HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/07/30 - Agenda Packet - Spec Adj (Upland) AGENDA
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL
Special Adjourned Meeting
July 30, 2002 - 3:00 p.m.
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
A. CALLTO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call:
Alexander __., Biane __, Curatalo __, Dutton __., Williams __
B. ITEM OF BUSINESS
1. REVIEW OF THE COLONIES PROJECT AND UPLAND'S REQUEST TO ANNEX
PORTIONS OF FLOOD CONTROL PROPERTIES CURRENTLY LOCATED WITHIN
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, WEST OF THE CUCAMONGA CREEK
CHANNEL AT 19TM STREET FOR THE COLONIES PROJECT- Item continued from
July 25, 2002.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law
prohibits the Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the agenda. The
Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are
to be limited to five minutes per individual.
D. ADJOURNMENT
I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 29, 2002, per Government Code
54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Memorandum
City Manager's Office
To: Mayor and Members of they Council
From: Jack Lam, City ~
Date: July 29, 2002
Subject: Colonies Project
We have been asked many questions about the discussions at last week's special
council meeting. The attached are intended to address these points and help frame the
issues for you. Ultimately, the Council must determine the final policy positions. If you
have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
· What has been Rancho Cucamonga's experience with respect to
resolving any boundary issues between jurisdictions?
The City has always approached boundary issues first from the standpoint
of how best to protect the rights and assets of its taxpayers. Once the
relevant local policy factors have been identified, the City then tries to
determine how a cooperative relationship between jurisdictions can be
best accommodated. As with all planning or development issues, the
City approaches these thoughtfully, factually, rationally, and
professionally.
· What are the issues that have now come before the Rancho
Cucamonga City Council?
There are two major categories of issues.
First, the City of Upland has approached the City of Rancho Cucamonga
requesting that approximately 2.5 acres of County Flood Control owned
property that is currently within Rancho Cucamonga's city limits be de-
annexed and annexed to Upland. This property would be acquired and
added to the "Colonies" project, a major development that currently
plans large commercial development abutting Rancho Cucamonga's
western border on the west side of Cucamonga Channel. The Colonies
project has been around for some years and contains both residential
and commercial development, although the original plans have been
revised in a number of ways. Originally, the Colonies project planned
residential adjacent to Rancho Cucamonga's border. It now plans large
scale commercial with "big box" retail uses and auto dealerships that
would incorporate the property to be de-annexed.
Second, at the same time as the de-annexation/annexation request has
advanced to the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, the City of Upland
began circulating the required EIR for the current Colonies proposal. All
interested or affected parties have the opportunity to respond to the
document as required by CEQA regulations. Rancho Cucamonga needed
to respond to the EIR within the cimulation time periods prescribed by
CEQA. Our City has responded to this F. IR as it has done for other
projects to state its concerns or reinforce EIR findings. Commenting on
projects in the County within the City's Sphere of Influence is one
example.
These two major issues, while related to the Colonies project, are two
separate and distinct issues. Even if the issue of the 2.5 acres never
came about, the issues of the EIR still must be addressed.
· Did Rancho Cucamonga encourage Upland to seek the de-
annexation of property?
No. Heretofore, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has not had any
involvement in the Colonies project. This matter has come about solely
as a result of an unsolicited request from the City of Upland.
· Setting aside any EIR issues for the moment, what is the policy basis
of Rancho Cucamonga's view regarding the 2.5 acres that Upland
wants de-annexed?
The 2.5 acres which consists of two parcels, one north and one south of
Route 30 and adjacent to Cucamonga Channel, is owned by the County
Flood Control District and is currently designated open space and
designated part of the local and regional trails plan. Upland and the
developer of the Colonies project wants the Flood Control District to
designate this property surplus, so it can be acquired and incorporated
into the commercial plans of the Colonies in order that more commercial
use can be developed. If this comes to fruition, the 2.5 acres currently
within the jurisdiction of Rancho Cucamonga would in essence be making
a contribution that creates value for the development and enable more
leaseable area to the developer; and consequently generating greater
sales tax revenues for Upland.
Rancho Cucamonga believes that such value should be shared, on
behalf of Rancho Cucamonga's taxpayers, on a basis proportional to its
contribution of its boundary property. This is consistent with any
jurisdiction's responsibility to its citizens and taxpayers to make the wisest
business decision for its citizens. The proportional percentage approach
is the most common and fairest ways to share benefit. Had the request
for de-annexation of land not been made by Upland, this issue would be
non-existent.
· What does the Colonies project plan for the 2,$ acres?
According to the Colonies' plans, a Home Depot center would be south of
Route 30 and an auto dealership would be north of Route 30. Both
developments would incorporate the two de-annexed parcels that total 2.5
acres, so that both projects would abut directly against the Cucamonga
Channel across from residentially zoned property in Rancho Cucamonga.
The additional property would be utilized to meet parking, landscaping,
and setback requirements that would enable more leasable retail space to
be built.
· What has been Rancho Cucamonga's response to Upland's request?
