Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/06/04MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 4, 1996 4:09 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councihnembers Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Horton Jotm D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Proclamation expressing congratulations to the United States Army on celebrating their 221st anniversary. Charles K. Nichols, Colonel, U,S. Army, Retired and Chapter President of the Association of the United States Army, accepted the proclamation. b. Proclaiming the week of June 2 through June 8, 1996 as Management Week. Maria Farrage, President of the Rohr Chula Vista Chapter of National Management Association, and Kathy Baker, Executive Vice President, accepted the proclamation. c. Oath of Office: Chester S. DeVore and Jean A. Rogers - Board of Ethics. The Oath of Office was administered by City Clerk Authelet to Chester S. DeVore and Jean A. Rogers. CONSENT CALENDAR (Item pulled: 7) BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. Mayor Horton stated that the Public Employee Performance Evaluation/Public Discipline/Dismissal/Release would be heard out of order. Mr. Boogaard left the dais. Employee · Larry L. Marshall, partner, Foley Lardner Weissburg & Aronson, stated tblh~wing public testimony Council would meet in closed session. Section 500 of the Chula Vista Charter specified that "The city manager, city attorney, and city clerk served at the pleasure of the Council and each could be removed by the Council at any time by a majority vote by members of the Council." The eft~ct of that section was that it created an "at will" employment relationship, i.e. both parties could terminate employment at any time without cause. Legally, no reasons had to be given for termination. The Charter was clear, and state law supported the fact, that the Council was entitled to have the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk that the m~jority wanted as part of their team at all times. The Brown Act specifically provided Ibr holding closed sessions "to consider the evaluation, performance, or dismissal of a public employee." If a final action was taken on employment status of a public employee in closed session it would be reported publicly, including the vote of every councilmember present. The Brown Act provided for closed sessions in those circumstances to permit elected officials to speak freely and frankly without fear of harming anyone's reputation or creating liability lbr the city by reason of what was said in closed session. The public discussion could not be as full and frank as it needed to be tbr the public interest without risking liability to the public. A written request had been received from Mr. Boogaard, acting in his private Minutes June 4, 1996 Page 2 capacity. There was a demand that the personnel evaluation and any discipline or discharge be conducted in public session. That was not required in the Brown Act, therefore, Cooncil was not prepared to do that in a public session. Demand was also being made for written notice 24 hours in advance. That was a reference to the right to receive written notice of any specific written complaints from any member of the public or any employee against the employee and at that point the employee had the right to be made in public. Council was not entering into such a session, it was a personnel evaluation and consideration of dismissal, and written notice was not required if they were not dealing with specific complaints against the public employee. There was a demand for a meaningful pre- removal property interest hearing and liberty interest hearing and he had advised Council that one did not have a property interest as an at-will employee, and did not have a liberty interest requiring a hearing unless certain things had occurred so impugning a persons reputation so as to prejudice their standing in the community and making it difficult for them to make a living. It was his determination that such had not occurred and that Councilmembers, including the Mayor, had been circumspect in the matter just so such reputational matters would not arise and create a right to a liberty interest hearing. There was another request that if Council went into closed session to discuss the matter that it be tape recorded, and he advised Council that the request was only required of a Council under the Brown Act under a court order. There was also a filllow-up request that notes be taken if not recorded. An additional request was to continue the item lbr 5 months until an elected Council was seated "so they would have the authority of the voters to act." The advice of the city attorney heretofore had been that the Council as presently constituted, elected and appointed members, had always had the right to act in matters involving the city, and that had not changed. Finally, there was a reqnest that if there was a termination that he be treated fairly by being paid accrned sick leave and a severance payment. The severance would be the subject of negotiations, and as to accrued sick leave, the city policy and all regulations would he fbllowed with no special treatment for any person terminated. Councilmember Rindone