Item 4 - Consideration of EA & City-Initiated of SPSP Ammnd
- -
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of tile City Council
- James L. Bowersox, City "ana~
FROI'I:
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager ~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services
DATE: September 12, 1995
SUBJECT: Consideration of Environmental Assessment and Citv-
Initiated South Powav SDecific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-DIAA).
ABSTRACT
This agenda report addresses the consideration of the environmental assessment and City-
initiated South Poway Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-01AA), which would prohibit the
construction of outdoor amphitheaters.
ENVIRDNI'IENTAL REVIEW
Staff has prepared an environmental initial study and a proposed negative declaration
which address this item and tile recommended City Council action.
FISCAL IMPACT
-
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
This item has been advertised in the Poway News Chieftain. In addition, legal
notification has been mailed to the distribution list prepared in connection with the
Poway Entertainment Center project draft environmental impact report. A copy of this
report has also been sent to Jerry Hargarten; Laura Thornton, MCAS El Toro; Steve
Redfearn, Bill Silva Presents;and Fred Pierson, NAS Miramar; and the Planning Director,
City of San Diego. No additional correspondence had been received at the time this
report was completed.
RECOMI'IENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider the environmental assessment and
proposed amendment, take public testimony, close the public hearing, issue a negative
declaration, and adopt tile attached resolution approving City-initiated South Poway
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-01AA), which prohibits outdoor amphitheaters as a land
use under the Plan.
ACTION
~
E:\CITY\PLANNING\REPORT\SPAA.SUM
1 of 20 SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4
~--_._-
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: ,Honorable Mayor and Members~e City Council
FROM: James L. 8owersox, City Man
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitcll, Assistant City Manager ~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services
Jim Nessel, Senior Planner
DATE: September 12, 1995
SUBJECT: Consideration of Environmental Assessment and Citv-Initiated
South Powav Soecific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-0IAAI.
BACKGROUND
This agenda report concerns the consideration of the environmental assessment and
City-initiated South Poway Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-01AA). On July 18,
1995, the City Council considered a staff report related to this item (agenda
item 3.1.), which is fully incorporated lIerein by reference.
Subsequently, the City Council took the following action by a unanimous vote:
1.) Adopted Resolution No. 95-082 approving the initiation of City-initiated
Soutll Poway Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-0IAA); and
2. ) Directed staff to complete tile necessary environmental review sufficient
to permit the City Council to determine wllether an outdoor ampllitheater
should be a prohibited or permltted land use anywhere witllin the South
Poway Specific Plan.
FINDINGS
The Soutll Poway Planned Community (SPPC) Specific Plan was adopted by the City
Counc il on July 30, 1985. The specific plan provides for tile systematic
implementation of botll the Poway General Plan and tile Paguay Redevelopment Plan.
Since its adoption, the specific plan has been amended from time to time for tile
purpose of refining its Development Plan (Volume 1) and Development Standards
(Volume 2). However, the Plan is silent to tile specific land use of outdoor
ampll itlleaters.
ACTION:
.-
j'
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4
2 of 20
-
- Agenda Report
September 12. 1995
Page 2
Under the Planned Community (PC) zone, the specific plan provides that the plan
area should be developed in accordance with the Industrial Park (IP), Light
Industrial (LI), South Poway Commercial (SPC), Open Space (1 DU), and limited low
density single family residential land uses.
The portion of the plan area surrounding the designated industrial and commercial
land use areas (South Poway Business Park) is primarily intended for Open Space
(IDU) and Natural Open Space land use. These surrounding open space and low
density areas provide a meaningful buffer between the business park and adjacent
developed parcels and undeveloped property zoned for development. They also
enhance the preservation of natural and sceni c resources important to the
community. To ensure the viability and retention of the open space buffer, the
specific plan defines a "limits of grading line" for planned industrial and
commercial land uses within the business park.
Obiective of the Soecific Plan
The primary objective of the SPPC Development Plan, as stated in tile Section II.
Land Use Element, is to define a balanced development program for the plan area
which conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan, meets tile objectives of the
property owners, ensures that the quality of life envisioned for the City of
Poway is maintained, and avoids haphazard, piecemeal development in the plan
area.
Section III. Development Intensity Element, states that the Plan will provide a
location for industrial development witll support commercial and low density
residential land uses, will aid in the implementation of City's redevelopment
project, and will be compatible with the more rural character of the Poway
Community. The intensity of development is regulated by the provisions contained
in Volume 2. Development Standards of the Plan.
An outdoor amphitheater land use could result in several potent i a 1 adverse
effects to Poway and surrounding communities as has been documented by other
c it i es that have experi enced the operat i ng characteristics of such uses.
Potential adverse effects include. but may not be limited to increased traffic
level s, increased noise levels, and increased demand on mun i c i pa 1 services
involving code compliance, fire/emergency medical and law enforcement. For the
reasons stated above, an outdoor amphitheater land use may not substantially meet
the objective of the specific plan.
An outdoor amphitheater land use could typically involve a substantial increase
in traffic that would be entering the City at near-peak hour commuting periods,
and leaving the City at late evening hours. The increased traffic could cause
additional congestion on streets and intersections and could cause traffic noise
that would add to normally low ambient noise levels.
Adverse noise levels generated by an outdoor amphitheater is also an issue and
could cause increased noise complaints. These levels may not be acceptable to
surrounding uses and may exceed the requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance.
In addition, the propagation of event noise may travel well beyond the immediate
3 of 20 SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4
--~---- - ----....
Agenda Report
September 12, 1995
Page 3
vicinity of the use due to unpredictable atmospheric conditions such as cloud
covers, inversion layers and moving fog banks.
Such a land use may cause the fire, emergency, medical and law enforcement
resources to be stripped to a level that could significantly reduce the level of
service provided to the community at large. This potential increase in the
demand for such services could al so adversely affect service providers in
surrounding communities.
For the reasons stated above, such a land use also may not substantially conform
to or achieve the existing policies and strategies of the Poway Comprellensive
Plan. For example, the General Plan Community Development Element Policy B.
Distribution of Land Uses states, "Land uses should be distributed so as to
encourage in-fill development witllin the built-up parts of the City, protect the
integrity of existing land uses and densities, and preserve the open space and
rural nature of Poway.
The following Strategies under Policy B apply to the subject land use and would
not be fully implemented if said use were permitted under tile Plan:
Strategy 1. Encourage land uses and densities that are consistent with the
rural lifestyle and image, including preservation of open
space and development of very low density residential land
uses. The density of land use sllall remain primarily rural
within tile IIlllsides and remote regions of tile City and
suburban witllin the developed central community core.
Strategy 19. COlll1lercial and manuhcturing service land uses adjacent to
residential land uses shall include a buffer zone or noise
attenuation wall to reduce outside noise levels at tile
property to 60 dBA.
ProDosed Soecific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-0IAA)
The proposed amendment (SPA 84-01AA) is strictly limited to the legislative
action of the City Council to amend the subject specific plan to establish witllin
Volume 2 (Development Standards) outdoor amphitheaters as a prohibited land use
under the Plan. The amendment does not involve a Quasi-judicial action of the
Council related to a specific development project.
The specific cllapters and sections witllin tile Development Standards tllat would
be amended by such legislative action are identified below.
Chapter 3
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
I. LAND USE STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
E. List of oermitted. conditional and orohibited uses in the (IP) and
(LI) Zones
The following uses shall be permitted where the symbol "P" appears, shall be
permitted subject to a Conditional Use Permit where the symbol "C" appears, and
shall be prohibited where the symbol "X" appears:
4 of 20 SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4
Agenda Report
September 12, 1995
Page 4
9. Other Uses If J.l
f. Outdoor ampitheaters X X
II. USE STANDARDS FOR SOUTH POWAY COMMERCIAL (SPC) ZONE
B. General Commercial Uses ill
54. Outdoor amphitheaters X
The following sentence shall be added to the existing text under Chapter 4,
Residential Development Standards, and shall read as indicated below.
Chapter 4
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Within the RS-2 and Open Space (l DU) zones outdoor amphitheaters are a
prohibited land use.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff prepared i draft environmental initial study and a proposed negative
decl arat ion (Attachment B) which address thi s item and the recommended City
Council action. Tile draft documents were advertised and distributed for a 21-day
public review period which ended on August 29, 1995. At the time tllis report was
completed, no written comments on the draft documents had been received. Staff
will prepare written responses to any comments received during the public review
period. Such responses to comments will be provided to the City Council prior to
the public hearing of September 12, 1995.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
This item has been advertised in the Poway News Chieftain and legal notification
has been mailed to the master distribution list prepared in connection with the
Poway Entertainment Center project draft environmental impact report. A copy of
this report has also been sent to Jerry Hargarten; Laura Thornton, MCAS El Toro;
Steve Redfearn, Bill Silva Presents; Fred Pierson, NAS Miramar; and the Planning
Director, City of San Diego. No additional correspondence had been received at
the time this report was completed.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider the environmental assessment and
proposed amendment, take public testimony, close the public hearing, issue a
negative declaration, and adopt the attached resolution approving City-initiated
South Poway Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-01AA), which would prohibit the
construction of outdoor amphitheaters.
Attachments:
A. Proposed resol ution approving SPA 84-01AA. SEP 12 1995 ITEM 4
B. Environmental initial study and proposed negative declaration.
S of 20
-~.-._-
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY. CALIFORNIA
APPROVING SOUTH POWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT (SPA 84-01AA)
WHEREAS, Chapter 17.47 (Specific Plan Regulations) of Title 17 (Zoning
Development Code) of the Poway Municipal Code provides the requirements for
the initiation, preparation, adoption, and amendment of specific plans in
accordance witll Section 65450, et seq. of the California Government Code
(Article S, Specific Plan); and
WHEREAS, a need exists to clarify the list of South Poway Specific Plan
land use categories with respect to whether outdoor amphitheaters should be a
prohibited or permitted land use under the Plan; and
WHEREAS, On July IS, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95-
082 initiating South poway Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-01AA) and set for
public hearing said amendment on September 12, 1995; and
WHEREAS, On September 12, 1995, the City Council lIeld a duly advertised
public hearing to consider the environmental assessment and tile proposed SPA
84-01AA pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, an outdoor amphitheater land use could result in several
potential adverse effects to Poway and surrounding communities as has been
documented by otller cities tllat have experienced the operating characteristics
of such uses. Potential adverse effects include, but may not be limited to
increased traffic levels, increased noise levels, and increased demand on
municipal services involving code compliance, fire/emergency medical and law
enforcement. For tile reasons stated above, an outdoor amphitlleater land use
may not substantially meet tile objective of the specific plan.
WHEREAS, an outdoor amphitheater land use could typically involve a
substantial increase in traffic that would be entering tile City at near-peak
hour commuting periods, and leaving the City at late evening lIours. The
increased traffic could cause additional congestion on streets and
intersections and could cause traffic noise that would add to normally low
ambient noise levels.
WHEREAS, adverse noise levels generated by an outdoor amphitheater is
also an issue and could cause increased noise complaints. These levels may
not be acceptable to surrounding uses and may exceed the requirements of the
City's Noise Ordinance. In addition, the propagation of event noise may
travel well beyond tile immediate vicinity of the use due to unpredictable
atmospheric conditions sucll as closed covers, inversion layers and moving fog
banks.
WHEREAS, such a land use may cause the fire, emergency, medical and law
enforcement resources to be stripped to a level that could significantly
reduce the level of service provided to the community at large. This
potential increase in the demand for such services could also adversely affect
service providers in surrounding communities.
6 of 2') ATTACHMENT A ~:P 12 1995 ITEM 4
- _.
Resolution No.
- Page 2
WHEREAS, The City Council hereby finds, based on the reasons stated in
the above recitals, that an outdoor amphitheater land use may not
substantially meet or achieve the policies and strategies of the Poway General
Plan, may not meet the stated objective of the South Poway Specific Plan, and
may not foster the purpose and intent of the Paguay Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, The City Council hereby further finds that such a land use
would adversely affect and be incompatible with the rural cllaracter, image,
natural environment, and quality of life of Poway and surrounding communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that tile City Council of the City of
Poway hereby takes the following actions:
1. The City Council, by this resolution, hereby issues a negative
declaration and approves South Poway Specific Plan Amendment (SPA
84-01AA) .
2. Specific Plan Amendment 84-01AA consists of the following changes
to the text of tile Plan to read as follows:
The specific chapters and sections within Volume 2, Development Standards are
hereby amended as indicated below.
Chapter 3
-
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
I. LAND USE STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
E. List of Dermitted. conditional and Drohibited uses in the (IP) and (LI)
Z2nn
The following uses shall be permitted where tile symbol .p. appears, sllall be
permitted subject to a Conditional Use Permit wllere the symbol "C" appears,
and shall be prohibited where the symbol "X" appears:
9. Other Uses If II
f. Outdoor ampitheaters X X
II. USE STANDARDS FOR SOUTH POWAY COMMERCIAL (SPC) ZONE
B. General Commercial Uses ~
54. Outdoor amphitheaters X
The following sentence shall be added to the existing text under Chapter 4,
Residential Development Standards, and shall read as indicated below.
-
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4
7 of 20
Resolution No.
Page 3
Chapter 4
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Within the RS-2 and Open Space (1 DU) zones outdoor amphitlleaters are a
prohibited land use.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
California, this 12th day of September, 1995.
Don Higginson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
I, Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk of tile City of Poway, do hereby
certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution, No.
