HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/08/01 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL
OF TIlE CITY OF CIIULA VISTA
Tuesday, August 1. 1995 Council Chambers
4:05 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councihncmbers Alcvy, Moot, Padilia. Rindone (arrived 4:28 p.m.), and Mayor
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss. City Manager: Bruce' M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIlE FLAG. SILENT PRAVER
3, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 25, 1995 (Special Joint Meeting/Workshop of the City Conncil,
Growth Management Oversight Commission, and Planning
Commission). July 25, 1995 (Regnlar Meeting of the City Council),
and July 25, 1995 (Ad. iourned Special Joint Meeting of the City
Council/Redevelopment Agency)
MSC (Horton/Alevy) to apprnve the minute.,4 nf July 25. 1995 (Special Joint Meeting/Workshop of the City
Council, Gruwth Mtumgement Oversight Comnrissiun, and Plunning Cummissioo), July 25, 1995~ as tunended
(Regular Meeting nf the City Cnuncil). und July 25, 1995 (Adjonrned Special Joiut Meeting of the City
Council/Redevelopment Agency) as presenled.
Councilmember Moot stated he had jnst been inli~rmed that Woodward-Clyde was a client of his law firm and
requested that his "yes" vote on Item 15, on the Consent Calendar, iin July 25, 1995 (Regular Meeting) be changed
to an "abstention" due to a potential conflict of interest because it wah a potential income source to the law firm.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: Resource Conservati{m Commissitm - Robert Yamada: Sa~tv Commission ~ Harriet
Acton; Tnwn Centre Protect Area Cmmnittee - Ywmne Al~odaca; Veterans Advisory Commission - Doc Anthony
Anderson; and, Youth Conlmission - Kathrinc Kemp. The oath of tlflice was administered by City Clerk Authelet
to Robert Yamada, Harriet Acton, Yvonne Apodaca, Doc Anthony Andersl,n, and Kathrine Kemp.
b. Proclaiming August 1, 1995 as Citizens Adversity Support Team day in the City. The Proclamation
was presented by Councilmember Padilia to Dr. Emerald Randolph tm behalf of the Citizens Adversity Support
Team.
c. Edwardo Serrano, representing the Friends iff Ussuriysk. updated C{luncil regarding the potential visit by
the Mayor of Ussuriysk. Mr. Serrano presented Council with a letterof appreciation from the Mayor of Ussuriysk.
He requested assistance from the City in establishing a wdcllming committee tilt the official visit.
Mayor Horton questioned if they had been working with the International Friendship Com~nission.
Mr. Serrano stated they had been working with the IFC and he wanted to organize a more lbrmal meeting regarding
the visit.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Item pulled: 9)
* * * Cuuncihnetnber Riudlme urrived at 4:28 p.sn. * * *
Minutes
August 1, 1995
Page 2
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, reading of the
text was waived, passed and oppro~ed tnmnimously wilh Councihuemher Alevy aftstaining un Item 10.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter fronl the City Attorney stati~lg tfi~tt tilere x~ere no observed reportable actions taken in Closed
Session un 7/25/95. It is reconunended that the letter be r~ceived and filed.
b. Letter requesting waiver of any license reqniremeuts tiw Tiffany PTA Craft Fair to be held on
i1/18/95. As is consistent with past practice by the City Conncil, it is recommended that this waiver be granted.
c. Letter of resigm~tinn f'rom James L. Baker - International Friendship Commission. It is recommended
that the resignation be accuptcd with regret and th~ City Clerk he directed to post immediately according to the
Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Liblary.
d. Letter from the Joanna Maida Childrens Leukemia Foundation requesting tfie use of the empty lot
next to the golf course nn Bonita Road ~w a I'und raiser. It is reconmlended that this reqnest be denied.
Mayor Hotton questioned if the recommendation to deny the request was dae to liability issues for the City.
Mr. Goss responded that it could he a liability isstte if approved. Staff f~lt a yard/garage sale of that magnitude
was not compatible with the activities in the area. especially during the weekend. Concern was also expressed
regarding traffic congestion oll Bonita Road. Fie was lurthcr c{incerned regarding a policy matter that if it were
approved it wonld set a precedent.
