HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/10/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, October 3, 1995 Council Chambers
4:12 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Alevy, Moot (arrived at 4:30 p.m.), Padilia, Rindone, and
Mayor Hotton
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 26, 1995 (Regular Meeting of the City Council) and
September 26, 1995 (Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment
Agency)
MSC (Rindone/Alevy) to apprnve the minutes of September 26, 1995 (Regular Meeting of the City Council)
and September 26, 1995 (Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency) as presented, approved
4-0-1 with Moot absent.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
® A representative of Elite Racing presented Council with T-shirts and intbrmation regarding the Artoro Barrios
10K run on Sunday, October 8, 1995.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: 10)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of
the text was waived, passed und approved 4-0-1 with Mout absent.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there was no observed reportable action taken in Closed Session
on 9/26/95. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
6. RESOLUTION 18050 AUTHORIZING CITY TO AWARD BID TO BAKER & TAYLOR FOR
PURCHASE OF LIBRARY BOOKS AND AUD10 VISUAL MATERIALS -For the last 17 years, the City has
participated in a cooperative bid arrangement with the City of San Diego tbr the purchase of books and audio visual
materials. In a letter of August 1995 the current book and materials vendor, Baker & Taylor, informed the Library
that Chula Vista would no longer be extended the same terms as the San Diego Public Library. Based on that
decision, the Library prepared bid specifications which were issued in late August. Four major vendors in the
public library market responded. Staff' recommends approval of tbc resolution. (Library Director)
7. RESOLUTION 18051 ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ADULT BASIC
EDUCATION SECTION 321 GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO THE CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 BUDGET - On 6/6/95, Council
ratified the Library's application for Adult Basic Education 321 grant funds t~r fiscal year 1995/96. The grant
award of $5,606 will be used to provide staff development and training to the Adult Literacy Coordinator, tutor
trainer and/or staff. Additional funds will be used to cover the costs of printing literacy outreach and recruitment
materials. Staff recommends approval of the resolotion. (Library Director) 4/5th~s vote required.
Minutes
October 3, 1995 [""-
Page 2
8. RESOLUTION 18052 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-95-30; APPROVING THE
CLOSURE OF CENTER STREET BETWEEN THIRD AVENUE AND CHURCH AVENUE ON THURSDAY
AFTERNOONS BETWEEN 2:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. FOR A FARi~IERS' MARKET SPECIAL EVENT
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE FEES FOR THE VENDORS
PARTICIPATING IN THE SPECIAL EVENT - On 8/2/94, Council approved the closure of Third Avenue
between "E" Street and Davidson Avenue fi~r a one year period to acconunodate a Farmers' Market on Thursday
afternoons which is sponsored by the Downtown Business Association (DBA). In July of this year, the DBA Board
of Directors evaluated the Market operation and reevaluated its location and voted to relocate the Market to Center
Street east of Third Avenue tbr the 1996 season. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Community Development)
9.A. RESOLUTION 18053 WAIVING CONDITION NUMBER 38 OF RESOLUTION 17618 APPROVING
THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT 88-3A, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS - On 12/6/94,
Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract 95-01, EastLake South Greens, Unit 27, known as
Fieldstone Crest. On 7/18/89, Council aIso approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract 88-3, EastLake
Greens. On 8/16/94, Coonell approved an amendment to the southerly portion of said EastLake Greens tentative
map, designated as EastLake South Greens, Tract 88-3A. Staff reco~mnends approval of the resolutions. (Director
of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 18054 APPROVING FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 95-01 EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS, UNIT 27, FIELDSTONE CREST,
ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP,
REJECTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE OPEN SPACE LOTS GRANTED ON
SAID MAP, ACCEPTING THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION
C. RESOLUTION 18055 APPROVING SUPPLEi~IENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREENIENT REQUIRING DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS
OF RESOLUTIONS NUMBER 17749 AND 15200 APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP FOR PARCEL R-27,
KNOWN AS FIELDSTONE CREST, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
I0. RESOLUTION 18056 APPROVING AGREEi~IENT AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE BUS
STOP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT -The agreement specifies the responsibilities for construction and maintenance
of the Bus Stop Improvement Project. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
· Thomas Davis, 1657 Gotham Street, Chula Vista, CA, f~lt Southwestern College should be served by the bus
lines in Chula Vista, but he objected to the method by which the decision was being made. At one time there was
a petition signed by over 300 people in opposition to the location of the bus stop. The agreement before Council
was not brought to the residents attention and only a few people had been notified that it was on the agenda. He
did not feel $650,000 of tax payers money was not a minor improvement. On 2/22/93, the Board directed the
President of the College to participate in negotiations with the City but specified where they wanted the bus stop
and the proposal before Council was not that location. He requested the item be postponed until there was a clear
definition of what the Board's position was and include the residents in the process.
Mayor Hotton stated she had worked with Mr. Conti and it was her understanding that the Board approved the
proposal belbre Council.
Mr. Lippitt gave a brief history of the project and process utilized. Mr. Conti had taken the item to his Board and
final action on the agreement was scheduled on 10/11/95. Southwestern College had not notified the property
owners regarding their actions.
Bill Gustarson, Transit Director, inti~rmed Council that all the people that spoke at the public hearing in 1992 had
been notified of the 10/3/95 meeting. That included all the homeowners on Otay Lakes Road directly across the
street from the college. The proposed site before Conncil was the first choice in October, 1992 by a group of
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 3
individuals which included residents of the neighborhood, city/county staff, MTDB, and College representatives.
It had taken three years to implement the proposal. It was an expansion of the existing bus stop location on campus.
Mr. Davis stated a College representative had intbrmed him that they had not changed the position taken in 1993.
The item was on the 8/9/95 agenda as a President's Report item at which time no comment was made. He felt it
was the City's and Board's obligation to notit~ the residents.
· Robert F. Kelley, 875 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA, stated he objected to the secrecy. He questioned
if the staff parking lot at the front of the school would be expanded.
Mr. Gustafson responded that the existing facility where the buses stopped, by the circular road on campus, would
be expanded. The front lot would not be expanded.
Councilmember Rindone stated it had been a contentious issue for a long time. He complimented the Southwestern
College Board and Mr. Conti tbr reviewing all alternatives and considering both the College and City interests.
He had originally pulled the item from the Consent Agenda due to the residents concerns, aesthetic impacts, etc.
and he felt those issues had been addressed. He questioned whether Chula Vista Transit would be adding additional
buses for routes serving Southwestern College and eastern Chula Vista.
Mr. Gustafson responded that the potential was there to add routes to serve eastern Chula Vista within the next
several years.
RESOLUTION 18056 OFFERED BY COUNCILI~IEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived.
Councilmember Moot questioned if there was a reason why those previously involved had not been notified.
Mr. Gustafson responded that those individuals at the public hearing in 1992 and those participating in the two
meetings in 10/92 were notified. Site 6A, which was betbre Council tbr approval, had been identified at the first
priority site at that time.
VOTE ON RESOLUTION 18056: approved unanimously.
10.1 RESOLUTION 18063 AUTHORIZING A DEFERRAL OF TRIPS FOR FUTURE CITY FACILITIES
IN RANCHO DEL REY AND ASSIGNING THOSE TRIPS TO THE PROPOSED YMCA ON PASEO
RANCHERO - The YMCA is proposing to construct a new facility on Paseo Ranthero to serve residents. It was
determined that the facility had not been given any trip assignments in previous studies and an environmental impact
may result from the additional trips. The YMCA is requesting the City consider offsetting, on a temporary basis,
the traffic generated frown the new facility against future traffic from the fire stations and library located within the
same traffic analysis zone. An assigmnent of trips would allow the YMCA to prepare a mitigated negalive
declaration and to proceed with the design review of the new building. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Planning)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
11. PUBL1C HEARING CONSIDERING VACATION OF A PORT1ON OF ORANGE AVENUE ALONG
THE FRONTAGE OF DON LUIS MOB1LE ESTATES AT 121 ORANGE AVENUE - On 9/12/95, Council
declared its intention to vacate an excess portion of Orange Avenoe right-of way along the frontage of the Don Luis
Mobile Estates mobile hmne park and set 10/3/95 as the date for the public bearing. Staff recommends the public
hearing be continued to 10/10/95. (Director of Public Works)
This being the tilne and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
MSC (Padilla/Horton) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 10/10/95, apprnved 4-0-1 with Moot
absent.
· I
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 4
12. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-47 TO ESTABLISH
A 20,000 SEAT OUTDOOR AMPHITHEATER AND AN OPEN AIR MARKET LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD AND OTAY RIO ROAD - BITTERLIN-BRICE
DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS FOR MCA CONCERTS, INC. AND KOBEY'S CHULA VISTA MARKET
PLACE, LLC; AND CONSIDERING THE VACATION OF VAR1OUS STREETS IN OTAY RIO BUSINESS
PARK - Bitterlin-Brice Development Partners as representatives of MCA Concerts, Inc. is proposing to construct
a 20,000 seat capacity amphitheater in the Otay Rio Business Park located at the southwest quadrant of Otay Valley
Road and Otay Rio Road. Also, Kobey's Marketplace proposed to operate an open air market on the site on certain
days of the week when the amphitheater is not in use. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director
of Community Development, Director of Planning and Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting
of 9/26/95. -- Time Certain 6:00 p.m.