stated when Mr. Marshall was interviewed he had been informed that Council had given another at-will employee an opportunity to discuss concerns doring his review. He had been asked at that time what bearing that would have on the present action in or out of closed session. Mr. Marshall responded that doring the interview he had no particular knowledge of the circumstances. Since that time he had learned quite a bit and had read materials connected to that review. His advice remained the same, it coold set a precedent. If the same procedure was not tb[lowed someone could use that as legal ami°nunition in a legal forum against the city. From his review of the circumstances. it appeared that it was not a deliberate decision on the part of the Council to proceed in a particular fashion, but that Council responded to written criticisms prepared by an individual Councihnember and they proceeded in response to that. It did not represent a considered decision or adoption of a procedure and it would be hard to set a precedent with a single circumstance. Councilmember Rindone stated the individual inw~lved had requested, upon receiving items for evaluation purposes, an opportunity to respond to those queries and requested a period of time to prepare responses. Council had provided that at-will employee that opportunity and he questioned if that had an impact or set a precedent. Mr. Marshall replied that if Council saw it as setting a precedent it did, but he was only familiar with precedents set by courts and followed by courts where one decision should follow and be consistent with the previous one. No one expected councils to be as consistent as courts. His advice was that if Council did as described by Councilmember Rindone, they went above and beyond what was required of the Council and the city in dealing with the three management personnel. Mayor Horton noted that in that particular instance there were specific charges being made and in the present situation there were no specific charges being made. Mr. Marshall stated it was his understanding that Council was talking about a general performance evaluation and the other instance did begin with very specific criticisms on very specific items. Councilmember Rindone questioned how a general performance evaluation was conducted if concerns were not raised. Mr. Marshall replied that concerns could be raised, but the level of specificity would be much lower. It would be discussing general performance, i.e. the relationship with the Council. The Council, acting through a majority of the Council, had a right to the team it wanted in place throughout it's tenure. That was all that was at issue, therefore, there may not be a need to go into any specifics. It was his tinderstanding that it was not put on the Minutes June 4, 1996 Page 3 agenda to address any particular complaint that had come to the attention of the Council from a t~llow employee or a member of the public. Councilmember Padilla stated that more than one other at-will etnployee had an evalnation in which he/she had been allowed to respond to Council in regards to their performance evaluation. Mr. Marshall responded Council had compromised the city's rights in dealing with it's own management employees. Councilmember Padilia questioned if it was Mr. MarshaWs advice to Council, given the commentary on the public record, that those comments did not constitute a liberty interest in the case of Mr. Boogaard. Mr. Marshall replied that was his assessment at the present time after review of all the records he had been provided and upon speaking to each member of the Council. Councilmember Moot questioned if Mr. Boogaard had made any representation to him, or through his counsel, that he was willing to make a promise to the taxpayers, that in exchange for an open and public hearing he would not bring legal action against the city. Mr. Marshall responded that Mr. Boogaard had not, but he had not made a specific request in that regard. Mr. Boogaard stated the Council and city did not have anything to worry about in terms of a lawsuit as long as they did not defame him and granted him a liberty hearing. He t~lt prudent advice wonld be for the Council to speak the truth and do so in public. He was not promising not to sue the city. · Jim Taft, 16237 Wikkiup, Ramona, CA, stated he had not been allowed to speak on behalf of Mr. Boogaard at last weeks meeting. He respected Mr. Boogaard, knew him to be of impeccable character, honest, and a fine attorney that had served the city well. · Robert Pennet, M.D., 1883 Cabernet Drive, Chula Vista, CA, requested that the citizens of the community have an opportunity to hear the arguments and defense. It was the tidr, appropriate and moral way to approach the issue. He felt there could be other people wanting to address the issue that were not in attendance because they thought Item 20 was at the end of the agenda and meeting. · Rosario Cochrane, 662 Forester Lane, Bonita, CA, read a letter into the record from her husband, Douglas Cochrane. Mr. Cochrane felt there was a conflict of personalities between the city attorney and the Mayor. Until the issues were clearly defined, the majority of the public limit the item should be postponed. · Bruce