HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/09/06 (5)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Page 1, Item..L
Meeting Date 09/06/95
ITEM TITLE:
Certification of Final
Amphitheater
EIR-95-03
,
MCA
Chula Vista
Planning Commission Resolution EIR-95-03 recommending that
Council certify Final Environmental Impact Report EIR-95-03
The Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) reviewed the project description
and determined that an Environmental Impact Report is required due to the effects
of such a project. Pursuant to the ERC's decision, EIR-95-03 was prepared and
has been forwarded to the Commission under separate cover.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached Resolution EIR-95-03 recommending that Council certify EIR-
95-03 and certify that the City has given its independent review and analysis of the
project in accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution and the
findings and conditions contained therein.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation
Commission considered EIR-95-03 at its July 10, 1995 meeting and voted 4-1 to
accept its adequacy. The minutes from that meeting are attached.
On July 19, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on EIR-
95-03 in order to close the public review period. The Planning Commission voted
6-0 to direct staff to prepare the Final EIR. The minutes from that meeting are
attached.
DISCUSSION:
The MCA Chula Vista Amphitheater EIR (EIR-95-03) was circulated for public
review from June 19, 1995 to July 19, 1995. The public hearing before the
Planning Commission on July 19, 1995 on the Draft EIR concluded this public
review period. Eleven comments were received as a result of this public review,
with most of the comments relating to the issues of traffic, air quality, noise, and
lighting. The comments and responses are now included in the Final EIR
Page 2, Iteml
Meeting Date 09/06/95
document, with corresponding appropriate text changes.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Final EIR
contain:
· The Draft EIR or a revision of it;
. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; and
. Responses of lead agency to significant environmental points raised
in the review, and any other information added by the lead agency.
The FEIR contains the above listed information.
The purpose of the FEIR is to provide the decision-makers with information they
may use in considering the Project, but the FEIR is not intended, in itself, to be
the sole document on which the decision to approve or disapprove the Project is
based.
Attachment:
1. RCC & PC minutes
Attachment 1
Resource Conservation Commission Minutes
from the 7/10/95 Public Meeting
Planning Commission Minutes
from the 7/19/95 Public Hearing
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
Resource Conservation COmmi""'10n
Chula Vista, California
DRAFT
6:30 p.m.
Mondav. Julv 10. 1995
Conference Room 1
Public Services Buildin~
CALL MEETING TO ORDERIROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Burrascano, Commissioners Hall, Marquez, Clark, and
Thornburg
Commissioner Fisher
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid, Environmental Projects
Manager Joe Monaco, Conservation Coordinator Michael Meacham
MSUC (Hall/Clark) (5-0) to excuse the absence of Commissioner Fisher.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Marquezrrhornburg) (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. "
PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS
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 EIR 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 Gtay Valley Road, as well as the
segment of Gtay 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
Resource Conservation Commission
-2-
- July 10. 1995
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 signj~icant. 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 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 ErR, 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; applicant Chris Bitterlin
stated that the average concert season would have approxintately 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 also stated 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 ErR. 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 Clark 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 Clark stated that one current least's bell 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
Resource Conservation Conunission
-3-
Julv 10. 1995
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 Clark 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. rn 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 ErR had been 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
Resource Conservation Cnmmt"cion
-4-
'. Julv 10.1995
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 busing 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-! Marquez opposer]) 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 (MarquezlHall) (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 Bayftont be given consideration. Motion failed.
