HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/09/09 (3)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 9, 1992
Page I
1. PUBLIC HEARING: RANCHO DEL REY COMMERCIAL CENTER DRAFf
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 92-02)
A. BACKGROUND
EI Rancho del Rey Partnership is proposing to convert approximately 55 acres of the approved
Rancho del Rey Business Center from Employment Park to a mixed-use commercial center. The
proposed development would create parcels suitable to major retailers, in addition to
complementary recreation/entertainment/retail commercial uses and smaller retail uses.
Development of three major anchor stores would be allowed (currently, Home Depot, K-Mart
and Price Club are negotiating with the applicant for development of the anchor stores).
Amendments to the land use policy, regulatory and design documents are necessary to allow
these uses.
The project background began in 1978 with the adoption of the 2,450-acre El Rancho del Rey
Specific Plan. The 1985 amended Specific Plan represents the City's adopted plan for this area.
ErR 87-1 had analyzed impacts from the existing Employment Park designation. This
commercial center EIR is a Supplemental EIR, because the land uses proposed are of a different
nature, however, many development impacts had previously been analyzed in the 1987 EIR.
Thus, the change proposed for the 55 acres is from an Employment Park use including
warehouse, light industrial, and retail commercial uses, to Commercial Center, including large
warehouse and discount retailers and other commercial uses. The 1987 EIR analyzed the change
from the natural environment to the Employment Park.
The only facility constructed on the proposed commercial center site to date is a bowling alley,
and an auto service center has also been approved and is anticipated to begin construction in the
Fall of 1992. The balance of the site has remained graded and developed with infrastructure,
however, no Employment Park type users have yet utilized the site. It should be noted that an
automobile sales center was proposed for a portion of the site in 1990, however, the proposal
was not pursued due to public controversy stemming from land use compatibility issues.
As a result of circulation of the Notice of Preparation, one comment letter from a citizen was
received, and indicated support for the project due to her anticipated decrease in driving time.
Two letters of comment have been received to date (August 26, 1992) from circulation of the
Draft EIR; these include:
I. EastLake Development Company (August 19, 1992): expressed concern over traffic
capacity on area roadways.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 9, 1992
Page 2
2. Mr. Melvin Aden (August 15, 1992): requested a study of large truck traffic on H Street;
and expressed concern over traffic generation and land use.
Any additional comments will be hand delivered to the Planning Commission at the Public
Hearing (September 9, 1992). All comments received on the Draft EIR, both written and oral
comments, will be responded to in the "Responses to Comments" section of the Final EIR.
Two informal public forums have been held in the community to present the proposed project
and solicit input. These were held on April 29 and August 13. The Draft EIR was presented
at the August 13 meeting.
The Resource Conservation Commission considered the Draft EIR on August 24, 1992. The
RCC unanimously voted to recommend its certification, while noting that traffic impacts were
of concern.
B. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
Conduct the Public Hearing on the Draft Supplemental EIR (ElR 92-02), close the hearing, and
give staff direction to prepare the Final EIR.
C. ANALYSIS
1. Land Use
Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
Impact The Commercial Center intensity would create significant compatibility impacts with
the surrounding residential uses.
Mitigation Design guidelines must include setbacks, buffers and building design to reduce
appearance of mass; screening techniques; and security measures shall be
implemented.
2. Aesthetics
Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
Impact The Commercial Center would create significant view, aesthetic and light and glare
impacts to the surrounding residences.
Mitigation Design guidelines must specify architectural design, building materials and mass
reduction design; landscape plan must include screening vegetation; a lighting
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 9, 1992
Page 3
plan must show adequate security without offsite intrusion; signage requirements
must be complied with.
3. Air Oualitv
Impact Summary: Significant, Not Mitigable
Impact Vehicle emissions contribute to the regional (cumulative) air quality impact; short
term construction impacts.
