Loading...
Item 5 - Public Scoping Hearing Proposed Poway Entertainment Center Bill Silva Presents AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY _ TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager/Executive Director BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager/Assistant Executive Directorial INITIATED Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services ~ U DATE: January 10, 1995 LEAD AGENCY: City of Poway/Poway Redevelopment Agency PROJECT APPLICANT: Bill Silva Presents SUBJECT: Public Scopinq Hearinq Concerninq the Intent to Prepare Prepare/Notice of Preparation {NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report {EIR) for th~ Proposed Poway Entertainment Center Bill Silva Presents Project. ABSTRACT The purpose of this scoping hearing is to notify the public of the City's intent to prepare an EIR for the Project and to obtain public input on the scope and content of the EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Project EIR will evaluate all areas of potential environmental impact and other related issues required by CEQA and the City's Procedures to Implement CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT The scoping hearing will have no fiscal impact. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCF Notice of this public scoping hearing and the NOP have been published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to the master distribution list, which includes alt owners of property located within the SPPC boundary and within 500 feet of said boundary. The distribution list also includes interested civic and homeowner associations, surrounding juricdictions, and community planning groups. No correspondence was received at the time this agenda report was prepared. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council/Poway Redevelopment Agency hold the public scoping hearing, close the hearing, direct staff to distribute the Notice of Preparation and complete the EIR process, ACTION e:\ci -t\bspnop.sum 1 of 29 JAN 10 1995 I'l~ 5 AGENDA REPOR I CITY OF POWAY TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chairman and Members of the Poway Redevelopment Agency FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager/Executive Director John D. Fitch, Assistant Executive Director ~ INITIATED BY: Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning ServicesU ~ James R. Nessel, Senior Planner DATE: January 10, 1995 SUBJECT: Public Scopinq Hearinq Concerninq the Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Notice of Preparation for the Proposed Powa¥ Entertainment Center Bill Silva Presents Project. JOINT CEQA LEAD AGENCY: City of Poway/Poway Redevelopment Agency PROJECT APPLICANT: Bill Silva Presents ABSTRACT The City Council/Poway Redevelopment Agency, acting as the "joint lead agency" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Implementation Procedures, has determined that an EIR shall be prepared for the subject project ("Project"). The purpose of this scoping hearing is to notify the public of the City's intent to prepare an EIR for the Project and to obtain public input on the scope and content of the EIR. It is recommended that the City Council/Poway Redevelopment Agency conduct the hearing, close the hearing, and direct staff to distribute the Notice of Preparation and complete the EIR process in accordance with CEQA. BACKGROUND In July of 1985, the City certified the Final EIR and approved the associated South Poway Planned Community Development Plan (SPPC). Bill Silva Presents is preparing to file a development application for an outdoor performing arts ACTION: of 29 ~JAN 10 1995 I'I'¢~ 5 ~-, Agenda Report January 10, 1995 Page 2 center that can seat an audience of approximately 20,000 persons. The Project site is located in the SPPC and within the "project area" of the Paguay Redevelopment Plan. The SPPC development plan and related development standards do not specifically address an open air amphitheater-type land use. Therefore, appropriate environmental review of the Project, necessary SPPC amendments and related permit approvals are prerequisites to the implementation of the Project. PROJECT LOCATION Attachment A depicts the project site precise location within the boundary of the SPPC Development Plan, approximately one-half mile east of Stowe Drive and north and south of the Scripps Poway Parkway. The site area contains 158 acres, and is within the "Project Area" of the Paguay Redevelopment Plan; however, only 74 acres south of the Scripps Poway Parkway will be developed. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an outdoor performing arts center~that can seat an audience of approximately 20,000 persons. Attachment B is a preliminary site plan which includes the amphitheater complex south of the Parkway, external and internal circulation and parking, and landscaped slopes. The site's General Plan land use and zoning is Planned Community (PC}. As shown on Attachment C, the site is allocated several use categories under the SPPC Development Plan. The categories include light industrial (LI), industrial park {IP), commercial {C), natural open space, and open space (1DU). The applicant desires to amend the SPPC plan by replacing the existing use categories with a newly established "amphitheater" use category. The proposed development will be a state-of-the-art outdoor performing arts center offering a complete program of musical events, including pop, rock, country and classical. Its primary season will run from April to November and provide entertainment for people between the ages of 16 to 60 plus. Some events may include a fireworks show. Most shows will be in the evening between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., with some other events and festivals at different times (see list of ancillary land uses at the end of the project description). Typical evening shows will bring in a reserved seat audience of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 persons. On occasion, special performances will produce sellouts and the audience will grow to approximately 20,000 persons. Doors for evening shows will open one hour prior to the performance, but because most performances predominantly feature reserved seating, peak traffic is generated between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and then after closing at 10:30 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. The attached Notice of Preparation {Attachment D) includes a more detailed project description which includes additional information concerning the objectives and characteristics of the Project, as well as site development issues. 3 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 IT~.~ .5 Agenda Report January 10, 1995 Page 3 Potential Ancillary Land Uses The following ancillary uses may operate on the project site off-schedule of the primary amphitheater events. Reqional - (Typically Saturday and Sunday): 1. Music festivities (multiple acts) - 10:00 am to 12:00 am, estimated max. daily audience - 20,000 persons. 2. Musicals; Dance theater 6:00 pm to 12:00 am, estimated max. daily audience - 20,000 persons 3. Crafts fair/Swapmeet 7:00 am to 4:00 pm, estimated maximum daily visitors - I0,000. 4. Special event festivals (food; film; theme/period crafts) - 9:00am to 12:00 am, est. max. daily audience - 20,000 persons. 5. Special automobile sales events - 9:00am to 6:00 pm. 6. Sunrise services/Easter Sunday - 6:00am to 12:00pm. Community - (Typically Saturday and Sunday): 1. Poway Days concerts. 2. Fundraisers, rallies, local artisan and craft fairs. 3. High School graduation. 4. Fourth of July Independence Day Celebration. Project Approval/ Permit Requirements The project property (County Assessor's Parcel Map Nos. 323-091-01-Lively) has been granted no previous approvals other than the approved SPPC Development Plan, and as subsequently amended. This agenda report is only for the scoping hearing for the EIR. Other approvals that will be required prior to final approval of this project are: 1. Amendments to the SPPC Development Plan. 2. Conditional Use Permit. 