D RAFTJ
ITEM 1:
July 19, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING: MCA CHULA VISTA AMPHITHEATER DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-95-03
-2-
PC Minutes
Environmental Projects Manager Monaco presented the staff report, and recommended that the
Planning Commission open the public hearing and accept comments on the EIR.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Chuck Schrader, 440 "L" Street, Apt. I, Chula Vista, spoke in favor of the project. He
thought it would be a good way of getting tax revenue. The City of Chula Vista is becoming
a major city in its own right, but is still looked upon as a suburb of San Diego. Becoming a city
in our own right with some type of recognition, this MCA project would go along with that type
of recognition. People could have entertainment in Chula Vista without having to leave the city
limits to go to San Diego or elsewhere. With the development of the Olympic Training Center,
the athletes living in that area and training will want to have time to release some of their
energy. He thought this would be a plus to Chula Vista and to the Olympic Training Center,
and a good tax revenue for the City. Mr. Schrader felt the MCA project would be a very good
project environmentally. With more shrubbery, grass, and landscaping, the sound would be
muffled. The sounds are muffled with trees, shrubberies, grass and all types of landscaping
and better for the environment. Regarding traffic, he felt the impact would be only for a short
time before and after the concert. Mr. Schrader noted that the type of entertainment would
determine the age of the concert goers. Mr. Schrader said that music has a little bit to offer for
everybody, and it looked to him like a win-win-win situation. He would like to see it go
through.
Chris Bitterlin, the Bitterlin Companies, 3716 Southernwood Way, San Diego, clarified that
the Mr. Schrader was not on their payroll nor a relative, but he appreciated the nice thoughts.
He noted that President of MCA Concerts, Jay Marciano, would be at the meeting on August
9, along with the operations expert from MCA, Bill Parsons. Mr. Bitterlin gave some history
of trying to locate in San Diego County. He stated there is an average of 30 to 35 concerts a
year. The focus was not simply limited to economics. Two issues that had to be solved up
front were sound and traffic. They needed to find a location that would not impact existing or
future housing. MCA desired to develop an amphitheater in San Diego County and, specifically,
in Chula Vista, but they would only make this major investment if they believe they can be a
good neighbor. He then introduced Bill Bethman.
Bill Bethman, BBA, 24462 La Hermosa, Laguna Nigel, spoke about the site development plan
and the architecture. He noted the orientation of the amphitheater in a northwesterly direction
would help in a natural way to mitigate sound to the most sensitive areas to the west and south.
In addition, the actual location on the property, getting as far east as possible, would help in
maintaining a natural mitigation to the west and to the Dennery Ranch area. The facility had
approximately 10,000 fixed seats plus another 10,000 seats in the grassed area. Mr. Bethman
PC Minutes
-3-
July 19, 1995
discussed the amenities of the amphitheater. He stated that the new philosophy in amphitheaters
of which MCA is the forerunner is to create a facility where a person comes back to the facility
not just because they are coming back to see their favorite act or entertainer, but because to
experience the facility. He then turned the presentation back to Chris Bitterlin.
Mr. Bitterlin commented about MCA with respect to traffic. From an environmental standpoint,
with a worst case scenario of 20,000 people and 6,000 cars, MCA was expert in dealing with
large numbers of people at any given time, coordinating traffic and security. Mr. Bitterlin said
it was important that the experience is a good one for the concert goers when they come to the
facility, that traffic situation is not difficult, that they are treated properly, that by the time they
leave they not only enjoy themselves, but it was a streamlined experience. Mr. Bitterlin said
MCA believed this was an excellent site, and were excited about the project as designed.
Commissioner Tarantino questioned the location of the restrooms, and if they would service the
people in the grass area.
Mr. Bitterlin said there were no restrooms located on the top of the berm. They were located
very close to the stairs which radiate across the top of the berm and come down into the plaza.
They had located a restroom building on each location and believed there approximately 50
fixture units in each of those. He believed they would more than adequately serve the lawn
patrons.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if they had any comments from the Baldwin Company in terms
of the Otay Ranch.
Chair Tuchscher stated that he had just been handed a speaker slip from Mr. Aden of the
Baldwin Company to address the Commission.
Commissioner Tarantino asked, in terms of traffic leaving, if it would be like trying to get out
of San Diego Stadium.
Mr. Bitterlin replied that it would not.
Commissioner Salas stated that the City of San Diego objected to the EIR in that the Robinhood
Ridge and the Dennery Ranch precise plans would lie within the 50 decibel noise contour. She
asked if the applicant had any drawings that show where those projects occurred within that 50
decibel range area.