A. RESOLUTION 18057 CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-95-03, MCA
CHULA VISTA AMPHITHEATER
B. RESOLUTION 18058 APPROVING (l) A TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT WITH LOS ALISOS
COMPANY AND MCA CONCERTS, INC.; (2) GROUND LEASE BY AND BET~VEEN LOS ALlSOS
COMPANY AND MCA CONCERTS, INC.; AND (3) SUBLEASE WITH MCA CONCERTS, 1NC.
C. RESOLUTION 18059 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-95-47, TO BITTERLIN-
BRICE DEVELOPSlENT PARTNERS FOR MCA CONCERTS, INC. TO CONSTRUCT A 20,000 SEAT
CAPACITY AMPHITHEATER AT THE SOUTH~VEST QUADRANT OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD AND
OTAY RIO ROAD
D. RESOLUTION 18060 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-95-47, TO KOBEY'S [
CHULA VISTA MARKETPLACE, LLC, TO OPERATE AN OPEN AIR MARKET AT THE SOUTH~VEST
QUADRANT OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD AND OTAY RIO ROAD
E. RESOLUTION 18061 ORDERING THE VACATION OF VARIOUS STREETS IN OTAY RIO
BUSINESS PARK
Chris Salomone, Director ef Commnnity Development, stated staff' recommended that Council take no action at the
present time because the business deal had not been finalized. Staff felt it would be resolved in a few days and,
therefore, recommended that staff be allowed to make their presentation, Council hear the applicants presentation,
and public testimony. Staff felt they would be able to return within two weeks with a final recommendation.
Joe Monaco, Environmental Prqjects Manager, gave a brief review of the draft and final EIR's. Eleven letters of
comments were received on the Draft EIR regarding noise, traffic and biological impacts. The Final EIR addressed
those concerns and responded to verbal comments received at the Planning Commission hearing. On 9/16/95 the
Planning Commission reconunended certification of the Final EIR and approval of the CUP with the condition that
an additional sound test be conducted to monitor specific sensitive locations. The results of that test had been
presented to Council.
Councilmember Rindone questioned which of the seven monitoring areas in Otay Ranch were not in Village 3.
Mr. Monaco responded reti~rred to an overhead and stated there was only one location in Village 3, the rest were
in other villages and in future residential areas. The results in Village 3 were 65 dBA.
Martin Miller, Associate Planner, gave a slide presentation of the site and tour of other facilities.
Mr. Salomone stated there was another proposal in the City, i.e. on the Bayfront, and information was provided
in the Council packets. It was his understanding that the Port was beginning their environmental analysis, ["~
scheduling a noise study within the next 30 days, and expected to be through the EIR in March or June.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Chris Bitterlin, 525 B Street, San Diego, CA, representing MCA, stated MCA needed a site that would allow
them to make a major investment, allow them to operate tbr the intended use, and to be a good neighbor and
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 5
corporate citizen. The three major issues in finding a site were: 1) location, 2) environment, and 3) economics.
The proposed site was the best site of 35 looked at in the County over 10 years. The location was within 30
minutes of any city in the County and 17 minutes from downtown San Diego. From their noise tests they could
stage a wide variety of musical entertainment acts and comply with the City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista
noise ordinances and peacefully co-exist with existing and filture residential neighborhoods. With the improvements
on Otay Valley Road that were already a part of the assessment district it would allow the fi'ee flow of traffic on
a sell-out. The site was developable and they had an attractive lease agreement. The City would receive stabilized
income from the project of over $400,000/year and they had agreed to project fees to the City of $1.3 million.
MCA would be responsible for property taxes and assessment district obligations fbr Phase 1. The project would
e~anee the redevelopment effbrt for the Otay Valley Road corridor and was endorsed by the current Otay Valley
Road car dealers. The project was 100% financed by MCA with no requests for public financing, other than the
early widening of the filth lane east of Nirvana.
· Jay Marciano, President, MCA, gave a brief background of MCA Inc. the parent company and MCA Concerts.
He presented a slide presentation of existing f~.cilitie~s currently operated by MCA Concerts.
· Bill Bethman, BBA Architectural Planning, Prqject Architect, gave a slide presentation of examples of Taliesin
and BBA projects along with drawings of the proposed prc~iect.
Mr. Marciano stated each year the project would pay approximately $500,000 in f~es and taxes directly to the City.
One hundred percent of the funding f~,r the prqject would be provided by MCA and there were no requests
public tax dollars or bond financing. The prqiect had received the endorsement and support from a broad sector
of local businesses, organizations, and individuals. Those included the Chamber of Commerce, Economic
Development Commission, Planning Commission, Califbrnia Yonth Soccer Association, Broadway Business
Association, and the San Diego Symphony. MCA was ready to build in 1996 and they were already holding dates
for artists. They would also be working closely with the San Diego Symphony to provide a summer schedule.
Should the project be approved MCA would contribute on an escalating scale from 15C to 50C per ticket sold in
order to create a Chula Vista Performing Arts fund. Each year that contribution wonld raise approximately
$150,000 which would ensure that fine arts programn'dng would be presented in Chula Vista regardless of bottom
line economics. To his knowledge the concept of a Performing Arts fund had never been applied to any other
amphitheater in North America. MCA thanked staff and Cormell.
Those speaking in support of the MCA proposal were:
· Steve Palma, 176 Montgomery Street, Chula Vista, CA, President, Otay Committee, stated what he wanted for
the community as a whole was what was best tbr everyone.
· Walter L. Fisher, P. O. Box 3666, Chula Vista, CA, stated his concerns had been addressed by MCA and staff.
Sound tests had shown that there were no noise impacts in his area and MCA agreed to a third sound test to further
ally their fears. Mr. Marciano and members of his development team walked through the test areas during the
sound test and talked to residents personally. He t~lt MCA would be a good corporate neighbor and bring nothing
but positive benefits to the City.
· Ed Martija, 786 Madison, Chula Vista, CA, Vice-Chair, Chula Vista Economic Development Commission,
stated the EDC unanimously voted to support the MCA project. They had tried to analyze the financial impacts
to the City from both the amphitheater projects. They could not determine how the other project compared
regarding direct revenues to the City, continuing revenues, cost of operation, cost of construction, etc. It was his
understanding that some Conncilmembers wanted to delay a decision until the other proposal was ready for
consideration. He did not feel that spoke well regarding integrity, setting City policy, etc. He encouraged Council
not to delay action any lenger than necessary.
· Gary Cooper, 767 Riverlawn Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated he was opposed to the l~ayfront proposal. He
felt an amphitheater would be good for Chula Vista and that MCA's prQiect was well thought out and had addressed
the issues of noise, traffic, and environment.
· Carolyn F. Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chnla Vista, CA, stated she was opposed to the Bayfront proposal and
supported the MCA proposal. She suggested that a top be put on the f:acility to control noise and allow use
throughout the year. She also t~lt it shonld be leased ont to other cities in order to create additional revenues.
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 6
· Billy Cox, 49 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, President, Chula Vista Police Officers Association, stated they
had been in contact with cities and departments that dealt with similar projects and had received positive responses.
The City's Chief of Police had extensive experience in large scale special events, traffic, and crowd control.
Accessibility in the area had been well demonstrated, the f~a~ibility had been well demonstrated, and the project
was ready to go. The POA had concerns regarding the Bayfront prqject due to accessibility, feasibility had yet to
be proven, the City would have to work with the Port District and the Coastal Commission, and the POA did not
have faith that the project would be ready in the near hilum and the needs of the citizens was now. They urged
approval of the MCA prc~iect.
· Jim Weaver, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, President, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, read a
statement which recon'unended support of the MCA proposal. The Chamber vote had been unanimous in support.
Their Government Affairs Comu'~ttee and Economic Development Cmmnittee had reviewed the project and both
gronps had unanimously w~ted in support of file MCA proposal.
· Paul L. Babin, 615 Penelope, Chula Vista, CA, felt the MCA project was good for the City and the Southbay.
He was opposed to the Bayfront pr¢~iect and noted that an amphitheater would not attract resort hotels as they looked
for peace and quiet.
· Mary Salas, 802 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA, Chula Vista Planning Commission, stated Council needed
to consider which project would bring more revenues to the City, provide more job opportunities, and was willing
to provide sources of revenues to schools, non-profit and volunteer organizations. MCA would provide direct
revenues to the City in terms of ticket tax. Chula Vista would not have control over the Bayfront project. As a
member of the Planning Commission who had reviewed the EIR and listened to all testimony, she was becoming
increasingly frustrated by the delay tactics employexl by some of the members of the City Council. The City needed
the project and the MCA proposal would benefit the City more than the Bayfront proposal. The Planning
Commission had unanimously voted to certify the EIR and recommended approval of the CUP. She urged a quick
decision on the issue beli~re the City lost out on a good opportunity tbr the citizens of Chula Vista.