Mitigation Distribution of air quality/energy reduction educational materials to all Rancho
del Rey homeowners, compliance with all local and state energy conservation
building requirements, installation of bicycle racks on all commercial sites,
implementation of safe pedestrian walkways between buildings and bus stop
areas, compliance with all appropriate transportation management programs;
implementation of dust control measures, and proper use of emission control on
construction equipment.
4. Noise Impact Summary: Significant, Not Mitigable
Impact Noise from project related traffic would incrementally contribute to an existing
significant noise impact.
Mitigation No feasible mitigation is available.
5. Fiscal Impact Summary: Beneficial Impact
Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
6. Traffic Circulation
Impacts:
A. Cumulative traffic impacts to area roadways would occur.
B. Project traffic would significantly impact offsite roadway intersections prior to completion
of SR-125.
C. Project traffic would incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the H
Street/Hilltop Drive intersection at buildout (post SR-125).
D. Project traffic would create internal (project site) traffic impacts.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 9, 1992
Page 4
Mitigation:
A. The project applicant will contribute a fair share portion to the City's Transportation
Phasing Plan (TPP) Approved Basic Roadway Improvements at the following intersections:
. East H Street/Southbound 1-805 Ramps
. East H Street/Northbound 1-805 Ramps
. East H Street/Paseo Ranchero
. East H Street/Dtay Lakes Road
. Bonita Road/Dtay Lakes Road
. Telegraph Canyon Road/Northbound 1-805 Ramps
. Telegraph Canyon Road/Halecrest Drive
. Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue
. Telegraph Canyon Road/Paseo del Rey
B. The project applicant will complete and/or pay a fair share portion of improvements at the
following intersections:
. East H Street/Paseo del Rey
. East H Street/Tierra del Rey
. East H Street/Avila Way
. Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest Drive Oleander Avenue
. Telegraph Canyon Road/Paseo del Rey
C. The project applicant will pay a fair share portion of the improvements at the following
in tersection:
. H Street/Hilltop Drive
D. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant will install signals on site at Paseo
del Rey and Tierra del Rey north of East H Street, and will implement revised lane
geometry, pavement marking and signage onsite.
7. Public Services and Utilities
Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
A. Schools - No impact.
B. Telephone - Realignment of telephone company substructure required.
C. Gas & Electric - No impact.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 9, 1992
Page 5
D. Police - Potentially significant impacts to service capability mitigated by Police Department
review of site plans, provision of adequate security lighting, and location of address signs
for easy identification.
E. Fire - No impact.
F. Solid waste - Incremental contribution to regionally (cumulative) significant impact
mitigated by compliance with future county and/or city mandatory recycling program,
contracting with Laidlaw or another hauler for collection of recyclables from the site and
installation of recycling "dumpsters".
G. Sewer - No impact.
H. Water - Incremental contribution to regionally (cumulative) significant impacts on limited
supply of water mitigated by compliance with applicable water conservation programs
imposed by the water district and/or the City.
I. Parks and Recreation - Potentially significant intrusion impact (into Rice Canyon) mitigated
by adherence to a 20-foot setback from canyon and revegetation of any new open space
areas.
D. ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires a description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project", and to
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The discussion of alternatives "shall focus
on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse effects or reducing them to a level
of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of
project objectives, or would be more costly. "
The following discussion presents a brief summary of each alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR.
"No Proiect" Alternative
The previous ElR discussed this alternative; no changes to land use would occur, and project
objectives would not be met.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 9, 1992
Page 6
"Approved Use" Alternative
This alternative would leave the site as is, with its present designation and ability to develop as
an employment park. Impacts would be reduced with this alternative, however, air quality and
noise would remain significant and not mitigable. The project objectives would not be met.
"Reduced Scale" Alternative (One Maior Use)
Development of one major retailer would occur, rather than three as with the proposed project.
A corresponding greater amount of smaller retail commercial uses would be allowed. Generally,
impacts would be reduced, though the not-mitigable impacts to air quality and noise would
remain. This alternative was considered environmentally superior to the proposed project due
to the reduction of impacts (though no to level below significant) and the achievement of project
objectives. It should be noted that even with a reduction in impacts, the impact summary is the
same with this alternative as with the proposed project.