Mr. Bitterlin asked if she was referring specifically to the Dennery and Robinhood--the City of
San Diego future developments?
Commissioner Salas confirmed.
PC Minutes
-4-
July 19, 1995
Mr. Bitteriin stated that on page 18 of the technical appendices, there was a specific drawing
with respect to the 50 dB line, and Jack Wrightson could talk about the significance of that line.
He noted, however, that they did not violate the City of San Diego's noise ordinance with the
sound levels that would be generated from the amphitheater.
Commissioner Salas couldn't tell how far away 50 decibels carried and asked if they had any
kind of estimate of how far that sound carried.
Mr. Bitterlin introduced Mr. Wrightson, their sound expert.
Jack Wrightson, Wrightson, Johnson, Hadden and Williams, said they were acoustical
consultants of Dallas, Texas, employed by MCA on this project to give them an understanding
of potential impact of the amphitheater operation. He stated that MCA is committed to not
developing projects where they were going to have problems. They don't envision themselves
being a continual battle with any governmental agency or the residents that may happen to live
in the environments of one of their facilities. He explained that with the calculation between
industrial and residential areas that the City of San Diego noise ordinances, MCA would
technically be allowed to make more noise with this facility than 50 dBA; however, MCA
understands that 50 dBA is a cut-off line between when people can live with it versus people
start being extremely unhappy with the noise levels. They want to make sure that these areas
in San Diego are exposed to levels of 50 dBA or less. The 50 dBA and the contours is really
an MCA internal standard for how much noise that they care to place on any residential area and
independent of any noise ordinance. The Dennery Ranch situation was one of the reasons why
the facility was moved to the east to further move the noise away from Dennery to create the
situation the MCA was looking for. The propagation of sound over great distances, over 1500
feet, is affected by a number of factors including how much energy sound loses just through the
effort of trying to travel from point A to point B, the fact that sound spreads over a larger area,
which means there is on a unit quantity basis. As sound continues farther away, it loses
intensity. He gave examples of noise attenuation. In the Robinhood and Dennery Ranch area,
two sound tests were run. The second sound test was basically in order to confirm the results
of the first sound test transferred to the second. They did not try to replicate the second sound
test, but were looking for additional data. The report referenced those two tests and they were
done slightly differently. Everything referred back to the first sound test in terms of
methodology and how loud the amphitheater would be. Mr. Wrightson stated that the dB line
could be anywhere from 7,000 to 10,000 feet away from the amphitheater--in very rough terms,
a mile and a half to two miles.
Commissioner Salas asked if 50 dBA was equivalent to light auto traffic.
Mr. Wrightson replied that the standard metric for 24-hours on roadway use is an annualized
average of 65, which is much lower than what most people listen to the radio and television in
their house. If the ambient were very, very low, 50 dBA would be noticeable. rn a built-up
urban environment, the overall ambient level is raised, but still controlled mostly by vehicular
traffic in residential areas.
PC Minutes
-5-
July 19, 1995
Commissioner Salas clarified that if the ambient noise level in a neighborhood, is 40, then the
50 dBA would not be noticed as much as if the ambient level was at 30?
Mr. Wrightson concurred. If the ambient is very, very low, then a noise doesn't have to be
very loud to be obvious. As the ambient gets higher, less and less of the noises are obvious.
Commissioner Willett was concerned about the sound going up the canyon for Dennery and
Robinhood Ridge. On page 17, it would have been easier to evaluate the 70 dB line, a 60, a
55, and a dB, by actually taking that measurement off the topographic map. Regarding noise
containment or reduction, he suggested putting at the top of the berm the 15 to 20 foot wall
supplanted with trees to break that rolling sound that's going out.
Mr. Wrightson felt that was an excellent comment and that placement of a wall and other
physical construction, as well as administrative control which has to do with control of the sound
level inside of the facility, were both the fundamental efforts of any mitigation plan.
Commissioner Willett also believed there was a misconception regarding the location of the top
set of speakers which were almost at the same height as the far 40 foot berm. He asked if that
was correct for the seating and line sight.
