Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/07/19 (2) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 19, 1995 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: MCA CHUlA VISTA AMPHITHEATER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 95-03 BACKGROUND MCA Concerts Inc., in conjunction with Bitterlin Companies and Starboard development, is proposing to construct a 20,000 seat amphitheater on a 72.5 acre site within Phase I of the Otay Rio Business Park, located on Otay Valley Road south of the Otay River in the southeastern area of the City. Operation of the project involves approximately 35-60 concert events per year and an open air market proposed for the parking lot areas on Thursdays- Sundays. The project requires a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval. The applicant may also request an amendment to the noise ordinance to better define nuisance noise and environmental noise. As a result of circulation of the Notice of Preparation, six comment letters were received from the Sweetwater Union High School District, the California Native Plant Society, the Baldwin Company, the City of San Diego, the Otay Water District and the California Department of Fish and Game. Two letters of comment have been received to date (July 17, 1995) from circulation of the Draft EIR; these include: 1. Sweetwater Union High School District (July 7,1995): requesting additional discussion of the proposed relocation of their warehouse/maintenance facility to a site immediately west of the project site. 2. Otay Water District (July 12, 1995): indicated minor text corrections. All comments, including those accepted up to the close of the Planning Commission Public Hearing on July 19, 1995, will be responded to in the Final EIR. The Resource conservation Commission considered the Draft EIR on July 10, 1995 and voted 4-1 to recommend its certification. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the Public Hearing on the Draft EIR (EIR 95-03). close the hearing, and give staff direction to prepare the Final EIR. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 19, 1995 Page 2 ANALYSIS 1. Land Use Impact Summary: Not Significant Impact No significant impacts to land use compatibility or local or regional land use planning were identified. Mitiqation None required. 2. T ransportation/Circulation Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impact The project will generate approximately 12,000 Average Daily Trips. Levels of Service on Otay Valley east of Nirvana Avenue and at the Otay Valley Road/l-805 southbound off ramp would fall below acceptable levels. Mitiqation Improvements to Otay Valley Road are underway as a part of the Phase II road improvements CIP. Restriping of the southbound off ramp at 1-805 will raise LOS within acceptable limits. 3. Noise Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impact Short term construction noise (not significant). long term traffic noise (not significant). long term operational noise (not significant on opening day but may impact future surrounding residential use). Mitiqation Project operational noise is required to conform with City noise ordinance standards using noise walls, speaker design and mixing board controls, or other measures as deemed appropriate. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 19, 1995 Page 3 4. Air Quality Impact Summary: Significant, Not Mitigable Impact Vehicle emissions contribute to the regional (cumulative) air quality impact; short term construction impact. Mitiqation Construction impacts are mitigated through dust and emission control measures. No long term measures for vehicle emissions are available. 5. Biology Impact Summary: Not Significant Impact No direct impacts are expected since project site is graded and improved. Indirect impacts to surrounding resources are not considered significant. Mitiqation None required. 6. Hydrology Impact Summary: Not Significant Impacts No significant changes in drainage patterns or water quality. Mitiqation None required. 7. Hazardous Waste Impact Summary: Not Significant Impacts The project is not impacted by previously remediated site contamination. Mitiqation None required. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 19, 1995 Page 4 8. Public Services & Facilities Impact Summary: Not Significant Impact Increased demand for police and fire services. Mitiqation None required. Project proposes use of security personnel and off-duty Police Officers. ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires a description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project", and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The discussion of "alternatives" shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree, the attainment of project objectives, or would be more costly." The following discussion presents a brief summary of each alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR. "No Proiect" Alternative No changes to land use would occur under the No Project Alternative, and project objectives would not be met. "Approved Use" Alternative This alternative would leave the site as is, with its present designation and ability to develop as industrial uses. Some impacts would be reduced with this alternative, however, air quality would remain significant and not mitigable. The project objectives would not be met with this alternative. "Reduced Capacitv" Alternative Development of a 10,000 seat facility would occur rather than a 20,000 seat facility. Generally, impacts would be reduced, though the non-mitigable impacts to air quality remain. This alternative would not meet the project objectives, however it has been determined to be the "environmentally superior" alternative due to overall reduced impacts. Alternative Sites Two alternative sites were evaluated in order to determine whether another site might be environmentally superior. Generally, similar impacts or scale of impacts would occur with City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 19, 1995 Page 5 each of these, and project objectives may not be met due to the non-viability of the respective sites. CONCLUSION In summary, the proposed MCA Chula Vista Amphitheater project would result in significant unmitigated impacts to air quality. Otherwise, all significant impacts can be reduced to a level below significant. Project alternatives resulted in the same impact summary (with the exception of the "No Project" alternative). however the Reduced Capacity alternative reduced impacts resulting in its identification as the "environmentally superior" alternative. M :\SHARE D\COM M 0 EV\EI R9 5-03. MCA --- ,-- I I I i I I I i I . I . PROJECT LOCATION ..' ---.............. -...--- '~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~gJ,~T' MCA Amphitheater PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~ PROJECT Otoy Volley Rd, ADDRESS: South of Olay River SCALE: FilE NUMBER, NORTH NO SCALE Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Filth Avenue Chula Vista, California 9191 I .2896 (619) 691.5500 DIvision of Planning and Facilities July 7, 1995 i' \, \e C \~c ~ .( "----.- Mr. Robert Leiter Director of Planning City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91 91 0 Dear Mr. Leiter: Re: Draft Environmental Impact ReportlMCA Amphitheater The Sweetwater Union High School District Is in receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed MCA Amphitheater and would like these comments forwarded to the planning commission for their consideration. The district is responsible for the education of students in grades (7- 12) for all residents in the project area; yet the report is silent about this fact. Additionally, the city and the district are engaged in discussions about the relocation of the district office. It is anticipated that the district's warehouse, transportation and maintenance facilities will occupy a site adjacent to the city's future corporate yard which is directiy west of the proposed project. Aithough the proposed reiocation of the district office was known prior to the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, it is not explored in the report as a future land use. As with the corporate yard, the district facility will require emergency twenty.four hour service to sites. To make this possible, the proposed uses of the outdoor theater should not make traffic on Otay Valley Road excessive. The proposed theater would seriously Impede traffic during concert times as well as when the proposed swap meet/open air market Is open. To eliminate this concern, a secondary access road will be needed from Otay Rio Road to Otay Valley Road. The district disagrees with the statement on page 3.1-9 that the proposed land use is less intensive than the previously approved land uses. Obviously concerts will have a significant impact during this time and the report addresses that concern. Mr. Robert Leiter Page Two However, the proposed swap meet will have a greater impact than stated. As is demonstrated on Palm Avenue In San Diego, the swap meet at the South Bay Drlve- In Theater requires traffic control during operation. A similar use In Otay Rio Park will cause grid lock on Otay Valley Road thereby making the corporate yard and district office services difficult to provide. The district feels that the planning commission should be made aware of these concerns when considering the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report. Sincerely, bF- Director of Planning TS/ml c: Andrew B. Campbell vet1ris Salomone ...