Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT/AMENDED CONSENT DECREE - MONTROSE CHEMICAL COMPANY - 1996-10-25 0'7 N-al R* akb amT HB CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN"l l:R-DPPARI'Ml:\r co.mmUNlCATIUN TO: IIONORARLE MAYOR PAM JULIFN HOUCHEN AND MEMBERS Oh THE CITY COiJNCIL FROM: GAIL IitJTTON, City Attorney DATE: JZ.1NE 29, 2001 � C__ c� SUBJECT: Report of:'Action "Taken Pursuant to Government Cocle Section 54957.I~ o {�. October 21, 1996, Citv Council Closed Session o z: C-) r— M-n `0 n PLEASE ANNOUNCE IN OPEN SESSION OF CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 16, 2001,LIJ-IAV On Monday, October 21, 1996, the City Council convened in closed StSS1on to discuss the matter of United States v :Vontrosc Chemical, United States District Court Case No. CV 90- 3126(AAI-I)- City Council unanimously voted to approve the amended consent decree (tx , settlement a-reement) and authorize the Mayor and Citv Clerk to s-on it. We just received notice that on April 10,- 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal challenging the consent decree, thus bringing a conclusion to this litigation. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney cc- Ray Silver.City Administrator Connie f3rockwav, Cily Clerk. FILE NOTE Office of the City Clerk Huntington Beach, California See related Fife on Microfilm: SA 60025 ORANGE, COUNTY OF Sanitation Dist Collective Defense Agreement— Orange County Sanitation District to defend/indemnity cities re Montrose Checmical/US Attorney General litigation 1991-1992 f ` CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Ga SUBJECT: U.S. v. Montrose Chemical Corporation, et al. DATE: June 22, 2001 - Attached is a letter the City Clerk's Office received on June 20, 2001 from Attorney' Thomas Woodruff of Woodruff, Spradlin &Smart regarding the status of the above- referenced matter. glcbmemos/2001cbmem/montrose chem—ih.doc LAw OFFICES OF WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A PROFESMONALCORAORATION 701 SOUTH PARt:ER STREET.SUITE 8000 a ORANGE,CA 92868-4760 ■ (714)558-7000 a FAX(714)835-7787 DIRECT DIAL (714)564.2605 DIRECT FAX. (714)565-2505 E-MAIL TL-"J. Y'SS-LAWCOM PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FINAL CLOSING REPORT LITIGATION STATUS TO: City Attorneys and Special District Counsels FROM: Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart ` x r,_ Counsel for Orange County Sanitation District and M O—1 C: Each Member Agency o x_< DATE: June 7, 2001 D C RE: U.S.A. and State of California v. Montrose Chemical Corporation-, al; and Los Angeles County Sanitation District, et al. I am pleased to report that after 11 years of highly contentious, extremely complex and costly litigation that this matter is now concluded in all respects as may pertain to your agency. This has been concluded by the Order of Dismissal filed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 10, 2001. believe that this final resolution and settlement is beneficial to all parties concerned, and most particularly to your agency, which was not required to make any financial contribution for either the costs of legal defense or settlement of the claims. I have chosen to provide the following brief historical summary of the proceeding for your general information and reference. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Original Claims, The case was initiated when the Federal Government, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), together with the State of California, sued several corporate Defendants and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District in the U.S. District Court-Central District, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") to recover natural resource damages for alleged injuries to the resources in the Pacific Ocean (generally offshore, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbors and other waters off TE RYC AN'DRUS■STEPHEN 1 DEA10N■Al LOIS AOSAK■JOHN E CAVANAUCH a CRAIG G FARRINGTON■JOSFp1I W FORHATII BRA LNYY R HCxT■D(CGLAS C IIOLIAND■LOIS 1, JEFiREY 0 ROB ERTA A KRA[:S ■MAGDa1.ENA LONA.W[ANT JUI.1E Mdl.05KFY■T11ONIA5 F NIXON■UARDARA RAILFANU a JASON F. RE.SN1CK■OMAR Sa?.WVA1.■JOHN R.SIMW GREGORYF SIMONI-kN 0KENNAR1)R S%IART.JR ■DAN10-K S11RADLIV 0 1 AURA A [JKI)ERNYX)D■TNONIAS1. wOODRUFT al District Counsels City Attorneys and Si June 7, 2001 Page 2 the coast of Los Angeles) purportedly caused by release of hazardous substances from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District ("LACSD") ocean outfali sewer. The Plaintiffs also sought to recover response costs for alleged releases of DDT from Montrose Chemical's manufacturing facility in Torrance, California. Essentially, the corporate Defendants fell into two groups, namely, the DDT Defendants and the PCB Defendants. The lawsuit was filed in 1990. In 1991 the corporate Defendants filed counterclaims against LACSD and third- party claims against approximately 150 other local Government entities, including 38 in Orange County, alleging that these parties also were liable for natural resource damages, notwithstanding the fact that the ocean outfalls for the Orange County entities were located at a distance of 20 and 35 miles from the alleged contaminated Sites off the Palos Verdes Peninsula. B. First Settlement - 1992/1993 Consent Decrees. In 1992, the Governments announced they had reached a settlement with LACSD for $45.7 million dollars and the Decree was approved by Judge Andrew A. Hauk in 1993. At the same time the Government announced a $12 million dollar settlement pursuant to a Consent Decree with Potlatch Corporation and Simpson Paper Company. The Judgment that was entered approving the Consent Decrees with LACSD was appealed by the other corporate Defendants. C. Ninth Circuit Reversal. In 1995, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and vacated Judge Hauk's approval of the 1993 LACSD Decree, ordering it back for further review and findings. D. Dismissal of Government's Natural Resource Claim. In 1995, immediately following the reversal by the Court of Appeals, Judge Hauk dismissed the Government's claim against the corporate Defendants on the basis that they had failed to comply with the statute of limitations relative to the Sites. The Government appealed that decision. In 1997, the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Hauk's statute of limitations ruling. (California v. Montrose Chemical Corp-oration, 104 F. 3d at 1512-18.) - - E. Settlement Discussions. During all of this time, the parties were engaged in secret and confidential settlement discussions under the supervision of Special Master Judge Harry Peetris. The four separate groups, for purposes of settlement discussions namely, (1) the 1368851] City Attorneys and Sp0al District Counsels June 7, 2001 Page 3 Montrose — DDT Defendants, (2) Westinghouse — PCB Defendants. (3) Potlatch — Simpson — Defendants, and (4) LACSD and