HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/10/17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, october 17, 1995 CounCil Chambers
6:08 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Alevy, Moot, 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: October 3, 1995 and October 10, 1995.
MSC (Alevy/Padilla) to approve the minutes of October 3, 1995 and October 10, 1995 as presented, approved
unanimously with Rindone abstaining on the minutes of October 10, 1995.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Cultural Arts Commissioner Lee Wheeland introduced Ruby Chiong, co-director of Samahan Philippine Dance
Company. A brief dance presentation was made.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: 13, 14, and 15)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously with Alevy abstaining on Item 13. Item 17 was removed from the
agenda.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no observed reportable actions taken in Closed
Session on 10/10/95. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
6. ORDINANCE 2643 REPEALING EXISTING CHAPTER 15.36 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 15.36 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE
CODE, 1994 EDITION, WITH CERTAIN DESIGNATED MODIFICATIONS (second readin~ and adoption) -
The Uniform Fire Code, as amended for Chula Vista, has generally been adopted as the ordinance regulating life
safety in the City. The 1994 Uniform Fire Code and its amendments are recommended to replace the 1991 Edition
currently in effect. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Fire Chief)
7. ORDINANCE 2644 AMENDING CHAPTER 15.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1994 EDITION (second reading and adoption) - As mandated by the Building
Standards Commission, State of California, each jurisdiction within the State shall adopt the 1994 Edition, Uniform
Building Code no later than 1/1/96. The adoption is in conformance with Policy 500-4. Staff recommends
Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Building and Housing)
8. ORDINANCE 2645 AMENDING CHAPTER 15.20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE
UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1994 EDITION (second readin~ and adontion) - As mandated by the Building
Standards Commission, State of California, each jurisdiction within the State shall adopt the 1994 Edition, Uniform
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 2
Housing Code no laterthan 1/1/96. The adoption is in conformance with Policy 500-04. 5taffrecommends Council
place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Building and Housing)
9. ORDINANCE 2646 AMENDING CHAPTER 15.28 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE
UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1994 EDITION {second reading and adoption) - As mandated by the Building
Standards Commission, State of California, each jurisdiction within the State shall adopt the 1994 Edition, Uniform
Plumbing Code no later than 1/1/96. The adoption is in conformanea with Policy 500-04. Staff recommends
Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Building and Housing)
10. ORDINANCE 2647 AMENDING CHAPTER 15.24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1993 EDITION (second reading and adoorion) - As mandated by the
Building Standards Commission, State of California, each jurisdiction within the State shall adopt the 1993 Edition,
National Electrical Code no later than 1/1/96. The adoption is in conformance with Policy 500-04. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Building and Housing)
11. ORDINANCE 2648 AMENDING CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE
UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1994 EDITION (second reading and adol~tion) - As mandated by the
Building Standards Commission, State of California, each jurisdiction within the State shall adopt the 1994 Edition,
Uniform Mechanical Code no later than 2/23/96. The adoption is in confurmance with Policy 500-04. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Building and Housing)
12. ORDINANCE 2649 ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 15.18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING
THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, 1994 EDITION (second
reading and adoption) As recommended by the City Attorney, adoption of the 1994 Edition, Code for the
Abatement of Dangerous Buildings will provide City personnel with appropriate procedures and guidelines to
identify and abate any hazardous or dangerous buildings within the City. The adoption is in conformance with
Policy 500-04. Staff recommp~nds Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of
Building and Housing)
13. RESOLUTION 18064 APPROPRIATING $6,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF
THE GENERAL FUND FOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS RELATED TO THE OTAY RANCH PROPERTY
TAX NEGOTIATIONS - The fiscal year 1995/96 budget includes $5,000 for financial analysis related to the Otay
Ranch property tax negotiations with San Diego County. Staff has already held a number of negotiating meetings
with San Diego County staff, and significantly more financial analysis is being required than was originally
anticipated. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Deputy City Manager Thomas) 4/5th's vote required.
Continued from the meeting of 10/10/95. Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Alevy stated he would abstain from participation until he received clarification regarding any
conflict of interest created due to his employment.
Coun(dmember Rindone questioned if there was anyone on staff with the skills or expertise to do the financial
analysis of the FIND model and the proposed hourly rate of the consultant and what the hourly wage was for the
special projects manager. He and the Mayor had been advocates in trying to develop and refurbish the expertise
of staff so when skilled people were lost in certain area the City could continue on without hiring consultants. He
did not want the negotiations slowed down.
Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager, responded that there were other staff members that could do it but the
difficulty was one of workload and time it would take to bring someone "up to speed*. It was staffs judgement
that the City would be at a significant disadvantage without that level of expertise and the negotiations would have
to be slowed down. The hourly rate was $50/hour. He was uncertain as to what the hourly wage was for the
special projects manager, but the $50 was slightly less than the special project manager's total compensation
including salary and benefits when he was an employee.
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 3
RESOLUTION 18064 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved 4-0~0-1 with Alevy abstaining.
14. RESOLUTION 18073 APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING
WAGES AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WITIt THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 2180, FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995196 - Negotiating teams
represenfmg die City and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 2180, have reached an agreement
on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering fiscal year 1995/96. The proposed MOU was ratified by
the IAFF membership on 10/4 and 10/5/95. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Budget Manager)
Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
· Donna Snider, President, Chula Vista Chapter of the Western Council of Engineers (WCE), stated the
membership of WCE, in consideration of the IAFF contract, requested that she inform the Counc'd of the following:
Section 2.01A stated "Due to the current economic conditions there would be no salary increase for WCE
represented positions". That section of the memorandum was based on WCE's good faith acceptance of the City's
claim that there were no funds available for salary increases. Item 14 recommended that IAFF bargaining group
receive a retirement benefit of 3 % which was effectively a 3 % increase in take home pay. That indicated to the
WCE membership that economic conditions had improved. WCE wanted Council to show the same interest and
consideration to WCE membership as provided to IAFF when negotiating a contract in good faith with WCE for
FY 1995-96. WCE anticipated entering that negotiation process in the near future.
Councilmember Rindone stated he had a question regarding an understanding that Council had reached in Closed
Session and requested that the item be discussed in Closed Session prior to a vote.
Mr. Boogaard stated the item had been agendized for Closed Session, therefore, it could be discussed.
* * * Council met in Closed Session at 10:20 p.m. and reconvened at 10:2S p.m. * * *
RESOLUTION 18073 OFIcERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
15. RESOLUTION 18074 APPROVING CASH ADVANCES FROM THE TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL
RESERVE FUND TO VARIOUS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS AND FROM THE EQUIPMENT
REPLACEMENT FUND TO THE CENTRAL GARAGE FUND - Over the last few years, the available cash
in various City/Agency Funds has been depleted beyond a zero balance. This, in effect, is an unrecorded loan
against aH other City/Agency Funds. In addition, funds with positive cash balances are earning less Interest revenue
than warrant~l due to this practice. It is recommended that the City move towards returning all Funds to a positive
cash balance as soon as possible and implementing strict controls to not allow any transaction against any cash
account which would reduce it below zero. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance)
Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Rindone stated he had not had an item before him in the past that distressed him as much as Item
15. He was further concerned that it was listed as a consent item. Council had many discussions regarding
ensuring the integrity of the special funds and not raiding those funds for cash flow purposes. $5.7 million was a
large arecant of money and Council was never apprised regarding the borrowing from the sewer fund to cover the
shortfalls in the 22 accounts. Former Mayor Nader had clearly stated that was an unacceptable practice and Council
had been assured that it would not take place. Council relied upon the integrity, accuracy, and thoroughness of
reports submitted. If Information in the present report was true, Council had been basing their decisions on
erroneous Information which could jeopardize the amount of funds available for operations and reserves. He
questioned what alternatives were available as he would not support borrowing from the sewer fund to bring the
22 accounts up to a zero balance. He questioned: 1) who was responsible; 2) who made the changes, who borrowed
the money, why wasn't Council notified; and 3) how was the interest rate deterlnjned and how much was the
aggregate Interest lost to the sewer fund. He wanted a staff report with a repayment schedule. Council needed to
be informed on a monthly basis on what the actual payback was. The coneem was not just for the sewer fund
balance, but also for the projected losses to the RDA fund and the inaccurate reports provided to Council. He
questioned what steps would be taken to ensure that the RDA fiscal reports for 1993/94 and 1994/95 were updated
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 4
to reflect those costs and to pay back the interest costs. He noted the central garage had been allowed to run at a
deficit for over 25 years for a total of approximately $500,000.