· William E. Claycomb, 457 Delaware Street, hnperial Beach, CA, President, Save Our Bay, Inc., stated he was
not a member of the Sierra Cleb and then read paragraph 9 from a stipulated settlement, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Calit~>rnia, Civil No. 86-1942-GT (IEG) from 1988 which he felt would negatively
impact the Bayfi'ont proposal.
· Patty Davis, 1375 #17 Calle Jon Montefriu, Chula Vista, CA, Chula Vista Planning and Economic Development
Commissions, supported the MCA pro. ject and hoped Council would move forward quickly. She did not feel the
Bayfront amphitheater would ever be approved and the Council would never have a vote on the proposal, only the
Port Commission would decide. Chula Vista would then end up with none of the revenues and all of the problem,
i.e. Plaza Bonita. When the Bayfi'ont proposal was presented the stage was on the east side so it would not inflict
noise on the residential area of west Chula Vista. When Commissioner Spears from Coronado Cayes objected it
was changed to the west side. When the Planning Commission requested an additional sound test it was set up
within one week; she questioned why the Bayfront proposal had not done a sound test. She questioned why the City
would go into a .joint venture with the Port filr less money with no control.
· Tom Morgan, 750 "B" Street, San Diego, CA, Chair, San Diego Symphony Orchestra Foundation, stated they
had been in discussions with representatives of MCA and had reviewed the proposal. They looked forward to
having a world class venue in the Southbay where they could bring the symphony to the community. He encouraged
Council to move forward with a decision as soon as possible so they could make plans regarding the facility.
· Brian Seltzer, 750 "B" Street, San Diego, CA, representing Kobey's Market Place, stated they were enthusiastic
about working with MCA. Kobey's was a hmily business and had been in business in the region for 15 years.
The family was involved in the community, they knew their customers, and their vendors. They currently shared
use of the sports arena and had learned to co-exist and tear down their business on a daily basis if necessary.
Kobey's would utilize the infrastructure at those times MCA was not utilizing the/hcility. It was an excellent
opportunity for redevelopment of the area and site. Kobey's was an economic spark plug and business incubator
and the City would realize the sales tax revenues and business license income along with other direct and indirect
benefits. Kobey's was not seeking public financing or subsidies, but simply wanted the opportunity to do business
within the community.
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 7
· Charles Pretto, 750 "B" Street, San Diego, CA, stated Kobey's would bring 25-50 employees into the area and
the 300 vendors for the first year would generate a proportionate amount of jobs; sales tax and licensing revenues
were estimated over $1 million over the first ten years. Kobey's provided opportunities for small businesses, i.e.
an incubator program, where a vacant parking lot would normally be. The parking lot would also be made available
for non-profit charitable use.
· Barry J. Ross, 265 Santa Helena #100, Solann Beach, CA, representing Robinhood Homes, Inc., stated they
were the owner of the property above the amphitheater on the southern rim and their project, a 600 home
community, had already been approved by the City of San Diego. They limit the MCA prc~iect offered the City and
Southbay an extraordinary opportunity. Robinhood Ridge had basically been ignored in the EIR and they had
worked with MCA over the last nine months on how they could make the facility work and he was impressed with
the MCA team. MCA had agreed to pay to the Otay Mesa facilities benefit assessment (FBA) certain fees that were
currently being negotiated. Therefore, they supported the MCA project.
· Rod Davis, 46 Center Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated the current zoning of the property would allow installation
of a jack hammer manufacturing and test facility which would not have to go befi~re Council tier approval. He also
felt the off roaders probably caused a higher decibel reading than the concert setting. He had contacted the sheriff
in Arapaho County regarding crime and noise statistics for Fiddlers Green and was inli~rmed that there were
problems the first year, but after the constrnction of the noise wall the noise complaints had significantly dropped.
In comparing the number of concert goers to the nnmber of arrests, the sheriff tMt there were bars that had more
trouble than the MCA amphitheater. The prqiect should be in City control and on City property to create jobs and
utilize the facility for local activities, i.e. proins, graduations, large dinners, union meetings, etc. He felt MCA
would be a good corporate neighbor.
· Charles Schroder, 440 "L" Street #I, Chula Vista, CA, stated MCA had gone out of the their way to prove that
noise would not impact the neighborhood and the sound test was done under inversion conditions. He did not feel
there was evidence to support the allegation that crime would increase. When revenues declined, services declined
and that was when crime increased. He noted that traffic at the MCA Universal Amphitheater disbursed rapidly
after events.
· Steve Redfeam, 9914 Bourbon Court, San Diego, CA, stated he worked for Bill Silva Productions and their
company had the unsuccessful bid in Poway for an amphitheater. He was not present to speak regarding MCA
Concerts, but he had witnessed a Port Commissioner t¥om Chula Vista telling Tom Morgan that he would never
get money again from the Port for the symphony. Mr. Morgan was one of the most gentle, honest, noble men he
had met in San Diego.
Mayor Horton stated it was probably because if it was not on Port land they woeld not be receiving Port money.
She felt it needed to be put in the right context.
Mr. Redlearn stated it appeared that MCA had spent a lot of money even beli~re doing their EIR. He was
concerned regarding the Bayfront prc~iect and the amount of money being spent and intbrmation being made
available. He was at the Port meeting where Admiral Spear questioned if the Bayfront ~';acility would be pointing
to Coronado and, when told yes, the facility was rotated. He questioned how long the new direction of the Bayfront
facility had been studied. He felt there were three fatal flaws to the Bayfront project: 1) the E1R stated they had
an average of 95 dBA's at the board and that would delete about 30 % of all touring acts because 95 dBA's was not
loud enough; 2) it was only 15,000 seats which would eliminate the large performers.
Mayor Hotton questioned why they could play at the Universal Theater which was only 6,000 - 7,000 seats.
Mr. Redfearn replied the Los Angeles market was dift~rent and they conld play multiple nights. San Diego was
not a big City and the performers would not play multiple nights. The third flaw to the Bayfront proposal was the
10:00 p.m. curfew.
· William C. Tuchscher, 3633 Bonita Verde Drive, Bonita, CA, Chair, Chula Vista Planning Commission,
informed Council that the Conumssion made a decision on one project only, i.e. the project that was before them.
No comments or discussion was held regarding other potential opportunities. As a result of the Baldwin presentation
they conditioned their approval upon a new noise test which had since been completed. They also took into account
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 8
that Village 3 was zoned industrial which was something their Cmmnission intended. They did acknowledge that
certain future neighborhoods woold be affected within the noise contours as contained in the EIR.
® Patti Connell, 4040 Hancock, San Diego, CA, owner of The Incense Lady, stated she had a small business at
Kobey's fur 14 years. She noted that many of the customers at Kobey's were those on fixed incomes. Kobey's
was a good, clean, finely run swap meet.
· Edward L. Fast, 3183 Plantel Way, San Ysidro, CA, owner of Fu-Taing, stated he had a small business at
Kobey's for 6 years. He noted that Kobey's hired a lot of military personnel from the area. Many of their
customers were returning tourists.
· Jeff Clark, 481 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA, owner of Music Trader, stated they presently had 9 stores including
one in Chula Vista. They got their start at Kobey's and f~lt no other swap meet could compare in appeal,
organization, and cleanliness.
· Everett Maczko, 1450 Sundale Road, El Cajon, CA, owner of Macz. ko Galleries, stated they had been associated
with Kobey's for 11 of the 15 years Kobey's had been at the sports arena. It was a place where families could go
and enjoy themselves. Kobey's went out of their way to keep things clean and safe.
Those speaking in opposition to the MCA proposal were:
· Donna Russell, 1581 Point Delgada Court, Chula Vista, CA, expressed her concern regarding the noise and
traffic impacts. It was her understanding that all traffic would access Main and Otay Valley Road, up Orange
Avenoe and Brandywine. She questioned why a noise test was not held where all the residents knew what was
going on, with the decibel level of an actoal concert, and under normal weather conditions. They currently had the
industrial parks, auto parks, dump and associated trncks, jenk yards and tow trucks in their area.
· Robert Giacobassi, 1648 Ocala Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated the road to 905 would not be developed by the
City of San Diego and he expressed his concerns with the traffic impacts. The swap meet and MCA would
encroach their neighborhoods with cruising, noise, and car smog. He further expressed concern with people going
through the trash in the neighborhood. He personally could not hear the speakers at his address. Changing the
Municipal Code should not have even been brought to Council lbr consideration. They had been informed that some
of the security woold be off duty police officers and he expressed his concern about what type of job they could
do the next day on their regular shift.