the 150 third-party local Government entities. Shortly after the Court of Appeals' March 21, 1995 decision, LACSD and the other Settling Local Government Entity's ("SLGE's") then negotiated with the objective to satisfy the concerns of the Court of Appeals by a modification of the Consent Decree or to structure a new Decree. The negotiations took nearly two years of regular meetings and conference calls. An Amended Consent Decree was finally negotiated in 1997 to the satisfaction of the Governments, LACSD and the SLGE's but was not filed by the Government with the District Court until April 1999. The Government was attempting to negotiate concurrent Consent Decree settlements with the Montrose Defendants and Potlatch — Simpson and other PCB Defendants. F. 1999 Consent Decree. On August 19, 1999, Judge Hauk of the U.S. District Court approved and entered as a Judgment, the Amended Consent Decree involving LACSD and the SLGE's, and dismissed the cross-claims and third party claims asserted against them by the corporate industrial Defendants. After a Motion to Reconsider was denied, the corporate Defendants filed a new appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. G. Consent Decree with Montrose and other DDT Defendants. On March 15, 2001 prior to a ruling from the Court of Appeals on the 1999 Judgment, Government and the DDT Defendants entered into a Consent Decree resolving all claims and legal issues relating to the offshore matters. As a condition of that settlement, the SLGE's and LACSD insisted that DDT Defendants agree to dismiss the pending appeal. That condition was met. H. Dismissal of Appeal. As noted above, on April 10, 2001 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued and filed its Order dismissing the Appeal, thus bringing to a conclusion these entire proceedings. SUMMARY OF CONSENT DECREE RE: LACSD AND SLGE'S The 1997/1999 Consent Decree entered into between the Governments and LACSD, and the 150 SLGE's called for a total cash payment in the amount of $45.7 million dollars, contributed in the following approximate sums: LACSD - $32.4 million City of Los Angeles - $6.0 million 136885\1 City Attorneys and SpLCfal District Counsels • June 7, 2001 Page 4. County of Los Angeles - $3.0 million City of Long Beach - $1.8 million Municipalities of Los Angeles County - $1.4 million* -San Bernardino County Entities - $315,000 Ventura County Entities - $315,000 Orange County Entities — (29 plus 9 Sanitation Districts = 38) - $450,000 These sums had been approved by all of the participating SLGE's and the monies contributed pursuant to an agreement between the parties in 1992, and have been on deposit, in trust, since that time. The accrued interest under the terms of the Consent Decree is payable to the USEPA and the State of California. MISCELLANEOUS USEPA and the State are now embarking on various programs looking towards remedial efforts to solve the problems of contaminated sediment in the harbors and in the bays offshore of Los Angeles County. Certain study plans have been approved but final implementation of remediation projects has not yet been fully decided upon. There is no question that environmental enhancements will occur as a result of the various and combined value of Consent Decrees negotiated by the Governments. The total contributions by settling Defendants and third-party Defendants are: Montrose/DDT Defendants $73.0 million LACSDISLGE's Defendants $45.7 million Westinghouse/PCB Defendants $9.5 million Potlatch-Simpson $12.0 million Total $140.2 million There is also considerable earned interest that has accrued because the LACSDISLGE's and the Potlatch contributions have been on deposit for approximately 8 years. 13688511 City Attorneys and Spooial District Counsels June 7, 2001 Page 5 SUMMARY On behalf of the Orange County Sanitation District, we are pleased to look back over these many years and reaffirm the wisdom of the decision of the District to be solely responsible for all costs and expenses of the defense and contribution to any settlement, on behalf of its member Agencies. This clearly avoided each of the Agencies having to obtain separate counsel and incurring the related expense. It also afforded us the opportunity to present a truly unified front in the defense and in the settlement of negotiations. Lastly, we can report that with the cooperation of each of the member Agencies in locating their insurance policies, some of which were dated by many years, we were able to recover on claims against the insurance companies virtually 100% of all sums paid out for the legal defense, including attorneys fees and costs, as well as the contribution to the settlement. On behalf of this firm, we are pleased to have represented your Agency and if there are any particular documents that you would like to review or obtain copies of, please advise us and we will be certain to provide them Very truly yours, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A Professional Corporation Q�I.J HOMAS L.WOODRUFF GENERAL COUNSEL - OCSD TLW:sas 13688511 law onwiS OF WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART d>•AOFL SSIOti M11.COIU17pAT10� 701 SOUTH PARKER STREET,SUITE 8000 ORANGE,CA 92868-4760 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 'j 2 0 A es—4 F 7� L ILtlrlttlt'lltllltl}ttl'ttltllltlilttiltlrllrt�lt 11t111{tt1111t{ L .fir HB CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Treasurer FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney DATE: December 11, 1998 SUBJECT: U.S. Government v. Montrose Chemical Corp., et at Attached is a letter from Attorney Thomas Woodruff regarding the status of the above- referenced matter, per your request. ART4UR DE LA LOZA Deputy City Attorney 0 ADUab cc: Gail Hutton, City Attorney c a - - c = r -[C , T giHu1tonl98memos1brockwy4 LAW OFFICES OF WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN& SMART A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION e e e ;7917-3gM PARKER STREET,SUITE 7000 ORANGE,CA 92868-4724■(714)558-7000■FAX(714)835-7787 (;IT'I .y;_I-t ;,' DIRECT DIAL(714)564 2605 DIRECT FAX(714)565-2505 December 2, 1998 Arthur De La Loza Esq. Deputy City Attorney City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re: U.S. Government v. Montrose Chemical Corporation, et al. Dear Mr. La Loza: Pursuant to your letter dated November 25, 1998, requesting the current status of the above-referenced litigation, I can advise that the pending Consent Decree relating to the Settling Local Government Entities has been approved by the Assistant Attorney General for Environment and Natural Resources and was to have been sent out for publication in the Federal Register the week of November 16, 1998. After notification of the Consent Decree has been published, there will be a 30-day comment period. It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will move the District Court for entry of the Consent Decree some time during the middle of January, 1999. Very truly yours, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART T iOMAS L. WOODRUFF (GENERAL COUNSEL - OCSD TLW:pj TERRY G ANDRUS■M.IRIS BOBAK•JOHN I-CAVANAUGH■CRAIG G.FARRLNGFON■RODELL R.FICK■JOSEPH W.FORBATH KRIS J.FORKUS-GEIGER■LOIS E.JEFFREY■MAGDALENA LONA%%1WT■JULIE MaC LOSKEY■SCEPHEN AL MILES■THOMAS F.NIXON DAVID B.OLSON■JASON E.RESNICK 0 JOIN R.SHAW 0 KENNARD R.SMART,JR.