3. Development Design Review. 4. Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report. 5. NCCP Habitat "Take Permit". 6. Other required permits as determined through the CEQA process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Project EIR will evaluate, in an adequate level of detail, the following potential areas of environmental impact and other related issues required by CEQA should the Project or any identified alternatives to the Project be approved by the lead agency and subsequently implemented. 1. Soils and Geology 2. Hydrology and Drainage 3. Air Quality 4 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 [i'~ .5 ~,~ Agenda Report - January 10, 1995 Page 4 4. Biological Resources (Flora and Fauna) 5. Population 6. Socio-Economic Factors 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations 8. Transportation and Circulation 9. Cultural Resources 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors (including direct and indirect noise effects) 11. Aesthetics 12. Utilities and Public Services 13. Energy and Scarce Resources 14. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 15. Mandatory Findings of Significance (including short- and long-term and cumulative effects) 16. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Staff has prepared the CEQA-mandated Notice of Preparation (NOP) as shown as Attachment D. The NOP will be distributed in accordance to a master distribution list for a 30-day public review and comment period immediately following this scoping hearing. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Notice of this public scoping hearing and the NOP have been published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to the master distribution list, which includes all owners of property located within the SPPC boundary and within 500 feet of said boundary. The distribution list also includes interested civic and homeowner associations, surrounding jurisdictions and community planning groups. No correspondence was received at the time this agenda report was prepared. FISCAL IMPACT It is expected that the Project will generate substantial tax revenues. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council/Poway Redevelopment Agency hold the public scoping hearing, close the hearing, direct staff to distribute the Notice of Preparation and complete the EIR process. JLB:JDF:RWQ:JRN:kls Attachments: A. Project Location B. Preliminary Project Site Plan C. Existing SPPC use categories D. Notice of Preparation e:\city\pLanning\report\bspnop.agn 5 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 ~'~'~.~ .5 ,4 - 0 6 of 29 ,~ dAN' 10' 1995 l"i'F-~'t~ .5 ~ ~ z o.-5 n- ~, ,9 of 29 - NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: NOP Master Distribution List FROM: Reba Wright-Quastler, AICP, Ph.D Director of Planning Services DATE: January 11, 1995 SUBJECT: Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation Concerning the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report. PROJECT TITLE: Proposed Poway Entertainment Center Bill Silva Presents Project PROJECT APPLICANT: Bill Silva Presents JOINT CEQA LEAD AGENCY: City of Poway/Poway Redevelopment Agency CITY OF POWAY CONTACT PERSON: James R. Nessel, Senior Planner Poway Planning Services Department 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 _ (619) 679-4256 The City of Poway publicly announces its intent to initiate the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report {DEIR} for the project described herein. The City of Poway/Poway Redevelopment Agency is the Lead Agency and will commission a qualified environmental consultant to prepare the environmental documentation so that all potential environmental impacts can be identified and adequately addressed. Those public agencies with specific statutory responsibilities are requested to indicate their role in the project approval process and also to indicate information which is germane to that public agency. Under time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. The name of a contact person in your agency should be provided in your response. Please send your written responses to: CITY OF POWAY ATTENTION: JAMES NESSEL, SENIOR PLANNER PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 13325 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE POWAY, CA 92064 (619) 679-4256 ATTACHMENT D 9 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 I~'F.~ 5 ~ ! Notice of Preparation January 11, 1995 Page 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND In July of 1985 the City certified the Final EIR and approved the associated South Poway Planned Community Development Plan (SPPC). Bill Silva Presents has filed a development application for an outdoor performing arts center that can seat an audience of approximately 20,000 persons. The Project site is located in the SPPC and within the "project area" of the Paguay Redevelopment Plan. The SPPC development plan and related development standards do not specifically address an open air amphitheater-type land use. Therefore, appropriate environmental review of the Project, necessary SPPC amendments and related permit approvals are prerequisite to the implementation of the Project. The attached January lO, 1995 City of Poway Agenda Report includes additional background information. PROJECT LOCATION Figure 1 shows the regional location of the proposed project, which is geographically situated in the southern portion of the City,of Poway. The project site is located approximately 5.0 miles east of the Interstate 15 Freeway, 3.0 miles west of State Route 67, and in the southeast quadrant of Poway Road and Community Road. Figure 2 depicts the site's precise location within the boundary of the SPPC Development Plan, approximately one-half mile east of Stowe Drive and north and south of the Scripps Poway Parkway. The site area contains 158 acres, and is within the "Project Area" of the Paguay Redevelopment Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an outdoor performing arts center that can seat an audience of approximately 20,000 persons. The project site is in the City of Poway's redevelopment area and the South Poway Planned Community (SPPC}. This community is Poway's major planned industrial and business center that takes its primary access from Scripps Poway Parkway (SPP). The portion of SPPC that is planned primarily for light industrial, industrial park, and support commercial land uses is known as the South Poway Business Park. The SPP is a four to six lane east/west arterial that currently runs from 1-15 to the business park and is planned to be extended easterly to intersect State Route 67 in late 1996. The City of Poway has a total area of approximately 40 square miles and a current population of 46,689. At present, the business park is partially developed. The site of the proposed project is approximately 158 acres and is currently planned for industrial, commercial, natural open space, and open space/rural residential land uses under the Poway General Plan's Planned Community (PC) land use and zoning designation (see Figure 3). With the exception of western- central edge of the site where the SPP's right-of-way has been partially graded producing a large cut slope, the property is ungraded. Its shape is generally long and narrow running north to south, and is lower in elevation at 10 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 r]'~,~ .5 . , ~ Notice of Preparation January 11, 1995 Page 3 its ends then rises in elevation towards its midpoint where the extension of the SPP will bisect it. The SPPC Circulation Plan has an industrial collector (Kirkham Road) cFossing the site, from west to east, connecting to the SPP. The amphitheater proposal deletes this connection, turning Kirkham Road so it intersects with the SPP on the west side of the