-1)rrlir:nlrrl to CO"1I\1I1I1i1~f;(,'Ci!'r 10595 JAMACHA BOULEVARD, SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 91977 TELEPHONE: 670-2222, AREA CODE 619 July 12, 1995 Mr. Joe Monaco Environmental Projects Manager City ofChula Vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: MCA Chula Vista Amphitheater (W.O. 8014/3830) Draft EIR (SCH # 95031073) Dear Joe: Otay Water District (OWD) is pleased to respond to the City ofChula Vista's Notice of Public review for a Draft Environmental Impact report for the proposed MCA Chula Vista Amphitheater located at the intersection of Otay Valley Road and Otay Rio Road in the City of Chula Vista, We understand that the proposed project involves construction of a 20,000 person capacity out- door amphitheater consisting of approximately 10,000 fixed seats and a lawn seating area for an additional 10,000 patrons. The complex would include staging areas, ticket sales, pennanent concessions, first aid/medical, restrooms, and will require parking for 6,000 cars. The amphitheater is proposed for concert events on approximately 35-60 nights per year. Additionally, an open air market is proposed for daytime use on Thursday through Sunday. OWD previously prepared comments to the City ofChula Vista as part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process and closely coordinated with Tetra Tech, Inc., the City's EIR preparer, throughout the report preparation process in response to m1lltiple telephone research inquiries. We have brief comments as follows: Page 3.8-12 - Impacts section - The tenn "water capacity of 5,000 gpm" should be clarified that it is the maximum capacity for all anticipated demands. The Final EIR should include a brief discussion of estimated 1) Annual Average Day Use; 2) Maximum Day Demand; 3) Peak Hour Demand; and 4) Fire Flow Demand to insure proper planning of on and off-site facilities. Please refer to page 4-1 of the OWD Final Draft Water Resources Master Plan for a descrip- tion of these definitions (attached). . As stated in our NOP letter of April 4, 1995, the contractor should contact the District Inspection Department before any work is started as the District may want to salvage some appurtenances (fire hydrants, etc.). MCA Chula Vista Amphiti,_~ter Draft EIR (SCH # 95031073) July 12,1995 Page 2 . Water system plans must be submitted to OWD for review and approval in advance of work commencement. Please contact me at 670-2293 if you need any further environmental information or have any questions. Sincerely, Michael F. Coleman, AICP Environmental Specialist MC:cp Enclosure cc: Tim Stanton Jim Peasley John Garcia Chris Craven Rebecca Patton CHAPTER 4 WATER DEMANDS FLUCTUATIONS IN WATER USE A w.ater system must be able to supply water at rates which fluctuate over a wide range. Demand rates most important to the design and operation of a water system are annual average day (ADD), maximum day (MD), and peak hour (PH), and fire flow demands. Annual average day use is the yearly total water use divided by the number of days in the year. This rate is used as the baseline for projecting maximum day and peak hour demands and for estimating operating costs and expected revenues. Maximum day demand is the maximum quantity of water used on any day of the year. The maximum day demand is used to size water pumping facilities and to detennine system capability without contributions from storage reservoirs. Peak hour demand is the maximum rate of water used during anyone hour of the year. The peak hour demand typically occurs during the maximum day. Peak hour rates often impose the most severe hydraulic condition and result in minimum residual distribution system pressures. Peak hour demands are met through a combination of system supply (usually pumping) and storage facilities. Additional demand rates of significance are the peak week, and flow rates needed for fire fighting (fire flow) as defined below. Water supply from the County Water Authority (CW A) is based upon providing the peak week demand, which is the highest quantity of water used in anyone week of the year, expressed as an equivalent daily rate. The peak week peaking factor lies somewhere between the maximum month and maximum day peaking factors. From OWO's recent water use records, the peak week to annual average day demand ratio has been between 1.5 and 1.9. Prior planning studies done for CW A and by OWO staff have used a peak week peaking factor of 1.8. This value appears to be reasonable and will be used for this master plan. Various fire flow requirements have been defined by the fire protection agencies within the water district boundaries. These flow demands are based upon building construction and land use and range from 1,000 gpm to 5,000 gpm. The water system is analyzed on the basis of delivering the required fire flow on the maximum day of the year. This demand condition is used to detennine the size of most distribution mains within a system. 4-1 EXCERPT FROM THE DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 p.m. Monday. July 10. 1995 Conference Room 1 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Burrascano, Commissioners Hall, Fisher, and Marquez, and Clark STAFF PRESENT: Staff present: Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid, Environmental Projects Manager Joe Monaco APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Marquez/Fisher) (5-0), corrected by Marquez to modify under New Business, second to last sentence, "that concern was also expressed regarding the open space on the upper levels and that a suggestion was made that a play area be set aside on the ground level." 