■DANIM K.SPRADIJN 0 THOMAS L WOODRUFF �yTWs►ay OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY Tr`'`�v�' F.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Telephone Gail Hutton Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5555 City Anorney Fax (714) 374-1590 November 25, 1998 Thomas L. Woodruff, Esq. A Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart 701 S. Parker-Street, Suite 7000 K? n Orange, CA 92868 CD x17 rr1 n, Re. US. v. Mono-ose Chemical Corp. x �3 zz Dear Mr. Woodruff- With respect to the above-referenced matter, attached is a letter dated March 2, 1998, from your office. Kindly advise if there is any change in status. Very truly yours, ARTHUR DE LA LOZA Deputy City Attorney ADLJab l Attachment: Letter dated 3!2 98 from Danic Spence ,/cc: Connie Brockway.City Clerk a(A!981etteri Woodruff r • • LAw Omm OF • WOODRUFF, SPRADLrq & SINZART A PROFTMIONAL CORPORATION 701 SOUTH PARKER STREET,SUITE 7000■ ORANGE, CA 91-86"720 ■ (714)558.7000■ FAX(714) 935.7787 DIRECT DIAL(714)564-2609 DIRECT FAX (714)565.2509 March 2, 1998 Art De La Loza Deputy City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: U.S- v. Montrose Chemical Carp_ Dear Art: As we discussed, the City of Huntington Beach, and the other local governmental entities who are third-party defendants in the above-referenced case, signed an amended consent decree about a year ago. The amended consent decree was lodged with the court last spring. However, the plaintiff federal and state governmental entities have yet to move the court to approve the amended consent decree. We have been told that the plaintiffs intend to so move the court just as soon as certain depositions are: completed in March_ Because of the history of delays in this matter, however, we cannot be certain that these actions will actually take place when anticipated. Please let me know if you require any further information. Very truly yours, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART DANIE I. SPENCE cc: Thomas L. Woodruff, Esq. 2077.22 59467_1 TERRY C_A.tiLWX;S+MARY E.8LN_NiNG■M-LOTS BMAX•BF MC h'C BLk',ETT 0]ORS E.CAVAN ALL;GK 0 CTWG G-FARRD;GTD1 RODFIL R_FICK JOSEM W.FOMAT11 to 9311S 1.T)RJCL"SGFlGFR•LOIS E Jt�FF—O Y•MAGDALF A WNA-W11'17 0 STE EN'M.M FLES■T1104AS F.NTKON JASON E RESNICK■J091,;R-S"W■KEN'`ARD P,SMART.M•DAME 1_SFF\CE•DA_11ea.K_SPll4DIJN 0 ALA.N R-WATTS 8 THOVSA.S L WOOTDRLTT LDCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION Connie Brockway, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk TO: Art De La Loza, Deputy City Attorney FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: AMENDED CONSENT DECREE - MONTROSE CHEMICAL COMPANY Cz�s 9J'-a?s Per you memorandum dated March b, 1998, the last action related to the Montrose Chemical Company was a letter from Tom Woodruff which stated that the Amended Consent Decree would be going to court possibly in March, 1998. It has been 90 days since the last update on this matter. Please advise the City Clerk's Office if the court has approved the Consent Decree. l�a4 , q 8 4� }gtq,5 -)Yes.-cam ,BFFA- -Ax)y ?tPJ3�Tes on 7-HI s M)+71'9.9- ? —1-AQnks, _ JO.M4 t& e X g cbmcmo%\98cbmcm198-19mh H J& CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION t41JNTINr,10N BEACH To: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk From: ARTHUR DELALOZA, Deputy City Attorney Date: March 6, 1998 Subject: MONTROSE CHEMICAL CO. MATTER In response to your request, attached is a letter received from Tom Woodruff s office this week. If you have any questions, please let me know_ (Dictated but not read) ARTHUR DELALOZA Deputy City Attorney cc: Gail Hutton, City Attomey r LAW OFFICES OP WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A PROFESSIONAL CoRPORATIoN 1` _:701 SOUTH PARKER STREET,SUITE 7000■ ORANGE,CA 929684720■ (714)558-7000 FAX(714)835-7787 DIRECT DIAL(714)564-2609 1; DIRECT FAX(714)565-2509 March 2, 1998 Art De La Loza Deputy City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: U.S. v. Montrose Chemical Corp. Dear Art: As we discussed, the City of Huntington Beach, and the other local governmental entities who are third-party defendants in the above-referenced case, signed an amended consent decree about a year ago. The amended consent decree was lodged with the court last spring. However, the plaintiff federal and state governmental entities have yet to move the court to approve the amended consent decree. We have been told that the plaintiffs intend to so move the court just as soon as certain depositions are completed in March. Because of the history of delays in this matter, however, we cannot be certain that these actions will actually take place when anticipated. Please let me know if you require any further information. Very truly yours, 5 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART DANIE I. SPENCE cc: Thomas L. Woodruff, Esq. 2077-22 594671 TERRY C.A.NDRUS MARY E.BINNING•M.IRIS BOBAK BETTY C.BURNEIT 101IN E CAVA.NAUGH CRA10 G.FARRLNGTON RODELL R.FICK JOSEPH W.FORBATH■KRIS J.FORKUS-GMGER■LOIS E JEFFREY•MAGDALEhA LONA-V ANf■STEPIIEN M.MBFS•THOMAS F.NIXON JASON E.RfSNICK■JOHIN R.SHAW 8 KENNARD R.SMART.JR.■DA.NIE 1.SPENCE■DANIM K.SPRADLIN•ALAN R.WATTS 9 THOMAS L.WOODRUFF 93-075 Distribution : WIT e: Requesting Department Yellow: Office Control File Pink: Assigned Staff Member REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM To: Connie From: Office of the City Attorney Subject: Your Request for Legal Services Date: 2/5I98 This will acknowledge receipt of your Request for Legal Services, below listed. Dated: 2/4/98 Type of Legal Service Requested: [ ] Ordinance [ ] Insurance [ ] Resolution [ ] Bonds [ ] Contract/Agreement [ ] Opinion [ ] Other: Description: memo : arien'ded consent dec.ree...- .Montrose Chemical Co . This Request for Legal Services has been assigned to ART DEIA�QZA for handling. He/she can be reached through extension 5555. The Control Number assigned to this request is: Please reference this number when making any inquiries in regard to this matter. Thank you. 0673L } t rT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION 's • HUNnNCMft BEACH r TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney T '�{ FROM: Connie Brockway .:� City Clerk ._ DATE: February 4, 1998 SUBJECT. AMENDED CONSENT DECREE-MONTROSE CHEMICAL.COMPANY >n: PIease advise the City Clerk's Office if the court has approved the Consent Decree. Upon court approval your office advised that this item will appear on the City Council ' Agenda as then Mayor Sullivan and I have already signed, on behalf of the City the =' Amended Consent Decree. I would appreciate formal Council action. Ratification at a City Council meeting will enable the document to become a matter of public record. It will also serve to verify that Councilmember Sullivan and I were 4 authorized to execute this document on behalf of the City. ;4a. h. Tr _ 'j, • CC: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator X "vim cbmems/98-13jc-doc LAw Omcu op WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A PROFESSIO.W.L CORPORATION 701 SOUTH PARKER STUET,SUITE 7000■ORANGE,CA 9266&4720+ (714)559-7000■ FAX(714)$35-7787 DIRECT FAX(714)%5-M3 October 30, 1996 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.Q. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re: United States GQyernment M, Montrose Chemical_Cor ora n,etal Dear Ms. Brockway: As requested, we have received this date an executed Amended Consent Decree with respect to the above-referenced litigation. Pursuant to Court order, duplicate originals are required to be filed. Transmitted herewith is an additional signature page. Please cause this to be executed and forward to this office as soon as possible. Very truly yours, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART ----------------- PAULA J. YOO'S ASSISTANT TO HOMAS L. WOODRUFF Enclosure cc: Gail Hutton, City Attorney � Joseph Barron, Deputy City Attorney U TL7tAY(_AKDR[S MMARY E BINNING a K IRIS BORAK I BITTY C_Bl1RNfTT a IOH,L GVA1Al)G14 ,O.FARR1tiC[0\ ROOELI-R_FICK•K)SITH W.FORBATH•1AM fl JEFERL•Y•MAGDALENA LONA•wIA.1-T■TH041AS F-NTJ{ON•JASON E JUL%ICK )ORN R_SHAW 8 KINNARD iR SMART,JR_•DAME I SP64CE■DANIM K_SPRADUN 8 ALr►N R.wATTS 8 THOMAS L WOODRUFF 0 r 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and } STATE OF CALIFORNIA, } 2 } Plaintiffs, ) Case No. CV 90-3122-AAH(JRx) 3 ) V. } AMENDED CONSENT 4 } DECREE MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORPORATION ) 5 OF CALIFORNIA, et al., } } 6 Defendants. } 7 } 8 AND RELATED COUNTER, CROSS, } AND THIRD PARTY ACTIONS. ) 9 10 FOR: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: 11 WE HEREBY CONSENT to the entry of the Amended Consent Decree in United 12 States, et al v. Montrose Chemical CoCporation of California, et al_, No. CV 90-3122- 13 AAH(JRx), subject to the public notice and comment requirements of 28 C.F.R §50.7. 14 15 Date= /a 3l - 26 16 17 By -Mayor 18 r 19. ATTEST: ;-20 gy City C le`k' 21 =� 22� _ � r 23 24 25 26 27 28 Subject: _United States y- Montrose Chemical GAIL UTTON. City Attorney - 916 STATEMENT FOR MAYOR PRIOR TO CLOSED SESSION Date- _�cL 21 1. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a)TO CONFER WITH ITS ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION WHICH HAS BEEN INITIATED FORMALLY AND TO WHICH THE CITY IS A PARTY. (CHECK ONE.) _X_ The this of the litigation is United States V. Montimse ChRm" _ United States District Court Case No. CV 90-3126 AAH Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the city's ability to effect service of process upon one or more unserved parties;or Idenblcation of such litigation would jeopardize the city's ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. 2. _ THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONFER WITH ITS CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION: 54956.9(b)(3)(A) (Facts and circumstances that might resuR in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs,which facts and circumstances need not be disclosed-) Number of Potential Cases T 54956.9(b)(3)(B) (Facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to,an accident,disaster, incident, or transactional occurrence that might result in litigation against the agency and that are known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs,which facts or circumstances shall be publicly "~ stated an the agenda or announced-) 549%.9(c) (Based on existing facts and circumstances.the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation.) Number of Potential Cases 3. _ THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CITY'S NEGOTIATOR, REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS WITH CONCERNING THE PURCHASE I SALE 1 EXCHANGE I LEASE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT Instnrction will concem- Price Terms of Payment Both 4. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO MEET WITH ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING LABOR RELATIONS MATTERS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6. Agency Negotiator: Name Employee Organizations Unrepresented EmpiQges 5. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER PERSONNEL MATTERS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957. 6. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.7 TO MEET WITH AN APPLICANT FOR A CITY LICENSE AND THE APPLICANTS ATTORNEY. 4/s/G:Closed=Montrose CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION MUK([VGToti&EA(H • TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk FROM= GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney DATE: October 25, 1996 SUBJECT: United States of America and State of California v. Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, et al. Case No. CV 90-3122-AAH-(JRx) Amended Consent Decree Please witness the mayors signature and attest to the attached, referenced amended consent decree_ Inadvertently, the City Clerk was advised by my Deputy not to sign the amended consent decree since it was not reported out in open session on October 22, 1996. 1 regret the misunderstanding involving the issue of whether a final decision was made in closed session which needed to be reported out pursuant to Go m .P_nt Code Section_ 54957.1(aX31 The action taken to approve the amended consent decree in the Montrose case by the city council was not final and needed to be forwarded to the federal court for final consideration and approval_ This situation is one of the exceptions which are not to be reported out. See attached Government Code Section 54957.1(a)(3)(B). It appears to me that misunderstandings such as this could be avoided if my office provided an accompanying memo addressing the requirement of"Report of Action Taken" issue that could advise you in writing how to process closed session items needing the mayor's signature. I will work on developing such a procedure. Thank you for your courtesy and assistance in this matter I:,.