· Pat Carrillo, 1677-A Melrose Avenue, Chela Vista, CA, representing Melrose Villas Home Owners Association,
stated there were 92 homeowners that were opposed to the MCA proposal. They were concerned with traffic, drug
use, air pollution, noise, violence, and gangs.
· Joan Hansen, 483 Tarata Court, Chula Vista, CA, was opposed to the MCA prqject.
· John E. Hansen, 483 Tarata Court, Chela Vista, CA, was opposed to the MCA project.
· John E. Hansen Jr., 1604 Ocala Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, was opposed to the MCA project.
· William A. Jones, 1600 Palm Avenoe #59, Chula Vista, CA, representing CA Mini-Motorcycle Club, not
present when called.
· Aimee Jones, 1600 Palm Avenue #59, Chola Vista, CA, representing CA Mini-Motorcycle Clob, not present
when called.
· William Feltham, 1539-252 Sonora Drive, Chula Vista, CA, stated he was opposed to the MCA proposal due
to the noise and traffic impacts, increase of crime and loss of valne in his home. He questioned if the revenues
received by the City were worth destroying the neighborhood.
® Stephen P. Delaney, 12520 High Bluff Drive #165, San Diego, CA, TopMark, representing The Nederlander
Companies, stated they had talked with staff to keep them updated and had offered to make a presentation to
Council. He was available to answer any questions regarding their project.
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 9
· Lee Kienholz, 696 Arrow Point Court, Chula Vista, CA, representing Point Robinhood Homeowners
Association, stated they were a community of 291 single fhmily dwellings located 1¼ mile west/northwest of the
proposed site, on the ranch, overlooking the site. They had been told that the noise would not damage the
community, but he did not know how to reconcile that information with intbrmation received from other
communities where they stated they could feel the noise as well as hear it as much as five miles away. Rock
concerts would bring anti-social behavior due to the type of people drawn to the concert. It was the opinion of the
Poway City Attorney that the revenues received would be the most expensive revenues they would ever get. He
supported entertainment, but did not support the destruction of a community in the process.
· Claudia Derwin, 273 D Rancho Drive, Chula Vista, CA, stated she worked part-time fbr the City of San Diego -
Special Events Traffic and noted the numerous traffic problems the City of San Diego faced with special events.
Due to the numerous complaints received regarding traffic, parking, trash, etc. they had to hire 15-20 additional
traffic controllers. She felt one lawsuit would wipe out all the City's economic advantages.
· Gale Moriarity, representing BAN, stated Jack Murphy Stadium usually only sold 16,000 seats which caused
all the traffic impacts. The MCA amphitheater would have parking tbr 20,000 people. She then reviewed parking
requirements for similar facilities. Nederlander gave over $1 million to the City of Los Angeles for the Greek
Theater and also covered the cost of 15 uniformed officers inside, 8 nnitbrmed officers ontside, 4 mounted officers,
and 2 motorcycle officers. They also had their own secority guards. She then reviewed the arrest statistics and
complaints received for existing facilities. There were no seat allotments for officials of the City of Los Angeles
and she questioned the 12 seat allotments to the City of Chula Vista, i.e. $18,000 in revenues not given to the City.
The Greek Theater was in a natural dish and the proposed amphitheater was in a natural megaphone. She expressed
concern regarding trash left on the soccer fields and -usage by children. The sound test averaged 5 minutes for 11
times and was silent the rest of the time. Frequency was not heard because noise was not just in loudness but also
in frequency and intensity as well.
* * * Council recessed at 8:08 p.m. and reconvened at 8:26 p.m. * * *
· Marcia Peissner, 951 St. Germaim Chula Vista, CA, was not present when called.
· Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing the Baldwin Company, referenced a letter
distributed to Council. It was not his practice nor the practice of Baldwin to qoestion the merits of other projects
pending before the City, but they had concerns with the proposal relative to the issue of noise. They were alarmed
with the distribution of areas that were tested for noise impacts. Only one sound test was conducted within Otay
Ranch and that was on property not owned by the Baldwin Company. They had not been notified of the first two
sound tests. Their second area of concern was with the consultants conclusion, EIR Technical Report, which stated
"In the experience of the noise consultant t~,r the applicant that within 50 dBA the maximum allowable noise that
a residential area wonld deem to be acceptable, noise beyond that would be unacceptable and there would be
complaints". In the next paragraph they recommend that the City of Chula Vista discourage any residential
development inside of that contour and if that happened the City would continue to have noise complaints. He then
presented a transparency which designated the areas within the 50 dBA which was a significant portion of Village
2 and Village 4 within Otay Ranch and all of Village 3 which would be unusable liar residential development. The
applicant had acknowledged that fact, but pointed out that within the City General Plan it was designated for
industrial and, therefore, there would be no compatibility problem. However, within the County General Plan it
was zoned residential. He presented a graphic depicting the fi'equency of noise complaints from a Palo Alto study
which was overlayed on their property. The EIR did not address the issue of the impact on weather on amphitheater
noise. Baldwin fi~lt it was an extraordinary impact. Noise walls did not stop noise from amphitheaters in an
inversion situation which had also been acknowledged by the applicant. It was imperative that a weather condition
be known befi~re Council approved an amphitheater, or understood the design of an amphitheater, or the potential
impact of an amphitheater. The noise standard imposed by CEQA guidelines was significantly higher and different
than the noise standard that was in the EIR. Amphitheater noise was different than freeway noise or airplane noise,
and was not readily measurable by standard noise techniques because nf its relatively low freqnency problems. The
proponents did a third test and Baldwin had jost received the results and had not had time to review it in depth.
They did have a noise expert observe the test and his report was pending review. He expressed two areas of
concern, i.e. how the speakers were arranged which conld have underestimated sound by up to 23 dBA and the
sample of music used did not have a low frequency of noise as was expected in a typical concert situation. Table
10 of the Fiscal Impact Summary included inflated dollars and not current dollars, i.e. net present value. He hoped
the City would review his conclusions to see if his fiscal analysis was correct.
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 10 [""
® Greg Smith, Box 2786, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, representing SNMB the owners of most of Village 3 and Village
4, stated they were concerned regarding the proposal. They did not believe it should be at the doorstep of Otay
Ranch or pointed at Otay Ranch, Village 4, and up Wolf Canyon which was the estate area of Otay Ranch. The
project was confusing as the EIR stated it was an 85 ft. stroc~ure 60 l~c. above the surlhce and in the staff report
stated it was a 125 ft. structure 100 l~t. above the surlhce. It was an eight story boilding and the EIR stated it would
not be visual with the planting of trees and hnrming. They could not make eight stories go away, it would be very
visible and the 125 t~. height was not evaluated in the EIR, He t~lt the EIR was one of the poorest he had read in
years and that it was a good justification fi3r the pr~iect. Birds over 60 dBA had nesting problems and the EIR
concluded that there was no significant efl~ct. A biological study was not a condition included in the EIR and it
should be along with no construction during the breeding season. The average trip length was estimated to be 10
miles and unless half the traffic came froln Mexico that would not be true, thereby invalidating most of the traffic
and air quality analysis. Otay Ranch overlooked the facility at a much higher elevation, therefore, a noise wall
would have little effect. A reasonable alternative would be to study the impacts of turning the facility. The City
would pay for the road and he did not believe that MCA would pay the assessments for the widening of Otay Valley
Road. MCA woold not pay all the City of San Diego's t~cilities benefit assessment (FBA) and development fees
which was a subsidy of $1.5 million. He suggested the City take the $l-$2 million and put it somewhere near the
trolley, west of 1-5, where it conld help to revitalize downtown. At a minimum they felt MCA should have to study
rotating the t~.cility so all the consequences wlmld be known.
· David Wade, 419 Park Way, Chula Vista, CA, representing the San Diego Off Road Coalition, stated
approximately 200 people per weekend otilized the site as a riding area and had been there for the last 30 years.
He disagreed with the EIR's conclosion that they were "an insignificant amount of illegal trespass". Perhaps they
were an illegal trespass, but there were very few legal opportunities in the area. When the Wal-Mart area was
developed they moved into the amphitheater site. They paid lees as a special recreational group and a portion of
the fees went to Chnla Vista. It was an unwanted prqiect by the neighborhood.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if Mr. Wade telt the Coonoil should consider illegal activity in it's decision on
whether or not to grant a conditional ose permit.
Mr. Wade replied that it should be fi~rther investigated in the EIR. He did not believe that they were insignificant
no matter whether they were legal or not.
· Kimberly Marshall, 1621 Oleander Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, felt the con's out voted the advantages for the
City. She reqoested that Council look into and verify anything that would have an adverse impact on the
surroundings.
· Kevin Marshall, 1621 Oleander Avenue, Chola Vista, CA, stated Council had a tendency to look at the dollars,
but sometimes they needed to look at the families. If the amphitheater was approved those people that lived closest
to it would have to deal with traffic, trash, and noise. He expressed his concern as to what affect those impacts
would have on the children in the area.