Robert Powell, Director of Finance, stated without seeing all the questions he was uncertain as to how long staff
would need to prepare the report. He would have a problem going back into the pest and determining a lost interest
figure. He was not certain that it was even possible. It had bee~ going on for as long as personnel could remember
regarding the grant type funds.
Councilmember Pedilla stat~xl he agreed with Councilmember Rindone's comments and added his disappointment
regarding the situation. In responding, he requested that staff consider how common the practice was among cities
and how it would be characterized in terms of sound accounting or cash flow practices. He hol:~d staff could return
with an estimate on the total debt spending and total earned interest lost for the current past fiscal year. Staff should
also consider the impacts on the funds the money was be'mg advanced from. Most important, the repo~ should
address how the practice affected the budgeting authority of the Council. He also questioned why it had be~n done
and agreod it should not have been placed on the consent calendar. He felt some of the questions could not be
answered due to the term in which they occurred and that was very upsetting. There were too many things that
were continually explained away during his tenure on Council and he was looking for someone to take
responsibility. He had no doubt as to where the responsibility lied first and foremost and he also recognized that
he was the one to take the blame from the public when things went bad. The Manager and staff did not have to
face the citizens and he did.
Mayor Horton questioned the time needed before staff could return with a report addressing the Council's concerns.
Mr. Powell stated if the research could be limited to the past year he felt the report could be back in 2-3 weeks.
Councilmember Rindone stated he did not want the item heard on 11/7 due to the MCA heating, but hoped that it
would be brought hack the follow'rag week.
Councilmember Alevy stated Council had recently discussed the transfer of funds paid by developers and utilizing
them for another purpose and questioned if that was a normal practice and if other jurisdictions did it as well.
Mr. Powell responded the item dealt only with cash borrowing and had nothing to do with a long term loan to spend
on a project, etc. It dealt with a cash loan that the receiving fund would pay interest for.
Councilmember Moot stated he was in support of bring the item back, but felt Council should avoid being overly
alarmist. All the money was money that belonged to the City of Chula Vista and was raised in the City of Chula
Vista and it was not deficit spending. Certain monies had been accounted for in separate accounts so that when it
was time to do a paaicular capital project money had grown in that particular account so it was available when
needed in the future. The question was when there was different cash availability, allocating or bon'owing money
against an account that had been built up over time when the funds would not have to be used for an extended period
of time and the transfer of monies hack and forth between the two. He did not feel it had anything to do with the
solvency of the City, it was simply a practice of allocating funds the City had generated between different accounts.
He did not want people to question the solvency of the City after hearing Conncil's discussion because that was not
the problem they were dealing with. There was an ongoing deficit running in the Town Centre I and II projects,
but he felt Council was becoming overly alarmist about an on-going revolving debt which was creaWd as a result
of those two projects. Staff should include history regarding Town Centre I and II for Council review. Council
did need to develop a plan on how to solve the rcvolv'mg debt until the bonds were repaid for Town Centre I and
II.
Councilmember Rindone stated he disagreed with Councilmember Moot. It was not just an issue of fiscal
insolvency of the City. When monies were borrowed from specific set aside accounts for either capital
improvements projects or operating expenses the City was spending well beyond the authorized budget limit. The
additional impact beyond the fiscal issues was that if Council did not know what monies were available and maintain
a positive balance in the respective accounts, Council could not make effective decisions for the future. He wanted
a clarification, explanation, and revision of what staff had said were inaccurate and misleading financial statements.
Mr. Goss stated it was his understanding from the Finance Director that the reference to inaccurate and misleading
reports did not affect the budget information supplied to the Council, but dealt more with the internal accounting
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 5
issues the Finance Director was facing. It was his feeling that it did not affect the budget authority of the Council.
MSUC (Horton/Rindone) to continue the item to the meeting of 11/14/95.
16. RESOLUTION 18075 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "SIDEWALK
REPLACEMENT AND INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALK RAMPS ON SEA VALE STREET BETWEEN
THIRD AVENUE AND SECOND AVENUE (STL-223)" - On 9/27/95, bids were received. The general scope
of the project is replacement of existing deteriorated sidewalks and driveways along Sea Vale Street between Third
Avenue end Second Avenue. The work includes removal of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) curbs, removal and
replacement of asphalt concrete pavement, PCC slabwork removal, curb, sidewalk, driveways, sidewalk ramps,
traffic control, protection and restoration of existing improvements and other work as may be necessary to render
the above improvements complete and workable. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works)
17. RESOLUTION 18076 APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT
WITH WILLDAN ASSOCIATES TO AUTHORIZE $5,750 IN ADDITIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE PROJECT PUBLIC FACILITIES
FINANCING PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT -
The Amendment, in the amount of $5,750 to the original Three Party Agreement contract, is necessary to cover
an expanded scope-of-work to analyze Alternative B-2 that was not anticipated when the Three Party Agreement
was prepared. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch)
Mr. Goss stated that staff requested that Item 17 be deleted from the agenda.
Councilmember Rindone requested that when the item was brought beck to Council that staff address the reason why
Alternate B2 needed to be analyzed and brought back to Council.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
18. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSAL TO DEFINE "COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY" IN THE
EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR STREETS AND MODEFY THE FEE RATE
SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY - Currently, the *Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets* (TransDIF)
program does not discuss the land use category 'Community Purpose Facility" (CPF). Other fee programs, such
as the Public Facilities DIF and the SR-125 DIF exclude CPF from the fee programs. Staff proposes to correct the
inconsistency by defining the CPF land use and excluding that class from the TransDIF. Staff recommends this
item be continued and Council direct staff to renotice at the annrooriate time. (Director of Public Works)
Continued from the meeting of 9/19/95.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
MS (Rindone/Alevy) to continue the public hearing with renoticing at a later date.
There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
19. PUBLIC HEARING SPA AMENDMENT, PCM-95-11 AMENDMENT TO THE EASTLAKE GREENS
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN - The EastLake
Greens SPA project consists of approximately 830 acres, located south of Telegraph Canyon Road, westerly of
Hunte Perkway. The initial plan was approved in 1989 for 2774 dwelling units and assorted other uses, including
commercial, schools and parks. A subsequent SPA amendment in 1994 changed the configuration of the southerly
portion of the property end increase the unit count to 2861 dwelling units. When the 1994 amendment was
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 6
approved, the Public Facilities Financing Plan was not modified to reflect the changes. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Planning and Director of Public Works)
RESOLUTION 18077 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN AND ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS-94-19
Robea Leiter, Director of Planning, infornled Council that a letter from Sweetwater Union High School District
had been placed on the dais. While they supported the PFFP they raised the issue of the future installation of a
traffic signal at EastLake Parkway and Club House Drive. Staff had analyzed that and did not feel it directly
relevant to the PFFP or SPA Plan Amendment for EastLake. Engineering staff would be responding to their
request.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony,
the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Rindone stated he had served two terms on the Parks & Recreation Commission and during that
time there were two issues that came forward in projects proposed by EastLake in which additional parklands were
owed to the City. He questioned if there were any plans for the credits owed to the City or when it would be
coming due.
Mr. Leiter stated a portion of that would be developed with the EastLake Greens project and at u later time in the
EastLake III project to the east. That was consistent with the development agreements that had been approved.
Staff would have to report back with specific dates for installation of facilities.
Councilmember Rindone stated an informational memo would be sufficient.
RESOLUTION 18077 OFI~'ERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved unanimously.
20.A. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-47 TO ESTABLISH
A 20,000 SEAT OUTDOOR AMPHITHEATER AND AN OPEN AlR 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; CONSIDERING THE VACATION OF VARIOUS STREETS IN OTAY RIO BUSINESS
PARK; AND CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OR DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN
PROJECT FEES - 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 this item be
continued to 11/7/95. (Director of Community Development, Director of Planning and Director of Public Works)
Continued from the meeting of 10/3195.
B. 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 clarify 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 California Environmental Quality Act. Staff re~:ommends this item he continued to
1117/95. (Director of planning) Continued from the meeting of 10/3195.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearings were declared open. (The public hearings were
held concurrently. )
Those speaking in opposition to the MCA amphitheater were:
· T
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 7
· Clayton Wolf, 467 Riven Court, Chula Vista, CA, stated as a past law enforcement officer he war familiar with
problems associated with concerts and how sound traveled. He felt property values would be severely impacted.