6. RESOLUTION 17986 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE EASTLAKE
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHICH FACILITATES THE TRANSFER OF ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
TO NYPRO SAN DIEGO, A HIGH TECH COMPANY LOCATING IN THE HIGH TECH/BIO TECH
ZONE IN EXCHANGE FOR CERTAIN CONCESSIONS TO EASTLAKE - On 4/18/95, Council approved
in concept an agreement witb the EastLake Development Company providing ~r EastLake to pay for NYPRO
development related fees as an economic development incentive, in exchange fi~r the City providing EastLake with
certain concessions. Council direct¢d stall to piepare the necessary agreement. Staff reconunends approval of the
resolution. (Director of C{immunity Development)
Item was continued tu the meeting of 8/15/95 at the request nf EastLuke and staff.
Councilmember Moot stated it was his nnderstanding that the Board of Directors for NYPRO would have voted by
8/15/95.
Mayor Horton stated she had checked into the reqnest tbr a continnance and there would not be a problem in
continuing the item to 8/15/95.
7. RESOLUTION 17987 APPROVING CLOSURE OF THlRD AVENUE FROM "E" TO "G"
STREETS FOR THE 1995 THIRD AVENUE FESTIVAL ON AUGUST 13, 1995, WAIVING SIDEWALK
SALES ORDINANCE, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE FEES FOR THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN EVENT - The Chula Vista Downtown Business
Association is reqnesting permission to close Third Avehoe between "E" and "G" Streets in order to conduct the
Third Avenue Festival on Sunday, 8/I3/95. f'rlm~ 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The t~stivities tbr the event will include
live entertainment along with approxinlately 100 arts. crMis, and fi>od bl~oths. Staff recommends approval of the
resoh~tion. (Director of Community Devdopment) r"
8. RESOLUTION 17988 APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE SAN DIEGO SYMPHONY
ORCHESTRA. AND ENTERING INTO AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO
Minutes
August 1, 1995
Page 3
UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT - The
City is planning to host the San Diego Symphony Orchestra file a clmccrt at Marina View Park on Sunday, 8/6/95.
Staff recormnends approval of the resoluti{m. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
9. RESOLUTION 17989 DELEGATING THE CITY'S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSING TO THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS - Recent changes to the Business and Professions Code
involving alcoholic beverage licensing att~ct the local governing b~ldies of cities. In order to expedite new
applications resulting from the legislation as well as to provide staff time to research and reconnnend action to
Council, staff is reconnnending that certain duties be delegated by Council to the Police Department for a period
of six months. Staff recommends approval of the resohttion. (Director of Planning) Pulled from the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Alevy stated he was very ccmcerned regarding alcohol in general after losing several friends to
alcohol related accidents. It apl~eared that the City was bcmg given the ability by the State tt~ delegate the granting
of liquor licenses.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, responded that m cases where the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC) determined tbat there was already an uver ctmcentration of licenses within a particnlar geographic
area the City had the authority to approve or deny an additional license in that area by determining whether there
was public convenience or necessity that snppt~rted that license.
Councilmember Alevy stated the letter had been dated 3/8/95 and requested notification within 30 days. He
questioned if the City had made that notification.
Mr. Leiter replied that staff did not beconl~ aware of that particuhu' change until last month. They verified with
the State that whenever the determinatilm was made, given the hot that the City was acting upon it, that would be
acceptable.
Councilmember Alevy stated he was very confident of staff, bill t~lt the CiInncil had been elected to address items
vital to public safety and public interest and illat there should be a process fi>r public hearing and deliberation.
Neighbors within a neighborhood should be notified and given the, opp{irtunity to he heard. He felt Council would
be remiss if they did not retain the ability to make that decision. He did not lcel that renewals were a problem, but
new applications should go beli~re Conncil.