Boogaard, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated he was speaking in his private capacity and requested that his personnel evaluation and any disciplinary action resulting therefrom be in open session. He believed he was entitled to that under Government Code Section 54957 which provided that Council could conduct an evaluation and discipline in closed session "unless the employee requests a public session." Upon advice of counsel, Council was relying on the general charges versus specific charges distinction, but he/~lt that was misguided. Council had done "session splitting", i.e. engaged in specific charges in public thereby communicating the charges to other members and then was reigning the general concerns tBr personnel evaloation in order to take the action the majority intended to take in closed session. Section 500 of the Charter stated he served at the pleasnre of the Council, but Section 305 of the Charter stated that "No member of the council shall directly or indirectly, by suggestion or otherwise, attempt to unduly influence the city manager or other appointed official in the performance of their duties." That was the only section in the Charter that provided that a violation could constitute misconduct for which the oft~nding councilmember could be removed from office. He suggested that the manor in which Council proceeded was the ultimate tbrm of intimidation of an appointed official. They had not told him any specific concerns. He knew that there were situations in the past in which Conncil did not appreciate some of his decision, but he did not know if those were the reasons fi~r Council action. Members had made statements in the press that he had lied about thcts or manipulated the Cormoil and that was a specific enough tact to injure his reputation and allowed him to demand that Council tell him specific charges so he could respond. In order for him to earn a living, he felt the only way he could do that would be to have the matter heard publicly. The public would understand that he was always acting in the best interest of the city, not .just the Council or city manager. It was incredible to believe that there were no specific concerns and that Council wonld be going into closed session to Minutes June 4, 1996 Page 4 only do a personnel evaluation. The attempt to fire him was an extension of the culture of the city and Council to suppress the independent professional judgement of top management. It was a culture of intimidation, one that selected yes men and women, and caused anyone that had the courage to express professional advice to look elsewhere for employment. · Barbara A. Worth, 1260 Third Avenue, #221, Chula Vista, CA, read a letter from Robert Flaugher, 521 Orange Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, President of MOPAC, which stated MOPAC was the largest block of voters in the city. He noted that a flyer had been passed out in the mobilehome park at the instigation of Councilmember Padilla's family members. He had not personally received a copy and did not believe they were distributed to other mobilehome parks. The flyer urged public support for Mr, Boogaard at the 6/4/96. He felt the flyer was an underhanded tactic. Mr. Boogaard was not the friend of mobilehome parks as stated in the flyer. Ms. Worth stated as a member of various boards and cmnmittees, only the Mayor and Council were aware of the problems with the city attorney. The public had only heard one side of the issue. · Dennis Rowley, 208 Sea Vale Street, Chula Vista, CA, l~lt the citizens were interested fairness and ethical behavior. He urged Council to consider the precedent set on personnel issues in the past, consider fairness and give Mr. Boogaard an opportunity to get the issues aired. · Robert Crane, 1925 Otay Lakes Road, Space 196, Chula Vista, CA, stated he was not taking sides, but was disappointed that the issue had been allowed to proceed as thr as it had. Council should handle personnel issues in closed session, He felt Mr. Boogaard was a fine attorney, but that there were philosophical differences that could not be solved. · Patty Davis, 1375 #17 Call~jon Montefrio, Chula Vista, CA, felt that employee performance evaluations should be done in private. She questioned why an attorney had not been arranged to advise Council at their 5/21/96 meeting when the city attorney knew he would have a conflict, why he did not object to Mr. Levy before Council called him into the 5/21/96 meeting but waited until he had arrived before objecting, why at the 5/28/96 meeting Mr. Boogaard agreed to allow Mr. Levy to represent the city after objecting the week before, and why the city spent thousands of dollars to delete part of a sexual harassment complaint by Ms. Fritsch as attorney/client privilege. She recommended Council address the issue in closed session in order to avoid liability. Mr. Boogaard stated Ms. Davis' testimony constituted new and specific charges and he requested permission to respond. Mayor Horton stated Mr. Boogaard was not being recognized. · Berlin Bosworth, 502 Anita Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated the current situation was intolerable because it was dysfunctional. Council needed to resolve the matter