�, - Z6��_ GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GHlril Attachments: 1. Amended Consent Decree 2. Govemment Code Sections 54957.1(a)(3)(B) and (a)(3) 3. Letter to Gail Hutton from Thomas Woodruff, of Woodruff, Spradlin&Smart c_ Joseph Barron. Deputy City Attorney Honorable Mayor Dave Sullivan LAW OFFICES OF WOODRUFF SPRA.DLIN & SMART A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 701 SOUTH PARKER STREET.SUITE 7000■ORANGE.CA 42868-4720 (714)559-7000 FAX(714)835-7787 DIRECT FAX(714)565-2533 October 30, 1996 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re: United States Government v. Montrose Chemical Corporation, et al. Dear Ms. Brockway: As requested, we have received this date an executed Amended Consent Decree with respect to the above-referenced litigation. Pursuant to Court order, duplicate originals are required to be filed. Transmitted herewith is an additional signature page. Please cause this to be executed and forward to this office as soon as possible. Very truly yours, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART PAULA J. YO0S ASSISTANT TO,THOMAS L. WOODRUFF Enclosure cc: Gail Hutton, City Attorney �� a Joseph Barron, Deputy City Attorney TERRY C.ATT)RUS•MARY E.BINNING■K LA1S BOBAK■BEM C.BURNM■JOHN E.CAVANAUGH G 0.FARRINGTON RODE1.R.FICK■JOSEPH W.FORBATH■LOIS E.JUTR>Y■MAGDAI13NA L O%A•«A.tiT 7 ■THO%W F.NI iON■JASON I-RMICK KE JOHN R.SHA%V■ NNARD R.SMART,JR.■DAATE 1.SPE:CE■DAME.K.SPRADI]N 8 AIAN R.WATTS 2 THOMAS L-WOODRUFF 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) 2 ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. CV 90-3122-AAH(JRx) 3 ) V. ) AMENDED CONSENT 4 } DECREE MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORPORATION ) 5 OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ) 6 Defendants. ) } 7 1 8 AND RELATED COUNTER, CROSS, ) AND THIRD PARTY ACTIONS } 9 10 FOR: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: 11 WE HEREBY CONSENT to the entry of the Amended Consent Decree in United 12 States. et al. v Montrose Chemical Corporation of California. et al_, No_ CV 90-3122- 13 AAH(JRx), subject to the public notice and comment requirements of 28 C.F.R. §50.7. 14 15 Date: 16 17 By a Mayor 18 19 ATTEST: 20 By . City Clerk 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF 2000 Main Street, HUNTINGTON BEACH Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Date: zo G Number of pages including cover sheet: _Z JJ HUNTINGTON BEACH FAX To: From: Connie Brockway, CMC, T,(Jp City Clerk -791 J• rkrb-It. &:2 aVy 0R4'r•YrC By: -DepQ4yXity Clerk Phone:S6y.,t6o,5 Fax phone: - �S"6S- a S 4 Phone: 714-536-5227 Fax phone: 714-374-1557 REMARKS: urgnt ❑ For,our rcx-icN%- ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please commcnt • �� �!4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION n nU.4rON BEACH TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney DATE: October 25, 1996 SUBJECT: United States of America and State of/Jatrose Chemical Corporation of Califomia, et al. Case No. CV 90-3122-AAH-(JRx) Amended Consent Decree Please witness the mayors signature and attest to theced amended consent decree. I regret the misunderstanding involving the issue of w ether a final decision was made in closed session which needed to be repo ed out p6rsuant to Govemment Code Section 54957.1(a)(3). The action taken to appro a the amended consent decree in the Montrose case by the city council was not fin Al and needed to be forwarded to the federal court for final consideration and approvk This situation is one of the exceptions which are not to be reported out. ee attached Govemment Code Section 54957.1(a)(3)(B). It appears to me that misunderstandin such as this could be avoided if my office provided an accompanying memo addressing the requirement of"Report of Action Taken" issue that could advise2dassistance "� writing how to process closed session items needing the mayors signaturel work on developing such a procedure. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter. i i GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GHIr}I Attachments: 1 Amended Consent Decree 2_ Government Code Sections 54957 1(a)(3)(B) and (a)(3) 3 Letter to Gail Hutton from Thomas Woodruff. of Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart c_ Joseph Barron. Deputy City Attorney Honorable Mayor Dave Sullivan 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA. } 2 } Plaintiffs, ) Case No. CV 90-3122-AAH(JRx) 3 ) V. } AMENDED CONSENT 4 } DECREE MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORPORATION } 5 OF CALIFORNIA, et al., } 6 Defendants. ) } 7 8 AND RELATED COUNTER, CROSS, } AND THIRD PARTY ACTIONS. ) 9 10 FOR CITY OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, A Municipal Corporation: 11 WE HEREBY CONSENT to the entry of the Amended Consent Decree in Unitod 12 States. et al. . Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, et al., No. CV 90-3122- 13 AAH(JRx), subject to the public notice and comment requirements of 28 C.F.R. §50.7. 14 15 Date: 16 17 By Mayor 18 19 ATTEST: 20 By . Citq Clerk AV 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 I� 28 II l I GOVERNMENT CODE § 54957.1 , session unless so authorized by the council. OpAtty.Gen. No.2S9.12-34-93. § 54957.1. Closed sessions; public report of action taken (a) The legislative body of any local agency shall publicly report any action taken in closed session and the vote or abstention of every member present thereon, as follow;: ' (1) Approval of an agreement concluding real estate negotiations pursuant to Section 54956.8 shall be reported after the agreement is final, as specified below: (A) If its owe approval renders the agreement final, the body shall report that approval and the substance of the agreement in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. (B) If final approval rests with the other party to the negotiations,the local agency shall disclose the fact of that approval and the substance of the agreement upon inquiry by any person,as soon as the other party or its agent has informed the local agency of its approval. (2) Approval given to ' * * its legal counsel to defend, or seek or refrain from seeking appellate re%iew or relief, or to enter as an amicus curiae in any form of litigation as the result of a consultation under Section 54956.9 shall be reported in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. The report shall identify,if known,the adverse party or parties and the substance of the ' litigation. In the case of approval given to initiate or intervene in an action,the announcement need not identiry the action,,the defendants,or other particulars,but shall specify that the direction to initiate or irter.