Mr. Wrightson said they were elevated above the stage but they were a little less than that. He
noted that the fact that the main speakers were inside the stage house was a fundamental issue
on the noise mitigation.
Commissioner Willett commented that the sound would be going out and over the far seating.
There would be nothing to stop it.
Mr. Wrightson concurred and said that was the reason for the addition of walls which would be
one of the mitigation measures.
Commissioner Willett commented on the overflow, park and grass area, and asked if it would
be next to the wildlife habitat corridor going up along the Otay River. He asked if the habitat
was protected from the noise by putting extensive berming around that? On the south side going
up the hill, Mr. Willett's suggestion was that it be heavily planted with native trees and coastal
sage to stop the sound rolling up the hill and then rolling up the first canyon to Robinhood and
the second canyon to Dennery.
Mr. Wrightson stated that to the south and the west, they were depending on physical
construction to provide most of the sound attenuation, in addition to the orientation. He said the
canyons were both a blessing and a curse from a noise standpoint. In most locations in the
canyons, it does a very effective job of cutting off line of sight to this facility. They canyon
causes a problem. They had made extensive measurements in that area to document that
phenomena and it was a pretty ragged line running through there just because of the effect of
the canyons. The best thing they could do was to build a substantial stagehouse and those
PC Minutes
-6-
July 19, 1995
auxiliary structures, and make it massive to knock down the sound dramatically going into those
areas.
Commissioner Willett commented that the EIR reported that MCA would be using shields for
lighting, but light tended to bounce off of other structures. He assumed that all the lighting
would be pointed towards the stage area, but the lighting on the further berm of the grass seating
would be higher than the stage structure and would be going up the hillside.
Mr. Bitterlin said the tops of the light standards in the parking lot would in some cases be a little
higher than the light in the lawn seating berm. However, they were also quite distant from the
back of the berm and would not be an intrusion into the facility itself. There are glare guards
on all of those fixtures so the light is somewhat trapped on site.
Commissioner Thomas said he would feel more comfortable if the sound mitigated measures
were done at construction, not after the fact. He thought the mitigation factors would be
necessary, and that they would have to be retrofitted. He would feel a lot more comfortable in
having that sound mitigation done at the time of construction, he thought that everybody was
uncomfortable with the level of the sound.
Mr. Bitterlin replied that with respect to the agreed-upon mitigation measures in the EIR,
consistent with those mitigation measures is the statement that MCA is assuming the risk of
complying with the City of Chula Vista's noise element to the extent that there are no existing
impacted residences at the time that we build this facility. The existing housing in Chula Vista
is absolutely not effected, inaudible, even without mitigation. MCA agreed to the mitigation that
demonstrates the confidence that MCA has in being a good neighbor and complying with the
Chula Vista ordinance and that is the risk that MCA has chosen to assume.
Commissioner Thomas asked how MCA planned to get 20,000 people out of three lanes going
west. He asked what level of concerts they hoped to attract in relationship to people, and what
kind of groups they were attracting.
Mr. Bitterlin said the projected average attendance over a concert season is scheduled to be
9,000 to 10,000 on average, with three to seven sell-outs per year, depending on who is touring.
Mr. Betltman said they could not predict from year to year which groups would be hot. The
new facilities were being designed for multi-level attendance, and to make it a comfortable
setting no matter what the size of the crowd was.
Commissioner Thomas asked again about the traffic.
Environmental Projects Manager Monaco introduced Bill Darnell, the traffic consultant.
Bill Darnell with Darnell & Associates working with BRW on the traffic impact report for the
project, replied that 20,000 people did not mean 20,000 cars. It would be in the range of about
PC Minutes
-7-
July 19, 1995
6,000 cars with some spread out. The peak time was when people would be leaving the theater
rather than coming in. They're spread out more when they're coming in before the
performance.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the 6,000 cars. He believed it would be more like 8,000.
