Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/08/04 Agenda Wkshp CC/CVRCI declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the •;:~' Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this document on the bulletin boardor`rtg~ ~ Brown Act requirements ~ ~~ ~~,. d `i Signe~~j~ ~r ~ CCC"""""" '~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember James D. Sandoval, City Manager Patricia Aguilar, Councilmember Glen R. Googins, City Attorney Pamela Bensoussan, Councilmember Donna Norris, City Clerk Steve Castaneda, Councilmember REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA August 4, 2011 Police Department 4:00 p.m. Community Room 315 Fourth Avenue CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Aguilar, Bensoussan, Castaneda, Ramirez and Mayor Cox Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation: Desrochers, Flores, Paul, Salas, Watson, Cannon and Chair Munoz If you wish to speak on the items on this agenda, please fll out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the Ciry Clerk prior to the meeting. THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ADJOURNMENT to the next Regular City Council Meeting on August 9, 2011, at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the City Clerk's Office at (619) 691-5041 (California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. MEMO Development Services Department Redeveloprncnt & Housing DATE: August 2, 2011 \`r~: ~~~,~A TO: Chula Vista City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation Board of Directors FROM: Gary Halbert, Assistant City Manager/Director of Development Services SUBJECT: History and Future of the CVRC In preparation for the upcoming August 4, 2011, Joint Workshop between the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC) staff is providing a brief history and background regarding the formation and functions of the CVRC. We are also providing three structural options for consideration in your discussion of the future of the CVRC. CVRC Restructuring On November 23, 2004, Resolution No. 2004-383 approved the formation of the CVRC to conduct redevelopment and planning activities. The purpose of the CVRC was to serve as a separate entity dedicated to advising and making recommendations to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency regarding planning and redevelopment within the redevelopment project areas. The CVRC assumed the powers and responsibilities previously delegated to the Planning Commission, Resource Conservation Commission, and Design Review Committee functions with respect to legislative actions. The original organizational structure included City Council members and individuals with technical expertise in designated professional fields. This structure was later revised on May 24, 2007, to remove the City Council members from the CVRC Board of Directors. On May 27, 2010, and June 15, 2010, the CVRC and RDA, respectively, considered and ultimately recommended and/or approved the following actions: Approved the Public Participation Policy for review of development projects in the Chula Vista redevelopment project areas Dissolved the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) Replaced the procedural framework for CVRC design review On June 10, 2010, the CVRC bylaws were amended to include the following modifications: 29G Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 i www.chulavistaca.gov/wrh I (619) 697-5047 ~ fax (619) Sd5-5695 • Removed the authority of the CVRC to act as the Resource Conservation Commission • Modified the required number of directors from a maximum of nine to also include a requirement fora minimum of five directors • Provided criteria for designation and terms of office for directors that specifically required design professionals in the area of architecture, civil engineering, environmental planning, and urban planning and/or design and specified that a minimum of four Directors with design professional experience must serve on the board at all times In the fall of 2010, the Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 2.55 was modified to reflect the following modification regarding the CVRC: • Removed the CVRC's authority regarding any actions that by State law required Planning Commission review and consideration • Eliminated the CVRC's authority in regards to Resource Conservation Commission actions since the primary functions of the RCC were unrelated to the CVRC. However, the CVRC is still required to review environmental documents when considering rendering a decision regarding discretionary permits. The Development Oversight Committee recently recommended that the design review functions be contained within one design review body, which would effectively eliminate this function from the CVRC. As reflected in this brief history, there has already been a significant reduction in the responsibilities and functions of the CVRC since its formation in 2004. Originally, the CVRC had the powers and responsibilities that were previously delegated to the Planning Commission, Resource Conservation Commission and Design Review Committee with respect to legislative actions. In an effort to further streamline the development review process, the CVRC currently only has the responsibility of the Design Review Committee. However, as mentioned above, the Development Oversight Committee has recommended that should the CVRC continue, that the design review functions be eliminated from the CVRC. CVRC Discussions June 9, 2011 CVRC Meeting At the June 9, 2011, workshop of the CVRC the discussion centered on the future roles and responsibilities of the CVRC. The initial discussion focused on the Development Oversight Committee's recommendation to have all design review functions contained within one design review body. However, the more significant discussion surrounded future roles and responsibilities of the CVRC. Additionally, Directors were asked whether or not they would be interested in continuing to serve as an informal advisory group to staff should the CVRC, as a corporation, be eliminated. 