Mr. Leiter stated since the law was passed in March the City had received three applications. Staff did not know
if that was typical. Staff wanted to return in six mllnths be'cause they would then hav~ a better idea of what the
activity level was and could advise Cuuncil af what the impact would be if all the applications were brought to
Council for action.
Councilmember Rindone reconm'~endcd that Council take an intermediary step. He did not want to see the elected
officials abdicate their responsibilities. He agreed with tilt staff r~c{immendatil~n of having the Police Department
review the applications, but bring tht'm to Council f't~r concurrence, i.e. agendizud on the Consent Calendar. He
requested that the City Attorney bring li~rth amended language filr the resoluti~>n.
Mr. Boogaard questioned if the recommended change was that the Police Chief make recommendations to the City
Council and that the Council would during the six months make tilt actual findings of public convenience.
Councilmember Rindone stated that was curfeet. That way tile Connell would not abdicate their responsibilities,
it would give Council the opportunity to monitor the progranl, itltrodnce to the Police Department the concept of
review, and at the end of six mmlths it c{luld gu back to Cimncil as a policy issne to see if Council wanted to
continue the practice.
Councilmember Moot felt another way to handle the applications would be to give the discretion to the Police
Department to make the decision with an appeal process to Connell fi~r the applicant or any member of the
Minutes
August l, 1995
Page 4
community. It would he similar to the discretion given to the Zoning Administrator to decide certain issues with
an appeal process to the Council.
Conncilmember Padilia agreed with Councihn~mher Moot's cllmments. The new legislation stated that the local
.jurisdictions could make the deternm~ations and that the governing bodies could "delegate". Given that the authority
was already transt~rred to the City and it also provided that C{lunciI could delegate that authority there would
already be the ability tier an applicant to appeal a decision to the Council because the primary authority had been
given to the City and then delegated. He questioned if there was an impIied right of appeal.
Mr. Boogaard replied that there was not an automatic implied right of appeal. Staff had intended that there be the
right of appeal to the Council and it was cited in Paragraph 3 of the resolution.
Cottncilmember Padilia 1~It the existing language in the resolution addressed the concerns expressed. The initial
responsibility and determination should be delegated to the Police Chief and there was a right of appeal to Council.
He did not t~el the appeal process would he a burden.
Mayor Horton questioned if the resolution gave the right of appeal to any member of the public.
Mr. Boogaard stated it did not and recommended that in Paragraph 3, the words "or any interested party, including
any member of the City Council" be added.
Councilmember Moot l~lt the reclmuuendation ',~as adequate as it addressed the concerns expressed by
Councihnember Alevy.
Councihnember Rindone l~It the moditicatilms rec<lnm~ended by Cimncihnemhers Mont and Padilia were acceptable.
He requested that it he directly repol ted t{1 Council (ul the Consent Calendar tier six months. After that time Council
could then determine if the reporting was necessary. Beli~re the attthority was delegated there should be a trial
period.
Mr. Boogaard recommended that Paragraph 3 of the resolution be amended to read "The Police Department shall
provide ABC, the applicant, and City Cramoil written notice of determination" which would trigger the 10 day
appeal right.
Mayor Horton felt the comments by Councihnemhers Padilia, Moot. and Alevy were correct. With the amended
language the public, applicant, or Couucil had the ability to appeal the Police Chiet~s determination.
Councilmember Rindone supported the recommended amend ments, hnt |~It there should be a period of time to test
the proposal.
Councilmember Moot stated Council received a weekly report from the Police Department regarding activities and
felt during the six month trial perind the applications received and decisions made could be included on that report.
Councilmember Rindone felt Council needed to see how the process met the needs of the City. The amendments
may meet those needs, but he f~lt Council needed the trial period which was the thrust of the staff recommendation.
Mayor Horton stated the six months was a trial periled and Council could then see if what was in place was
acceptable. That would allow Council time Ill evaluate the situation and determine whether it should be a permanent
process.