, was duly adopted by tile City Council at a meeting of said City
Council held on the day of , 1995, and tllat it was so
adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ASSENT:
MarJorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
City of Poway
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEU4
8 of 20
,. -. -.-.- -~---
-
~N HIGGINSON, Mayo, CITY OF Po WAY
SUSAN CALLERY, Deputy Mayor
BOB EMERY, Councilmember
MICKEY CAFAGNA. Councilmember
BElTY REXFORD, Councilmember
CITY OF pony
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SUBJECT: Consideration of environmental assessment and citv-
initiated amendment to the South Powav Specific Plan Amendment (SPA
84-01AAI: to determine whether outdoor amphitheaters should be a
prohibited or permitted land use under the Plan.
ABSTRACT
This Draft Environmental Initial Study and Associated Negative
Declaration have been prepared to address the potential
environmental impacts that may occur as a result of a legislative
action taken by the City of poway City Council regarding proposed
south poway Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-0lAA).
BACKGROUND
On July 18, 1995, the City Council considered a staff report
related to this item (agenda item 3.1), which is fully incorporated
herein by reference. - --
Subsequently, the City Council took the following actions by a
unanimous vote:
1. Adopted Resolution No. 95-082 approving the initiation of City- ,
,
initiated South poway Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-0lAA); and
2. Directed staff to complete the necessary environmental review
sufficient to permit the City Council to determine whether an
outdoor amphitheater should be a prohibited or permitted land use
anywhere within the South poway Specific Plan.
Related Existina citv and Environmental Review Documents
These environmental documents have been prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the CEQA
Guidelines, and the city of poway Procedures to Implement CEQA.
This initial study is based. on, and incorporates herein by
reference the following existin~, policy and environmenta~ review
documents!\;of:the city of Poway:, ' '.':' ~{
ATTACHMENT B SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM
9 of 20 City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
i1ing Address: P,O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
--- "----
1. poway Master Environmental Assessment.
2. poway General Plan Update and associated Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
3. South poway Planned Community (SPPC) Specific Plan and
Final EIR, and SPPC Final Subsequent EIR.
4. Final ErRs for the South poway Parkway/Alternative 8A
Extension Project and Scripps poway Parkway (County SA-
780) Extension project.
5. paguay Redevelopment Plan and associated Redevelopment
Plan Amendment Final ErR.
6. Public Review Draft ErR for the proposed poway
Entertainment Center project.
This Environmental Initial Study concludes that the legislative
action of the City Council to amend the South poway Specific Plan
(SPA 84-01AA) to establish within Volume 2 (Development Standards)
outdoor amphitheaters as a prohibited or permitted land use under
the Plan will not cause any significant environmental impacts.
Therefore, the issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended.
Only if a specific project is later considered would a complete
environmental impact report be required.
.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .
The proposed South poway Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 84-0lAA) is
strictly limited to the legislative action of the City Council to
amend the subject specific plan to establish within Volume 2 .
(Development Standards) outdoor amphitheaters as a prohibited or
permitted land use under the Plan.
The subject amendment does not involve a proposed site-specific or
project-specific development application located within the South
poway Specific Plan. The specific chapter and related sections
within the Development Standards that would be amended by such
legislative action are as follows:
Chapter 3. Industrial and Commercial Develooment Standards
(I.) Land Use Standards for Industrial Development
(including land use within the Industrial Park
/IP, and Light Industrial/LI zones,
. (E.) List of Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited
. Uses: and .
~ ,,,. SEP 12 1995 ITEM 4
10 of 20 '",..,~~, ,"*."v . 2 . ....
~."",.,-' .,--. ".' " ~ tl'''\\ -,. '. oJ::, _ ." ."' ",""> ." ""--:','a'~...-- 0'-
-,-~. - --~-----~--. ----- .-.-------.-----
-
(II. ) Land Use Standards South poway Commercial
(SPC) Zone - List of Permitted, Conditional,
and Prohibited Uses.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ( SECTION II OF ATTACHED
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST)
The fOllowing comprehensive discussion of environmental evaluation
concerns the "no" responses contained in Section I, Environmental
Impacts of the subject checklist.
-Based upon the information contained in the existing City policy
and environmental review documents noted above, the legislative
action of the City Council to establish outdoor amphitheaters as a
"prOhibited" land use under the Plan would clearly not result in
environmental significant impacts, since such a land use would not
be permitted within the South poway Specific Plan area.
Likewise, the legislative action of the City Council to establish
outdoor amphitheaters as a "permitted" land use under the Plan
would clearly not result in environmental impacts for the following
reasons.
1. Such legislative action would be strictly limited to
amending the plan to add "outdoor amphitheaters" to the
lists described above as a permitted land use. The City
is not considering any development-related planning
applications or quasi-jUdicial discretionary action in
connection with proposed SPA S4-0LAA.
2. Because the subject amendment does not involve a site-
specific or project-sp~dific development application, the
determination of potential impacts and the level of
significance of such potential impacts cannot reasonably
be determined at this time.
3. Al though the public record shows that the proposed. poway "
.
Entertainment Center outdoor amphitheater project would
result in potential mitigated and unmitigated impacts of
a highly controversial nature, the EIR for that specific
development project has not been completed or certified
by the Lead Agency, and such specific development project
has not been approved.
The City of poway is cognizant that outdoor amphitheaters
may have the potential to cause adverse environmental
effects within the South poway Specific Plan area. Only
if a specific project is later considered would a
complete environmental impact report be required.
.
.~.
- c..~..j':"~
'-,-, "
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4
11 of 20
3, -.
'. "
n_ _. ___._ '__' _n._ ___ ___. _________ - ------ ----.--.-.-
~
4. Since the proposed amendment does not involve a specific
development project, there is no basis for the identification
and determination of potential "significant" impacts and
associated mitigation measures related to South poway Specific
Plan Amendment (SPA 84-0~).
DETERMINATION (SECTION III OF ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
In conclusion, the City of poway finds, on the basis of the above
initial evaluation and stated reasons supporting such evaluation,
that the legislative action of the City Council to amend the South
poway Specific Plan (SPA 84-0~) to establish within Volume 2
(Development standards) outdoor amphitheaters as a prohibited or
permitted land use under the Plan will not cause any significant
environmental impacts. Therefore, the attached Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
The attached Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Availability
for PUblic Review has been mailed to the master distribution list
prepared for the poway Entertainment Center project. In addition,
such notice has been published in the poway News Chieftain.
This draft Environmental Initial study and associated Negative
Declaration has been distributed for public review as indicated by
the list below.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
U.S Fish and Wildlife service
Naval Air station Miramar . -
poway Sheriff Department -
Caltrans
CA. Dept. of Fish and Game
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SANDAG .'
poway Unified School District
City of San Diego
County of San Diego
County Water Authority
Pomerado Hospital
Palomar Observatory
Bill Silva Presents
James Lewis
Attachments:
A. Proposed Negative Declaration
B. Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Availability for Public
Review
C. Environmental Initial study Checklist 0,
_.",;, .'
-.....--10..-.
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4" f
12 of 20 '. .' . _..-~ - ~ ,.:;.. .-- .."-,< ".. 0.' ..'
4 . .0 _.
- -
~N fllGGlNSON, Mayoc CITY OF Po WAY
--USAN CALLERY, Deputy Mayor
,08 EMERY. Councilmember
MICKEY CAFAGNA. Councilmember
BElTY REXFORD, Councilmember
CITY OF POWAY
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J.. Name and Address of Applicant/CEQA Lead Agency: city of
Powav. P.O. Box 789. Powav. CA 920764
2. Project Title: Consideration of environmental assessment and
CitY-initiated amendment to the South Powav Specific Plan
Amendment (SPA 84-0lAAl: to determine whether outdoor
amphitheaters should be a prohibited or permitted land use
under the Plan.
3 . Project Location: city of Powav. California - South Powav
Planned Community (SPPCl Specific Plan area.
4. Project Description: The proposed South powav Specific Plan
Amendment (SPA 84-0lAAl is strictly limited to the leoislative
action of the City Council to amend the sub;ect specific plan
to establish within Volume 2 (Development Standards) outdoor
amphitheaters as a prohibited or permitted land use under the
Plan.
The sub;ect amendment does not involve a DrODOSed site-
specific or pro;ect-specific development aDPlicatio~ ~~~a~~d
within the South Powav Specific Plan. The specific ch p d
related sections within the Development Standards that would
be amended bv such leaislatiqe action are as follows:
Chapter 3. Industrial and Commercial Development
Standards
(I. ) Land Use Standards for Industrial Development ./"
(includina land use within the Industrial Park
/IP. and Liaht Industrial/LI zones.
~ List of Permitted. Conditional. and Prohibited
Uses: and
(II. ) Land Use Standards South Pow~v Commercial
(SPCl Zone - List of Permitted. Conditional.
and Prohibited Uses.
5. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway,
Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality
- Act of 1970, the City of poway has, determined that the above
project will not have a significant effect upon the '.'
environment. An Environmental Initial study has been prepared
for the subject project. ITEM
SEP 1 2 1995 ,
3 of 20 City Hall Located at J ..325 Civic Center Drive .,
ing Address: P.Q, Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 . (619) 748~6600, 695-1400
-~_...
The City of Poway, acting as the CEQA Lead Agency, has
determined that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required.
6. Minutes of such decision and the Environmental Initial study
prepared by the City of Poway are on file in the Department of
Planning services of the City of Poway.
7. This decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is
final.
Contact Person: James R. Nessel. Senior Planner Phone:
(619) 679-4256
Approved by:
Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph.D., AICP
Director of Planning Services
Date:
.'
"
, ",
...,-~;- '."'-." .. ~.' - .- '.
SEP 1 2 1995 1TE1I4 . ,'I
-~-----"~. .
of 20 -""";';";'1":", '>:'i<: .. i;-'::'" --!;"J~~., :'.1 , 't... ;;"{ioiJ.._.<,15~ .uY<:,:..:,h .1..tI~ilt".
~ i '" . ....: j; '.'~' ( ..
-
-
~N HIGGINSON, M'ya< CITY OF Po WAY
SUSAN CALLER Y. Deputy Mayor
BOB EMER Y. Councilmember
MICKEY CAFAGNA. Councilmembcr
BETTY REXFORD. Councilmember
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Poway will hold a
Public Hearing at the Poway Center for the Performing Arts, 15498 Espola Road,
Poway, California 92064 on Tuesday, September 12, 1995 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon
as possible thereafter to consider the following item:
Consideration of environmental assessment and city-i nit i ated
amendment to the South Poway Specific Plan (SPA 84-01AA) to
determine whether outdoor amphitheaters should be a prohibited or !
perwitted land use under the Plan.
I
The City of Poway, as the Lead Agency pursuant to the California Environmental I
I
Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared appropriate Environmental Assessment documents I
concerning the proposed City-initiated South Poway Specific Plan Amendment (SPA i
84-01AA), including an Environmental Initial Study and associated Draft Negative i
Declaration documents. The subject environmental assessment documents evaluate I
the potential significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Specific I
Plan Amendment. City staff is recommending the issuance of a Negative
Declaration, indicating that no significant adverse environmental impacts would
result from amending the South Poway Specific Plan. Only if a specific project
is later considered would a complete environmental impact report be required.
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, that the
Environmental Initial Study and associated Draft Negative Declaration will be
available for a 21-day publiC review aQd comment period beginning on Monday,
August 7, 1995 and ending at 5:00 p;m.. on Monday, August 28, 1995. Written
comments concerning tllese documents must'be received by the City of Poway during
this review period. Please send your written comments directly to Jim Nessel,
Senior Planner, Planning Services Department located at City Hall at tile address
noted below. These documents may be reviewed, or purchased for tile cost of .
reproduction, at the Planning Services Department located at City Hall, 13325 ~
Civic Center Drive, Poway, CA 92064. In addition, they may be reviewed at the
City Clerk's Office in the Poway City Hall, the Poway Public Library located in
the Lively Center at 13264 Poway Road, Poway, CA 92064, and the Scripps Ranch
Library located at 10301 Scripps Lake Drive, San Diego, CA 92131.
ANY INTERESTED PERSON may review the staff report and the plans for tllis project
at the City of Poway Planning Services, 13325 Civic Center Dri ve, Poway,
California. Additional information is available from Jim Nessel, staff planner
on tllis project, by telepllone at (619) 679-4256.
If you wish to express concerns in favor or against tile above, you may appear in
person at the above described Meeting or submit your concerns in writing to the
City Clerk, City of Poway.
.
.,
~'.
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 ,~ . 1
--.---
1 City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive ,-: ~_
5 of 20 ,ng Address: P.O.,Box'789;Poway,c.caUfornici 92074-0789-'. (619) 748-6600, 695-1400_"~,,,, .:.>;
-- -- - ------------------
IF 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 tile City Clerk prior
to the meeting or prior to the subject 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 have special 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, City Clerk
o.
0:
o~
oJ
0-
:
ou
P.n.a.QUIto. Aanc:no .... :
Catmotl .;: ..-
IOu' o.
... .
...... :
o :
o :
0
0
"-.. ... , .
Sabf. eo
_.
...-
R."""
""""
,... ~ South Poway Specific Plan Area
' .
-. :krloo. 0
. "Iramet'
"Va Raneh
.......
-. (SPA 84~01AA)
To Vi~inity. Map
San ~
-
. , .
......
-~- ,.
"
,"' ' " ,- , ',,, ' SEP 12 1995JTEU 4 ,
16 of 20 , - ~ ~-;.~~~,;~;t~'~'.,>.~~;\~.~~;;~~,::~~<-; ~" ;:-"f~~~~~?#.9~'~~-;~'~'i~~,~'~:~~~'_~~:;~ ~ --
-
.