· Gale Moriarity, 1672 Ocala Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated an on-going concern seemed to be that Chula Vista
needed to make a name for itself. Council had done a wonderful job with the Olympic Training Center which
brought in community friendly businesses. Disney Company war looking for a site in San Diego County and she
felt they may be interested in the proposed site for an enclosed ice skating arena. She reviewed sales tax revenues
from major retailers in the City and did not feel that the revenues received from an amphitheater were comparable.
· Robert J. Moriarity, 1672 Ocata Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated their homes, property, and persons would be
subjected to increased drug crime, trespass, prowling, etc. due to the elements historically attracted to such events.
He further felt that police, fire, and ambulance services would be drawn away from the cemm~mity in order to cover
the events. If the City had to pay for additional coverage the City would not realize the promised profits, if it was
paid for out of taxes the residents would be taxed to subsidize MCA. He referred to his comment at the 10/3
heating regarding his perception of a similarity regarding the mlndset of some Councilmembers and the con game
'gypsy switch'. Councilmember Padilla had requested proof that MCA's assuntnees of high income, no crime, no
noise, no traffic, no parking problems, no lawsuits wen anything than 100% reliable. The citizens report to
Council war the response. He felt Councilmember Padilia was in a clear conflict of interest situation and should
excuse himself from further discussions and votes involving MCA. He did not impugn Councilmember Padilla's
motives or ethics, nor did he infer any wrongdoing or wrongful intent on the part of his employer, the City of
Coronado. His vote for MCA stood to gain Coronado's protection from a waterfront agency.
Councilmember Padilia stated he reserved his right to respond to Mr. Moriarity's comments once the public heating
was closed.
· Kin Kilkenny, 11975 E1 Canine Real, San Diego, CA, representing the Baldwin Company, hoped Council
would have the opportunity to review all the materials distributed prior to voting on 11/7. He referred to the MCA
letter regarding the Bayfront amphitheater and felt if the same criteria that MCA wanted applied to the Bayfront be
applied to their own project, MCA's application would survive. MCA had two proposed mitigations for noise, i.e.
reduce volume at the source on the stage and the other was to build a sound barrier. The 95 dBA had been referred
to as the mitigated noise level throughout the EIR. MCA's noise consultant, Jack Wrightson, had stated that 95
dBA would be highly objectionable and rejected ar overly restrictive by musicians and would seriously impact the
bookings and economic viability of the facility. He questioned if the Bayfront amphitheater could not survive with
95 dBA, how the MCA facility could survive with it. He war confident that MCA would respond that it war in
conjunction with a sound barrier, but under an inversion condition the sound would bounce off the inversion at
points past the sound barrier and, therefore, the sound barrier would have no impact which had been acknowledged
by MCA's consultants as well as other jurisdictions. He presented an overhead showing the noise levels recorded
by staff on Otay Ranch which were several decibels higher than recorded by MCA. They had been told that Village
IIl would have the noise impacts and Villages II and IV should be able to build out. If the noise proved to be higher
than projected by MCA 0tay Ranch would be seriously injured. If the Bayfront amphitheater location war placed
on top of Otay Ranch, the residents of Village II and IV would be "singing along" with the residents of Village III.
That was at 95 dBA's and that was what they feared for Otay Ranch. On 9/30 Baldwin Wok actual ambient levels
in eastern territories which would be similar to Otay Ranch and those levels were substantially below 60-70 dBA
which was suggested by MCA at the last hearing. If an amphitheater was approved anywhere in Chula Vista the
mitigation standard should be measured on the peak because MCA asserted that the difference between avenge and
peak levels could be quite small. The current ordinance distinguished sound before and after 10:00 p.m. If MCA
asserted that the amphitheater would have to enforce the 45 dBA standard before 10:00 p.m. the City should make
45 dBA the applicable standard at all times. Baldw'm provided a draft Mountain View ordinance which regulated
peak noise, regulated low range noise, provided constant monitoring, and enforcement with tangible penalties.
Baldwin recommended the City hire an independent consultant to prepare effective noise standards and mitigation
which would absolutely ensure enforcement of City standards.
Councilmember Rindone requested clarification regarding the information presented on the annoyance level.
Mr. Kilkenny responded that annoyance occurred when the noise exceeded the ambient level by X decibel or X
percent. It war their fear that in the lower octave bands, regardless of the absolute dBA within Otay Ranch and
elsewhere, that the bands would be exceeded, annoyance would occur, and complaints would result which had been
the experience in other communities. It was also suggested by MCA regarding the Bayfront amphitheater.
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 8
Councilmember Rindone stated the U factor was below that and with leas then 5% ennoyence from that distance
it did not seem that it would create a distraction. Every time the distance doubled the sound noise was decreased
six fold end that was not reflected in the information presented by Baldwin.
Mr. Kilkenny stated he was not a noise export, but all the literature strongly suggested that when there was en
inversion condition noise traveled a much greater distance end the rides that would apply absent en inversion
condition would not apply. Baldwin's criticism of the MCA EIR was that it did not discuss weather, wind,
inversion, or the impact of a noise barrier.
Councilmember Rindone referred to page 7 of the BaldWin information regarding vacant areas end requested
clarification.
Mr. Kilkenny reapended that MCA requeated an amendment to the City's noise ordinence end the letter from
Latham & Watkins stated they were afraid they would get nuisance lawsuits from vacant areas. It was Baldwin's
position that that was nonsense, they would not get nuisance lawsuits from vacant areas and, therefore, it was not
a legitimate reason for the City to amend it's ordinance. He suggeated if it was a concern that the ordinance be
clarified so that the nuisance definition did not apply to vacant land. Baldwin would accept that as they did not want
to protect vacant lend but future residents of Chula Vista.
Councilmember Padilia questioned what data Baldwin had to respond to the proposed mitigation measures for the
undeveloped areas regarding the differential between the ambient noise level and the regulated noise level.
Mr. Kilkenny replied that thi|r concern was not the noise impact on vacent lend, their concern was noise impacts
on future residents of 0ray Ranch. They feared that once the residents moved in the regulations imposed on the
MCA amphitheater would be inadequate to protect those residents. The assertion was based upon noise tests done
todateand MCA~s~wnc~mmentsregardingthe impacts of the Bayfront amphitheater on Coronado. Ifyouapplied
the same rationale to Otay Ranch, Village II and IV could "sing along' with the amphitheater acts.
Councilmember Pedilla questioned if Baldwin factored in to their estimates, when comparing them to the same
distance in Coronado, the different geological conditions and the presence of the bay. They had measurements of
the impact of noise levels at that location end Council understood that there would be other factors, i.e. ambient
noise levels at that location. There was a proposed mitigation plen and he queationed what data Baldwin had to
show what the impact would be on the mitigation on those future levels.
Mr. Kilkenny responded that Baldwin felt it reasonable to believe that the ambient levels within Otay Ranch would
be substantially similar to the ambient levels experienced in EastLake end Rancho del Rey as they were similar types
of communities. Therefore, Baldwin used the existing ambient noise levels in those communities, i.e. ranging in
the high 30 dBA end low 40 dBA. The results of the noise test in the data provided by City staff stated mid 40 dBA
to low 50 dBA in Villagea lI, IV, end VII which was clearly above what was b~mg experienced in the eastern
tenitorias communitiea. As a consequence, Baldwin felt if those levels were experienced in 0tay Ranch in the
future, those reaidents would be complaining because they would be annoyed.
Councilmember Padilla questioned if the noise levels incorporated the mitigation measures or analysis of impact of
the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant.
Mr. Kilkenny responded that they were the 105 dBA levels done on 9/10 end were not 95 dBA levels. If he could
believe that the 95 dBA levels would be operated at the amphitheater in the future he would be far leas concerned.
But, MCA's own noise expert stated that amphitheaters could not be operated at 95 dBA and be succeasful. It
appeared that there was a contradiction. The EIR was at the 95 dBA noise level, the noise test was at the 95 dBA
noise level, but they stated that the Bayfront could not operate at 95 dBA and, therefore, he queationed how the
MCA amphitheater could operate at 95 dBA.