Councihnember Alevy stated he did not have a prl~hlem with authority being given to the Police Chief for renewals,
but it was important that if there was a new applicant that the Police Chiet~s determination be brought to Council, f""
at least on the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Padilia stated if the Police Chief made the determination and it was placed on the Consent Calendar
for the six month period, it could be pnlled by the Council. He did not know how difl~rent that was from having
Minutes
August 1, 1995
Page 5
the Police Chief giving Council a written report on what his decision was. He t~lt ultimately that those types of
routine decisions belonged to the Police Chief. Because Council was discussing a trial period it did not matter to
him whether the Chief made a report of his decision or if his decision was listed on the Consent Calendar. He
wanted to avoid a public situation where the Chief recommended a determinaticm on an applicant and the Council
pulled it every time with a public discourse as Ill whethc'r it was a good decision. If that were to happen the
authority should be given to Clmncil with the authority to the Police Chief being removed.
Mr. Boogaard recommended that Para,draph 2, last sentence, be amended to read "The Police Department shall
provide ABC. applicant, and City Council with written notice tff determination and shall report said determination
to the Council on the Consent Agenda during the six month trial period ". Paragraph 3, should be amended to read
"The applicant or any other interested party, includin~ any member of the City Cm~ncil, the right to appeal the
Chief's determination to the City Council". He 1~11 the ten day appeal period should be extended to 25 days because
of the time it took to Set a matter reported to Council throu,gh the normal agenda process. That would allow
sufficient time fi~r the appeal process.
RESOLUTION 17989, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, readinll nf the text
was waived. hragraph 2, last sentence, nmended to read "The Police Department shall prnvide ABC,
applicant, and City Council with written netice of determin;tlim~ and, in the case of new applicatiuns repnrt
said determination to the Council on the Consent Agenda dt|riug ihe six mmllh trial perind". hragraph 3,
mended to re~td "The applicant or any nther iuleresled pm'ty, including m~y member of the City Council,
may appeal the Chiet's determination to the City Cimncil by lilinll nn appeal with the City Clerk within 25
days of mailing uf notice". Item tn be brought hack tu Cormoil in six mnntbs as phiicy issue.
Councilmember Moot questioned if only the determinations of ne\v applications wlmld be agendized.
Councilmember Rindone stated it would only pertain to new applications. Reuewals would be repurted to Council
as information items, but cotlld be appealed to Cramoil.
VOTE ON MOTION: appruved unauinluusly.
10. RESOLUTION 17990 ORDERING CItANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT IN REASSESSMENT DISTRICT OF 1995 - On 3/14/95, Ccmncil established Assessment District
Number 87-1 (East "H" Street) in the Rancho del Rey devehlpment and levied assessments for the acquisition and
financing of certain infrastructure improvements serving the d¢velopm¢nt pursuant to the Municipal Improvement
Act of 1913. Final development of SPA 3, located south cff East "H" Street, is occurring making it necessary to
modify the Engineer's Report. Staff recommends approval of the res¢llutitnl. (Director of Public Works)
Councilmember Alevy abstained frnm participation due tn a poteutial cmdlict nf interest due to the location
of his residence to the pro. ject.
11. REPORT CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE
RESOLUTION PETITIONING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) FOR
ANNEXATION OF THE OTAY RANCH ANNEXATION NUMBER ONE CONSISTING OF PLANNING
AREAS ONE AND THREE OF THE SPHERE STUDY AND THE OTAY RANCIt HOUSE PROPERTY
AND DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE THE PETITION AND ANNEXATION APPLICATION WITH LAFCO -
The areas of annexation tinder consideration are Planning Areas One and Three, as specified in the Sphere Study,
and the Otay Ranch House property. This is a total of 9,905 acres. Planuing Area One is part of the Otay Valley
Parcel of Otay Ranch, and the Inverted "L" property cllnstitutes Planuing Area Three. The parcels are currently
within the City's General Plan area. Staff recommends Council accept the report and approve the resolution.
(Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project)
RESOLUTION 17991 PETITIONING TIlE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR
THE ANNEXATION OF THE OTAY RANCII ANNEXATION NUMBER ONE
!~ * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
Minutes
August 1, 1995
Page 6
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Nimc submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
None submitted.
