Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1985/01/24 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, January 24, 1985 Council Conference Room 4:00 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL Councilmembers present: Mayor Cox, Councilmembers Malcolm, McCandliss, Scott, Moore Councilmembers absent: None Staff present: City Manager Goss, City Attorney Harron, Assistant City Manager Asmus Mayor Cox announced Item No. 2 will be considered first on the agenda. 2. REPORT THE BROWN ACT {City Attorney) City Attorney Harron referred to his written analysis on the Brown Act noting it was originally passed in 1953 and named after its principal author, Ralph M. Brown. Attorney Harron highlighted the following: 1. Purpose and Scope of the Act - to insure that the deliberations and actions of he local agencies are performed at meetings open to the t public and that such meetings have been given adequate notice. 2. Definition of Local Agencies ~ Charter cities are included in this definition. 3, Location of MeetinV - Advisory Committee meetings may be held in the territory of the ocal agency; however, the Council is allowed to hold meetings outside the boundaries of its territories. The Chula Vista City Charter is more restrictive in this regard. Special meetings may only be held at places suitable or desirable for public assemblies within the City or at an official place of meeting with other governmental bodies. 4.a.d the Oefinition of What Constitutes a .eeting- T.is a gathering of a quorum of the City Council no matter how informal wherever business is transacted or discussed. 5. Seriatim Meetings Seriatim means "in a series" or "one meeting after another". If two Councilmembers should informally discuss an issue coming before the City Council, and then either one of them should go on to discuss it with another Councilmember, then this would constitute a quorum according to the Attorney General's opinion, 6. Executive Session -The Attorney stated that the following may be discussed in Executive Sessions: Council Conference - 2 - January 24, 1985 a. Grand Jury - any Legislative Member giving testimony in private before a Grand Jury either as individuals or as a group. b. License Applications to determine whether an applicant for a license who has a criminal record is sufficiently rehabilitated to obtain the license. c. Security of Public Buildings - this meeting would be held in conjunction with the Director of Public Safety regarding threats to the security of a public building. d. Personnel - to consider the appointment, evaluation, performance or dismissal of a public employee. 7. Meet and Confer to review position of Council and instruct representative on salary schedules or compensation generally. ist facts are sufficient to conclude litigation is likely and a Closed Session is proper. 9. Penalties - Attorney Harron noted the criminal and civil penalties as defined in the Brown Act. 10. Validity - the Courts have held that the validity of actions taken at a meeting claimed to have held in violation of the Brown Act are not affected by any alleged violation. ll. Miscellaneous pertains generally to notices of meetings and specifically would be the responsibility of the City Clerk. 12. Disclosure Policy Attorney Harron stated it would be his recommendation that Council adopt a policy for disclosure based upon the subject matter of the Closed Session regarding appointment or termination, but to be aware that the privacy interest of the individual should be of paramount concern. As for termination, the disclosure should be directed solely toward severing the employment relationship rather than justifying the action by making derogatory statements about the terminated employee. Meet and Confer it would be his recommendation to describe the purpose of the session only. Any further disclosure would harm the City because it could put it at a disadvantage at the bargaining table. As to litigation Attorney Harron stated this was the most difficult. The Council must carefully balance the public's right to know as much information as possible without any adverse effect on the outcome of the particular litigation. He added there would be value of having the disclosures regarding litigation come from one source so there will be no contradictory statements made and would recommend that all statements come from his office. Council Conference - 3 - January 24, 1985 Council discussion made during the Attorney's presentation centered on various meetings attended by the City Council; social gatherings; meetings for communications only; Councilmembers appearing before legislative bodies; telephone communications among Councilmembers; and notice of the meetings to the media. In answer to the Council's query, City Attorney Harron stated that if Council goes into Closed Session to discuss "likely litigation", he must prepare a confidential memo stating the facts and circumstances on which the Closed Session is based. This memo is protected under the Public Records Act until such time as the litigation is completed. It then becomes a public record. Attorney Harron added ~t would be h~s recommendation that the City Manager be designated to disclose any matters pertaining to personnel and the City Attorney disclose all other matters discussed in Closed Session. MS (Malcolm/Moore) to accept the report and the recommendations. Councilwoman McCandliss asked that a statement be included in the motion directing the Attorney to be as open as possible in disclosing infomation to the public as to what was discussed in Closed Session. Councilman Malcolm stated he would include this in his motion; Councilman Moore agreed to the second and the motion carried unanimously. la. CONSIDERATION FINAL FIR-85-1, BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN (Continued from the meeting of January 22, 1985) Director of Planning RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FINAL EIR-85-1, BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN b. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN (Director of Planning/Community Development Director) RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN c. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (Title XVIII) TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN - FIRST READING ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (TITLE XVIII) TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN - FIRST READING d. CONSIDERATION CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS -BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION ADOPTING CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION - BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN · IT Council Conference - 4 - January 24, 1985 This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox opened the public hearings on items la,b,c and d. Community Development Director Desrochers submitted the latest errata sheet containing 12 pages of recommended amendments to the Specific Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Desrochers highlighted the following: 1. The 188-acres within the Sweetwater Marsh complex will be given in fee title to the Department of Fish and Game. 2. The Bayfront Conservancy Trust will be governed by a ten member Board of Directors - the tenth member to be a representative of the Department of Fish and Game. This is for the purpose of advising the Bayfront Conservancy Trust on management of wildlife habitat not contained within the 188-acre parcel of property. 3. The 188-acre property may not be conveyed to any other person, governmental agency, association or other party. 4. The Bayfront Conservancy Trust shall be organized as a non-profit organization. 5. The Conservancy shall assume the lead role in preparing and coordinating preparation of detailed wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement plans for the Bayfront. Council discussion ensued regarding having the Department of Fish and Game be a member of the Conservancy Trust. Councilman Scott indicated he sees this as a "Trojan Horse", whereby the City is trading one set of problems for others. Mayor Cox indicated it was a compromise that eliminates the question of whether this is a State or Federal ownership and the actual question will be resolved at the January 25, Coastal Commission hearing. Mr. Desrochers indicated he sees no problem of having the Fish and Game as a member of the Conservancy - they must follow Chula Vista's Specific Bayfront Plan once it is approved by the Coastal Commission. The only concerns now are whether adequate buffers will be maintained and there will be access to Gunpowder Point. Councilman Scott asked whether a letter could be obtained from the Department of Fish and Game stating they will support within the letter of the law the implementation of Chula Vista's Bayfront Plan. Mr. Desrochers responded that any implementation for restoration of the marsh must come before the City Council before it can be approved. Councilman Moore referred to the statement on the first page, A-2, whereby it states: "...within one year after certification of the Local Coastal P1 an {LCP), sufficient funds shall be made available to and by the Bayfront Conservancy Trust to meet the requirements of Sections 19.88.58 and 19.8B.59." Council Conference - 5 - January 24, 1985 He questioned whether there would be sufficient funds in order to do that within the first year. If there are no tenants available, there will be no funds generated. Councilman Moore added that on page 3, under "D", (page 51 Section 19.88.57) it states: "...annual assessment shall be sufficient to fully fund the operations and maintenance cost of the Sweetwater Marsh and upland habitat programs". He is concerned that after one year, there will not be sufficient funds to do this and recommended the language be reworded. Mr. Desrochers stated he does not object to the one-year clause and is optimistic there will be sufficient development to obtain these funds. Mr. Desrochers continued with explanation of the amendments: 6. Page 3, under "D" - the Bayfront Conservancy Trust shall prepare a detailed and implementation Bayfront Management Plan. This will be done in cooperation with the State Coastal Conservancy, Department of Fish and Game and other agencies which have an interest in the wetlands on the Bayfront. 7. Emergency Storm Damage Repair - the following language was revised: "...removal of rubble exposed on tidal flats and replacement of beach materials in a manner which assures that the total amount of tidal mud flat habitat shall not be reduced." 8. Landscaped Parking - the following was added: "utility transmissions systems". 9. Grading and Drainage - the month of October was deleted and replaced with November. lO. Definitions - The definition of "Development" was added. ll. Under the same section - A new section was added for Development Permit Procedures. 12. Subdivision Ordinance Section 18.04.010 - statutory authority section was revised stating that in the event of any conflict arising between the provisions of the certified Local Coastal Plan {LCP} or other legal authorities applying to the subdivision ordinance, the LCP shall control. In answer to Council's question, Community Development Desrochers stated he supports all of the changes as presented. City Attorney Harron stated this would be the best way to do it. City Manager Goss stated he has not read the entire amendments but can support what has been presented today. Council Conference - 6 o January 24, 1985 RESOLUTION 11902 CERTIFYING FINAL EIR-85-1, BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION 11903 ADOPTING THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION 11904 ADOPTING CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION - BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTIONS RE-OFFERED BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the texts were waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. ORDINANCE 2100 AMENDING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (TITLE XVIII) TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN - FIRST READING MSC (Cox/Malcolm) to place the ordinance on first reading, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent passed and approved with Councilman Scott voting" " no . Councilman Scott explained that he feels the Council has been "led down the primrose path". Although he has been a strong advocate of developing the Bayfront, the "Trojan Horse" analogy is an excellent one. His "no" vote is a symbolic vote. Councilman Malcolm said he would like to tie down some very specific conditions proposed for the Watt development across from the E1Torito Restaurant. Mr. Desrochers stated this would be done at a Redevelopmerit Agency meeting. Councilman Malcolm suggested a $20 million dollar bond for roadways restoration and improvements. Attorney Hatton stated the Agency could adopt a phasing policy - it is not taking property - as long as it is consistent with the general plan and there can be a requirement for a bond also. Mr. Desrochers noted staff is working on that particular element right now. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (None) MAYOR'S REPORT MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) for a C1 osed Session for purposes of discussing potential litigation. COUNCIL COMMENTS (None) The Council recessed to ClOsed Session at 6:00 p.m. The City Clerk was excused. The Mayor reported the meeting ended at 6:15 p.m. ADjOURNMENT AT 6:15 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 5, 1985 at 7 p.m.