CITY OF POWAY
INITIAl STUOY
EHVIROHMCKTAl CHECKLIST
OATE:JU611<:r ~ 199.t( APPLICANT: C IT" ~ ('~A'" (a;.QA LEAPA(;EiJCY)
FILING DATE: N fA LOG NlRolIlER: SPA 6+-01 AA PROJ ECT: C J TV - IIJ IT/Are r:> SOUT... PtJw,,",
PROJECT lOCATION: g6UTH PeWA'! PIt1Il1IP/j CIJMMlJ"'~f ~pec I F'I L PLAN A/VI~Dl'tle~,
(SPA 84-ll I AA) .
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "yes". llmaybell and some ana. answers are required on attached sheets)
YES MAYBE NO
l. Salls and Geolocy. W1ll the proposal have sign1f1cant 1mpacts 1n:
a. Unstable ground conditions or 1n changes 1n geologic relationShips? X
- -
b, Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or bur1al of the so11? X
- -
c, Change 1n topography or ground surface contour intervals? .K
- -
d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or
physical features? - - ..K.
e. Any potent1al increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting
either on- or off-site conditions? ~
- -
f. Changes in erosion, siltation. or depos1t1on? $.
- -
g. Exposure of people or property to geolog1c hazards such as earth-
quakes. landslides. mudslides, ground fa11ure, or s1mllar hazards? - - X
2. Hydroloqy. Will the proposal have significant Impacts In:
a. Changes 1n currents, or the course In d1rect10n of flowing streams,
rivers. or ephemeral stream channels? - - ~
b. Changes In abso'lltlon rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff? - - 1
c. Alterations to the course or. flow of flood waters? .A
- -
d. Change 1 n the amount of surface water I n any body of water? .x
- -
-
e. D1scharge 1nto surface waters, or any alteration of surface water .-
qual1ty? - - .1("
f. Alterat10n of groundwater characteristics? JL
- -
g. Change In the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct
addlt10ns or withdrawals, or through Interference with an aquifer? f
Quality? - -
Quant I ty? - -
h. The reduct10n In the amount of water otherwise available for
publ1c water supplies? - - L
1. Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards such as
flood1ng or se1ches? - - K..
3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant IlPacts in:
a. Constant or perl9dlc air emissions fl'Olll aile or Indirect sources? f:,
S~tionary sources? , - -
- -
. .-".
,b. Deterioration of all1blent air qual fty and/or Interference with the'
atta11l1lent of applicable a1r quality standards?".' " - - K
c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting .,1"" ~
air IIOvement IlOlsture or,temperatur"'?-;.."':...c;r'""'_....,."..".,.". _ ,~:'_ K_
17 of . .. .,.;.:;~."""~~:'.:t!'t...j~~:~~-;~.....G._."'_t..........~.~1.1I8.'"-':.7,>i:!;1~-i.j,.. ~ift.t995" - ITEM -4
20"" -' ',>;,;"." .0;,'," n.,.,
Proj ect: SPA 84-01 AA
YES ~ NO
4. Flora. Will the proposal have significant results In:
a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity.
distribution, or number of any species of plants? - - .L
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? - ..K
-
5, Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in:
a, Change in the characteristics of species, including diVErsity,
distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? - - 1
b, Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered
species of animals? - - L
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? - - ..x.
d, Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? - A
-
6, Population. (Will the proposal] have significant results in:
a. (Will the proposal] alter the location, distribution. density,
diversity, or growth rate of the human popUlation of an area? - - .K..
b. [Will the proposal] affect existing hPusing, or created a demand
for additional housing? - - .K.
7. Socio-Economic Factors, Will the proposal ~Ye significant results in:
a, Change in local or regional socio-economlc characteristics, including
economic or co...ercial diverSity. tax rUe, and property values? - - ~
b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project benefici-
aries, I.e., buyers, taxpayers, or project users? .' - - A.
,
8, Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant
results 10:
a, A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an L
area? -
-
b, A conflict with any desiynations. objectives, policies, or adopted
plans of any goverllllMlnta entities? - - $
c, An iq>act upon the quality or quantity of existing consuq>tlve or
non-consumptive recreational opportunities? - - ...K-
g. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results In:
a, Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? - - A-
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? - - ..lL
.... .4 ~, Eff~ts on exlstl.ng parking facilities. or demand for new parking? - - L
d. Substantial lq>act upon existing transpoI1:,.iion systeaas? -,~' . ~'t~. . .x.
- -
e. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or moveoent of ~
people and/or goods? " .,.. '-~".- -
f. ~lterat1ons to or effects on present and potential water-bo""tEP' ._, <~' "ITEM x-
a of 20 rail, ...ss transit.. or air traffic?:': /;.;; , , 121995 ~4 --
- -
"
-
--
Project: SPA h4 -01 AA
YES MAYBE '~
10. Cultural Resources4 Will the proposal have significant impacts in:
a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological. paleontological, .K
andlor historical resources?
- -
11. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have slgnlf-
lcant results 10:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? 1-
- -
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? K-
- -
c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances 1n the
event of an accident? - 1L
-
d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or
patnenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? - - L
e, Increase 1n existing noise levels? ..K-
- -
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? )(
- -
g. The creation of objectionable odors? - - -X.
h. Increase in light or glare? ..x..
- -
12. Aesthetics, Wi 11 the proposal have significant results In: ,
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? 1-
- -
b, The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? .'L
- -
c. A conflict with the objective of deSignated or potential scenic .K.
corri dors?
- -
13, Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have significant need
for new systems, or alteratIons to the follow~~:
a. El ectri c power? - - L
b. Natural or packaged gas? .x
- -
c, Communications systems? - - 1.,
d, Water supply? - .li:.
-
e, Wastewater facilities? - $...
-
f. Flood control structures? - - L
g. Solid waste facilities? - - .L
h. Fi re protection? - - ~
i. Police protection? - - A
j. Schoo I s? - - JL
k. Parks or other recreational facilities? K-
- -
1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood
control facilities? - - K.
. L
II, Other govemRIental services? -
-
.. "" .
-3- /.:!--~ I1SI
19 of 20 .. --- SEP 1 2 1995 4 I
.
-
Project: SPA f!,4-ol AA
YES MAYBE !!Q....
14, Enerqy and Scarce Resources. WIll the proposal have significant impacts in:
a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? li.
- -
b, Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? .x
- -
c. An increase in demand for development of new sources of energy? ..x.
- -
d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms
of energy. when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? - - .is.....
e. Substantial depletion of any non-renewable or scarce natural resource? .K..
- -
15. Mandatory Flndinqs of Sloniflcance,
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 wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or an1mal. or eliminate important examples of the major .x
perIods of California hIstory or prehIstory? - -
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 environmental is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, defInitive period of time while long-term impacts will
endure well Into the future.) - - .1(
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 effects of past projects, and .x.
probable future projects.) - -
d. Dces the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beinq1, either directly or ~
Indirectly? _ - -
II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(i,e.. of aff1rmative answers to the above quest10ns and "no" responses w1th asterisks, plus a discussion
of proposed mitigation measures and IIOnitoring program.) S.. Attachaent. (EIJ"'RO~Me~T.Al- /'
III, DETERMINATION . iN ITJAL- SruP't) ,
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
~ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a s1gnificant effeet of the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DEClARATION will be prepared.
D I fInd that although the proposed project could have a slgn1flcant 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 OEClARATlON WILL BE PREPARED,
D I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT 1s required,
DATE: AUhUsr .$.J~S SIGNATURE: 1f~ /2. ~L
.
TITLE: Se::A.J It:)fl. Pt..AUJJt:R-
20 of 20 SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4
,~. ,:""
.
- DjSTRIB~ED '~~
.~~ ~ - 7s::=- ._- --
I ACCORD
CONDOMINIUM
MANAGEMENT CO.
August 21, 1995 RECEIVED"
AUG 23 1995
CITY OF POWAY -(
Marjorie Wahlsten, City Clerk en', '_ ,ERK'S OFFIC!
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, California 92064
Subject: Outdoor Amphitheater
Dear Ms. Wahlsten:
Enclosed please find 85 letters opposing the building of an
outdoor amphitheater in the South Poway Business Park from
homeowners of The Scripps Legacy Campton Homeowners Association,
located at Spring Canyon Road and Cypress Canyon Park Drive.
It is our understanding that at the September 12, 1995, meeting
of the Counc ii, a Plan Amendment wi 11 be discussed as to whether
our not the land in the South Poway Business Park can be used
- for an outdoor amphitheater. We understand that the applicant's
application to bu i I d the amphitheater was put on hold July 18,
1995, un t i 1 the matter of land use for this area can be agreed
upon.
Please add the enclosed letters to your documentation in
opposition of the outdoor amphitheater.
Sincerely,
THE SCRIPPS LEGACY CAMPTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
~~?J ({)~
Barbara W. Orvik
Association Administrator
cc: Board of Directors
-
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 t"
H2:ca.p:..p~ilbr
P 0, Box 788' Poway, California 92074-0788 . (819) 748-7858' (819) 893-9455
---- - ~
-----------------
IDENTICAL FORM RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: ORIGINALS ARE ON FILE IN
THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
David Molavi Michelle Marchol
11066 Caminito Dulce 12373 Caminito Vibrante
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Scott Herma John & Zoanna Carosso
12383 Caminito Sereno 11072 Caminito Encanto
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Michael A. Bidus Henry E. Poh 1
12445 Caminito Sereno 12359 Caminito Vibrante
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Elinor Koster Beatric Cubitt
12486 Caminito Brioso 11083 Caminito Encanto
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Joseph & Christine Schmidt Robert & Sara Dozier
12412 Caminito Srioso 12323 Caminito Sereno
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Peter & Ingrid Rubenacku Susanne Salt
11058 Caminito Alegra 11044 Caminito Alegre
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
S. Stedd Scott Wentz
11057 Caminito Encanto 12337 Caminito Sereno
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Robert & Wendy Gamboa Teresa Zorbas
12378 Caminito Vibrante 12383 Caminito Vibrante
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Pam & Evan Barnet Christine & Greg Necy
11069 Caminito Dulce 11062 Caminito Dulce
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Steve & Jodi Waterhouse Donald O'Kula/Holly Kelman
11039 Caminito Dulce 11056 Caminito Dulce
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Roger & Susan Basinger Nina M, Lova
11087 Caminito Alegra 11028 Caminito Alegra
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
H. Linette Lyons Peter & Catherine
12338 Caminito Festivo 12405 Caminito Sereno
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
1
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4
-
.
-
Mr, & Mrs. T. C. Wilson Rosanne Fraiy
11029 Caminito Alegra 12313 Caminito Sereno
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Gloria Williams Elias Kim & Steve Salvati
12369 Caminito Festivo 11063 Caminito Dulce
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Davi s Family Jeffrey G. Hancock
12357 Caminito Sereno 12456 Caminito Brioso
San Diego CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
I an 1. Nguyen Richard & Lucinda Halter
11063 Caminito Encanto 12353 Caminito Sereno
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Dan Dilvaggio Kristi Wehsener
12376 Caminito Festivo 12452 Caminito Brioso
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Margaret B. Lee Richard Waggener
11073 Caminito Alegra 12466 Caminito Brioso
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Connie M. Peny Jeanette R. Manhaurich
11024 Caminito Alegra 11043 Caminito Dulce
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Barbara Barrow Douglas W, Se?
11038 Caminito Alegra 12462 Caminito Brioso
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Donald May Noralinder I. Kawantigne
12356 Caminito Festivo 12363 Caminito Festivo
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Melissa Schner Louise Lorene
12435 Caminito Brioso 12477 Caminito Brioso
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Everett C. Chaffin Mr. & Mrs. Dennis A. MacDonald
11098 Caminito Alegra 12324 Caminito Festivo
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Sandra Ke 11 ey Fernanda Holsag
12472 Caminito Brioso 12348 Caminito Festivo
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Steven M. Manely Robin & Dan Milroy
11053 Caminito Alegra 12327 Caminito Sereno
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
2
------
Anne C. McDaniels Mary C, Osuna
11033 Caminito Dulce 12445 Caminito Brioso
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Becky Gohein Marc Winitz & Jennifer Roque
12390 Caminito Sereno 12229 Caminito Brioso
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
William B, Johanne Karen J. Singley
110B2 Caminito Dulce 12367 Caminito Sereno
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Johnny Hui JoAnn M. Morales
11076 Caminito Dulce 12374 Caminito Vibrante
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Timothy? David & Linda Ann Sonruer
12799 Caminito Vibrante 11013 Caminito Alegra
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
George & Marcia Buneran Paul & Marilyn Babick
11019 Caminito Alegra 11076 Caminito Encanto
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Barbara Magid Susan Schneider
12363 Caminito Sereno 12437 Caminito Brioso
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Robert Rushford Dan & Sandy Camphere
11069 Caminito Alegra 11052 Caminito Dulce
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Debra & Bill Savely Greg & Claudia Remy
11067 Caminito Encanto 11087 Caminito Encanto
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
John Crouch Gloria J, Weiss
12391 Caminito Vibrante 12384 Caminito Vibrante
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Jennifer & Keith Bucky Alvin Weiss
12446 Caminito Brioso 12384 Caminito Vibrante
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Ty C, Vaughan Alison Rose
12387 Caminito Sereno 11043 Caminito Alegra
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
Diana L, Rvonala Jeanne & Stephen Pierce
12318 Caminito Sereno 12354 Caminito Vibrante
San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92131
3
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4
._.. K. A. Fahi
12345 Caminito Festivo
San Diego, CA 92131
Luis Franco
11036 Caminito Dulce
San Diego, CA 92131
Wing Ku Yip & Tina Lee
11013 Caminito Dulce
San Diego, CA 92131
Jeff & Dora Neidhart
11086 Caminito Encanto
San Diego,CA 92131
David Hancock
12369 Caminito Vibrante
San Diego, CA 92131
John H. Barnet
11026 Caminito Dulce
San Diego, CA 92131
Jessica Quinn
12373 Caminito Festivo
San Diego, CA 92131
Steven Bunke
12407 Caminito Brioso
San Diego, CA 92131
Raymond & Colleen O'Hare
12315 Caminito Festivo
San Diego, CA 92131
e:\...\agenda\names,amp
4
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 ,..,
DATE: [(-'-9~
Subject: Outdoor Amphitheater
Our family resides in Scripps Ranch and we have recently leamed of the potential plans to
build a 20,000 seat amphitheater located just off of Scripps Poway Parkway, bordering
Scripps Ranch, We are very concemed about this proposed project and would like to
express these concems strongly to you and to your superiors.