•ene in an action has been given and that the action,the defendants,and the other particulars shall, once formally commenced,be disclosed to any person upon irquiry unless to do so would jeopardize the agency's ability to effectuate serNice of process on one or more unnerved parties,or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. (3) Approval given to* * *its legal counsel of a settlement of pending litigation,as defined in Section 54956.9,at any stage prior to or during a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding shall be reported after the settlement is final, as specified below. (.k) If the legislative body accepts a settlement offer signed by the opposing party, the body shall report its acceptance and identify the substance of the agreement in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. ' (B) If final approval rests with some other party to the litigation or with the court,then as soon as the settlement becomes final,and upon inquiry by any person,the local agency shall disclose the fact of that approval, and identify the substance of the agreement. (4) Disposition reached as to claims discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.95 shall be reported as soon as reached in a manner that identifies the name of the claimant, the name of the local agency claimed against,the substance of the claim,and any monetary amount approved for payment and agreed upon by the claimant. (5) Action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment status of a public employee in closed session pursuant to Section 54957 shall be reported at the public meeting during which the closed session is held* * '. Any report required by this paragraph shall identify the title of the position. The general requirement of this paragraph notwithstanding,the report of a dismissal or of the nonrenewal of an employment contract shall be deferred until the first public meeting following the exhaustion of adrrinhistrative remedies, if any. (6) Approval of an agreement concluding labor negotiations with represented employees pursuant to Section 54957.6 shall be reported after the agreement is final and has been accepted or ratified by the other party. The report shall identify the item approved and the other party or parties to the negotiation. (b) Reports that are required to be made pursuant to this section may be made orally or in writing. The legislative body shall provide to any person w•ho has submitted a written request to the legislative body within 24 hours of the posting of the agenda,or to any person who has made a standing request for all documentation as part of a request for notice of meetings pursuant to Section 54954.1 or 54956,if the requester is present at the time the closed session ends,copies of any contracts,settlement agreements, or other documents that were finally approved or adopted in the closed session. If the action taken results in one or more substantive amendments to the related documents requiring retyping, the documents need not be released until the retyping is completed during normal business hours,provided that the presiding officer of the legislative body or his or her designee orally summarizes the substance of the amendments for the benefit of the document requester or any other person present and requesting the information. Additions or changes indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks • 257 L,1u'UTruZs OF WU011RUFF, SPRADLD & SAIART A PrOFStNIONAL CORPORATION 701 SOIT6d PARXER STUPT,SUI'M 7p00■ ORA.NGC.CA 9296R.4720■ j71d)55$•7,0)0 9 FAX(714)x35-7751 CI,RECT DIAL(714)564.2505 aIRECT FAX(714)565-2505 October 24, 1990 Gail Hutton, Esq. City Attorney City of Huntington Beach P O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: t___GQVERNIVE_NT_V. IVONTR25E EMIC-ALTET.RL. Dear Gail. On AUgust 9, 199G. we forwarded to the Ci:y Cierk and your office a copy of the Amended Consent Decree In the above referenced matter, together with an analysis and reasons underlying the need for approval thereof. The Decree must be executed by all parties to the litigation, including the City of Huntington Beach, the defense of which was provided through the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, by this office. On October 10, 1996, 1 followed up with my letter to you requesting that you have the City Council act cn the approval thereof because the Federal Government intended to file the Decree with the Court on October 25, 1996 At that time the City of Huntington Beach was the only local government entity that had not executed the Decree. 1 was advised this day by Mr. Joe Barron of your staff that the City Council on Monday, October 21, 1996, in fact did approve the Consent Decree, but that the City Clerk will not release the executed signature pages, apparently for the reason that the Council did not report vut on the action taken wren they reconvened In open session. I would like !o urge that you review this with the City Clerk, because the withholding of this document until the next meeting of November 4, 1996 1% going to propose considerable difficulties to the possible detriment of all of the Local Government Public Agencies. It seems to me that the provisions of Government Code Section 54957.1 requiring the reporting out are not applicable In this case, particularly due to subsection (a)(3)(R) %v-Ilich provides -'if final approval rests with some other party to the litigation or wilkh the iranrc. ANOKati•XIAK)-C-ti'M1,'I`Ge%! L';IST^C-P%K■P.F.Tn'CPE1ZNC'INK;WN'CCNVANAL'CIi■ RUGC itFRI"-'G'AN Ri17F17.R n,'K w P7ST]dH w ir-,rPATY.•:i11S E.:1r'.;LY @ 1.Wl'•`_��.1 I,(:NA'a'S��": "n1V••LtS r.�C(i1•!,1;17:;: KS'SN;af x ru:t 5,tntr r tip', K.sr,t '- R ■,)A�n:'.`.PLNCL•D.ititfL� ■.tI+N R ',NA77�0 7Y.')WO L µfr,.'*: I I• Gail Hutton, Esq. October 24, 1996 Page 2 court, then as soon as the settlement becomes final, and upon inquiry by any person or local agencies, shall disclose the fact of that approval and identify the substance of the agreement". Apart from the fact that there really are no secrets and that there is no harm with disclosing the content of the Consent Decree, the fact remains that it is not yet final and is Vot subject to cour-t approval. It is that very procedure which is in need of being implemented by October 25, 1996 by filing with the Clerk of the court. Therefore, there is no ot)ligation on the part of the Huntington Beach City Council or the City Clerk to repurt the action out, in any event, until such lime as the U S. District Court gives final approval to the Consent Decree_ The Decree is expressly contingent upon receiving that court approval. I would appreciate it if you world immediately review this and expedite the signatures. If you can have this document signed and faxed to me today or early Friday morning, 1 will endeavor to have the United States Attornt;y s office accept the fax tiling during the early morning hours and in turn to have the Clerk of the U.S. District Court likewise accept a fax filing with the •ecresentation '.hat tho hard copy WL11 follow immed:dtely thereafter. Very truly yours, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART i THOMAS L WOODRUFF -l'At-iir [Cfl� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTIWOON BEA(H TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney DATE: October 25, 1996 SUBJECT- United States of America and State of California v. Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, et al. Case No. CV 90-3122-AAH-(JRx) Amended Consent Decree Please witness the mayor's signature and attest to the attached, referenced amended consent decree. Inadvertently, the City Clerk was advised by my Deputy not to sign the amended consent decree since it was not reported out in open session on October 22, 1996. 1 regret the misunderstanding involving the issue of Wbether a final decision was made in closed session which needed to be reported out pursuant to Govemment Code Section 54957.1(ai31. The action taken to approve the amended consent decree in the Montrose case by the city council was not final and needed tg tg forwarded to the federal !;Qurt for final consideration and approval. This situation is one of the exceptions which are not to be reported out. See attached Government Code Section 54957.1(a)(3)(B)• It appears to me that misunderstandings such as this could be avoided if my office provided an accompanying memo addressing the requirement of"Report of Action Taken" issue that could advise you in writing how to process closed session items needing the mayor's signature. I will work on developing such a procedure. Thank you for your courtesy and assistance in this matter. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GH1rll Attachments: 1. Amended Consent Decree 2. Government Code Sections 54957.1(a)(3)(B)and (a)(3) 3. Letter to Gail Hutton from Thomas Woodruff, of Woodruff, Spradlin& Smart c: Joseph Barron, Deputy City Attorney Honorable Mayor Dave Sullivan 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and } STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) 2 ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. CV 90-3122-AAH(JRx) 3 ) V. ) AMENDED CONSENT 4 ) DECREE MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORPORATION ) 5 OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ) 6 Defendants. ) 7 8 AND RELATED COUNTER, CROSS, ) AND THIRD PARTY ACTIONS. } 9 10 FOR CITY OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, A Municipal Corporation: 11 WE HEREBY CONSENT to the entry of the Amended Consent Decree in United 12 States, et al. v. Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, et al-, No. CV 90-3122- 13 AAH(JRx), subject to the public notice and comment requirements of 28 C.F.R. §50.7. 14 15 Date- 16 17 , By- r_�cr _ Mayor 18 19 ATTEST: 20 By Cif? Clerk 21 22 :I 23 24 i 25 26 27 II 28 . i i. GOVERNMENT CODE § 54957.1 session unless so authorized by the council. OpAtty.Gen. I No.2S9.1240-93. § 54957.1. Closed sessions; public report of action taken (a) The legislative body of any local agency shall publicly report any action taken in closed session and the vote or abstention of every member present thereon, as follows: (1) Approval of an agreement concluding real estate negotiations pursuant to Section 54956.8 shall be reported after the agreement is final, as specified below- (A) If is own approval renders the agreement final, the body shall report that approval and the substance of the agreement in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. (B) If final approval rests with the other party to the negotiations,the local agency shall disclose the fact of that approval and the substance of the agreement upon inquiry by any person,as soon as the other party or is agent has informed the local agency of its approval. Q) Approval given to ' ' ' its legal counsel to defend, or seek or refrain from seeking appellate review or relief, or to enter as an amicus curiae in any form of litigation as the result of a consultation under Section 54956.9 shall be reported in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. The report shall identify,if known,the adverse party or parties and the substance of the litigation. In the case of approval given to initiate or intervene in an action,the announcement need not identi!�-the action,,the defendants,or other particulars,but shall specify that the direction to initiate or irter.•ene in an action has been given and that the action,the defendants,and the other particulars shall, once formally commenced,be disclosed to any person upon inquiry,unless to do so would jeopardize the agency's ability to effectuate service of process on one or more tursened parties,or that to do so would jeopardize is ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. (3) Approval given to ' ' ' its legal counsel of a settlement of pending litigation,as defined in Section 54956.9,at any stage prior to or during a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding shall be reported after the settlement is final, as specified below: ' (A) If the legislative body accepts a settlement offer signed by the opposing party, the body shall report is acceptance and identify the substance of the agreement in open session at the public meeting du_-ing which the closed session is held. (B) If final approval rests with some other pazzy to the li:i_ :ion or with the court,then as soon as the settlement becomes final,and upon inquiry by any person,the local agency shall disclose the fact of that approval, and identify the substance of the agreement. : (4) Disposition reached as to claims discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.95 shall be : reported as soon as reached in a manner that identifies the name of the claimant,the name of the local agency claimed against,the substance of the clakn,and any monetary amount approved for payment and agreed upon by the claimant. (5) Action raker to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the resignation of, or othemise affect the employment status of a pubL'c employee in closed session.pursuant to Section 54957 shall be reported at the public meeting during which the closed session is held ' ' '. Any report required by this paragraph small identify the title of the position. The general requirement of this paragraph notwithstanding, the repot of a dismissal or of the nonrenew•al of an employment contract shall be deferred until the first public meeting following the exhaustion of admir-Istratiye remedies, if any. (6) approval of an agreement concluding labor negotiations with represented employees pursuant to Section 54957.6 shall be reported after the agreement is final and has been accepted or ratified by the other party. The report shall identify the item approved and the other party or parties to the regotiatior.. . (b) Repo::s that are required to be made pursuant to this section may be made orally or in writing. The legislative body shall pro:ide to any person who has submitted a written request to the legislative body within 24 hours of the posting of the agenda,or to am•person who has made a standing request for all docu:rertation as put of a request for notice of meetings pursuant to Section 54954.1 or 54956,if the requester is present at the time the closed session ends,copies of any contracts,settlement agreements, or other documents that were finally approved or adopted in the closed session. If the action taken results in one or more substantive amendments to the related documents requiring retyping, the documents reed not be released until the retyping is corrp'.ered during normal business hours,provided that the presiding officer of the legislative body or his or her designee orally summarizes the substance of the amerd.