Mr. Darnell said the surveys indicated an average of 3.25 people per car for concerts. He said
the City is looking at widening Otay Valley Road to basically six lanes from 805 to almost the
curve. The recommendation in Phase II of the project was to carry the improvements around
the curve to improve the bridge across the Otay River and into the project area. The width of
the bridge was really the constraint. They want to operate the 50 foot wide bridge on a daily
basis, so there would be one lane in each direction at all times, and then have a very wide
median so that the median in the center could be used by coning or striping, so when the event
was starting it could be coned off with three lanes into the facility. There would be three lanes
going towards the freeway. From the raised median back, traffic would flow so that as people
were coming into the concert, they would be able to maintain three lanes all the way into Otay
Rio Road or into Spyglass. So they could be maneuvered with control people and into the sites,
depending on the parking lots that they were filling. Mr. Darnell said you do your best, get it
open, and start refining it every time there is a concert or different event. Functions could be
devised that are going on on-site that would keep some people staged there a little bit later, so
traffic could be more spread out. With three lanes exiting from a pure capacity standpoint,
about 2,000 cars an hour could exit in those lanes.
Commissioner Thomas noted that for the Otay Valley Road, there were only two lanes from the
bridge south.
Mr. Darnell replied that from the bridge south, there would be the equivalent of five lanes.
Commissioner Thomas noted Otay Valley Road had six lanes east to west, then going to the
south.
Mr. Darnel1 said that going to the south, south of the project were just the two lanes that were
presently there. Staff felt very confident with the existing signals, controls that could be put in
place, and the improvements with Otay Valley Road interchange. Brandywine and Orange could
be used. The primary goal was to use Otay Valley Road to the interchange, and as part of the
mitigation program, the applicant needed to work with the City, CalTrans and everyone else
until there was a unified approach.
Commissioner Salas, regarding air market operations on Thursday through Sundays, asked how
many vendors typically would be using the market and how many shoppers there would be.
Mr. Monaco said he thought the numbers assumed in the EIR was the worst-case scenario of 250
vendors and approximately 4,000 automobile trips.
PC Minutes
-8-
July 19, 1995
Commissioner Salas asked if all the concerts started at 8:00 or if some started earlier.
Mr. Bitterlin replied that 90% of the concerts would be at 8:00, primarily because of the light
conditions, but there could be earlier ones.
Commissioner Salas was concerned that if there was a 6 0' clock closing time and all the vendors
and customers were leaving the area, and people coming in to attend the concert, that might
cause some congestion.
Mr. Bitterlin said he had been in several meetings focusing on how that would work. MCA had
faith in Kobey's present operation at the Sports Arena and their ability to exit when there is an
event at the Sports Arena with an hour to break camp and get cleaned up. Mr. Bitterlin said that
MCA also had the ability to move them around on the site so that the lots filled first would
vacate first.
Commissioner Salas pointed out that some concert attendees liked to make an event of it,
arriving at concert much earlier than start time. She asked if they had seen that happen at their
amphitheaters.
Mr. Bitterlin stated that it varied from act to act. There were some that had a natural tendency
to bring a lot of general admission people that are going to sit on the lawn. They tend to arrive
early because that's a first-come, first-serve situation. That was part of the operations plan.
It would be considered at each concert--what they expect for general admission, when they
expect people to arrive to start lining up, and it goes into their overall plan for that night's
traffic control and patron control.
Commissioner Salas stated that it might not be realistic for some concerts to have the traffic
people there at 6 o'clock.
Mr. Bitterlin said that was the most typical situation, and the one typically for a sell-out show,
but it is not always that. The plan of attack of how they service the patrons and their vehicles
would be adjusted as the concert demands.
Commissioner Salas questioned whether MCA would be willing to rethink the hours of operation
of the open market if there was a consistent problem with the vendors and the shoppers trying
to exit the area and the concert attendees coming in.
Mr. Bitterlin said he couldn't speak to that particular issue relative to that operation. He didn't
believe there would be a problem, because those very issues are being resolved on a very regular
basis at the sports arena. Should it become a problem, they would have to sit down and
anticipate either moving them to another location where it didn't impact MCA and allows them
to get their people in, or possibly an adjustment to the open air market hours of operation.
