Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/05/21MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, May 21, 1996 5:43 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers Pnblic Services Building 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Alevy, Moot, Padilia (arrived at 6:07 p.m. ), Rindone, and Mayor Horton John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 7, 1996 (City Council); May 7, 1996 (Juint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency) MSC (Alevy/Horton) to approve the minutes of May 7, 1996 (City Council); May 7, 1996 (Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency) as presented, approved 4-0-I with Padilia absent. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Recognition of CAPIO awards to the City tbr the "Chula Vista Quarterly Newsletter" and tot the econmic development video, "Catch the Spirit." Jeri Gulbransen, Public Intbrmation Officer, presented the awards. b. Proclaiming the week of May 19 through May 25, 1996 as Emergency Medical Services Week. The proclamation was presented by Mayor Pro Tem Moot to Brenda Bracken, Director of Marketing t~r Hartson Medical Services, and three paramedics. c. Proclamation commending Angelo Cappos for his dedicated effort's with the Burn Institute in the City of Chula Vista. Mayor Pro Tem Moot presented the proclamation to Engineer Cappos. d. Proclamation commending David and Danita Nelson f~>r their heroic life saving efforts. The proclamation was presented by Mayor Pro Tern M~>ot to David and Danita Nelson and their fhmily. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pnlled: 5c and 14) THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR WAS OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived~ passed and approved 4-0-1 with Padilia absent. Councilmember Alevy abstained on Item 9 and Councilmember Moot abstained on Item 10. Item 15 was removed from the agenda. Minutes May 2l, 1996 Page 2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no reportable actions taken in Closed Session on 5/14/96. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. b. Letter of resignatinn fn~m Dorothea Grindie - Commission on Aging. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library. c. Letter from Victor Saba requesting that two dusk to dawn lights be ins'tailed on the roof at the horse shoe pits at the Norman Park Center tiw additional security. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. · Victor Saba, 551 Oxt~.>rd Street #1. Chula Vita. CA, stated the Norman Park Center was losing their membership. Cars were being broken into in the evening hours and cars were stolen. The area was dark and there were benches that people slept on all night. He requested lighting in the park and on the one-way street. Mayor Horton requested that staff return to Council with a report. * * * Council recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:04 p.m. * * * 6.A. ORDINANCE 2672 AMENDING CHAPTER 19.47 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE THE PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ) ZONE (PCA 96-03) (second reading and adoption) Three related applications have been initiated by the City as a result of non-Baldwin owned parcels being annexed into the City. Staff recommends Council place the ordinances on second reading and adoption. (Special Planning Pmiects Manager. Otay Ranch Pr~iect) B. ORDINANCE 2673 AMENDING CHAPTER 19.48 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE (PCA-96-02); AND APPROVING THE PREZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 600.09 ACRES TO THE PC ZONE, PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ) ZONE AND THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONE (PCZ 96-A) (second readimz and adoption) 7. RESOLUTION 18295 ACCEPTING THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF RECYCLING, CURBSIDE INITIATIVE GRANT NUMBER 5095-227 FOR $39,887, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ADMINISTERING THE GRANT - On 6/25/95, Council ratified the submittal of a $50,027 application to the Califomia Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling. On 4/22/96, the City received notification that a grant of $39,887 had been approved ti>r award to the City. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Conservation Coordinator) 8. RESOLUTION 18296 ACCEPTING THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD USED OIL RECYCLING BLOCK GRANT NUMBER UBG4-95-1407-37 FOR $79,963 TO CONTINUE USED OIL RECYCLING AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ADMINISTERING THE GRANT - The Calilifornia Used Oil Enhancement Act requires the collection of ti~ur cents for every quart of lubricating oil sold, transferred and imported in California from oil manufacturers. Chula Vista consumers pay limr cents per quart into the fund when they purchase oil. The Act mandates the California Integrated Waste Management Board use a portion of the funds to provide block grants to local governments fi~r used oil programs that encourage recycling. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Conservation Coordinator) Minute,~ May 21. 1996 Page 3 9. RESOLUTION 18297 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 1, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS, AND SETTING JUNE 18, 1996 AT 6:00 P.M. AND JULY 16, 1996 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, this agenda item has been separated due to conflict of interest concerns. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Alevy abstained ffon~ participatinn in order to avoid a conflict of interest as he owned property within Open Space District No. 1. 10. RESOLUTION 18298 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 10, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS, AND SETTING JUNE 18, 1996 AT 6:00 P.M. AND JULY 16, 1996 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS - Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, this agenda item has been separated due to conflict of interest concerns. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Moot abstained from participation in order to uvoid u conflict of interest as he owned property within Open Space District No. 10. 11. RESOLUTION 18299 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS, AND SETTING JUNE 18, 1996 AT 6:00 P.M. AND JULY 16, 1996 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS - Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, this agenda item has been separated due conflict of interest concerns. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 12. RESOLUTION 18300 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 2-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, BAY BOULEVARD, AND TOWN CENTER, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS, AND SETTING JUNE 18, 1996 AT 6:00 P.M. AND JULY 16, 1996 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS - The city administers 24 open space districts established over the last twenty-five years. As part of this process, a levy of an annual assessment is necessary to enable the city to collect tUnds fi~r the proposed open space maintenance. The proposed action begins the process IZ~r fiscal year 1996/97. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 13. RESOLUTION 18301 APPROVING OPEN SPACE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO THE CLARK REAL ESTATE GROUP AT RANCHO DEL REY BUSINESS PARK LOT 6 AND 25 - On 3/13/96, the Clark Real Estate Group (Cinema Star) applied t~>r an open space encroachment permit to regrade approximately 4,500 square t~et of open space land at the south edge of Rice Canyon adjoining Lot 6 and 25 of Rancho Del Rey Business Park. Staff recom~nends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 14. RESOLUTION 18302 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $151,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY TO FINANCE THE REFUNDING OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT BONDS FOR SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INDENTURE OF TRUST AND A LOAN AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS AND THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN OF THE PROCEEDS THEREOF, RESPECTIVELY; AND RELATED MATTERS -SDG&E has requested that the City assist them to qualif~ to possibly retinance two series of industrial development bonds that become callable in the near fi~tore. SDG&E is simultaneously going through the process to quality the City of San Diego ibr the stone retinancing. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance) Pulled frum the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Rindone requested that the representative t~om SDG&E address the fi>llowing: 1) SDG&E had decided not to continue the process with the City of Chula Vista and agreed to proceed solely with the City of San Diego; 2) who selected the trustee and who was responsible tbr conduct on the part of the trustee; and 3) would SDG&E pay all legal costs if the City of San Diego protested or filed suit against Chula Vista as a result of the proposed action. · Pat Barnes, representing SDG&E, stated they had not agreed with the City of San Diego for their refinancing the next issuance. the decision had not been made. SDG&E was solely responsible tbr conduct on the part of the trustee and they had agreed to pay any costs that were incurred by the City of Chula Vista through the deal. Councilmember Rindone requested a written clarification from SDG&E. RESOLUTION 18302 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved ummimously. 15. RESOLUTION ***** AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $130 MILLION AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF POLLUTION CONTROL REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO REFUND CERTAIN BONDS ISSUED BY THE CALIFORNIA POLLUTION CONTROL FINANCING AUTHORITY TO FINANCE COSTS OF CERTAIN GAS AND ELECTRIC FACILITIES FOR SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INDENTURE OF TRUST AND A LOAN AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS AND THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN OF THE PROCEEDS THEREOF, RESPECTIVELY; AND RELATED MATTERS - SDG&E has requested that the City assist them in relinancing up to live series of Pollution Control Revenue Bonds similar to the retinancing item tbr Industrial Development Bonds. Staff' recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance) Mr. Goss stated the participants requested that the item be pulled from the agenda. 16. RESOLUTION 18304 RECERT1FYING THE FINAL SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) AND ADDENDUM FOR THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN - On May 14, 1996, the City Council certified the Final EIR. However, because of some technical problems, it is necessary to recertify, the Final EIR for the Otay Ranch SPA I. Staff' recommends approval of the resolution. (Special Pr{~iects Manager, Otay Ranch Project) END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 17. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT SUBAREA PRESERVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLANNING AREA - The City is preparing a draft Subarea Preserve Plan which is intended to implement the draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) for the entire Chula Vista General Planning area. The MSCP is a cooperative effort by the City of San Diego; the County of San Diego; the cities of Santee, Poway, and Chula Vista; other jurisdictions in the southwestern area of San Diego County; state and federal wildlife agencies; other special purpose agencies; and representatives of the land development industry and environmental organizations. Staff recommends Council provide policy direction regarding the Subarea Preserve Plan and direct staff to t'up, vard the draft Plan to the City of San Diego for inclusion into the environmental analysis document tier the MSCP. (Director of Planning) Ctmtinued frum the meeting of 5/14/96. * * * Councilmember Moot left the dais at 6:37 p.m. and returned at 6:40 p.m. * * * * * * Councilmember Rindone left the dais at 6:38 p.tn. and returned at 6:45 p.m. * * * Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, gave a brief history of the MSCP. Staff recommended Council endorse the policy positions to be included in the final draft MSCP plan. Staff would submit the draft Subarea Plan for the Chula Vista Planning Area to the City of San Diego tBr inclusion in the overall EIR ti~r the MSCP Plan. Staff would return in one week with a recommendation regarding a university site. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · Katy Wright, 900 Lane Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, EastLake Development Company, asked that prior finalization of the plan and development of the implementation agreement that several areas of ambiguity be clarified, i.e. how they would be impacted by the preserve should they have mitigation measures on site and how the property would be designated as either non-native grassland or agricultural. Agricultural did not have mitigation requirements. They would continue to work with staff. · Kim Kilkenny, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, CA, Village Development, supported the staff recommended plan. He was addressing the areas controlled by Village Development within Otay Ranch only. They had not been involved with staff regarding the university site as that was a separate negotiation between staff and the resource agencies. Much of the detail of the plan would be incorporated into implementation agreements and they wanted to work with staff during that process as it would be an important and delicate set of discussions. · Dale McFetridge, FDIC, stated they were involved with the Sunbow project and it was not clear what part of their prqject would be incorporated. Mr. Leiter responded that the areas proposed for designation as part of the preserve system were identical to the areas that were designated as permanent open space in the approved SPA Plan, approved tentative map, and the Section 7 permit that had been issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service fk~r the property. It was a portion of Poggee Canyon within their property. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Councilmember Moot questioned if the city was submitting two alternatives lbr consideration. Mr. Leiter responded that one alternative would reflect the city's adopted General Plan and General Development Plans; the second alternative would reflect additional open space being preserved per tentative agreements with the Baldwin Company, other non-Baldwin property owners in Otay Ranch, and Emerald Properties with San Miguel Ranch. Minutes May 2t, 1996 Page 6 Councilmember Moot stated that it appeared that the participation on behalf of the federal and state governments would be the donation of land as opposed to what it would cost to buy some of the land in private hands. Mr. Leiter responded that the t~deral and state commitments included possible conveyance of land under Bureau of Land Management control, however. the t~deral and state agencies brought forward the concept of using fex. leral and state funding programs ti>r purchase of land from private property owners. It would be a combination of land and funding. No one local jurisdiction would be specifically committed to fund land acquisition, but there would he a regional funding program pursued through a regional entity. The commitment being requested from local agencies was to participate and cooperate in putting together that regional funding effi~rt. The third part or' the acquisition program would he exactions which would require property owners to dedicate property into the system as part of their development approvals. Councilmember Alevy questioned what the fiscal impact might be to the city. Mr. Leiter responded that the direct costs wlmld be limited because most of the land in the Chula Vista portion of the preserve would be put in thrlmgh the exaction process. The preservation of the properties within the city's planning area would be handled through open space districts that were set up for individual projects. There would be some planning, coordination. and monitoring activities. Staff did not have a cost estimate at the present time. Councilme~nber Alevy questioned if existing uses such as farming would be grandfathered. Mr. Leiter stated that would be the stalVs intent, but staff need to consult with the wildlife agencies to see how it could be established. ® Ron Remple, 1416 Knight Street, Sacramento, CA, CA Fish & Game, stated approximately 27,000 acres would have to be purchased to fill oat the preserve design. The state and federal governments were committed to 13,500 acres of that. They were dedicating all the lands that the state currently owned either in the Department of Parks & Recreation (except for active recreation areas and land the Department of Fish & Game own) and the BLM. None of that land would count toward the 13,500 acres. Land exchanges would occur, but it would be land outside of the preserve area. They considered it a long term pro, ject. They would look at those that had threats to their land at the present time along with different thctors of biological importance. MSUC (Alevy/H~rton) to approve the staff recommendation: Council provide policy direction regarding the Subarea Preserve Plan and direct staff to forward the draft plan tn the City of San Diego for inclusion into the environmental analysis document for the MSCP. Staff to return with a report regarding the university site. 18. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 69 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEGMENT OF CALTRANS' BAY SHORE BIKEWAY FROM "F" STREET NORTH TO "D" STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 100 LINEAR FEET UNDER THE I-54 AND I-5 ON RAMP - Staff recommends the public hearin~ be continued indefinitely; it will be renoticed. (Director of Community Development) Mayor Horton stated the public hearing was being continued indefinitely and would be renoticed. 19. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 70 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 35 FOOT HIGH, 24 FOOT WIDE FREE-STANDING SIGN AT THE BROADWAY ENTRY TO CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER - Staff recommends the 13ublic hearin~ be continued to 6/11/96. (Director of Community Development) Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 7 Councilmember Alevy stated hc would abstain from participation in order to avoid a conflict of interest as the developer of the center was a client of his firm. MSC (Horton/Padilla) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 6/I 1/96, approved 4-0-0-1 with Alevy abstaining. 20. PUBLIC HEARING PCM-96-14; AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) I PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.15 ACRES BY COMBINING THE EMPLOYMENT PARK 1A AND EMPLOYMENT PARK 1B DISTRICTS INTO A SINGLE EMPLOYMENT PARK DISTRICT, AND MODIFYING THE PERMITTED, CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED, AND PROHIBITED LAND USES ALLOWED THEREIN -CINTI LAND PLANNING REPRESENTING VARIOUS PROPERTY OWNERS - Applicant is requesting that the parcels currently designated under the Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area I Plan as Employment Park 1A and Employment Park 1B (EP-1A and EP-1B) be combined into a new district called, Employment Park. This would entail creating the new land use district and deleting the two old districts and defining the permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited land uses applicable thereto. Staff recommends Council place t~rdinancc on first reading. (Director of Planning) Cnntinued from the meeting nf 5/14/96. ORDINANCE 2675 AMENDING THE LAND USE DISTRICT MAP ESTABLISHED BY THE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA I PLAN BY 1) CREATING ONE LAND USE DISTRICT FROM TWO EXISTING LAND USE DISTRICTS BY COMBINING SAID TWO DISTRICTS, 2) REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 27.15 ACRES OF LAND INTO THE NEWLY CREATED LAND USE DISTRICT, 3) DELETING TWO EXISTING LAND USE DISTRICTS, AND 4) MODIFYING THE PERMITTED, CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED LAND USES APPLICABLE THERETO FOR THE NEWLY CREATED LAND USE DISTRICT (first readiw,) Councilmember Moot questioned who the applicant was on the prqject. Kenneth Lee, Deputy Director of Planning, stated the application was filed by Cinti representing all of the property owners. It was his understanding that McMillin did not have any specific ownership within the designated area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · Gary Cinti, 2932 Poinsettia Drive, San Diego, CA, Cinti Land Planning, stated he was representing the property owners and was available to answer questiuns. There being no thrther public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. ORDINANCE 2675 PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER ALEVY, reading of the text was waived, passed and apprnved unanimously. 21. PUBLIC HEARING PCM-94-04; CONSIDERATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR THE SEGMENT OF EAST ORANGE AVENUE BETWEEN HUNTE PARKWAY AND WUESTE ROAD - The proposal consists of changing the street name to "Olympic Parkway." This ~s the first phas~ of an overall program to rename East Orange Avenue l~om Interstate 805 to Wueste Road. Future street name change phases will occur as the area along East Orange Avenue is developed. Staff rec~munends the Dublie hearing be continued to 5/28/96. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of 5/7/96. MSUC (Rindone/Horton) tn continue the public hearin/.l tn 6/04/96. Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 8 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · Bill Ayers, 44 East Mankato Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated he had addressed the Site Selection Committee t~r the Veteran's Home and spoke m the Governor regarding the Chula Vista site. · Linda Alvarez, 3882 Via DeLa Bandola, San Ysidro, CA, member of the Praise Chapel Christian Fellowship located at 3rd Avenue and Naples in Chula Vista, expressed concern with the adult book and video store located at 3rd Avenue and Naples. It was within 500 ft. of a residential area, a McDonald's children's playground. and the entrance was not covered or screened to prevent a view into the store from the public sidewalk or street. She also expressed her concern with crime associated with such a business. She request Council action in closing down the bookstore. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 22.A. ORDINANCE 2676 AMENDING SCHEDULE X, SECTION 10.48.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE - DECREASING STATE LAW SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS AND ESTABLISHING A SPEED LIMIT OF 40 M.P.H. ON PASEO RANCHERO FROM EAST "H" STREET TO TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD (fi~t readinto) - The City Engineer has determined that in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and traffic congestion. and fi~r the promotion of public safety, the speed limit on Paseo Ranchero between East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road be decreased from a prima facie 55 mph to establish a 40 mph speed zone, and install an all-way stop at Paseo Ranchero and East "J" Street due to limited sight distance available. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading and approve the resolution. (Director of Public Works) B. RESOLUTION 18305 AMENDING SCHEDULE II, SECTION 10.52.030 FOR SPECIAL STOP REQUIRED - THROUGH STREETS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS, CREATING AN ALL-WAY STOP AT PASEO RANCHERO AND EAST "J" STREET ORDINANCE 2676 PLACED ON FIRST READING AND RESOLUTION 18305 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALEVY, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. · John Howard, 150 Arbusto Corte, Chula Vista, CA, stated he supported the staff recommendation. He reconunended the addition of four-way stops nn East "J" Street in order to keep the speeds under control. 23.A. REPORT DENYING CITIZEN REQUEST FOR ALL-WAY STOP AT EAST "J" STREET AND PASEO LADERA, OVERRULING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SAFETY COMMISSION TO INSTALL THE ALL-WAY STOP - Based on the provisions of the Safety Commission Policy, whenever the Sai~ty Comnussion and the City Engineer differ on the recommendation of a traffic related issue, both parties have the right to appeal the matter to the Council for final resolution. The report is the City Engineer's appeal to overrule the recommendation of the Salary Commission to install an all-way stop at this intersection. Staff recommends Council accept the report and deny the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of East "J" Street and Paseo Ladera and place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Public Works) Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 9 B. ORDINANCE 2677 AMENDING SECTION 10.48.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, INCREASING STATE LAW SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS AND ESTABLISHING A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 M.P.H. ON EAST "J" STREET FROM RIVER ASH DRIVE TO PASEO RANCHERO (tlrst reading} Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, gave a brief history of the request f~r the all-way stop on East "J" Street. Staff realized that as the area developed the intersection was likely to require an all-way stop and staff proposed monitoring the intersection and re-evaluate the need in 12 months. The Safety Commission voted to support the installation of an all-way stop. · Christopher Machitar, 1020 Red Oak Place, Chula Vista, CA, stated there was a serious problem at Paseo Ladera and East "J" Street. When traveling north there was a site distance problem to the left. He presented a petition from the residents in the area supporting the all-way stop. He requested that Council approve their request. Councilmember Alevy stated he agreed with the speaker. It was a curvy intersection with a steep hill with a crest. If there was a perceived need tier a stop sign at that intersection he supported th~ installation of an all- way stop. Mayor Horton and Councihnember Rindone agreed with the speaker and Councihnember Alevy. ORDINANCE 2677 PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and apprnved unanimnusly. File the report which would suppnrt the Safety Commission recommendation to install the all-way stnp. 24. RESOLUTION 18306 APPROVING THE CREATION OF THE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL COMMERCE ALLIANCE (BECA) MICRO LOAN PROGRAM - The BECA Micro Loan Program is a partnership with the Bankers Small Bnsiness Community Development Corporation and Action International. The City will act as a guarantor fi~r loans made to incubator tenants through either of the lending partners. Th~ City would provide 50% guarantee, up tn $25,000, lbr each loan as long as li~nding permits. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) Cheryl Dye, Economic Developznent Manager, presented a brief history of the program. · Jeanette Moorhouse, 6 15 Gravilla Street, La Jolla, CA, Practical Environmental Risk Management, BECA Advisory Board, Environmental Business Roundtable of the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce, stated the Advisory Board had unanimously approved the prograin. Councilmember Rindone questioned if there was a default if the money wonld be from CDBG funding. Ms. Dye responded the money that would provide the guarantees was CDBG money that had been appropriated by Council. Councilmember Rindone questioned South Bay Community Services role in the program. Ms. Dye responded that they were not involved in the prograin. Councilmember Rindone stated he could support the proposal with the change, page 24-5. Item 6, regarding th~ MLP Advisory Committee, i.e. "recommended" by the Co~nmunity Development Director and "confirmed or approved by the City Council." He limit Council needed that direct input. Ms. Dye responded that staff recommended that it be structured as advisory to staff as opposed to being appuinted by Council to give it additional flexibility. If it was advisory to staff and appointed by staff the Brown Act requirements would not apply. The MLP Advisory Cotnmittee was intended to look at the collateral requirements and not to look at the credit worthiness although they would have the ability to do that. After staff had reviewed the package, the package would go to the MLP Advisory Conunittee, aBd then th~ lender would take it to his loan committee ti>r approval. Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 10 Councilmember Moot stated it was a difficnlt isstte in trying to structure the organization in a way that it could function more like a business and be more reactive. He did nnt t~el that it would prevent Council from having representation as they would always have representation on the actual board. Ms. Dye stated that Cmtncil would he advised of the appointments prior to them taking effect. Councilmember Rindone stated he did nnt want to abrogate the responsibility of the elected officials to provide oversight. RESOLUTION 18306, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived. The MLP prol~ram include the formation of the Chula Vista MLP Advisory Committee to be recommended by the Community Develnpment Director and apprnved by Cnuncil. Councilmember Moot stated he ctmld not support the motion because staff was trying to remove a layer of bureaucracy which often made it ditlicult tot such programs to go tierward. Mayor Horton stated that the consortium of banks had parameters tu t~>llow and she felt comlbrtable with the staff recommendation. It was not just a city program, but a regional program. Councilmember Rindone stated he supported the program, but he was concerned that the MLP Advisory Committee was not advisory to the Conncil. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND. RESOLUTION 18306 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALEVY, reading of the text was waived, passed and apprnved 4-1 with Rindone oppnsed. 25.A. RESOLUTION 18291 AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 BUDGET, APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MOU'S - Subsequent to the adoption of the budget, Council approved MOU's with POA, IAFF, CVEA, and WCE and revised the benefits resolution lbr Unrepresented and Middle Managers. As a result of these actinns, additional funding was required but not appropriated, and the budget was not amended. In coordination with this action it is also recommended that all department budgets be evaluated in accordance ;vith the Council's policy on budget transfers. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Budget Manager) Continued frnm the meeting of 5/14/96. 4/Sth's vote required. B. RESOLUTION 18292 AMENDING THE FRINGE BENEFITS FOR MIDDLE MANAGERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 C. RESOLUTION 18293 TRANSFERRING FUNDS BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUDGET TRANSFER POLICY Dawn Herring, Budget Manager, clarified that the action was not intended to imply that there were not on-going negotiations currently in progress with WCE and middle managers for the current fiscal year. Councilmember Rindone stated Council had retYrred the work furlough agreement back to staff and questioned when that would be brought back to Council. Dave Byers, Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations, responded that staff had met with CVEA to discuss whether they were interested in reopening discussion on the item. Staff had not received a formal response, so the Director of Personnel had sent a letter to CVEA setting a meeting for next week regarding the item. Councilmember Rindone questioned if the middle managers were the only group at 30%. Mr. Goss responded that executive management was also at 30%. It was the unused portion of the market basket. Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 11 Ms. Herring intbrmed Council that the 25% or 30% was actually based un the original value of the market basket for that group. Councilmember Rindone requested clarification in writing tbr all units, i.e. base amount or remaining balance. RESOLUTIONS 18291, 18292, AND 19293 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER PADILLA, reading of the text was waived, p~tssed and apprnved unanimously. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: 5c and 14. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUS1NESS 26. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S): No report given. 27. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Ratification of Appointments: Youth Commission, Brandon Tnck; Resource Conservation Commission, Teresa Thomas; Child Care Commission, Michelle Castognola; and International Friendship Commission, Daniel Wood. MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to ratify the appuintments of Yuuth Cnmmissiun, Brandtin Tuck; Resource Conservation Commission, Teresa Thomas; Child Care Commission, Michelle CastnRnola; and International Friendship Commission, Daniel Wm~d. b. Authorization to hire legal counsel. Councilmember Moot requested that the item be heard out ¢>t' order as he felt the Council needed outside legal advice regarding procedural matters. He had contacted the attorney that had handled personnel matters in the past regarding his availability and he had indicated he would be available later in the evening to assist Council with procedural matters. He did not propose that the item be discussed, but make a phone call so the attorney could be present tier the discussion. Under Section 503 of the Charter the Council could hire outside legal counsel. MS (Moot/Hnrton) to hire outside legal counsel filr advice regarding prncedurul nmtters. * * * Mr. Boogaard lea the dais * * * Councilmember Rindone felt there was something going on that all members of the Council were not aware ol. He respected the Mayor's npinion, bnt he conld not vote on a motion that had not been discussed, or determined that there was a need. Councilmember Moot stated he had looked into the matter and 1~11 there were procedural issues tn handling the item and if the proper procedure was not followed it could potentially trigger ramifications to the city. * * * Councilmember Padilia arrived at 6:07 p.m. * * * Councilmember Rindone stated he was unaware of what Counciln~ember Moot "looked into", but when all people on the dais were not aware of what he had looked into, what the basis was, and who he proposed to call was inappropriate. M i n utes May 2 I, 1996 Page 12 Conncilmember Moot proposed to call Mr. Levy who had been previously attthorized to handle personnel matters. He f~lt there were procedural issues in respect to handling the item and felt Council needes. l legal advice. The procedural issues included whether Council should act in open or closed session, whether the person involved was entitled to a liberty hearing. and what would be appropriate to comment on publicly in the context of discussions ti~r Item 27c. Councilme~nber Padilia stated his concern was in the timing and the manner in which the item was brought tbrward. He limit Council needed to discuss what the concerns were and whether or not it was appropriate at the present time to retain counsd. He ti:lt the retention of legal counsel sent the message that there was very serious action being contemplated. Mayor Horton stated the statement nnder the Mayor's Report was self explanatory. The item stated "consideration of discipline and discharge" and that was what she intended to do. She fdt it would be beneficial for all Councilmembers to be briefed on the snbject so that they would not do any thing that would jeopardize the city, the employee, or anyone inw~lved. Councilmember