We believe that this facility willlRREPARABL Y damage our community, Sound tests recently
conducted at the facility showed that music was clearly audible in the homes in many
neighborhoods, sometimes even with the doors and windows closed, We believe that
rock concerts in our area will attract gangs and youths driving on drugs, destroying the
safety and sanctity of our "Village in the Country". Traffic in and out of the facility will jam
Pomerado Road, making it difficult to come to and leave our homes.
As neighbors of Poway, we believe that mutual respect of the effects on one another's
communities are very important. We moved to Scripps Ranch because of the quiet country
atmosphere, and because of the close proximity to Poway and its country environment.
Please DO NOT authorize the construction of this Amphitheater.
Yours truly,
Name: J),q.VID MOLAv'1
Address: IIC~" r.4M I "".,~ D"Ll.E-
SA,../' DIE<rc .CA,~
92..131
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4
" ; t t995
~
. . ~f~ ~,j3/% ,
(g:/;;~, ~.
'-"'7~~~~.1k-. ... -._~
--~-- - --.
~ ". - .-'------. ~
-~~~,~
-~ . , ",A_dd;T~ '
-~
'~'.--d..-. .. -. ,4:,~~
,~, , j~~~
.:ff.~ ___ _ _ '_d
_d___~_: ~/ !J---~~~~~~~ AJw __
, -~-~~-cbdv-I-
~~'----~~
-~~~ '
~~- .... 1.t.,
I A A '_ l-j- - ~
_____~../~-tJ...---- _~_ __
';~J""""'~ '.-r-:. A
,-'~~'-o:A/l~~~ :-ld-
- --~,-~ -- --
(
SEP 1 2 1995-/ ITEM 4 pit
/
'"
08/28/95 13:31 DF' '<::LOPMENT / ENV I RONI'ENTRL PlNG. NO,063 [;102
THE CITY OF
SAN DIEGO
CITY OPU<A'/10NS BUIWINC . 1222 Fir.rt Avon... . M,S,50J . San Viego. Calif""';. 92101
OfFICE OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
236,6460
August 28, 1995
Jim Nessel, Senior Planner
City of Poway Planning Services Department
13325 Civic Center Drive, Building A
Poway, CA 92064
SUBJECT: LETTER OF COMMENT ON THE DRlFT ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL
STUDY AND PROPOSED NEGATIVJ!:DECLARATION FOR THE CITY-
INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH POWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT (SPA 84-01AA) (DEP FILE 95-01)
Dear Mr. Nessel:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft
Environmental Initial study and the City-initiated amendment to
the South poway Specific Plan (SPA 84.0IAA) to determine whether
outdoor amphitheaters should be II. probibited or permitted land
use under the Plan.
The City of San Diego has reviewed the Draft Initial Study and
the proposed Negative Declaration. We are concerned that an EIR
was not prepared by the city of poway for this proposal prior to
the scheduling of the hearing before the poway City Council. The
poway Entertainment Center project and the South poway Specific
Plan (SPSP) amendment are not mutually exclusive but interrelated
projects since the amphitheater cannot occur without the
amendment of the SPsP.
Section 21002.1 of the PUblic Resources Code (PRC) states "A
pUblic agency functioning as a 1e.4 .,eDQY shall have
responsibility for considering the effects, both individual and
collective, of all activities involved in a project." The SPSP
amendment is only a portion of the project. The environmental
impacts of the collective project, wh!ch includes both the SPSP
amendment and the poway Entertainment Center, have not been
as.es.ed in the proposed Negative DeClaration.
Section 15165 of the PRe states "Where an individual project is a 1'\ -;..
n.c....ry prac.'.nt 'or .ction on . '.ro.r project, or oommit. ~
the Lead Agency to a larger project, with 5ignificant .'h
,
SEP 12 1995 ITEM 4 IioiI li li .
!'i\,CPC,ITy
"8,<,8"35 13: 32 DEUf-"MENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL PLNG, NO. 1363 (;103
r
-
environmental ettect, an BIR mu.t address itself to the 8cope ot
the larger project." The oombined SPSP amendment/Poway
Entertainment Center projeot is a larger projeot and neoe..itates
the preparation ot an EIR due to the .igniticant impacts the
poway Entertainment Cent.r or other eimilar us.. will have upon
the environment. In addition, the City of poway will have
committed itself to a future course of action prior to conducting
a thorough evaluation of the impaot of the entire dieoretionary
aotion.
Additionally, the City of San Diego disagrees with the conolusion
of the Negative Declaration that the level ot significance ot
potential impaots cannot be reasonably determined due to the fact
that the subject amendment doe. not involve a 8ite-specific
development application. Even it the legislative action was
segregated from the judicial aotion, the limited geographic area
contained within the speoific Plan boundary would allow a fairly
detailed environmental analysis of impaot. which have already
been determined to be significant.
This conclude. the comments by the City of San Diego on the Dratt
Negative Declaration and the SPSP amendment. Please contact
Nancy Pechersky at (619) 236-5562 it you have questions or need
additional information.
cc: Jack McGrory, City Manager
Maureen Stapleton, Aesistant City Manager
Councilmember Barbara warden, Di.trict 5
Tina Chri.tian.en, Development Services Department Director
Ed Oliva, Assistant Director, OSD
Ann Hix, Principal Planner, DSO
Ann French, Senior Traffic Engineer, Engineering Department
Rachel Hurst, Principal Planner, Planning Department
Jean Cameron, Senior Planner, DSD
Nancy Pechersky, Associate Planner, DSO
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 'tIi
---------- -
- ---------------
riUG-28-1995 14:36 FR, NAS M I RAM=iR TO 96797438 P.B2
DePARTMENT 0" THE NAVY
NAVA.I. AJR STATION ""'AMAH
.12.. M111.....11 w.~
SAN llIECC. CA 92145-<100s 5726
Ser 00M/ l~OO
AUG 2"8 1995
:Mr, Jim Nessel, Senior Planner
'City of POWllY Planning Services Department
13325 Civic Center Drive, Building A
'Poway, California 92064
,Dear Mr, Nessel:
I
iThis letter is in response to your recent proposal for an amendment to the South POWlly Specific
'Plan (SPA 84-0IAA) to determine whether outdoor amphitheaters should be a prohibited or
,permitted land use under the plan. The South POWlly Specific Plan (SPSP) falls within one mile
IOfNAS Miramar and is subject to aircraft overflight. Any amphitheaters sited within the SPSP
'area will experience noise interference from military aircraft while placing the civilian
population at risk and degrading the air station's defense mission. It is our opinion that
amphitheaters are not a compatible land USe within the SPSp,
!The SPSP is outside the adopted noise contours for the Naval Air Station. These contours,
Shown within the NAS Miramar Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), rep~t Community
,
;Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL). CNEL is a 24-hour average of noise events-weighted
peavier in the evenings and at night-ofnoise events. While CNEL is used in most !and use
Fva1uations, it does not reflect the high "single event" noise that patrons of an amphitheater
would experience,
I
Noise impacts an an amphitheater in the SPSP area would result from aircraft coming from the
north into the approach pattern to Miramar, An analysis of the NAS Miramar CLUP places the
SPSP area in the center of this arrival conidor with aircraft as low as 2400 feet above Mean Sea
Level (MSL). Since the much of the SPSP area rests at 900 feet MSL, aircraft may be as low as
[500 feet Above Ground Level (AGL).
Any amphitheaters would also experience overflights from the ground control approach (GCA)
pattern, Aircraft heading east in this pattern may begin the turn into the base leg (southbound
leg) of the pattern at five miles or as late as ten miles, Early turns within the GCA box pattern
9verfIy the SPSP area as low as 2400 MSL or 1500 feetAGL. Federal Air Regulations (FARS)
~ll allow overflight as low as 1,000 feet AGL for fixed wing aircraft and 500 feet for rotary
wing aircraft (helicopters).
,
~ amphitheater in the SPSP area would pose safety concerns to amphitheater patrons and to
.viators, The shear people density of such a project could run from 1,000 to 2,000 persons per
",ere, making it one of the highest density developments within San Diego County. Accidents
bve and will occur outside APZs, While the possibility of an accident in the,SPSP area is low,
any risk of such an accident is considered unacceptable.
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 n
-
AUG-28-1995 14:36 FROM S MlRAMAR TO 96797438 P,03
.
..---
5720
Se~OO~ I ~OO
AUG 2 8 1995
iSome aspects of an amphitheater - such as strobes, lasers, and fire works - would pose a
ipotential hazard to descending aircraft.
iFor nearly half a century, NAS Miramar has served as the West Coast's master jet station in
:support of the Pacific Fleet. In 1993, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process
~ealigned Miramar to a Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), This realignment will replace the
k:urrent 180 aircraft with over 300 Marine aircraft-mostly fighters and helicopters. The greater
number of aircraft at MCAS Miramar will result in a higher tempo of operations. Currently, the
Naval Air Station performs about 150,000 operations a year, By 1999, annual operations could
~ch 220,000. The SPSP area will experience noise and overflight from both fixed and rotary
f,ving aircraft, Concert-geers at an amphitheater would experience varying degrees of noise and
!vibration.
,
[The SPSP is currently compatible with air operations due to low people density and lack of noise
kensitive land uses. To allow an amphitheater as an acceptable land use would conflict with our
!iefense mission while affecting the health, safety and welfare of those individuals using the
facility, On behalf ofNAS Miramar, I =:ommend that the City Council disapprove any plan
amendment that would allow amphitheaters into the South Poway Specific Plan.
I
i
1Ibe point of contact on this issue is my Community Planning Liaison Officer, Mr. Fred Pierson,
at (619) 537-1235.
Sincerely,
~SEY
Captain, U, S. Na
Commanding Officer
I
I
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 p.
COMM PLANS & LIAISON 1D:7147262420 AUG 28'95
. 14:21 No,Oll P,02
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
.....1... CO"PI ....It euu Wllln." AIllEA l.l TOtlO
PD eol....'
....TA ."A OIl eu......i 1M ."'" M.'I" TO:
11010.1613
AQlPoway
28 Aug 95
MR nM NESSEL
SENIOR PLANNER
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
POBOX 789
POW A Y CA 92074-0789
POW A Y: SOUTH POW A Y SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMeNT (SP A-84-01AA).
ENVIRONMENTAL INITlAL STUDY AND ASSOCIATED DRAFT NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
Dear Mr, Nessel:
I have reviewed the proposed South Poway Specific Plan Amendment (SPA-84-01AA),
Environmental Initial Study and associated Draft Negative Declaration and the following
comments are provided, Pursuant 10 the Dase Closure and Realignment Act of 1993, Marine
Corps Air Stations El Toro and Tustin will be closed and Marinc Corps aviation units will be
realigned to Miramar. The Marine Corps opposes any plan amendment which would allow
amphitheaters in lhe South Poway Specific Plan,
The proposed plan amcndment would allow outdoor llmphithcaters which would be directly
affected by frequent operational and training flights ofhe1icopter and fixed wing aiI'\,,'raft, The
location is beneath the primary approach corridor llnd (TeA Box flight pattenls for Miramar,
Attendees would frequently see and hear aircraft and will experience varying degrees of noise
and vibration, There is no effective mitigation for exterior noise from overflight.
Thc document does not address impacts relevant to the realignment of Miramar with a mix of
rotary and fixed wing aircraft, Public information for thc realignment of Marinc Corps Air
Station Miramar will be availablc during the summer of 1995, We recommcnd you examine this
pending realigmnent lIIld any efiects the proposed plan amendment would have on amphitheater
operations.
A proposed plan amendment to site an amphitheatcr in the industrial park would create
inconsistencies with the City of SlIIl Diego Progress Guide/General Plan and adjacent
communities, The City of San Diego Transportation Element states under "GOALS - A
trlUlsportatioll system that is in balance wilh the intensities ofland u.~cs that it serves,"
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 l'l
-
COMM PLRNS ilLIRISON -
Iv: 7147262420 RUG L8'95
. 14:21 No,011 P,03
-
'Dle United StIIleS Marine Corps supports an amendment to the South Powey Specific Plan which
specifically prohibits me siting of amphitheaters ill this area, Thank you fOT the opportunity to
review this land use proposal. If! may he or any further ussistanCe, please contact me at (714)
726-3702.