Commissioner Ray asked staff what precipitated the shortened review period of the EIR.
PC Minutes
-9-
July 19, 1995
Mr. Monaco said that was as a result of a request from the applicant due to their scheduling
requirements.
Commissioner Ray asked what was unique about the scheduling requirements that would cause
the requested short review period.
Mr. Bitterlin replied that the goal was to finish the construction of the project and have a full
concert season next year.
Commissioner Ray stated he would like to see the technical appendices laid out better. It was
extremely difficult to look through, and very difficult to relate the two documents. He asked
to see something that would more closely align the draft with the technical appendices relative
to ease of looking up the data and information. Additionally, on any of the sound maps and the
topographical maps that show the dBA and the ranges of the dBA, including a specific overlay
ofChula Vista's General Plan, San Diego's General Plan, and the City's proposed plans for the
Otay Ranch, specifically Villages 1, 2, 3,4,7 and 8.
Chair Tuchscher noted that the public hearing was not finished, and called Kent Aden of the
Baldwin Company to the microphone.
Kent Aden, the Baldwin Company, 11975 EI Camino Real, San Diego, said they were not
opposed to an amphitheater in the City of Chula Vista. They thought it would be a benefit and
would be a good amenity for the city. However, they had numerous concerns about the current
proposal. The EIR failed to adequately address the noise impacts relative to the approved and
planned development of the Otay Ranch. The noise study itself was faulty, and the conclusions
were faulty. The EIR did not analyze whether the mitigation measures were adequate or
feasible, and Baldwin had grave concerns about deferring them. They also had concerns related
to the adequacy of the transportation analysis. Mr. Aden said the Baldwin Company remained
extremely concerned with the proposed project and the adequacy of the EIR. They looked
forward to receiving a response to their letter.
Walter Fisher, Post Office Box 3666, Chula Vista, said he was in favor of the project. He
favored this one over the amphitheater on the Bay because he did not think Coronado would
cooperate regarding the noise that the amphitheater on the Bay would provide, and the people
who own the lease on the R.V. park until 2021 had said they were not willing to give up their
property in order to turn it over to an amphitheater. The concerns expressed by the City of San
Diego were self-serving, and all cities in the County need projects like this and need to develop
economically. He was disappointed that the Baldwin Company objected to this. The
amphitheater looked like it was pointed into an area that would not build out for something like
10 to 15 years. San Diego's objection was also to their projects, which are future development.
It had been stated in press reports that the amphitheater would actually generate less traffic and
less problems and less air pollution than an industrial facility which was originally planned for
the site. He thought this would essentially give Chula Vista a drawing card that may not be seen
for years on the Bayfront or anyplace else. It was a world class organization, an entertainment
PC Minutes
-10-
July 19, 1995
giant, that would draw people here. Local groups would be given a chance to make money off
the facility by participating in the food service area. The problems could be mitigated.
Regarding the road leading away to the south, in San Diego's General Plan it would eventually
be a four-lane road going up to Heritage Road. He thought it was the best of the two proposals
for the City and probably the best effort for any kind of drawing card in the immediate future.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Ray added that he would like to see the overlays for noise impact and traffic on
ancillary streets; the impact on the Auto Park; specific responses to Baldwin's concerns; page
2 of the agenda package, item 3 on noise; page 3, item 4, air quality; and item 2. If these were
going to be mitigable in the future, he would like to see something in place that would address
and maybe listed alternatives for implementation of the mitigations up front versus the impact
later. He suspected there would be more congestion before anything was done, and he wanted
to see what some of those impacts were over time. If the build-out truly wouldn't be until 2010,
it may not be important to implement those now. However, if Chula Vista wanted to develop
the industrial uses there and Baldwin wanted to put the residential uses there, the impact would
be quicker. He wanted to see that trade-off as well. There were some references in the draft
itself that were approximate. Commissioner Ray asked to see some specifics the number that
were used for the modeling. He also asked if Mr. Salomone, Director of Community
Development, if there were any agreements in terms of widening of the streets.