"Reduced Scale" Alternative (Two Maior Uses)
Development of two rather than three major retailers would occur, with a corresponding increase
in amount of smaller retail commercial uses. Generally, impacts would also be reduced with
this alternative, though the non-mitigable impacts to air quality and noise would remain. This
alternative was also considered environmentally superior to the proposed project due to this
reduction in impacts (though not to level below significant) and achievement of project
objectives. It should be noted that even with a reduction in impacts, the impact summary is the
same with this alternative as with the proposed project.
"Site Plan" Alternative
This alternative would locate the same proposed project uses in a different configuration to allow
for a loop road through the project site. This alternative did not substantially alter impacts of
the proposed project, and apparently would meet project objectives, with the exception of
inadequate parking to meet the needs of the three proposed anchor retailers.
Alternative Sites
Three alternative sites were evaluated in order to determine whether another site might be
environmentally superior. Generally, similar impacts or scale of impacts would occur with each
of these, and project objectives may not be met due to the non-viability of the respective market
areas.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 9, 1992
Page 7
E. CONCLUSION
In summary, the proposed Rancho del Rey Commercial Center project would result in significant
and unmitigated impacts to air quality and noise. Otherwise, all significant impacts can be
reduced to a level below significant. Project alternatives resulted in the same impact summary
(with the exception of the "No Project" alternative), though the reduced scale alternatives
reduced impacts resulting in their identification as environmentally superior alternatives.
lC,IWP51IRIClIARDSONIR-OEL-R.TXT]
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1.
List the names of all persons
subcontractor, material supplier.
McMillin Communities, Inc.
McMillin Development. Inc.
Mc:Millin Commp.rcial Industrial Development. Inc.
having a financial interest III the contract, i.e., contractor,
The Strocco Group
RDR Business Center, Ltd.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
Gene Strocco McMi 11 i n Communi ti es, [nc:
Charles E. Fredrick. Trustee McMillin Family Trust - Macey L.
Maureen P. Fredrick, Trustee & Vonnie L. McMillin Trustees (40%)
MarK U. MCMl I 11n, Laurle R. Kay, ~co~~ I~. ~cMilli~
(209. each)
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s): .
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
PrlTrick McMillin
Donn 1 d KMX
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No --L If yes, state which
Councilmember( s):
Person is defined as: ''Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club/fraternal organization, corpora/ion,
estate, tJ1lSt, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision,
or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date:
f:.)-f: ~'2
1../-:;.. <"... I I
/ (I! 1..
;(tk..._1 iLL I~~ L"
Signature of contractor/applicant
le'-I !:\V\!DtSCLOSE.TXT]
Patrick McMillin, Executive Vice President
Print or type name of coptractor/aoolicant
McMillin Commercial Industnal Development, In1RcViSCd: 11/30NO]
THE CITY vi" CHULA. VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disdosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disdosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, Le., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
McMillin Communities, Inc., National City, CA 91950
Hnm~ r.~oit~l Development Group~ a subsidiary of Home Federal Savings & Loan, San O;ego, CA
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
McMillin Communities. Inc.: McMillin Family Trust - Macey L. & Vonnie L. McMillin, Trustee (40%)
Mark D. McMillin. Laurie A. Ray & Scott M. McMillin (20% each)
Hnmp r~D;rrll Dp.vp.looment Group: 100% by Home Federal Savings & Loan, San Diego, CA
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s): .
5. Please identify each and every person, induding any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Craia Fukuvama. Vice President
Kenneth Baumqartner, Executive Vice President
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No -L If yes, state which
Councilmember( s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation,
estate, nust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, disTrict or other political subdivision,
or allY other group or combination acting as a unit:
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
applicant
Date: 6. "!I~.1 :J;
[.\-1 J:1\ADISCLOSE.TXT]
Craig Fukuyama, Vice President
Rancho del Rev Partnership
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
[Revised: 11/30/~)OJ