2. Review of EIR-95-03. MCA AmDhitheater (moved to first in order) Staff Presentation Environmental Projects Manager Joe Monaco reviewed the processing for this project, noting that the draft ErR had been published on June 19, 1995 and had been sent to the state clearinghouse with a request for a 30-day (shortened) public review period due to project scheduling needs. He stated that this request had not yet been acted upon, but that the project was tentatively scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing and closing of the public review period on July 19th. Mr. Monaco stated that approximately 1,500 public notices regarding the EIR had been sent out in an effort to be as comprehensive as possible. He added that on June 22, a public forum had also been held at which some 23 members of the public had been in attendance to discuss the project. Mr. Monaco reviewed some of the environmental issues discussed within the EIR, noting that this use is an unclassified use which requires a conditional use permit. He stated that no land use issues were identified. With respect to transportation and circulation, the project generates approximately 12,000 ADTs at its maximum capacity, whereas currently planned uses for the site could generate 14,000 ADTs. However, Mr. Monaco noted that the trips differed characteristically, as most of the trips associated with the amphitheater would occur within a single hour period. The southbound offramps of 1-805 at Otay Valley Road, as well as the segment of Otay Valley Road from Nirvana to the bridge crossing the Otay Valley river would be significantly impacted; measures are discussed in the EIR to mitigate these impacts, including a traffic monitoring and management program. With these, impacts would be less than significant. Mr. Monaco stated that noise is a major concern on this type of project. He stated that construction noise could impact the riparian habitat, but that a biological consultant had determined that it would not be significant. Traffic noise had been determined to be less than significant, although concert noise was potentially significant, particularly to future residential areas in San Diego and the Otay Ranch project. However, Mr. Monaco advised that three mitigation measures had been identified and would be Resource Conservation Commission -2- Julv 10. 1995 included in the conditional use permit. With respect to noise impacts upon sensitive species, consultants had determined that based upon the timing and duration of the noise impacts, they would be at less than significant levels. Mr. Monaco reviewed other potential impacts, and advised that the environmental consultant who had prepared the EIR, as well representatives for the applicant, were present to answer questions. Committee Ouestions/Discussion Commissioner Hall stated that residents were located closer than was indicated; Mr. Monaco stated that he had personally monitored the noise tests, and that there had been no audible noises from any of the residential areas nearby. Ms. Hall stated that she was concerned about discussion of fireworks and potential fire hazards, and the extent of the road improvements which do not carry to the project entrance. Mr. Monaco responded that road improvements would be required as far as the project entrance, but would not include Heritage Road beyond; he also reviewed time frames involved with project improvements and monitoring programs suggested. Commissioner Marquez asked about the average duration of concerts; Mr. Chris Bitterlin, applicant, stated that the average concert season would have approximately thirty-five events, although this could vary significantly. He added that concerts as a rule do not get out past midnight, stating that an average concert would likely start around 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. with an opening act and end around 11:00 or 11:30 p.m. He stated that most would take place during summer months; April through October is the typical touring season. Mr. Bitterlin added that the sixty night estimate was based upon additional programs such as the Summer Pops series. Commissioner Burrascano questioned the noise levels described in the EIR. Commissioner Marquez expressed concern about the open-air market and questioned the number of people anticipated to attend. Traffic and customer counts were discussed. Commissioner Fisher asked about the lighting plan; Mr. Bitterlin stated that parking lot lighting would be shielded to prevent it from going off-site and that theater lighting would be directed around the stage area. Fireworks were discussed; Mr. Bitterlin stated that this would be sporadic; they would be shot off right behind the stage over the paved parking area and would be within a very controlled environment. Commissioner Fisher stated that one current least bell's vireo pair that lived within the sixty decibel level area, and that in previous years there were others, questioning why this was considered not to be a significant impact even though this exceeds Fish and Wildlife standards. Mr. Monaco responded that this had been discussed in meetings with Fish and Wildlife staff and that no clear direction had been provided. However, he added that the consultants had made their determination based upon the time and limited duration of the impact. Mr. Monaco noted that Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife had not yet commented back on the report, adding that this project was not the subject of a take permit but that certain trade-offs had been discussed and included as mitigations. Commissioner Fisher asked if recommendations regarding an earthen berm had been incorporated into the project; it was stated that an exterior berm had not been included, but that there was a berm around the seating area. In response to questions about the proposed park trails nearby, Mr. Monaco stated that it was not yet known where the trails would be but that the park would be closed at night and fencing or patrols could be utilized to control these areas. Commissioner Marquez asked if the Otay Valley Regional Board had reviewed this report; Mr. Monaco stated that copies of the EIR had been Resource Conservation Commission -3- Julv 10. 1995 sent to their staff, but that he did not believe that commission had formally reviewed the document. In response to questions, Mr. Monaco stated that no written public comments had been received regarding the draft, but that at a public forum the majority of the questions related to traffic. Representatives from Baldwin had also voiced concern regarding noise impacts to future residential projects. Commissioner Marquez noted that reptilian and amphibian species had not been surveyed for and expressed concern regarding oil and parking lot run-off into the river despite monitoring. Mr. Bitterlin pointed out that the project's grass areas provided the opportunity to catch 35 %-40% of the run-off, more than was currently prevented by the existing industrial park. Ms. Marquez asked about opportunities for mass transit; it was indicated that this was planned for, but that specifics had not been worked out. Commissioner Hall asked about the alternatives and discussion ensued about the Bayfront site, which is within the Port District's jurisdiction. Commissioner Marquez expressed concern about the impact of sprinklers on the coastal sage scrub. Mr. Monaco stated that this project was being required to dedicate the coastal sage scrub areas. Fiscal questions were mentioned and Mr. Bitterlin stated that over a ten-year period, a conservative figure provided approximately $4 million net to the City within that time frame. Commissioner Marquez stated that it is difficult to evaluate suggested mitigation, especially when so many of them are up in the air - i.e. when development comes in, then deciding how to deal with noise. Mr. Monaco responded that with respect to noise, the project would be held to the noise ordinance, and consultants had stated that there are feasible mitigations for this. Ms. Marquez stated that she was also uncomfortable with indirect impacts, such as those to the riparian areas. Motion/Second (Burrascano/Clark) to accept draft EIR-95-03. Commissioner Hall stated that she felt that traffic was problematic, and that public transportation should be seriously explored. Commissioner Marquez stated that she could not see putting this type of use near residential and regional park uses. Mr. Bitterlin stated that these were comments on the project itself rather than the adequacy of the EIR. Vote on the motion was 3-2, Marquez and Hall opposed; motion failed. In response to further discussion of concerns, Mr. Monaco stated that to address concerns regarding traffic, the establishment of a transit line, which is the City's responsibility, could be required; also, the applicant could be required to establish a program for providing remote parking and bussing into the events. Commissioner Hall stated that with this, she could vote in favor of the adequacy of the EIR. Motion/Second Carried (Hall/Burrascano)(4-1, Marquez opposed) to accept the adequacy of EIR-95-03 subject to the inclusion of mitigation measures requiring the establishment of a transit line from an appropriate transit facility (e.g. the closest trolley station) and the providing of a mass transit type of transportation from remote parking locations. Motion/Second (Marquez/Hall) (1-4, Marquez in favor) to recommend that serious consideration be given to whether this use is appropriate for that part of the city, to the possibility of increasing crime and impacts to nearby residents, and that the alternative amphitheater site at the Bayfront be given consideration. Motion failed.