site. The approved business park tentative map (Parkway Business Center) to the west has been graded creating another cut slope on site and partial improvements (underground) for Kirkham Road have also been constructed. The site's geology is made up of stadium conglomerate and friars formation soil types. The site is partially covered with coastal sage scrub and there is some riparian woodland habitat in Beeler Canyon. The City of Poway is currently preparing a preliminary city-wide subarea habitat conservation plan (HCP) in compliance with state and federal law. The preliminary HCP assumes that the majority of the project site will be developed and notes that Beeler Canyon and the northern portion of the site are candidates for a subregional linkage/wildlife corridor between primary core habitat areas. The SPPC Development Plan provides a balance to the City's overall general plan, as a counter point to the low density residential that predominates most of the City. The SPPC Development Plan allows a land use intensity that will facilitate a business and employment center whose activity can be separated and buffered from the surrounding residential areas. The plan currently allows for a minor amount of commercial land to serve the industrial uses, but does not speak specifically to an entertainment type of land use. The existing development within the business park includes the Poway Sports Park. The facility's primary time of use, at off business and peak traffic hours, is similar to that of an amphitheater operation. The intensity of the proposed project's operation will be compatible with the approved uses in the area, and the relative isolation of the site makes it an appropriate location for the use. The Construction of the amphitheater is linked to the construction of the SPP extension. The Parkway's alignment bisects the amphitheater property establishing an edge that development must adhere to and the SPP extension will provide public access to the property. The project proposes that the site be accessed off the SPP at two intersections, one on the east and west sides of the site. The construction schedules for both the Parkway extension and the proposed project indicate grading around the same time. However, grading the roadway across the site requires approximately 375,000 c.y. of fill material and the grading of the site for development produces approximately 1.3 million c.y. of excess fill. At this time, the schedule for grading the development site indicates that it will precede overall grading for the SPP, and therefore, includes all grading on site. The pad elevation and the graded area may change with the potential of becoming a more linear shape along the edge of the road running onto the 11 of 29 JAN 10 1995 I'J'~,"~ 5 ~ Notice of Preparation January 11, 1995 Page 4 adjacent property to the east. Another variation is the parking on the McLauchlan property in Beeler Canyon which is unconfirmed and may not be part of the final plan. Pro.iect Objectives According to the project applicant, Poway's geographical location in the mid- county region places the project site at the optimum central point to service the urban population of San Diego County. This allows the project to meet its initial objective of serving its greatest audience within a central location. The project meets its second objective of fitting in with its immediate surroundings, because it is within a major industrial area, separated from non-compatible land uses in both distance and topographical relief. The third objective of the project is to become a positive cultural as well as economic component of the City of Poway. Project Characteristics The project will grade approximately 74 acres of the site, o~ this development area, the amphitheater complex will take up approximately 9 acres. The rest of the site's graded pads and manufactured slopes will become landscaped open space. Only the entry drives and parking for approximately 2,500 cars immediately around the complex will be paved while the remaining area will be seeded and maintained with meadow grasses and all the slopes will be planted with City-approved erosion control landscaping. The theater complex has a cluster of buildings made up of the stage with a rear loading dock allowing servicing by large trucks. Adjoining this will be an artist hospitality wing and a crew/production wing. The rest of the complex will have approximately 120,000 square feet of public plazas with food and beverage concession buildings with satellite kiosks, restrooms, a central box office and an administration building. The building complex will have approximately 46,000 total square feet and one consistent architectural theme produced from a clean and contemporary style compatible with the standards set in the SPPC. The theater bowl will rise some 60 to 70 feet from the stage elevation (approximately 810 feet). In front of the stage will be an area of approximately 75,000 square feet for 10,000 reserved fixed and semi-fixed seats, and behind that (uphill) will be a turfed bowl of approximately 95,000 square feet for an additional 10,000 or so general admission patrons. Parking areas will be accessed off of the SPP from intersections at both the east and west sides of the property. Kirkham Way will ultimately provide a third access route when it is fully constructed toward the west. The 90 degree intersection on Kirkham Way may become a curved intersection. The east access street is a short public cul-de-sac that will also provide access to the adjoining property to the east. Both intersections on the SPP will have traffic signals. These lights will be manually operated at peak traffic periods with the Poway Safety Services Department county sheriff's deputies hired to control traffic. Parking on site will be controlled by the operator employees who will assist traffic flow in an efficient and orderly operation 12 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 Notice of Preparation January 11, 1995 Page 5 - both prior to and after each performance. Multiple lots will provide up to 8,000 parking spaces. Patrons at the sell out performances will first be routed to the overflow parking area north of the SPP until it fills. Once out of their cars, they will be directed across the SPP at the signalized intersection to the theater and then back again after the performance is over. The result of this development proposal will be a state-of-the-art outdoor performing arts center offering a complete program of musical events, including pop, rock, country and classical. Its primary season will run from April to November and provide entertainment for people between the ages of 16 to 60 plus. Some events may include a fireworks show. Most shows will be in the evening between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., with some other events and festivals at different times (see list of ancillary land uses at the end of the project description). Typical evening shows will bring in a reserved seat audience of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 persons. On occasion, special performances will produce sellouts and the audience will grow to approximately 21,000 persons. Doors for evening shows will open one hour prior to the performance, but because most performances predominantly feature reserved seating, peak traffic is generated between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and then after closing at 10:30 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Due to the nature of an outdoor theater and the fact that s6me performances can generate noise levels near 105 db at the stage level, the design of the facility, its orientation and its elevation will have to be designed to contain this characteristic and meet a noise standard for adjacent residences acceptable to the City in accordance with the Poway General Plan Noise - Element. The facility will draw on the entire county for its audiences. Because of the proximity of the site to the rest of Poway and the route of SPP, which will become the theater's primary access link, the majority of the attending audience should not travel to other areas of town unless they intentionally go looking for services. Surrounding tourist-type and service oriented land uses, such as restaurants may pick up trade before or after events. Ancillary Land Uses - The following ancillary uses may operate on the project site off-schedule of the primary amphitheater events. (Reqional - Typically Saturday and Sunday): 1. Music festivities (multiple acts) - 10:00 am to 12:00 am, estimated max. daily audience - 20,000 persons. 