The City has agreed in concept to cooperate in considering the request
to de-annex provided that an agreement be developed utilizing a
proportional percentage sales tax sharing approach as the main basis for
an agreement. This is the most commonly used method between
jurisdictions in such situations because it is the simplest, most rational,
and fairest way to apportion benefit. Knowing the importance Upland
placed on this request, Rancho Cucamonga gave even greater
consideration to its neighbor by calculating the proportional benefit over
the total acreage of total commercial property in the Colonies project
resulting in what we believe to be an even larger percentage to Upland.
· What is the precise proportional percentage offered? How does it
differ from a calculation using a smaller base?
According to the published Colonies plans, there appears to be 114.89
acres of commercial property. The 2.5 acres of property that would be
annexed to the project is 2.18% of this total. It is not uncommon to
determine the proportion utilizing only the acreage of that defined center
the 2.5 acres is added to. If this is done, the parcel north of the
freeway would 10.88% of the auto center and the southern piece would be
6.02% of the Home Depot center. Based solely upon the reading of
the types of commercial users drawn on the developer's plans, these
latter percentages would result in a lesser overall sales tax to Upland
than if the 2.5 acres were spread over the larger commercial area. This
was done to give Upland the greatest consideration as well as provide at
least some equity for Rancho Cucamonga which is being asked to make
the contribution that would enable more retail space. We have asked
Upland to do its own calculations to compare and discuss with Rancho
Cucamonga so that a mutually acceptable solution can rationally arrived
at.
· What other "deal points" were in Rancho Cucamonga's response?
Desi.qn Review. With the incorporation of the de-annexed parcels to the
commercial property, the commercial development would abut the
Cucamonga Channel across from residentially zoned property in Rancho
Cucamonga on the east side. Rancho Cucamonga wants to ensure that
design plans are done in a way as to be sensitive to these residential
properties. Issues such as lighting, noise, glare, landscaping, signage,
etc. are typical aspects of design review in Rancho Cucamonga. Because
of the location of the 2.5 acres in question, the commercial uses would be
closer to Rancho Cucamonga residential property, the City wants to
ensure the design of those portions of the project abutting the Channel is
done properly and does not adversely affect the residential properties in
Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, Rancho Cucamonga asked for design review
consideration of this eastern edge of the Colonies project.
Contribution to the trails system. The Colonies' plans show the future
planned trails system along the west side of Cucamonga Channel being
deleted at a point just north of 19th Street, thereby forcing all regional trails
usage including Upland residents onto Rancho Cucamonga's portion of
the system for those wanting to fully connect north/south. Due to the fact
that this deletion would eliminate any future Upland contribution or
responsibility for this portion of the trail on the Upland side, it is only
appropriate and fair for Upland to make a contribution as a mitigation to
help ensure this portion of the trail is developed properly since Upland
residents will also use this trail. Rancho Cucamonga suggests a
$50,000 contribution and a jointly developed landscape plan for this trail
from the bridge at Confluence Park to the north side of the 210 Freeway.
· Now that we have outlined the de-annexation/annexation issue, what
are the issues regarding the Colonies EIR?
The Colonies project is of the size and magnitude that requires the
preparation of an EIR. The EIR is a document that is required to identify
and address the various impacts resulting from a proposed development.
The EIR also must identify and accurately depict the development plans.
Three issues have emerged as issues that interest Rancho Cucamonga:
1) Noise, light, glare, and edge treatment issues with respect to that
portion of the project across from Rancho Cucamonga's residentially
zoned properties; 2) The impact on Rancho Cucamonga's park system
because the elimination of a neighborhood park originally proposed in the
Colonies plan; 3) The traffic mitigation measures of the Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA).
These issues are EIR issues that would arise regardless of any de-
annexation?annexation issue.
· What about the issue of noise, light, glare, etc?
Rancho Cucamonga asks that enough study be done to identify any
potential impacts from commercial development across from Rancho
Cucamonga's residentially zoned land as well as to identify mitigation
measures that can be incorporated into any precise development plans
that willbe developed in the future. As mentioned earlier, the
incorporation of the 2.5 acres into the development's design plan brings
the commercial project that much closer to the residential uses in Rancho
Cucamonga. These issues have already been raised by Rancho
Cucamonga residents.
· What about the issue of neighborhood park deletion?
4
Because the Colonies project contains 1150 housing units. It is not
uncommon that prudent planning would call for developments of this size
to provide adequate park land for the development, however, the
Colonies project deletes a previously planned neighborhood park. Having
such a large new development adjacent to Rancho Cucamonga's city
limits without a neighborhood park raises the question of how Rancho
Cucamonga's adjacent neighborhood parks might be impacted by these
users. While we are unaware of Upland's policies regarding developer
contributions to Upland's park system, developments of this size in
Rancho Cucamonga are required to provide neighborhood parks and the
Quimby Act enables a local jurisdiction to do so. Rancho Cucamonga's
request is that the EIR adequately study this impact and identify any
mitigation measures. This issue was raised at an Upland Planning
Commission the night before Rancho Cucamonga's Special Council
meeting.
· What is a TIA and why is it of interest to Rancho Cucamonga?
The EIR explains the TIA requirements: "The adopted Congestion
Management Program (CMP) for San Bernardino County requires that any
development estimated to generate 250 (or 1000 for retail uses) two-way
peak hour trips must be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of
the CMP. The Colonies project is estimated to generate 3,233 total two-
way morning peak hour trips and 6,539 two-way afternoon peak hour trips.