Sincerely.
k~
D. P. PENDER
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Community PIIU1ll and Liaison Officer
Hy direction oftlle Commander
-
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 ~l
---- -~._-._-,-- - - -...- __.. _~.__ _ __.u_.,._
August 26,1995
RECt:IVc,;.)
Mr, Jim Nessel AUG 2 1995
Senior Planner PLANNING DcPT,
City of Po way
13325 Civic Center Drive, Building A
Poway, CA 92064
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STIJDY AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT AND CITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO TIfE SOUlH
POW A Y SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA 84-0IAA): TO DETERMINE
WHETIfER OUTDOOR AMPITHEATERS SHOULD BE A PROIllBITED OR
PERMIITED LAND USE UNDER THE PLAN
Dear Mr, Nessel:
I am writing in response to the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration prepared by the City
of Po way relative to the above subject I am submitting these comments during the public
review period required for Negative Declarations and request a response to my concerns prior to
the City Council meeting scheduled to hear the above subject on September 12, 1995,
For the record, I am a professional environmental planner and have worked in the environmental
planning field for over 15 years. I have conducted numerous Initial Studies and have made
CEQA determinations for public agencies, I have reviewed the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration for the above subject, and it is my professional opinion that the Initial Study is
flawed and contrary to the California Environmental Quality Act. It is obvious to me that having
Poway's City Council decide to prohibit or "permit" such a land use would or could have
devastating environmental impacts to the surrounding community and environment given the
current amount of information available to permit such a land use,
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows for Negative Declarations only after
the Initial Study concludes that environmental impacts would not occur, and when those
conclusions are based on "substantial evidence before the agency" that such impacts would not
occur, It must be painfully obvious to City staff that such a conclusion can not be reached during
any Initial Study for this discretionary action, an action which could lead to the decision to
"permit" such a land use to allow outdoor amphitheaters, especially given the recent release of
such a propsed land use and accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR), It is fair to say,
that there was an enormous amount of public outcry and a substanital number of letters
I
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 Jll
- -
-
indicating the inadequacy of the ErR, along with the enumeration of the tremendous amount of
potential environmental impacts such a permitted land use could allow. Your statement that "this
Initial Study concludes that the legislative action of the City Council to amend the South Poway
Specific Plan (SPA 84-01AA) to establish within Volume 2 (Development Standards) outdoor
amphitheaters as a prohibited or permitted land use under the Plan will not cause any significant
environmental impacts" is absolutely inconceivable, especially given the evidence to date to the
contrary, lbis evidence has been submitted to the City of Po way through the response to a Draft
EIR to just such a proposal (e,g, the recent Poway Entertainment Center project), I myself wrote
a twenty-two page letter outlining hundreds of potential impacts that such a permitted land use
would create, and I am aware that a huge number of other letters were also submitted,
CEQA, its guidelines, and case law clearly requires an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the
record supports even a "fair argument" that significant impacts "may" occur, Also clearly
evident in CEQA is that even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion, the
City of Poway nevertheless must prepare an EIR with the amount of evidence and public
controversy over such a proposal, lbis is supported by numerous lawsuits.
There is obvious potential for environmental impacts with the discretionary decision that the
Poway's City Council can make on September 12th, There has been more than a fair argument
that significant impacts may occur from such a permitted land use, made during the public
~~- review period of the Poway Entertainment Center proposal, both through the substantial response
to the EIR, and the enormous public outcry against such a project. The fact that on September
12, 1995, Poway's City Council could determine that such a land use is permitted, the current
initial study, its determination, and the accompanying Negative Declaration are both
inappropriate and in my opinion goes against all that CEQA stands for,
A decision to prepare a Negative Declaration (ND), while not supported by current evidence, was
in essence set in motion the evening of July 18, 1995, when the decision was made by the
City Council not to hear the formal Poway Entertainment Center proposal and EIR; but rather to
adopt Resolution No. 95-082 approving the initiation of the South Poway Specific Plan
Amendment (SPA 84-01AA). By doing so on July 18, 1995, and setting the future hearing date
for the decision to September 12, 1995, compliance with CEQA was frustrated in that the only
environmental document that could be prepared would be a negative or mitigated negative
declaration since the time period did not allow for an EIR given its statutory review periods, In
other words, by setting the hearing for September 12, and knowing that a CEQA document had
to be prepared, the City Council precluded any other decision than a ND or MND, lbis is in
direct conflict with the intent and purpose of the law,
You clearly indicate in Attachment B that the City Council also unanimously voted to direct
Poway City staff to "complete the necessary environmental review sufficient to permit the City
Council to determine whether an outdoor amphitheater should be a prohibited or permitted land
use anywhere within the South Poway Specific Plan," How does the existing Negative
Declaration provide "sufficient" environmental review for such an decision? If the decision on
2
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 f"1
-..------ -".., . ----.. ~--_.--------._..._- - , ._-------. -- -
.
September 12 was only to prohibit such a land use, then an NO would be appropriate; however,
since the potential exists also to permit such a land use, then an EIR is required,
The decision that an NO is appropriate is also puzzling, since you incorporate into the Initial
Study by reference the Public Review Draft EIR for the proposed Poway Entertainment Center
project, By doing so, you must come to the conclusion that by amending the South Poway
Specific Plan there IS the potential for environmental impacts, The Draft EIR reaches that
conclusion, and the enormous amount of letters in response to the EIR substantiate this, The fact
that the decision on September 12 does not involve a proposed site-specific or project-specific
development application has no bearing given the substantial evidence already in the record
regarding such a land use - again, there is substantial evidence that such a permitted land
use could have tremendous environmental and community impacts, Item No, 5 in the Negative
Declaration, which concludes that this project (e,g., decision) will not have a significant impact,
does not comply with CEQA since it is based on a flawed Initial Study, since it does nottake into
consideration the currently available information supporting a conclusion to the contrary,
On page 3 of your Addendum B, you further state that "the public record shows that the proposed
Poway Entertainment Center outdoor amphitheater project would result in potential mitigated
and unmitigated impacts of a highly controversial nature..,", and then go on to state that the "City
of Po way is cogJ1i7.llnt that outdoor amphitheaters may have the potential to cause adverse
environmental effects within the South Poway Specific Plan Area." Given these statements, the
decision to do an NO is clearly inappropriate, Your conclusion that "since the proposed
amendment does not involve a specific development project, there is no basis for the
identification and determination of potential 'significant' impacts" is just not supported by the
evidence, given the amount of information regarding such potential impacts existing in the record
and the amount of public input the City has received over such a land use,
The Initial Study checklist and process must take into consideration the available evidence of
such a proposal, Since the proposal includes the possibility that such a land use could be
permitted, then the Initial Study must be revised to indicate either yes, given the knowledge
provided in the Poway Entertainment Center EIR, or maybe, given the amount of evidence
provided the City of Poway either through consultant technical reports, or from the public during
the public review periods for the EIR.
If either the Initial Study determines that there may be a potential impact OR if other evidence in
the record has produced substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed project
may produce significant environmental effects, then CEQA I'eQJlires an EIR (Public Resouces
Code Section 21082.2). Therefore, an EIR would be required for the City Council to make a
decision to permit such a land use as outdoor amphitheaters within the South Poway Specific
Plan on September 12, 1995,
3
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 ..
u._._..._ --..-.----. -,
As I indicated above, I would like to receive a response to my letter prior to the City Council
hearing date of September 12,1995. I look forward to your response,
~
C. Michael Elling
11374 Cypress Woods Drive
San Diego, CA. 92131
cc: Mayor, City of Poway
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director ofPlannil1g Services, City of Po way
Barbara Warden, Councilmember, City of San Diego
4
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 .',
u__~_ _ _ ___ _ _.__
14464 Pebble Canyon Drive
Poway, California 92064
(619) 486-0614
August 23, 1995
Mr. Jim Nessel, Senior Planner
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Dear Mr. Nessel:
This letter and attached report are pertinent to the environmental assessment and city-
initiated amendment to the South poway Specific Plan (SPA 84-Q1AA) to determine wllether
an outdoor amphitheater should be a prohibited or permitted land use under the Plan.
I believe an outdoor amphitheater should be a prohibited use in the South Poway
Specific Plan area because the acoustic power generated at the amphitheater cannot be
contained within this area. It will negatively impact section 11, Health, Safety, and Nuisance
Factors; paragrapll C - "increase in existing noise levels" as set forth in the Initial Study
Environmental cllecklist.
The basis for this viewpoint is contained in the attached technical report "Analysis of
the Sound Impact on the Poway Community of the Proposed Amphitheater." Through the
application of the mathematics for sound propagation within the geophysical environment,
and the analysis of the recent noise/music tests of March 1995, I conclude the following:
. Poway city noise ordinance standards for residential areas of 40 dbA (evening) will
be violated.
. The audibility zone will extend as far as four miles from the amphitheater with the
maximum between two and three miles, These zones encompass 80 percent of
Poway residential areas.
. The amphitheater sounds will also impact the adjOining residential areas of Scripps
Ranch, San Diego City,
. The conclusions of the May 1995 EIR (Cotton/Beland/Associates) are misleading,
inaccurate and incomplete,
My credentials in this matter include a degree in Electrical Engineering from Stanford
University and thirty-five years experience in the propagation of sound and electromagnetic
energy in a geopllysical environment.
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 .".
- -
Mr, Jim Nessel, Senior Planner
City of Poway
August 23, 1995
Page 2
I fully expect that you will base your judgment on the efficacy of the proposed
amphitheater on a foundation of scientific evidence rather than opinion, As a resident of
Poway for fifteen years, and one who supported our move for independent city government, I
feel sure that you will make the rigllt decision for our community, I am ready to meet with
you at your convenience to discuss any of the information herein,
Yours very truly,
~:!:::!f?~
WJF:WK
Enclosure
cc: Mayor Don Higginson, Susan Callery, Deputy Mayor
Bob Emery, Mickey Cafagna, Betty Rexford, Council Members
-
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 l>t
-
ANALYSIS OF Tllli SOUND
IMPACT ON 'rllli POWAY COMMUNl'lY
BY Tllli PROPOSED AMPwTuEATER
W1l11am J. Fay
August 1995
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 iI"l
~-~ ~.- "----. _L - ---- ~-~
- -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OBJECTIVE ..... ....... ..... ...................... ......... ....... 1
INTRODUcnON ........ ..... ...................... ................ 1
NOISE TES'I'S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
AUOmILITY ZONE TESTS - FIGURE 1 ........ ..... ......... ........... 2
DATA ANALYSIS ...-... .... ......... ............ ... .............. ... 3
MUSIC AUOmlLITY AS A FUNcnON OF DISTANCE - FIGURE 2 ........... . 4
AMPHITHEATER MUSIC AUOmlLITY - FIGURE 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
DENSIlY OF NOISE COMPLAINTS - nGURE 4 ........ .... .......... .... 6
CONCLUSIONS .. ....... ... ...................... ............... ... 7
SEP 1 2 1995 rTEII 4 !".
-- ----
-._--~--~_._- ----- ~---~"- "--- -..-."-. ._--
Analysis of the Sound
Impact on the Poway Community
by the Proposed Amphitheater
August 1995
I, OBJErnvE
The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the impact on the Poway
community of the sounds transmitted from a proposed amphitheater located in the
Industrial Park area. The focus of attention is answering the question: "Will you hear the
music?"
ll. INTRODUCTION
- The best data currently available for answering this question (above) is contained in
the Cotton/Beland document "Environmental Impact Report for the Poway Entertainment
Center," May 1995, The impact of the sound emission tests are summarized in Section 5.10
"Noise" of the report. It concludes that the zone of audibility for the loudest musical event
(107 dbA source) would be confined within an area of about one and one-half miles from
the amphitheater. It defines audibility zone as "that area which may produce complaints
from time to time." Based upon this premise and the EIR conclusions, a review of these
findings seem appropriate and certainly relevant to the concept of an entertainment center
in the city of Poway.
ill. NOISE TESTS
On the evening of March 15, between the hours of 7 and 10 p,m., emission tests were
conducted using recorded music. The power radiated was 107 dbA from a bank of
loudspeakers constructed to simulate a musical event. To estimate the impact of the
radiated m~c on the surrounding community, manned listening posts were established.
There were twenty of these posts and their distances from the amphitheater varied from 0.8
miles to 4.7 miles. At each post sound intensity data was taken eveI)' five minutes and
recorded according to the following subjective scale:
# 1: Not audible
#2: Barely audible/fading
#3: Barely audible/steady
#4: Audible
#5: Vel)' audible
The location of the listening posts are shown in Figure 1, Audibility Zone Tests.
They are identified by the letters A through T. The major thoroughfares and concentric
circles (miles) around the amphitheater add perspective with regard to commercial and
residential areas. The shaded area (bottom center) of the figure, is the zone of
1
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 ,~
- . ----~-.__._--- -_.._~-_. .~_..----- --.----...--
-
+
+
<
0
It
'"
Lu 4/'1/
EAI<S
:311/
....
...
~
~
Go L ~
$
H
C
"
0
P
-4
AUDlelLlrr rallG rEsls
(1'1I/S/e.)
N
I HI LEg 111
I
+ 0 j.