2. Musicals; Dance theater 6:00 pm to 12:00 am, estimated max. daily audience - 20,000 persons 3. Crafts fair/Swapmeet - 7:00 am to 4:00 pm, estimated maximum daily visitors - 10,000. 4. Special event festivals (food; film; theme/period crafts) - 9:00am to 12:00 am, est. max. daily audience - 20,000 persons. 5. Special automobile sales events - 9:00am to 6:00 pm. 6. Sunrise services/Easter Sunday - 6:00 am to 12:00 pm. JAN 1 0 1995 I"J'E ,5 ~l 13 of 29 Notice of Preparati~ January 11, 1995 Page 6 (Community - Typically Saturday and Sunday): 1. Poway Days concerts. 2. Fundraisers, rallies, local artisan and craft fairs. 3. High School graduation 4. Fourth of July Independence Day Celebration Project Approval/ Permit Requirements The project property (County Assessor's Parcel Map No. 323-091-01-Lively) has been granted no previous approvals other than the approved SPPC Development Plan, and as subsequently amended. The project application proposes amendments to the SPPC Development Plan (Volume 1) concerning the land use and traffic circulation sections, and Development Standards (Volume II). As shown on Figure 5, the site is allocated several use categories under the SPPC Development Plan. The categories include light industrial (LI), industrial park (IP), commercial (C), natural open space, and open space (1 DU). The applicant desires to amend the SPPC plan by replacing the existing use categories with a newly established "amphitheater" use category. The approvals that are requested as part of the project application are as follows: 1. Amendments to the SPPC Development Plan. 2. Conditional Use Permit. 3. Development Design Review. 4. Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report. 5. NCCP Habitat "Take Permit". 6. Other required permits as determined through the CEQA process. PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT EIR The project EIR will be prepared as a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is proposed on approximately 158 acres of land located within the South Poway Planned Community (SPPC) Development Plan area. The site is also within the "Project Area" of the Paguay Redevelopment Plan. Since mid-1985, the several EIR documents listed below have been certified by the City of Poway in connection with approved projects in the SPPC Development Plan area or vicinity. In order to avoid a potential duplication of effort, these existing environmental documents may be utilized and/or incorporated by reference when preparing the project EIR. These documents are available for review by appointment only with the City contact person. Previously Certified EIR'S 1. Final EIR-South Poway Planned Community (SPPC} Development Plan Project (SCH# 84053008, July, 1985). 2. Final Subsequent EIR-SPPC Development Plan Project (SCH# 88042716, September, 1988} 3. Final EIR-South Poway Expressway (Alternative SA) Project {SCH# 88021004, September, 1988} 4. Final Subsequent EIR-Calmat-Poway Project (SCH# 89010025, June,1990) 14 of 29 JAN 10 1995 I'~ 5 Notice of Preparation - January 11, 1995 Page 7 5. Final Program EIR-Poway General Plan Update Project (SCH# 91051027, November, 1991) and Poway Master Environmental Assessment. 6. Final Program EIR-Paguay Redevelopment Plan Amendment Project (SCH# 92061007, March, 1993) 7. Final EIR-Scripps Poway Parkway East Extension Project (SCH# 93091118, February, 1994) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The Project EIR will evaluate, in an adequate level of detail, the following potential areas of environmental impact and other related issues required by CEQA should the Project or any identified alternatives to the Project be approved by the lead agency and subsequently implemented. 1. Soils and Geology 2. Hydrology and Drainage 3. Air Quality 4. Biological Resources (Flora and Fauna) 5. Population 6. Socio-Economic Factors 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations _ 8. Transportation and Circulation 9. Cultural Resources 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors (including direct and indirect noise effects) 11. Aesthetics 12. Utilities and Public Services 13. Energy and Scarce Resources 14. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 15. Mandatory Findings of Significance (including short- and long-term and cumulative effects) 16. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The discussion of the environmental evaluation of the above issue areas is included in the attached Environmental Initial Study. NOP MASTER DISTRIBUTION LIST This Notice of Preparation was sent to the following agencies, organizations, firms, and individuals: Federal Aqencies (by certified mail} U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 15 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 Notice of Preparation January 11, 1995 Page 8 State Aqencies (by certified mail) State Clearinghouse/Office of Planning and Research California Department of Transportation (District 11) California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Conservation - Division of Mines and Geology - Land Resources Protection Unit California Department of Forestry State Office of Historic Preservation California Department of Parks and Recreation State Reclamation Board California Department of Housing and Community Development California Department of Water Resources California Energy Commission Native American Heritage Commission California Highway Patrol - Long Range Planning Section California Department of Health California Air Resources Board California Waste Management Board State Water Resources Control Board - Division of Water Quality Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Diego Region (9) State Office of Emergency Services Local Jurisdictions (by certified mail) Areawide Clearinghouse (SANDAG) Sandag MHCP Coordinator Poway Unified School District San Diego Unified School District, Planning Director City of San Diego: - Office of the Mayor - City Council - City Manager - Planning Director - Community Plan Division - Development and Environmental Planning Division - Clean Water Program Division - Transportation Planning - MSCP Coordinator City of Santee: - City Council - City Manager - Planning Director County of San Diego: - Chief Administrative Officer - Diane Jacobs, Supervisor, 2nd District - Chair of the Planning Commission - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - Planning Director, Department of Planning and Land Use - Director, 16 of 29 JAN 10 1995 Notice of Preparation January 11, 1995 Page 9 Department of Parks and Recreation - Director, Department of Public Works - Director, Department of Health Services - Director, Department of General Services San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) San Diego County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Sheriff's Department (Poway Substation) San Diego County Water Authority Naval Air Station Miramar, Fred Pierson, CPLO Local/Reqional Orqanizations (by regular mail) San Diego Audubon Society Palomar Audubon Society California Native Plant Society - Norma Sullivan/Tim Burr Sierra Club - San Diego Chapter and Poway Chapter San Diego County Archaeological Society Mid-County Association of Communities San Diego Biodiversity Project Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation Rancho Penasquitos Planning Board Rancho