This level of traffic is in excess of the CMP thresholds and thus, the
project is subject to CMP analysis requirements."
Among all the impacts determined, the TIA identifies traffic impacts on
Rancho Cucamonga at Base Line/Carnelian, Base Line/Archibald, and
19th/Sapphire. The TIA apportions the impacts accordingly and identifies
the Colonies' cost share. The TIA identifies the projects impact as follows:
Base Line/Carnelian at 67%, or $183,765; Base Line/Archibald at 79%, or
$ 246,214; and 19th/sapphire at 96%, or $ 249,516. These are shares of
improvement costs that would be necessary as a result of the Colonies
project. The TIA further identifies additional costs of right-of-way
engineering, appraisal, acquisition and utilities relocation costs,
landscaping costs, contingencies (typically 25%), mobilization (typically
10%) and minor items and supplemental work (typically 10%) but does not
make a dollar estimate. These costs must be priced since these are
part of the total impact cost. We believe the total costs will exceed $ 1
million. Upland can estimate these costs just as well. The EIP, states that
these costs will be required of the developer but the developer states the
City of Upland would be paying for these costs. While it is normally the
developer's responsibility for paying its fair share of TIA mitigation, an
arrangement between the developer and the City of Upland for Upland to
pay for it is fine so long as there is an implementation plan.
The issue for Rancho Cucamonga is obvious. The scale of the impacts
on these major intersections beg for identification of a method to ensure
funds are forthcoming when these improvements that are identified in the
EIR are needed. That is all we have asked of Upland: an implementation
plan to address the impacts identified in the EIR's TIA if the developer is
not required to pay at the time of building permit.
· What was the purpose of the July 25th special City Council Meeting.
The purpose was two fold: First, provide an opportunity for the Rancho
Cucamonga City Council to discuss the listed "deal points" to be
negotiated with the City of Upland, and second, an opportunity to review
the Colonies EIR findings. Two handouts were given to the Council. One
listed only the deal points and another that listed the several EIR points
for discussion. There was to be discussion among the Council to
formulate direction to the Staff on final negotiations. The City was
unaware that the Mayor of Upland or the Colonies developers and their
consultants would attend the meeting.
· There appeared to be a lot of confused discussion at the meeting.
Instead of the Council having an opportunity to discuss the issues, the
developer actively interjected and many times appearing to speak for the
City of Upland. To complicate the matters further, many comments made
by the developer were misleading and begged to be responded to.
· What were some of these comments?
It was stated that the boundary line between the two cities was a
mistake and that the developers brought this to Rancho's attention.
False. The boundary lines for Rancho Cucamonga were established by
LAFCO in 1976 and Rancho Cucamonga is well aware of where all
its boundaries lie. In fact, in the 1980's Rancho Cucamonga actually
approached both the City of Ontario and City of Upland to discuss
program for "straightening" out boundary lines in various locations and
Upland was not interested in such discussions at the time.
The developer asked whether Rancho Cucamonga had ever
reimbursed Upland for street improvements. The developer is a long
time business person in the real estate business whose business is to be
very familiar with Rancho and Upland development issues. It is
commonly known that there has yet to be any project large enough on
Rancho's Western border to require TIA. If there is one, Rancho
Cucamonga would be compelled through the required CMP/TIA process
to do exactly that. The developer's statement was disingenuous and
from the tenor of the question, appeared staged to sidetrack the
discussion and give the false impression that Rancho Cucamonga
somehow was asking for something it would not itself do.
The developer made a remark suggesting that Rancho Cucamonga
wants compensation for a "worthless piece of property." The
property currently has value as an open space asset and as a land buffer
from a large-scale commercial project. Furthermore, if a developer wants
to create added value by asking for its contribution to make a
project more valuable, the jurisdiction making that contribution should in
all fairness receive an equitable share in such a program. After all, it is
a City's responsibility to ensure the best business decisions for the
benefit of the community. Besides, if the property was so worthless, why
such intense pressure to ensure its addition to the project? Since the
Colonies project can proceed anyway without the de-annexation, Rancho
Cucamonga should not be put into a position of having to give away an
asset for which it has planning jurisdiction over.
The developer stated that they did not care about sales tax sharing
because that was an issue between Upland and Rancho Cucamonga.
Yet, it was the developer who stated they did not intend to give Rancho
Cucamonga any sales tax but would instead negotiate a TIA payment
schedule of 10 years. Again, this is misleading. TIA impacts are required
to be identified and addressed. The TIA has no bearing on the land de-
annexation issue. To suggest otherwise is another diversionary tactic
designed to sidetrack the less knowledgeable. The developer even tried
to minimize theTIA findings through other statements. The developer
failed to state that the TIA identified proportional impacts resulting
exclusively from the Colonies project. Rancho is only asking about
an implementation plan for these proportional improvements.
The developer suggested that RC wanted reimbursement for
Rancho's share of impact improvements. As the City Manager
explained at the meeting, there has been no such claim by Rancho and
the only issue at point is the Colonies proportional share of impact
improvements and how these would be implemented. The developer's
statement gave the false impression that Rancho Cucamonga was being
greedy.