· Beverly Berwick, 1063 Waterville Lake Road, Chula Vista, CA, stated the vision for East'Lake had been city
close, country quiet. She felt the MCA prt~ject jeopardized that vision. She requested that Council re-examine the
controlling vision they had lbr Chula Vista and make their decision on a 20,000 seat amphitheater accordingly. She
felt it would bring a lot of expensive problems to the City, and the short term revenues would be out weighed by
the long term damage to the City.
· Teresa Berwick, 1063 Waterville Lake Road, Chula Vista, CA, stated the future generation was tired of urban
sprawl and the decay that accompanied it. She felt the amphitheater was inappropriate for the urban setting as it
would destroy their quality of life. The City's energies should be directed in attracting clean and high wage
industries such as bio technology, computer software, etc.
· Betty Johnson, 1546 Olive Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, was-not present when called.
· Keith Holbrook, P. O. Box 31, JamoI, CA, stated the Bayfront project wotfid be good for Chula Vista and would
not impact a large number of people. He corrently otilized the proposed area for the MCA amphitheater for
recreational vehicle usage.
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 11
· Bryant VanKleeck, 422 East Oxford, Chula Vista, CA, opposed the MCA proposal.
· Panla McCartin, 273 D Rancho Drive, Chula Vista, CA, was not present when called.
· Robert Moriarity, Chula Vista, CA, representing BAN, stated he was a former police officer and his past
experiences with concerts led him to believe that there was a high incidence of drng use at the concerts. Drag use
was to be expected at concerts and, therefore, very [~w were arrested and it did not show up on police reports.
He thought he was seeing a parallel regarding a "gypsy switch". He was afraid that some members of the Council
were very concerned about the financial welfare of the City and had been oftered a great deal of money with "no
strings attached".
Councilmember Padilia questioned if Mr. Moriarity believed that in some fashion the Council was being "duped"
by the MCA proposal.
Mr. Moriarity stated he believed that there were members of the Council that wanted desperately to find an easy
way out of the City's financial problems/future and they wanted to hear positive things that told them that it was
all right. There was considerable information available from cities that had amphitheaters that Council had not been
receiving and he t~lt that some of the Conncilmembers were not open to receiving that information.
Councilmember Padilia stated he had been reviewing intbn'nation for months. He was concerned that Mr. Moriarity
had made the suggestion that there was some type of "gypsy switch" going on regarding the proposal and he was
asking him to present the factual information Mr. Moriarity had based his conclusions on.
Mr. Moriarity stated his information had been received from those cities that had amphitheaters. They had given
informational packets to Council along with names of contact people. To his knowledge those people had not been
contacted. He felt the information most readily brought forward to Council was information that went through MCA
or their supporters.
Councilmember Padilia assured Mr. Moriarity that he would use all due diligence to make sure the City did not end
up on the short end of any business deal.
There being no further poblic testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Padilia stated he did not prei'er continuing the item and would be open to that only for a limited
amount of time and if Council could identify what specific information they needed. He wanted to hear all
appropriate input, but there was an applicant that had worked with staff for a very long time and had invested a
significant amount of funds. He would not support moving the decision off ti>r one or more months. The City
owed the applicant, based on the time and finances invested, to make a decision one way or the other. It sent a bad
message on how Council did business. Conncil needed to determine what inti>rmation they wanted regarding the
Nederlander proposal and how long it would take to obtain that information. He wanted to see a hard sound test
on the Bayfront proposal, if it was possible, and what the time line would be.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, responded that the Port staff had indicated they would do
a sound test within 30 days and were in the process of determining what type of test would be perlbrmed. The firm
that did the sound test ti~r MCA had stated they would be available on 10/16/95 to do the sound test on the
Bay front.
Councilmember Padilia stated the Council would be limited in the infi>nnation they would be able to obtain on the
l~ayfront project and, based on Nederlander's estimates, that infi~rmation would not be available for 4-5 months and
by that time MCA would be gone. Council needed to be reasonable abont what they expected to learn about a
potential competing proposal and the impacts that would have on Council's decision.
Councilmember Alevy stated he had stndied the information closely and noted his wile was involved in the music
business in promotions for one of the ma:jor venues in San Diego and he was around it all the time. He felt the City
was fortunate to have two of the very best companies looking in the regkm and he was convinced that there was
a real commitment by both companies to put a world class amphitheater in the area. He was also convinced that
MCA would not withdraw their proposal ira decision was not made at the present time. Council needed to outline
those things they wanted staff to return with. They woald know whether the Bayfront proposal was viable once a
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 12 [
real sound test was done. Many of the same concerns were also related to the Bayfront proposal. Council needed
to find out more about the Bayfront proposal along with further intbrmation regarding the agreement. He felt a 30
day continuance was reasonable.
Councilmember Moot felt specific questions shonld be answered, i.e. i) who would bear the extra cost of police
protection and clean-up and what that estimated cost would be; 2) was reproduced sound in a sound test diftYrent
from live sound; 3) concern regarding concert traffic short cutting through a residential neighborhood and using
Brandywine late at night - was there a contingency tbr controlling the situation if there was a problem and what
anthority the City had to require that mitigation if that sitnation did occur; 4) the change in the noise ordinance and
the averaging of noise over a period of time - did that mean that the noise levels cotaid exceed 105 dBA's provided
that it was only done once an hour or that if one loud song was played two soft songs would have to be played to
keep it under the average and, therei'bre, would not violate the ordinance; 5) what happened when the noise levels
were exceeded, was it a fine situation, and if so who paid the fine, at what level would the fines stop and authority
to operate be removed, how wotdd the City handle chronic violations and what was bnilt into the agreement to allow
the City to control that; 6) how were alcohol sales being addressed - was there a cnt-off time for sales, did the City
have a policy that would go into the agreement to control the sale of alcohol; 7) was there a curfew for
performances and what time would be appropriate, and should the time be different on weekdays than weekends -
input needed to be obtained from the applicant as to what worked f~,r them; 8) staff shonld look at the issues raised
by Baldwin and the proposed noise conclnsions, MCA should be given a copy of Baldwin's letter to address the
concerns; 9) he was uncertain as to the nnmber of lanes on Otay Valley Road that would be available to move traffic
after concerts, it appeared to be three lanes and he wanted to get an estimate on the time period it would take to
get the cars out of the parking lot and onto the freeway; I0) he wanted to see a sotand test on the Bayfront that
would be comparable with the testing done by MCA - he ,,vanted the area of the mid-Bayfront tested along with the
residential areas across the freeway, the trailer park, and marina; and 11) when the Villages were built out he felt
the noise would have to be mitigated and he wanted to know the specific enforcement mechanism - there was a 10
year lease that was renewable and if the City would have the ability to terminate the lease at ten years if MCA could
not mitigate the noise to the proper level at that time. He did not want a long continuance and agreed that Council
had to be fair to the applicant. He could not support a continuance longer than 30 days.
Councilmember Rindone stated the packet provided the statns of the Nederlander proposal in which the Project
Snmmary stated them would be no Iong term de-watering. He questioned whether that was realistic.
Mr. Delaney responded that the consultant was very knowledgeable of the water table. The only area that they
would need to penetrate on a constrnction basis tbr the water table was to pnt the pit in. It was a small area and
they would not put seats down in the water table. They were starting at grade and working up.
Councilmember Rindone questioned what stage shows had actually been presented at a Nederlander theater over
the last two years.
Mr. Delaney felt Conncilmember Rindone was addressing amphitheaters specifically. A list of classical
performances had been inclnded in the Council packet going back 12 years. Perli~rmances had been done at the
Greek Theater, but the constraint at that facility was the fly tower. The proposed facility would include a fly tower
and loft that would allow staging.
Councilmember Rindone requested infbrmation regarding actual productions over the last five years at the
Nederlander amphitheaters.
Mr. Delaney stated they could do the sound test very rapidly, but they were not allowed to do that. The Port had
determined that they wanted 100% control. i.e. getting the proposals, etc.
Mayor Horton questioned if that conld be done within 30 days.
Mr. Delaney responded that the Pnrt had infbrmed them that it could be done within 30 days. The issne was the
methodology as the Port was concerned with other sindies that had been performed in San Diego County and they
wanted theirs more complete and involved.
Mayor Horton questioned if the type of sonnd testing done in Poway was more complete than the testing done on
the MCA site.
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 13
Mr. Delaney responded that was correct. It was his understanding that Poway had citizen listening groups posted
in areas rating sound on a scale of 1-5 and not just technical levels, it was a different methodology.
Councilmember Rindone stated there was an allegation that the type of productions offered by MCA was not as
multi-dimensional. He questioned what type of venue would be offered by MCA.
Mr. Marciano responded that in the letters of recommendation received from cities where they operated
amphitheaters there was one reoccurring word - family. It was an appropriate place to bring the entire family and
throughout the season there was a balanced schedule. They were not proposing to build a theatrical stagehouse.
They looked at 10 year operating histories of amphitheaters throughout the U.S. and could not find a trend for
theatrical shows. A recent newspaper article stated that 2,000 seat facilities were not able to fill the theaters.
