Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1995/09/06 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:10 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, September 6, 1995 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Salas, Tarantino, and Willett (7:23 p.m.) COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Miller, Community Development Director Salomone, Environmental Projects Manager Monaco, Sr. Civil Engineer Thomas, Deputy City Attorney Googins PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Tarantino/Davis) 5-0 (Commissioner Thomas not yet arrived) to excuse Commissioner Willett because of a prior commitment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Tarantino/Salas) to approve the Planning Commission Meetings of July 19 (4-0-1-2, Davis abstained; Willett excused; Thomas not yet arrived) and July 26, 1995 (5-0-0-2, Willett excused; Thomas not yet arrived). MSC (Davis/Salas) 5-0 (Willett excused; Thomas not yet arrived) to approve the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Growth Management Oversight Committee and the Planning PC Minutes -2- September 6, 1995 Commission of July 25, 1995. Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Tarantino and Ray stated they had read the minutes and believed them to be accurate. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR-95-03, MCA CHULA VISTA AMPHITHEATER Environmental Projects Manager Monaco presented the staff report. In the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, the Commission accepted comments on the Draft EIR and directed staff to prepare the Final EIR. The conclusion of the study was that there were a number of significant impacts, all of which could be mitigated to less than significant levels with mitigation proposed in the EIR, except for those of regional air quality. Those impacts are regional in nature and there is no project level mitigation for them. Mr. Monaco noted that 11 letters of comment were received on the Draft EIR during the public review period. The three major categories of those comments consisted of noise, traffic, and biological impacts. The Final EIR addressed those comments and responded to the verbal comments also received at the July 19 meeting. Although the comments raised some issues that resulted in clarifying comments and language inserted into the Final EIR, the comments did not raise any significant issues that resulted in any change in the determination of significance of the impacts in the Final EIR. Mr. Monaco noted that staff recommended certification of the Final EIR to the City Council as being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Willett arrived at this time (7:23 p.m.). Although the Final EIR was not advertised as a public hearing, Chair Tuchscher noted that the Planning Commission would take public testimony. He asked that the speakers keep their comments contained to the Environmental Impact Report and environmental issues only, since they would be dealing with the conditional use and project approval subsequent to this portion of the meeting. He asked that staff assist in clarifying which issues are relative to the EIR versus the issues which should be separated out to be covered under the conditional use permit project approval. He asked the Commissioners to note the project issues so they could be discussed at the project level. Kim Kilkenny, 3938 Syne Drive, San Diego, representing the Baldwin Company and the affiliate entities under the general umbrella of the United Enterprises which own portions of the Otay Ranch, said they were opposed because of the inadequacy of the EIR. Mr. Kilkenny distributed a memo to the Commissioners which gave information regarding other amphitheaters located in Colorado and Palo Alto, California, which had problems with noise. He focused on the issue of noise, because he thought it was the most glaring deficiency and had the most adverse affect on Otay Ranch. Mr. Kilkenny showed on a graphic that there were no noise receptors on Otay Ranch when testing was done, and the noise contours from the test results. He asked why there were noise receptors everywhere except Otay Ranch; he would have welcomed being there when the noise test was conducted. He questioned the tests that were PC Minutes -3- September 6, 1995 done; one was conducted during the daytime, not at night; was conducted under clear climate; and was conducted from a noise source from the amphitheater at 95 decibels. Concerts typically run from 100 to 110 decibels. He was concerned that the neighbors in the area or the Baldwin Company were not notified. They thought the noise test was inadequate and suggested that staff provide copies of the Poway EIR since it had a more extensive noise analysis than Chula Vista's. The second issue Mr. Kilkenny discussed was the impact of weather and its effect on noise. Otay Ranch would begin development in Villages 1 and 5 and hoped to move to Villages 2, 3 and 4 to the south immediately thereafter. He noted that the southern SPA was different from that approved in the General Development Plan, because they were internally thinking of doing an adult community there--in the area Chula Vista had designated as industrial. He placed an overlay of the noise contours on top of the areas mentioned. He stated that, according to a noise test which he considered faulty, very significant noise contours extended on into Village 2 and the edges of Village 1. He said the major cause of noise in the neighborhoods resulting in complaints is the inversion layer which holds sound in. He was concerned that the Chula Vista report did not address inversion layers, which he said caused noise to bounce tremendous distances--up to five miles away. Mr. Kilkenny depicted on a graphic with an overlay of Otay Ranch the impact of noise through an inversion layer on Otay Ranch, which would be more severe at a three-mile distance from the amphitheater than a two-mile distance. He said the noise impact would go to Telegraph Canyon, EastLake Greens, and Village 1 and 5 in its impact. He felt if there was a single reason that the EIR was deficient, the fact that this was not addressed in the EIR was the reason. Thirdly, Mr. Kilkenny was concerned about the certainty of mitigation. The proposed mitigation to build a wall or have the volume of the speakers turned down, if there were complaints, was not sufficient. There was nothing to guarantee that would be done. Mr. Kilkenny showed a video which had been taken by a resident in Palo Alto who lives 4-1/2 miles away from an amphitheater. The video was recorded at 11:00 p.m. and showed the impact on his residence, inside and outside. It also showed a proponent of the proposed amphitheater who stated they would correct any problem which might arise from the amphitheater. Mr. Kilkenny stated that, relative to the evidence in the tape, it was easy to suggest that at some future date, they would come back and rectify the situation. He was concerned that the EIR did not in any way analyze the feasibility of the proposed mitigation. He noted that a study from a scientific journal suggested that loud music from amphitheaters is not readily testable in terms of conventional noise monitoring, because it is a low frequency noise that tends to go through barriers through walls into homes and can be felt in addition to being heard. The EIR did not consider the relative frequency level of the noise emanating from the amphitheater. Mr. Kilkenny said he was uncomfortable attacking EIRs, and he asked that the Commission consider his comments and look at the experience of other communities and not certify the EIR. He noted that the reason given for the one noise receptor in Otay Ranch was that they were considering the southern side because of the canyon system. He stated that Wolf Canyon was PC Minutes -4- September 6, 1995 on the north side which had only one receptor. He did not consider that a valid noise test. He said he was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Salas was concerned that the Commissioners had been looking at the adequacy of the EIR based on the Otay Ranch as it was approved on the General Development Plan. With the revisions to the General Development Plan, there would be serious impacts. This appeared to be a radical change and she was uncomfortable that it looked like the village concept had been abandoned. One of the reasons the Otay Ranch project was approved was because of the innovative concept of the village concept. Mr. Kilkenny replied that in terms of areas that are developable, this was not a departure of the Otay Ranch approved plan. The one area where the land use is different is Village 3. If that was an industrial area and not a residential area, the impact would still be identical. With respect to the village concept, the village concept is applied in the transit-oriented villages. He noted the areas using the village concept, and said the villages surrounding the canyon were never contemplated. Commissioner Ray asked if Baldwin had used a noise specialist to derive the figures. Mr. Kilkenny replied that they had used a noise specialist to analyze the EIR and provide comments. All the data sources were from the EIR. They did not create any new data. Commissioner Ray commented that the diversion layer effect was created by their specialist. He asked if there was anything more technical and if they had an expert say these were defensible numbers and defensible ranges the sound would travel given an inversion layer. Mr. Kilkenny said they had a report from the National Weather Service saying there are inversion layers in South San Diego County. Baldwin did not feel it was their obligation to bring experts forward. Commissioner Ray said he would be mom comfortable basing a decision on new information such as this if it were from a technical individual and expert in that field. Mr. Kilkenny said they could endeavor to do that but felt it was the obligation of the applicant. Commissioner Willett said he agreed regarding the inversion layer. His discussion with the weather people concurred. He personally had overlooked the wind factor in the discussion which was not picked up in the EIR. He was told by the weather people that with a knot five miles or greater, that the load actually would move east. He asked if Mr. Kilkenny had any comment on the impact of the wind which he understood could go from 5 miles up to 15 miles with an inversion layer; then when the dew point dropped down, the sound could actually move to the east. Mr. Kilkenny replied that they had not done any additional research on the effect of wind. He agreed with Commissioner Willett's conclusion that wind had an impact. They felt the inversion layer had a greater impact. Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Kilkenny to clarify his relationship relative to this matter with United Enterprises. Mr. Kilkenny stated he had been meeting with the two representatives of PC Minutes -5- September 6, 1995 United Enterprises and told them about the project. They had told United Enterprises about their concerns, and had been told that they could express concerns on their behalf. United Enterprises has title to the southwestern corner of Otay Ranch, and would be significantly impacted. Chair Tuchscher commented that Mr. Kilkenny's relationship with United Enterprises on this matter was informal. Mr. Kilkenny stated they verbally said they could represent them. Commissioner Tarantino, referring to the technical appendices, asked if at 70 decibels would be like a noisy restaurant, a traffic freeway; 60 decibels, etc. Mr. Kilkenny said he had no cause to disagree with that; he did not purport to be an expert on noise. He made an additional point that one of the key issues was not only the volume of the noise but the ambient noise around it. Commissioner Willett asked Mr. Kilkenny if in his discussion with their noise experts, if there was discussion regarding repositioning the speakers with the cone at the top of the berm and coming down possibly 30 degrees, or if there was any discussion of the effectiveness of panels. Mr. Kilkenny replied negatively. Chair Tuchscher asked if Mr. Willett could ask that question of the applicant. Commissioner Salas asked if Mr. Kilkenny brought a map of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan as approved so the Commission could see the relationship of the approved plan and the overlay. She wanted to see how it affected the Otay Ranch Project as approved today. It could be that the amendments to the plan are never approved. Mr. Kilkenny repeated that the only change made was in Village 3. Everything else under the Otay Ranch Plan could be developed as residential. Commissioner Salas asked to see the overlay, so she could see the decibel ranges. Chair Tuchscher noted that the area in question was Village 3, which is currently zoned under the Chula Vista General Plan as industrial. Mr. Kilkenny said that was the only area difference under the General Plan. Commissioner Tarantino asked in terms of the video and the Spencer Davis group performing in Palo Alto, what decibel was that. It didn't sound like it was quiet living room or bedroom noise. Mr. Kilkenny did not know the decibels. Chair Tuchscher asked staff to comment if they felt it was warranted on issues relevant more to the project than the EIR. Mr. Monaco stated that the issues