Coun~dmember Padilia stated it was his understanding that as a potential mitigation measure, administref~ve control,
i.e. whether to drop it to 98 dBA from 105 dBA or that in combination with some other environmental mitigation
was a different question than stating that it would be mitigated at the board to 95 dBA. He questioned if Baldwin
had addressed a combination of all the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, including potential
examination of the impacts of a sound wall, as en example.
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 9
Mr. Kilkenny replied that the EIR listed noise mitigation measures, i.e. administrative controls and a sound barrier,
and reo~entation of the lawn speakers. It was his understanding that rcorientation of lawn speakers did not have
much of an impact one way or the other. That left turning down the volume and building a sound wall. The
problem with an inversion condition, when noise traveled furthest, the sound barrier would have no impact. That
only left turning down the volume and if it was turned down to 95 dBA, MCA stated that it could not be a
commercially successful. They were being inconsistent. It was Baldwin's fear that the amphitheater would be
constructed and there would not be sufficient regulations to enforce the standards.
· James Foch, 152 Castelford Circle, Danville, CA, noise consultant for Baldwin Company, stated Caltrans did
not claim benefits from a sound wall over several hundred feet. The proponents also stated that barriers were of
no value when a temperature inversion was present. The EIR had to provide data to decision makers and the public
to make an informed judgemeat. In several respects the EIR did not provide that information. The measured sound
during the sound test on 9/18 was weak regarding those parts of the sound most objectionable to people several
miles away, i.e. the 250 hertz octave band. The Poway EIR produced similar results. They could have
compensated for that by putting more power into that part of the sound, but they did not and as a result all of the
contours were pushed out further and, in particuler, the 50 dBA contour was pushed out an additional 42%. One
of the most conspicuous problems regarding amphitheater noise for people in the community began at approximately
10:00 p.m. when there was an appreciable decrease in the sounds of human activities and ambient noise dropped
appreciably. Also, the temperature inversion, if present, became more and more pronounced as the evening
progressed. That did not seem to be taken into account as to whether a curfew would be desirable. He had been
involved in Shoreline issues for three years and could confidently state that no one knew exactly what was going
on there and noted that a body of water was not involved. Water was not an issue as sound was not propagated
over water. The configuration of the speakers for the 9/8 sound test would have an impact on the noise levels.
There were two aspects of temperature inversions: 1) the type that produced the sound levels as measured for the
test on 9/18, which were not unusual for temperature inversions; and 2) the really bad conditions in which the
temperature inversion focused the sound and made it 20 dBA higher than what was measured on 9/18. The
conditions on 9/18 were not worse case.
· Don Bridwell, 1545 Olive, Chula Vista, CA, stated he had talked to a lot of residents, many of which lived on
Otay Lakes Road and they did not know anything about the project. He questioned what would happen if the
amphitheater was built and no one knew about it.
· Kimberley Marshall, 1621 Oleander Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, submitted a petition with over 250 signatures
against the MCA amphitheater.
· Beverly Berwick, 1063 Waterville Lake Road, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the MCA amphitheater.
· Teresa Berwick, 1063 Waterville Lake Road, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the MCA amphitheater.
· Luis Pena, 1668 Point Reyes Court, Chula Vista, CA, expressed his concern regarding the type of people that
the concerts would draw, traffic, polltalon, impact on property values, etc. He was concerned regarding the future
of his thi'ee sons.
· Mary Ann DeLaHunt, 1704 Harvard Str,~t, Chula Vista, CA, statcxl the hom~owners were there first. She
questioned why the speakers were aimed at them which appeared the City was sacrificing the citizens for a
developer in San Diego. She also questioned why no one had addressed the fire works and lasers. MCA was
owned by Seagrams and she expre&sed her concern regarding the promotion of alcohol. She felt the r~fer~c~ to
'living in tents' was insulting. The concerts would b~ during the warmest months and homeowners had to open
their windows and doors. She expressed conecru regarding the noise impacts.
Those speaking in support of the MCA amphitheater were:
· Chris Bitterlin, 525 'B' Street, San Diego, CA, Bitterlin Brice Development Partners, repreeenting MCA, noted
that the speak,rs at thg 10/3 meeting in support of the project had volunteered to appear at the pre~sent public hearing
to show their support, but du~ to time constraints they had refrained from doing so.
· Jack Wrightson, Dallas, Texas, Johnson, Haddon, & Willisins, Inc., stated their job was to keep the developer
out of trouble, i.e. within the laws and to conform to the general standards, i.e. the inteat of the law and being a
good neighbor. MCA had expressed an extreme desire to b~ a good neighbor and did not want to got 100's of
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 10
phones calls a night even if they were within the law. They looked at about a dozen amphitheater sites a year for
various companies, including MCA, and lass than one of those were built. The proposed site was the only one in
the general metropolitan San Diego area that they felt they could endorse as meeting the standards. Amphitheater
sites were rejected by their firm at about a 15:1 ratio. They did their best to be technically objective regarding the
issues of noise. He was not at the meeting on b~half of MCA to push the project through but to give Council their
best professional judgemeat as to what they felt would happen. That was based primarily on measurement on-site
and under actual conditions and not by calculations. He sta~u:l he would respond point by point to Mr. Foch's and
Mr. Kilkenny's (10/12/95) letters. There was no doubt that sound was more annoying at night than in the day.
The City's noise ordinance put a higher standard on the noise someone could make at night, but it was not
equivalent to 10 dBA higher, it was just that the standard treated it as more annoying and, therefore, put a more
rigorous standard on it. The calculations for reduction of noise by noise barriers took into account the height of
the projected sound walls and the topography, elevation of the noise source, elevation of the listener at the base and
mid-base frequencies cited by Mr. Kilkenny. In their analysis of the mitigation in order to be conservative, they
took into account an inversion affect and assumed only a 5-6 dBA of atteunation would be available at those
Iocaf~ons through the wall. The differential due to unusual conditions was built in.
Councilmember Moot requested that Mr. Wrightson address the issue of the noise barrier not being affectlye because
sound would bounce off an inversion layer and cone down and make a noise barrier a non-factor as far as
mitigation.
Mr. Wrightson stated that for very distant propertins Mr. Foch was right, the walls had a decreasing impact due
to both the natuse of the barrier as well as the inversion affect. Fortunately, at those great distances due to normal
propagation effects they projected they were within the noise regulations. They felt the wall would have the greatest
impact on Village IV. Because that was the property closest to the site it would be the property that would receive
the greatest noise levels. They expected the levels in Village I to be within the law even under the inversion
situation. The EIR did not discuss audibility of noise other than to say that when noise was audible there would
be complaints. In noise terms, about 10% of the public would not be happy no matter what was done and slightly
less than 10% that really did not care. They expected the noise from the amphitheater, as continned by the two
noise tests in Village IV, under the mitigated conditions in locations where the ambience was very low, to be audible
but within the law of the City of Chula Vista.
Councilmember Moot questioned if mitigated to 95 dBA with a sound wall if it was done without toming down the
sound to 95 dBA. He further questioned if the noise that left the amphitheater and hit the inversion layer came
coma down would violate the ordinance and if it was two separate issues.
Mr. Wrightson stated that no one from MCA stated they would mitigate the noise level down to 95 dBA. What
they said was that economically viable mitigation, including turning it down and building sound control walls would
be equivalent to playing at the referenced 100 ft. distance at 95 dBA. The modeling had been done at 100 dBA
which was significantly louder from a conceptual standpoint. Perceptual studias on loudness stated that differences,
either minus or plus, of 6-10 dBA resulted in either halving or doubling of loudness. The rule of thumb, to be
conservative, the standard was 10 dBA. Therefore, if they lowered it from 105 by 10 dBA inside the facility the
patron would perceive it as half as loud. He bed informed MCA that they may have to lower the sound at the 100
tic. distance, in conjunction with the walls, down to as low as 100 dBA in order to meet the noise level at Village
IV. MCA realized that these would be &n economic impact but it would not be the same impact of reducing the
source level to 95 dBA. It was MCA ' s professional judgemeat that the number of acts that they would lose would
still allow the amphitheater to be economically viable. MCA felt thatthe condition of the CUP was suchthatifthey
did not observe the City of Chula Vista's noise ordinance they could be shut down and the CUP revoked.
Councilmember Padilia questioned the relationship of bringing the 100 It. distance to 95 dBA.