276 Fourth Avenve., Chula Vista, CA 91970 ~ www.chulaviskaca.gov/cvrh , I (619) 691-5047 I fax (619) 585-5698 The CVRC directors provided a significant amount of input regarding other important roles and functions that they feel the CVRC provides including: • Financial review of proposed projects and programs, including return on investment • Ability to prioritize projects • Determining the value of Low-Mod Housing Fund dollars • Approaching the project review at a "Complete Streets" level • Composition of the CVRC creates a body that better understands the development process but with an interest in balancing the needs of the City and the developer • Serving in the capacity of an organized body that can get people interested in redevelopment and serve as a "sphere of influence" for reinvestment in all western Chula Vista • Having the ability of having broader discussions of housing and redevelopment in a larger context that is necessary to have a "complete' neighborhood • Serving as a connection to the development community At this meeting a majority of the Directors in attendance indicated a desire to continue the CVRC as a formal body. A few of the Directors indicated their willingness to participate should the CVRC be modified to an advisory board and not a commission. One Director suggested that the CVRC needed to continue as a corporation and function similar to the Centre City Development Corporation with staff and a separate regulatory process. July 28, 2011 CVRC Meeting At the July 28, 2011, CVRC meeting, the Directors discussed three organizational structures and relevant roles and responsibilities for each structure as presented by Director Watson in his memo to the CVRC Board. The three organizational structures discussed were: 1. Non-profit Corporation 2. Commission or Board 3. Advisory Committee A variety of opinions, questions and concerns were discussed surrounding the three structures. Some of those comments include: • Commission structure is more agile and allows more freedom • Concern that the CVRC is not really relevant and not providing enough to the process • The structure of the CVRC cannot be a stumbling block ?76 Pourdi Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 i www.chulavistaca.gov/curb i (619) 691-5047 ~ tax (619) 585-5698 • The CVRC would be more effective it had its own internal operation's staff and resources Is staffing the CVRC a good use of limited resources? • There is already so much community/civic participation that provides feedback to the City Council/RDA • There are areas (e.g. Bayfront and Auto Park) that are ripe for development and the CVRC could be instrumental in helping develop those • Expertise and qualifications of the Directors as a positive attribute Advocacy versus Decision-making as the role of CVRC The example of the San Diego Housing Commission as a positive structure because of its ability to advise with limited conflict with the City Council • View of CVRC as a business organization that utilizes the expertise (finance, business, development, etc.) of its directors to listen and make recommendations on sound redevelopment activities • Broadening the scope of the CVRC could be beneficial to the advisory group and the City Representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, Lisa Cohen, Executive Director indicated her support for the CVRC and an expanded role. She mentioned the support and expertise that the CVRC provides as a recommending agency to the City Council/RDA and the transparency that this body provides to the public as another avenue for public discussion. The CVRC Directors did not take a position or make a recommendation as to their preferred structure. Discussion The City Council/RDA has expressed a desire to discuss the current and future roles and responsibilities of the CVRC. There are three organizational structures that appear to be relevant and appropriate options for consideration. Amore detailed description of those three structures is described below. 1. Non-Profit Corporation. This is the current structure of the CVRC and is a structure more relevant to an independent body entity that oversees, operates and manages staff, a budget and projects and programs. The CVRC was originally structured as a corporation because it was envisioned that it might become more like the Centre City Development Corporation, a Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego that manages and operates the downtown redevelopment project areas. However, this is not how the CVRC currently functions. Should the CVRC maintain its structure as a corporation, staff recommends that the design review functions be eliminated. 27G Fourth Avenue, Chula Visla, CA 91910 ~ www.chulavistaca.gov/cvxh I (619) 691-5047 ~ fax (619) 5955698 2. Commission or Board. Asa Commission or Board, all the general rules as described in Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 2.25 would apply including: Members would still be appointed by the City Council (minimum of three affirmative votes required) • Brown Act requirements • Membership term limits • Attendance requirements • Code of Ethics • Conflicts of Interest • Mandatory Training Sessions • Operations requirements including rules of members, number of meetings, agenda preparation/posting/availability, required minutes, quorum and voting requirements, staff support, etc. This structure is a more formal structure that would be codified through the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The Commission could still consider various aspects of a proposed project or program and provide recommendations to the City Council. 3. Advisory Committee. This structure is more informal. Typically, members would not be Council-appointed nor would Brown Act rules apply. A Committee could still consider various aspects of a proposed project or program but would not make direct recommendations to the City Council. Although, the input of a Committee could be included in any reports to the City Council and typically are as part of the community input process. Should the CVRC be eliminated and re-constituted as either a Board, Commission or Advisory Committee, staff would recommend working with the new body to provide input on the revitalization of all of western Chula Vista not focused just on redevelopment project areas. Should the CVRC maintain its structure as a corporation, their involvement would remain limited to redevelopment project areas. The purpose of the joint workshop of August 4, 2011, is to discuss the future of the CVRC and the possible organizational structures that might be considered if it is modified. Memo Prepared by.' Diem Do, Senior Project Coordinator, Redevelopment & Housing 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 i www.chulavistaca.govlcvrh ~ (619) 691-5047 I fax (619) 585-5698