ITEMS PULLED FROM TIlE CONSENT CALENDAR
Item pulled: 9. The minutes will reflect the published ageuda order.
OTttER BUSINESS
12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) * None
13. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Ratification of appointn~ent: Economic Devdllpmcnt Cmnmission - Martin Calvo.
MSUC (Hurtun/Muut) tu appruve tfie rutificalion ifl' Murtiu Cabn to tfie Ecummfic Develupment Commission.
b. Application of furlough to City Cimncilmemhers. Cuntinued t'nm~ the meeting of 7/25/95. Mayor
Horton requested the item be continned to the meeting of 8/8/95 with staff providing Conncil with the necessary
figures regarding the proposal.
c. Mayor Horton stated she had been contacted by a nnmber of small businesses along Third Avenue
complaining that their business was being nitbored due tu the road closures/br the Farmers Market on Thursdays.
She wanted staff and the DBA revisit the h>catilm and return with a report in 30 days. She wanted to see the
activity continue as she Iblt it was a benefit to the City and recommended that Memorial Park or the street adjacent
to Memorial Park be Ioeked at as a possible hlcation.
d. Mayor Horton stated she an,.l the City Manager had met with Jim Baldwin, President of the Baldwin
Company, regarding their reorganization activities. He stated that a majority of the creditors were being taken care
of and Baldwin was working out agreements with tile others. She lblt conlident that after the reorganization the
company would be stronger and come otlt ill it within the next 14-16 months. They would be continuing the
operation of their construction cmnpany and theil .goal was to contimle to offer a quality product. They would also
continue to work in good hith with the City.
Minutes
Angnst 1. 1995
Page 7
14. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Rindone
a. Report on Downtown Business Association Banner Program
Mr. Goss stated staff and the Downtown Business Association had ',vl~rked together to implement a banner program
which was approved by the Agency last January. StatT had hcen work ing with the DBA to get 75 % of the banners
installed by 8/12/95, which was the day belbre the Third Avenue Festival.
Councilmember Rindone qnestioned if the City's activities had been communicated to the Downtown Business
Association.
Pam Buchan, Principal Cmmnunity Devdopm~nt Specialist, replied that sh~ had artended a meeting of the DBA
that morning and gave them the same int~n'mation as presented hy Mr. Goss. They were pleased and voted to have
the City staff work as hard as they could to haw the banners installed hy 8/13/95.
Councilmember Rindone qt~estioncd it' there w~]'~ any concerns expressed at the DBA meuting.
Ms. Buchan responded there was a member concerned with having a sprmg/smnmer type of banner put up so late
in the year, but the other members of the DBA wanted the banners put up. She had discussed the concerns with
that member and intbrmed him that the ham~er did not stale "spring or summer" and he was then satisfied with the
installation.
b. Evaluation of rate of returns on investments, especially those under four percent.
Councilmember Rindone reqnesled that if staff saw any value m looking at those investments that were providing
a lower rate of return. whether in the 3 5~ or 4 % category, that had extended maturity dates that they review those
securities.
Robert Powell, Director of Finance. responded that staff periodically reviewed the investments. The s~urities
included in the report had been reviewed and the market values were snch that the City wonld take a loss by selling
them and reinvesting at a higher rate. Staff did monitor those. especially the two obtained from the County that
were the lowest earning securities.
Councilmember Rindone stated he was not suggesting that any sccttr~ties be sold at a loss. He wanted to ensure
staff review only if there was a reasonable expectallure that those securities with had a low rate of return and a
distant maturity date could be sold and reinvested where there wt>uld be an enhancement in the total long term
revenue. His concern was the statement that it was the practice .f the City to hold all securities to the matnrity
date. ~at was good unless there was a significant change and he w~tntcd staff' to look at those securities if there
was a significant change.
Mr. Powell replied that staff did look at that. If the City could sell a secnrity, even tbough it wonld be lower than
what the City paid, and reinvest the proceeds and earn enongh t~ cover that loss it ~vould be done.
