time could be allocated and still meet the deadline. Chairman Nader stated that if the Bayfront Sub-Committee continued to work at their current pace they would be able to meet the deadline. Member Moore questioned whether the Director could supply a report that would cover the hiring of major consultants as it pertains to local skill and talent, but more so a discussion of conflict of interest. He was looking for data for a potential policy on hiring consultants and conflict of interest. Director Goss questioned whether this was a referral to staff, and if so, that it be referred to both the City Manager's Office and the City Attorney's Office. MS (Moorc/Nader) refer the item of consultants on major projects and the discussion of conflict of interest meetings, that could and may well take plaee, and a policy regarding that back for review in the near future. Member Moore stated the intent of his motion was that the City Manager would come back with the pro's and con's of discussing the conflicts with potential consultants, see if the City could obtain more appropriate talent from San Diego County versus outside the County, and bring forth a potential policy for review. '\Chairman Nader stated he would second the motion as he felt that any Member's request for additional qnformation should be honored. He questioned if there wasn't a referral in the past regarding the hiring of consultants within San Diego County. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 44}-1 with Member Rindone absent. Chairman Nader stated that he would vote for the item due to time constraints in order to get the work done in a timely way. He felt the City should be able to do a better job in determining the scope of work. 7. RESOLUTION 1203 APPROPRIATING $36,000 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIX STREET LIGHTS ON THIRD AVENUE BETWEEN E AND F STREE'IX3 - The Town Center Project Area Committee and several Third Avenue merchants have express concern about the lack of appropriate illumination on Third Avenue between E and G Streets. The Engineering Department with Community Development staff have analyzed this matter and are recommending the installation of six "Cobra" type street lights in the area between E and F Streets. The Planning Department has reviewed this project from the design standpoint and has endorsed the project. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review. Staff recommends that the Agency adopt the resolution appropriating $36,000 for the installation of six "Cobra" type street lights on Third Avenue between E and F Streets. (~/5ths Vote Required) * * END OF CONSENT CAI -RNDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS None submitted. Minutes October 1, 199i Page S ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ACTION ri'EMS None Submitted. OTHER BUSINESS 8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Questioned whether the Agency wanted to cancel their meeting of October 17th due to the California League of Cities Conference. Several Agency Members and staff members will be attending the conference. Member Malcolm stated that he would like the meeting canceled as the Agency would not be able to take action on any 4/5th's vote items, appropriations, etc. He would also like to cancel the Council meeting of October 15th. Chairman Nader requested that this item be placed on the next Council agenda for discussion. 9. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - None. 10. MEMBERS' COMMENTS Member Malcolm: Requested a copy of the proposal for specialized services from attorneys specializing in CEQA issues (Item #4). He further requested the names of all firms contacted and their contact persons. ADJOURNMENT AT 6:05 P.M. to the Agency meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 17, 1991 at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Conference Room, City Hall Building. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy CillFO,erk