Mayor Horton stated when she was at the test site all the speakers were lying basically on the ground. When
attending concerts they were elevated and she questioned if that would make a difference in the noise impacts.
During the test she had been informed that the sotmd was 105 dBA's and she could conduct a conversation with
others and at concerts people could not hold conversations.
Mr. Marciano responded that the speakers were on flat bed trucks. The test was run significantly at 105 dBA's.
Mayor Horton stated when they were at the Point Robinhood site they could not hear the noise but when she went
home, which was about 5 miles fi'om the site, she could hear the music.
Mr. Marciano stated it would be difficult for him to speculate on what was heard and how loud it was heard at the
Mayor's home without having been there,
· Jack Wrightson, representing Wrightson, Johnson, Haddon & Williams, Inc., Dallas, TX, stated the elevation
of the speakers would make a difference. They purposely limited the fly height of the loudspeakers in the stage
house. The top of the stacks were at 15 ft. and in actual application the top of the stacks could go as high as 30ft.
The dift~rence would be relatively negligible. It would only be a ti~action of a dBA.
Mayor Horton questioned if the speakers were stacked in a horizontal or vertical position.
Mr. Wrightson responded that they were stacked two high and six wide. Typically, at a concert they were more
vertical than horizontal which resulted in a very small difference in dBA's. He was not aware of any technological
knowledge that supported Mr. Kilkenney's assomption that there was a 23 dBA difl~rence. A 23 dl~A represented
several thousand fold increase in energy and the simple geometric configuration did not account for that.
Mayor Horton questioned why the sound testing was not done utilizing speakers as they would be in the actual
setting.
Mr. Wrightson responded that there was virtually no difI~rence to the ii. mdamental conclosions of the sound test
and it dramatically increased the cost.
Mayor Horton stated his response conflicted with information she had been given from other sources.
Councilmember Padilia questioned the dift~rence between the types of noise at the point of generation in terms of
the test and what did 45 dBA's of ambient noise meant and what it sounded like.
Mr. Wrightson responded that the character of the noise was important in how perceptible it was and how annoying
it was. Some people found some types of music more acceptable than others independent of the loudness and
frequency. Those were issues that the teclmicians could not address. That was why there was a standardized
objective noise tests. He then reviewed the noise contours within Otay Ranch, The predicted unmitigated noise
impact from the amphitheater, as confirmed by the sound test, was actually much lower than what Baldwin predicted
for roadway noise for the infrastn~cture to support the ranch. There was no better way to assess the impact on a
site than to do a sound test much in the way that it was done. The last sound test was under a mild inversion which
was typical for the area and the wind conditions wer9 disadvantageous to the applicant. MCA had agreed to stay
within the City's noise ordinance of 45 dBA after I0:00 p.m.
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 14
Councilmember Moot questioned if Mr. Wrightson could address the Council's concerns in written form and provide
it to staff within two weeks.
Mayor Horton questioned if MCA had ever gone past the curt~w in any other amphitheaters.
Mr. Wrightson stated there was continuoos monitoring in Denver and they had not exceed the noise level. He could
not respond regarding the other amphitheaters.
Councilmember Alevy questioned if Mr. Wrightson was familiar with Desert Sky Pavilion in Phoenix.
Mr. Wrightson responded that he had not done any prot~ssional work there.
Councilmember Alevy stated it had been designed so the sound was angled toward the center of the bowl on a
downward plane and also had an g It. sound wall at the rear of the seating area. He questioned if that would
mitigate some of the sound.
Mr. Wrightson replied that there was a fundamental conflict between a house or venue provided sound system
versus the vast majority of the acts which contracted tbr their own sound to take to various locations and that
equipment did not angle down. Very few of the acts wonld use the house system.
Councihnember Rindone stated he was concerned about mani' of the issues that had been raised. He requested
information regarding: 1) policing; 2) soccer fields - multiple uses were important; 3) noise mitigation in relation
to weather conditions; 4) financial package - deal points as described in the report and the benefits to the
community; 4) unfettered t~es as an approach, i.e. straight percent, make it clear what the City was going to get;
5) parking fees - would they have them, etc. 6) flood plain - egress; and 7) corporate yard - ensure public safety
access at all times. He felt a delay could mean loss. The issues needed to be addressed and Council needed to let
the applicant know whether or not the project could move forward. Funding issues were only resolved by reducing
expenditures or raising revenues. The City also needed to provide good positive entertainment activities. He would
not vote for a project where all the details were not addressed.
Councilmember Alevy stated that comparative amphitheaters had 30-34 concerts per year and questioned the basis
for 50 per year, was that amount the number of concerts anticipated after 4-5 years and, if so, should the economic
information reflect less in the initial years.
Mr. Marciano responded that it depended upon the market, length of season, etc. In Toronto they did 43 shows
in a short season because they had 10 major artists that were indigenous to Canada. They would do 42 shows in
Dallas, 31 shows in Denver. They felt they could hit 50 due to the long season and that there was a music
indigenous to Southern California, which they had been very successful with at the Universal Amphitheater, which
was Hispanic music. When the Pacific Amphitheater and lrvine Meadows were open they had 72 shows per year
combined and they felt most of that was transferrable to San Diego.
Councilmember Alevy question if there was a decibel level restriction or curfew if they could still have a successful
program.
Mr. Marciano responded that they/~lt all the questions by Council were reasonable and that they had reasonable
answers and they could comply with satisfhctory answers in a short period of time. If there was a reasonable
continuance they would "stick it out", if it became an indefinite "maybe" they would rather hear a "no~.
Councilmember Alevy stated the representatives of the Desert Sky Pavilion in Phoenix felt it important that Council
get a definition of revenues in the agreement, i.e. concession, parking, ticket revenues, food and beverage, etc.
He also wanted clarification of the City's expenditures. He questioned to what extent private security would
enhance what the City had to provide regarding police protection and security.
Mr. Goss responded that it was anticipated there would be a contract with the City to provide police officers for
security. There were two ways of doing that, off:-duty officers or provide officers directly through the department
under the administration of the Police Chief, Captains, Lieutenants. That would be a cost which would be picked
up by the amphitheater.
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 15
Mayor Horton stated the major concern by the residents was the noise impacts. She questioned if there was any
type of indemnification agreement in case the City ended up in a lawsuit.
Mr. Goss stated he had directed staff to include indemnification.
Mayor Horton stated she had grave concerns because that could wipe out any potential revenues to the City. She
questioned if staff looked at rotating the stage site so the sound would not impact the Otay Ranch project.
Mr. Salomone stated originally there was a different configuration of the site and because of the impacts to the
adjacent properties in the City of San Diego, the/~cility was muved to the east and configured facing northeast.
He was not aware of any individual studies on different orientations. It was orientated away from the existing
residences and where it could be easily mitigated in the future.
Mr. Wrightson responded that all orientations of a 360° circle were studied. The orientation in the EIR provided
the least impact on existing and pimpned housing. If it were rotated to the southeast it would be placing more sound
on houses that were closer, i.e. Robinhood Ridge,
Councilmember Moot referred to the financial study by KMA, Table 11, and questioned why it was pro. jected that
the City would recover it's costs within 8 years if the City costs ~vere $2.03 million, he questioned what those City
costs were.
Mr. Salomone responded that the tables were no longer a part of the deal or the proposal. The only participation
in the proposal being recommended was the physical improvements to the ruadway which was $388,000.
Councilmember Padilia questioned how much time was needed to bring a report back to Council.
Mr. Goss responded that staff could respond to all questions except the intbrmation regarding a sound test on the
Bayfront within two weeks. Staff would have to work with the Port staff regarding the sound test.
Councilmember Padilia stated if all the inl~rmation was available, except tbr the sound test, he f~lt it should be
continued for two weeks.
Mayor Horton stated the sound test on the Bayfront was very important to her as there were two projects for
Council to look at. She wanted to know what the City's options were and they would not know that until the noise
test was completed.
Mr. Salomone stated staff could work with the Port staff to expedite the sound test. The sound test inlbrmation,
once performed was readily available in raw form the next day. He felt the raw data could be available in three
weeks. He recommended that staff work with the Port on a week to week basis and return to Council when staff
received the information.
Mayor Hotton t~lt a time certain date should be set. She did not feel 1-2 weeks would kill the deal afler MCA had
been looking for a site for 10 years. If they were to leave she would find someone wanting to locate at that site
as she had already been approached by someone else. In order to be t~air to the City's residents and region Council
needed to look into all of the options. She did not l~el asking for one additional week unreasonable.
Councilmember Moot stated the first meeting with a fi. dl Council would be 11/7 and he did not want to go past that
date and preferred to do it be~bre if possible.
Councilmember Rindone suggested that Council meet in two weeks to look at all the issues except the Bayfront
sound test and schedule another meeting on 11/7 to address the sound test. He t~lt it could take more than one
meeting to address the issues. If everything was scheduled ~br 11/7 Council may not be able to address all the
issues and reach a conclusion.