Community Development Director Salomone stated they were negotiating a development
agreement with MCA and with Kobey's that would come back. They would be happy to share
it with the Planning Commission at the August 9th meeting. It would be going to the City
Council on the August 22 meeting.
Commissioner Ray said he would like to see a draft.
Commissioner Willett asked staff if the Heritage Bridge was included in Phase III, and if the
road was now in Phase II.
Mr. Monaco concurred, and stated that Phase III of. the road improvements was the
improvements for the bridge itself and for the approaches to the bridge.
Commissioner Willett asked if Phase III was scheduled for Year 2020 or if it was 2005?
Mr. Monaco replied that that was the current phase. Currently, Phases II and III were being
improved. So the bridge would be improved as a part of the existing contract being carried out
now, probably 1996.
Commissioner Willett said he supported Mr. Ray's comments on referring the document back
to the technical appendices. He suggested that staff make a simple chart that could be put in the
front of the book that references to the technical appendices sub chapter similar to a footnote in
PC Minutes
-11-
July 19, 1995
some technical reports, but up in front. He also recommended that in the final report,
clarification of the MSCP map in the final report and the impact that would have on the project
the way they've drawn the current line.
Mr. Monaco replied that he understood the latest of the draft MSCP map showed the entire
project area which is all of the improved portion of the Phase I of the business park, as
urbanized land. Staff would verify that and check those maps again.
Commissioner Willett commented that there was another minor conflict between the focus
planning area of the Otay Regional Valley Park in that the south edge of the project is
considered as part of the greenbelt to be revegetated by the developer. It seemed that the project
would be a stumbling block in the Otay Regional Valley Park. There is a conflict between that
map also.
Mr. Monaco explained that there currently was a 40-ft. wide easement on the northern end of
the property that was contemplated to be used as an active trail as a part of both the City of
Chula Vista greenbelt and as a part of the Otay River Park. As far as the treatment on the south
edge, staff hadn't received any direction or any ideas on how to incorporate that into the park.
Staff had been working closely with the applicant on those issues.
Commissioner Willett stated that Dennery Canyon and Robinhood Estates were designated as
wildlife corridors which continues down to the western edge.
Mr. Monaco said that in the meetings staff and the applicant had with Fish & Game and with
Fish & Wildlife, it was suggested that southern area be used as a wildlife corridor. They didn't
seem to feel that it had a lot of value as a corridor because of the terrain and the vegetation
cover, but they did want to see that kept in open space to preserve the coastal sage scrub existing
on that slope. That was a recommendation in the ElR.
Commissioner Willett stated he was concerned with the response for the fire station. The EIR
stated a 12-minute response time, which is 5 minutes above the standard. That would not come
down until probably Year 2015 or when Baldwin puts in two fire stations. The station in San
Diego area, Number 43, would not be open until 1998. He thought the EIR should respond that
the developer have a fire suppression unit on hand, especially with the response of 12 minutes
and the other one in excess of 7 minutes.
Commissioner Salas said she would like to see a recommendation in the traffic mitigation
measures. r would strongly recommend that MCA think about a shuttle system from public
points of access; for example, from the various trolley lines. The shuttle system would do a lot
to mitigate the traffic going in and out, if not a direct bus lines from certain points to the event.
Mr. Monaco commented that the Resource Conservation Commission was also concerned about
that issue, and as a condition of their approval, they wanted to add that specific provision for
remote parking and shuttle services, in addition to the City establishing a transit line from
PC Minutes
-12-
July 19, 1995
various transit nodes in the trolley stations within the City to the facility. Those would be added
in the final EIR.
Chair Tuchscher added that United Enterprises seemed absent from any comment or discussions,
and he asked if staff had noticed them relative to this and other upcoming meetings?
Mr. Monaco confirmed that they had been noticed along with all other property owners within
1,000 and, additionally for this project, staff had included the neighborhoods to the east of 805
and north of Otay Valley Road--all of those residential neighborhoods in that area south of
Orange Avenue. Approximately 1,500 notices were sent out on each of the items for this EIR.