brought up by Mr. Kilkenny were almost entirely related to the EIR. Mabel Poteet, 1623 Ocala Avenue, CV, stated she would give her time to Mr. Kilkenny. PC Minutes -6- September 6, 1995 Milton Hunt, 1649 Oleander Avenue, CV, said they could hear the gun range when they practice. It is bothersome, and if the amphitheater is anything like that or greater, it would be a noise hazard. Traffic would be also be noise and pollution to their area. Karoly Toth, 1661 Oleander Avenue, CV, opposed the project. He had fought the racetrack, Omar Rendering Plan, the garbage truck depot, and if this came in he would have to move. He can sit in his back yard at night and hear the shots from the firing range. He said he could hear the freeway, and the wind factor made a difference in the noise. Chair Tuchscher reminded the speakers that the Commission was dealing with environmental impact issues. If they would like to reserve their time to speak to the project, they would be dealing with the conditional use permit immediately following the EIR. Robert Moriarity, Ocala Avenue, CV, said the impression in the neighborhood was that this was a done deal and that they were wasting their time. The facts that he had were facts given in the staff report. He felt it was not a good thing for his part of the city. Staff admitted considerable impacts, and he was not sure what the mitigation was. The report stated that if the noise was too loud, the residents could call the police and the police would force the noise level down. However, if there was a special dispensation for zoning, whatever noise they made was not a nuisance by definition of the law, but became environmental law. The residents in that case could not call the police. He was concerned about possibly having to have a sticker to go down his street, if the street were closed off. He was also concerned that if there was not enough parking or if the concert-goers did not want to pay the fee, they would park in his neighborhood. The ordinance did not clarify anything, but gave them carte blanch to make any noise they wanted as long as the Commission gave them the conditional use permit. At one point, there was a speedway further south of the proposed amphitheater site, and they could hear the noise all the hours it ran. The productions at the amphitheater would run until midnight. They would not be able to escape the noise without going into their homes and closing the doors and windows. Still they would be subject to 45 decibels. He suggested the Commission use a machine, set up some rock music in the room, and set it at 45 decibel reading instead of allowing staff to tell them that 45 decibels was a bedroom noise. He did not think the Planning Commission was supporting the citizenry by allowing this to go through. Chair Tuchscher noted that Mr. Moriarity had spoken to a great degree on item 3 on the agenda, the zoning text amendment. Mr. Monaco stated the comments related to noise were environmental impact in nature. As far as the amendment to clarify a nuisance versus environmental noise, the environmental noise classification is applied to land uses contemplated for a particular site or a particular facility. It was staff's opinion that an amphitheater was specifically designed for concert events and, therefore, should be classified as environmental noise. The amendment clarifies that a conditional use permit is offered the same definition as a use permitted by right. Regarding parking, there is a total of 6,000 spaces provided in that facility which is consistent with what the traffic report has indicated as the number of cars that would be visiting a full-capacity event with 20,000 seats. In addition, staff had required as a condition of approval for the applicant to provide for the facilitation of transit ridership and also PC Minutes -7- September 6, 1995 to provide for off-site parking and busing to the facility to further enhance the ability to park all cars and reduce auto trips. The speaker referred to a 45 decibel standard as being an interior standard; that standard was actually an exterior standard and is set by the City's noise ordinance and is one of the environmental threshold criteria set forth in the noise ordinance, not anything specific to this project. Gale Moriarity, Ocala Avenue, CV, in regard to Commissioner Ray's comment in relation to the EIR report and whether or not sounds would travel, said that the EIR did not mention the inversion layer, but in the evening the breezes go from the inland out to the ocean. Their homes were cooled by the ocean in the morning and by the cool land in the evening. The cooler land would impact the neighborhood closer to 1-805. They had heard shooting from the gun range, and dogs from the animal shelter. The speedway was southeast of Brown Field, which was over 5 miles. The amphitheater would be only 2 miles from them. The neighbors were not very concerned about the amphitheater, because they couldn't determine where it was by the maps which were sent with the notice. They were surprised it was going to be so close. She thought that was one of the reasons them were no more people in attendance. Curtis Johnson, 1632 Oleander Avenue, CV, was opposed and hoped that some arrangement could be made where noise would not invade to the point he would feel it necessary to move from his residence. Robert Giacobassi, 1648 Ocala Avenue, CV, felt the EIR was a very big issue and that the Planning Commission did not have a total package to look at. He stated that Mr. Monaco had received 10 letters of complaint, but he did not feel it was enough of an issue to look at. Mrs. Salas wanted to deal with what's now and not what's in the future. Mr. Giacobassi said they were here now and plan on being hem in the future. It seemed to him that the EIR was done too hastily to give an accurate and in-depth study to make a good decision. He felt staff was trying to get the project to the City Council by using exemptions to noise, traffic, and car pollution. Although it is a Iow-volume system in compliance with Chula Vista's standards, he can hear Fuller Ford's public address system at his home two blocks away. Mr. Giacobassi said that showed that it did not work. He was also concerned that his family had been contacted by MCA asking why they were against the project. Chair Tuchscher commented that the information shared by each and every person was weighed evenly; the fact that they may have questions was not to give the impression that the Planning Commissioner's mind is made up; the Commission's job is to question the information put in front of them in written form and by public testimony, to deliberate on those and then make decisions. He asked those present to keep in mind that everyone was on the same team. Don Bridwell, 1545 Olive, CV, felt there was enough noise in the neighborhood already with the park across the street, the gun range, Omar Rendering, etc. He wanted the Planning Commission to reconsider this. Neva Bridwell, 1545 Olive, CV, submitted a speaker slip in opposition but did not speak. PC Minutes -8- September 6, 1995 Colleen Seegers, 1672 Oleander Ave., CV, deferred her time to Mr. Kilkenny - opposed. Robert Losba, 505 Timber St., CV, submitted a speaker slip in opposition but did not speak. Betty Johnson, 1546 Olive Ave., CV, was concerned about noise, traffic, and the possibility of increased crime. She moved from National City to a nice, quiet, crime-free neighborhood. She was afraid the same thing would happen as in National City. She urged the Commission not to approve the MCA amphitheater. Doug Fuller, 560 Auto Park Drive, CV, representing the Chula Vista Auto Park, clarified that the Chula Vista Auto Park supported the project. One of the reasons for considering the area originally was because it was a developing area, an area that showed further growth. He had supported the Otay Ranch project, and it was one of the reasons Chula Vista Auto Park was viable in its present location. He was familiar with the process of EIRs, and after going through the process for the Chula Vista Auto Park and having "gone through the hoops," he felt it was unlikely that staff would "roll over" on a project that would affect the existing residents in the area with no concern over their quality of life. As a native Chula Vistan, business owner and property owner, it seemed to him to be a good project for Chula Vista, a world-class type of development, something that Chula Vista could be proud of, and something that would be a reality in the near future. He urged the Commission to accept the staff report and vote in favor. Charles Schrader, 440 "L" Street, #I, CV, stated he would speak to the project approval. Brian Seltzer, 750 B Street, S.D. 92101, stated he would speak to the conditional use permit. Chris Bitterlin, Bitterlin-Brice Development Partners, 525 B Street, SD, representing MCA, presented information regarding the work which had been done between the time of finding the property and actually beginning the EIR process. He noted the very high standards MCA had regarding making the investment, being a good neighbor, and believing that it would be an enhancement to the existing neighborhood and to Otay Ranch and the City of Chula Vista. He noted they were prepared to answer any questions raised to this point in the meeting. He noted that Jack Wrightson, the #1 sound consultant on amphitheaters in the world, was in attendance at the meeting. His job was to lead MCA in such a fashion as to not have future problems. MCA was comfortable with the process and with the results of the EIR. Chair Tuchscher pointed out to the Commission that Mr. Bitterlin and MCA had a formal presentation, which they had been asked to make during the public hearing on the conditional use permit. Commissioner Willett, regarding inversion layers, temperature change, weather density, wind velocity, speaker location, berm location, and panel location, said he still had apprehensions regarding the installation of sound panels which would only be done after some period of time. He was also concerned with the location of speakers, the cone tilting down, having the speakers PC Minutes -9- September 6, 1995 outboard to take the total volume down. He asked the MCA representatives to summarize what MCA had said since those discussions came up. Mr. Bitterlin reminded the Commission that the test MCA was meeting as part of the environmental review was absolute compliance with the Chula Vista noise ordinance. Although it was a strict test, MCA had determined that it could and would meet it. Commissioner Ray asked if that was existing levels. Mr. Bitterlin said they were not asking for any changes in periods of time of the day or any sound levels. Jack Wrightson, of the acoustical consulting firm of Wrightson, Johnson, Hadden and Williams of Dallas, Texas, answering Commissioner Willett, stated them were two loud speaker systems typical to an amphitheater--the loud speakers which travel with the performer and the lawn speaker system either mounted on the roof of the facility or on towers. Mr. Wrightson explained the differences in the systems and gave examples of how they would be used. He showed examples of amphitheaters in different areas. Commissioner Willett stated that depending on the frequency and the amplitude, the inversion layer and the wind, the sound would travel at quite some distance which there would be no control over the volume or the frequency or amplitude with the cycle. Mr. Wrightson replied that they did control the speakers by limiting the distance the speakers could be pulled into the air. The elevation of the loud speaker was an important aspect relative to how high it was in respect to the wall. It was the intent to keep the loud speakers low to the ground in this facility. Mr. Wrightson noted that mechanically there was only one touring loud speaker system that would allow it to be rigged pointing up. They am all set up to point flat and down. He noted that a relatively small percentage of the performers performed at a level of 105 and 110 decibels. The operator has to make a decision to either write into the contracts of the acts that they must conform to the levels below 105. It was possible, within reason, to keep the bands down to a lower level. He noted that was one of the aspects of mitigation in the EIR report. The contours showed in the slide Mr. Kilkenny had presented were the unmitigated contours. It was their belief that MCA through a combination and construction and operational controls could drop that down 10 db. On that basis, they believed they could meet the existing Chula Vista noise ordinance after 10 p.m. Commissioner Ray asked for a response to Mr. Kilkenny's presentation regarding the effect of the inversion layer. Mr. Wrightson stated that he would not argue against the impacts regarding shoreline amphitheater in Mountain View and its impact on Palo Alto. Applying that data to the proposed site was questionable, highly debatable and probably wrong. On the information they had received from the Weather Service based on Brown Field was that the inversions are not severe in this area and do not occur frequently during the summer months. He proceeded to explain how an inversion works. He stated that if there was a strong and sharp temperature inversion, sound refracted off that layer, bouncing off of the boundary between the warm and cold air. The sound moves differently between the two boundary layers, shifting it basically. PC Minutes -10- September 6, 1995 Winds disturb the inversion to the greatest extent; it would be very rare to have a strong inversion at the same time as a Santa Ana condition, because the winds tend to mix up the air and don't allow that sharp boundary to occur. He noted that the Palo Alto topography was also different in that the area is primarily flat, coastal land. The proposed area topography consists of elevation changes up to 200 feet. Also, the climate in the San Francisco area is significantly different from the South Bay area. He stated that it was important to note that the San Francisco Bay Area with its unique climatic conditions was the only amphitheater they were aware of in the United States that had that type of inversion problem. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Wrightson if he had had a chance to read the letter from Scripps Institute of Oceanography which had been distributed by Mr. Kilkenny. Mr. Wrightson replied that it was talking almost exclusively about the inversion layer which happened over water. He explained the difference between an inversion over water and over land. Commissioner Ray stated that the examples given by Mr. Kilkenny, being over the mountains or over the water, are very different from the Otay Mesa/Otay Valley site and he would like to see if there is some documentation on a facility that was similar topographically and in proximity to water, and if there were any complaints registered. Mr. Wrightson stated that he did not have any data, and pointed out that he was not a meteorologist and that he was giving information that experts had given him. He would, however, be able to answer questions regarding climate. Commissioner Ray asked if there had been a study of the impacts of the mitigation measures as to whether they would actually work to mitigate the impacts. Mr. Wrightson said they were confident in what the sound walls would do. He explained the effect of the walls to be installed in the proposed amphitheaters and the attenuation of the sound from the walls and administrative control. He noted the sound levels could be turned down a total of 10 dBA over the unmitigated noise level. The 55 dBA would after mitigation become 45 dBA, which would be consistent with the post 10 p.m. Chula Vista noise ordinance. Commissioner Davis asked where the speakers were located during the testing. Mr. Wrightson replied that the top of the speakers were about 10 fl. off the ground, a little lower than they would be in an actual concert. However, they had made no corrections in that the stage would be excavated relative to the existing ground level. Commissioner Salas, referring to the technical appendices of the EIR, questioned the typical sound pressure from a rock and roll band shown as 105 to 110 dBA. The noise measurement devices were put in places where the residences were most likely to be impacted as well as future impacts. She noted the testing was done at 105 dBA. She asked if the testing shouldn't have been done in a worst-case scenario using 110 dBA. Mr. Wrightson stated that MCA had determined that 105 was as loud as they would ever let anyone go in the proposed facility in an unmitigated situation. Also, as reported by Mr. Kilkenny, 105 is also consistent with the vast majority of the popular music acts. The performance could go as high as 110, but was relatively rare. PC Minutes -11- September 6, 1995 Commissioner Salas asked what the difference would be in that 5 dBA in terms of projecting out. Mr. Wrightson stated the applicant had agreed to observe the Chula Vista noise ordinance. He said the sound could be scaled up or down. Using a gun shot as an example, he said that typically at a distance of 3 feet, a gun shot could be as much as 130 or 140 dBA from a large calibre gun. Commissioner Salas noted that one of the complaints that the residents had was that they could hear the gunshot blasts. She asked if the gunshot blasts would be louder than the rock band. Mr. Wrightson said the gunshot blast would be louder but more sporadic. He noted that someone could be well within the Chula Vista noise ordinance and the sound could still be audible, which may be the condition with the complaint of the address system of the Chula Vista Auto Park. He thought it was important to recognize the fact that the applicant had agreed to meet the noise ordinance, not that the facility would never be audible to existing or future residents. Commissioner Tarantino asked Mr. Wrightson to comment on canyons either facilitating the movement of sound or inhibiting the movement of sound. Mr. Wrightson replied that one of the reasons they had studied everything so intensively to the south of the site was because the topography was very rugged. They found the hole created by the canyon allowed a clear line of sight to the noise source, and the results would be as if the area were flat. However, one of the advantage of canyons was that with the elevation rising, it acted as a sound barrier. One of the reasons they were reasonably confident about their calculations in the Otay Ranch area was that the measurement they had out there was actually at the end of the canyon and should represent a worst-case scenario for the Ranch. Their entire contours were based on that rather than making an assumption that that was worse than the rest of it. It would have been actually more accurate to assume that on either side of that canyon the sound would fall offmore quickly than calculated. Commissioner Tarantino mentioned on the size of the noise section in comparison to Poway's EIR, and asked Mr. Wrightson to comment on the differences. Mr. Wrightson noted they had provided the technical information from which the EIR was drawn; the report was not an environmental assessment. Boiler plate information had been used concerning other things. Certain topics which did not impact the site were not addressed in that they were not relevant to whether or not the site was acceptable in terms of development by MCA. He wanted to make it clear that the Poway EIR predicted a footprint of inaudibility which was 40 dBA which would fit inside MCA's 55 dBA contour. This was a significantly more conservative analysis than what was presented in Poway. Chair Tuchscher asked for a definition of relative frequency levels and how lower frequency versus higher frequency might be audible by residents. Mr. Wrightson explained that the Chula Vista noise ordinance in terms of the decibel was "A" weighted. "A" weighting is a filtering network which mimics the frequency response to the human ear, which is less sensitive to sounds at low frequencies and at very high frequencies than PC Minutes -12- September 6, 1995 a mid-frequencies at roughly 500 to 1000 hertz (cycles per second). The "A" weighting network is used because it had been shown over many studies to be a more accurate predictor of community response to environmental noise than any other single metric. Mr. Wrightson noted that popular music frequency content is strong at the mid-base frequencies, with the dBA level generally controlled by the 250 hertz and is the region where popular music has its most energy. He noted that most of the time the mid-range component of sound is the information that travels the most distance and is easiest to be heard. The low frequency noise problem in Palo Alto peaks at about 125 hertz at an octave lower than normally expected. Chair Tuchscher commented that it was usually the Iow frequency sounds that caused the complaints. Mr. Wrightson said that wails were basically better at stopping sound at high frequency than at low frequency. Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Wrightson to explain how the information was extrapolated from the data to create the sound contours going in the opposite direction. Mr. Wrightson stated that when the sound test was laid out, he had never seen the General Plan for the Otay Ranch and no idea as to where the villages were planned. There was no conscious effort to avoid those in any way. The distribution of points was done because they were concerned with neighborhoods west in the Dennery area which could be very close to the facility initially. He stated it was very difficult to do any kind of computer or paper and pencil models of what happens with the rugged terrain south of the site. They wanted to make sure that, since they knew housing was planned to the south of the site potentially very close to the facility, that they understood what the impact of those canyons and hills were. On the other hand, in comparison, the terrain to the north was somewhat more uniform and they felt much more confident of their data measured at other amphitheater sites and their ability to extrapolate out what those noise levels would be. Their primary concern in doing the noise test was to find out whether or not the site was suitable for development. Chair Tuchscher was concerned that MCA was relying on data from other sites. In dealing with other issues, Mr. Wrightson was saying that none of the other sites were comparable regarding inversion layers, etc. Mr. Wrightson replied that what they were saying was that the Palo Alto site was very unique; and looking at the composites from the amphitheaters at other sites, they are much more consistent. They felt confident they had been appropriately conservative with the projection of sound levels, and that even the proposed housing that had been master planned for Otay Ranch was significantly farther away than the areas they had concentrated on which were much closer to the facility. Chair Tuchscher asked which amphitheaters nationwide of the 20 or 30 that had been mentioned were most like the proposed amphitheater. Mr. Wrightson said that Nashville, Pittsburgh, Denver, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Cleveland were most similar from a sound standpoint. Commissioner Ray, regarding the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, asked if MCA would be a partner in fronting the money for the acceleration of the expansion of the ramps to bring impacts below a level of significance. Mr. Monaco said from an economic standpoint, PC Minutes -13- September 6, 1995 that was folded into the lease contemplated by the City. As far as the overall and long-term value to the City, by constructing these improvements now, it would eliminate some disposable improvements that would have been constructed, such as a concrete barrier which would be constructed with a two-lane road. Commissioner Ray commented that it was to be completed prior to the opening of the facility. Mr. Monaco stated that was a requirement. It was identified as a City responsibility because the City is holding the contract. It is anticipated that the improvements would be done well in advance of the project opening; however, if there were to be any problem with that contract or with the improvements, this is a condition on the conditional use permit and the opening of the facility would be held up. Commissioner Ray, relative to traffic and the fact that MCA would be responsible for the security, asked if they were proposing to patrol the neighborhoods to assure people were not parking in the neighborhoods. Bill Parsons, MCA Concert Manager, stated he had had a meeting with the Chula Vista Chief of Police to discuss the traffic and policing; however, they had focused primarily on traffic in and out of the theater. MCA had hired private security to patrol neighborhoods at other facilities, but the homes nearest this particular amphitheater were quite a distance, and the patrons usually don't park and walk that far away. There were enough parking spaces to keep them on the MCA property. Commissioner Ray asked if when the Chula Vista Police Department are providing officers that is taking away from the level of services normally enjoyed within the City outside the dates and time of these concert events. How would that be handled? Mr. Parsons stated the additional officers would not be taken from the City; off-duty officers would be hired, and MCA would pay the cost. It would be enhancing the area, because there would be 15 additional officers. Commissioner Ray commented that they were off-duty officers working a second job. He asked if they would still be able to respond to a call, leaving the site at MCA. Mr. Monaco said the Chief of Police would have to answer that question. It was a common practice to use off-duty police officers for this purpose. Commissioner Ray said the assumption was there would be more than 3 people per car, with 6,100 spaces and a 20,000 seat theater. Mr. Parsons said the national average was 3.4. In marketing, they would encourage carpooling and make some effort to get some rapid transit and other transportation, and to encourage the bus service. Conunissioner Ray asked if the buses would leave from an area well off-site. Mr. Parsons said the buses would leave throughout the County from certain locations. PC Minutes -14- September 6, 1995 Commissioner Ray asked if Mr. Parsons had any comparisons to San Diego Sports Arena or the Stadium as far as the occupants per vehicle in their events. Mr. Parsons did not know what their numbers were, but based on previous experience for concerts, it was an average of 3.4. Associate Planner Martin noted that the Zoning Ordinance required one space per 3.5 patrons. The actual minimum requirement would be 5,714 parking spaces. Section 19.62 lists other similar types of group uses for assembly halls. Chair Tuchscher asked if the 3.4 passengers per car average were not achieved, the way to rectify that would be to enhance ridership on buses and those types of vehicles? Mr. Parsons concurred and said carpooling would be encouraged. Commissioner Salas commented that it was documented in the EIR that one of the mitigation measures was to provide satellite parking with shuttle services to relieve the congestion to and from the amphitheater. She was glad to see that MCA had a proactive program in place in Seattle where ridership was encouraged. She hoped that if this project was approved, there would be some kind of incentive for the patrons to utilize the shuttle service. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Wrightson how many studies had been done and at what time of the day. Mr. Wrightson responded that two on-site noise studies were conducted; one was comprehensive, the second one was designed only to understand the differences in shifting the site to the east from its original location. The study was geared primarily towards understanding of movement of sound across the rugged terrain directly to the south and understanding what would happen at the existing residences as well as to the planned residences directed to the west in the Dennery area located in San Diego in order to get a broad brush view of what happens going to the north and to the east. Commissioner Ray asked how long it takes to analyze and how long it takes to do. Mr. Wrightson said it took several hours to run a study; the comprehensive study they had done was started in the twilight hours and ran well into dark; it was done in the peak concert time of summer on a representative day from a meteorological standpoint. The study was done basically between 6:00 and 9:30 p.m. They made corrections for the fact that the facility was to have a stage house; therefore, the noise levels shown on the contour were lower directly behind the facility traversing due west around to the south and southeast because of the barrier of the stage house and the roof over the stage. In answer to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Wrightson said the correction was approximately 5 dB. Commissioner Ray asked what Mr. Wrightson would estimate the margin of error to be. Mr. Wrightson said it would probably be at least a 1-1/2 dB on either side of the contour line. He noted the contour lines would go with topography and is a fuzzy line, not really a hard line. Commissioner Willett asked if subsequent to the their initial study, there had been any additional noise study through the Wolf Canyon area where they had only one receptor, or if they PC Minutes -15- September 6, 1995 anticipated doing another study. Mr. Wrightson said they had not done any additional study and had not been asked to do another one at that time. Jay Marciano, President of MCA Concerts, said all of the amphitheaters built since 1989 have not had sound problems, neighborhood problems, or traffic problems. In the nine facilities MCA operated with the advice that Jack Wrightson had provided, MCA had been very successful and don't have those problems. David Wade, 419 Park Way, Chula Vista, said he had never been to a racetrack that was as loud as a concert. The raceway was not annoying; it was a dull, muted sound, but was audible. He noted that the area had not been identified as an off-road biking area in the EIR. Mr. Monaco stated that the use of the site for off-road vehicles was mentioned in the draft and final EIR as an illegal use. Chair Tuchscher noted that the public testimony was closed and asked if the Commissioners had additional questions for staff. Commissioner Tarantino asked if there was a possibility of construction of a bayfront amphitheater and if there was the possibility for two, or if it was one or the other. Mr. Monaco replied that it was his understanding the market would only allow for one in the region. Chair Tuchscher asked Community Development Director Salomone to comment on that. Mr. Salomone said the region would support one facility of the size of the MCA amphitheater. The amphitheater proposed in the bayfront is by another legitimate amphitheater operator on wholly owned Port property. The City does not have jurisdiction over that facility. At this point, it was not determined whether or not the bayfront would succeed. They intend to go back to the Port in October or November to discuss it with the Port Directors to get conceptual approval or whether they should proceed. The MCA amphitheater is the only facility that is wholly within the jurisdiction of the City. Staff's intent is to act on this and take it forward City Council to make a determination if the location is a factor or whether to wait until the Bayfront comes forward. Commissioner Davis, regarding the information received at the meeting about the noise and the Palo Alto amphitheater, asked if there was anything they had heard the might make them question the information the Commission had before them. Mr. Monaco replied that the City did, as part of the EIR process, have their own technical consultants independently review and analyze the information submitted by the applicant. They prepared a report also incorporated in the EIR, and it was that report from which staff extracted the recommendations and mitigation measures in the EIR documents. PC Minutes -16- September 6, 1995 Commissioner Ray, regarding the requirement for MCA to put up a bond for a sound wall, said there was nothing that discussed the impacts to existing residences. There was nothing to indicate MCA would have to comply with anything different than for new housing projects. Mr. Monaco said the intent of the condition//3 was to address when in the development process the Otay Ranch or other new communities that would be impacted staff would actually impose the mitigation. If it were discovered earlier on in the mitigation protocol that there was impact to any existing development or a development that was on a faster track than Otay Ranch, the same mitigation would apply. Commissioner Ray referred to item #2 regarding impacts to future residents. He wanted to know where it talked about existing residents that could be impacted. Mr. Monaco replied that the determination in the final EIR was that there were no existing residences that would be impacted beyond the threshold standards of the noise ordinance. That was not to say the sound would not be audible from those locations, but the impact would be less than the threshold in the noise ordinance. Commissioner Ray said he was uncomfortable that most of the data is new. He had to respect the expert who determined that based on topography and the impacts that they could mitigate that. If the assumption by the City staff is that this is not significant, but the residents say it is significant and the day it opens 500 phone calls are received, what could be done. There was nothing in the resolution to give the residents a recourse. Mr. Monaco stated that they would use the standard enforcement policies established in the noise ordinance. If there were a problem and that problem were identified and confirmed through testing, mitigation would be imposed through the same method. Chair Tuchscher, referring to page 5 of the resolution, #2, asked if the sentence could be modified to read "If the monitoring program indicates impacts to current or future residents would occur, the applicant would post bond...." Mr. Monaco replied that it would be acceptable to staff. The applicant concurred. Deputy City Attorney Googins recommended that it would be a more appropriate motion to be considered under item no. 2. Commissioner Ray was concerned that if there was a problem with the EIR, them would be nothing in writing that is a fall back position other than what is attached at the project level. Mr. Monaco replied that it still remained a mitigation measure provided in the EIR, and the purpose of the condition was to provide a mechanism for enforcement of that mitigation measure. The mitigation was guaranteed through the EIR document, not imposed until the project is approved. PC Minutes -17- September 6, 1995 Commissioner Ray asked if the applicant would be willing and able to do additional testing, preferably in the neighborhoods themselves, possibly at the homes of some of the residences of those in attendance. Additionally, he asked that the applicant check with the Weather Service to find out when there would be a condition where an inversion layer is probable and do the test then. Chair Tuchscher, regarding the certification of the EIR, asked staff if there was precedent for providing recommendation for certification with conditions. Neither Mr. Monaco or Deputy City Attorney Googins was aware of any precedent for establishing a condition to a recommended certification. If certification could only be recommended if something was not legally done and needed to be done, that might be an appropriate condition. Chair Tuchscher noted that on a previous project before the Planning Commission, the applicant had been required to complete an additional sound study before a conditional use permit was granted. The sound study had more definitive direction relative to where the receptors were placed. Regarding the amphitheater sound study, he thought the Commissioners were comfortable in that the experts had done their job accurately. At the same time, where those noise receptors were placed were not where the sound contours lie. He asked if there was a potential to not slow down the EIR relative to its scheduled date to be before the Council and yet require some additional information to go forward to the Council. Mr. Googins commented that if in fact the Commission was determining that unless that additional study is conducted that they could not recommend to the City Council that they could not make an intelligent decision regarding the environmental impacts of the project, he thought it would be an appropriate condition to the recommendation. The nature of the action to certify the EIR was really to determine whether or not the EIR was prepared in accordance with environmental laws. Commissioner Ray said they had to trust the experts for having done their jobs, but there had been other questions raised in his mind. He would like concurrence from another source. Principal Planner Griffin commented that the Planning Commission may want to go above and beyond what they felt was a well-crafted technical study to address particular concerns that speakers had raised. He suggested that, if the Commission was basically comfortable with the EIR in that it had analyzed the information in a generally sound technical sense, the Commission apply a recommendation on the conditional use permit action. He proposed that they certify the EIR, then take the project under consideration and recommend that additional studies be made. Chair Tuchscher restated that if the Commission were to feel that additional sound testing was required and that receptors should be placed in existing neighborhoods as well as, perhaps, the Otay Ranch, the Commission could certify an EIR, move forward to a CUP and within a CUP PC Minutes -18- September 6, 1995 put restrictions that would require verification that the sound contours be proven accurate, and nothing would be built unless that were the case. Deputy City Attorney Googins stated that would be his preferred approach. He was concerned, given the nature of the certification process and the declaration of legal compliance, that by conditioning the certification, it may actually undermine more than condition the recommendation. MS (Ray/Davis) to approve Planning Commission Resolution EIR-95-03 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the MCA Chula Vista Amphitheater and open air market. Commissioner Ray noted for those in attendance that the document the Planning Commission was dealing with was the technical piece of the environmental review. It had addressed traffic concerns, air quality, sound, and the nuisances involved with that. The Planning Commission had to trust the experts that say the mitigations would work. There would be conditions added to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Tarantino felt the City Attorney had made it clear that based on what the law recommends, the EIR had analyzed certain project alternatives. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Thomas absent) to approve Chair Tuchscher declared a break at 10:13 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:25 p.m. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-47: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN OUTDOOR AMPHITHEATER WITH SEATING FOR 20,000 SPECTATORS AND ON-SITE PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 6,100 CARS; AND PROVISIONS FOR OPEN AIR MARKET OPERATION WHEN THE AMPHITHEATER IS NOT IN USE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD AND OTAY RIO ROAD - Bitterlin-Brice Development Partners, Agents for MCA Concerts, Inc. Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report, using overhead projection to show the location of the project from several aspects and the artist's rendering of the project from different angles. He then introduced Community Development Director Chris Salomone who gave a brief presentation regarding the deal points being finalized. The Planning Commission had asked for the information at the time the Draft EIR was introduced. Mr. Salomone noted that this was not a subject for deliberation for the present meeting nor should it be a factor in the decision. Associate Planner Martin then informed the Commission that there were two separate resolutions of approval of the two land uses, one for the MCA amphitheater and one for Kobey's. This was being done so that, if necessary, future Code enforcement of one land use or the other would be more easily carried out. Based on the staff report and the information PC Minutes -19- September 6, 1995 contained there, staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to take those actions as outlined in the staff report. Chair Tuchscher, referring to the total net revenue to the City of $520,000 per year, asked Mr. Salomone to give him an idea of other properties that generated that kind of revenue for the City. Mr. Salomone replied that the Price Club generated approximately $800,000 per year, a Wal-Mart would generate about $375,000 a year, Terra Nova Shopping Center probably was in the $600,000 to $700,000 range. Commissioner Willett, regarding the probability of the soccer fields being included, asked if that would be on the grass overflow parking lot. Mr. Salomone answered affirmatively. Commissioner Willett felt that would meet one of the goals of the Otay Valley Regional Park for active recreation in that area. Commissioner Willett asked if the City anticipated acquiring the property just north of the amphitheater site so it would stay in a wildlife corridor or undisturbed area. Mr. Salomone stated the acquisition of that site was not part of the development but had focused attention on that site. Acquisition had not been considered. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chair Tuchscher asked the speakers not to be redundant. Chris Bitterlin, Bitterlin-Brice Development Partners, 525 B Street, San Diego, representing MCA, introduced Jay Marciano, the President of MCA Concerts. Jay Marciano, MCA Concerts, Los Angeles, gave some background of the company, focusing on the diversification of the company. He showed exhibits of existing MCA theaters in various cities and showed the similarities in the designs and the variables in the development. He then introduced Bill Bethman, the architect for MCA and other amphitheaters. Bill Bethman, BBA Architects, 24462 La Hermosa, Laguna Niguel, gave an unsolicited endorsement of MCA stating that it was by far the most sophisticated developer of amphitheaters for live entertainment across the country. With this facility, MCA envisioned creating an experience which is total in nature, so the patron would experience the facility from the time they enter the parking lots. A lot of excitement would be generated in the facility, so that people would want to come back not just to see their favorite performer but experience the facility. In terms of architecture, they were attempting to bring the audience back stage to generate the kind of enthusiasm and the kind of wonderment that normally accompanies these kinds of facilities. Chris Bitterlin returned to the microphone to say that the site with infrastructure in and the conditions of the property made it very developable at an affordable price which allowed MCA PC Minutes -20- September 6, 1995 to do the things that Mr. Bethman had described cost effectively. He noted that this concluded MCA's presentation. David Wade, 419 Park Way, CV, understood that the off-road riding was illegal, but with the addition of Wal-Mart, it denied access to the area. Since then the access had been coming in from the area where the amphitheater would be built. He could see loss of access to the area not only to the area which would be built on, but to the additional areas behind them. He noted that the City of Chula Vista had been receiving in-lieu funds for off-roading for 20 years. There had been no mitigation by the City for this loss. There were no other opportunities within the City for this recreational use for this user-funded entity. They were willing to purchase areas to ride if there were any provided. Regarding noise, Mr. Wade said that from his parents' house, they had been able to hear the race track, and that had been more than twice the distance in relation to the residents on Oleander. Gall Moriarity, Ocala Ave., CV, said MCA was placed in a noise-sensitive area. They did not buy in 25 years ago with the idea that the Otay Valley would turn into a loud area. They had been told that it was supposed to be another Mission Valley as far as being a natural place, park land, etc. She was concerned that the amphitheater would have an impact on their quality of life. Traffic would be added. She was concerned that it may be necessary for her to have a sticker on her car or she would have to show her identification to get on her street, and whether her friends would be able to come on her street. She asked that their home not be invaded by sound, by laser shows. Robert Moriarity, Ocala Ave., CV, stated that he did not want the amphitheater in his neighborhood. He felt that too often volunteers substituted the judgment of their staff for their own judgment. He said staff were experts, they got paid, they spent hours on the project. The important thing to remember was that even the Planning Commissioners were volunteers, staff worked for the Commission. He was impressed with Commissioner Ray's concern that the provision the Commission was expected to approve did not protect existing landowners, and then dismayed when he backed down because "clerks" told him he couldn't do that. Regardless of what staff says, and regardless of what a multi-million dollar company says, the Commissioners are the protectors of the citizens of Chula Vista. Those particular citizens were there asking the Commissioners to protect the residents' homes. He said his lot is a minimum of 80 to 100 feet higher than the top of the Fuller Ford building, but he can hear the speakers. From his second floor bedroom he had a straight line of sight, and from a 40 degree angle down he has spotlights hit him directly in the eye. According to the papers received from the City, that could not happen. He was asking the Planning Commission not to fail them, and not to go by what staff assured them is going to happen in the future. He asked them for their protection. Robert Giacobassi, 1648 Ocala Ave., CV, said they had been told at the Valle Lindo School that there would be days given, but not that they were going to be given to the City and the City would dictate how those 12 days would be used; the residents did not know how high the buildings would be; he questioned if it was 50 feet, where the permanent speakers were placed and where the speakers on the grass were placed, and how high off the ground. He was PC Minutes -21- September 6, 1995 concerned whether the study was done according to those heights and if they had considered the height of the touring speakers. Staff had told them some cars would have to go down Orange Avenue to Brandywine. There was the possibility of traffic problems. He was concerned with the use of off-duty officers and their being able to do a good job on their regular job after working on the MCA job. He hoped by bringing up these other matters which they had been told but that were different from which was written, the Commission would study those things before making any further evaluation of the project. He was concerned that by having the swap meet, the neighborhood would have people going through their neighborhoods looking for treasures in their trash. Kim Kilkenny, Baldwin Company, 11975 El Camino Real, SD, referring to the resolution, stated the EIR was based on the assumption the amphitheater would operate 35 to 60 days a year. He did not find a limitation on the number of days the amphitheater could operate, and he suggested that it correspond to that found in the EIR. The EIR traffic study was based on the assumption that the amphitheater would close its operations at 11:00 p.m. He could not find anything in the resolution amending the times of operation. He suggested that it parallel the provisions in the EIR. He was also concerned about the touring companies' speakers. He understood amPhitheaters encountered noise problems much more frequently when they allowed touring companies to use their own speakers as opposed to using the speakers in the facility. He suggested that the conditional use permit contain a provision prohibiting the use of touring companies' speakers. Regarding the number of parking spaces, the EIR was based on the fact that 6,100 parking spaces would be utilized. The language in the resolution appeared to allow as few as 5,714. He suggested that language be clarified to be consistent with the EIR. He suggested the Commission consider that the conditional use permit have the price of parking included in the price of admission. This would be a deterrent for people using the amphitheater from parking on surface streets to avoid the cost of a parking fee. Regarding when a noise study/noise monitoring would occur, page 2.8, subparagraph d-1, he suggested that the language be consistent with the language in the EIR. He suggested that more than one concert a year be monitored, to be left to the discretion of the City to the number of concerts, but he thought it would be reasonable to assume that it would concerts that would be expected to exceed 95 decibels. He felt those should be monitored on a routine basis. Page 2-9, paragraph 4, stated the City imposed permanent noise controls as set forth in the EIR. He suggested those be repeated from the EIR. He recommended that one of those noise controls be that if the applicant is unable to meet those thresholds, the conditional use permit would be revoked. He did not find that as a remedy for any violation of the conditional use permit. Mr. Kilkenny stated that the applicant's consultant's study suggested that any noise over 50 decibels was problematic. He suggested the 50 decibel limit would be a more appropriate threshold based on the consultant's applicant. Paragraph Y, page 2-13, limits the City's remedies if there is a violation and binds the City as to what could be done. Mr. Kilkenny suggested that because of this language, the City should be very careful as to the thresholds, standards, and remedies in prior agreement. He believed all parties would be well served if the Planning Commission strongly recommended to the applicant that prior to the Council hearing, they endeavor to conduct a sound test and invite the Council, the Commission, and other interested parties. PC Minutes -22- September 6, 1995 (The following had submitted speaker slips against the project, but had already left the meeting when called.) Rose Escalante, 1595-50 Mendocino Dr.; Robert Losha, 505 Timber St.; Colleen Seegers, 1672 Oleander Ave., had deferred her time to Gail Moriarity; Don Bridwell, 1545 Olive; Curtis Johnson, 1632 Oleander Ave.; Milton Hunt, 1649 Oleander Ave.; Karoly Toth, 1661 Oleander Ave.; Mabel Poteet, 1623 Ocala Ave. (The following speakers supported the amphitheater proposal.) Doug Fuller, 560 Auto Park Drive, CV (had left the meeting when called) Norm Ross, 415 D Street, CV, District Commissioner for the California Youth Soccer Association, said there are at least five times as many children playing soccer today as four years ago, and there are no soccer fields. The multi-use fields are not soccer fields; they want to make use of them, but they need better fields. He was pleased to hear that MCA would allow them to put as many as 15 soccer fields on their overflow parking when MCA does not need it and when there are no concerts. It could be used as league play as well as holding tournaments there. Mr. Ross said that with a 15-field facility, not only could the local clubs use it for fund raising, but one tournament could bring as much as $1 million into the community in hotels, automobile rentals, etc. The only other facility in Southern California of this size is in Bakersfield. Walter Fisher, P. O. Box 3666, CV, said his home was on the 1600 block of Ocala approximately 3-1/2 linear miles from the amphitheater site. He thought the amphitheater represented a golden opportunity for the City. The City had passed up a great opportunity in the 1960's when a sports arena had been proposed. Because of concerns of the citizens regarding traffic, the sports arena had not been approved. The project had not been built, but the traffic was still there. Mr. Fisher said the City has a chance to bring a prestigious facility to the community that would not only provide jobs but would enhance the City's prestige and its image. Approval of the MCA amphitheater and its subsequent construction would go a long way towards eliminating the negative image the City has somehow obtained by people who don't live here. He stated that the City Council had shown great concern that the approval process takes too long, and no City can afford to pass up the chance to gain new business in its community which would add both prestige and income to the City. Mr. Fisher felt the number of people passing the Chula Vista Auto Park dealership