FiGURE 1 " SEP 1 2 1995 rTEU 4 '1 +
- -. ----- ....--------..-...---..----- ----..-------------------..--
Analysis of the Sound
Impact on the Poway Community
by the Proposed Amphitheater
August 1995
audibility-that zone where audible signals will be contained-as described in Figure 5-22 of
the Environmental Impact Report. The extent of this zone lies within the two-mile circle-a
conclusion in the EIR not substantiated by the test data as demonstrated in the next section,
IV, DATA ANALYSIS
The data for the music tests are contained in Appendix A "Noise Analysis" and
appear in Tables A 4-5 and A 4-6. When these data (audibility reports) are accumulated
according to distance from the amphitheater in one mile increments, the results are shown
in Figure 2, Music Audibility as a Function of Distance. The percentage of time (audible
samples/number of samples) the music was heard for each mile inteIVal is marked on each
column, The "surprise" events occurred in the two to three mile interval where the music
was heard 53% of the time, This audibility zone also includes a large residential area of
Poway and parts of Scripps Ranch. The average of the audible events out to four miles was
approximately 30 percent (250 audibIe/860 samples),
Since these test results are markedly different from that which is expressed in the
environmental report, we proceeded to check them against what we would expect based
upon first order effects of sound propagation in a dispersive medium-the earths
atmosphere. This leads us to the outcome depicted in Figure 3, Amphitheater Music
Audibility. Here we see the audibility zone contained between the upper CUIVe, which is the
inverse distance squared law for a 100 dbA music source, and the 37 dbA line which is
3 dbA above the minimum recorded ambient noise level. Under ideal propagation
conditions (line-of-site between sound source and listener, low ambient noise level, no air
movement, no cloud overcast or inversion layer) a listener within the audibility zone would
hear the music loud and clear. Two data points, shown in Figure 3, were recorded during
the tests using sound power meters. These points were maximum events, that is, near ideal
conditions for a short period of time. They are close to the theoretical ideal case and
support the Distance Squared Power Loss curve.
Under non-ideal propagation conditions, the most likely audible sounds will be those
fading in intensity and contain periods of nonaudibility, If the local (ambient) noise levels
are high (automobile traffic) the chances of hearing the music are lessened.
The data taken during the evening of March 15 did not exlnoit Unusual
resuIts-beyond those expected by theory. This is further born out by comparison with data
from the shoreline amphitheater on the San Francisco Bay peninsula. Figure 4, Density of
Noise Complaints, is a map of the Menlo Park and Palo Alto communities which are
3
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 ,',
., - - .-- ._-~--------_._. --
- -
--
M us I C. AU J) 18 J L / T Y
AS A- PU/'IC!. i//)}/
OF lJ/$i'Ah'8E
GO-
~
....,J
~
.....
~.5"o- $'3%
<t:::
~
Vi'
~ 40-
~
~
~
K 5~- ------- -- - solo
lJ..
~ AVE"I?AGE
lu as%
\!)
l ~o-
~
lJ1 "
~ ,IS7,
~ 10- 0
l.IJ It) %
II
0 I
0 1 2- .3 +' .s
DISTANCE FROM AMFIII7HEATER. (MILEs)
-
--
F/C;UR~ ~ 4- SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 I
AM FH ITtfEAT~ R MUSIC. AUJ)/8Ji-1 TY
80 MJ;AtWfTE'P Tt$T PArA
(HAP-ell 'Is)
/
{ \
\
70 " \
\1\
\
PI3A ' \
\
\
GoO '(
3 7qe~'
~ ~'.E4~ij/l
1 2 :3 S-
-, /11 U:S
DJs.rANCE F~()M ' AI1PH 1 rf!EAiEf(.
. ....
FI G u,R [;3 5 SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4
- -
-
J
.
"
I
I
,
"
.
. . I
'\ \" ~ Ctl
, , .
., :,"", ,- ~
\:1 "'~," I
~ . "" ". .. '~
-;. ',,~
. \ '~ ,. ~'r
, .. -.....
- \\
I .. .
I ..
I ;, ""
" . -. I
FIGf)R~ 4- , DEJ/SJTY ()F N{)/.$c ~oI1I'LA/,vT$
,
'3'
ill c.. SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 ~
\ .
Analysis of the Sound
Impact on the Poway Community
by the Proposed Amphitheater
August 1995
contained within the audibility zone of the amphitheater, Mile markers provide a distance
reference, The crosshatching on the figure represents the area from which (noise)
complaints from residents originated. The density of the crosshatching is directly related
to the number of complaints received by the local police. The greatest density occurred in
the two and one-half to four mile range. Comparing these results with the Poway test data,
we find a positive correlation of results.
V, CONCLUSIONS
-
The intensity of the audible sound levels surrounding the amphitheater are
determined by the following list, in the order of decreasing importance:
a. The distance from the amphitheater
b, The ambient noise levels
c, The terrain topography
d, The meteorological conditions over the transmission path
1. Those residential areas two to three miles from the amphitheater will be the
most likely to hear the music (50% or more of the time), In general these
have low ambient noise levels and would have unobstructed view of the
amphitheater area, In the event of meteorological enhancement such as
inversion layers and Santa Anna winds (common occurrences in Southern
California) the audibility zone would enlarge and sound levels would rise.
Also included in this two to three mile zone are portions of Scripps
Ranch-beyond the Poway city limits,
2, Some areas within two miles of the amphitheater will very likely hear the
music although they may have obstructed views of the amphitheater. These
include low lying foothills near Beeler Canyon, Sycamore Canyon, and south
of Garden Road. These areas enjoy low ambient noise levels and cooling air
movements flowing down from higher elevations (upward moving sunset ,
shadow), The canyon walls also act as a waveguide which enhances the sound
energy,
3. This analysis of the Poway noise tests is corroborated by audibility data from
the residential communities adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Shoreline
Amphitheater.
4. The conclusions in the Environmental Impact Report of May 1995 are
misleading and are not substantiated by the test data.
7
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 rt
\ , ,-
-
Analysis of the Sound
Impact on the Poway Community
by the Proposed Amphitheater
August 1995
5, Sounds which change in intensity or are interrupted (fading) are much easier
for the human ear to detect and consequently have a greater annoyance factor
than ones which are steady, Assuming equal peak energy levels, the barking
dog has a higher annoyance factor than the humming air conditioner. The
fading music heard in residential areas of Poway will have a high annoyance
factor resulting in many complaints by irate citizens.
" .
.
8
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 ~
UNIVERSITY OF C;,IFORNIA, SAN DIEGO UCSD
BERKEU!Y . DAvq . IRVINE . LOS ANOEW . RIVERSIDE . SAN DISCO . SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARUARA . SANTA CRUZ
NASAL DYSFUNCITON CLINIC
Division of Head and Neck Surgery
TERENCE M. DAVIDSON, M,D, UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA MEDICAL CENTER, SAN DIEGO
DirectOr 200 W, ARBOR DRIVE (8654)
SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 92103
ALFREDO A, JALOWAYSKI. Ph,D, (619) ~3-632.1
Rapirorory Phy.icJosis' FAX (619) ~3-'897
CLAIRE MURPHY, Ph,D, PERLMAN AMBULATORY CARE CENTER
PsycbophY$K:isl 93$0 CAMPUS POINT DRIVE. 0970
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037
WlU.IAM S, CAIN, Ph,D, (619) 6.17-8'90
"'y<:hop/ly.icio< FAX (619) 6.17-8682
Auqust 30, 1995
TO: Don Hugginson, Mayor
Susan Callery, Deputy Mayor
Bob Emery, Councilmember
Mickey Cafagna, Councilmember
Betty ReXford, Councilmember
FROM: Terence M. David , .0. ~
RE: Outdoor Amphitheaters in
I strongly oppose amendments to support outdoor amphitheaters in
poway. Furthermore, I feel so strongly that I support and f~vor
amending the poway plans to prohibit outdoor amphitheaters within
the City.
My feelings for the above are very simply, that poway is a
wonderful, safe, peaceful, family oriented Southern California
CODllllunity. We are not so desperate for money that we need to risk
our security and nor do we have to suffer the traffic congestion,
the noise and the inconveniences of an active outdoor amphitheater.
I realize the supporters of these projects all have reasons and
data to suggest that security, drugs, motor vehicle accidents,
alcohol and other unwanted elements are not problems. I do not
believe it and I do not see why we need to incur the risk. Put
another way, would you, the city planners pay to have an
amphitheater. I suspect the answer is no and the only motivation
in favor is the potential new income to be earned.
Your attention to my concerns is appreciated.
cc: Jim Bowersox (City Manager)
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEU 4 ''1
- IJ~ 9--/;2-9'5
; Poway Chamher of Cmrumerce
The Chamber Building' 12709 Poway Road, Su~e 101 (619) 748-0016
Mailing Address: P,O, Box 868 . Poway, California 92074-0868 (619) 748-0082
FAX (619) 748-1710
September 11, 1995
HAND OEUVER~
DATE U- "
Mayor Higginson Copied for:
Ci ty of Poway City Council
13325 Civic Center Drive City Clerk
Poway, CA 92064 JLBfJDF/RW-Q
Dear Honorable Mayor Higginson:
The Board of Directors of the Poway Chamber of Commerce, on behalf
of its 425 member businesses, respectfully requests the City
Council to vote NO to any change of the General Plan at this time.
This is far more than an issue of whether the amphitheatre project
proposed by Bill Silva Presents would be a benefit or detriment to
the city. The timing of this proposed change and the precipitous
way in which it has been handled are clearly a reaction to Mr.
Silva's proposal and not a clearly thought out change to the
overall concept of the general plan.
The City Manager's recommendation to amend the cieneral Plan to
prevent any future proposals from being considered for the South
Poway Business Park is inappropriate and clearly not based on any
facts other than those whi ch rei ate to the EIR of Mr. Sil va's
specific proposal. The Chamber's Board of Directors has not taken
a position on the Silva amphitheatre project, nor does it intend to
do so. As far as an amendment to the General Plan, however, the
Board feels that to preclude the proposal of any future proiect.
reqardless of its scope or impact on the city. sends a stronq
neqative siqnal to any potential developer. ConSidering the
current status of the Business Park, the Chamber Board believes the
City should remain open to all possibilities.
Denial of consideration of an amphitheatre or any similar project,
for exampl e, woul d precl ude the development of any number of
projects which could be beneficial to the fiscal and business
health of the city, yet would not have the negative impact that the
City Manager claims the Silva project would have. Such an
amendment, for example, would prevent a project similar to Wolf
Trap Farm in Virginia, a national cultural asset, from ever being
developed in our area.
The staff report expresses concern over increased traffic on
Scripps Poway Parkway at "near peak commuting periods." However,
the development of additional traditional businesses will only
increase that traffic at peak periods and at times when schools
located on the parkway would be in session as well.
Dedicated to the Community for over 45 )'ear"sEP 12 1995 ITEM 4 ~
.
,
.
I
Page 2
Mayor Higginson
September 11, 1995
Because of these and numerous issues which the city has not
addressed. we ask the City Council to leave the General Plan as is
and to consider anY future proposals on their own merit.
Sincerely,
JuM- ~'--
Teresa Clark
President
TC:kb
cc: Councilmember Susan Callery
Councilmember Mickey Cafagna
Councilmember Bob Emery
Councilmember Betty Rexford
SEP 1 2 1995 ITEM 4 I
GREEN .-\LLEY CIVIC ASSOC--"\.TION
Serving All North Poway Neighborhoods
September 12, 1995
Poway City Council
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, California
Dear Mayor Higginson and Council Members:
Our letter to you of July 1 reported that over 95 per cent of nearly 500 member
families responding to our survey are opposed to the presence of an amphitheater in
Poway, I am writing in their behalf. It is significant that this overwhelming opposition
comes from families living far enough from south Poway that noise and traffic impacts
upon them would be non-existent or minimal. We believe this result reflects an awareness
on the part of most Poway residents that amphitheaters bring far-reaching problems to the
communities where they exist. Therefore, we are pleased that City Staff has
recommended that Council act to prohibit outdoor amphitheaters in the South Poway
Planned Community,
The Staff Report concludes that an amphitheater would be incompatible with the rural
character of Poway and would not meet the objective of the SPPC Development Plan or
the strategies of the Poway Comprehensive Plan. Our comments tonight are intended to
provide additional support for those conclusions.
You have all received the GVCA reports which describe and quantify the problems of
increased crime, drugs, personal injuries, violence, noise, demand upon city services, and
lawsuits. Those reports are backed up with volumes of documents from all over the U,S.
and with personal testimony. The City Manager and two Council Members who attended
our community forum at the Performing Arts Center on June 28 heard two persons who
live in amphitheater communities describe the reality of these impacts, Three Council
Members visited city officials in other communities having amphitheaters and obtained
first-hand confirmation of these problems. Finally, you have received voluminous and
substantive evidence from the GVCA and many others which shows that the Draft EIR for
the Silva project failed to properly evaluate or show mitigation for several critical major
impacts, of which noise is only one,
In view of this large amount of information already made available to you, there is
no need for us to elaborate upon the unacceptable problems that an amphitheater would
bring to Poway. However, we would like to respond to those proponents of amphitheaters
who continue to minimize the problems while arguing the benefits of having an
amphitheater in town to provide jobs and entertainment for Poway young people while
minimizing the problems, We find it difficult to believe that any parent would want to make
it more convenient for their teenage children to be immersed in the drugs, violence, and
other anti-social behavior which so frequently exist at amphitheater performances.
q ~{;Z-i5
~<-{
---,._.,.~--.._-- --
-
Poway City Council September 12, 1995
Information which documents these problems is continually being added to the wealth of
data compiled by the GVCA. One of the more recent of many informative reports is an
article which appeared in the August 8, 1995 issue of Family Circle Magazine titled: "What
Every Parent Must Know About Rock Concerts", The article focuses on the problem of
serious injury and even death induced by rock concerts ( the financial backbone of the
amphitheater business), involving unreserved outdoor turf "seating"which is common in
amphitheaters. The article states: "Not surprisingly, few promoters, security companies, or
rock bands are willing to take responsibility for the planned mayhem that breaks out at
their events. The promoters blame the bands, many of whom demand that moshing and
stage diving be permitted. 'The artist ultimately controls the stage', says Ben Liss,
Executive Director of the North American Concert Promoters Association, , . " The
continued prevalence of these conditions is demonstrated by the reports by Bay Area
newspapers of violence and degenerate behavior at several concerts last month at
Shoreline amphitheater. This underscores the reality that those amphitheater concerts
which draw the largest crowds often create an environment which is unhealthy for
teenagers both mentally and physically, A copy of each of these articles is attached,
This leaves the question of whether these adverse effects would be more than offset
by the benefits from an amphitheater, Analysis of the proposed Silva operation should
provide a reasonable approximation of the benefits to be derived from other amphitheaters.
