Closed-Session Meeting on Bolsa Chica Draws Criticism

An activist and attorney with the Bolsa Chica Land Trust is raising questions about a recent closed-door presentation to the City Council that she says violated open-meeting laws.

It’s the second time in recent months that questions have arisen about the propriety of the council’s closed-session discussions.

Council members met in closed session this week to hear a consultant’s presentation on the Koll Co.’s options in trying to secure water for the planned 2,400-home Bolsa Chica development.

The company wants to buy water from the city, but city officials want to negotiate a deal that could pay for construction of a new city reservoir.

“It’s very clear they violated the Brown Act,” said Debbie Cook, an attorney with the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, one of several wetlands preservation groups in the city.

Cook opposes the sale of city water to the Koll Co., saying it would increase the city’s need to buy water from the Metropolitan Water District, which is more expensive than local ground water. Cook said water rates for all residents will rise if city water is sold to the developer.

City Atty. Gail Hutton could not be reached for comment on Cook’s allegation.

The closed-session item was listed as a discussion of potential negotiations with the Koll Co. for the purchase of property in the Bolsa Chica area for a reservoir and fire station. But city officials say no specific site was identified.

Councilman Dave Sullivan said the council will review its actions.

“There have been questions raised about this matter, and the council will be very interested in answering those questions,” Sullivan said.

The last controversy over a closed-session meeting came in October when council members voted in private not to renew the police union’s lease of the controversial Central Park shooting range. The council’s action was not disclosed during the public part of the meeting.

The Police Officers’ Assn. asked the county district attorney to investigate the vote as a possible violation of open-meeting laws known as the Brown Act. In response, the council repeated its vote in public at a subsequent meeting.