and move on with the business of the city. Morale in the city was at its lowest ebb since he had been with the city. The praise and thanks from the Mayor and several Councilmembers went a long way in helping to stem the tide of employee dissatisfaction. Protecting the fiduciary interests of the city was both morally and ethically the only proper consideration for Council. Steve Palma, 176 Montgomery Street, Chula Vista, CA, felt each Councilmember should look at themselves as voting member. Councilmember Rindone requested Mr. MarshaWs recommendation for either meeting in open or closed session. Mr. Marshall responded that he had not seen such things conducted in open session in his experience. The Council, by going into closed session, would be proceeding as every council he had experience with had done in the past. Councilmember Rindone stated that on the advice of counsel he would participate in closed session if that was the majority wish of the Council. Mayor Horton stated Council would adjourn into closed session to discuss Public Employee Performance Evaluation - Pursuant to Government code Section 54957 and Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. Minutes June 4, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Boogaard questioned whether he was invited into closed session. Mayor Hurton responded that he was not. * * * Council met in closed session at 5:11 p.m. and reconvened at 6:58 p.m. * * * Mr. Marshall reported that two actions were taken by Council in closed session: 1) to terminate the city attorney effective immediately with one month salary/benefits - approved 3-2 with Alevy, Moot, and Hurton voting yes and Padilia and Rindone voting no; 2) Council created an ad hoc com~nittee of Members Alevy and Padilia to work with special counsel in negotiation of the details of a formal separation agreement - approved unanimously. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were not reportable actions taken in Closed Session on 5/28/96. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. 6. ORDINANCE 2678 AMENDING SECTIONS 15.04.060 AND 15.04.145 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REVISED LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE PLANS (second reading and adoption} - In December 1994, the Council updated the city Landscape Manual. Certain minor procedural amendments to the Municipal Code are needed in order to retlect consistency with the updated Manual. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning) 7. RESOLUTION 18323 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE ON CENTRAL AVENUE AND DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FROM GOLF COURSE PROPERTY, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION - During heavy rain years, there have been periods to time that Central Avenue was closed to traffic for 60 days or more due to the Sweetwater Dam overflowing. The County is planning to build a bridge at this location which will allow the water frmn most storms to flow under the bridge. Staff' reconunends approval of the Resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Parks and Recreation). 4/51h vote required. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated staff had not entered into negotiations with American Golf at the present time. He had talked to the vice president of American Golf regarding the concept of a bridge and how it would benefit the golf course users. American Golf stated they were interested in entering into negotiations. RESOLUTION 18323 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reuding of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 8. RESOLUTION 18324 APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY FOR JULY 4, 1996 AND ENTERING INTO AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT - The City is in the process of finalizing plans li>r the Fourth of July fireworks display to be conducted on the Chula Vista Bayfront. A contract with the vendor supplying and launching the fireworks has been finalized, and the City has been asked to enter into an Indemnification Agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District as part of their Tidelands Activity Permit. Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 9. RESOLUTION 18325 APPROVING LEASE WITH SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. FOR OFFICE SPACE AT 315 FOURTH AVENUE - The City purchased the office building located at 315 Fourth Avenue from the Redevelopment Agency in September of 1995. Leases with South Bay Community Services lbr office space that they currently occupy in that building were recently finalized and require approval. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) Minutes June 4, 1996 Page 6 10. REPORT CHULA VISTA LIVE STEAMERS REQUEST TO AMEND ROHR PARK MASTER PLAN AND EXPAND TRACK SYSTEM INTO WESTERN AREA OF ROHR-SWEETWATER PARK - The Chula Vista Live Steamers are requesting an amendment to the Rohr-Sweetwater Master Plan adopted in 1986 to expand the railroad tracks to the western area of Rohr-Sweetwater Park. Staff recommends Council approve the report. (Director of Parks and Recreation) * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * This item was set for time certain at 6:00 V.m. l l. RESOLUTION 18318 APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 INCLUDING BOTH THE FY 1996/97 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE FY 1996/97 CONSOLIDATED PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) - On 5/7/96, Council received public comment on the draft Consolidated Plan for FY 1996/97 and reviewed all project and programs being considered for CDBG and HOME funding. The 30-day comment period to review' the drab Consolidated Plan began on 4/18/96 and ended 5/17/96. All public comments received have been considered and, if deemed appropriate, integrated into the final version of the Consolidated Plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) Continued from the meeting of 5/28/96. Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator, gave a brief background of the item. * * * Mayor Horton leli the dais at 7:05 p.m. * * * Councilmember Padilia referred to the ADA related projects and questioned why barrier removal was not recommended for approval. Mr. Arroyo responded that it was a program fi'om the County of San Diego and the funds would have served a number of sites in Chula Vista through a consultant. It was recommended that it not be funded due to other demands on CDBG funds and the fact that a substantial amount of money had been recommended for the city ADA on-going program. Councilmember Alevy questioned if Jobs for Youth was included in consolidated youth services. Mr. Arroyo responded that it was a separate proposal that was not included in the youth network that was being recommended tbr funding. Councilmember Alevy questioned if a child care element was being funded. * * * Conncilmember Padilia left the dais at 7:07 p.m. * * * Mr. Arroyo replied that the youth collaborative included a child care component, i.e. the Vista Square Healthy Start and Southbay Family YMCA programming. David Gustafson, Assistant Director of Community Development, stated child care was included. Chula Vista Connection received $12,000 last year and did not apply fnr further funding. Staff took an agency by agency approach, even within the collaboratives. The argument had been made that the money that went to Chula Vista Connection should be given to the other child care components, but staff could not find sufficient money. Staff gave the coIlaborative the amount they requested last year and did not subject them to the 3 % cut many of the agencies received. Staff felt they were given the maximum money possible. * * * Mayor Horton returned to the dais at 7:12 p.m. * * * Councilmember Moot questioned if the providers for senior services had considered a collaborative to make the money go further. Minutes June 4, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Arroyo felt the process would be major tbcus over the next year. Staff recognized that there were other components that could benefit from collaborative efforts. Councilmember Alevy stated the career center at Southwestern College had not been funded last year had received a recommendation of $10,000 and $6,000 under two separate elements. He requested clarification. Mr. Gustafson responded that the Southwestern collaborative would receive $6,000 under public services and $10,000 from capital improvements and would not have any impact on fiends available in the 15% cap that was distributed to other public services. Staff f~lt it was a viable economic development program and public services program. If funded at a lower level it would not have been a viable project. · Mary Otero, 2859 E1 Cajon Boulevard, San Diego, CA, San Diego Home Loan Counseling Service, Executive Director, stated they requested $7,000 because 15% of their clientele was from Chula Vista seeking real estate education and information. * * * Councilmember Rindone left the dais at 7:13 p.m. * * * · Mary Scott Knoll, 625 Broadway #1114, San Diego, CA, The Fair Housing Council, stated she was appreciative of the support the Council continued to give to Fair Housing. RESOLUTION 18318 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALEVY, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 3-0-2 with Padilia and Rindnne absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 12. 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 is the first phase of an overall program to rename East Orange Avenue from Interstate 805 to Wueste Road. Future street name change phases will occur as the area along East Orange Avenue is developed. Staff recommends the public hearin,.., be continued indefinitely; it will be renoticed. (Director of Planning) Cnntinued frmn the meeting of 5/7/96. * * * Councihnelnber Padilia returned to the dais at 7:23 p.m. * * * MSC (Alevy/Moot) to continue the public hearing indefinitely, approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent. 13. PUBLIC HEARING PCM 95-01; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN INCLUDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT - The first Otay Ranch SPA Plan governs Villages One and Five. SPA One covers 1,061.2 acres generally located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future SR-125 alignment. The Otay Ranch SPA One application is the first SPA/specific plan submitted to implement the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP jointly approved by the City and County on 10/28/93. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading and approve the resolution. (Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project) Continued from the meeting uf 05/28/96. A. ORDINANCE 2674 APPROVING THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PCM 95-01B) (first reading) B. RESOLUTION 18286 RECERTIFYING THE SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) AND ADDENDUM FOR THE OTAY RANCH SECTION PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN AND APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL Minntes June 4, 1996 Page 8 PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN (PCM 95-01), WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUPPORTING PLANS, NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND THE GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT * * * Councihnember Rindone returnexl to the dais at 7:25 p.m. * * * Gerald Jamriska, Special Planning Projects Manager, stated Council had not taken action on the resource management plan conveyance issue. He then reviewed the modifications presented to Council. Staff felt the amendment met the city's, property owner's, and applicant's concerns. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · Mike Woodward, 555 S. Flower, Lns Angeles, CA, representing West Coast Land Fund, asked Council to continue action until the bankruptcy situation had been resolved. The West Coast Land parcel would be burdened with 50 % of the school acreage in SPA I, 35 % of the park acreage. 51% of the affordable housing units, 20 % of the single family acreage, 32% of the community public facilities acreage, and 35% of the multi-family acreage. Staff had indicated that high density property was not highly marketable in the future. Councilmember Alevy questioned when the company took possession of the land. Mr. Woodward responded that they did not have ownership, they were stayed by the bankruptcy action. A notice of default had been filed September 1995 and the foreclosure sale had been scheduled for February 8, 1996 which was stayed by the bankruptcy. They did not become involved until the beginning of 1996. Prior to that time their foreclosure sale had been scheduled and they were allowed by stipulation to participate in the proceedings on the theory that they would be the land owner in Febn~ary. · B. Suzanne Farley, 300 Lakeside Drive, Oakland, CA. representing Estate of Patrick, was not present when called to the dais. · Donald R. Worley, 101 West Broadway, San Diego, CA, representing The Birch Foundation, SNMB, Inc., was not present when called to the dais. · Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, Village Development and Baldwin Builders, stated they supported the staff recommendation regarding the conveyance plan. They also appreciated the efforts of the Estate of Patrick and the Foundation. All the property owners of Otay Ranch on the Western Parcel were in concurrence with the language and felt it was consistent with the Board of Supervisors action. It was important that the concept be incorporated into the conditions and the Phase II RMP. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. ORDINANCE 2674 PLACED ON FIRST READING AND RESOLUTION 18286 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALEVY, reading of the text was waived. Mr. Kilkenny stated it was his understanding that Council would take tentative action on the minor issues and then adopt the ordinance and resolution consistent with the Council's prior tentative action. The gated community issue was extremely important to them and they were prepared to make a presentation to Council. If Council felt they needed more time, they could act on the SPA and request that staff bring the gated issue back with the tentative map. MOTION RESCINDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALEVY. Councilmember Moot questioned if brought back at the tentative map level, if there would be a different concept regarding numbers of homes behind gates and type of product. Minutes June 4, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Kilkenny responded that they were willing to work with Council and staff to refine the concept to meet with Council's favor. Council could act on the SPA and request staff, in anticipation of a tentative map being brought forward in 4-5 weeks, to docket in 1-2 weeks a special item regarding their proposal. It was a complex issue and they did not feel that they had done a good job in explaining it to Council. Councilmember Padilia and Mayor Horton felt it was appropriate to examine the issue of gated communities at the tentative map level. ORDINANCE 2674 PLACED ON FIRST READING AND RESOLUTION 18286 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALEVY, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated she had a sewer leak into her home. She questioned why the city crew did not bring out meters to check her home and why the sewers were not being cleaned on an annual basis. · Ralph B. Zahn, 262 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated he should not have been cut off when speaking at last weeks meeting. His comments did not relate to the hiring of outside