Based upon information from the Silva EIR plus financial data obtained from other
amphitheaters, we conclude that the number of Poway jobs and amount of stimulation to
the Poway economy claimed in Silva's advertisements are substantial exaggerations. The
claim of increased tax revenues is realistic but the amount is small relative to Poway's total
revenues and would be wiped out by only a minor increase in demand for city services or
by the cost of defending a single law suit.
Whether the benefits have been exaggerated by the developer or not, to us the crux
of the matter is how the quality of life of the people who live in Poway would be impacted
by the presence of an amphitheater. We in the GVCA believe that the conditions created
by the presence of an amphitheater are incompatible with both the character of Poway and
the life style of the vast majority of its residents. For reasons we have previously
detailed, we believe an amphitheater would inevitably, irreversibly, and negatively change
Poway from what it is today and from what our General Plan contemplates. It is
unavoidable that such changes would make Poway a less attractive place to live. Many
Poway realtors recognize that, as a result, property values would ultimately decline.
The GVCA believes the evidence is overwhelming that amphitheaters don't belong in
the South Poway Planned Community or anywhere else in Poway.
Sincerely,
2
-"-- --.-
- -
-
By Dan Hurley What every parent Chris-nevertimid,buthardly
the roughest DC boys-joined in
t'!~'~, "Ma, I'm slill here; Ihe fun, He managed to climb up
, ~ "?' lhe band didn'l come nn y,'t." It was t k b t onlo the slage
''',..... 12:40 in Ihe early hnurs n[ Salurday, De- and d i v e 0 [ [
cemberI7,1994,ChrisMit,'hellwascallinJ{hnm,' mus now a OU wilhoutinci,
from a small Brooklyn dance dub, He k rt dent. Then he tried his luck again,
and his friends frolll suburbau Pearl roc conce S This time, according lo his friends,
River, New York, had boul!hl tirk.'ls Chris was pushed off the stage at an
that afternoon to see a band calkd Ufe nf I\j{nny, Chris's awkward angle, into an area where the crowd was thin,
parents. Mike and Gabriella, had [ell ,'om[ort.1ble allowinl! Chris hit the floor, landing direcUy on his head,
him to go: He was 18 years old. a fi.fonl-I-ineh, 18;,.pound Disoriented and unable to stand, he was helped nut,
high school senior responsible ellou~h tn hold dnwn a p;arl. side by his buddies. Soon he began vomiting-a sign of
time job at the local Shop'Rite, And 1>"""Use Mike had b""n Sl"yt'rc Iwad injury. By the time his parents arrived at the
a professional guitarist in a 70's roek band, lhey t1ll1Ul!hl hospital. Chris had lapsed into unconsciousness. A CAT
they knew what a rock "oocert wnuld be like, But they scan round I>leedinll inside his brain, and two surgeries
were tragically mistaken, were unable to save him. An emergency-room nurse her-
.You're supposed to be home at lo'c1oek," Gabriella ...... self, liabriella knew all too well the meaning of "brain
minded her son. dead: A little over :18 hours after she had last spoken to
""I know, but we're waitinK." Chris s;aid. "and H wt' t,:ome him, Chris was pronounced dead,
home now, we're all Kuin)!' to luSt' nur Al'ros.< the United Stales, "moshing" has become a stan-
money on thl: lickt>I!Ii. Pleilst', please dard activity at rock concerts-at small clubs and major
can I slay? We'll h., home as soon as arenas alike, And while it's undoubtedly fun. it's also uud"
they finish playing: niably dangerous. Whipped to a frenzy by the band.,
Gabriella relenled, I1lad Ihat Chris jammed into unsafe spaces by promoters, manhandled by
had been thoughtful enouJth tn Citll untrained security guards and left to fend for themselves
home when he knew he was late. by police officials who maintain a "hand. off' policy, kids
Once tht" band J{ot nn slaJ{t", the lire risking broken bones, broken necks-even their
crowd packt'd lntn il "mush pH." in lives-for a few hours in the mosh pit.
which kids near lh,' stalle sland so "Because it's become a fad, youl1 see moshing now at
close together it becomes almost im- shows where the music is completely noninciting," says
possible to move. But muvc.' they do- navid Reiman. M,D" assistant professor of medicine at
writhing, nailing, ~un~inJ{ bark and Stan[ord University and a volunleer with Rock Medicine. a
forth in unstoppable waves. Suun the mort" darinl{ kids local pn'lIram that provides medical care at concerts. The
were .crowd surfing"-rollinllaboul onth,' heads and result for Dr, Reiman, and for concert hall. everywhere, is
shoulders of the crowd, Then some kids began "sla/l:e div- Ihat broken bones, severe head injuries and bloody gashes
ing" --dimbing up onto Ihe stage.lhen diving inlo the thick have become business. as usual.
crowd of fans with a back Dip or belly flop, While reliable figures are impossible to come by. an an-
nual rork-concerl-safety survey issued by Crowd Manage.
Do.. Hurley is a.. award-winning fret/once writer special- menl Strategies of Chicago estimates that injuries requir-
izi"ll in $ocial issu.., He live.. in Montrlair. New Jersey. inl! medkal attention have skyrocketed from about 500 in
no ___'Iv el..l. R/HN',
--
-
,.;
199210 1,082 in 199310 an alarming 7,888 in 1994-most of "More and more people are getting
the latter attribuled 10 Woodslock '94, hurt in mosh pits," he says. "It's sud-
Last summer, three young people were paralyzed in or denly become a really big problem,"
near mash pits in less than two months' time: . Keith While there is plenty that bands. pro-
Phillips, 27, of Remington, Ohio, was moshing at a Metalli. moters and security guards could and should be doing to
ca concert in Cincinnati on June HI when he was flipped make concerts safer, parents must look out for their teens'
backward into the crowd, He landed on his head and is safely (see "4 Steps Parents Can Take," page 122),
now paralyzed, confined 10 a wheelchair with two fractured "The problem is that parents have no idea what's al-
vertebrae. . Ten days later, 23-year-old Brian Cro!'\s was lowed to happen in these clubs," says Chris's father, "I'm
crowd-surfing at a heavy.metal concert in Columbia. Mary- just trying 10 get the word out about the dangers,"
land, when he was thrown down on the ground. He is now While acknowledging that their son took a risk by
paralyzed from the neck down, . Not long afterward, Jere- jumping off the stage, the Mitchells do not accept the idea
my Ubby, 15, of Pillsfield, Maine, also became paralyzed thallhe fault was all his-especially not when the bands
from the neck down after crowd-surfin~ in Rhode Island at and concert halls allow the kids to do it. (The Brooklyn
Lollapalooza, an alternative rock festival that travels across district attorney's office was still investigating the pos-
the country each summer, He fell throul(h a I(ap in the sibilily of filinl( criminal charges in Chris's death when
crowd. and has not walked since, FAMILV C..cuc went to press.)
The harshest indictment of security companies and
From Bad to Worse promoters comes from one of the most respected experts
Injuries and deaths at rock concerts are nothing new, of on crowd management in the world: Jake Pauls, who heads
course, The most notorious incident occurred in 1979, the nonprofit Building Use and Safety Institute in Silver
when 11 youths were crushed to death outside a Who con- Spring, Maryland. ""There is not much professionalism in
cert in Cincinnati. In 1991 the surge of a ('rowd watching the rock-concert industry," Pauls says. "In this country
an AC/DC concert in Salt Lake City left three dead, in- there are no standards to prevent someone with no train-
eluding a 14-year-old boy attending his first concert. ing or experience from being named an arena manager."
Such deaths have generally been attributed to behavior
associated with general-admission or "festival" seating, in Passing the Buck
which ticket buyers are allowed to choose their own seats Not surprisinl(ly, few promoters, security companies or
when they walk in. or no seats are provided-only an open rock bands are willing to take responsibility for the
floor, The result can be that thousands of fans try to fon'e planned mayhem that breaks out at their events. The pro-
their way forward when the doors open, then push toward moters blame the bands, many of whom demand that
the stage-never realizing that people can I(et crushed in moshinl( and stage divinl( be permitted, "The artist ulti-
the process, In the wake of such tra!ledics, the National mately controls the stage." says Ben Uss, executive direc-
PTA and the National Fire Protection Association have tor of the North American Concert Promoters Association,
strongly recommended banninl( festival sealing, which is based in Mclean, Virginia,
But has the rock industry followed such safety recom. The bands pass the buck to the security guards, "These
mendations? On the contrary, general-admission ticketiog muscle-bound freaks they call security guards have to re-
has actually spread as bands demand it in order to allow member thai they're a lot bigger than the kids coming to
their fans to mosh, According to Robert Makin of The these shows," says Joey Z. the guitarist for Ufe of Agony,
Aquaria.. Weekly, a New Jersey rock newspaper, the polen- "Security should treat the kids with more respect and be a
tial for hazardous situations is only !letting worse, little more gentle," (Continued on page 122) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8/8/95 ".11y Circle 91
- -
More and more teens are getting hurt in mosh pits.
.... .... .... .... ... .... .... From page 91 If ou do let our kids ofOlW__t.Jtips
The security companies blame not y y g"", """"" "'<"""",'
only the bands, but also the kids, Ac- Marilyn Manson has i Clearllneof-e~IllI!)ll~$;.~,~/JIO$h pit
cording to Nick Kirkeles. co-owner of gained a reputation as ! tion be~,o,:~re~/;:.,,:.;:.J;f.i1~~'~/'
Star Security in Villa Park, Illinois, it'. one of t~e wildest bands i w~o m">:":1\l!9fII~;0'f ,,', ,,'tllfkCll- '
impossible to prevent kids from hav- performing today, W~lIa ; abo!Jt;!r!i "l!~~ ,;" '" " " :
ing mash pits, because if necessary It may not be surprising i their kia!l'.i\'I!'YIlI~: Ili ,," , ;'-"
they will pull out chairs that were t~atthaybringoutt~e i I~Pllren~~;P;!!t~;u;;;V 4.~,,' ',',::thltt
savaga In t~elr audl, i klds,an~ir<tdS,~Mi,' ",' '!\IKV:
bolted to the floor to create them, ences. what Is surpris- i parents'~:\1foti'~,~?' > . "'(jl,\I~~ '.
"You have to make a decision as to ing Is that tha group's ! any conf1.lSfotj?"'''''fik,~'' ,-'.~..:: ~.: .
whether to risk kids' getting hurt on leader offers sensible i .AdVlse thli1!'~:~,,",lii1#'. .
broken chairs, or allow them to do advice to parents, So i mosh plt$:,'jll;aJ~',' " \It} '.'
consider this from the i to get cIO$eriin!l,at~:il;:.," ., , .. Or;
what they're going to do in a system horse's mouth, i people s~l1-el!<:ll.~;;,~ ' "", . ilL'
that's as safe as possible," he says. . Talk with your kids: i er to get~~rtllll~,,"W ',,1'1 ,11,.
Only the kids, it seems, blame no "There needs to be a i Parents ~,q_;lJna'~t.(t1fi~~~:~i~"!:)"":ii!;';;"'",',:rk,/)m:~;~,:;P:; ,
one-because to them moshing is
their generation's form of self-expres- student Christopher Porter, as he training and knowledge for concert
sian. But they're under no illusions waits for Courtney Love and Hole to promoters and security personnel.
about how dangerous it can be. get started at New York City's Rose- Toward those in the rock-concert
"My teeth are loosefrom the Hel, land, "I saw Nine Inch Nails at Madi- industry who claim that rules won't
met show," says 19-year-old college son Square Garden-we started a riot. work because the kids and the bands
'"~_~.(JareDts can take We were diving off the up- won't tolerate them, Jake Pauls has
per liers, My parents are only disdain: "I resent someone in a
concerned-but I know position of responsibility saying, 'We
I Check the bond" reputation. While it's possible my limits." can't stop people from doing this.' We
F>a,~ almost any concert, mashing is unlikely to ac- Later, as moshing be- wouldn't tolerate that in other situa-
;:~f~ur at shows given by older acts, such as Elton gins at the Hole concert, tions. There are certain dangers to
I_:;r~phn or Billy Joel. Also read or listen to the lyrics. two girls who look no old, crowds, and we as a society have to
;:':,~'I$~1t;ell about anger and violence? You might ex- er than 14 appear to be in set some rules."
pect the same at the concerts, experts say. distress, "Why is it so As Mike Mitchell sees it, "If you
Inveatipte the reputation of the location, the crowded?" one of them go to Disneyworld, some of those
promoter and the security compony, Is the
show going to be at a plush concert hall? Then asks the other, rides are wild, but you assume they're
it's unlikely that mashing would be permitted. But "Someone just grabbed safe because someone's taking mea-
if it's at a small, seedy club where local acts play, my crotch!" shouts a girl sures to keep them safe, That's what
you should be highly suspicious. Call the fire de- from Bayside, Queens, who I'm asking for-that when the kids go
p,artment nearest to the location to learn if emer. had just been crowd-surfing, to these concerts, someone should
_;:iq~CY medical teams have been needed there.
