Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1971/09/09 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday September 9, 1971 A special meeting of the City Council was held on the above date beginning at 7 P.M. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center: 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde, Egdahl Absent: None Also present: City Manager Thomson, City Attorney Lindberg Mayor Hamilton stated the meeting was called to review all aspects of the petitions received on the Sweetwater Valley Annexation. CITY CLERK REPORTS City Clerk Fulasz reported that she received the petitions of protest on August I0, 1971. On August 11, 1971, she asked the City Manager for assistance in checking the petitions. Two men were assigned this task: William Magill from the Engineering Division and Anthony Lettleri from the Planning Department. These gentlemen have been in complete charge of checking the petitions. Mrs. Fulasz stated that both men are present tonight to answer any questions. City Attorney's report City Attorney Lindberg stated that, in check- ing the petitions, the Government Code was followed to the letter, and an attempt was made to provide a most liberal interpretation on property ownerships through August 20, 1971. His direction to the staff checking the petitions was to accept protests from persons who had become purchasers of property up until the close of the hearing on August 20. Also~ that no names be removed from the rolls of persons who are on the roll,s as of August 10, so that the benefit went clearly to the protestors during that period. Mr. Lindberg noted those names checked of persons who signed in a husband-wife capacity (one signing for the other). The Code makes no provision for such agency without written authorization. He noted that this tally has not bean completed. Mr. Lindberg then discussed the "open-door" policy whereby the protestants were asked to work with the staff in checking the petitions. Council discussion The Council discussed other aspects of check- ing the petitions and decisions made by the City Attorney. Robert Terry, 2953 Bonita Mesa Mr. Terry declared that there were many Road, Bonita questions asked concerning the protest peti- tions, but he found it distressing that few, if any, questions were asked concerning the proponent's petition. According to Section 35.000, a person signing a petition must also sign the date. A cursory examination of the petitions would reveal that most of these dates were not signed by the person signing the petition. City Attorney Lindberg objected at this point stating that Mr. Terry was debating a point of law. Mr. Terry ~ommented that it was a point of morality, not law, and he would agree with Mr. Lindberg that the courts may have to decide this. City Clerk explains City Clerk Fulasz explained that the pro- ponents' petitions were taken by her to the office of the Registrar of Voters where, for four days, his staff checked each and every signature against the original affidavit signed by that person when he or she registered to vote. In her opinion, there is no question but that the signatures of those persons sign- ing the petition were, in fact, tr~e and cor- rect. She added that she received a certifi- cation from Mr. Sexton, the Registrar of Voters, attesting to this fact. Questionable signatures Mr. Terry felt the question of signatures should have been made prior to the August 20 date. City Attorney's opinion City Attorney Lindberg stated there is 30 days in which to check the petitions. He discussed these signatures that were obviously written by one party, explaining that these signatures were taken to the handwriting expert in the Police Department. The affiant to that petition indicated in every petition submitted that "I witnessed the signature being affixed to that petition and that sig- nature is the signature of the person it proports to be". Mr. Lindberg stated that this cannot be true when one person signs the petition. Mr. Terry challenged the Council's objection to the questionable signatures after the August 20 date, stating that in so doing, "they (the Council) are a little bit behind the times, and you are quite incorrect". Cut-off date In answer to Councilman Hobel's inquiry, Mr. Lindberg again stated that 30 days in given to check the petitions, and the law is clear that the legal right is obtained when every ~pport~nity is given to the opposition. Ha added that a conclusion must be reached on this matter of determining whether or not a majority of protests has been received 30 days after final adjournment. Mr. Lindberg further added that for the first time tonight, the opposition is challenging the proponents' petitions, months after they have been submitted. Auditing firm In answer to Mayor Hamilton's inquiry~ Mr. Lindberg remarked that the firm of Pete, Mark and Mitchell, one of the largest audit- ing fir~ns in the nation, would check these petitione, if it is the Council's desire to hire an outside firm. It would take two days and cost approximately $500. Councilman Scott spoke against this, comment- ing that if the resnlts were the same, the opposition will still want to go to court. He commented that this is what the courts are for--the City has done everything the Government Code stipulated it should do. The Council concurred. Mrs. Edwin Mace, Alta Loma Drive, Mrs. Mace asked to be recognized indicating Bonita that she found an additional parcel to be counted worth $10,500. -2- City Attorney Lindberg asked her to present this to the staff tomorrow and it will be checked out. Executive Session Councilman Scott asked if it would be appro- priate to go into executive session for pos- sible litigation. City Attorney Lindberg stated he knew of no possible or potential litigation at this time. ADJOLrRiNMENT Mayor Hamilton adjourned the meeting at 7:50 P.M. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 14, 1971 at 7 P.M. -3- CALIFORNIA NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, WILL HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING AT 7 P.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1971 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC CENTER, 276 FOURTH AVENUE, TO REVIEW ALL ASPECTS OF THE PETITIONS SUBMITTED RELATING TO THE SWEETWATER VALLEY ANNEXATION. Dated: September 9, 1971 ~/ City Clerk ~ City of Chula Vista, California