Mr. Wrightson stated the relationship was linear. Controlling noise at the source was the most effective mitigation
which was contrary to what MCA wanted to do from a business standpoint so they looked at sound walls and other
issues to take care of it as well.
Councilmember Alevy referred to Mr. Kilkenny's chart which indicated that there were locations considerably
further away from the source of sound that had a higher dBA level than closer locations.
Mr. Wrightson stated in the case of the test on 9/18 it was topographical and weather related. Th~ data from the
City staff was operated at the wrong range and the device was bottomlag out and giving inaccurate numbers. He
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 11
did not trust that dam. Th~'tr measurements confirmed the contours provided in the EIR. The comment regarding
the impacts on residents sleep did not take into account the insulation from the outside of the house to the insida
of the house. Many cities had noise ordinances and they varied. Most had different noise levels for differant types
of zoning and had more restrictive noise levels after 10:00 p.m. The City's noise ordinance was tougher than San
Diego's in that when any residential property abutted a non-residential use they could average the two noise levels
at the property line. The proposed Mountain View ordinance and all the issues included were due to a unique
situation. Of the 35 + amphitheaters in North America there were none that had the same conditions placed on the
Shoreline amphitheater. It was misleading to bring a unique situation to bear that was inconsistent with the rest of
the amphitheaters on the continent and did not have similar topographical or climatic conditions to the Chula Vista
site.
Councilmember Moot stated there had been a suggestion that the reference to Shoreline did not include a body of
water.
Mr. Wrightson utilized a transparency which showed that the noise appeared to project over water at Shoreline.
Councilmember Rindone requested Mr. Wrightson explain the two reasons why Shoreline was not typical.
Mr. Wrightson stated that was getting out of his area of expertise, but it was his understanding the water
temperatures off the coast of the San Francisco Bay were considerably colder than they were off the Southbay and
the daytime temperatures, especially in-land areas relative to the San Francisco Bay area were much higher than
the San Diego/Southbayarea, thatthe inversion thatwas created. His experience withmany amphitheatera indicated
that Chula Vista was mere typical of other locations than Shoreline.
Councilmember Moot stated looking toward east Palo Alto the noise would go over water but the other part of Palo
Alto would not go over water. He questioned which section of Palo Alto the residents were complaining about.
Mr. Wrightson stated there were complaints from several areas because the inversion layer shifted due to wind
conditions, changing of air masses, etc. It was his understanding that the impact~t area was a 4 mile radius from
the amphitheater. All of MCA's conunents regarding the Bayfront project were based on the noise data contained
within the Notice Of Preparation. They made no calculations of their own in preparing the letter. They had
reviewed the Bayfront and flats ares in the neighborhood three times for three different amphitheater developers
as far back as 6-7 years and in each of those locations they had informed their customer that they believed the site
unsuitable for noise reasons. That was their opinion then and was their opinion at the present time. The Bayfront
NOP stated the noise at the counsel would be restricted to 95 dBA and he believed based on his discussion with
amphitheater operators and input from MCA that 95 dBA was economically not viable. 105 dBA was economically
viable, 100 dBA was viable, but less so, and 95 dBA was less viable. The contours were based on source levels
of 95 dBA.
Councilmember Moot stated that if Village IV was be'me built out and it became necessary to mitigate, the actual
sound in the amphitheater would be 100 dBA with the sound wall absorbing another 5 dBA creating the "mitigated
effect of 95 dBA*.
Mr. Wrightson stated that was correct. If the sound wall was more effective than 5 dlaA they could play at louder
than 100 dBA, if the sound wall was less affectire than 5 dBA it would have to be reduced by a like amount.
Councilmember Moot stated Otay Ranch would not be built for approximately ten years and he questioned if there
was any reason to believe that technology to absorb sound or other advances in controlling sound would be better
or mere sophisticated at that time.
Mr. Wrightson did not feel that Council should anticipate any advances and they had not assumed any advances in
their projections. Based on trend lines, performers were hiring sound companies that had gone to mere directional
loudspeaker systems which could result in a small benefit. As the concert going population aged, as noise issu~
for amphitheaters became more defined, acts matured in their professionalism, he felt they would play at a lower
dBA. He assumed a 5 dBA reduction for the noise barriers. The Bayfront NOP assumed 17 dBA for noise barriers
and he felt that 17 dBA was very optimistic. One of the issues in the Bayfront NOP was the projects noise levels.
Even with the 17 dB wall and 95 dB source levels it was in excess of the Chula Vista noise ordinance afar 10:00
p.m. The fact that they were in excess of the noise ordinance was excused by stating that the ambient noise levels
in those communities were higher. It was possible in any residential neighborhood to find areas or pockets where
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 12
the ambient noise levels were lower than in other areas. The primary determining factor outside of relatively rare
events such as airports, military bases, etc. was roadway noise.
Councilmember Alevy stated at another concert venue in town as the sun went down it became cooler with stronger
breezes, but about 1/2 hour after sunset it was slightly warmer with less breeze. He questioned if that was just a
waterfront phenomenon or if there would be the same effect 5-6 miles inland.
Mr. Wrightson responded that if there was no breeze at the shoreline there probably would not be a breeze at 0tay
Valley. The times he had been on the site it was a little longer after sunset before the breeze died off. He had no
doubt that the ambient noise levels performed by Mr. Kilkeuny were accurate for the other Baldwin neighborhoods,
but they were dramatically inconsistent with his own EIR. Noise levels in residential areas were determined
primarily by vehicular traffic. The lowest level projected in Baldwin's EIR was 65-60 dBA which was the
equivalent avenge, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If he overlaid the one hour avenges of the amphitheater MCA
would have less of an impact on the villages than Baldwin. The assessment of noise on the Coronado Cayes was
based on the ambient noise levels he had measured in the Cayes which were not near the freeway and, therefore,
lower. In the Bayfront NOP the contour that was shown was project~xi to be 7 dBA higher with the wind. When
the proposed site of the amphitheater was moved to the east it changed the relationship of the sound directly to the
south of the site, i.e. the Robinhood Ridge area. They brought out a small number of loud speakers and pointed
them straight at the south. The primary goal of the test was to Fred out the reduction of sound between point A and
point B in another area as they had made no measurements in that area. The fingers of the contour extending into
the canyons was because where there was not a barrier of the bluff and the noise protruded up the canyon into those
areas. The test did not assume that the source level would be 95 elBA but was only to collect more data to put into
the contour. That had been misrepresented and he wanted to clarify that the second sound test was conducted only
to find out what the attenuation was between the new site and relocated and various points. It was his professional
judgemerit, on behalf of MCA, that if MCA was held to a non-objective noise standard they bad a business risk as
to knowing whether or not they were complying with the law. It was his understanding that MCA's counsel and
City staff agreed that the interpretation of the environmental versus the nuisance noise in the Chula Vista ordinance
was a function of whether or not the noise was in conjunction with the intended purpose of the land. Staff had
stated that the intended purpose of the land under the CUP would be for an amphitheater and, therefore, would fall
under that jurisdiction. MCA was asldng for clarification to make sure that interpretation was codified.
Councilmember Moot stated it was his understanding that the difference between environmental noise and nuisance
noise was that one measured a peak and one measured an avenge. He questioned if that was correct and, if true,
why they would not measure the peak as opposed to the average.
Mr. Wrightson responded that Councilmember Moot's understanding was not wrong. The nuisance ordinance
allowed complaints regarding objectionable noisy activities in an area which was not anticipated. Because it wa was
noise that was not normally associated with that land use, it imposed a slightly more stringent standard because it
was out of the ordinary. Under the terms of the ordinance the appropriate standard was the avenge standard.