Padilia stated that seeing the item tBr the first time when calendared, he was interested in knowing the issues. It was public employee who had. to his knowledge, at least on record, had no serious disciplinary or perti~rmance problems. He had given dedicated service to the city since he had known him and there had not been significant comment from the Council during his last evaluation. The Council should sit down with the employee and discuss the concerns or prepare a memorandum documenting the concerns for Cormoil review. He t~lt the Mayor owed it to the Council to state what her concerns were. He felt it interesting that the Mayor was requesting Council permission to retain an outside attorney to consult tbr the present meeting only to give legal advice on the matter of Mr. Boogaard. He requested an explanation regarding invoices from a law firm of over $2,000 in legal expenses that were not authorized by Council but were incurred by the Maynr. The inw~ices, which were pnblic record, showed the Mayor had been conferring with the law firm since 1/96 without the knowledge or consent of Council. He requested an explanation. Councilmember Rindone stated the Mayor had discussed with him her dissatisthction with the city attorney and his services. During that discussran he had shared with the Mayor that he totally disagreed with the Mayor's assessment and that Mr. Boogaard's performance had been exemplary and that he did not concur with the Mayor's proceeding unless there was other infi~rmation beyond what had been discussed. Mr. Levy had also served in the capacity of representing Mr. Boogaard personally in another case. He questioned why Council would select an attorney that appeared to have a conflict of interest. Mayor Horton responded Mr. Levy was hired to represent the Council and not Mr. Boogaard. Councilmember Rindone asked Mr. Boogaard if at any time Mr. Levy had represented him on a personal basis. Mr. Boogaard responded from the podium and stated he believed he had tBrmed, in connection with a tort claim against him, an attorney client relationship with Mr. Levy and he objected to Mr. Levy representing the city in an action against him. They had confidential discussions in which he had consulted with him in connection with the defense of that matter. He believed that Mr. Levy would have an ethical conflict of interest to represent an interest against his in the proceeding. Councilmember Moot questioned who Mr. Boogaard contemplated would act as legal counsel tbr the purposes of the proceedings on Item 27. Mr. Boogaard responded that he was not proposing to advise the Conncil on their need lbr legal counsel, it was the Council's judgement to make. He had asked fBr specifics and had received none. If the Council felt they needed legal advise, it was his understanding that the Council would tbllow the normal consultant selection policy. Councihnember Moot questioned if it was Mr. Boogaard's desire to handle the matter in open session, or if he would agree that the matter could be handled in closed session as the Brown Act would permit with his consent. Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Boogaard stated he had not been provided a statement of charges, he was not sure what it was that Council wanted to discuss. He preferred, tentatively, an open airing of the matter, i.e. a public discussion. Councilmember Moot questioned if Mr. Boogaard understood the difficult position it put the Council in, I.e. an open airing discussion without legal representation on behalf of the Council. Mr. Boogaard responded that he was being asked to provide legal advice as to whether the Council needed an attorney and he had to stand down from that position because of his potential conflict of interest. That was a matter the Council would have to evaluate. Mayor Horton recommended that Council move liarward and hire legal counsel tu advise them on procedure only and how Council could move fi~rward in a prudent manner and not jeopardize the city. Councilmember Padilia stated he did nnt want the city to becume liable, but he had not seen one documented complaint against the city attorney. It was his understanding that the Mayor wonld convey what her concerns were at the meeting and then Council would discuss retaining legal counsel. He would resist hiring outside legal counsel until he 'knew what was going on and would also resist making a final decision tm a matter of such magnitude the same evening he heard the concerns fi>r the first time. A reasonable protocol should be li~llowed. He was not resisting retaining counsel, he was pointing out that they already had. Councilmember Alevy stated the motion allowed the Council the opportunity to discnss with an attorney the legal implications of the situation. He t~lt more comti~rtable in knowing what the procedure was and what the Council could or could not do. He wanted closed sessinn legal advice which would aw>id arguing in public and enable the Council to take the right steps. Befi~re Council moved any fhrther, they needed advice regarding the guidelines to follow. Councilmember Padilia stated the bill froin the law firm indicated that the Mayor had already asked a number of the very same questions. Since she had retained counsel withont Council's approval, he requested that the Mayor share the advice given. Mayor Horton stated she would share that intT,~nnation at a later point. Councilmember Rindone stated the Mayor had not indicated that she was interested in terminating Mr. Boogaard at that time, and he indicated that her concerns did not warrant anything further. Hc qnestioned if the motion requested legal counsel, and specifically, Mr. Levy. Councilmember Moot stated t'or the purpose of the present meeting, Mr. Levy was the only one that was readily available. When he saw the item on the agenda, he tblt the Council needed legal advice and he called to see if Mr. Levy was available. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-2 with Padilia and Rindone upposed. * * * Mr. Bnugaard returned tn the dais * * * Mayor H0rton stated that the attorney had arrived, and Council wottld meet in closed session to discuss ltem 27B which related to Item 27c. * * * Mr. Buogaard left the dais * * * Mr. Boogaard restated, not as the city attorney, hut as an interested party that he believed that Mr. Levy had a conflict of interest after having an attorney/client relationship with him in the past. He was not consenting to a private discussion of his personnel evaluation at the present time. Mayor Horton stated Council would not be going into closed session to discuss his evaluation, they would be discussing procedure and what position the city would be in. Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 14 Mr. Boogaard stated he wanted to preserve the record and that he was not threatening litigation and knew of no anthority for Council to retain counsel in closed session. Cuuncilmember Rindone stated the discussion of process was not allowed under the Brown Act. He was concerned that it wotdd be a violation and participation by Council would result in a different action. Councilmember Moot stated that he did know when an individual wanted discussion in open session, as opposed to the way it was typically done, i.e. in closed session~ someone could say something in open session that would trigger a right to a liberty hearing. He had read several lawsuits as a result of that very mistake. He felt there was a possibility and reasonable anticipation of litigation. Councilmember Rindone stated he understood Councilmember Moot's concern, but it was not the issue he had raised. The issue he addressed was the legality of meeting in closed session under the Brown Act. Mr. Boogaard had stated that there was no threat of litigation which was one of the conditions necessary to meet in closed session. Councilmember Moot questioned if Mr. Boogaard was waiving any privacy rights he had or the right to a liberty hearing in the event something came up during open session. Mr. Boogaard stated he did not. Cimncilmember Padilia questioned whether the Cimncil was allowed nnder the Brown Act to meet in closed session to discuss process only. Mr. Levy stated there had to be an actual litigation or a threat of pending litigation. He did not have the Brown Act hefi~re him to see if where communications in open session could lead to a litigation initiated by the city attorney who was not waiving that, but saying that he had no intention to liftgate. It was a very close call, but because Mr. Boogaard was stating that he was not threatening litigation, it was probably a violation of the Brown Act to go into closed session at the present time. Mayor Horton questioned whether the item should be researched befbre a decision was made. It was her understanding that if certain inf;:>nnation was divulged, other litigation could occur. Mr. Levy stated there was no question that discussion in public about Mr. Bnogaard could give rise to litigation. He felt Mr. Moot was trying to act in a pragmatic manner to have it in closed session so something would not be said that could give rise to litigation. Technically, under the Brown Act, if there was no threat of litigation and if a discussion of procedure alone did not give rise to a threat of litigation, it would probably be a violation of the Brown Act to go into closed session to discuss process or procedure alone. Mayor Horton questioned if Mr. Levy felt comfbrtable in advising Council on how they should proceed recognizing that Mr. Boogaard felt there was a conflict. Mr. Levy t~lt the conflict issue was critical and if there was a conflict he should not be addressing the Council at all. He questioned if the sole basis that Mr. Boogaard was asserting a conflict because Mr. Levy had been his counsel either in the past or currently. Mr. Boogaard responded that they had fi~rmed an attorney/client relationship in connection with the tort claim that had been filed against him. They had engaged in confidential discussions when discussing strategy in connection with that matter in a confidential relationship. He f~lt Mr. Levy was acting both as his attorney and fi~r the city in that matter and as such, to represent the city at the present time in an action potentially against him would be a violation of the professional rules of conduct. Mr. Levy stated he had to disagree with Mr. Boogaard. When Mr. Boogaard raised the issue in the past, he had made it very clear to him that at all times he had represented the city and Council. There had been unity of interest at times when there had been claims threatened against Mr. Boogaard and the city, but at no time had Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 15 he represented Mr. Boogaard. Separate counsel had been retained to represent Mr. Boogaard. If it was on the basis that Mr. Boogaard felt he had represented him, he disagreed as he had never been his attorney. Mr. Boogaard stated it was not his responsibility to determine if Mr. Levy had a conflict on any other basis. He asserted any basis, becanse he believed that he was in an attomey/client relationship with Mr. Levy in connection with that matter. He was asserting it on the record and would assert it beti~re the State Bar of Ethics if he had to. Councilmember Moot did not think that it was thir to put Mr. Levy in such a pusition. It was clear that Mr. Boogaard was reserving all possibilities to be able to file lawsuits against whomever he wished whenever he wished. The more appropriate actinn would be to hire an attorney other than Mr. Levy to advise Council. He recomn~ended Council discuss a procedure to hire outside legal counsel. Councilmember Padilia agreed with Councilmember Moot. He felt it wise to avoid any and all potential conflicts. Mr. Levy agreed with Councilmembers Moot and Padilla. The threat from Mr. Boogaard that he would assert claims out of his relationship heightened the risk of litigation liar the city, and it was prndent tier the city to retain separate counsel so that issue would not arise. Councilmember Moot stated due tu Mr. Boogaard's apparent desire to preserve his rights against Mr. Levy, and since the city would have to indemnify Mr. Levy, he questioned it' it was appropriate to go ~nto closed session to hire an attorney. Mr. Levy felt it was appropriate due to threatened litigation. Because Mr. Boogaard had stated that if the Council went forward with Mr. Levy, he would preserve any and all rights, he felt under the Brown Act that was sufficient to constitute a threat of litigation. Mr. Boogaard stated he was speaking about claims belbre the State Ethics Bar. Mr. Levy stated Council could discnss the retention of counsel in open session: or determine that Mr. Boogaard's insistence in preserving all of his rights ;vhile trying to take the ptlsition that he was not threatening litigation was sufficient under the Brown Act tu permit Council to gtl in under the threat oI litigation exception. He felt both were viable options. Mr. Bougaard had made it clear that if Council pursued the latter that there would be potential litigation arising ont of it, becanse he believed that it violated the law. Councilmember Moot suggested that the city manager be appointed, along with a member of the city attorney's shaft in conjunction with an ad hoc committee of the Council, to hire an attorney and work out the specifics. Councilmember Rindone stated he was perplexed with Councihnember Moot's sense of urgency since he had not discussed it with the Mayor as she had already discussed it with him. Had she done that, it would have been a violation of the Brown Act and he was certain that had not taken place. Because of his previous discussions with the Mayor. he did not t~el her concerns warranted such heightened anxiety or potential termination. Councilmember Moot stated it was very difficnlt tier people to work under such circumstances and also difficult for the city attorney's office to work nnder snch circumstances. He also lelt it was cruel and unusual punishment for the families of those inw~lved to drag it on and keep it hanging over people's heads. Once it was a matter of open discussion, it was not fair to staff. the city, or people inw~lved to let it drag on. Councilmember Rindone reconunended that the Mayor contact the attorneys and set up the interviews by the full Council. Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 16 MSUC (Rindone/Alevy) to authorize the Mayur to contact Arlene Prater of Best, Best & Kreiger; Dan Cassidy of Leibert, Cassidy and Fierson; and Richard Whitemore of Whitemore, Johnson & Bolanos to set up interviews by the Council. * * * Mr. Buogaard returned to the dais * * * c. Public employee performance and conduct, consideration of discipline or discharge - City Attorney. Item was not discussed. Continued to the meeting of 5/28/96. 28. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Rindone: RESOLUTION 18294 TAKING A POSITION TO SUPPORT SCA 26 NOT ADDRESSED IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM - continued from 5/14/96. RESOLUTION 18294 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanirnnusly. Councihnember Padilia: a. Concern regarding retention of legal services incurring legal costs by Mayor without Council consent. Councilmember Padilla stated he was seeking information regarding invoices liarwarded to the Finance Department from the law firm of Luce Foreward, Hamilton and Scripps. In examining the invoice of 1/31/96, there were numerous entries regarding conferences with client. reviewing documents and applicable Brown Act law, memorandum, and issues. It was his understanding that the Mayor had been engaged with the law firm since January and up nntil the last several weeks on the matter of advice, procedure, and legal consultation regarding the city attorney. Luce Forward was not on a standing retainer to represent the city in personnel matters and had not been retained by Cormoil in the matter of Mr. Boogaard. He questioned under whose anthority the Mayor engaged the law firm and incurred legal expenses llar the city. Councilmember Moot questioned the city attorney as to whether discussions of that type would be under attorney/client privilege. He questioned if it would be appropriate to discuss the item in closed session to preserve the attorney/client privilege. Mr. googaard responded that Item 29.2 listed the matter of paying the bills Mr. Padilia was referring to as well as getting additional appropriations. Therefore, it was listed tBr closed session discussion if Council wished to discuss it. If it dealt with the content, it should be discussed in closed session. Mr. Padilia clarified that his question was solely limited to Mr. Levy's explanation about the particular items that inchfred costs to the city and what the particular inw~ices were for. They did not include any discussion Mr. Levy had with him relative to any advice he may have given in the course of those contacts. Mr. Boogaard stated it that appeared that the invoice was sought in solicitation of advice regarding him and he felt it appropriate to recuse himself from evaluating it further. * * * Mr. Boogaard left the dais * * * Councilmember Padilia stated if there was going to be a lengthy debate over whether or not the documents were public or privileged, he would not get into that at the present time. He was of the opinion that the invoices that M inures May 21, 1996 Page 17 required payment of public funds were public documents, and it was within his privilege to question the origin of any matter that he was requested to vote on regarding payment. Councilmember Moot ti~lt it appropriate to raise the issue after Council hired an attorney. He did not l~el Council should proceed without legal advice. Councilmember Padilia stated he would be asking the question again in the future as he had grave concerns that the Mayor had acted completely outside the scope of her authority on that and related matters. Upon confirmation by counsel he had consulted, they were public documents and he would be releasing them and referring a complaint to the Board of Ethics for the city, In the interest of time and further discussion of the issues in closed session, he concluded his remarks. Another concern was that the Mayor had been engaged in conversations since January with the city attorney regarding severing his employment with city. He t~lt the Council was entitled to an explanation. Mayor Horton stated she had not asked the city attorney to leave, but accepted his offer. Mr. Boogaard went to Mr. Levy and told him that he had been looking tier a job, would continue to look t~,>r a .job, and requested that the Mayor take her item off the agenda so it wonld not hurt his reputation or humiliate his family: she agreed. She also told him that if nothing happened in the next 90 to 120 days, she would bring it back to Council. Councilmember Padilia stated in talking with the city attorney, it was not something willthlly done but something done to avoid having to deal with forced termination. He did not t~el it appropriate fi~r those conversations to be taking place without bringing it to the Council, at least as a courtesy. Mayor Horton stated that Mr. Boogaard requested that she not bring it tl> Council. She xvould not have waited so long if Mr. Boogaard had not reqncsted it. Councilmember Padilia stated he was not satisfied with the answer and retained the right tt~ cmmnent and provide information to the contrary. b. Concern regarding discussions by Mayor with City Attorney regarding his separation from employment and related issues without Council authority; possible violations of City Charter. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT I 1:35 P.M. to the regular City Council Meeting on May 28, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A meeting of the Redevelopment Agency convened at 9:32 p.m. and attjourncd at 10:47 p.m. CLOSED SESSION Council recessed at 9:30 p.m., met in Closed Session at 10:55 p.m., and reconvened at 11:35 p.m. 29. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant tu Government Code Sectiun 54956.9 2. Anticipated litigation pursuant tu Government Code Sectiun 54956.9 · Tiger Development Two/Baldwin - motion for relief from stay. · Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Scctit>n 54956,9: 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Give Instructions tu Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 18 Proposed sale of property: 2.71 acre portion of Marina View Park, located at south side of J Street. west of Bay Boulevard. Chula Vista, CA 91910. Negotiating Party: John D. Goss/Chris Solomon on behalf of the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Larry Killeen, Executive Director, San Diego Unified Port District. Under Negotiation: Price and Terms. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Guvernment Code Section 54957.6 ® Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee tbr CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management. Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire Fighters {IAFF}. Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 30. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in closed session. RESOLUTION 18307 APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR PERSPECTIVE LITIGATION MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to appropriate $25,000 ~r additional investigation tees in connection with personnel cases. by: Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk Vicki C. Sto~erquist, ~MC, Deputy City Clerk