Mayor Hotton stated she did not want to get the citizens concerned when they did not have to. She felt there should
be one meeting to discuss the issnes.
I T
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 16 f'~
Councilmember Rindone stated there were a lot of issues that needed to be addressed and staff felt they could be
answered within two weeks. It was through a spirit of cooperation that the two meetings had been suggested and
he felt it was fair to the applicant.
Councilmember Padilia tblt Council should move toward a compromise. In fairness to the applicant, the sound test
for Nederlander, while playing a role was not one of MCA's concerns. MCA had spent a lot of time and money
and Council owed it to them to make a decision. Nederlander was not before Council and was not in the City's
jurisdiction. If staff felt they could answer all the questions in two weeks it should be considered at that time and
the sound test could be addressed on I 1/7, if the applicant was agreeable, it was a good compromise.
Mr. Goss stated staff allocated their time as he directed and he could have a response to all Council questions in
two weeks. He f~lt the critical path was the sound test on thd Bayfront.
Councilmember Moot stated there were significant sound issues that he had identified that MCA would want to
respond in writing to. He felt Council could look at Baldwin's concerns and MCA's responses regarding noise in
two weeks with the available infi~nnation, which could be very productive meeting. The business proposal should
also be solidified in two weeks. if Council .jost covered those two isstles in two weeks, with the clear understanding
that Council would not take public testimony again fi'om those that had testified, Council would then vote on the
project at the 11/7 meeting one way or the other. It would be an action item to provide information and clarification
of issues with the specific tinderstanding that the vote would be on 11/7 once the sotrod test was done.
· Hans Giroux, Gironx & Assoc., EIR Noise Consultant, inti~rmed Council that the window of opportunity for
noise testing had .just about passed. The concerts would not typically run into late October as thr as experiencing
meteorological conditions that would be conducive to ~naximom noise impacts. If it did not happen in a couple of
weeks it would not happen at all.
Mayor Horton questioned when MCA conducted their noise tests.
Mr. Giroux stated the first test was done in July 1994 and the second test was done in September 1995 and it was
felt that was the optimum condition.
Councilmember Moot stated CounciI had made it abundantly clear that if Nederlander wanted to be considered they
needed to have a live sound test done and back to Council belbre the end of the month.
MS (Rindone/Alevy) direct stilt to return in two weeks tl} provide re, solutinn to: 1) noise issues raised by
Council; 2) ancillary issues raised by Council which included the EIR aspects; and 3) finalization of the deal
points for review by the Council. Staff is to calendar time certain 6:00 p.m. on 11/7 a public hearing on the
atnphitheater proposal. The meeting 10/17 would be a report for Council to review with the public hearing
on 11/7.
Glen Coogins, Deputy City Attorney, stated the pnblic hearing in the formal noticed sense was opened and closed
at the present meeting, so public testimony was appropriate on 11/7 and could be taken without a public hearing.
Councilmember Rindone stated that clarification was acceptable to the Maker of the Motion.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimottsly.
13. PUBLIC HEARING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PCA-96-01; REQUEST TO ADD WORDING TO
SECTION 19.68.020 T.1 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH WOULD CLARIFY THAT NOISE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORMAL OPERATIONS OF ANY LAND USE APPROVED BY A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS CONSIDERED "ENVIRONMENTAL" RATHER THAN NUISANCE
NOISE - BITTERLIN-BRICE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, AGENTS FOR MCA CONCERTS, INC. -The
amendment would clarit-~ the distinction between "nuisance noise" as opposed to "environmental noise" as it would
relate to conditional uses in general and the operations of the MCA Amphitheater in particular. The Environmental
Review Coordinator has concluded that the text amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) of the Caliti~mia Environmental Qoality Act. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance
on first reading. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of 9/26/95.
I I
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 17
ORDINANCE 2642 AI~IEND1NG SECTION 19.68,020 T, I, TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
CLARIFY THAT NOISE NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED LAND
USE IS TO BE CONSIDERED THE SAME AS NOISE NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH A PERMITTED
LAND USE {first readin:t)
Councilmember Moot recommended that the public hearing be continued to the 10/17 meeting in conjunction with
the amphitheater meeting.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· David Wade, 419 Park Way, Chula Vista, CA, representing the San Diego Oft' Road Coalition, deferred his time
to the date of continuance.
Councilmember Moot stated Council would be discussing noise at the 10/17 meeting and some of the questions
posed to staff dealt with the impact of the proposed change, i.e. did it create an average or a peak. Council did
not have to vote on it at the 10/I7 meeting but he felt it was related to the noise issues.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, limit it could be addressed within the staff report. Legally
the item should follow the Council's action on the amphitheater.
Mr. Goss stated it could be continued to the 10/17 meeting and then on to the 11/7 meeting.
MSUC (Moot/Rindone) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 10/7 and then on to the 11/7 meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· Olivia Ashcraft, 1505 Brandywine Avenue #B, Chula Vista, CA, member of BAN, spoke in opposition of the
amphitheater proposal. She expressed her concerns regarding the traffic impacts in their residential area,
· Carolyn F. J. Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, requested written responses to the following
transportation issues: 1) how often the bus schedules were upg. raded; 2) there was only one place to obtain the bus
schedule for the Nature Center and no available parking; 3) another place at "H" Street to provide better bus
scheduling; and 4) routes 703,708, and 712 were bad schedules.
· Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, stated he had been
working with the directors of the National City and Imperial Beach Chambers regarding the planning of the tourist
train. He was concerned that the other two cities were involved in the planning and Chnla Vista was not involved.
Councilmember Rindone stated the City needed to continue looking at the potential impact and that was why he had
addressed the issue over 18 months ago. Chula Vista was in the position of interthcing with whatever was being
planned on the bayfront. He requested that the tourist train be added to the Bayfront snbcommittee agenda for their
next meeting.
· Darren Chaker, 2260 El Ca:ion Boulevard #400, San Diego, CA, stated h~ had approximately 1400 hours of law
enforcement training of which approximately 600 of those hours were received from the San Diego Regional Law
Enforcement Training Center. He expressed his concern with the unethical and illegal methods of training cadets
in ways to unlawfi. dly detain, arrest, and hisely accuse citizens of breaking the law. He t~lt it appeared to be
motivated by racism. He requested that the City address the issue.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 18
ACTION ITEMS
14. RESOLUTION 17986 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY REQUIRING EASTLAKE TO TRANSFER ECONOMIC INCENTIVES TO NYPRO SAN
DIEGO, A HIGH TECH COMPANY WISHING TO RELOCATE AND EXPAND WITHIN THE CITY'S
HIGH TECH/BIOTECH ZONE, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CITY PROVIDING CERTAIN CONCESSIONS
TO EASTLAKE - On 4/18/95, Council approved in concept an agreement with the EastLake Development
Company providing t;.~r EastLake to pay tbr NYPRO development related fi~es as an economic development
incentive, in exchange t;3r the City providing EastLake with certain concessions. Council directed staff to prepare
the necessary agreement. Related item under Closed Session. Staff reconunends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Community Development) Continued froIn the meeting of 9/19/95. If the Council requests, or the
City Attorney detertmnes a need for, special le.~al advice relating to potential litigation, the Council may adjourn
to Closed Session to receive that advice.
Cheryl Dye, Economic Development Manager, stated on 9/19/95 Council directed staff to retnrn with a revised
agreement and identil~, optional concessions. Four scenarios were being presented and staff recommended approval
of Scenario 2. The following scenarios were presented: 1) attomey's proposal - deleted the TransDIF as a
concession, committed the City to identifying a concession of eqoaI value in the future, and provided if an
agreement could not be reached with EastLake the item would go to non-binding mediation - the scenario was not
acceptable to EastLake; 2) deleted the TransDIF as a concession and the issue of precormmitment, committed the
City to selecting another concession of equal valne, if agreement was nnt reached in two years the matter would
go to binding arbitration and the decision would be final, there was a potential cost to the City if the valne
determined was less that $274,000 - recommended scenario; 3) sales tax scenario - the City would immediately
select a second concession worth $274,000 and it wnuld be a General Fond obligation, i.e. tied to the generation
of sales tax from their commercial proiect - scenario was presented by EastLake and not supported staff dne to legal
concerns and the liability to the General Fund; and 4) original agreement - identified the TransDIF as an optional
concession with no liability to the General Fund. Staff also identified additional concession items in Exhibit 4, but
those were not being recommended at the present time beenose they had not been fully negotiated nor had their full
value been agreed to. A letter received from EastLake relating to the TransDIF as an optional concession indicated
that it was not their pret~rence tier a concession and doe to internal obligations they felt the value of that concession
had lessened substantially. Staff recommended approval of Scenario 2 which eliminated risk to the City in terms
of the precommitment issue, was a comprmfuse, and had been agreed to by staff and EastLake.