The Developer started to suggest that Rancho's interest in the
Colonies project has to do with loss of sales tax. As adequately
addressed by our City Council, this has never been a policy basis for
our decisions. Rancho Cucamonga has always recognized that all cities
are in a regional competitive arena and even if a project is poised at
Rancho's doorstep, Rancho Cucamonga wishes the City of Upland
success in their planning efforts.
7
· The developer wants money spent to widen a bridge along 19~ street
to be credited against the TIA impact costs. The developer stated
they spent $ 800,000. First, whatever the developer spent on bridge
widening was either a unilateral decision of the developer for the benefit of
their own project or a requirement of the City of Upland. Rancho
Cucamonga did not require bridge widening, was not asked to participate,
and had no role in any decisions to widen any bridge. To suggest that
money spent on a non-TIA requirement, non Rancho Cucamonga request
should be credited against impacts to Rancho is unfounded. Any bridge
widening, if it is a requirement of the developer or the City of Upland,
should be treated as any improvement that was needed for the
development and should have absolutely no bearing on the TIA issue.
· How should the City proceed?
Define the facts, define the policy basis for a position, separate the issues
of any de-annexation agreement and EIR issues and then determine how
these might interrelate in a final agreement. Furthermore, at any future
meeting, allow Upland officials to represent Upland's views and have a
tangible discussion between officials. After all, this is Upland's request
and they would know enough about the issues to discuss it directly. If
developers are present, they should be available for any questions and
not be allowed to dictate the agenda. It may be more productive that way.
It is a City to City issue. Staff will be engaged in defending the City
against any non-factual or misleading statements that might
mischaracterize Rancho Cucamonga's positions.
g
500 0 500
PLANNING AREA t9
4Z31 Acres
LEGEND
PA-18 ~
10TH STRE~ ~
PA-1
P A- 17 PA-5
PA~
The Colonies at San Antonio Specific Plan ~l~. 2.23
~ Not ~o Scale
LEGEND
LAND USE; ~ UNITS;
Low Density 180.1 751
Medium-Low Density 27.0 182
Medium Density 32.2 566
TOTAL: 239.3 1,479
LAND USE: ~ SQ. F'E:
Specialty Commercial 4.2 45,521
Highway-Community 44.7 484,479
Commercial
Business Perk 3.0 52,000
TOTAL: 5t .9 582,000
LAND USE: ACREAGE:
School/Park 16.8
Fire Station 2.4
Lake/Greenbelt 40.0
Flood Control Corridor 6.1
Drainage Basin 5.4
Non-Residential Subtotal 122.6
Freeway 35.2
Access Roads 43.4
GRAND TOTAL: 440.5
NOTES:
FOR THE PURPOSE OF 'THE SAN ANTONIO LAKES
SPECIFIC PLAN THE "AP" AND "BP" DESIGNATIONS
ARE II~q~RCHANGEAELE AND SYNONYMOUS FOR
THE AP/BP ZONE THE PROWSIONS, COVENANTS
AND RESTRICTIONS OF SEC. SS28 ART IX OF
THE UPLAND MUNICIPAL COD~ SHALL APPLY.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc.
CITY OF UPLAND
Not to Scale THE COLONIES AT SAN ANTONIO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
~RI~F .~ ...... . o.,... ~o......,o. Existing Land Use Plan
LEGEND
.=u~y Is is LAND USE; ~ UNITS:
Low Density 180.1 751
Medium-Low Density 27.0 '~62
Medium Density 32.2 566
II TOTAL: 239.3 1,479
7 .-~ 12 ~AND USE: ~ SQ. FT.:
2~s ^c 2s.9 ~. Specialty Commercial 4.2 45,521
s~..4 ~ ~ .... Highway-Community 44.7 484,479
e ~o~ ~. Commercial
/
~-.., Business Park 3.0 52,000
' TOTAL: 51.9 582,000
12,4A¢ =o4~ LAND USE:
School/Park 16.8
s .~,*~ Fire Station 2.4
~-, :~ Lake/Greenbelt 40.0
Sa. 4Ac S~-~ Flood Control Corridor 6.1
2~.6 ~ Drainage Basin 5.4
~,o=u~ Non-Residential Subtotal 122.6
~ee~ Freeway 35.2
Access Roads 43.4
'm ~=m .,~. GRAND TOTAL: 440,5
NOTE~:
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SAN ANTONtO LAVES
SPECIFIC pLAN THE "AP" AND "BP'' DESIGNATIONS
ARE IN~_RCHANGEABLE AND SYNONYMOUS FOR
THE AP/BP ZONE THE PROVISIONS. cOVENANTS
AND RESTRICTIONS OF SEC. 9628 ARE IX OF
THE UPLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SHALL APPLY.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc.
CITY OF UPLAND
THE COLONIES AT SAN ANTONIO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
[ .ot,os l. Existing Land Use Plan
Commercial Planning Areas
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FOR THE PROpOsED COLONIES AT SAN ANTONIO
Mixed-Use Development
In The City Of Upland
INTRODUCTION
This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared for The Colonies.at San Antonio (The Colonies) mixed-
use development located in the northeast area of the City of Upland. The pioject site is located south
of 20~ S~rect, north of 16~ S 1 rest and generally east of Campus Avenue, with one development parcel
west of Campus Avenue. Phase One of the project, a tract of 305 single~family dwelling units at the
southeast edge of the project site, has already been approved, and is under conslruction. The applicant
· 'proposes to develop the remainder of the site to include single-family dwelling units, condominiums,
with specialty retail uses, restamants and gas stations, a movie
local
and
theatre, an office building, a hotel, a health club, a day care center, a restaurant, two service stations
with convenience markets and car washes, two fast-food restaurants with drive-through windows, and
automobile dealerships. The sile is currently vacant.