Chair Tuchscher agreed with Mr. Ray's comments relative to the maps and exhibits. He would
like to see a General Plan map with those contours on it with approved projects including the
San Diego approved projects. He also asked that in the staff report, of the San Diego projects
which ones had been subject to San Diego's imposed moratorium over the last seven years. And
he also asked for an exhibit that showed the United Enterprises ownership as opposed to the
Baldwin property ownership.
MS (Ray/Willett) that the Planning Commission accept the draft EIR with the comments
as noted, and direct staff to prepare the final EIR.
Chair Tuchscher asked if staff could give a quick example of some precedent for providing for
a shortened circulation period for the draft EIR document.
Mr. Monaco said the last example in the City was for the Kaiser Hospital. That was done on
a 30-day review period.
Chair Tuchscher asked the basis for creating that type of situation a circulation period IS
shortened.
Mr. Monaco explained that it requires approval by the State Office of Planning and Research.
When the City requested approval by that office, they asked City staff to make the request of
all of the reviewing agencies at the State level. Approval was obtained from all those agencies,
and the Office of Planning and Research did approve the City's request for the shortened review
period.
Commissioner Willett requested that verbiage be added explaining how that approval was
obtained, the justification and reference to the appropriate rules.
Mr. Monaco stated that staff could provide that and could quote the section in CEQA that
provided for that. CEQA provides for a minimum 30-day review period. The typical is 45 days
unless it requested for a shortened review.
PC Minutes
-13-
July 19, 1995
Commissioner Willett commented also that the allowances of CEQA should be expanded on
regarding the use of data from a prior EIR. He felt it should be explained in more depth.
Chair Tuchscher suggested, since there were several new members on the Commission, that
perhaps a CEQA workshop might be scheduled to go through those types of issues.
VOTE: 6-0
MCA CHULA VISTA AMPHITHEATER
FINAL EIR (EIR-95-03)
ERRATA SHEET
The attached page should replace page 5-1.
/
Ocher CEQA Sections
I
!
'.0 OTHER CEQA MANDATED SECTIONS
CEQA requires the discussion of unavoidable significant environmental impacts, significant
irreversible impacts, growth inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts related to the developed
of the proposed project.
'.1 UNA VOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT F.NVTRONMENTAL IMPACTS
An analysis of environmental impacts caused by the proposed project has been conducted and
is contained in Section 3.0. Unavoidable significant environmental impacts to AlliE' alia air
quality were identified. Th~ Fr:~ Q[.d F]:Qj<<t "'9\11&\ FeEYlt ill dt9A ~AR 1JRa','eiQa.91e ~igRi~ea.Rt
ilRFa~t.I: 19 R~i[. g);lycl"t '9~' peFi9dis ';"RS.r-t ....Rt.! at the )(C> C}'a~1a "itta AA1~hit.A.at.r. The
proposed project would result in unavoidable significant impacts to air quality caused by the
increased vehicle emissions caused by increased traffic to the proposed project.
5.2 TRREVERSmLE OR TRRFTRTF.V ABLE IMPACTS
Construction and operation of the proposed project will result in consu~ption of water and
nonrenewable energy resources and will require lumber, steel, sand, gravel, and other resources
for building materials which will have a significant irreversible effect on such resources.
5.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed project will have minor growth-inducing impacts on the City of Chula Vista and
the City of San Diego, Otay Mesa Community Area. The proposed project would result in an
increase of county-wide employment opportUnities related to the MCA Chula Vista Amphitheater
and open air market. The creation of employment opportUnities may result in an increase in
employed individuals relocating to the cities of Chula Vista and San Diego. The employment
opportUnities would be limited and would not contribute to a significant amount of growth.
MCA Chu/4 Vi.JI4 lu'yloilJlctJU'
FiNU E/R
5./
C/Jy 0/ Chu/4 V'IS/D
A..psI /995