(,;~:::;,;:':~::'Most concerts by nationally known bands per- Another young woman's take measures to insure they're safe."
i'~' ;,;~~;~rqup at arenas or amphitheaters, where condi. breasts are grabbed as The only hope. some feel, is that
",trons can vary dramatically depending on which she Ooa!s overhead, insurance companies will raise rates
promoter is managing the show and which securi~ "I got kicked in the so high that the industry will be
ty company has been hired. The best you can do
may be to ask the police or other parents if head. really hard," says forced to reform. "We're only a few
they've heard of any trouble with those campa- l8-year-<lld Robert Chinosi serious neck injuries away from the
nie~r to call up the promoter directly (promot- after the Hole concert has insurance companies' pulling the
ers are listed in the ads for the concert) and give finished, "I got knocked plug," predicts Cory Meredith, owner
him a grilling. If you're still not satisfied, try call. on the Ooor and stepped of StaffPro Security Inc,. in Orange
ing another local concert promoter listed in other
concert advertisements and ask for an opinion. on." But, he quickly adds County, California, But until the in-
Determine your teen" prep.-ednesa or consid. with a smile, "That's the surance industry clamps down, he
... coInc aIon&,. Cory Meredith of Staff Pro Securi- whole point." says, "I guarantee you there are going
"/;~itnc, says that no matter how good the reputa- to be more injuries."
I "lion of the band or facility, "anyone under 15 is A Need for Limits Forty years after the birth of rock
f_,:J~:,young to go without an adult. Concerts are There is a growing con- 'n' roll, at a time when the Rock and
Just not a safe environment for young children." sensus among experts Roll Hall of Fame is preparing to open
Demand chanp_ The Mitchells' attorney has ap- that the answer is com- in Cleveland. "It's finally time for the
proached New York State senators and represen-
,j~tlves to seek legislation outlawing stage diving monsense prohibitions on industry to accept responsibility for
_iJd reqUiring certification of security guards and such blatantly dangerous the safety of the patrons," says Paul
~:';lcp~Cert promoters. They urge all parents to fight behavior as stage diving; Wertheimer, president of Crowd Man-
for-similar commonsense laws in their communi- limits on how crowded agement Strategies, "There are no
ties. And while you're at it, write your own repre-
sentative or senator for national legislation. mosh pits can become; more excuses, Why should anyone be
and national standards of dying at a rock concert?" .
122 F...11y Clrcl. 8/8;95
---
AUG-22-1995 20:54 FROM _ TO 16194869070 P,05
~ . Hole's Shoreline set cut. short
when Courtney scuftles with fans
BYSAM WHITINO nead O'Connor, who withdrew mldtour
0tt0nk:J.5ItIHWritw due to pregnancy.
'1 came because ol Hole, but then I
A n emotiODalllDddefiant Coun. found out E1utica was playtng, wbleh
ney Love jolted aI1ve a heat- wueven better," &aid Lisa BIIrke, 12. of
stricken LoIIapalooza last lIlght MountalD View, wbo bopped and sway.
by leaving the ShoreliDe AIIlphtthealre ed In her seat throughout ElastIca's
stale twice to cIlalIenge memben of the tight 4O-mlDute set
au . ence beloruheWlll flJIIlIy carried yesterday was the final stop on the
away In the arms of a _Brit)' guard. nationwide 5\1l1U11er tour, and the artlstJ
On her daughter Frances Bean's seemed aa if they'd bad enough. David
third birthday, lI1e fint went alter two Yaw ol Jesus LIzard sang one number
men, fIlPP!nl them off, tIleIl Jumped off while lounging In a aeal In the audience,
the stage after 1Jiem, apparently be- m: rows up, At the end of the set, he in-
cause they were showing lnaufflcient lloduced the foDowlng act: "Next up is
enthuaiasm, Beck to f - you In the face,"
After she was earried out of the are- No one could be sure If he was jok,
na, the mus1c olNlrvana, her late hus- lng; the tour has been marked by back-
band, Kurt Cobaln'8, band, was piped In biting and onllne IIl1plng between
on the sroundB, hillVOiceslnglng. "All banda.
alone is aI1 we are.~ Better Than Ezpecte.
Love had been In tean for much of
her set. Clad In a black leather lIlinlskirt Chris Welntrob,15, of Orlnda de-
and matchini sleeveleas vest, Wltha , scribed the lineup II "Dot qulle as ~
black fishnet-stoctin8ed leg placed atop as last year, but! don't think It's as d
a speaker monitor, she strummed an as everybody makes It out to be."
aqua gIItW at high voltage, backed by Elastica COOled up the crowd with
her bllDd Hole_ an energetic set of British pop, four
It was four screaming songs before SOllllS In the first 10 Dllnule3. By set's
she took a long puD of" ciilarette, and end at 5:30, the crowd made IIll first
addressed the croW<!, "Let's hear some surge toward the stage. Two men In
reopect for E1asti""," she exhorted, then splashy skintight jumpsuits were
'10uder, you f - P -...,Tha crowd re- brought out to go-go dance_ ..
..
spollded as much out of fear as appreci- Elastica played its hit ''Connected" ?;
atlon, but the best response of all came and closed with "Vaseline." It was fo!- ~
to her plea for "reSpect for Frances lowed On the main stage by rappers Cy. t; I'.,
Bean CobalD, who's3-~ today," I:nCS$HiIlllDd the strippecl-clown Iow.fl ~=-=
'" ,
The she led a happy-blrthday i1ng-along. d Pavement. ~ ,
Love In Tun Outside the main stage were the UllU. ~iO .
aI circus lSideshow acts, though the ..'
Love'. glittery, emotional set - she body.plerclng tent was not the attrac- a ~ .
WllS noticeably crying through much of lion of yem past. There was a second ~
It - was liIte a cool breeze against the stage out on the asphalt and gravel for ~O
hot wind that blew the roct-and-grunge bandB even too alternative for the main
road show Into MOUntain View for Its stage, Mike Watt was out there, as was .
fifth-annual visit - at least until thinCS all act called the Diro/. Three, With a SU1 e
got bizarre. picking at" violin lIS if it were an e1ectic ~.
SonIc Youth closed tile show withilll sulfar,
particular brand ot:E:tI:Y reverb-heavy The second stale was convenient to e
ro<:k, Even with an borate psychede). the mist tent, which got heavy traffic all \A'
ic light sliow behind them, Youth afternoon. ~: III
couldn't match the spectacle of Love's "A wClome - you just got to go in
histrionics, there for about three minutes,. said a
The absence of a major.name head. man in a tie-dyed tank top who proved J~
liner didn't shrink the crowd, which ar. that Interval was long enough for a good
rtved through the afternoon and Into salkini. Some llf\IDlers came out of the I
the niChtin what was predicted to be a mist tent and then scuffled their feet to
sellout by the time Co\ll'tney Love and stir up a layer of dust for added protec.
Hole took the stage promptly at 8;25. tion against the sun,
The top-billed act was Sonic Youth, Another popular attraction waa the
but it WllS clear thel Hole was the main darkened cinema tent, Thefllm was
draw, followed by Elastica, a female "something about people having sex
British pop-punk band that replaced Sl- LOUAPALOOZA, Page E4 Co!. 4
AUG-22-1995 20:55 FROM _ TO 15194859070 P,05
E4 Sa.Jrann ~ Q"'YIU",.".AI,NoWI '7', 17YWl
,- - · $l!._ ..~" !!"'''',!_.
: - LOLLAPALOOZA: A Wild Affair,
From PaJ!:e El
lIIld killing each other," .aid a
teeDage glJ'lln a M*A"S.U T'Ihlrl,
"but It's Dice and cool in there."
A t!lIrd stage, ca11ed the Lab,
miJ:ed local bands with eamival.
style audience-participation
events. In midatternoon a drag
~een In a Ieopard-stlD goWD om,
led a Spam-eating con~ ~
tween a man and a woman chosen
from the crowd A halt-can of the
pork product was placed at either
end of the table, and they went at
it face-first with hands behind
their backs while the draa queen
chanted, "Eat that meal"
"It was very salty and very
greasy, but what the heD, man. It
wall worth a tree (CD) &ing1e," said
the WilIDer, Danel Campos, 23, who ,
held the prize aloft on the stage
like a Wimbledon trophy.
Several people walked around """'" "UZfW'_CHIICNI<:U
'in Sonic Youth T-Ghirts, wllich Kelly Smith and Eddie Betten-
have a washing machine on the
front, but It was clear the buzz was wu,t of Redwood City wo'e a
, for Courtney Love aDd Hole. mask to Lollapalooza
"Nlrvana's old lady. she's mellow crowd in concert
brave," said Brown. "Overall, she's a
decent, but her old man was hot.. T-ilIIrts. Justine Frischmann of B,itish
Early in the afternoon at the main "A lot of good people out here, 9'ouP ilastica ,ocked the
stage, the crowd grew the farther basically," said LolIapaloou veter. Shoreline crowd
It got frOm the performers. The an Jo.hua Brown, who got the day the best,"hesaid.
orange seats down front' were oft his job at a Lake County boat
nearly empty save for the one Y ow dock to brtng IIis boss' son to lbe "It;. hot, and everybody dea18
sat In as he Sang, But the general. show, ''The first thing I do is check
admission lawn was tilling in with out the crowd, lIIld this is probably with everything their own way,"
- --
LOVE LOSES IT
. ,'~''',".' .~.,~-,~,.,".....,.,
AT lOLLAPALOOZA
TOTAL P,06
- -
Sept, 11, 1995
Eric Wiseman
14546 Glenville St,
Poway, CA 92064
Dear Mr. Mayor and Honorable City Council Members:
I appreciate the opportunity to have my view heard this
evening even though I am unable to attend. I would like to have
this letter entered into the record.
I am writing this letter in opposition to the B.S.P.
amphitheater or any other amphitheater project. On May 11th, I
wrote a letter to the Poway News Chieftain. A copy of the letter
was given to each of the council members and the mayor, In that
letter I explained a few things, which I will reiterate now,
However, first I'll start off by saying that I am police officer.
Now, it is my understanding that if an amphitheater project goes
through, that the City has given the okay to allow a certain number
of days in which performers will be able to exceed to noise limits
set forth in the Poway Municipal Code. Without mincing words, this
is illegal. The California State Penal Code section 415.(1) says,
and I quote, " Any of the following persons shall be punished by
imprisonment in county jail for a periOd not more than 90 days, a
fine of not more than $400 or both such imprisonment and fine: any
person maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud
and unreasonable noise." It is my understanding that state law
supersedes local law. In that same letter on May 11th, I used
quote from the Chieftain. It was from the E.I.R. It said,
"...that [sound] levels would climb to 110 decibels five or six
times a year." Should the people of Poway have to put up with
that? The answer is a simple one, no. According the state law, the
perfomers are going to be in violation,
The second point I'd like to bring up is the crime problem.
Again, according to the E.I.R., there will be no significant crime
increase. This information was gained by law enforcement
interviews. What law officers were interviewed? Was it a chief,
captain, or lieutenant that has been sitting behind a desk for an
unknown amount of years? Did this chief, captain, or lieutenant
have an amphitheater in their juriSdiction? How about the cop who
has been working the beat everyday? Was he or she interviewed?
Also, was there a definition of a crime problem in the E.I.R? The
amphitheater would be serving alcohol and people would be allowed
to bring their own. After one or two drinks an average size
person, or even small juvenile, would be legally intoxicated and
would be considered a drunk dr i ver. I had the opportunti ty to
attend a Doobie Brothers concert. Let me just say that you didn't
have to bring your own marijuana all you had to do was breath,
there was so much smoke. This is not to mention the LSD I saw
q -/,;{ - "IS
#<-1
~-'------"'-'-""-'-------'--"',-,---, -'----_._------,-_.._-~.__._----- -..-----------.. -,--..-....-..-
- -
being used. But, I guess this is insignificant, and won't harm
anybody. Of course unless you are on the road and happen to be in
a collision with this person. I'm sure people living in and around
the San Diego Sports Arena might have something to say about the
insignificant crime problem.
Some of you may remember on July 3rd, at the Del Mar Fair,
there was a small riot. There was a rap artist on stage that
evening. As some people may know gang members, as well as other
non violent people, listen to this type of music. Gang members
also carry knives and guns, to protect themselves as well as their
"homies, " These gang member were responsible for the riot that
took place that evening, It 130 some Sheriff's deputies, Highway
Patrol, and San Diego police officers to gain control of this
situation. I was one of those officers who responded to that
incident. The Sheriff's Department was so concerned with the
possibility of riots breaking out, that the Pearl Jam concert was
cancelled from their venue at the Fair.
In closing, Mr. Mayor and Honorable council members, I urge
you to take heed of this letter, and the seven years of law
enforcement experience behind it,
Sincerely,
Eric Wiseman
.._"'--_.~---~ '..-- _.,.u__.____._ ____________ ~_._,_._'u._.__.__. _....._.___.._...m .._~. "_'__