This study addresses the estimated trips to be generated by the project and possible project-related
impacts On the surrounding circulation system for three project phases and three analysis years:
Phases One and Two, in Year 2011
· Total Project (Phases One, Two, and Three) in Year 2015 (iq~esanting Opening Day of the
project), and
* Total Project in Year 2020 (representing build-out of the City of Upland).
The following discussion includes a description of existing traffic conditions in the surrounding area,
estimated project trip generation and distribution, future traffic growth, and an assessment of project-
related impacts on the roadway system. Where necessary, circulation sy~em hl~piovcments have been
identified to ~ operating conditions ir
The traffic issues related to the proposed Colonies development have been analyzed following the
lraffic impact guidelines stipulated in the Congestion Managemont Program (CMP) for San Bernardino
County (2001 Update). CMP guidelines require that any development project estimated to generate
250 (or 1,000 for retail uses) two-way peak hour trips must be evaluated in accordance with the
requirements of thc CMP. The Colonies development is estimated to generate 3,233 total two-way
morning peak hour trips and 6,539 two-way afternoon peak hour Wips. This level of traffic is in excess
of the CMP thresholds and thus, the project is subject to CMP analysis requirements.
The Colonies at San .~'~tonio TIA - 1 - June. 2002
TABLE 17
Summary of Project Fair Share of improvement Costs
Traffic Total % of Project
Existing With Project New New Cost
INTERSECTION COST Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Share
16th / Mountain 5918 6188 139 270 0.51
6356 6781 284 425 0.67
Baseline / Archibald 6245 6488 193 243 0.79
19th I 1932 3048 1071 1116 0.96
$ 821,069
iNTERSECTiON TOTAL $ 1,120,000
Note: Based on evening peak hour traffic
TABLE 16
Summary of Improvement Costs
16th / Mountain Add EB Right-tum Lane $ 50'0~=m~
Add NB Leff-tum Lane $ 50,000
Add NB Right-rum Lane $ 50,000
Signal Modifications $ 125,000
~ ~t-tum Lane __
Add WB Right-turn Lane $ 50,000
Add ST Left-rum Lane $ . 50,000
Signal Modifications $ 125,000
TOTAL $ 275.000
Baseline / Archibald Add EB Through Lane $ 135,000
Add WB Ri~lht-tum Lane $ 50,000
Signal Modifications $ 125,000
TOTAL $ 310,000
19th / Sapphire Add WB Through Lane $ 135,000
Si~lnal Modifications $ 125,000
TOTAL
TOTAL INTERSECTION COSTS $ 1,120,000
Note: These cost estimates do no include the following items:
1. Right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition and utilities relocation costs
2. Minor items and supplemental work (typically 10%)
3. Mobilization (typically 10%)
4. Contingencies (typically 25%)
5. Landscaping costs
- 54 -
T H E C I T Y 0 F
CI-IO C U C 0 N G A
July 25, 2002
Sylvia Scharf, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Upland
460 Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786-4732
SUBJECT: THE COLONIES AT SAN ANTONIO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT - DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Dea'r Ms. Scharf:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Report (EIR) for the
above referenced project. The City is generally supportive of the project, however, the EIR
should be revised to disclose and evaluate the following issues:
1. Delineation of City of Rancho Cucamon.qa Boundaries and Resultant De-annexation/
Annexation Actions:
Several exhibits contained in the EIR incorrectly delineate the city boundaries for Upland and
Rancho Cucamonga. For example, Exhibit 5.1-1 (Existing Land Uses) on page 5.1-3 and
Exhibit 5.1-2 (Existing General Plar~ Designations and Zoning Districts) on page 5.1-9, show
that the city boundaries for Upland and Rancho Cucamonga, immediately north of 19th Street,
meet at the Cucamonga Creek Channel. In actuality, the boundaries for the two cities extend
about 2.5 acres further west of the channel. Please refer to the attached exhibit, which
identifies those areas that are actually within Rancho Cucamonga, but are shown in the EIR to
be located in Upland.
This may be problematic, since the 2.5 acres encroach into a future commerciaVretail center, as
shown in Exhibit 5.5-1 (Commercial Planning Areas) on page 5.5-25. If the Colonies Specific
Plan is implemented as presently proposed, those 2.5 acres included in the future
commercial/retail center must be de-annexed from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and annexed
into the City of upland. Accordingly, the EIR must be revised to correct any errors to the
exhibits and/or text that erroneously delineate the city boundaries of Rancho Cucamonga.
Furthermore, any resultant de-annexation and annexation activities and procedures must be
disclosed and evaluated in the EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.
