Loading...
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