Avenge was more common and typical and there was ample scientific literature to support the fact that avenge
noise levels were more predictable of long term annoyance than long term peak levels. There was a small advantage
to the noise maker with the average nther than the peak. For the test the sound company brought out a rig and
set it up as they would for Jimmy Buffett and utilized music with a law dynamic range which he felt was
objectionable. He did not accept Dr. Foch's explanation regarding the horizontal versus vertical placement of
speakers. They took the directivity of real sound system products into account and plugged them into a computer
program which took the interference affects into account. When there were multiple sound sources, the sound that
was projocted from each of them added, combined, and subtracted. Sound radiation to the rear of the speakers
would be mitigated by a concrete stagehouse. The speakers were also more directional than the point sources in
Dr. Foch's model. There could be a 5-8 dBA variation not the 23 dBA variation when utilizing actual products that
had been used in the real world. When looking at the measurements made at Baldwin's request on the properly,
they lined up with the peak of the directivity plot furnished by Dr. Foch. The reason they utilized horizontal
speakers was a matter of convenience and not designed to bias the sound test in any way. The cost of rigging the
speakers vertically was extreme and did not provide any useful benefit in addressing what the noise was. Dr. Foch
stated that the music reproduced for the noise test was conspicuously weaker in the 250 Hertz band. His company
did not control that and they had asked the sound company to use their judgemont to do it as they would for one
of their performers. There was no conspiracy. In Dr. Foch's comments he stated the number of times the noise
test was audible but did not include the noise levels, he assumed that if it had been in violation of the noise
ordinance it would be a point that Baldwin would want to bring out. He had not seen any date that suggested that
Chnla Vista's climate was identical to Mountain View and Palo Alto. There were inversions at almost every
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 13
location on the planet and it did have an affect on sound but it did vary. They felt Chula Vista was mere typical
of amphitheater sites and less typical of Shoreline. They had decreased the *standard barrier loss" based for adverse
conditions. At great distances the barrier had a lesser effect and they expected to be within the noise ordinance at
all points.
· Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, stated it
was important to remember that the amphitheater would bring a great deal of good to the business community.
Council had full control over the regulating the facility and he urgad Council support.
· Bob Thomas, 650 Floyd Avenue, Chub Vista, CA, member Board of Directors for Chula Vista Chamber of
Commerce and Planning Commissioner, stated there was one EIR and the City would have complete control of the
project and revenues. If the amphitheater was on the Bayfront there was a possibility of having four EIR's and the
City would have to deal with the Port District, City of San Diego, and City of Coronado. He reminded Council
of Plaza Bonita in which the City lost all control, gained all the traffic and maintenance of the streets, with all the
revenues going to National City. He was opposed to a Bayfront proposal and encouraged Council support MCA.
Mayor Hotton informed the public that the public hearing would be continued to November 7, 1995 at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmember Rindone referred to page 20C-6, #11, and stated he did not fo01 that the issue of soccer fields had
been dealt with. If Council decided to mere forward it was an opportunity that should not be missed. He felt the
fields could be mitigated depending on how they were prepared which would allow an extra amenity. All aspects
needed to be considered. There needed to be resolution regarding parking fee revenues and he felt that needed to
be included in the renumerations to the City. There were other opportunities available for priority in hiring Chula
Vista residents, i.e. the Career Awareness Center.
Councilmember Alevy questioned whether traffic would be allowed on Brandywine before and after concert events.
Joe Monaco, Environmental Projects Manager, responded that traffic would be allowed on Brandywine; Oleander
was proposed for closure if doomed to be necessary.
Councilmember Alevy stated it was his understanding that at one time the City purchased a noise monitoring system
but it was not curren~y being used because no one was trained to use the equipment.
Mr. Goss replied that state-of-the-art noise equipment was purchased in the '80's and the person that utilized the
equipment retired. The City currently did not have anyone with the technical ability on staff. It was his
understanding that the equipment was operahie.
Councilmember Alevy requested that staff look into what equipment the City had and how it functioned as be felt
that would help to address many of the homeowners concerns. He suggested that possibly the concert owner could,
on a per diem basis, have someone at the concerts reading the noise levels at strategic areas. He requested that
staff discuss it with the applicant. He questioned if there was an updated curfew time.
Mr. Salemone replied that the curfew would be 11:30 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on weekends. The City
reserved the right in the CUP to impose a more strict curfew after some experience with the facility and review by
the Police Department.
Councilmember Alevy stated he was not satisfied with those times and wanted to see something come back for
Council review. He was also concerned that parking revenues were not part of the agreetaunt and want~l that
discussed with the developer. He wanted staff to look into removal of debris on the right-of-ways following
concerts. He requested that staff research the 'dark sky' ordinance in place in Phoenix and include information
on the height of the lights in the parking lots, etc. A system of fines needed to be established for violations of the
noise ordinance and he would like to see any potential fines go to the Otay gym. He wanted to propose an action
plan in which the Council would address all the concerns heard from everyone, form a subcommittee of the Council
to work with the operators of the amphitheater, end identify mitigable levels or thresholds on items such as security,
sound impacts, liquor, concessions, security, etc. It would also ensure that a broad range of entertainment would
be provided. He wanted to see that beck to Council 60 days prior to the opening of the venue and on an annual
basis for 2-3 years until the facility was well under way.
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 14
Councilmember Piedilia stated it was his unders~mding that there would be a six lane roadway extending all the way
east and six lanes between I-80S and Nirvana. From Nirvana east bound through the balance of Otay Valley to the
entrance of the proposed site it would be four lanes.
Mr. Monaco responded that it would be a total of five lanes. Between Nirvana and the bridge it would be three
lanes west bound and two lanes east bound. Those would be permanent and non-reversible. On the bridge there
would be one lane north bound and one lane south bound in a permanent configuration with a center median that
could accommodate two additional lanes that would be a reversible operation.
Councilmember Piedilia questioned when referring to road revision and widening costs if it included the safety
lighting.
Mr. Monaco replied that the safety lighting was not included in the City's cost, it was an additional requirement
of the applicant.
Councilmember Piedilia referred to the interchange at I-805, specifically the south bound ramp, and stated there was
a problem there. He questioned how that problem would be mitigated.
Mr. Monaco responded that the only improvement proposed for the south bound off*ramp was restriping of the
existing road to provide for an exclusive left turn lane. According to the traffic repo~ that was all that was required
to maintain acceptable levels of service for that particular approach.
Councilmember Piedilia requested more commentary from the applicant on how MCA determined the staffing levels
for security per event, i.e. a particular methodology. He questioned if the cost of the on-site first aide station was
to be paid by the applicant. He further questioned where the mobile emergency response personnel and ambulances
would come from, what cost would be incurred, and what the impact was during their presence at performance
times on stations that delivered service to other areas.
Martin Miller, Associate Planner, stated it would also be to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. It was anticipated
that the Events Plan which was required to be developed prior to the opening of the facility would outline what the
additional services and requirements would be and those requirements and costs would be satisfied by the applicant.
If additional services were required beyond what was anticipated in the Events Plan it would be on an as-needed
charge-as-you-go basis.
Councilmember Moot felt that should be determined up front and not left until later.
Mr. Salomene stated it had been discussed with the Police Chief and to the degree that they could, they would have
it resolved by 11/7. However, the Chiefs concerns were based on his experience in Pasadena for the Rose Bowl
where they hied a method for billing for services of sworn officers if needed. The Chief would be present on 11/7
to address Council's concerns.
Councilmember Padilia stated he was concerned with language in the EIR regarding the relocation of Chula Vista
Fire Station #3 to Orange and Oleander and a mutual aide agreement and the ability of a nearby City of San Diego
fire unit. He questioned if staff could provide additional comment on how relying on those factors provided
mitigation. He questioned how the City could expect to mitigate the impacts on fire delivery.
Mr. Monaco responded that the mitigation relied primarily on the additional services provided for the specific
facility and less on the mutual aide agreement because of the nature of the facility and the additional requirements
it hied beyond an industrial land use.
Councilmember Moot felt people would use Brandywine after the concert instead of waiting in line to get on the
freeway. If that traffic created a problem, he questioned if the City had the ability under the CUP to stop right hand
turns on Brandywine after the concert.
Mr. Monaco responded that was part of the traffic management plan. It was designed to be flexible so the City
could adjust to any problems that arose.
Councilmember Moot believed the Council needed to look at a realistic curfew which should be included in the
agreement. On a school night and work day an 11:30 p.m. curfew seemed late especially with it taking 1 ~.h-2 hours
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 15
to empty the parking lot. Curfew issues were going to be an important matter to him as Counc'd needed to be
extremely sensitive in making the facility as non-intrusive as possible. He thanked MCA, The Baldwin Company,
consultants, staff, and all the residents for their input.
C. REPORT RESPONSES TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MCA CHULA VISTA
AMPHITHEATER PROJECT FROM COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 1995 - At the public hearing
on 10/3/95, Council directed staff to provide clarifying information on certain components of the project and
answers to a number of specific questions. Additionally, business deal points were to be presented for information
and review. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Community Development)
Chds Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated the subject of the public hearing was the response
that Council had requested from staff on a number of questions. The business deal was outlined in the responses
to Council and staff was in the process of ~nalizing the legal issues of the business deal and would be prepared to
bring it to Council in Closed Session on 10/24 or 11/7. Staff welcomed Council input into those negotiations. The
performing arts fund proposed by the applicant at the last meeting. It would be a surcharge on tickets, going from
15C to 50(:, to be used for legitimate performing arts in the City of Chula Vista, not exclusively for use at the MCA
facility. Those revenues could be as much as $150,000 the first year and those revenues were not calculated in the
Statement of Revenues. It was staffs understanding that a sound test for the Nederlander project was tentatively
set for 11/2 which would allow staff to return to Council on 11/7 with the raw data from the study.
· · a Council recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. * * *
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· Cindy Binno, 940 Nolan Way, Chula Vista, CA, representing South Bay Pentecostal Church, informed Council
that they had invited the world's strongest man, Anthony Clark, to visit the church and various City schools. Mr.
Clark's goal was to help the kids of today to be the best they could be without drugs or other crutches in their lives.
They were also sponsoring a "pizza pig-out" on Thursday, 10/19 for all youth. They would be holding their first
annual Kids Power Harvest Festival on 10/31 at the Memorial Bowl from 5:00 - 8:00 p.m. for the youth of the
community.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
21. ORDINANCE 2650 ADOPTING AS AN INTERIM AND EMERGENCY MEASURE FOR A PERIOD
OF 90 DAYS, AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.54.010 TO EXEMPT
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES FOR 7-12 RESIDENTS FROM OBTAINING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND FROM THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 19.54 {urgency
ordinance}- The Planning Department is preparing amendments to the Zoning Code and will be preparing
implementing ordinances which will allow Residential Care Facilities for 7-12 residents which are protected by the
Federal Fair Housing Act to locate in residential zones as a matter of right. The purpose of the moratorium is to
avoid the risk of the City incurring monetary damages should its actions under the current zoning standards conflict
with the rights of individuals protected by the Fair Housing Amendments Act. Staff recommends Council adopt
the urgency ordinance. (Director of Planning and City Attorney)
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the local land use decisions of a charter city could be usurped by the federal
government. He noted there would be impacts on the rights of the neighborhood and other residents and questioned
if the City had any options available.
Mr. Boogaard stated he could answer the question publicly, but if Council wanted to dwell on the legal aspects he
recommended Council go into Closed Session. The Council did have an option of trying to create a conditional use
permit system. All land uses the City tried to regulate fell within three categories, i.e. 1) absolutely prohibited;
2) allowed as of right; and 3) conditionally permitted. The City had the legal authority to squeeze those types of
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 16
uses into the conditionally permitted use categories but the City could not pick a condition that in any way focused
on the federally protected features of a group. In essence, the City became preemptive because if the City could
not focus on those legally they could not regulate the use differently from a large family.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if there were any regulations regulating the size of the family. His concern
was that the density of any single family residence not be excessive or negatively impact a neighborhood.
Mr. Boogaard stated the City did not try to regulate family size through the zoning code, it was regulated through
Health & Safety codes and was based on people per square footage volume of space. The problem was that the
federally protected uses fully qualified. There were three basic conditions that could be legally imposed, i.e. 1)
parking constraints, but the City had to offer reasonable accommodation; 2) number of people per room constraint,
but they easily qualified under the current licensing standard; and 3) legally impose a separation requirement, which
staff was proposing to do as a matter of right. Council would be submitting themselves to a lot of aggravation when
Congress had basically preempted their right to regulate the use. Staff felt it was federally preempted from any
sincere effort at regulation and that if the public had a concern they should focus theft attention on federal
representatives not through the local City representatives. HUD and the Department of Justice focused on 12 as
the dividing line as to what could constitute a large family and what constituted a commercial use. He did not
believe efforts by the City could withstand constitutional scrutiny and, therefore, he recommended that the Council
not even try.
ORDINANCE 2650 PLACED AS AN URGENCY ORDINANCE BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, reading
of the text was waived, passed and approved unanhnously.
22. ORDINANCE 2651 AMENDING CHAFFER 2.66 - PARK AND FACILITIES RULES (first reading} -
Chapter 2.66 of the Municipal Code, which governs the rules and regulations for use of city parks and facilities,
has not been substantially changed since 1974. The Department has undertaken the task of reviewing this Chapter
and proposing various amendments to the sections therein. The intent of the proposed amendments is an
edministrative 'house cleaning" procedure to create rules wInch are more applicable to situations encountered in
the parks. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on tirst reading. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
Councilmember Moot stated he had been contacted by several constituents regarding their children playing in the
little league parks and problems with people drinking in the parking lots and fields. He referenced Section 2.66.230
dealing with air inflated astro-jumps and felt it was a potential revenue source to the City, was often requested by
the public, end that it could be regulated. He requested an info item on the current City policy for Council review.
Jerry Foncerrada, Deputy Director of Parks, responded that staff was looking at parks that could be designated for
those uses on a rental basis to generate revenues for the City. Problems in the past resulted from noise complaints.
Councilmember Alevy referred to Section 2.66.043 regarding alcoholic beverage consumption and possession and
stated he had a problem in blanketty restricting alcohol consumption. He agreed with the prohibition against alcohol
consumption and possession afier park closure. Hequestionedifthesignswouldbepostedatallparksoronlythose
parks that had a perceived or identified problem as identified by staff and ratified by Council.
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated staff would approach the Council when there was a problem
at a specific park and request by resolution to post signs prohibiting the consumption and possession of alcohol at
that particular park. In the past the Council had preferred to deal with park problems on a park by park basis and
staff would deal with it as such.
Councilmember Rindone stated he shared the same concerns. He felt the current language could ha interpreted that
there was an immediate ban on all parks at all times which was not the intent of staff or Council. He would sopport
the amendment as recommended.
Mr. Boogaard recommended that the last sentence of Subsection B, read "any signs posted pursuant to this section
must be posted under the authority of a City Council resolution upon a finding by the Council that the park or a
portion thereof so posted has experienced problems with the public's consumption of alcohol".
ORDINANCE 2651, AS AMENDED, PLACED ON FIRST READING, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously. Last sentence of Subsection B, to read "any signs posted pursuant to this section
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 17
must be posted under the authority of a City Council resolution upon a finding by the Council that the park
or a portion thereof so posted has experienced problems with the public's consumption of alcohol".
23. RESOLUTION 18078 ACCEPTING STAFF'S PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE 1996 CULTURAL ARTS
FESTIVAL, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHULA
VISTA JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO PROVIDE PASS-THROUGH OF $15,000 OF PORT
DISTRICT FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE 1996 CULTURAL ARTS FESTIVAL - On 4/18/95, Council
approved the combination of the Cultoral Arts Festival, the Community Pride Fair and Winterfest. Staff was
directed to plan and implement a single special event to be conducted in the Spring of 1996. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
RESOLUTION 18078 OFFI~RED BY COUNCILMEMBER PADILLA, reading of the text was waived,
approved 4-0-1 with Moot absent.
24. REPORT FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING
VACANCY REFORM - On a referral hy Council, the Charter Review Commission and City Attorney recommends
that Council submit to the People, for inclusion in the Charter, a Vacancy Reform proposal. It is recommended
that Council approve the Vacancy Reform 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) Continued from the meeting of
Councilmember Moot stated he would abstain from participation as he felt it would directly affect his election.
Mr. Boogaard stated the only proposition that could affect Councilmember Moot would be the plurality rule.
Councilmember Rindone felt the three proposals were moving in the right direction and he was pleased. He was
opposed to the second proposal for the one year period. A democracy was based on elected representatives and
there was a cost to it. He realized there needed to be a balance and felt three months may be reasonable. If there
was a major intervening election, the City election could be held without calling a special election and, therefore,
the costs would be minimal. It was Council's responsibility to ensure that whenever possible that elections would
be held instead of appointments being made. He would support recommendation two if modified to throe months.
The modification would state "only in the situation where there was a major election and the costs would be
minimal".
Mr. Boogaard stated page 16-10, second line, should delete "meaning of one year" and insert "meaning of three
months" or whatever policy choice the Council made. Staff recommend Council direct the City Attorney to re. tmn
with a formal resolution calling the election and placing among the other offices in the March election the vacancy
reform raeasure.
MOTION: (Rindone) to accept the report and Charter Review Commission recommendations, accepting
provisions 1 and 3 with provision 2 amended to 90 days.
Mayor Hotton stated she supported the City Attomey's recommendation. She agreed elected officials should be
elected, but Council needed to use cormnon sense and balance the length of the term against the costs. She could
not see spending $16,000+ for a three month period. She did have a problem with provision 3 which was the
plurality issue. She had been elected under the new n~les which required a majority vote and the citizens had voted
on that loud and clear and she felt the Council needed to respect that.
Councilmember Rindone stated that would only occur if there was already a scheduled major election between the
three and six months. The City would not call a special election during that period of time. Provision 3 would not
change Proposition "J" . If there was a need for a special election if a plurality was not received by one candidate
and it was for a short period of time, instead of having the cost of two elections a person could be chosen without
a plurality vote.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if Council was creating an oppormhity for more members of the Council to be
elected by a plurality by concurrently implementing the provisions of the election free zone with the elimination of
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 18
the requirement for a majority in a special election. He further questioned if there was a way of making the general
municipal election for the full term function as the run-off for the intervening election.
Mr. Boogaard stated the election in March was the general municipal election which would decide who could sit
in two seats for four years starting in December 1996 to December 2000. The same election was going to be a
special election to decide who was going to occupy Councilmember Moot's and Alevy's seats from March to
December. The general municipal election occurred every two years and determined the four year term occupancy
and was scheduled by the Charter to coincide with the state-wide primary for presidential and gubernatorial
elections, but they were fixed dates. A special election was any other election held for a vacancy or to enact a
measure
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Rindone) to change 90 days to six months.
SECOND TO MOTION, AS AMENDED: (Padilia)
Councilmember Padilia felt the six month buffer was as adequate a twelve months and was probably preferable.
The needed to be an adequate buffer so people would not be running for a three w~ek term at a great expense to
the City. The net effect was the same and he felt Council all had the same goal.
Mayor Herton stated she would consider the six months, but felt the Charter Review Commission recommendation
was reasonable, therefore, she would not support the motion on the floor. She was also concerned with the plurality
vote. Because the people had voted to support a majority vote she would have a hard time supporting the proposal.
MOTION WITHDRAWN: (Rindone)
MSC (Rindone/Padilla) to approve the Charter Review Commission rerommendafion for provision #1,
Inexpensive, Intervening Election Rule. Approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining.
MS (RindoneJPadilin) modification of the Charter Review Commission recommendation for penvision #2,
Appointed Councilpersons Period Of Service, to 180 days instead of one year.
Mayor Herton stated she supported the Charter Review Commission recommendation end, therefore, would not
support the motion.
VOTE ON MOTION: failed 2-2-0-1 with Herton and Alevy opposed and Moot abstaining.
Mr. Boogaard stated Councilmember Moot's only conflict was with the plurality rule and he was not affected by
either an anticipated intervening vacancy or the duration of service of an appointed replacee since he would have
to stand up to an election in March. If he was inclined, since the item had been bifurca~l, he could participate.
· Bob Campbell, Chair, Charter Review Commission, stated it was a difficult question, but after indepth review
by the Commission there had been · unanimous vote by the Commission on each portion. It was not an issue where
someone was right or wrong, it was a perception or understanding.
Councilmember Padtile questioned if Council could send the item beck to the Commission for additional options,
i.e. limiting a plurality vote to a specific time period.
Mr. Boogaard stated the effect of me months would be to eliminat~ an appointed reptacee having to stand up to
a June election, but require him/her to stand up to a March election. He expressed concern with a time constraint
in order to get the provisions on the March ballot.
Mayor Herton felt the Council should not rush to get it on the March ballot.
Councilmember Rindone stated maybe the only thing that would be placed on the March ballot would be the first
provision which had been unanimously approved by Council.
Mr. Boogeard stated in March if there was not a clear winner, under the Charter requirements the Council would
have to call a special run-off election as soon thereafter as practical. That gave the Council a certain amount of
latitude to determine what was practical. When written end when brought to Council's attention it was suggested
Minutes
October 17, 1995
Page 19
that the cost of having a special run--off election could mean as soon as 103 days thereafter at a substantial cost of
$120,000+ to fill a seat for less than four months. He urged Council to consider some form of the plurality rule,
even if it meant using the plurality rule within two years of the election and the clear winner standard if it was
beyond two years.
MSC (Padilla/Horton) to send provisions 2 and 3 to the Charter Review Commission for review and additional
options. Approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining.
II'EMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Items pulled: 13, 14, and 15. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
25. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings. Mr. Goss stated the Board/Commission banquet was on Thursday, October 19th.
b. The Southwestern College Board approved the contract previously approved by Council for the transit center.
The next step would be to take it to the County.
c. The sample of the Olympic Training Center directional sign was in the Chambers for public viewing.
d. The TV series Renegade would be filming at the City on Monday and Tuesday.
e. State Constitutional Review Commission - State/SANDAG hearings. No discussion held.
26. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
· Mayor Hotton commended the Fire Department and Police Department on their open house held on Saturday.
27. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Moot
· RESOLUTION 18079 SUPPORTING THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES' RESOLUTION ON
SALES TAX REDISTRIBUTION TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY CITIES TO 2% - The
subject resolution seeks to redistfibute 1% sales tax from the State to cities.
Councilmember Moot stated the proposal was that cities should be able to keep an additional 1% of the sales tax
that was generated in the cities to use to solve the economic and financial issues cities were facing. As the federal
government came to the wisdom of letting the states keep more of the money to solve their problems cities needad
to ask state government to allow them to keep more of the money they generated to solve their issues. He believed
the proposal was worthy of the support of Council and should be brought to the attention of all legislators in
Sacramento. It would allow the cities to provide police and fire protection and address the public safety issues
within their cities.
RESOLUTION 18079 OF/f'ERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, rending of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
Councilmember Padilia
· Councilmember Padilla stated he had the opportunity to attend the opening of Olympic View Elementary School.
· Councilmember Padilia stated there was no conflict with his participation in the MCA amphitheater hearings
under the law. Action taken by him regarding the amphitheater on Otay Mesa would have no impact on his job as
· T
Minut~
Octob~ 17, 1995
Page 20
a police detective in the City of Coronado. The City of Coronado had not taken any position on an amphitheater
anywhere. The City Council of Coronado or the Coronado Police Chief would never attempt to influence any
decisions he made regarding the City of Chula Vista. He had a positive relationship with the City of Coronado and
he could promise the citizens of the City of Chula Vista that he would give his full and honest attention to the issue
regardless of what anyone else had to say.
Councilmember Moot stated he supported Councilmember Padilla's comments. He felt it most unfortunate when
people attempted to make arguments to the Council impugning the independence and/or integrity of another member
of the Council on such an issue. He did not feel it was a good way to conduct dialogue or make arguments to the
Council. All members would look at all the issues on the merits and decide on what they felt best for the
community and not based on any notion that they were influenced by where they worked or who they worked with.
ADJOURNMENT AT 12:05 A.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on October 24, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers.
A Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency convened at 11:07 p.m. and adjourned at 11:15
CLOSED SESSION
Council recessed at 11:07 p.m., met in Closed Session at 11:20 p.m., and reconvened at 12:05 a.m.
Mayor Herton stated Council would discuss public employee performance evaluation and conference with labor
negotiators.
28. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Existing litigation pursuant to Government
Code Section 5,1956.9
® Chula Vista and nine other cities vs. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste issues (trash
litigation).
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 · Title: City Clerk
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
· Property: Approximately 72.5 acres of property located at the southwest quadrant of Otay Valley
Road and Otay Rio Road, Chula Vista.
Negotiafmg parties: City of Chula Vista, Los Alisos Company, and MCA Concerts, Inc.
Under negotiation: Ground Lease, Tri-Party Agreement and Sublease Agreements for the above-
described property proposed for development into a 20,000 seat amphitheater.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Seaion 54957.6
· Agency negotiator: John Goss or desiguee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unreprosented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters GAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid=Management, and Unrepresent~l.
29. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed
Session.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
by: Vichi C. Soderquist~eputy City Clerk