2. Intersection Improvements and Miti,qation:
The Traffic and Circulation section concludes that ultimate projected traffic by the year 2020, will
contribute to congestion on three Rancho Cucamonga intersections, including Base Line Road
at Carnelian Street during morning and afternoon peak hours, Base Line Road at Archibald
Mayor William J. Alexander ~ Councilmember Paul Biane
Mayor Pro-Tern Diane Williams ~ Counoilmember Bob Dufton
Jaok Lam, AICR City Manager Councilmember Grace Curatalo
10500 Civic Center Drive · P. O. Box 807 · Ranoho Cuoamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2849
www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us
SYLVIA SCHARF - CITY OF UPLAND
DRAFT EIR REVIEW - THE COLONIES
July 25, 2002
Page 2
Avenue during afternoon peak houre, and 19th Street at Sapphire Street during morning peak
hours. The traffic study for the EIR (Appendix 15.2), entitled "Traffic Study for The Colonies At
San Antonio in the City of Upland," prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates in June 2002,
recommends signal modifications and additional lanes to help alleviate future congestion on
Rancho Cucamonga intersections. Costs for these improvements are also described.
A fair share contribution pregram or some other financial agreement should be established
between the Cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga. The EIR should suggest how said
program and/or agreement could be established between the cities.
3. Liqht and Glare Disturbances:
The EIR on page 5.2-23 finds that "Light soumes frem on-site commemial sites have the
potential to have a significant impact on adjacent residential areas." The EIR however, does not
offer any mitigation measures to at least lessen the severity of this potential impact. The issue
of light and glare disturbances is sensitive to the City, since residential development exists east
of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, north of 19th Street. To date, these Rancho Cucamonga
residents have not experienced any significant development immediately west of the channel
and therefore, ultimate implementation of the Colonies project, especially the future 1,070,519
square foot commemial/retail center along the channel, would increase public perception of and
sensitivity to project-generated light and glare. Light and glare disturbances could also be
generated by future monumentation and signage. The Specific Plan shows that auto
dealerships are anticipated for areas north of the 1-210 Freeway. These particular uses typically
utilize highly illuminated signs to attract potential buyers. The EIR should further evaluate the
issue of light and glare, especially since the site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and focus
on potential disturbances to Rancho Cucamonga residents that reside east of the Colonies site
and channel. Mitigation measures, including screening, setback controls, landscaping, and
other methods should be recommended to ensure that any disturbances to Rancho Cucamonga
residents are alleviated to the greatest extent feasible.
4. Noise:
The significance threshold used in the EIR is consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
General Plan EIR, which defines a "significant increase" in noise at 5 dBA. Based on this
threshold, the EIR indicates that additional noise experienced in Rancho Cucamonga as a result
of increased project traffic are not considered significant. The EIR, however, does indicate that
noise from stationary soumes, such as parking areas, loading areas, outdoor paging, and drive-
thru speakers could potentially generate new noise that disturbs neighboring residences and
other sensitive receptors. As discussed in the previous section on Light and Glare, those
Rancho Cucamonga residences that are located east of the Cucamonga Creek Channel could
be disturbed by these stationary soumes. The EIR recommends mitigation measures to
alleviate noise impacts resulting frem these stationary sources. However, given that final design
plans, pad locations, building sizes, site plans, etc., have not yet been formulated for the
commercial development that comprises Planning Areas 18, 19, 20, and 21, it is difficult at this
time to create effective and practical mitigation. Therefore, we suggest that Mitigation Measure
5.6-3a which requires preparation of future noise studies for the commercial development, to
also include additional language which obligates said noise studies to evaluate project impacts
SYLVIA SCHARF - CITY OF UPLAND
DRAFT EIR REVIEW - THE COLONIES
July 25, 2002
Page 3
on neighboring Rancho Cucamonga residences, and allows the City of Rancho Cucamonga to
review and comment on any future noise study.
5. Parks and Recreation.'
This area of discussion in the EIR is inadequate in that there is no analysis of impacts to
Rancho Cucamonga facilities. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a goal of 5 acres of
developed park per 1,000 population generated by a development. In this case, a requirement
for 18.4 acres of developed park land. The previous San Antonio Lakes Project proposed a
combined 16.8-acre school/park site. It appears approximately 6 acres of that previous plan
would have been for Park Development. Please note that Park Facilities in Rancho Cucamonga
are currently in use at the maximum potential. We urge the City of Upland to consider other
alternatives, such as enlarging the school site back to the original size, and/or reserving the
10-acre school site for a park it not used by the School District.
We hope the foregoing comments are constructive and would appreciate being notified of any
future developments occurring with the Colonies project. We also reserve the right to comment
on the proposed "The Colonies at San Antonio Specific Plan," dated June 13, 2002, at a later
date during the Public Hearing process.
If you have any further questions, please contact me or Larry Henderson at (909) 477-2750,
Monday through Thursday, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:DM/jc
Enclosure
cc: Mayor and Members of City Council
Jack Lam, City Manager
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
COUNTY ROAD PER ' '
705/298 O.R.
\
AREA TO BE
!Olh - STRE L1 ANN[XED
~ 5C.4LE: I' = 200'
270 SR 210
O~ NOT A PART 6, ~o ~
: L1 N 8g'36'2g' E 2,~4.58'
~ ~ N, 27'26'20" W :272.15'
L5 N 89'27'48" E lg5.32'
L4 N 54'15'40" W 292.51'
L5 N 89'27'4.T' E 142.47"
L6 N 27'26'20" W 62g.29' AREA TO BE:
i.~N 00'.30'44" W 70.00' COUNTY ROAD PER ANNEXED
N 44'29'57" E 4.95' 705/298 O.R.
