Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/09/30 (2) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ~.'IY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL Monday, September 30, 1992 Council Chambers 11:40 a.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: Councilman Malcolm ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Vicld C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk The San Diego County Board of Supervisors adjourned their portion of the meeting at 11:40 a.m. Mayor Nader informed Council that the following meetings were scheduled: Monday, October 12th at 6:00 p.m. to consider a change in the EIR review process; a regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, October 13th at 6:00 p.m. in which it appeared that there would not be a quordm present; a Redevelopmerit Agency meeting on October 15th at 4:00 p.m. at which one member of the Council had stated he could not attend; and a regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, October 20th at 6:00 p.m. at which it appeared that everyone could attend. Councilman Rindone stated that since the item had not been placed on the agenda he felt a motion was in order finding that due to the urgency the item should be considered by Council. Mayor Nader asked the City Attorney whether it should be handled through the City Clerk and the Mayor. City Attorney Boogaard questioned whether the issue was to schedule the hearings after the 12th. Mayor Nader stated that was not the issue because other members would not be able to attend the meeting of the 15th. City Attorney Boogaard stated that it should be set, by a special agenda item, with a fmding that was typically made for off-agenda discussions to set those meetings. Mayor Nader stated it was not an issue of setting the meetings but of changing meetings that were already set, or changing the agenda items that were already set for those meetings. City Attorney Boogaard questioned at what time the matter arose, when it was found that it could not be discussed at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the 6th. Mayor Nader stated that he did not feel that they knew the totality of the circumstances until that morning as various members informed the Clerk of when they would be absent. Councilman Rindone stated that one of the members of the Council was not present and his presence at one of the meetings would be important. He suggested that the issue be placed on the regularly scheduled meeting of October 6th. Minutes September :30, 1992 Page 2 Mayor Nader stated he would agree as scheduhng of meetings was already on the agenda under City Manager's Comments. City Manager Goss asked staff if there were any hearing notice requirements that needed to be met or would have an impact. CouncilwomanHortonquestionedwhethertheBayfrontreviewcouldbeheldonOctoberlSth. Councilman Malcolm had informed her that he would not be able to attend the meeting of October 13th. Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager, stated he did not feel there would be a problem in delaying the decision until the6th. Staffs concerns were renoticing. Iftherewas ameeting on the l3th, thenotices were for that meeting. If it was continued to the meeting of the 15th, staff could convene the meeting and continue those items until the 15th. Therefore, he did not feel there was a problem with the notices. The items could not be moved to the meeting of the 12th due to minimum noticing requirements. City Attorney Boogaard questioned whether there would be sufficient time to notice the meeting on the 15th if Council wished to continue the matters, i.e. Bayfront and autopark. Mr. Morris recommended that staff not renotice and save those costs, open the public heating by the Clerk and have her continue the items to the meeting of the 15th. City Attorney Boogaard stated the Clerk's responsibility was only to adjourn the meeting when there was a lack of a quorum. She had no power to open and continue hearings. Mr. Morris stated that one other option would be to have Council continue the meeting of the 6th to the 15th. City Attorney Boogaard stated it would be safer to renotice the hearings in the paper. Mayor Nader stated there was another problem, Councilman Rindone had informed him that he would not be at the meeting of the 15th. That would mean that Council would have to proceed without him on the 15th or that it be scheduled for the meeting of the 20th when a full Council would be present. MSC (Nader/Moore) to find that there was a matter of urgency, the knowledge of which arose to late to be posted on the agenda. Approved 3-1-1 with Rindone opposed and Malcolm absenL MS Cdorton/Moore) set the meeting for October 15th. Mayor Nader felt it was a matter of enough importance that if any Councilmember wanted to be there they should be accommodated if at all possible. He suggested that rather than passing the motion on the floor, that staff consult with him and Councilman Malcolm, who was on the Coastal Commission, as to what the impact of a delay from the 15th to the 20th would be, if any. If it appeared that such a delay could damage the City then he could use his authority as Mayor to call a special meeting and have it immediately noticed. If not, it could be scheduled for the regular meeting of the 20th. He questioned whether that would be a problem. City Attorney Boogaard stated it would not be a problem but staff needed to have the action taken by the 5th of the October in order to meet the noticing requirements. Minutes September 30, 1992 Page 3 Councilmm~ Moore stated that for discussion purposes the only problem he had with the Mayor calling a special meeting was a short change to the public. He questioned whether there was time for the word to get out to the public if a special meeting was called. Mayor Nader stated it would have to be called in time for noticing to be done. City Attorney Boogaard stated it would be renoticed, ten days in advance in a paper of local circulation. An emergency meeting was 24 hours notice and a special meeting was any meeting other than a regularly agendized meeting. SUB~-I'rI'UTE MOTION: (Nader/Moore) staff be directed to consult with Coastal Commksione~ Malcolm and conclude by a date acceptable by the City Attorney as to whethe= there would be any poteatial prejudice to the City in delaying the Bayfront hearing to October 20th, if not, agendize the itean for the 20th. ff prejudice to the City was found, the Mayor was to be notified immediately so a spedal meeting could be called. Approved 4-0-1 with Malcolm absent. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:54 A.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on October 6, 1992 at 4:00 p.m, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk