HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/11/07 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF C!tULA VISTA
Tuesday, November 7, 1995 Council Chambers
4:13 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Horton
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Anthelet, City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIlE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 17, 1995 (Regular City Council Meeting), October 17, 1995 (Joint
Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency), and October 24, 1995 (Regular City Council Meeting).
MSUC 0torton/Alevy) to approve tbe minutes of October 17, 1995 (Regular City Council Meeting), and
October 17, 1995 (Joint Meeting of the City Couucil/Redevelopment Agency) as presented. Minutes of
October 24, 1995 (Regular City Council Meetlug) amended to tellcot a mutiun by Councilmember Padilia to
excuse the absence of Councilmember Rindone, approved 4-0-0-1 with Rindone abstaining.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
· William Virchis, Director of Bandido, an American Melodrama which will be performed at Mayan Hall at
Southwestern College on November 9, 10, 11, 15 - 18 introduced Mari Heriot who performed one of the songs
from the production.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously with Cnuncilmember Alevy abstaining on Item 12.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were oo ubserved repurtable actions taken in Closed
Session on 10/24/95. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
b. Letter of resignation from Lionel G. McQuillon -Bourd of Ethics. It is recommended that the resignation
be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the
Clerk's Office and the Public Library.
6. RESOLUTION 18089 APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO CONDUCT LEGALLY REQUIRED
DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT INVESTIGATIONS - The resolution appropriates $30,000 from the
general fund's reserve balance and gives staff the individual discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to retain
investigators under the services and purchasing guidelines contained in the Municipal Code. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (City Attorney) 4/Stb's w~te required. Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Moot questioned why the funds had not be~n inclnded in the annual budget process.
Mr. Boogaard replied that staff did not anticipate the expenses. There was a professional services account that could
be used but it was becoming depleted.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 2
Councilmember Moot stated his pret~rence was to have such items included in the budget and considered during
the annual budget review. He understood the need fi~r Council action at the present time, therefore, he would
support the resolution.
Councilmember Rindone questioned who wllttld he responsible filr reporting outside investigations to the Council
when legal services were utilized. He fm'ther questioned if C,:mncil could assume that in all situations, those
requiring utilization of fhnds and an outside investigator, Council would be infi:,rmed.
Mr. Boogaard responded if there was anticipation of litigation he would report to the Council; if it was of a
personnel nature the Manager wouId be responsible tbr doing that. He did not feel Council wanted to hear about
all of the various personnel investigations conducted.
Mr. Goss responded that staff would keep Council infBrmed.
RESOLUTION 18089 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
7. RESOLUTION 18090 ACCEPTING TIlE 1994/95 GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT AND
AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS - The City
annually submits a Grantee Perfurmance Report (GPR) to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The GPR provides detailed inti~rmatiou on the use of Community Development Block Grant funds including the
progress achieved and the status of funds. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community
Development) Pulled frnm the Cunsent Calendar.
Councilmember Rindone qnestioned if the balance of ~.lnds ($39,000) would be carried over to a subsequent year
and if there was a specific time in which the funds had tu be utilized.
Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator, responded that the funds would be carried over and used for other eligible
CDBG activities. The City would not lose the funds.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, replied that the HUD guidelines asked the City to spend
the funds as expeditiously as possible which usually ineant one year.
Councilmember Rindone requested that staff include inlbrmation regarding carry-over of funds in all future reports.
RESOLUTION 18090 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived~ passed
and approved unanimously.
8. RESOLUTION 18091 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH DECISION MANAGEMENT, INC.
(DMC) FOR AN OPTICAL IMAGING SYSTEM TO INSTALL AND IMPLEMENT AS PART OF THE
CITY-WIDE RECORDS MANAGEMENT CIP PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES THE ACQUISITION OF
INITIAL HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE - The City-wide Records Management Program is a multi-year CIP
project which was appreved in fiscal year 1990/91. Phase II of the project includes the acquisition of an imaging
system to store and preserve the City's vital records. Staff has completed the RFP process for Phase II and has
negotiated a contract with the highest rated vendor. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Clerk and
Director of Management and Information Services)
9. RESOLUTION 18092 APPROVING ME~IORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING WAGES
AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA POLICE
OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION FOR FISCAL YEARS 1995/96 AND 1996/97 - With the assistance of a State
mediator, negotiating teams representing the City and the Chula Vista Police Officer's Association (POA) have
reached an agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering fiscal years 1995/96 and 1996/97.
The proposed MOU was ratified by the POA membership on 10/23/95. The major changes to the terms and
conditions are outlined in the report. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Senior Management Assistant
Young) Pulled from the Consent Culendar.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 3
Gerald Young, Senior Management Assistant, informed Council there was one change in the resolution, end of last
paragraph, ''. .. a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and as amended by mutual agreement by
both parties to leave Section 2.12 as it read in the 1994/95 MOU".
· Donna Snider, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, President of the Chula Vista Chapter of Western Council
of Engineers (WCE), stated their chapter consisted of 27 budgeted positions. She referred to Section 2.01a of their
MOU which stated "Due to the current economic conditions there would be no salary increase for WCE and
represented positions". That section had been based on WCE's good faith acceptance of the City's claim that there
were no funds available for salary increases. POA would be receiving a substantial increase of 6% with a $1,200
stipend which indicated that economic conditions improved. WCE requested the same consideration for FY 1995/96
and they anticipated beginning the negotiating process in the near filmre.
· Roberto Saucedo, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing Middle Managers (76 employees), stated
they valued and respected the police officers, but they felt the work done by the Middle Mangers was just as
important as well as the work performed by those they supervised. Such a substantial wage increase raised the
question of equity and decreased moral of the work force. They had soppotted and implemented the budget cuts
with the understanding that they were needed in order to balance the budget. It was under that spirit of cooperation
and sacrifice that they accepted the decision to take a 2% salary reduction to pay for the 2% @ 55 retirement
benefit. They were extremely concerned with the damage to the integrity of the bargaining process and the principle
that was done in good faith. They opposed the principle of the wage increase to the POA or any single bargaining
unit at the expense of reductions of services and potential reduction of the work force. They requested Council
reconsider the impacts.
· Lois Balfour, 4004 Kearney Mesa Road, San Diego, CA, Deputy Executive Director of SEIU 2028, representing
CVEA (400 members) spoke in support of the POA MOU as it indicated the Council had found the money for
increases. Employees had taken a pay cut to get 2% @ 55 and she t~lt increases should be paid to all employees
equally. They had sent a "reopening" letter to Mr. Goss several weeks ago and had not received an affirmative
answer. They took Council at their word that there was no money to provide raises so they could only conclude
that they needed to get more information t~om Council regarding where that money was so they could bargain in
good faith and obtain increases that would keep everyone on par.
· Mary Lehr, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Criminal lnformation System Specialist, Chula Vista Police
Department, stated she was the former Vice President uf the CVEA. As a member of the negotiating team for
CVEA for the last contract they had been told there was no fimding for an increase to bases wages and that the City
was in a budget crunch. Therefore, they had cooperated with the City and developed a way to enhance the benefit
package by taking a 2% cut in pay and a 40 hour work furlough. The City employees were paying for their own
benefit. Her trust in the process had been shaken and she felt betrayed. If there was money available the Council
needed to reopen contracts so there would be fair and equitable treatment for all employees.
· Mike Prouty, 189 East Queen Anne, Chula Vista, CA, employee, stated many members of the Public Works
Yard were upset with the proposed action for POA. They supported the Police Department, but felt their contract
should be renegotiated. Everyone should be treated fairly.
· Hank Jennings. 4004 Kearney Mesa Road, San Diego, CA, representing SEIU 2028, stated they supported the
item but requested fair and equal treatment fbr all employees. He stated they had spoken with every member of
the Council during negotiations and had been told that the budget situation could not afford a raise for any
employees of the City. They trusted that and negotiated the present contract. The City had been down sizing and
the work load had been redistributed among existing employees and services were being maintained. He requested
that the City renegotiate the contract for all employees of the City.
Several Councilmembers noted they had not meet with SEIU during the negotiation process.
· Chuck Schroader, 440 "L" Street, Chula Vista, CA, employee and Board of Directors for CVEA, stated he was
not enthusiastic regarding a contract that would pit employees against each other. CVEA had been told that there
was no money for pay raises dnring negotiations, thereti~re, he had supported the pay cut for the 2% @ 55
retirement benefit. He had pushed hard t~>r the CVEA contract because he believed the City did not have the money
and now people were telling him that the contract should not have been signed.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 4
· Millie Osuna, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. CA, City employee and CVEA President, asked for fairness,
trust, equality, and reconsideration of the CVEA contract.
· Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated there should be equality for all employees as they all
needed each other in order to make the City fianction.
Mr. Goss stated the City had cutbacks with the budget and faced problems with the State take aways and recession.
Council had been faced with the ti~ct that there was not much money to do anything so that all the packages
approved by Council required the money be taken out of reserves. Negotiations had been held with all the groups
and all had different interests. It was his impression that CVEA was interested in obtaining 2% @ 55 retirement.
They also wanted a salary increase or stipend which was also negotiated. In trying to compare CVEA,
Firefighters, and POA it was like comparing apples and oranges regarding terms and desires. The CVEA retirement
package was a major program that wonld cost the City millions of dollars over the years. When Police and Fire
negotiated major improvements in their retirement benefits there were take aways and long term agreements. It was
also done in better economic times. In terms of the equity issue, he was not sure that the present Council had ever
said that all employees would be treated equally.
Councilmember Moot appreciated all the work everyone in the City did. He was pleased to see that everyone
supported what the City was doing with the POA. As one member of the Council he would not apologize for giving
a raise to those that risked their lives to keep others safe. If that created a difference between what they did and
what others did, it was a fitct of lifi~ that needed to be acknowledged so everyone could move forward.
Councilmember Rindone stated everyone in the City was appreciated and it took the contributions and achievements
of all employees to be efficient and successful. CVEA's contract was probably the greatest single year of
negotiations. He had personally voted against the contract due to the extensive costs which would be in excess of
the long term costs of the POA contract. Public Safety was a priority, but did not mean that one group was morn
important than another. Council would have to be proactive regarding the unknown fiscal future of the City.
Councilmember Padilia stated a reflection of worth was not just reflected in the salary adjustments in a labor
contract. The contracts for any group were impacted by many factors. CVEA's contract was equal to or greater
in long term costs to the City than any other groups. Council had to take responsibility for any misunderstanding
that may have taken place. There was always room for improvement and he felt them could be better
communication and clarification in the future. HedidnotvalueCVEA'semployeesindividuallyorcollectivelyany
less than other groups in the City.
Mayor Horton stated it was an honor to have a great staff working with them to help the City move forward and
offering the quality of services offered. That was something everyone should be proud of. Council was dealing
in hard fiscal times.
RESOLUTION 18092 OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved unanimously.
* * * Council met in Closed Session at 5:12 p.m. and reconvened at 6:16 p.m. * * *
10. RESOLUTION 18093 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH CALGIS, INC. FOR A GIS BASED
TRAFFIC ACClDENT RECORD SYSTEM - The City received a grant from the State of California, Office of
Traffic Safety, to develop a GIS based Traffic Accident Record System. An RFP was prepared and proposals were
received. After evaluation of the proposals, interviews were conducted, and CALGIS, Inc. was chosen as the
consultant for the project. The Office of Traffic Safety has approved CALGIS, Inc. as the selected consultant.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
* * * Council recessed at 11:24 p.m. and reconvened at 11:39 p.m. * * * ~'~
Councilmember Rindone questioned staffs anticipated range of the cost of the hardware needed to complete the
project and what the source of funding would be.
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated $6,200 was from the OTS grant and it
would be a separate purchase.
· I
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 5
RESOLUTION 18093 OFFERED BY COUNCIL~IEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
11. RESOLUTION 18094 ACCEPTING BlDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "RESURFACING OF
TENNIS COURTS AND MULTIPURPOSE COURTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY (PR-205)"
~cNations in the City.' The work includes the resurfacing of 15 tennis courts and the resurfacing of multipurpose
10/4/95, bids were received for the "Resurfacing of Tennis Courts and Multipurpose Courts at Various
courts as well as other miscellaneous work. Staff recommends approval of the resolution awarding the contract to
Eastwood Tennis Surface, Inc. - San Diego in the amount of $37,458. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from
the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Rindone questioned why staff costs were being paid out of PAD fees.
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, responded that staff costs on all outside funded
or non-General Fund projects, by City policy, were charged to the project. If it was not charged to the project it
was a cost to the General Fund.
Councilmember Rindone stated he would support the item but reqtlested that staff bring the policy to Council for
review with 45 days.
RESOLUTION 18094 OFFERED BY COUNCILM EMBER R1NDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
12.A. RESOLUTION 18095 APPROVING A STIPULATION FOR JUDGEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM SDG&E AND SNMB, L.P. (UNITED ENTERPRISES) FOR THE WIDENING OF
OTAY VALLEY ROAD AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREOF - On 9/6/94, Council declared the
public necessity to acquire certain right-of-way for Otay Valley Road and authorized the commencement of
condemnation proceedings by outside counsel to acquire said right-of-way. Staff, special counsel, and the property
owner have reached agreement on the acquisition price tbr approximately one acre of right-of-way easement from
SDG&E and SNMB, L.P (United Enterprises) tbr the widening of Otay Valley Road (Assessment District 90-2).
Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
B. RESOLUTION 18096 AUTHORIZING PAYMENT TO H.G. FENTON MATERIAL COMPANY, A
CORPORATION, AND NELSON & SLOAN, A CO-PARTNERSHIP, FOR ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-
WAY FOR THE WIDENING OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD
C. RESOLUTION 18097 CLARIFYING CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICY IN REGARDS TO THE CITY
MANAGER'S OR HIS DESIGNEE'S AUTHORITY TO SIGN ACQUISITION AGREEMENT(S) AND TO
MAKE PAYMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY OF UP TO $25,000 FOR EACH PARCEL ACQUIRED FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF BUDGETED PROJECTS
Councilmember Alevy abstained from participation due to u pnteotiul conflict of interest.
Councilmember Rindone questioned why the City was not able to pay the appraised amount, i.e. $16,390 versus
$20,000.
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Wurks/City Engineer, responded the $20,000 was a court stipulation.
Councilmember Rindone stated if there were numerous right-of way pru. jects why it was not in the best interest of
the public to receive approval by Council for each parcel.
Mr. Swanson responded that Council approved the policy to rednee the amount of work being brought to Council.
Council approved a $25,000 limit for City Manager's authority as long as it was a budgeted project.
Councilmember Rindone stated he was comtbrtable with that portion of the policy as long as it was a budgeted
project. He questioned if the $25,000 was a cap for each parcel.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 6
Mr. Goss responded that it was a cap per parcel.
RESOLUTIONS 18095, 18096, AND 18097 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the
text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-0-1 with Alevy abstaining.
13.A. RESOLUTION 18098 APPROVING FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 88-3A, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS, PHASE 2 AND 3 - On 8/16/94, Council
approved an amended tentative map tier EastLake South Greens and imposed additional conditionsof approval. The
amendment to the tentative map covers the area south of Clubhouse Drive. The Final Map creates super block lots
for Phase 2 and 3 of EastLake South Greens. Subsequent final maps will be required to create residential lots.
Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
B. RESOLUTION 18099 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
REQUIRING DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF
RESOLUTIONS NUMBER 15200 AND 17618 APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
EASTLAKE GREENS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
C. RESOLUTION 18100 APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF A PORTION OF
SILVERADO DRIVE ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC
Councilmember Rindone questioned why the maps were called "final" maps if they were not.
Cliftbrd Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, responded that in the legal sense they were final
maps as they created a legal parcel that could be sold. It did require a subsequent "final" map for individual lots.
RESOLUTIONS 18098, 18099, 18100 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text
was waived, passed and approved unanimously.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
14. PUBLIC HEARING VARIOUS REQUESTS FOR WAIVER OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FEES - Applications have been received from various nonprofit organizations seeking a waiver
of Planning Department application fees lbr construction or expansion of their facilities. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 18101 GRANTING A WAIVER OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FEES
FOR VARIOUS LOCAL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
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.
RESOLUTION 18101 OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived.
Councilmember Rindone referred to the request by St. John's Episcopal Church and questioned if the church would
be entitled to reimbursement through their insurance company.
Robert Laiter, Director of Planning, stated staff could not answer that question. They had requested the waiver and
he assumed that if they had insurance compensation they would have pursued that.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: (Rindone, agreed to by the Maker of the Motion) felt if they could be
reimbursed by insurance Council should not waive the fees. If they could not be reimbursed the fees should
be waived.
VOTE ON RESOLUTION, AS AMENDED: approved unanimously.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 7
15. 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 VARIOUS 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 10/17/95. -- 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 (1) A TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT WITH LOS ALISOS COMPANY
AND MCA CONCERTS, INC., (2) A GROUND LEASE BY AND BETWEEN LOS ALISOS COMPANY
AND MCA CONCERTS, INC., (3) A SUBLEASE WITH MCA CONCERTS, INC., AND (4)
AUTHORIZING THE MODIFICATION AND DEFERMENT OF CERTAIN CITY PERMIT AND
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES DUE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT
C. RESOLUTION 18059 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-95-47, TO BITTERLIN-
BRICE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS FOR MCA CONCERTS, INC. TO CONSTRUCT A 20,000 SEAT
CAPACITY AMPHITHEATER AT THE SOUTHWEST 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 SOUTHWEST
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 of Community Develop~nent, stated in the previous two hearings staff had addressed the
impacts of the facility and conditions were developed to address and ensure compliance. A letter had been received
from Top Mark representing Nederlander which stated they were not able to conduct the sound study with the Port
prior to the Council meeting, however, they wanted to continue monitoring the meeting and keep their options open.
He then reviewed the following aspects of the business deal: 1) City benefits from MCA amphitheater; 2) City
contributions to the MCA amphitheater; 3) City benefits from Kobey's open air market; and 4) amphitheater revenue
components.
® Cal Hollis, Keyser Marston & Assoc., Senior Principal, stated they were the financial consultants retained by
the Agency to evaluate the prqjections made for the prt~ject. He reviewed their methodology which was the basis
for their projections. They believed that the overall transaction between the City and MCA was a very reasonable
transaction and beneficial to the City. That was based upon ftmr other leases entered into between public entities
and amphitheaters in the country. Their projections assumed that the facility operated consistently with other top
facilities within the country. The MCA projections concluded that it was one of the top facilities in the country.
Glen Coogins, Deputy City Attorney, reviewed the ground lease, tri-party agreement, and sublease which comprised
the business transaction. Updated documents were on the dais and the changes were not significant. It was
recommended that the resolution approving the agreements and establishing the fees for the prqject be revised. The
sewer capacity fee would be determined up front, i.e. $164,080 and if a higher charge was determined to be
assessed against the project, based upon actual discharges, the amount could be imposed by the City with a cap of
$287,000. There were minor changes in the CUP which were basically wording changes requested by the applicant
for clarification. He then reviewed the revised CUP.
Mr. Boogaard questioned if the applicant agreed to all challenges, not just CEQA.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 8
Mr. Googins responded that it had not been discussed in detail and noted that representatives in the audience had
indicated that was correct.
Councilmember Padilia stated the agreement to enter into the indemnification agreement would be in effect for the
time period beyond the 14 days.
Mr. Googins responded that the indemnity would cover the City from the date of the conditioned approval of the
CUP, day zero up to day thirty. At that point, with the agreement in effect the CEQA indemnity contained in the
agreements themselves would take over.
Mr. Boog.aard stated in exchange staff' was prepared to file the Notice of Determination under CEQA tomorrow.
· Mr. Friedman stated the applicant had no problem in indemnifying the City during that time period for all
challenges that would be made, that wonId include any challenges with respect to CEQA, but would also include
any challenges by a third party with respect to approval or the process itself.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the ticket period cotlid be on a fiscal year rather than calendar year.
Therefore, there would not be penalties at the end of the year fbr Christmas functions.
Mr. Salomone felt the applicant was amenable to any annual period. The rational was that they did not have a
season the first quarter and their prime season ran from June tn October. They would submit quarterly reports so
the City would know revenues in order to budget.
Councilmember Rindone questioned the advantage nf having the master lease from the land owner to MCA in lieu
of the City.
Mr. Googins questioned if Councihnemher Rindone was questioning the risk to the City of being cut out of the deal.
The CUP would not become effective until all the agreements were executed.
Mr. Boogaard stated staff mitigated against that risk with other provisions, i.e. the City reserved the right in the
CUP to spring a host fee to life if for any reason revenue under the lease and sub-lease terminated. The City took
the option to buy the site which was a serioos business risk if they terminated the sub-lease arrangement. The City
had the option to continue occupancy under the master lease if the sub-lease cancelled, again another business risk
for MCA. There was a duty on Los Alisos to cooperate with the City to create a similar financial arrangement in
the sub-lease if the lease terminated and they entered into agreement with another tenant.
Mr. Salomone stated MCA endeavored in the negotiations to be a partner with the City because the City had control
through the documents of their Events Management Plan which would be set up over the next 8 months and put into
place before they opened the hcility. In addition, the City had CEQA control, ordinance control, and conditional
use control. They could not put on an event without the City's control over the event.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if MCA walked out who would own the facility.
Mr. Salomone responded that the land owner would own the facility.
Mr. Boogaard stated the City would have the right to occupy the hcility under the assigned master lease. The City
could then enter into agreement with somenne else to occnpy the facility.
Councilmember Alevy referred to the non-competition clause in the agreement and questioned if it had any impact
on the City's free concert series.
Mr. Boogaard stated the City would be precluded from renting out the parking lot as opposed to an entertainment
facility.
Mr. Googins stated that was included in the prohibitions in the non-competition clause. Those would only apply
if the City acquired a fee or lease hold interest in the property. Theoretically, the City could approve compatible
interest if someone else bought the property and wanted to compete or benefit from the theater operations. The City
could not if they acquired or leased the property.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 9
Councilmember Moot questioned how long the City had the three lease documents to review and make sure they
comported with the terms of the business deal and staff report. He further questioned whether staff felt additional
time was needed to ensure that the actual written lease documents comported with the negotiated terms of the
business deal and the City's enforcement mechanism.
Mr. Coogins responded that the original draft of the documents without the business deal was originally presented
to the City in early September. The first version of the business deal was presented in early October and the deal
had been evolving since then. The documents in the present form had been reviewed at each reiteration to ensure
that the agreements conformed with staf/~s understanding of what the business deal was. Staff did not feel that
additional time was necessary.
Councilmember Moot questioned if staff was satisfied that the City's indemnification was as broad as represented
in the staff report.
Mr. Coogins responded that was correct. It was a very broadly drafted indenmity for the City regarding MCA's
construction of improvements and operations of the amphitheater as well as CEQA.
Councilmember Moot stated he was concerned about someone suing the City if there was a fight in the parking lot
by patrons. He wanted assurance that MCA would have to assume the legal costs to defend such a lawsuit. He
questioned if staff could conceive of any situation in which there could be a lawsuit in which the City would bear
the financial responsibilities either tbr indemnity or legal costs.
Mr. Coogins responded that was included in indemnities both in the sub-lease, master lease and tri-party agreement.
In addition, the City was named as additional insured on all comprehensive general liability policies required by
landlord and tenant under the master lease. That requirement would extend to all assignees, sublessees, and
licensees including Kobey's. The indemnities in the agreements fi'om the City for the benefit of other parties were
indemnities that mirrored the City's contractual obligations. If the City failed to live up to it's contractual
obligations the City would indemnify them against the damages caused.
Mr. Boogaard stated the sublease indemnity also stated "any entitlements approved".
· Chris Bitterlin, 525 "B" Street, San Diego, CA, representing Bitterlin-Brice Development Partners, stated they
had been looking for a site for eight years. The deal was very complicated and they felt it worked well for the City
and MCA. The evolution of the prqject and process had resnlted in an enhanced deal for the City and clarified
issues, many of which MCA embraced. There had also been a refinement of operational issues, including the
curfew, clarification regarding off site clean-up and gave them an opportunity over the last 1-2 months to meet with
different groups and agencies to demonstrate MCA's commitment to give significant preference for jobs to the
citizens of Chula Vista. Mr. Marciano had taken the concerns and suggestions seriously and many of the issues
raised had been incorporated into the project. He had been committed in working with the local team and had
shown flexibility and commitment to create a prqject that worked and everyone would be proud of. It was his
opinion that MCA was the #1 musical entertainment company in the world.
· Jay Marciano, President MCA Concerts, stated the project had received the support of the Chula Vista Chamber
of Commerce, Planning Commission, Broadway Business Association, San Diego Symphony, Chula Vista Police
Officers Association, Design Review Committee, Resource Conservation Commission, Economic Development
Commission, Southwestern College, and the Careers Awareness Center of Sweetwater Union High School District.
They had worked hard to address the snggestions and concerns raised by members of the nearby neighborhood.
By incorporating input from the community the proposed agreement was unique among amphitheater deals as it
provided the City with a world class venue tree of economic risk. Additionally, it placed additional controls on the
operator to ensure the venue would be an asset to the commnnity and peacefully co-exist with existing and future
residential neighborhoods. The City would receive 3 % of all revenues derived from both ticket sales and parking,
there was a built-in escalator which increased the City's participation by 1/2 % at 400,000 and 500,000 admissions
respectively, they created a Chula Vista Performing Arts fund fi>r perti~rmances within the City of Chula Vista, the
amphitheater would be available a minimum of 18 days lk~r commenity events rent free, and should the City desire
they had agreed to make a portion of the grass parking lots available tier use as soccer fields rent free. There were
no hidden operating costs, MCA reimbursed the City for 100% of all expenses incurred by police, fire, and
emergency medical service in connection with the amphitheater. They estimated that the total net payments to the
City would exceed $5 million over the next ten years and that did not include approximately $1.5 million raised for
the performing arts fee or the associated benefits created through sales tax from restaurants and hotels. Over 300
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 10
part-time jobs would be created. MCA had agreed to adhere a very stringent noise ordinance and if they failed to
abide by the sound ordinance the City had the power to shut them down. They had also agreed to a curfew and
operating covenants regarding the control and sale of alcoholic beverages. Alcoholic beverage sales would be cut-
off one hour after the start of the headliner and limit sales to two drinks per transaction. MCA had agreed to hold
regularly scheduled meetings with the City and community to provide for continuous input. If the project was
approved they were confident they would be open tbr the 1996 concert season and that the venue would become
world renown for the quality performances.
Mayor Hotton announced that the public hearing remained open from the previous meeting and all staff and public
testimony was treated as part of the public hearing process and would be on the public record.
Those speaking in support of the MCA amphitheater were:
· Walter L. Fisher, P.O. Box 3666, Chula Vista, CA, stated Council needed to exercise their vision to see the
benefits the amphitheater represented culturally and financially to the City. It was his understanding that the
establishment of the Chula Vista Performing Arts fund was unprecedented in the concert business.
® Billy Cox, 49 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, President of Chula Vista Police Officers Association, stated
crime was caused by lack of education, jobs, and recreation. MCA would provide all three to the City which would
make his job easier. The City had faced difficult budget decisions and the venue would generate revenues that
would allow the community to maintain it's quality of life.
· Chuck Schroder, 440 "L" Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated business had to be brought into the Chula Vista area
in order to increase the tax base and support the City. The project would bring in ,jobs, tax revenues, and cultural
programs. The only facility currently available lbr concerts was the Sports Arena in San Diego and he noted the
facility was not designed ~br music.
· Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated the facility was needed and wanted in the area.
· Jim Weaver, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, President of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce,
representing over 560 members, urged Council support of the pro,ject. MCA was a good corporate citizen and the
Chamber supported meaningful growth for the City.
· Joanne Clayton, 760 Fifth Avenue, Chnla Vista. CA, President of the Broadway Business Association, urged
Council to support the project as it represented an opportunity for increased revenues for existing businesses.
· Michele Dawson, 900 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA, representing Southwestern College, stated they
supported the venture from an employment perspective. Over 300 seasonal .jobs would become available and it
would assist the students with college tuition fees, living costs, and valuable job opportunities. MCA would also
have paid internships in career related areas that would enhance their strong cooperative education program.
· Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce,
requested that those in the audience in support of the MCA amphitheater stand to show their support.
· Barbara Brown, 234 Twin Oaks, Chula Vista, CA, stated growth was difficult and change was even harder, but
she urged Council to support MCA. The facility would bring in employment for the area, increase the tax base,
and result in increased revenues for existing businesses.
· Patty Davis, 1375 #17 Callejon Montefrio, Chula Vista, CA, commended Council on doing their due diligence
and notjust.jumping on the bandwagon. Council had made sure that all issues of concerns had been addressed and
mitigated. Residential communities did not pay their way and in order to maintain services additional revenue had
to be generated. The City was losing valuable revenue to the swap meet in Spring Valley. She urged approval of
the MCA amphitheater and Kobey's Market Place.
· Maria Perman, 1355 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Career Awareness Center, stated her
support of the MCA amphitheater as it would open many employment opportunities to students and the community
at-large.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 11
· Arch McAllister, 1739 Elmhurst Street, Chula Vista, CA, President of the Cultural Arts Commission, supported
the amphitheater.
· George Adams, 1110 Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA, stated he owned two acres located at the northwest
quadrant of Otay Valley Road and Maxwell Road and he supported the project. He felt the MCA project would
be compatible with the area and a benefit to the City and Otay Valley area.
· Ian D. Campbell, 910 Windflower Way, San Diego, CA, Director of San Diego Opera, stated the county lacked
a venue that would allow them to perform to a broader community. If approved he felt the San Diego Opera would
utilize the facility several times a year for "run-out" concert performances. The San Diego Symphony also lacked
a venue. The Sports Arena was not a desirable venue for sound.
· Rodrigo Viesca, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing Chula Vista Employees Association
(CVEA), stated they supported the amphitheater.
· William E. Claycomb, 457 Delaware Street, Imperial Beach, CA, representing Save Our Bay, Inc., stated most
of the manufacturing jobs had gone over seas because of the savings in labor costs. He recommended that due to
the revenues to the City that the City "take the money and nln".
Those speaking in opposition to the MCA amphitheater were:
· Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing Baldwin Company, stated the issue was
the least pleasurable issue he had to deal with since representing the Baldwin Company. He hoped Council
recognized that his criticism was not to oppose the amphitheater but to protect the integrity of Otay Ranch against
the noise that could be created. He had been asstired by staff and the applicant that the noise would not be injurious
to the future residents but he continued to be concerned. ff approved he hoped that he was proved wrong. If
problems were created he hoped the CUP and EIR would show what the applicant had stated, i.e. that the project
was conditioned so that all impacts were mitigated and if the mitigation was not snccessful that the CUP would be
considered for revocation.
· Janice Corn, 4429 Loma Paseo, Bonita, CA, passed when called to the dais.
· Dean Gould, 1539 Pt. Dune, Chula Vista, CA, representing Board of Directors for Point Robinhood, expressed
his concern regarding the noise impacts upon their community. He further expressed his concern with the 11:00
p.m. curfew during the week. A sound test should be conducted at fidl concert level dB for the full concert length.
They purchased their home because it was a clean and qniet area. He aIso expressed opposition to Kobey's open
air market. Quality of life was the most important issue. If police were called to the site he was concerned that
those in the community would be left unprotected. If approved a strict adherence plan needed to be in place.
· James R. Lusk, 947 Serra Way, Costa Mesa, CA, representing Concerned Citizens for Costa Mesa, Inc., stated
he lived 2/3rd's of a mile from the Pacific Amphitheater and had been personally involved in litigation for over ten
years. He cautioned the Council to be aware of the fullowing: l) sound frequency distribution and sound testing
prior to the concerts; 2) control of sound through the sound board; 3) traffic, i.e. ingress and egress; 4) sufficient
parking and parking in the neighborhoods in order to avoid the parking fee; 5) curfew; 6) ratio of police to concert
goers and hands-off policy for arrests; 7) description of "net" ticket sale value; 8) urination, fornication, and
defecation in neighborhoods from concert goers; 9) review uf existing litigation; 10) were the citizens of the
community specifically described to be third party beneficiaries in the tri-party agreement; 11) did the City's
indemnification include inverse condemnation for the property value; and 12) did the financials include the loss of
property tax revenue. He urged the City to contact his council, mayor, city manager, city attorney, and police
department.
· William Feltham Jr., 1539-252 Sonora Drive, Chula Vista, CA, stated he was from Virginia Beach, Virginia
and the neighborhood had experienced problems with traffic and noise next to their amphitheater. He felt Chula
Vista would experience those same impacts. The City needed manufacturing jobs which would provide more than
300 jobs and higher revenues.
· Peter Beausoleil, 1451 Laurel Avenue, Chnla Vista, CA, stated he wished the Baldwin Company had more
strongly opposed the project. He did not libel that the common sense noise levels had been addressed along with
neighborhood crime, and residential traffic. The inflnx in people from all over the county would result in increased
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 12
crime and ultimately cost the City money. The pro. jeer would lower current property values. The service oriented
jobs were low paying positions and the management teain would not live in Chula Vista. He did not believe the
City should have to give concessions to MCA.
® Robert J. Moriarity, 1672 Ocala Avenue, Chula Vista~ CA, stated MCA was not reimbursing the Redevelopmerit
Agency for the existing infrastructure. therefi~re, the City was realizing a loss. He felt the City was subsidizing
MCA. The contract did not address police, fire, or ambulances. All the City had was assurances that MCA would
reimburse the City 100%. He expressed his concern that emergency services would be pulled from the community
in order to cover the MCA concerts. The City had only been promised percentages and not money. Once the City
handed over the property and gave MCA the legal protections, if MCA walked away the City would then have to
sue at the City's expense.
· Gale Moriarity, Chula Vista, CA. f~lt MCA had preyed upon the City~s weaknesses to get where they were.
She noted that it had taken years t;:~r National City to crawl out of corruption and she did not want that to happen
to Chula Vista. The City was in debt and staff was under incredible stress to make money for the City. therefore,
they were vulnerable to manipulation. The City receiving seats as part of the deal was graft. She noted that none
of the councilmembers that voted for the Pacific Amphitheater remained in office.
· Reda Scanlan, 1720-6 Melrose Avenue. Chula Vista, CA, stated the area was quiet and she was opposed to the
amphitheater.
· Katherine Wolf, 467 Rivera Court, Chula Vista, CA, stated they had lived in the area for 25 years and did not
want the amphitheater in the neighborhood. She noted that Sharp Community Hospital was also in the area and
should be considered.
· Valerie Foxmoore, 419 Park Way, Chula Vista, CA, stated she was tbr growth but did not feel the amphitheater
was the vehicle to that. Theretore, she was opposed to the amphitheater.
· David J. Wade, 419 Park Way, Chula Vista, CA, representing San Diego Off Road Coalition, stated the Off
Highway Vehicle Commission in Sacramento had a $20 million budget and had been looking for 15 years for a site
for an off highway vehicle park. They currently utilized the proposed area fi>r off road activities. He proposed
that the area be purchased by the Off Highway Vehicle Commission as an alternative to the amphitheater. He stated
the Pacific Amphitheater had experienced noise problems and 10 years of litigation. The facility had been closed
for the last two years and when it reopened the capacity would be limited to 8,500 seats and the lawn seating would
not be used. The most recent information he had received was that the hcility would be closed permanently. He
questioned if that was the future of the amphitheater in Chula Vista.
· Kevin Marshall, 1621 Oleander Avenue. Chula Vista, CA, not present when called to the dais.
· Kimberly Marshall, 1621 Oleander Avenue, Chula Vista, CA. not present when called to the dais.
· Christine Palencia, 1508 Oleander Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, played music which she felt offensive and stated
residents would be subjected to such noise and blasted out of their homes. She recommended other types of industry
for the area.
· Marjorie Larsen, 1650 Bluff Point, Chula Vista, CA, passed when called to the dais.
· A. W. Hall, 3665 Bonita Verde Drive, Chula Vista, CA, expressed his concern regarding the noise impacts to
the community. He referred to a study dated 3/95, Pacific Light & Energy Sources, which stated the proposed area
was the quietest place in the valley. He hoped Council would show the wisdom of experienced people and not
approve the amphitheater. If approved he recommended that Point Robinhood pursue legal action.
* * * Council recessed at 9:01 p.m. and reconvened at 9:23 p.m. * * *
Mayor Horton questioned if staff had looked at reorientation of the stage.
Joseph Monaco, Environmental Projects Manager, responded that staff only looked at the orientation as proposed
by MCA. Staff concluded that all the noise impacts cotlld be mitigated in the current configuration, therefore, there
was no need to look a other reorientations.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 13
Councilmember Alevy stated there would be approximately $672,000 lbr business license fees and questioned what
the $32,000 was listed in the report.
Mr. Salomone responded that the numbers were based on the City's business license fees as calculated by Kaiser
Marston & Assoc. based on number of vendors. It was Kobey's practice to require that all vendors acquire a local
business license. The $672,000 was the total over twenty years and the $32,000 was the annual estimated revenue
to the City.
Councilmember Alevy questioned if fireworks and laser displays were considered normal activity or if it required
special permission.
Mr. Salomone replied that MCA had to go to the City for prior approval of special effects from the Planning
Department and that ultimately would go to Council on an annual basis for approval. He felt there would be some
per event approvals.
Councilmember Alevy stated it was his understanding that prior to 10:00 p.m. the mitigated sound level was 45 dBa
and after 10:00 p.m. it was 40 dBa. He noted that was different than the City of San Diego and questioned if the
City of San Diego had agreed to that.
Mr. Monaco responded that the thresholds were supported by the noise ordinance and they were 55 dBa prior to
10:00 p.m. and 45 dBa after 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Monaco replied that the City of San Diego had reviewed it and had not made comment. Land uses within the
City of Chula Vista were not subject to the standards of another .jurisdiction.
Councilmember Alevy questioned how the noise levels wonld be measured.
Mr. Monaco responded stated the CUP left it at the City's discretion. Whenever a problem was perceived the City
would immediately impose monitoring and evaluation of that suspected impact. The specifics of how that would
be measured would depend on the type of impact and where the impact was experienced.
Councilmember Alevy questioned what recourse the City had if there were violations of the sound ordinance.
Mr. Salomone stated under CEQA, the noise ordinance, and the CUP if any evidence existed that the noise
ordinance was or may be violated the City could reqnest the monitoring. If noise impact was detected controls
would be immediately imposed, i.e. for bonding for permanent mitigation ($1.2 million), reduction of sound levels
at the source, and construction of a noise wall or other physical attenuation devices. If those controls were not
effective the City reserved the right to revoke the CUP. All costs fi~r the testing and mitigation were to be paid
by the applicant.
Councilmember Alevy stated he was concerned with neighborhood parking and questioned if the City could post
and enforce "no parking" between I-805 and the venue. He t~'lt the off-site parking would negatively impact the
ingress and egress.
Richard Emerson, Chief of Police, responded that staff felt it would be needed to help the flow of traffic as well
as for the tranquility of the neighborhoods.
Mayor Horton stated as part of the consideration tbr the Events Management Plan she wanted staff to look into
providing shuttle service from strategic locations and penalty fees for noise or curfew violations. When the group
was formed to oversee the operational aspects of the amphitheater events it should include a member-at-large from
the neighborhood, i.e. one mile radius of the site.
Councilmember Rindone questioned the potential number of soccer fields that could become available.
Mr, Salomone stated the 15 acre turf parcel would accommodate three full size soccer fields. It would be up to
the users and Parks & Recreation director to decide if they wanted the smaller speed soccer fields or other
arrangement.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 14
Councilmember Rindone requested an amendment on what was being proposed because they needed to negotiate
the liability, maintenance, and other issues with potential sponsors. He approved of the three year cap. He
questioned if the words "Chula Vista" would be incklded in the signage. He further questioned if the signs would
be positioned so that the sun would not reflect on the audience or soccer fields.
® Bill Bethman, BBA Architects, stated the stage was oriented to the northeast so it was not anticipated that the
sun would be in the eyes of the per~rmer or audience. He then pointed out the signage on the display model.
Chula Vista would be included in all three locations.
Councilmember Moot questioned if the length of the Kobey CUP was unlimited. He further questioned if Council
determined that there was a higher use tier the surrounding area if the Council could revoke the CUP. He felt in
the short term as a revenue source it made sense, but t~It there could be a time where the City would have other
and better uses for the surrounding area. He did not want to tie the City's hands to a swap meet forever.
Martin Miller, Associate Planner, responded the swap meet was tied to MCA because MCA was there and had the
parking lots available for a swap meet. If MCA left and another land ose proposal was developed the swap meet
would not have a place.
Councilmember Moot stated he could not support that. He t~lt there could be other developments that would want
shared parking with MCA that MCA may even find more attractive. He would support a 1-2 year CUP and was
uncomfortable going past that point. The item had not been thoroughly discussed and he felt it deserved more of
Council's time and attention.
Mr. Salomone responded that Council could issne the CUP lbr a finite period of time with annual reviews which
would allow Council the option of letting the CUP sunset.
Councilmember Moot stated he was pleased with the setting of a curfew, but he wanted to see a mechanism in place
where after 18 months of operation the City would look at the issue of the curfew to see if during the period that
school was in session if the 11:00 p.m. weekday curfew was still appropriate. There needed to be a meet and
confer process at that time with MCA. He t~lt it vitally important that even though in all likelihood there would
be no homes impacted in the Otay Ranch by concert noise but it was important that noise be monitored on a yearly
basis whether or not the area was built up, starting from year one for compliance with the noise ordinance. That
information should be reported back from the task force to the Council. The City needed to be on top of the issue
from day one.
Mr. Monaco responded that the review would be presented by the task force based on the Events Management Plan
and the operations and how the operations complied with the plan.
Mr. Salomone stated it was not presently on a scheduled review. Staff had referred that to the Events Management
Plan that the task force would work on. That conld be made a condition of the CUP. The position had been put
forward that an 18 month review shotlid be made. The City had the right to review it at any time at Council's or
the public's request. An automatic review had not been included.
Councilmember Padilia felt there should be an unannounced review several times a year. He asked the applicant
to respond to the possibility of a two year CUP for Kobey's.
· Brian Seltzer, 750 "B" Street, San Diego, CA, representing Kobey's stated it was their understanding that the
present CUP was subject to a yearly review process. He was uncertain what a 2 year limit would mean.
Mr. Miller responded that the yearly review in the resolution was a similar condition as for MCA where an annual
review was required. It was not a land use review but a review to ensure that they were living up to the operational
profile submitted as part of the CUP.
Mr. Seltzer questioned page 15d-7, paragraph R, which referred to a year-to-year review and extension period. y"'
Mr. Boogaard stated it was for non-use. If not used in one year it would evaporate and was not a right of review
provision.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 15
Mr. Seltzer stated when it was discussed with staff it was their understanding, taken in its totality, that they were
subject to a monitoring, continuing review, and yearly review.
Mr. Boogaard stated there were two different types of review, i.e. one to determine the consistency with the
operational profile and a Councilmember was requesting a review right as a continuation of the CUP.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if there was the ability to suspend or withdraw the CUP for non-compliance.
Mr. Boogaard responded that for non-compliance the CUP conld be revoked. There was no provision for land use
review, it ran with the life of the MCA amphitheater.
Mr. Seltzer questioned what the ramifications would be of having a term. It was their understanding that they had
a tightly regulated situation in terms of how they operated, times operated, and what they were allowed to do and
if they violated those things the CUP ~vould be revoked. They also knew that they were not part of the area
surrounding MCA but part of the amphitheater, i.e, an operation in their parking lot. He questioned whether they
would have to go back and reapply for a CUP and if their past p~rformance woold apply. He felt it had relevance
to them in how much they wonld invest in their bnsiness, advertising, hiring employees, etc. Kobey's also had a
contractual commitment with MCA as well. The benefits were definitely long term.
Mayor Horton stated she was concerned that if the City wanted to have a community event on a Saturday or Sunday
and did not want to compete with Kobey's if the City could have filll use of the parking lot with adequate notice
to Kobey's to vacate on that day.
Mr. Salomone responded that the fiicility conld accommodate an event that would hold up to 4,000 people and that
could be done in conjunction with Kobey's. MCA had the right to intervene on behalf of the City to allow the
event.
Mr. Seltzer stated the present contract stated that MCA had the right to preempt Kobey's for events and there was
a limitation on the number of days becanse it would at'f~ct the rent Kobey's paid. In Phase I they would only take
a fraction of the parking area. They would be happy to come to an arraogement with the City which would allow
the City to use the whole facility, if necessary, if it coald be done in limits so they could operate their business.
There needed to be a degree of continuity ii>r their business.
Mr. Salomone responded that the bumping rights were reserved fi~r MCA bnt Kobey's had stated they would be
willing to negotiate an agreement for similar rights.
Mr. Seltzer stated they would agree to that.
Councilmember Padilia questioned what the impact would be to Kobey's by putting something in place where their
land use could be reviewed at any time.
Mr. Seltzer stated Kobey's was a licensee of MCA and that they were there becanse MCA allowed them to be them.
They wanted an opportunity to establish their bnsincss. It was hard to establish a number of years. He questioned
if they would be renewing their CUP or requesting a new CUP.
Councilmember Moot stated in the past the process had been where the applicant could apply for a renewal at the
end of the time period and that could be approved administratively. If tier some reason there was a change in City
plans the Council would have the option of not approving the CUP.
Mr. Letter stated it could be done either by the Zoning Administrator or the Council.
Mr. Boogaard stated if a term was pnt on the CUP it had to be hmg enlmgh to provide ammoritization of the
invested capital.
Councilmember Rindone felt there should be a chance to review because it was a new prc~jeet, but if Council
decided to move forward they needed to allow Kobey's time to succeed. He felt 10 years would be ideal but did
not feel Council would approve that length of term. A five year period would allow Kobey's to recoup their
investment and could be reviewed administratively.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 16
Mr, S~ltzer stated five years was a ctnnei~rh~ble range with the CUP. It gave them an opportunity to pursue their
business and stabilize it.
Mr. Boogaard clarified that Council wanted a five year term with the right to apply for a renewal by the applicant,
granted administratively, subject to Council review.
Councilmember Rindone stated if there was a concern hy any member of the Council it would be subject to Council
review.
Councilmember Alevy questioned ira devel{ipu~ent im adjacent property wanted joint parking with the amphitheater
if it would be governed by the City or MCA.
Mr. Booguard stated that except tier term provisions the Council had been discussing, the City had no right to
terminate the CUP.
Councilmember Rindone questioned the number ol' spaces that would be utilized by Kobey's.
· Charles Priedo, Counsel for Kobey's, stated Phase I and II would utilize 709 spaces. They did not feel there
would ever be a need to utilize the grass portion on Otay Rio Road liar customer parking.
Councilmember Padilia questioned the security arid public safety plans for MCA and Kobey's.
Chief Emerson stated staff had talked with MCA and tile concept was that they would utilize police officers from
the City, those working beyond their 40 h{lurs work week, to prnvide services. There had not been a plan devised
as to how many individuals would be working each ~vcnt as that wlmld have to be done on a case-by-case basis.
MCA was aware that they would hav~ to pick up all assnciated costs. The individuals would not be drawn from
the regular patrol assignments.
Mr. Priedo stated due to the nature of an outdoor market they t~lt it was very important to have specifically trained
personnel on staff to handle any security concerns. Approximately I0 years ago Kobey's developed their own
security staff that was licensed by the State of California. They were specifically trained regarding market
enforcement, traffic enforcement, crowd control, etc.
Councilmember Rindone stated he was personally opposed to swap meets but he felt Kobey's was the exception.
It was a first class operation and he was impressed.
Mayor Horton questioned when Kobey's came back liar implementation of Phase II, sales on Thursdays and Fridays,
if they had to appear betbre Council tier approval or if it would be done administratively.
Mr. Leiter responded that it was approved by the Zoning Administrator subject to appeal to the Planning
Commission. It would not automatically go heft>re Council. Council could be informed of the action at which time
Council could appeal the decision.
Mayor Horton felt it important that it retnrn to Council l~r approval. She questioned if weekend curfews for MCA
were on friday and saturday nights.
Mr. Boogaard questioned if Council wanted a provisinn added that would grant the City the fight to suspend the
open air market use rights for such period of time the City needed to put the parking lot to a public, non-profit use
as designated by the City.
Mayor Horton stated that was correct.
Mr. Boogaard stated the concept would be that the open air market use rights or a portion thereof could be
suspended on particular days, as designated by the City, upon 45 days advance notice. If the City wanted to put [""
the facility to a public non-profit use and the City could demonstrate the need for the facility or portion therefore
that was being suspended.
Mr. Seltzer questioned the number of days the City would want the thcility.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 17
Mr. Booguard stated the City had the right on-season to get 6 days use of the facility, but MCA had the scheduling
fights of that usage. The City had 12 days off-season use rights to the facility, but MCA had the scheduling fights.
If MCA could demonstrate that they were going to have a pertbrmance there on those days they would have prior
fight to the facility. Those were planned to be night time usages not saturday or sunday usages.
Mr. Seltzer stated he was not certain that the 18 day provision negotiated with MCA was a provision that related
to their preemption. They envisioned themselves as being a part of the whole project and not inconsistent with
someone else's use. MCA had the ability to preempt them at which time they received a reduction of rent because
MCA recognized their need for continuity of dates, but he was not comlbrtable with that many dates where they
could be pushed out of the venue.
Mayor Horton stated Kobey's may be compatible but there could be the case where the City felt they needed the
entire parking lot and facility all day and night.
Councilmember Alevy recommended that a cap of six days per year that were saturdays or sundays and not
successive.
· Adam Friedman, Attorney for MCA, clarified that the agreement between the City and MCA was that the City
could request the facility 18 times during a year which MCA wonld accommodate under their agreement. Within
that there should be a number of days, not only that MCA would accommodate the City, but that the City could
also ask Kobey's to cease their operations within those 18 days. Kobey's was requesting a cap on the number of
days their operation could be ceased.
Councilmember Rindone agreed that the City needed some protection IBr nsage but Kobey's also had business needs.
Therefore, he could support a cap of 6 days with the understanding that they did not have to be copacetic with the
18 days. The greatest protection was having a 45 or 60 day notice tier Kobey's. It could be reviewed after several
Mayor Horton stated she would agree to a cap of six days.
Mr. Seltzer requested that the City give thetn as moch notice as possible. Kobey's was committed to work with
the City.
Councilmember Alevy stated businesses had certain days or times in which they did more business and he felt
Kobey's should submit a list to the City including some of those days so the City could try to schedule around them.
Mayor Horton requested that the wording include "try to avoid" because she could think of one event that was very
important to the City where they would need the entire facility on a saturday in December.
Mr. Seltzer stated Council had identified a procedure for Kobey's to return to Council for Phase II expansion and
he clarified that the Phase II change could happen in two ways: 1) expanding the area, and/or 2) expanding the
number of days, it was presently saturday and sunday. They were comti~rtable in retuming to Council for that but
wanted it clear that expansion could be one or both of those options.
Mayor Horton questioned if the Council had to take action on the Kobey request at the present time.
Mr. Salomone responded that it was op to Council's discretion.
Councilmember Alevy felt Council could approve a three year CUP at Phase I levels and any increase from that
would have to be brought back to Council. That would give the operator an opportunity to establish their business
and gave the City some flexibility alter three years.
Councilmember Padilia stated he preferred the five years.
MOTION: (Moot) to amend Resolution 18060 as t'ollows: three yeur CUP subject to renewal by the Zoning
Administrator. Of the 18 days, the City had the right to utilize the facility 6 of those and would be allowed
to preempt Kobey's from the parking areas with 45 day nutice. Any expunsion of the approved CUP into
new parking areas would be subject to approwd by the Cormoil.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 18
Mr. Friedman stated it was a minimum of 18 days and was not based on a conflict issue but based upon a total
number of 18 days a year. In essence the City would not be able to displace Kobey without having the fight to use
it under the MCA agreement. They would always have to coincide with the 18 days.
Councilmember Rindone stated MCA would only be schednling 60 days out of 365 and the City may be interested
in using some of those days.
Mr. Friedman responded that even if it were 24 days, the 6 days the City could take would still be inclusive in those
24 days due to the fact the City was limited to X number of days under the MCA agreement. It was based on days
and not on conflict.
Councilmember Moot stated if the City had 20 days because MCA was not using the facility then it would be 6 of
20. He stated he preferred the 3 year CUP because he cotlld li~resee the possibility of other potential recreational
type of facilities would want joint parking agreements with MCA.
Mr. Seltzer stated they needed an opportnnity to grow and nurture their business, solicit vendors and have them
make a commitment for capital goods knowing that they had an opportunity to be there. Three years was a short
window when taking into consideration that they were dealing with the initial years of operation.
Mayor Horton and Councilmembers Rindone and Padilia stated they could not support the 3 year CUP as it was
not fair to the business. They supported the 5 year CUP.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: (Rindone, accepted by the Maker of the Motion) to change the CUP to five
years.
VOTE ON MOTION, AS AMENDED: approved 3-2 with Alevy and Moot opposed.
Mr. Boogaard stated it was his understanding that staff would have the license at the staff level to incorporate the
actual language of the motion.
Councilmember Alevy stated his no vote was not against Kobey's but based on the three year versus five year CUP.
MOTION: (Alevy) to mend task force to include 3 members of staff~ a sub-committee of 2 from Council,
2 members-at-large from the community (at le~st one of wlrich must live in the vicinity of the amphitheater)
and an ad-hoc member or several from the operators themselves. That committee would meet once
immediately after the concert season and once approximately 30 days prior to the concert season (60 days
prior to the first concert season). At the time immediately alter the concert season iten~s of concern would
be discussed and whether or not the thresholds were met. When the task force met again prior to the opening
season the mitigation of those thresholds would be discussed. The specific thresholds to be discussed were:
1) sound impact management including the impacts on Otay Ranch and Robinhood Ridge areas; 2) traffic
and parking management including parking along the rights-of-way; 3) trash and debris removal; 4) safety
issues; 5) security issues; 6) liquor and concessions; 7) facility maintenance; 8) hours or operation including
curfews; 9) lighting impacts; and 10) assurance that a brmtd range of entertainment acts had been booked
that reflected the diverse population of the City and that the entertainment be offered at a reasonable price.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if that was different than the committee that had been proposed on page 29 of
the staff report.
Mayor Horton stated the committee listed on page 29 was for the Performing Arts Fund advisory group.
Councilmember Alevy was referring to the specializesA group that would oversee the operational aspect of the
amphitheater.
Councilmember Alevy stated he was ret~rring to the task force that was for the event planning and coordination.
Councilmember Rindone stated he agreed with the change in the composition of the committee but requested that
Council consider the addition of one member from the public schools, i.e. one from the elementary and one from
the secondary schools.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 19
Councilmember Alevy stated he agreed to the amendment. He questioned if a committee of nine members was too
large. He recommended that there be one representative from the schools and drop the staff number to two.
Mayor Horton agreed that nine members were too many.
Councilmember Padilia stated there was an events planning and coordination committee as a condition of the CUP
and he was not opposed to changing the composition, but he did not believe Council should get over involved in
dictating who would be a member and what exact things they had to review. The police chief, fire chief, staff, and
members of the community impacted would know as professionals and members of the community what they needed
to address. After reading the report it was his understanding that the task force would be meeting more than twice
a year.
Mr. Goss stated the proposal by staff was a day to day detailed management of the operation. It identified a traffic
control management and events security plan, such issues as placement of cones, barricades, signs, traffic controls,
security personnel, on-site cleanup, off-site clean-up, a plan to cover primary rights-of-way, and other operational
aspects. He felt that was staff interacting with the staff of the amphitheater. He felt Councilmember Alevy's
suggestion would be an additional group that had different duties and could be a positive addition.
Councilmember Padilia stated he had not understood that Cooncilmemher Alevy was recommending a separate group
for input. Therefore, he could support the recommendation.
Councilmember Rindone stated he concurred with Councilmember Padilla's comments. He requested that staff
return with a report on how that committee would be structured, outline the items, and include any comments from
staff.
Councilmember Moot stated he concurred and felt it a better approach than tying the CUP to the proposed task
force. That would keep the event and coordination task force in the CUP. The report should be brought back to
Council for review.
Mr. Boogaard stated if it was just an advisory group to oversee how the amphitheater was complying with the
operational profiles it did not have to be tied to the CUP and could he done without MCA's consent. If Council
wanted the advisory committee to have the power to make changes in the conditions or operational conditions of
the CUP it had to be included in the CUP.
Mayor Horton did not feel it had to be a condition of the CUP.
RESOLUTION 18057, reading nf the text wus waived, pussed and approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION 18058, AS AI~IENDED, reading of the text wus waived (to include the amendments as
presented by the City Attorney's otlice).
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the amendments previously offered by the City Attorney included the
definition of "net" ticket sales.
Mr. Googins responded that the language in the revised sub-lease included clarifications that were satisfactory to
the City Attorney's office. Approving the resolution as amended would incorporate those changes in the sub-lease.
Councilmember Moot stated it was a diffictdt process, th~ issues complex, the evidence presented on both sides
extremely persuasive, and it was difficnlt to know t~r sure what was the right or wrong thing to do. He read each
and every item that was given to him by the opponents to the prqiect and l~It their input was positive. Many of
the issues they had identified were discussed by Council and it was a better agreement for their participation in the
process. He would not be voting in thvor of the item had he not personally gone out and participated in the sound
test and heard that the sound would not impact the existing residences. He had considered the many different ways
the project would be impacting the community both positively and potentially negatively. He felt Council had
moved at the right pace. Conncil spent almost three fidl meetings discussing the issues and he felt the net product
would benefit the community. He supported the potential economic benefits to the community and felt that through
the CUP the City could control and handle the potential problems that may be caused. With the adoption of the
task force the City was ready, willing, and able to enfi~rce the noise regulations, enforcing and ensuring that the
impacts on the immediate neighborhood would be as minimal as possibl~ under the circumstances. Council, while
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 20
they valued MCA as an addition m the community. valued even more the people that lived in the community and
those potentially allotted. The action by Council was not the end but the begirming of what would be an evolving
process to make sure that the prqiect worked and was a pusitive member of the community. He appreciated
everyone's input and patience.
VOTE ON RESOLUTION 18058, AS AMENDED: approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION 18059, AS ANIENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text
was waived (to include the amendment,~ as presented by the City Attnrney's Office).
Councilmember Rindone requested that the City Attorney restate the 14 day execution provision.
Mr. Boogaard stated in addition to the 14 day provision there was also talk about having a mandatory one-time per
year monitoring of the sonnd problem. He questioned if Council wanted that added to Resolution 18059.
Mayor Hotton stated that was cnrrect.
Mr. Boogaard stated on page 5, subparagraph 2, of the resolution, the Director of Planning had the right,
independent of development but only on reasonable evidence that existing residents in the area were being subjected
to noise levels exceeding the applicable standards. m have the applicant condnct sound monitoring and he questioned
if Council wanted a mandatory random one time per year check.
Mr. Salomone responded that was Council's intent.
Mr. Booguard stated page 5, subparugruph 2, shnuld be amended to add "Regardless of D.1 above ir the
Director of Planning determines at any time based nn reasonable evidence that existing residents in the area
are being subjected to noise levels exceeding applicuble stundards and withnut regard to such evidence, not
less than one time a year, the applicant shall conduct sound monitering ..... ".
Mr. Monaco stated in order to be consistent. the City would conduct the testing at the applicants expense.
Councilmember Moot stated it should be nnderstuod that the City did not have to have probable cause or reason for
testing once a year to see if MCA was within the noise limits. That information would be reported back to Council.
Mr. Boogaard stated the last sentence of the subsection should be amended to read "Payable upon billing by
the City".
Mr. Googins stated the proposed language t~>r the 14 day provision would be an amendment to the CUP Condition
VIO.EE, page 11 of the amended CUP its distributed, insert the tollowing before the last sentence "This
deadline may be extended if such full executionand deposit into escrow of the agreements is caused by City's
failure to diligently work towards the finalization and execution nf agreements and implementing escrow
instructions in which case such deadline would be extended h~r a period not to exceed an additional 16 days"
and adding as a new condltinn, VII.FF "From the dute of City Cnuncil's approval of the CUP until the date
of closing and full effectiveness nf the muster lease tri-party agreement and sub-lease, applicant shall
indemnify, protect, defend, and hold the City harmless from und against any and all claims, liabilities, and
costs including attorney's fees arising from challenges tn the EIR, project, and any and all entitlements and
approvals issued by the City in cttnnecti0n wilh ihe project".
Mr. Boogaard stated Council had also discussed the ability after a certain number of years to modify the curfew
and questioned if that was part of Council's intent.
Councilmember Rindone stated Council just wanted monitoring.
Mr. Boogaard requested that MCA comment regarding the minor changes outlined which would be included in the
final resolution.
Mr. Friedman responded that the changes that had been discussed were acceptable to the applicant in the form they
had been drafted by Mr. Coogins and Mr. Boogaard.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 21
VOTE ON RESOLUTION 18059, AS AMENDED: approved unauimously.
RESOLUTION 18060, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text
was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Moot opposed.
Councilmember Rindone stated the City Attorney was to provide the final language for the amendment.
RESOLUTION 18061 OFFERED BY COUNCIL~IEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
Councilmember Rindone stated it had been an arduous process. It was clear in both cases, MCA and Kobey's, that
they were word class organizations and would become active and viable leaders in the community. Council had
been extremely sensitive to all the needs of the community and felt with the system of checks and balances in place
they could protect the citizens of the City. There was only one way to make ends meet at budget time, either
increase revenue or decrease expenditures. The addition of MCA and Kubey's would help to improve the quality
of life in the community. He thanked th~ public liar their input dnring the process.
Councilmember Padilia stated it had been an excrnciating process but had been a better process due to the public
input. He hoped everyone in the community, on both sides of the issne, would be able to move forward to make
it work. He congratulated the applicants and staff for their diligent work.
Mayor Hotton thanked the citizens that participated in the process. Council did take into consideration all testimony
and she felt it helped to develop the checks and balances to make sure it was a wonderful venue for the community.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
16. PUBLIC HEARING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PCA-96-01; REQUEST TO ADD WORDING TO
SECTION 19.68.020 T.I OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WIlICH 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 bet~veen "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 recommends Council place the ordinance
on first reading. (Director of Planning) Cnntinned from the ~neetin~ of 10/17/95.
ORDINANCE 2642 AMENDING SECTION 19.68.020 T.1, 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 readine)
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing Baldwin Company, passed when called to
the dais.
ORDINANCE 2642 PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER PADILLA, reading of the text
was waived.
Councilmember Alevy stated his concern was that sound be mitigated to the level that it did not impact the dwellings
in the area, those in existence and those planned fi~r fitlure development, and questioned if it affected Council's
ability to control the noise.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, responded that the cunditions of the CUP would apply and they were
specifically written to deal with the issues raised.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 22
Councilmember Moot stated it was onfbrtunate that the ordinance was being considered at the end of the process
because it was a very sophisticated issue and was not what it appeared to be from reading the text of the ordinance.
The ordinance was not making the sound ordinance more relaxed, giving MCA some benefit that did not currently
exist. It did make a clarification and Iegal distinction as to what woold constitute a violation of the sound ordinance
and how that violation would be determined and judged, With that specific understanding he would support the
ordinance.
VOTE ON ORDINANCE 2642: approved unuuimously.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
BOARD AND COSIMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
None submitted.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Items pulled: 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. The rainores will reflect the published agenda order.
OTIIER BUSINESS
17. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - None
18. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. RESOLUTION 18088 OPPOSING U.S. SENATE BILL S. 269 UNLESS AMENDED - S. 269 (SIMPSON)
IMMIGRATION/BORDER FEES would establish a $1 land border crossing fee for all non-commercial traffic,
with unspecified discounts available to frequent crossers. Other provisions include pilot programs for automated
border crossing facilities, hiring of 700 new Border Patrol agents per year through the year 2000, hiring 300 new
INS investigators per year through the year 1998. and strengthening criminal penalties for alien smuggling or
document fraud. The Legislative Committee recommends a position of "Oppose unless amended" and general
opposition to the border fee component of the bill. Continued from the meeting on 10/24/95.
RESOLUTION 18088 OFFERED BY MAYOR IIORTON, reading of the text was waived~ passed and
approved unanimously.
19. COUNCIL COMI~!ENTS
Councilmember Rindone y""
· Councilmember Rindone stated Council had received a memorandum dated 10/26 regarding the demolition of
the Fuller Ford buildings and requested that the item be docketed next week with a staff analysis of the pro's and
con's.
Minutes
November 7, 1995
Page 23
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:50 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on November 14, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers.
A Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency convened at 11:50 p.m. and adjourned at 11:53 p.m..
A Special Meeting of the Industrial Development Authority convened at 11:53 p.m. and adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
20. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Gnvernment Code Section 54956.9 · Chammas vs. the City of Chula Vista.
· Chula Vista and nine other cities vs. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste issues (trash
litigation).
· Trinidad De La Rosa vs. the City of Chuta Vista..
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Pursuant to Gnvernment Code Section 54957 · Title: City Clerk.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
· Agency negotiator: John Goss or d~signee lbr 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: Executiv~ Mamlgcment, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
SALE AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY - Pursuant to Gnvecnment Code Section 54956.8
· Franchise for Otay Water District for Streets and Right-of-Way.
21. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - The City Council authorized the acceptance of
the Conciliation Agreement from HUD in the Trinidad De La Rosa case in the form on file in the City Clerk's
Office. There were no other observed reportable action taken in Closed Session.
Respectlillly submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
by: Vicki C. Soderti'uist, C~'{puty City Clerk