Penasquitos Town Council Miramar Ranch North Planning Committee Scripps Miramar Ranch Planning Committee Ramona Community Planning Group Lakeside Community Planning Group Sabre Springs Community Planning Group and Homeowners Association Rancho Bernardo Town Council Rancho Bernardo Community Planning Board San Pasqual/Lake Hodges Planning Group Poway Chamber of Commerce Poway Valley Civic Association Poway Historical Society Garden Road Civic Association Sycamore Canyon Homeowners Association Southwest Poway Homeowners Association Green Valley Civic Association Mountain Defense League Endangered Habitats League Firms and Individuals (by regular mail) Clarence Brown McMillin Communities ADI Properties C.F. Pomerado, Inc. Neville Bothwell David Poole, Pardee Construction Company Michael Fry, Poway Sierra Club Chapter Timothy Burr, CA Native Plant Society 17 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 ~'-~- ,5 ~ Notice of Preparation January 11, 1995 Page 10 Norma Sullivan, CA Native Plant Society Linda Brannon San Diego Gas and Electric Pacific Bell Cox Cable Television Southwestern Cable Television General Dynamics Jan Goldsmith, Assemblyman, 75th District Marty Montgomery Gail Trunell Poway Transportation Advisory Committee All property owners within the boundary of the South Poway Planned Community and within a 500 foot radius of said boundary. project study area Attachments: - Figure 1. Regional Location of Project Site - Figure 2. Precise Project Location - Figure 3. General Plan Land Use and Zoning - Figure 4. Preliminary Project Site Plan - Figure 5. SPPC Development Plan Use Categories - City of Poway Environmental Initial Study Checklist - January 10, 1995 Public Scoping Hearing Agenda Report 18 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 SITE _ Regional Project Location ;JAN 1 0 199,5 ITEM ].9 ot= 29 FigUre~ 1 ~AN 1 0 ~q~ "rrE~ 5 "L~'"~'~'~" 22 of 29 -- JAN 1 0 1995 r~,.~ .5 - '-"- CITY OF POWAY INITIAL STUD~ -- DATE: December 19, 1994 PROJECT TITLE: Poway Entertainment tenter Bill Silva Presents APPLICANT: Bill Silva Presents CEQA LEAD AGENCY: City of Poway / Poway Redevelopment Agency MAILING ADDRESS: 13325 Civic Center Drive , Poway, CA. 92064 PREPARER OF CHECKLIST: James R. Nessel, Senior Planner, City of Poway Planning Services Department 13325 Civic Center Drive, Building A, Poway, CA. 92064 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: The project location and description are contained within the January 10, 1995 City of Poway agenda report for the subject project. The said agenda report includes the CEQA-mandated Notice of Preparation (NOP). The agenda report and its attached NOP are fully incorporated herein by reference. I. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following determination of potential environmental impa~ts of the proposed project is based on the findings of previously completed and certified environmental impact reports (EIR's), as listed in the Notice of Preparation. The EIR documents can be reviewed at the City's Planning Services Department. The listed EIR's analyze the potential environmental impacts that may occur with the buildout of the South Poway Planned Community (SPPC) Development Plan. YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or burial of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? X d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on- or off-site conditions? X f. Changes in erosion, siltation, or deposition? X 23 of 29 ,]AN 1 0 1995 ~'~'~.,.~ ,5 , ~ Environmental Study ~cklist Page 2 Discussion: There is potential for increased erosion in conjunction with the proposed project. In addition, the project site is traversed by natural drainages that may be impacted by project implementation. These drainages are either ephemeral (blue-line) stream channels as identified on the Poway USGS quadrangle maps or are tributary thereto. The potential for increased erosion could also result in siltation in the drainages or deposition of eroded materials down- stream or off-site. These potential changes should be further evaluated. Mitigation measures and related monitoring may be required. g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Changes in currents, or the course in direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X Discussion: The project site is traversed by Beeler Creek, which may be effected by the project. This potential alteration should be further evaluated. Mitigation measures and related monitoring may be required to avoid or lessen potential flooding effects of the project. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alter- ation of surface water quality? X f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? X g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions, or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? X Quantity? X h. The reduction in the amount of water otherwise X available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water X related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? X 24 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 5 Environmental Study C~. ~list Page 3 ~- Stationary sources? X b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of appli- cable air quality standards? X c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement moisture or temperature? X 4. Flora. Will the proposal have significant res-~t s in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of endangered species of plants? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? X d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? X 5. Fauna. Will the proposal have significant res-~ts in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, ~- including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the mitigation or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? X Discussion: The project site contains plant and animal species dressed by the State Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) and the evolving Poway Subarea Nabitat Conservation Plan. 6. Population. [Will the proposal] have significant results in: a. [Will the proposal] alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 7. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and prop- erty values? X z5 o¢ 29 3AN 1 0 1995 ITEM 5 Environmental Stud~ ~ecklist Page 4 b. Will project costs be equitably distri- buted among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, taxpayers, or project users? X 8. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any govern- mental entities? X c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? X 9. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? X c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X d. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X e. Alterations to present patterns of circu- lation or movement of people and/or goods? X f. Alteration to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit, or air traffic? X g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? X 10. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeo- logical, paleontological, and/or historical resources? X 11. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? X d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or parthenogenic organisms 26 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 Envirorumental Study Checklist Page 5 or the exposure of people to such organisms? X e. Increase in existing noise levels? X f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? x g. The creation of objectionable odors? X h. An increase in light or glare? X 12. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? X b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? X c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? X 13. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have significant need for new systems, or alter- ations to the following: a. Electric power? X b. Natural or packaged gas? X c. Communications systems? X d. Water supply? X e. Wastewater facilities? X f. Flood control structures? X g. Solid waste facilities? X h. Fire protection? X i. Police protection? X j. Schools? X k. Parks or other recreational facilities? X 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? X m. Other governmental services? X 14. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? X 27 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 Environmental Study ~cklist Page 6 c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? X d. An increase or perpetuation of the consump- tion of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? X e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resources? X 15. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commaunity, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of the California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effect of past projects, and probable future projects.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This Initial Study concludes that the proposed project may have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment, therefore, the preparation of an EIR that fully evaluates each and every issue area within the Initial Study Checklist is required. The State CEQA Guidelines, under Section, state that if the Lead Agency can determine that that an EIR will clearly be required for the project, an Initial Study is not required but may still be desirable. Previously completed and certified EIR's have concluded that the development of the project site would result in some degree of adverse impacts, depending on the level of specificity contained in the individual EIR documents. The potential impacts of the proposed project would be sirailar to those that would result if the adopted SPPC land uses were implemented on the project site (Please reference previously certified Final EIR for the South Poway Planned Co,unity Development Plan -SCH# 84053008, JULY, 1985). 28 of 29 JAN 1 0 1995 5 Environmental Study C~. Page 7 The following checklist briefly explains potential impacts that may be substantially different, based on new information. Where no explaination is provided, the Lead Agency fully incorporates the SPPC Development Plan's certified Final EIR as the source of its determination. III.DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. x I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE: December 19, 1994 SIGNATURE: TITLE:~ JAN 1 0 1995 29 of 29 F YOU WISH TO SPEAK at the meeting, please fill out one of the speaker's slips which are located at the back of the Council Chambers, to the right of the door as you enter. Use a green slip if you are in favor of staff's recommendation or a red slip if you are opposed. The agenda, which gives the order of the meeting, is also located there. You must give the speaker's slip to the City Clerk prior to the meeting or prior to the ~Ubject item in order to be called to the podium to speak. If you challenge the matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you hav~'s~ecial needs requiring assistance at the meeting, please call the City Clerk .at 679-4236 24 hours prior to the meeting so that accommodation can be arranged. Marjorie K. Wahlsten, Cit~ Clerk ~ eE~L~RC*.VO"RO- ~ DEC 2 0 VICINITY MAP - NORTH C]~ CLERK'S OFFICE '; ~1'1;, i'EL 13z1585009 J.~r~ L 05 t?:,12 I%.Otzl 6 J'anuary 1995 Mncjol i~ Wahlsten City Clerk City of Pow-',y 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 9206~ Re: Proposal for Amphitheater in the Garden Road Asea Dear Ms. Wahlsten: Please pass this letter to Mayor Higginson and the City Council Members as well as make it part of the Public Record for the upcoming City Council Meeting on 10 January 95 regarding the subject proposal. Mayor Higginson and City Council Members: Last evening I attended a presentation by BSP Entertainment who is interested in making a proposal to the city to cons~'uct a amphitheater in the Poway Business Park. I understand that initial discussions with the city regarding this proposal have occurred; that the city intends to expend funds to further study this proposal; and that BSP expects to close - escrow on the property next week. Based upon the information I obtained from the meeting last evening, I believe this proposal should be dismissed without further consideration by the city and that no city revenues should be expended studying this proposal. Such a project will clearly have an adverse impact on the "Quality of Life" that we all cherish here in Poway. No amount of study or expert testimony will convince me that such a project can be constructed a.nd operated in a manner which would not negatively effect our community. The "Quality of Life" and "City in the Country" are thc ideals that each of you have expressed as your commitment to protect and, as such, we have elected you to do so. Notwithstanding any amount of potential revenue for the city, which may be necessary to improve the city's financial situation, can justify such a project. 1 have spoken to many fellow Powegians, and we all agree that given a choice we would unanitnously choose higher taxes or other methods of rai,qng r~venue rather than a project of this size and potential significant disruption to our community. ! urge you to live-up to your electoral promises and dismiss this absurd proposal without wasting our precious city resources studying a proposal that is so clearly outside our community's goal:; and objectives. I would appreciate your response to this letter and a statement from each of you regarding your position on this matter. I may also be reached at 486-3747. Sincerely, ,//,, John M. t'cllcgr~no 13598 Spnave l.;me Poway JAN ! 0 1995 ITEM 5 To the City Clerk City of Pc)way My husband and I want to express our opposition against the plan to build an ampith~ater in the Poway Industrial Park. A huge outdoor theater with the noise, traffic and other implications in connection with the performances is completely against the image of Poway. Please, keep this city a place in the country as it should be. January 8, 1995. Sincerely cc; ~ ~ I~ 2-~ ~  Irene Tarr Ted Tarr 14532 High Pine St. Poway, CA ,,lAN 1 01995 ~ .5 DISTRIBUT .D TO: City Council Members ~M:~:~ Zllen Bernee ~' ~: Bill Silva Presents proposed development of ~phitheater I attended the January 5th info~ation meeting to hear of this project and to hear the concerns of the people'.who would be attending. I noted the following concerns: ~ 3Additional traffic created by the projected 2,500 vehicles per perfo~ance. Vehicular traffic can be expected to overflow onto side streets by drivers seeking to bypass traffic j~s. 2) Expected sound levels of the "concerts" and inadequacy of the study perfo~ed. One need not live within a two mile radius to hear this noise. I live more than twice the distance of the measured study, but because I live on a hill top I expect to hear the noise. ~en I lived at a lower level and much closer to the site I could not hear the firing of test rockets by General Dynamics (in City of San Diego). Now that I live on top of a hill I can hear the roar every time they are fired up. Anyone in Poway who lives at an equivalent height will be able to hear the noise of the concerts. Sound tests should be mechanically/technically recorded in areas such as Los Arbolitos, Hilltop Circle, Wilsey Way, Belvedere Drive, Silver Ridge Development, Sunrise Ranch Development, etc. These are all as high or higher than the proposed ~phitheater. 3) The lighting of the on-site area and type of lights. Will these lights be visible from neighboring developments? Will these lights be detr~ental of the Palomar Observatory? 4) The ten o'clock curfew for young people. Concerts let out at that time or after. This will put a lot 0f young people on the local streets after curfew. 