L9 N 54'1.5'40" W ~6`3.10'
EASEMENT TO CITY OF uPLAND
PER INST. No. 00-256540
REcoRDED JULY 19, 2000
--~h- 'STREE --
- I 30g
pREpARED BY: pR~rpAl~ foR: COLONIES
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INC.
O~TARIO. CALIFORNIA glTe4 APRIL 4, 2001
T H E CITY OF
I~ANC~O CUCAMONGA
Memorandum
Members of the City Council
TO: Mayor, and ,,,.-
FROIVI: Donna Kendrena, Executive Assist
DATE: July 29, 2002
\ /
SUBJECT: UPLAND ANNEXATION ~-~
I received several calls at City Hall regarding this issue:
Resident: Paul Hickman, 5520 Vinmar Avenue, 987-8180 called to express his
concern about the City of Upland's annexation request. He is a 28 year resident who
has spoken to several neighbors about the Auto Mall at RC's end of the development.
They all agree, that because of the lights and heavy traffic that it should be at the other
end of the development. He would like the Council to consider his request at the
meeting tomorrow.
Resident: Mark Floyd, 626-574-4478 called to express his concern as well ..... spoke
to Jack Lam.
Resident: Bill Dineene, 476-2571 called to say "Stick to your Guns".....spoke to
Mayor Alexander.
Cc: Jack Lam, City Manager
Pam Easter, Deputy City Manager
Robert & Melanie Ingram
8021 Rosebud Street
Alta Loma, California 91701
Mr. Jeffrey Bloom
Director, Upland Community Development Department
Ms. Sylvia Scharf
Senior Planner, Upland Planning Department
City of Upland
460 Euclid Avenue
Upland, California 91786-4732
RE: Colonies at San Antonio Specific Plan Amendment - Draft Environmental Impact
Report (July 29 deadline for public comment)
Dear Mr. Bloom and Ms. Scharf:
My family resides in the Alta Loma area of Rancho Cucamonga north of 19th Street and
west of Sapphire. For some time, many of us heard unofficially that Upland would be
developing residential areas south of the 210 freeway. It has only been recently that
residents of Alta Loma, in this adjacent area, were provided any formal notification by
the City. As such, we now find ourselves in a scramble to meet legal deadlines to
comment on issues that will have a permanent effect on us and the environment in which
we live.
PRIMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Put a hold on, and extend the timeframe of, the EIR approval process until effective
notification to and communication with affected residents of the area can be
accomplished.
Communication:
The first notification to Alta Loma residents (in anyone's memory that I have found) was
an invitation to attend a community meeting at the Carnegie Library on July 11, which I
did. This was the first time we learned of the following: commercial development north
of the freeway between existing Campus and the Cucamonga Channel; the significant
expansion of commercial development south of the freeway; the extension of 20th Street
to the Cucamon~a Channel; the re-location of Campus Street and, more importantly, the
re-routing of 19u~ Street; and, finally, the plans for an auto mall between the freeway and
20th Street up against our neighborhoods. This July 1 lth meeting was primarily a
"marketing" meeting to convince all of us how wonderful this would be. I can guarantee
you that it came as a sad surprise to those of us from Alta Loma and, as I observed, it was
a surprise to a number of Upland residents as well.
My questions and concerns made to Colonies Crossroads managing partner, Dan
Richards, were met with a level of arrogance and detectable derision. In a question
regarding prior notification to Alta Loma residents, Richards essentially responded that
they were under no obligation to do so. I found this response on his part to be
disingenuous at best. My sense is that this attitude bothered you as well, Mr. Bloom.
You spoke with me as I left the meeting. You advised me of the upcoming Planning
Commission meeting on July 16, to be followed by public hearings later in July. You
advised it was a City decision to include us in the mailing for the July 11 meeting and the
upcoming meetings. You may not be aware of this, but your mailer for July 16 arrived
after 5:30 p.m. on July 16 to some of my neighbors. It arrived at my home after 5:30
p.m. on July 17.
With respect to the first public hearing on the plan amendment and EIR on July 24,
another neighbor participated on behalf of those who could not. This was the first time
we heard that public comment on the EIR would terminate at close-of-business today.
The E1R itself is not an easy document to access. As I found through your reference
librarian, it is also a series of volumes in several binders. She had difficulty even locating
it. She advised that the City Clerk had a copy but, ifI needed photocopying, it would be
expensive and likely take a couple weeks. A lengthy internet search produced several
pages of what might be construed as an executive summary, but no additional pages,
appendices, maps or testimony from prior public hearings could be included in that
website, and referred back to the library or city hall.
In conclusion, the communication process about the EIR, and the Colonies Crossroads
plans, to all who might be affected has been less than adequate, compartmentalized,
confusing, and seemingly designed to preclude public comment.