-n-rts for the benefit of tl:e docurnert requester or any other person present and requesting th:e infonna:ion. Additions or changes indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks • ' 257 ii L A%W 0rrc;s or WOODRLr T, SPRADLIN & SMAR"1' A PKF"os%1QNAL C0itP0RAn0N 701 SCUM PARXER.STREET. SU!T5 7X-) / ORA.INGP.CA Y 9i 9 4720• (7;4) t58-7(t}J + FAN'(714) x35.77,87 DIRECT DIAL(71 5E4-2f@5 DIRECT FAX(7141565-2505 OC,ober 2=1, 1990 Gail Hutton, Esq. City Attorney City of Huntington BeaCh PO Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: U S QVFRNly1ENT V Mi_QNJ ROSE IiEMIAI FT.AL. Dear Gail: On August 9, 1996: vie for.,_-rced to .he City Clerk and your office a copy of thn Amended Consent Decree in the above referenced matter, together with an analysis and reasons underlying the need for approval thereof- The Decree must be executed by all parties to the litigation, including the City of Huntington Beach, the defense of which was provided through the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, by this office On October 10, 19,Q6, 1 followed up with my letter to you requesting that you have t'r.e City Council act on the approval thereof because the Federal Government ,ntended to file the Decree with the Court on October 25, 1996 At that time the City of Huntington Beach was the only Innni gnvernment entity that had not executed the Decree. I was advised this day by Pair_ „Doe Barron of your staff that the City Council on Mionday, October 21, 1996, in fact did approve the Consent Decree, but that the City Clerk wl;l not release the executed signature pages, apparently for the reason Mat the Council did not report out on Me action taken when they ieccrivened in open session l wou?d like '.o utge that you review this with the City Clerk, because the withhold,ng of this document u^.,il 'he next meeting of November f, 1096 is going to propose considerable d.fficulties to ?he possible detriment of all of the Local Government Public, Agencies. It seems tc me that the provirinns of Government Code Section 54957.1 requiring ,,he repert;r•,g out are r.ot applicable in this case, particularly due to subsection (a)(3)(13) v.;nich provides -'if final approval rests vv, 'h some other party to the litigat:cn or the I rlJ I L A\UKL♦•%1AK1 t.tli�\:tG/\1 Ii.i R`2tiC•1.liTY�' F.i' ti�I L/1_iiti L L.t\'.'+ti.11-Cli• .�.VC.L L 1\(,'Y.\ RiTi.=7J A f7:'Yi.1-,:c:1.1'.t :tAt7H•1A:5 '.,``�"l sitCC.-L--!'v-11f i:.t P'=h�7 a]T!r-.aS r.}Ci»•!.t;i:� +i.``.�'t'A 1(,k"A Si:1R'/�;'-N! 10x-;ht1A7_M 0 D.tti irl K SMA+'.1', kT-. • ni�a,1S;. •+YaYkl•ll Gail Hutton, Esq. October 24, 1996 Page 2 court, then as soon as the settlement becomes final, and upon inquiry by any person or local agencies, shall disclose the fact of that approval and identify the substance of the agreement". Apart from the fact that there realty are no secrets and that there is no harm with disclosing the content of the Consent Decree, the fact remains that it is not yet final and is yet subject to court approval. It 15 that very procedure which is in need of being implemented by October 25, 1996 by filing with the Clerk of the court. Therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the Huntington Beach City Council or the City Clerk to report the action out, in any event, until such time as the U S. District Court gives final approval to the Consent Decree The Decree is expressly contingent upon receiving that court approval. I would appreciate it if you would immediately review this and expedite the signa+ores. If you can have this document signed and faxed to me today or early Friday morniriy. I will endQavor to havo the United States Attorney's uffice accept the fax tiling during the early morning hours and in turn to have the Clerk of the U.S. District Court likewise accept a fax filing with the representation gnat the ham ccpy will follow immdiately thereafter. Very truly yours, WOODRUFF, SPRADUN & SMART �C PAL THOMAS t_ w000RUFF n1r,r.,.r Subject: United States V. Montrose Chemical GAIL OUTTON,City Attomey - 6 STATEMENT FOR MAYOR PRIOR TO CLOSED SESSION Date Oct. 21, 1996 1. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a)TO CONFER WITH ITS ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION WHICH HAS BEEN INITIATED FORMALLY AND TO WHICH THE CITY IS A PARTY_ (CHECK ONE.) m _A_ The title of the litigation is_United States V. Montrme Chemical United States District Court Case No. CV 90-3126 AAH Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the city's ability to effect service of process upon one or more unserved parties; or Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the city's ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. 2. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONFER WITH ITS CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING T PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION: 54956-9(b)(3)(A) (Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs,which facts and circumstances need not be disclosed-) Number of Potential Cases 54956.9('b)(3)(8) (Facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, an accident.disaster. incident, or transactional occurrence that might result in litigation against the agency and that are known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs,which facts or circumstances shall be publicly stated on the agenda or announced.) 54956.9(c) (Based on existing facts and circumstances,the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation_) Number of Potential Cases 3. _ THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CITY S NEGOTIATOR, REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS WITH CONCERNING THE PURCHASE 1 SALE/EXCHANGE/LEASE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT Instruction will concern: Price Terms of Payment Both 4. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO MEET WITH ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING LABOR RELATIONS MATTERS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6. Agency Negotiator- Name Employee Organizations Unrepresented Employes 5. _ THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER PERSONNEL MATTERS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957 n 6. _ THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.7 TO MEET WITH AN APPLICANT FOR A CITY LICENSE AND THE APPLICANTS ATTORNEY. 4/s/G:Closc&Montrose Instructions for City Clerk Regarding Montrose Chemical case Consent Decree n � 1. Mayor signs Consent Decree_ vN-+ ^2� 2. City Clerk attests Consent Decree_ N '�TyP 3 Send executed, amended Consent Decree via facsimile to- Thomas Woodruff, Esg d' (714) 565-2545 4. Return original, executed, amended Consent Decree to Gail Hutton, City Attorney for mailing. This is extremely time sensitive according to Thomas Woodruff, Esq. (714) 564--2605.