Councihnember Rindone stated he was satisfied with the procedm'cs m place. He had been carethlly monitoring
the reports by the Finance Department and over the past several m,nths had been exceptionally pleased with the
improvement of the City's portfolio.
Minutes
August 1, 1995
Page 8
r"'
Councihnember Munt
a. Cooncihnen~ber Moot stated since he had been on the Cimncil the typical procedure for acquiring
inlbrmation from staff had been through the ret~rral process, i.e. aem brought to the attention of the Council with
the Council then w>tmg on a staff rd~n'al. Periodically, it appeared that there were times when that process was
not followed. He had seen ulemorandunls that appeared to be generated by individual Council requests. He
qnestioned if the Council had a li~rmalized procednre tin' making requests of staff that could generate significant
staff time. If the City did not have a timhal policy he l~:lt one shlmld be developed so staff wonld not be over
burdened with referrals and there wlmld be an orderly way to bring ret~rrals to staff with all Council aware of the
request. He felt it appropriate due to the cut backs ill staff and consolidation of staff. He was not certain that
Council wanted to draw in inordinate amount of time away t~'om the nl~rnlal business of staff unless there was a
consensus by Connell.
Mr. Goss responded there was mlt a specific v, rittcn policy. Several years ago Conncil instituted an informal policy
regarding referrals, intbrmational memos. reports, or'a[ rq~ln't. etc. At that time it was recognized that not every
request required a written rq~ort. That ouHine was placed on the dais filr Cormoil use. He t~lt those were different
than requests for in~rmation t~om Councilmembers,
Mayor Horton stated tile item had ul~t beeu agendized.
Councilmember Moot requested the item be phited on an agenda lbr discussion and input from the City Manager
and City Attorney with respect to what those parameters should be. }te had addressed the issue several months ago
with respect to opinions from the City Attorney's oflice. He thonght at that time there should be a more formalized
procedure fur requesting olMnions h'ou~ tile City Attlu'ucy's {llfice. He I~lt it appropriate that all Councilmembers
have a conenon understanding of how that proctsdure x, vol kcd and what was n~cessary to trigger it. It would be a
way to monitor the time of staff and fi~r all Cimncihnembc-rs to be aware of what was going on in the City.
Mayor Horton stated the item would be agendized under Councihnember Moot's comments on the 8/8/95 agenda
ti3r lBrmal discussion.
Councilmember Padilia stated he wanted to comment on the issue.
Mayor Hotton stated she would n,~t recognize Cimncihnember Padilia as it was not an agendized item. It was her
understanding that under the Brown Act Cimncil could not discnss the item.
Mr. liloogaard stated the only way to get the item iIn the cnrrellt agenda was to declare that there was some urgency
that needed to be addressed.
Councilmember Moot stated it was not his intention to discuss the item bnt to have it agendized for discussion.
Councilmember Padilia stated he was seeking legal clarificatilm from the City Attorney regarding the appropriate
procedure as to what was allowed to be calendared.
Mr. Boogaard stated if the item was something that shotlid uot be discussed be would advise Council.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if he wanted t~l discuss au item under his coum~ents at a Council meeting if he
had to calendar that particular itmn ahead of time. He had seen members of the Conncil pot items under their
co~nments and discuss them and had also seeu meu~bers of the Council counnent, under their comments, on
something that was not on the agenda with discussjim ensuing. He wailted to make sure that everyone was doing r""
the same thing. He was confused and wanted clarification.
Mr. Boogaard stated it was a point of order that he timid respired to. The City had an ordinance that provided if
a Councilmember wanted to discuss something under their c<munents they conld call the City Clerk and calendar
Minutes
August 1, 1995
Page 9
it that way. If they had any docnmentation to back it ul~ that should be suh~nitted to the City Clerk to support the
item. That would be ~dly discussable as an agendized item. If a person did not submit that material in advance
Council had always recognized tinder Council Cimmlents the right to ask that an item be put on the next agenda as
something they wanted to discass at a later time which gave advance notice. It was not a Brown Act violation
because Council was not deliberating on it, but recognizing it t~>r t~.ltnre deliberation and the public was being told
that it would be on the next agenda. Council did not get into deliberations, but rather discussed what the scope of
the item was to be on the agcnda so everytree wt}ttld know x~'hat was ttl b~ discnssed. That had been recognized
as being acceptable.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if a Councilmemhcr nccd~d a vote flf the Council to calendar something for a
Closed Session.