5) Off-site policing problems because of (1) and (4) above. Bill Silva's responsibility ends at the per~iter of his project. The City of Poway will be expected to deal with all other probl~s of traffic, loitering and cr~e opportunities created by the concerts. page 2 RE: Bill Silva Presents proposed development of Amphitheater ~ The open space - will this be open space or will Bill Silva be given an additional CUP? And, who will police the open space or any of the surrounding areas for people tramping (or even driving) over the hills to hear concertS? 7) Sale of food and drink (alcohol) on-site. (Even restaurants do not make money on food they make it on alcohol.) One _ obvious reason to pat people down is to force concert goers "~to purchase food and drink from on-site. This will be a big money maker for Bill Silva. 8) The type of concerts or activities that will be permitted? Bill Silva is not a nonprofit operation. He has a business and would expect to make the maximum from the operation -~ and would be free to book anything and everything rather than let the ampitheater sit empty. (The representative stated that they pointed out to the H~l-lywood Bowl people that they were losing money by not booking all types of concerts - now that they handle the Hollywood Bowl they book all types of concerts.) 9) Is Poway so desperate for income that this project should be accepted? Will the projected tax revenue to the City be adequate to off-set the additional expenses generated by (1), (4), (5) and (6) above? Will there be any financial benefit to the City? 10) Who will pay for the extension of the parkway? Additional street lights, stop lights, etc? Should the citizens of Poway be expected to pay for these accommodations of the proposed project? 11) By granting a CUP, the City Council will be creating a loop hole for Proposition FF. This project requires a general plan amendment which mandates that a vote of the people be taken. This "Mickey Mousing" around Prop FF does not set well with those who support the Poway Plan. i2) Once a CUP is granted it's there forever. You know that and the people know that. If something goes wrong they City can only give them a slap on the hand - and the beat goes on!!!!! I've heard the rosey picture presented. None of the concerns were adequately answered. Oh, they were discussed (verbally danced around) but not satisfactorily answered. Until such time as these concerns remain, I can not support the project. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTA'fION PLANNING · TRAFFIC ENGINEERING · PARKING 8989 RIO SAN DIEGO DRIVE, SU;TE 135, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92108 TELEPHONE (6!9/299-3090. FAX: (619)299 7041 JACK M, GREENSPAN, P E Da[c: . WILLIAM A LAW, P.E PAULW WILKINSON, PE LEON D WARD, P.E JOHN P. KEA'i'ING, P.[ FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION · . Job No: Project: To: From: Comments: Copies to: ltard Cop}' to Follow: Yes No ~ Total Number of Pages (including cover sheet): / ReceMng Facsimile Number: ~ If you did not receive all of the pages, please call (619) 299-3090. OTHFRO=FtCES:COSTAMESA1ELEPHONk:(714)641-15BT'FAX:(71t')6'~I'O139 JAN 1 0 1995 ITEM PASADENA TELEPHONE: (213) 681-2629. FAX (818) 792-0941 Members of the Council, I attended the recent Garden Road meeting. At that meeting, Mr. Redfern made it clear to the audience that he is going forward with the Environmental Impact Report whether or not this community makes it clear tonight that it does not want this ampitheater. Therefore, I respectfully ask that these issues be entered into the record: 1. There is a need for a redo of the sound study by a professional unrelated and unknown to Mr. Silva and Mr. Redfern and a notification to the community of time and date of same.The test should be done at the times of day Mr. Silva plans to have his concerts and with the same lighting, as the lighting carries it's own issues. 2. An impact report needs to be generated, again by an impartial professional on the amounts of traffic on the road including up to 20,000 people 2 to 3 times a week. Although the projected average is 8,500 people, Mr. Redfern has made it clear that he has packed the Hollywood Bowl and wishes to do the same here. Impact of traffic should include rush hour traffic meeting with early concert goers driving to major performances, as the concerts on Fridays are planned to begin at 8pm. Also included should be the impact of concert equipment trucks on our roads up to 3 times a week. Who will field the cost of mending the roads and putting in additional lights and staff for traffic control? 3.An impact report should include interviews with businesses, residents, and police officers close to other ampitheaters. Many different theaters should be checked and the ampitheaters checked should be in similar locations as Poway, i.e. close to residents. These interviews should cover impact of grafitti,property damage, litter, road accidents, and incidents of impaired and intoxicated drivers, not just a record of whether crime greatly increased or not. 4. An impact report needs to be generated regarding the special issue of fire risks. Many people who will not want to pay for a ticket will sit in the hills to listen to the concerts. If fires are lit from smoking in the hills, or from a carelessly thrown cigarette out a window of one of up to 20,000 people coming to town up to 3 times a week, who will be paying for the fire damage? 5. What will be the impact on Poway of local residents gathering for a class action lawsuit due to decreased property value or property damage? There has been talk about this. For example, will the property on Gate St. decrease in value as it was one of the areas where the concert music was audible, minimally audible, but audible. Is BSP willing to put up a mitigation bond to protect the city should BSP not be within compliance of regulations or if there is a large group lawsuit to protect the city from the revenue loss? 6. An impact report needs to be generated on the wildlife and open space of our community particularly any endangered or fragile animals and plants. 7. An impact report needs to be generated on the amounts of air pollution generated from somewhere between 8,500 and 20,000 persons and their autos coming to town up to 3 times a week~ That said, I respectfully ask for my additional issue to be seriously considered and entered into the record. Indeed, in my heart and soul, I know the following to be the real issue. Many of us Poway residents moved here from other areas to go toward a more rural community. We say yes to peacefulness, neighborliness, and open space. I ask you to think back to why you came to Poway or why you stay here...what you love about Poway, and then try to fit this ampitheater into that dream. You have been approachsd by a salesman. He is trying to sell you a solid well built pop and rock concert business. He can be the most upstanding businessman in the world. He does not represent what Poway is~ He represents LA, Hollywood, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc. big business, big parties..,well run, but big just the same.We want a family sedan and he is trying to sell a Porschs. You are being led from the issues by his representation of himself as an honest and solid businessman~ The issue here for you to decide with the community is whether we continue to go forward with our wishes and plan of slow growth with Poway with a rural flavor or whether we become a big city atmosphere. I'll tell you, ladies and gentlemen, there are people all over the county who know Poway and it's reputation and it's values and we are a very respected community. I refer you to Mr. Silva's own promotional literature folder with a San Diego Union article covering Mr~ Silva and the Rolling Stone's concert. Mr Silva calls the concert a big party. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what you are considering buying along with the ampitheater. Please do not think they are separate. Please let Mr. Silva know what we represent and have him fit himself to us not us to him. Sincerely, Kathleen Brandy Erin Griffin 12655 Gate Dr. Poway, CA 92064 Poway City Council P.O. Box 789 City of Poway 92074-7089 January 10, 1995 Dear Poway City Council: My name is Erin Griffin and I am unable to be here tonight so I am sending you this statement regarding the Amphitheater you are considering building in the Industrial Park. I am a 26 year old female with a B.S. degree in Criminal Justice and I have been to many concerts (somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 or more). These concerts have been of various music types- country, pop, rock and heavy metal. I have been going to concerts for 10 years and I have seen first hand what happens at these concerts, in the parking lot as well as inside the arena. My point is that there is more to consider than the economic impact that this amphitheater will have on the city of Poway. My concern is the drugs and alcohol that goes along with concerts. There are already drug dealers and kids using drugs in the city of Poway and that is a fact. The building of a new amphitheater will give these drug dealers and users a place to meet and to deal. Not to mention the kids that will be consuming alcohol in the parking lots before and after the shows. As I have stated I have been to concerts and I have seen this happen openly. This amphitheater will also attract people from San Diego and they will bring their drugs. There will be problems for the Business Park- vandalism, parking to do drugs, make drug deals, people having sex in areas around and behind buildings and possibly even burglaries and/or thefts to businesses within the industrial park, let alone what will be going on in the open areas surrounding the theater. Mr. Silva does provide security for these concerts and the security does search people before they can enter the arena. But that does not stop the drugs from being taken into the concert nor does it stop the concert goers from using drugs inside the facilities. That is also a fact. I have seen this happen at all but 3 concerts that I have been to- and those three concerts were in small theaters. From what I have seen at concerts I can tell you that with the best of security you will still need the help of the Poway's Sheriff's Department in controlling the crowds outside the arena, as well as the traffic problems, and depending on the concert the Sheriffs may be needed inside the facilities as well. Even with the security, and the help of the Sheriffs there will be drug dealing, drug using, and the consumption of alcohol (by some minors as well as those over the age o~ 21). If you doubt what I am saying l~ true then you can contact the San Diego Police D~pt. and ank thom how they f~uL abo%~t the concartm at had to work the area during conce~te, and Offica~s that had to work inside at the Gune-N-Rosea/Metallioa conoe~t (which was brought to San Diego by Bill Silva), and those that had to deal with the aftermath. These officers had nothing good to say about the experience. In summary, I have been to these concex~ca and have seen what goes on. Plan on hiring more Poway Sheriffs. This amphitheater being proposed will become a liability to the city of Poway and will bring added problems that the city can not handle. These problems are things that must be considered before this proposal is voted on. In my opinion this ia not the type of business that should be brought here. Sincerely, Erin Griffin Concerned citizen PARTICAL LIST OF CONCERTS I'VE Hooters Kenny Rogere - emall theater - no drugs eeen Wynone Judd - Del Mar Fair - no drugs seen Jack Wagner - emmal theater - no drugs seen Greatful Dead Billy Joel Budwiser Super Fest Rollin Stones *Guns-N-Roses (3 times) Bon Jovi AC/DC Van Halen Ozzy Ozbourne Tesla Whitesnake Metallica Genesis Boobie Brothers Motley Crew *At one Guns-N-Roses concert I sat in "open seating" in the grass. This is the WORST possible place to sit for a rock or heavy metal concert. Once the band started playing the people started pushing, shoving, and slam dancing. I was run over, punched in the face and almost trampled. SOUTHWEST POWAY HOMEOWNERS ASSN. PO BOX 959 POWAY CA 92074-0959 TO: CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF JANUARY 10, 1995 RE: BILL SILVA AMPHITHEATER PROJECT SWPHA IS CONCERNED THAT TONIGHT WE ARE STARTING OUT WrrH A SCOPINO HEARINO INSTEAD OF A PR.E-DEVEI.,OPMENT WORKSHOP HELD AT A CONVENIENT TIME FOR THE A~-P-I~C'r~.! ] RESIDENTS. WE FEEL 1T IS ESSENTIAL TO HAVE THE EIR ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ISSUES BEFORE RESIDENTS, STAFF, OR CITY COUNCIL CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DETERMINATION OF THE VIABILITY OF THIS PROJECT. WE ESPECIALLY ARE CONCERN~:~· Wl'rrI ri'EM 11 OF THE CHECKOFF LIST. ITEM 1 OF THE STAFF REPORT: THE ANCILLARY LAND USE NEI~S TO BE MORE SPECIFIC. WE WOULD LIKE SOME KIND OF MECHANISM TO LIMIT USES TO THOSE DETAH.RT~ IN THE En~. IN PARTICULAR [I'EIVI #4, SPECIAL EVENT FESTIVALS. THOSE rrEMS THAT AREN~ DETAIl.lTD OUT SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE APPROVAL. ENVIRO~AL CHECKLIST: THE FOLLOWIN(} rrElviS. ,WE THINK., SHOULD BE CHANGED TO YES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. ITEM #2: ADDING HALF AGAIN THE POPULATION OF POWAY, EVEN IF FOR ONLY ONE DAY COULD HAVE A SI(}NIFICANT IMPACT ON THE WATER SUPPLY. THIS NEEDS TO BE QUANTIFIRD PER EVENT AND ANNUALLY l'l'EM 3A,B,C: WE WOULD LIK~ TO SEE WHAT lvn'rlGATION CANBE ENCOURAGED THRU PUBLIC TRANSIT. ITEM #5: REFUSE DISPOSAL AND CLEAN-UP SHOULD BE CLEARLY SPECIFig~D, WYIH RESPECT TO HYDROI3DOY AND FAUNA. HOW Wu .L PARKING LOT RUN-OFF BE HANDI.RD? ITEM #6: THE PROJECT WI~.L DISCOURA(}E NEARBY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (REF. ACOUSTIC REPORT). WI-i~KE WII.L THAT DISPLACED DEVELOPMENT BE ABSORBED? DETAIL (}EO~RAPHICALLY WHERE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE DISCOURAGED. rrEM 7A: Wi'iH RESPECT TO COMMERCIAL DIVERSITY; WHAT PENDING USES WU.l. THIS PRECEDENT ENCOURAGE, SUCH AS HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, AND OTHER SERVICES,.(e.g. POWAY JUNCTION?). ITEM 7B: SINCE MOST Al J. THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL COSTS W-~.T. BE BORNE BY THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS, WHAT IVn'riGATION Wu.L BE DIRECTED TO THEM (i.e SCHOOLS, LIBRARY OPERATING COSTS, RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, GOLF COURSES, FFA~ TRAILS). SO--ST POWAY HOMEOWNERS ASSN. PO BOX 959 POWAY CA 92074-0959 ITEM 8: ANALYZE SIMILAR SITES AROUND THE COUNtrY AS TO HOW LAND USE AND Crr~ PLANS HAVE CHANGED AS A I~ESULT OF THESE PROJECTS. INCORPORATE ANALYSIS IN EIR. H~_M 9: WHAT PLANS DOES THE OWNER HAVE FOR OFFSITE TRANSPORTATION PROBLR-~IS? QUAN'rhv'Y THE ADDITIONAL LOAD FOR SHER~'I~' AND PARAMEDICS, ALSO TRAFFIC LOAD ON CITY STRF.]~TS. DEFINE THE POINTS OF ORIGIN FOR ATrENDANCE AT EVENTS. HOW ARE THESE ADDITIONAL DEMANDS GOING TO BE PAID FOR7 ITEM//1 l: DETAIL DAMAGE CAUSED BY EXTREME ROCK CONCERT MUSIC TO AUDIENCE HEARING AND ANY CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF AUDIBLE AND INAUDIBLE PHYSIOLOGICAL ~_m'~:CTS. ANALYZE SOUND PROPAGATION BASED ON ACTUAL SOUND SYSTEMS USED BY TOURING ROCK GROUPS ESPECIALLY LOW FREQUENCY. TESTS TO BE CONDUCTED FROM 8-11 PM AND INCLUDE At.l. TYPES OF MUSIC. SPECIFICALLY, THE LOW FREQUENCY PROPAGATION SHOULD BE AT THE LATE HOUR. RESIDENTS SHOULD BE NO~ CITY-WIDE OF THE TESTS AND A MEANS OF REPORTING BACK BE GIVEN. THE LIGHTING PLAN SHOULD BE DETAILED IN THE EIR. A COPY SHOULD BE SUB~ TO PALOMAR OBSERVATORY AND THEIR RESPONSE INCORPORATED. ItEM 13: WHAT WILL BE THE CITY'S OBLIGATION TO SUPPLY THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO THIS PROJECT? ITEM 14: DETAIL PLANS TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC TRANSIT FOR THIS PROJECT. ITEM 15: WHAT PERFORMANCE AND SECURITY BONDS ARE AVAil,ABLE TO ASSURE RESIDENTS THAT THE CITY WILL NOT INCUR ADDITIONAL LIABILITY AND THE DEVELOPER WN,I, REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEN~NTS WITHIN THE EIR AND CUP? -2-