~' Curt Stephenson, 900 Lane Avenue, #100, Chnla Vista, CA 91914, Execntive Vice President, EastLake
Development Company, stated they no longer considered Scenario 4 on the table for consideration and were not
in support of Scenario I because it was open ended regarding t!n~ing. They pret~rred Scenario 3, but would accept
Scenario 2 as a compromise.
Councilmember Rindone t~lt the public hearing process was a healthy process and did work as evidenced by the
previous public hearing, i.e. Scenario 4 was no longer being considered by the applicant. He agreed that scenarios
I and 4 were not feasible because: 1) question as to whether it was legitimately a part of the TransDIF system; 2)
impact of concessions as beneficial to EastLake as proposed becanse there was no clear definition of what type of
road went into the TransDIF; and 3) a precomirdtment was made by EastLake to obtain the OTC and should not
be placed upon other participants of the TransDlF. Scenario 3 raised legitimate concerns due to the liability to the
General Fund and the gift of public funds. Page 14-1, last paragraph under Background, stated the item would
require a public hearing which he did not feel was the primary concern. He felt committing the Council to binding
arbitration ahead of time and abrogate the responsibilities of elected officials was not prudent. He recommended
that the item be reti~rred back to staff to work diligently on I-2 of the most viable options. If it necessitated a public
hearing then do that. EastLake did not have to be concerned that there would be a reversal of public policy. He
would not support scenario 2 as it abrogated the Conncil's responsibility.
* * * Councilmember Moot arrived at 4:30 p.m. * * *
Councilmember Alevy stated he sopported scenario 2. It had been a long tedious and drawn ont procedure and the
City was in danger of sending ont a negative message to the business conummity and NYPRO in particular.
Scenario 2 was a compromise and the culmination of nine months work and it had been put off long enough.
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 19
Councilmember Padilia questioned if Councilmember Rindone's concerns dealt with the delegation of binding
arbitration and identification of specific concessions of collateral value.
Councilmember Rindone stated it was partially correct, the other concern was that until things were examined
carefully there were unanticipated twists and turns. Scenario 2 was the result of two weeks of negotiations and did
not involve the other developers. If Council was not aware of concerns, innuendos, etc. and they submitted to
binding arbitration, they had not performed due diligence.
Councilmember Moot stated they had dealt with the issue for sometime and fbr one reason or another objections
had been raised. He felt part of life was taking calcnlated risks and the project recognized that there was a potential
risk and provided a solution of binding arbitration if that occurred. That was a reasonable way of dealing with the
issue. He met with staff and EastLake in order to understand the issue and pro's and con's and felt scenario 2 was
a compromise and recognized the fact that both parties saw a tremendous benefit to the City in getting the high
tech/bio tech zone off the gronnd. He felt scenario 2 protected the interests of the City and was a good way to get
it done.
Councilmember Padilia felt the concerns he had raised at the previous public hearing had been addressed. There
was a broader consideration and caution fur the Council in terms of the policy being set. Council needed to
consider whether they were just trying to attract .jobs and business or if they were trying to seed businesses into a
high tech/bio tech zone which was something they may want to take more of a risk on. In the proposal before
Council he felt there were other events that would occur that would be beneficial and should allow the ability for
incentives to be offered to NYPRO. He would be reluctant in continning the item. Councilmember Rindone had
raised a valid point as to whether Council wanted to delegate their responsibilities on the lack of the ability to come
to agreement on value. He wanted to see agreement and moving tbrward, but wanted to raise the caveat that
Council needed to be careful about the precedent being set and what they would do in the fi. msre. Therefore, he
would support scenario 2 although he was not comfortable with it.
Mayor Hotton stated she felt scenario 2 was a viable option. The City had a history of providing incentives to
stimulate the economy, i.e. the auto park and power center. Other cities and states recognized that they had to be
proactive and offer incentives in order to capture the higher paying jobs. Local government had to do their share
to help provide a stronger economic atmosphere. She lelt EastLake and the City would reach agreement and
mediation would only be a back-up.
RESOLUTION 17986 (staff recommendation, scenario 2) OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the
text was waived.
Councihnember Rindone stated the thndalnental and final issue was not the incentives or support of EastLake, but
he was concerned that Conncil would be setting a precedent regarding binding arbitration. When an item was fully
discussed it often proved mutually beneficial, as had happened with the TransDlF scenario. His no vote was not
a lack of support fur EastLake.
VOTE ON RESOLUTION 17986: approved 4-I with Rindone oppased.
15. RESOLUTION 18062 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 BUDGET TO REDUCE A SENIOR
LIFEGUARD POSITION FROM 0.75 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FFE) TO 0.50 FTE AND TO
APPROPRIATING $3,715 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE POS1TION - During the budget process, a
proposal to delete a 0.75 fifil time e~luivalent (FTE) senior lifeguard (permanent part-time benefitted) position in
the aquatics section was considered by Council. A decision was made to continue to fund the position fur a period
of three months in fiscal year 1995/96, pending an analysis of fhrther options. Staff has evaluated three options.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 4/Sth's w~te required.
RESOLUTION 18062 (option 2) OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimnasly.
16. REPORT FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING
VACANCY REFORM - On a reterral by Council, the Charter Review Commission and City Attorney recommends
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 20
that Council submit to the People, fbr inclusion in the Charter, a Vacancy Reform proposal. It is recommended
that Council approve the Vacancy Retbrm amendments to the Charter for inclusion on the March, 1996 Ballot, and
direct the City Attorney and City Clerk to include said language on the Resolution calling for the March, 1996
election. (City Attorney and Charter Review Commission)
Councilmember Moot t~lt it apparent after reading the report that he would be directly affected by the resolution
as he would be on the same ballot. He questioned if it was appropriate for him to participate when it could affect
his own election.
Mr. Boogaard responded that it would not be a financial conflict nnder the FPPC rule because his source of income
as a government offtcial was not considered an income fbr a conflict of interest purpose. In his opinion, it would
not legally be a conflict of interest. There was no law or rule that required a conncilmember to participate and if
for any reason he t~lt he wnnld be inappropriately biased in making a decision because of some other non-legal
conflict he would have the right to not participate.
Councilmember Moot stated his only concern was the plurality portion of the proposal. There would be a monetary
affect because if he won with a plurality, and not a majority, he wotfid have the expense of going into a run-off.
Under those circumstances he preferred to abstain from participation.
Mayor Horton stated that due to personal circumstances, she had not fully reviewed the item and requested that it
be continued.
Councilmember Alevy stated due to the reasons stated by Conncihnember Mont he would also chose to abstain from
participation in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Councilmember Rindone stated he would support the continuance as it was a very important item. He was
concerned with the one year election tree zone. It was important, whenever possible, to allow the public to select
councilmembers. He requested that when the item was bronght back it include an analysis without the one year
election free zone. He felt the Council needed to get away from the appointment process.
Mr. Boogaard responded that no election to fill a vacancy would be required to be held if the term of office
following that election would be within one year of the normal expiration of the term.
MSC (Rindone/Horton) to continue the item to the meeting of 10/17/95, approved 3-0-0-2 with Alevy and
Moot abstaining.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Item pulled: 10. The minutes will reflect the pnblished agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
17. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
· Scheduling of meetings. Mr. Goss stated the Council CIP tour had been scheduled for Saturday, 10/7/95 at 9:00
a.m. The tour included the sidewalk improveiuents around the South Chula Vista Library, MTDB fight-of-way,
and the BECA facility.
Mayor Horton and Councilmember Rindone stated they would not be able to attend the tour.
Mr. Goss stated the items were not time sensitive. He suggested that staff repoll Cooncil fbr another date to allow
for full participation.
* * * Council met in Closed Sessinn at 5:31 p.m. and reconvened at 6:10 p.m. * * *
Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 21
18. MAYOR'$ REPORTfS)
® Letter to Commissioners, Board Members, Committee Members, and Department Heads encouraging them to
discuss ethic~! rules. Mayor Horton stated a letter had been presented to her from the Ethics Commission requesting
that the letter be forwarded to the all commissioners, board members, committee members, and department heads.
Because the letter stated 'Council encouraged ..... "she felt it appropriate to bring it to Council for input.
Councilmember Rindone stated he would support the letter and felt all members of the Council should sign it.
MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to approve the letter and have all members of Council sign it.
Mr. Goss requested, as a matter of technical consistency, that the letter to the department heads be routed through
the City Manager's office.
19. COUNCIL COIHMENT
Councilmember Rindone
· Shortfall (and/or non-booking of loans) for $5.1 million Sewer Fund and other funds. Councilmember Rindone
stated he wanted to ensure that when staff returned with the item that it be brought back before a full Council.
ADJOURNI%IENT
ADJOURNMENT AT II:28 P.M. to a Council CIP Tour on Saturday, October 7, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. and thence
.,_, to the Regular City Council Meeting on October 10, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
CLOSED SESSION
20. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
· Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executii, e Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
21. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed
Session.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
Vicki C. Soderquist, CM%eputy City Clerk