Concerns and comments:
Due to the lack of time, my comments below may seem somewhat out of order. In view
of speed, I know I will leaves things out. It is difficult to separate the issues. Let me
apologize in advance for that. As an overarching statement, I would also add that these
comments have nothing to do with the freeway itsel£ We have always known the
freeway would be built, and we have worked with issues as they have come up. Ideally,
the preference would have been to only have that ribbon of highway through the open
area between existing Campus and Sapphire and to leave the open area alone. Less than
ideally, the following comments are offered:
Reconsider, and decide on no commercial development no~th of the freeway. Leave the
view and the environment unobstructed and retain that quality of life for those who live
here, as well as for those who will pass through our two cities.
If there is to be development, eliminate the plan for an auto mall. There is no one we
have spoken with who disagrees - this is an appalling idea. It is understood that Upland
needs added revenue, but an auto mall in this geographic area will cheapen the
atmosphere of Upland as well as Rancho Cucamonga, notwithstanding the permanent
effect of chipping away at the open space.
Light and noise effects:
As stated above, there is no one who does not understand that the freeway itself brings
these effects with it. (There may yet be a need to argue for more sound walls from Cal
Trans.) But the added commercial development, in particular an auto mall, significantly
changes things. I do not want to be misunderstood - the first recommendation is "no
auto mall". If we are unable to affect that decision, the much remains to be done to
ensure that there are no added light and noise effects as a result of it. It is my
understanding that the EIR does not adequately address these issues.
The type of lights and signage commonly associated with auto malls would be an
abomination near residential areas and open space. It obliterates the night-time. It is the
type of business that should be near all-commercial or industrial areas. I have also
found out that the city intends amending its own ordinances in order to permit 100' tall
illuminated signage of unknown dimensions for the auto mall.
My understanding of the content of the EIR is that it does not contemplate any significant
increase in noise. I do not think there is sufficient information to make this
determination. Before these plans become permanent, and implementation takes place,
this entire issue needs more consideration.
If the auto mall is going to exist, we don't want to see it from north of its location or hear
it. Its lighting and signage should be significantly lower than your current ordinances,
and it should not be permitted to use PA systems or anything that could he heard from the
closest neighborhoods, let alone further north. Perhaps compelling the developer to erect
a sound wall for the auto mall itself, to protect the affected area, would be in order. The
Colonies south of 19th Street already has wall construction, etc. to protect itself from the
proposed auto mall and other commercial development north of the freeway.
Just because we are going to have a freeway through this area does not mean that we
simply have to rollover and accept ill-considered commercial development, and other
negative effects on our neighborhoods and surrounding open environment.
Shifting the Holliday operations eastward:
We heard at the July 11 meeting that Holliday will be moving its gravel operation closer
to the Cucamonga Channel. It is unclear exactly where this will occur, and what the
ramifications of this move may be. It is equally unclear whether the E1R addresses this
either. The managing partners said it only involves their current development plans. If
the EIR does not include this, then our request would be how to find out more
information about what is happening with this.
Changing the location of 19th Street
This was completely new to all Alta Loma residents who attended the July 11 meeting,
and also to some Upland residents who live below Sapphire. This leaves no direct east-
to-west route for those of us, and the only option is to get on the freeway as a short-cut to
areas that are currently easily accessible. This is unacceptable, and needs further
consideration before the EIR is approved, and before the Colonies Crossroads people are
allowed to continue.
Public Safety Issues:
While I am clearly not an engineer, I was unconvinced by the July 11 discussion of the
work that has been done to mitigate the potential effects of flooding, and particularly ora
100-year flood scenario. Colonies Crossroads wants to build this development, but
apparently wants others to finance what is necessary in order for them to build (i.e., their
lawsuit against County Flood Control to regain their $25 million storm-related
expenditures.) If we had no development at all, which would have been the ideal
scenario, there would be no need for the storm water engineering project. If their work is
subsequently found lacking, we will all bear the costs.
Finally:
I am not alone in expressing the above issues to you. I am also not alone in sharing with
you that the short and long-range preference is that there be no development north of the
freeway all the way to the mountains. Whatever can be done to prevent this now and in
the future will have our support. We would have hoped this concept would have your
support as well. The future of Upland and Rancho are intertwined at a number of
junctures, including what we thought was a desire to retain the open country-like
atmosphere we want, and which drew us here. There has been substantial development in
both cities over the years, but we are coming to the point where we now all have a
responsibility to protect the open spaces that are still left, and characterize our quality of
life.
Please do not permit the E1R to be approved at this time. Provide more time to re-
consider the planned development in light of the comments I am aware you are receiving.
Sincerely,
Melanie Ingram
8021 Rosebud Street
Alta Loma, California 91701
(909) 944-5988
(909) 948-8330
Fax 900-944-0973
Unico, Inc.
4559 Francis Avenue, Chino, Cafdomla U.S.A.
Phone (909) 628-3049 * Fax (909) 464-8025
fax transmittal
TO: Gabdel Elliott, City of Upland FAX NO.: 909-931-4123
FROM: Linda Yoder DATE: July 29, 2002
RE: Colonies at San Antonio NO. OF PAGES: 3 including cover
Mr. Elliott:
As we discussed this morning, I am faxing my letter for the July 29 deadline
for responding to the EIR and proposed plan amendment regarding the
Colonies at San Antonio.
It is my understanding that Jeff Bloom would also like a copy of any letters
pertaining to this matter. Will you please give him a copy of my fax. Also, I will
be mailing the odginal to your attention.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
From the desk of
Linda Yod~r
Unico, Inc