legal counsel for the city. Mr. Boogaard had treated the mobilehome parks with respect and had done more than a thir job for the city. He questioned whether the realtors ran the city. · Bill Ayers, 44 East Mankato Street, Chula Vista, CA, County of San Diego Veterans Advisory Committee, informed Council that there would be an Outreach Program at the Sharp Memorial Hospital on Saturday, June 8 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. * * * Council met in closed session at 7:52 p.m. to discuss Anticipated Litigation - Fritsch vs. the City of Chula Vista; Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista; and Signitlcant Exposure to Litigation - Council reconvened at 9:42 p.m. * * * BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 14. REPORT PRESENTATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) BUDGET MSUC 0torton/Alevy) to continue the report to the meeting of 6/11/96. 15. RESOLUTION 18326 ADOPTING A CITY COUNCIL POLICY ON INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS FOR RESIDENTIAL STREETS - On 1/24/95, Council requested comments from the Safety Commission on a Portland, Oregon report entitled "Reclaiming Our Streets." On a companion neighborhood traffic safety item, Council on 3/28/95, requested that the Sat~ty Commission consider the appropriateness of speed humps on residential streets as a part of their review of the Portland report. Staff reconm~ends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) MSUC (Rindone/Padilla) to continue the item to the ,neeting of 6/I 1/96. 16. REPORT REGARDING CURRENT DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SHARP HEALTHCARE REGARDING SHARP'S PROPOSED TRANSACTION WITH COLUMBIA/HCA - In December 1995, City staff became aware of a letter of intent between Sharp HealthCare and Columbia/HCA. Minutes June 4, 1996 Page I0 Its purpose was to begin discussions between Sharp and Columbia which would convert Sharp Chula Vista and other related Sharp facilities to a for-profit operation. Staff recommends Council agree in concept with the proposed deal points as outlined in the report and approve the resolution. (Assistant City Manager) RESOLUTION 18327 APPROPRIATING FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIRlNG A CONSULTANT TO ASSIST STAFF WITH TIlE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED SHARP/COLUMBIA TRANSACTION AND DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH SUCH CONSULTANT - 4/5th's vote required. MSC (Rindone/Hortun) to receive the report and instruct the City Clerk to include the back-up information when the report was brought back to Council. Councilmember Alevy stated he would abstain fi'om participation in order to avoid a conflict of interest. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-0-1 with Alevy abstaining. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Item pulled: 7. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 17. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. Mr. Goss stated budget hearings would be held on June 10 at 6:00 p.m. and June 12 at 6:15 p.m. in the Conference Room. June 20 had also been set aside for a budget meeting if necessary. b. Mr. Goss informed Council that the Parks & Recreation Department had been selected to receive the 1996 Hazel Goes Cook award for outstanding contributions to education. c. Mr. Goss brought up the issue the appointment of an interim city attorney and recruitment for city attorney. Councilmember Rindone suggested that the city manager return in one week with recommendations. In the interim Ann Moore would act as interim city attorney. 18. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - None 19. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Rindone a. Concerns regarding attorney fees paid for the City Manager. Councilmember Rindone requested that the item be trailed to the meeting of 6/11/96, · Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated she did not believe the citizens should pay for an attorney to represent employees. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 9:58 P.M. to a Special Meeting/Worksession on Monday, June 10, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room and thence to the regular City Council Meeting on June 11, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Minutes June 4, 1996 Page 11 20. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista. 2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54956,9 · Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1. · Fritsch vs. the City of Chula Vista. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Title: City Attorney - Pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54957 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant tit Government Code Section 54957.6 · Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee tier 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: Execntive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 21. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - Council appruved appropriating up to $20,000 for legal services. Except for the foregoing, there were no other observed reportable actions taken in closed session. by: Respecttifily sub~mtted, Vicki C. Soderquist, CM~eputy City Clerk