from concerts would be a great benefit. The exposure would increase the public awareness of the dealers located in the park and the additional exposure would lead to increased sales and increased revenue to the City. Mr. Fisher stated there would be impact from the project, but nothing in life is without impact. The Commissioners must decide if the impact could be modified or mitigated. He felt the plan the MCA had presented would mitigate the impacts; it is a golden opportunity; the benefits to the City economically and prestige-wise outweigh some disadvantages. Mr. Fisher urged the Commission to support the proposal. PC Minutes -23- September 6, 1995 Brian Seltzer, 750 B Street, SD, on behalf of Kobey's, introduced those in attendance who work at Kobey's, and gave some history of Kobey's at the Sports Arena. They had coexisted with other users and have had years of experience in dealing with the issues of customers, of set-up, take-down, security, and traffic. He said the conditional use permit imposes restrictions on Kobey's use of the amphitheater. Kobey could live with those restrictions. They are the types of things they understand because they have been in business so long. Mr. Seltzer said that Kobey's as a business is an economic stimulus for the area. Commissioner Salas commented that Kobey's Swapmeet offers space to non-profits for fund raising, and she believed it would be beneficial for a lot of the community-based organizations in the City. Commissioner Ray, relative to a previous comment regarding people going through their trash, asked Mr. Seltzer if there were any precautions Kobey's could take to prevent something like that happening on the nearby neighborhood. Charles Pretto, 4901 Yerba Santa Drive, SD, representing Kobey's, said it had not been their experience that that was a concern they had faced in the San Diego operation. Kobey's does have their own private security company. To the extent there would be issues that would require their use, Kobey's own California licensed security company would deal with those issues including, if necessary, a roving patrol through the neighborhoods. Commissioner Ray asked if they would be willing to have that as a condition of approval. Mr. Pretto answered affirmatively, if it was determined that it was people that were frequenting their business. Chair Tuchscher suggested that be put in the hands of the Zoning Administrator who would handle those types of complaints. Charles Schrader, 440 "L" Street, CV, said that cities need more sources of revenue and that the Commission should look not only at the amount of revenue a project of this type could take in the operations, but tax revenues from the possible sale of new cars, sales tax from Kobey's, ticket sales from the concert events and merchandise, hotel rooms, restaurants, etc. He thought MCA would be a good corporate neighbor. Regarding the shooting range and race track, Mr. Schrader pointed out that those facilities had not spent millions of dollars to try to build in abatement or barriers. It would be to MCA's best interest to keep sound inside their facilities. They make the money from fans who want to go to the concert site itself. Mr. Schrader said he would be more interested in the MCA facility than the bayfront facility, because this land is owned by Chula Vista and the tax revenue would go to the City of Chula Vista. The project on the Bay would be on Port District land and most of the money would go to the Port District. He was strongly in favor of the MCA project. Chris Bitterlin, Bitterlin-Brice Development Partners, 525 B Street, SD, had made a presentation during the EIR consideration, but said he was prepared to answer questions. PC Minutes -24- September 6, 1995 Ms. Gale Moriarity, with the approval of Chair Tuchscher, returned to the microphone and asked that before the Council meeting staff distribute a map which had reference points so people in EastLake and Robinhood would understand where the proposed amphitheater site was. Also, it seemed the consensus was that MCA was the only ones interested in that valley. There were many things that could go in there that could give the City more money. Wal-Mart had given the City of San Diego improvements in the park, a center divider down Palm Avenue, and agreed to him people in the area they were serving. Chair Tuchscher asked staff if locational maps were included in the noticing. Mr. Miller stated that the Planning Commission and Council public hearings had been double noticed and included a locator map. Unless there was something that changed that meeting date, there would not be additional notices mailed. For the public hearing before the City Council, other exhibits could be prepared. Chair Tuchscher commented that with most projects where they are surrounded by development or in-fill projects, the maps normally used in that scale work well. There were only two roads setting off this project site, which probably made it a little difficult for some of the people receiving it to understand exactly where it is. Principal Planner Griffin clarified that one of the reasons for double noticing was that there was a 1500 piece mailing list, which was very expensive. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray asked if staff had any objections to any of Mr. Kilkenny's suggestions. Mr. Griffin said staff had not had time to react to those suggestions. They had not received them prior to the meeting. He did not know the applicant's reactions to them. He thought some of them were already accomplished in the resolution. Regarding the limitation on parameters, there was already a condition to that effect, but was not specific to exact times and exact number of events. Chair Tuchscher said the EIR and project information stated that the project would be utilized from 35 to 60 days for events. It was his understanding there was no limit to that number. Environmental Projects Manager Monaco replied that Condition G provided the limitation which specifically tied the parameters to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Ray asked why Condition G was preferable to the actual language in the EIR. Mr. Monaco replied that the condition was saying that all of the parameters, including the days of operation but other items such as the specifics of the project description, went well beyond just the number of days they would operate. PC Minutes -25- September 6, 1995 Commissioner Ray asked if this would only come up for review upon citizens' complaints. Mr. Monaco stated it was an annual review on the anniversary date after opening of operations, for the life of the project. Chair Tuchscher said another issue was the 11:00 p.m. close. Mr. Monaco said the traffic study assumed an 11:00 to 12:00 closing time. That was when the traffic would be unloading. The same condition would apply there. If the operations were essentially different from that, that would be a part of this review. There was no specific closing time of 11:00 p.m. specifically stated in the EIR or CUP. Principal Planner Griffin said this allowed the Zoning Administrator to look at it as a general consistency with the parameters, and he thought the hours would be a very significant factor. If there was an event or two that went over, the Zoning Administrator would probably find consistency. Chair Tuchscher asked the applicant if he could comment on touring company speakers, and also upon price of parking being included versus additional charge. Mr. Bitterlin said that seven of their facilities had the price of parking already in the ticket. From an operating standpoint of getting people in the facility faster, where there is no benefit of excess parking, the parking charge is pre-collected. They would like to open the facility, see what types of problems there might be, and then make the decision. It was a bit of discouragement to the patron when they have to pay for the parking up front. Generally speaking, MCA charged $5 per car for parking; by charging $1 additional per ticket, they did not get the per capita spending as when they charged $5 per car. Commissioner Davis assumed that by charging extra for parking would encourage carpooling. Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Wrightson to speak regarding the touring company speaker issue. Mr. Wrightson said the facilities which had tried to forbid the performers to use touring speaker systems had not been successful. It affected the ability of an operator like MCA to book performers and had a marginal impact on the environmental noise impact to the facility. They found a far better approach was to work with the acts and contract with them to limit the noise at the source. Commissioner Davis commented that Condition W stated that any violations of City ordinance, standards or policies or any condition of approval of the conditional use permit or any provision of the Municipal Code as determined by the Director of Planning would be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. On D-l, it brought in the 45 dBA in the resolution. Chair Tuchscher stated that he thought the concept of food courts being incorporated into the project was interesting and innovative. The idea of double utilization for some of those food services for both the amphitheater facility as well as the swap meet was interesting shared use. PC Minutes -26- September 6, 1995 The economic issues were not before the Planning Commission for consideration, but the comparative analysis showed it would have a long-term economic benefit to the City. Chair Tuchscher asked for discussion regarding the potential to monitor more than one concert per year, especially in the early years. The concept of soccer fields was a big plus if the project were to be approved, and that should be a condition as part of the project. He had a question regarding the name to be used in relation to the project, if it were to be a tool to promote the City by using the name "Chula Vista". Relative to Kobey's, there had been very little discussion regarding the use. Chair Tuchscher thought it could be because of the location, but also that Kobey's seemed to be an excellent operation. He stated Kobey's is an excellent business incubator. This becomes another example of how the City can have shared uses and get maximum value for the infrastructure dollar. Commissioner Willett, in response to the public conunent with reference to staff, stated that several years ago the City had established the 2000 Committee. The residents at that time expressed their desire for open air theaters or amphitheaters. Those recommendations went forward to the City Manager, the Council, and then back down to the Planning Department or Redevelopment Department. Staffdid not dream up those ideas; they were ideas which had been suggested or brought forward by the various commissions or committees. Commissioner Salas pointed out that one of the speakers was concerned that the Planning Commission just took the word of the staff. She assured those present that the Commissioners took a lot of time reseamhing and studying the manuals. Even though they were volunteers, they took their job very seriously and with the concern for the long-range impacts that any projects have on Chula Vista, not only for today but for future generations. The Planning Commissioners did think independently. Commissioner Ray, referring to Item 2, page 5 of the monitoring program, asked that the reference to "future residents" be changed to "current or future residents" along with other references. Item 3 needed to be changed to reflect existing residences as well. He would like to see a satisfactory number of events to be monitored. He suggested at least the first three successively. He also suggested an additional meeting with the residences to mitigate some of their concerns to see if the limitation of the mitigation program would need to be implemented immediately, as part of the Council resolution, Item 8. Item 1 under D, page 5 of the Council resolution, "When development of land within the potentially impacted furore..." He asked that it be changed to "existing or future" in all context. Conunissioner Ray asked if the Planning Commission took action on Item 3 to change the nuisance noise to environmental, would the 45 dBA still stand. Mr. Monaco replied that the 45 dBA was an environmental standard. Commissioner Ray asked what was the nuisance level. Mr. Griffin said the numerical level was exactly the same; it was the way it is measured. Item 3 would not change any of the City standards. PC Minutes -27- September 6, 1995 Commissioner Ray, referring to Item I, asked the City Attorney if the fact that they would be contracting with some of the off-duty City police officers would change the provision of their providing traffic control management. Deputy City Attorney Googins replied that MCA providing the traffic control measures could be included among other things they were contracting for and paying for. Community Development Director Salomone commented that MCA's offer to hire reserve officers or off-duty officers was actually at the request of the Police Chief as a way to help our force, and he regulates that and oversees that. He saw it as a benefit to the existing staff. Commissioner Salas asked if they would be utilizing recruits of the Sheriff's Academy at Southwestern. Mr. Salomone stated he would have to find