Mr. Boogaard responded that nnd¢r the City's rules, nn one had the right to place sortiething in Closed Session
except the City Attorney. They had been a little lax with that becaus¢ lie had always reviewed it and found that
they were acceptable matters t'c~r Closed Session. If a Councihnenlber had something that they wanted discussed
and it had a legitimate basis ~>r discussion in Closed Session, they conld put it nndcr their comments without any
vote and if it was something tbat needed Closed Session discussjim. in his judgement, he would then ask the
Council, who then had the power to say "yes m' nl~", to go intl~ the Closed Session discussion or have it held
publicly.
Councilmember Padilia stated he had ill the past, under tile apparent misunderstanding, attempted to calendar an
item for Closed Session by a w~te of the Council hecatts¢ that was the italy way he thonght he cotaid do it. He
subsequently had been tinable tl> do that, but had succeeded subsequently to do that. hmnediately after that he had
seen Closed Session items unilateraily cairndared by individual menlbcrs of tile Council. He qnestioned what the
correct legal process was because h~ did not understand it when he made a motion to put something on a Closed
Session calendar and could not do it b~canse he c{ittld mlt get a second: and, the very next week there were
individual members of the Councd nnilaterally pntting it on the calendar.
Mr. Boogaard stated the proper procedure, unless staff' generated and City Attorney approved the Closed Session
item, to put it under Council Cnmnlents and tben if it was a I~'gitimal¢ sul2iect matter tier Closed Session, the City
Attorney would recommend, or tile Councillnemb¢r could rcc~nmn¢nd, Io the Council that it be discussed in Closed
Session, taken vote, and th~n if approved by three nittubers the item ,,v{itlld b¢ heard in Closed Session. Otherwise,
any Councilmember had the right to discnss their item ill open se',silm.
AD.|OURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 6:42 P.M. to a Special Meeting of the City Couucil im Tuesday, August 8, 1995 at 5:30
p.m., thence to the Regular City C{inncil Meeting tli~ Angusi 8, 1995 at 6:00 p.nl. in the City Council Chambers.
A Joint Regular Meeting of the Redeveh>pnlcnt Agency/City Council ctmvened at 5:13 p.m. and ac[iourned at 5:30
p.m. A Special Joint Meeting of the Redeveh~pmcnt Agency/City Council convened at 5:30 p.m. and ac[ioumed
at 6:19 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
Council recessed at 5:13 p.m. met m Closed Session at 6:19 p.m., and r~clmvent. d at 6:42 p.m. Labor negotiations
was not discussed in Closed Session.
· I
Minutes
August 1, 1995
Page 10
15. CONFERENCE WITit LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigatinn pursuant tn Guyeminent Cnde Sectiuu 54956.9 · Western of San Diego Fund vs. Vidrio, City of Chula Vista.
· Chammas vs. the City of Chula Vista.
· Fritsch vs. the City of Chula Vista.
· Chula Vista and nine other cities vs. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste issues (trash
litigation).
2. Anticiputed litigation pursuaut tu Guvermnent Cnde Sectiun 54956.9
· Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs) and EPA lawsuit.
16. CONFERENCE WITIt LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
· Agency negotiator: John Goss lit designee lbr CVEA, WCE, POA. IAFF, Executive
Mauagement, Mid~Management. and Unrepresented.
Employee urganization: Chula Vista Emph~yees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE}. Police Ol~cers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executi'~e Managenlent, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
17. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actiuns were taken in Closes
session.
Respectti. llly submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
hy: Vicki C. Soderquist, CMC, ~ty City Clerk