out. Commissioner Ray asked other than Item O regarding traffic and installing enhanced roadway lighting, how would traffic performance be measured. Mr. Monaco said it would be part of the traffic management program required by the EIR. The conditions incorporated all the mitigation measures stated in the EIR. There was a specific provision in the EIR for a traffic management program to be developed that would detail how those types of things are monitored. Conunissioner Ray commented that other than the additional lighting or enhanced lighting on Otay Valley Road and Otay Rio Road quantified under Item O, it was still incumbent on the City to make those roadway improvements at an accelerated rate, as opposed to not having this project. Mr. Monaco replied that if for any reason the City was not able to complete those improvements, it would still be the responsibility of this project before opening to have those improvements completed. Commissioner Davis commented that Condition G monitored everything. Commissioner Ray asked if "operations" included traffic or if that was the physical operation of the amphitheater. Mr. Monaco said it did include traffic. Commissioner Ray asked if anybody had a number as how to monitor, when to monitor, and what to monitor. Mr. Monaco commented that the intent of the language was to say that all concerts in that season would be monitored, but that it would have to be in a season that at least one of the concerts got to the highest level that was anticipated in the EIR of 105 decibels at the stage. Staff expect that the next season to be monitored would include such an event. Staff wanted to be able to identify what the worst-case impact would be. That could be clarified. Commissioner Ray suggested that the wording would include "for a period of one year from opening" which would include an entire season. He asked if the City, upon that monitoring, found that they were in violation of the limitation set forth in the conditions, would they at that point make a change, halt the concerts, and force the mitigation at that point, or if it was over a period of time. Mr. Monaco said that at that point the City had the ability to impose the operational controls as outlined. PC Minutes -28- September 6, 1995 Commissioner Ray noted that if the monitoring program did not result in a violation, but there were citizen complaints, how many would it take to begin mitigation measures. Mr. Monaco said the impact to existing housing had not been identified in the EIR, and staff did not expect an impact, but if the Commission wanted to allow for that in this condition, the condition would have to be changed to have a different trigger. The condition as presently drafted was triggered by the issuance of occupancy permits for the impacted new housing. Deputy City Attorney Googins suggested the following wording be added: "Paragraph D.2. If the Director of Planning determines, based on reasonable evidence, that existing residents within the area may be being subject to noise levels exceeding applicable standards, the applicant shall conduct sound monitoring in accordance with the program approved by the Director of Planning to determine if such impacts exist, the monitoring program to be conducted by the City at the project applicant's expense." with changes to currently paragraph #2, to be changed to paragraph #3 with the following language: "If the monitoring program in D-1 or D-2 above indicates that impacts to and to currently numbered paragraph 3, renumbered to paragraph 4: "After certificates of occupancy are issued for housing in any identified impact areas, i.e., if monitoring indicates that noise ordinance is being violated, or if monitoring indicates that existing housing is being impacted beyond applicable noise standards as provided above, the City shall have the right to impose operational mitigation." Attorney Googins stated that in effect it incorporated with some kind of protocol the notion that if existing residents are impacted it gives appropriate consideration to the fact that the EIR itself did not consider this impact. It brings impacts on existing residents into that protocol. He said the applicants may have some objections or comments on it. The applicants indicated their acceptance to those revisions. Commissioner Ray questioned whether the applicant should conduct those sound studies at their cost. He suggested the City may want to conduct the sound studies at the applicant's cost. Chair Tuchscher stated that the City would conduct the studies with a third party actually monitoring them. PC Minutes -29- September 6, 1995 Attorney Googins noted that his motion had stated the studies would be conducted by the City at the project applicant's expense. MS (Ray/Willett) to approve Resolution PCC-95-47A of the Chnla Vista Planning Commission recommending that the City Council grant a conditional use permit PCC-95-47 to Bitterlin-Brice Development Partners, agents for MCA Concert Touring, to allow construction and operation of a 20,000 seat capacity amphitheater at the southwestern quadrant of Otay Valley Road and Otay Rio Road, along with the conditions and recitals under the same City Council resolution with the changes under Section 8, Terms of Grant of Permit, Items D with all items under D, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as amended, and an added Condition A which would require at least one more sound study to be done before the City Council meeting to verify the results of the EIR, preferably at the time an inversion layer was present. Chair Tuchscher asked that the motion could be made more specific to require additional noise study readings to be taken at the existing residences as well as on the Otay Ranch property. Commissioner Ray noted that condition would be on the Planning Commission resolution and not the City Council resolution. The second to the motion concurred with the revision. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION To approve Resolution PCC-95-47A of the Chula Vista Planning Commission recommending that the City Council grant a conditional use permit PCC-95-47 to Bitterlin- Brice Development Partners, agents for MCA Concert Touring, to allow construction and operation of a 20,000 seat capacity amphitheater at the southwestern quadrant of Otay Valley Road and Otay Rio Road, amending Item 1 of the Planning Commission resolution to require additional noise study readings to be taken at the existing residences as well as on the Otay Ranch property, along with the conditions and recitals under the same City Council resolution with the changes under Section 8, Terms of Grant of Permit, Items D with all items under D, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as amended, and an added Condition A which would require at least one more sound study to be done before the City Council meeting to verify the results of the EIR, preferably at the time an inversion layer was present. Chair Tuchscher asked that Deputy City Attorney Googins refine the exact wording in the resolution. Chair Tuchscher stated they would defer to staff as to how many and where they were located, but those two areas were greatly excluded from the study, and he would like to make sure that the record showed that the Planning Commission had asked for those, and that they confirmed the scientific data that drew those sound contours. Commissioner Davis asked what would happen if the sound study did not verify the data. PC Minutes -30- September 6, 1995 Commissioner Ray stated that his intent was that if the Planning Commission approved it, the same people would go before the City Council. The City Council would have a separate independent report that agreed or disagreed with the data before them. If it's over the limits, the City Council would not approve the project. Chair Tuchscher thought an approval could be put forth predicated on that study and require that the study prove the sound contours already put forth. It had been done in the past. Answering Attorney Googins question, Chair Tuchscher said they did not want to say an exact variance, but within reason. If the Attorney wanted to use "material difference" or state some percentage of variance, that would be acceptable. Commissioner Davis was not comfortable with adding a codicil. She thought it should be just recommended for approval. An independent person had evaluated the sound study; she did not know if it was necessary to have another study. Chair Tuchscher stated he would agree if there had been noise receptors in those two locations. Chair Tuchscher wanted to make sum the soccer fields were put in the conditional use permit, if appropriate. Mr. Salomone stated that notion had just been presented in the previous week or so. He thought it was workable, and MCA had said they would be willing to do it. It would require the City's landscape architect to remove a lot of the landscaping now conditioned on the project. Before it was made a hard condition, some of the operational issues needed to be worked out. Chair Tuchscher asked if staff would be addressing those issues before the City Council hearing, so the Council would have the ability to put such a condition on the project if it was feasible from the City's perspective. Mr. Salomone answered affirmatively. Chair Tuchscher asked the applicants if they felt it was beneficial and if they could do that. MCA representatives answered affirmatively. Regarding the sound tests which had been done, Mr. Wrightson clarified that the residential housing noise level was measured twice. During the first sound test, it was actually made up within the housing at the nearest location to the site without trespassing with direct line of sight to the site. The measurement showed the ambient level at 49 dBA and the noise from the test was below the ambient. The noise level that was measured was 105 dBA on the subject property at the VOR. He noted they were being very conservative on the contour map showing the dBA as nearly 10 decibels more than the actual measurement. Chair Tuchsoher said he did not doubt the scientific evidence, but he would feel better if there were some other measurements taken in the areas not tested on the Otay Ranch property and parts of the existing residential areas. PC Minutes -31- September 6, 1995 Commissioner Salas thought that just to be safe, the condition of the second sound test should be added. Looking at the $1 million bond the Company was willing to place, they seemed to be fairly comfortable with their testing. She saw no problem with requiring more testing. Attorney Googins added that he thought it was important to acknowledge that it should be in the Planning Commission's recommendation in order to assure consistency of a recommendation of certification of the EIR was that the Planning Commission's suggestion of further testing to be done and it be materially consistent with testing done in the EIR, as an addition to their recommendation on the conditional use permit, and in no way, shape or form suggested that the Planning Commission had found the EIR to be lacking. Chair Tuchscher said he was very comfortable with the technical data in the EIR and with the issues associated with the sound contours. He trusted the accuracy of staff and applicant's experts. He thought the public would feel more comfortable if a test was actually done and it was found that the noise level was well below the ambient noise level. He would like to see that additional information given to Council when they make their decision. If that could be done, the condition would not need to be added. Mr. Bitterlin of MCA was willing to do the sound test and was confident in the results; they proposed that to the extent MCA performs the tests and pays for them, the members of the public and the Baldwin Company that had objected to the project based on noise, once the noise test is completed and confirmed what they already knew, that they would withdraw their objections. Chair Tuchscher said the Planning Commission had no control over that, but believed the condition would help MCA in making their case for approval of the project before the Council. Commissioner Tarantino noted that Mr. Fisher had brought up the idea of the sports arena which had been proposed in the 1960's, the fact that it had not been built because of traffic concerns. There was still the traffic but not the sports arena which would have put Chula Vista on the map. He thought the amphitheater project was one of those projects that would put Chula Vista on the map. Chula Vista needed an image, an identity. This project would really help Chula Vista in drawing major businesses, upscale department stores, and would do a lot for this area. Commissioner Tarantino stated he was going to vote for the project. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION: To approve Planning Commission Resolution PCC-95-47A which shall include a provision which makes the recommendation to the City Council that they approve the conditional use permit conditioned upon the conduct of some additional noise studies prior to the time of the City Council considers the conditional use permit for approval. Those additional noise studies that are proposed to confirm the contours, the number of locations to include at least one receptor at Otay Ranch and one in the neighborhood. To the extent that those tests were substantially in material conformance with the testing already done, the Planning Commission would recommend that the City Council approve the conditional use permit PC Minutes -32- September 6, 1995 with the additional changes that were made to the text of the actual City Council resolution, with the clarifying provision in the Planning Commission resolution that the proposed additional testing is not proposed to undermine the certification of the EIR, and that they were done above and beyond those steps that were certified in the E1R. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Thomas absent) to approve the PCC-95-47A. Chair Tuchscher noted this item would go before City Council on September 26, 1995. MS (Ray/Willett) to approve Planning Commission Resolution PCC-95-47B recommending that the City Council grant conditional use permit PCC-95-47 to Kobey's Chula Vista Marketplace, LLC., to allow an open air market at the southwestern quadrant of Otay Valley Road and Otay Rio Road, with an amendment to Item F in that the language be changed from "prior to opening of operations" to include some sort of ongoing monitoring of the security of both the neighborhood and the facility itself. Commissioner Ray noted the intent was to alleviate the concerns of the neighborhood, so there could be some kind of ongoing monitoring if there was any degradation of their quality of life as a result of Kobey's. Mr. Miller suggested that the motion reflect ihat it also be at the discretion of the Chief of Police. Commissioner Ray suggested the wording "Upon the opening of the operations for Kobey's Swap Meet, the Zoning Administrator will have the authority to implement specific security measurements to alleviate problems." Mr. Miller said that his notes indicated an additional condition would be added as follows: "To the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and/or Chief of Police, Kobey's will provide a roving security force, and the Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to implement specific security measures in consultation with the Chief of Pollce." Commissioner Ray stated that the intent was that if them should become a problem during the ongoing operations, the Zoning Administrator would have the authority to put in whatever implementations that are required to eliminate those security breaches, both on-site and the surrounding areas. Mr. Seltzer, representing Kobey's, said those items were agreeable to them as long as there was factual basis to support doing them, if there had been an indication of problems precipitated by their operation. Chair Tuchscher replied that it would be reactions to challenges that would occur in the area directly resulting from that operation. PC Minutes -33- September 6, 1995 VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Thomas absent) to approve. ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PCA-96-01: REQUEST TO ADD WORDING TO SECTION 19.68.020 T.! OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH WOULD CLARIFY THAT NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORMAL OPERATIONS OF ANY LAND USE APPROVED BY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS CONSIDERED "ENVIRONMENTAL" RATHER THAN NUISANCE NOISE - Bitterlin Brice Development Partners, Agents for MCA Concerts, Inc. Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report, noting that the text amendment dealt with the clarification to the noise ordinance of the Zoning Code, Chapter 19.68. He noted that noise disturbances resulting from land use activities that are normally permitted are considered environmental in nature. The wording being proposed is to also insert uses permitted by conditional use permit. This issue had been brought about at the applicant's request. Staff supported the request and recommended that the Planning Commission make the change as outlined in resolution PCA-96-01 and the draft City Council ordinance. Chair Tuchscher asked for an explanation of the difference in nuisance noise and environmental noise. Principal Planner Griffin explained that environmental noise is measured as an average over a one-hour period and can exceed the standard at various periods as long as the average for a one- hour period meets or is below the noise standard. Nuisance noise cannot exceed the standard at any time. Staff's interpretation of the amphitheater noise was that it was clearly environmental, because it had to do with normal operations of the amphitheater. Commissioner Salas clarified that a normal noise of a business which would be expected from that business would be an environmental noise; if it was something out of the ordinary that wasn't expected to be there, that would be a nuisance noise. Chair Tuchscher asked how this would affect the applicant; average to 50 decibels would be different from spikes to 50 decibels. He thought it was probably the spikes that bothered people. Mr. Wrightson replied that it made it consistent with noise ordinances in other jurisdictions, and also makes a measurement reliable, predictable, consistent, and repeatable. He explained that the averaging was not an arithmetic average, but was a logarithmic average. The averaging was not as big an advantage to the applicant as it may seem on the surface. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. (The following had submitted speaker slips but were not present when called:) PC Minutes -34- September 6, 1995 Rose Escalante, 1595-50 Mendocino Dr.; Colleen Seegers, 1672 Oleander Ave.; Neva Bridwell, 1545 Olive Ave.; Don Bridwell, 1545 Olive; Robert Giacobassi, 1648 Ocala Ave.; Gail Moriarity, Ocala Ave., CV asked that the noise test be done for an hour, and that they be notified ahead of time. She felt the noise was not environmental; that the Planning Commission was giving the MCA a special use permit and then they were trying to change the classification of the noise. Mr. Griffin stated they were not trying to change their classification. They did not want any possibility of any confusion in the future. Kim Kilkenny, 3938 Syne Drive, SD, said he would defer any comments to a later date. Robert Moriarity, Ocala Ave., CV, regarding nuisance versus environmental, said that as long as it was a verbal agreement, the City may agree but a judge may not. But if it was changed in the Code, the residents were locked into a situation. If there was a general violation of an environmental law, the City would take the steps necessary to correct the problem. However, it is a nuisance noise, the residents would call the police. If there was a specific exemption in addition to the exemption given MCA to build and operate, they also have the noise exemption. By definition, any noise from MCA is an environmental noise. In that case, if there was an hour of noise at 80 decibels at Mr. Moriarity's home, he would not be able to call the police. He would only be able to call the City and ask the City to go through their normal channels to correct the violation of the 45 decibel limit, because this was now an environmental noise. He asked the Commissioners to keep a grip on reality and recognize that if40 or 45 decibels is what the City law should be and above that is a nuisance, the Commission had given a special use permit. He asked that the Commission at least give the residents an opportunity to call the police. David Wade, 419 Park Way, CV, concluded that this would be an average that would be maintained below a certain decibel on the average for the hour. He asked if there would be any limit to the sound spikes in this average. Mr. Wrightson said that the spikes get included in the average. Everything during the hour is included, as well as dead silence. There is no limit to the spike; however it is weighted very heavily towards the highest sound levels recorded. A 10 dB spike would raise the average dramatically even for a very short duration. Commissioner Tarantino asked if it was different if an organization or business violates a noise ordinance as opposed to a private citizen. He used for an example the loading and unloading at Home Depot in the middle of the night. Mr. Griffin said the loading and unloading was an expected regular, normal part of their operation and would be considered an environmental noise. PC Minutes -35- September 6, 1995 Commissioner Tarantino surmised the residents wanted to be able to call the police if the MCA amphitheater violated the noise ordinance. His question was whether the police would actually go out there. Mr. Monaco said it would depend on the nature of the disturbance, if it was something related to the land use, the noise associated with that use is considered environmental noise which is part of their production process. An example of nuisance noise would be someone playing a drum set in a residential neighborhood, something that is not associated with a residential use. Commissioner Tarantino explained that what they were doing was not special for MCA, but something that is done routinely. Mr. Griffin said if it was still considered nuisance noise, the amphitheater would be approved but you wouldn't expect them to have any concerts. Chair Tuchscher clarified that schools, roadways, freeways, distribution facilities were all environmental noise. Mr. Griffin confirmed. Answering Commissioner Davis, Mr. Griffin confirmed that if someone were violating a Code, it would come under Code Enforcement versus the police. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray asked why the environmental noise measurement would have to be for an hour instead of perhaps a 15-minute measurement. Mr. Monaco answered that the one hour average was the standard set in the noise ordinance. Commissioner Ray stated that the residents would be impacted by those additional noises above and beyond the concert noise. He was concerned that they were changing the whole make-up and the whole intent of everything they had been pushing for in terms of the noise restrictions in the prior two items. Commissioner Salas explained that the conditional use of the amphitheater--the normal use of the amphitheater was that they would have rock concerts and would have some peak periods where there would be more noise in some parts of the concert than in others. She noted some examples of environmental noise. Mr. Griffin stated that if certain special events such as fireworks, shooting off a cannon, etc. were part of the program, it would be provided for in the conditional use permit and would happen on a periodic basis and would be considered environmental noise because it would be expected as part of the operations. Chair Tuchscher said they had to notify the City 30 days prior to the use of special effects, fireworks, etc. PC Minutes -36- September 6, 1995 MSC (Davis/Tarantino) 6-0 (Commissioner Thomas absent) to adopt Resolution PCA-96-01 recommending that the City Council amend Section 19.68.020 TI of the Municipal Code to clarify the distinction between environmental and nuisance noise as it relates to conditional uses in accordance with the draft City Council ordinance and the findings contained therein. ITEM 4: DISCUSSION OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION AMPHITHEATER TOUR ON SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1995 - Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development Community Development Director Salomone reported that the tour was now tentative because of some legal concerns raised by the City Attorney regarding the Brown Act. Because of the Brown Act concerns and the City Charter concerns, there was a possibility that if a non-City group hosted the event and invited the Council members and the Planning Commission to go, it could comply with both the Charter and the Brown Act. The Chamber was looking into doing that. The Commission would be notified at the earliest opportunity whether it was going to happen. Chair Tuchscher asked for clarification at to whether the City Charter precludes two or more City Council people from leaving the County. Mr. Salomone said it was from holding a meeting outside of the City limits except for special reasons. Chair Tuchscher asked if the Charter Review Committee was aware of it. Mr. Salomone said they would become aware of it. Chair Tuchscher said there were three Commissioners who had planned to attend. Commissioner Tarantino stated that he would now not be able to go. DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 5: CANCELLATION OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 MEETING. Principal Planner Griffin asked that the September 13 meeting be cancelled and informed the Commission that there was a possibility of a couple of meetings in October being cancelled. It was the consensus of the Commission that the September 13 meeting be cancelled. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Tarantino stated that he would not be at the September 27 meeting since he would be on vacation. Commissioner Davis noted that she would not be at the workshop to be held on September 20. PC Minutes -37- September 6, 1995 Commissioner Salas asked to be excused from the meeting of September 27. ADJOURNMENT at 1:45 a.m. to the Workshop Meeting of September 20, 1995 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of September 27, at 7:00 p .m. in the Council Chambers. Nan' ' cy R~pley,'Sec~eta4J Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc95min\pc9-6. rain)