Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-23 - Supplementals Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Abdul Ahad, Mena Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 7:09 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc: McPherson, Sean; Smith, Michael Subject: FW: Concerns about development of property north of foothill between red hill CC drive and PET fr j.®PkbA 1 NCHOCoC t I?Z giyiCNG Rat 'Pep , /y32022 Original Message 174/y�I/4iG From: Daisy.Shim <daisy.shim@gmail.com> N Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 7:52 PM To:Abdul Ahad, Mena <Mena.AbdulAhad@cityofrc.us> Subject: Re: Concerns about development of property north of foothill between red hill CC drive and PET CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern: I have several concerns about the project referred to in my email subject line. I live in a condo north of the proposed construction. 1. None of the construction noise mitigation takes into account the amplification effect of sound as it travels up the hill to my unit. I can hear the music(including individual words of songs being played at Tacos Los Carnales which is across on the south side of Foothill). I cannot begin to fathom how disruptive construction noise will be. In addition,the pace of this project is not addressed at at in the proposals. Clearly it has been several years since the initial proposal was brought and construction has yet to begin. My fear is, once construction starts, it could take years for the construction to conclude. Despite the mitigation requirements, if the project were to drag out for 10 years, it would represent a significant reduction in my enjoyment of my property.A requirement of an end date to construction would be a welcome addition to this proposal. I am also concerned about the noise generated by future residents.As stated before, the amplification effect of the hillside is not taken into account. Sound travels far up the hill and while a few trees and vegetation could help mitigate the noise of the new residents, some sort of dense sound absorption would be better. I would suggest a wall of dwarf Italian cypress or similar that would not impact the view but create more of a dense sound dampening barrier than the few sparse trees suggested in the proposal. 2.The proposal does not address soil erosion and the potential damage to my property and my community if proper erosion measures are not taken. If there is future damage to my unit or those around me, it could be seen as a liability to the city as well as the developer since the potential dangers were brought up not once, but several times by concerned owners.The obviously foreseeable potential harm is one that is not addressed at all.The only mention is in possible future "grading permits" and "pre-grading meetings"that notably, do NOT allow for impacted owners of adjacent properties to attend.To allow these permit meetings to go forward without the allowance of owners to be heard is a violation of due process as the decisions made would affect my property rights and enjoyment.To push through the 1 proposals with no consideration of possible destruction is at best negligent but at worst intentional and knowing.There is no mention of retaining walls or any type of geological study that accounts for the massive amounts of earth that would need to be removed from the hill below my property in order to accommodate the developer.Admittedly I am no geological engineer, however I see there are only mentions of a two foot setback between my property and potential grading which seems to require a large amount of supporting earth to be removed. 3.The proposed street addition off of Red Hill CC Drive is dangerous.There is a blind curve right before the proposed addition and likely a traffic light or stop sign will be the only way to make the intersection effectively safe.The 2015 traffic study seems to assume that overflow traffic will simply redistribute towards Foothill or Red Hill CC Drive to get to Carnelian but the conveniently forgets there is a small street off of Red Hill CC Drive named Calle Carabe Street.That street would likely be impacted by the sudden influx of traffic from construction trucks as well as new residents to the development. Large construction trucks would likely be unwieldy and unsafe on this narrow street especially on days like trash day when there are already issues with the Burrtec trash pick up. I would propose that construction trucks ONLY be allowed to access the property through Foothill.There is already a mitigation/plan for them to use a access road specifically for that purpose.To add this additional prohibition would be unlikely to unduly burden the developer since it would be unsafe for them to send construction trucks via Red Hill CC Drive anyways. 2 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Molly Greene <molly@lozeaudrury.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 11:24 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth;Acuna, Vincent Cc: Victoria Yundt; Richard Drury Subject: Comment re: Planning Commission Agenda Item D1 - Design Review DRC2021-00320 Attachments: 2022.03.23 SAFER Comment Letter - Rochester and Arrow Warehouse.pdf 'WARNING:The sender of this email could not be validated and may not match the person in the "From"field. CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair Oaxaca,Vice Chair Dopp, Honorable Commissioners, Ms.Thornhill, and Mr. Acuna, Attached please find comments of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility("SAFER") regarding Design Review DRC2021-00320 (Industrial Building at Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route), which is scheduled to be heard tonight by the Planning Commission as Agenda Item D1. If you could confirm receipt of this email and the attached comments, it would be much appreciated.Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Molly Molly Greene Legal Assistant Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 (510)836-4200 (510)836-4205 (fax) molly@lozeaudrury.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e- mail molly@lozeaudrury.com, and delete the message. 1 LOZEAU C • T 510 836 4200 1939 Harrison Street.Ste ISO www,lozeaudrury.com r 510 836 4205 1 Oakland.CA 94612 1 victoria wIozeaudrurycorn yetis Via Email ��°�Eh 3 44o4IG1q March 23,2022 47,J e j°��41Chair Oaxaca Vincent Acuna,Associate Planner NG Vice Chair Dopp Planning Department Commissioner Guglielmo City of Rancho Cucamonga Commissioner Morales 10500 Civic Center Drive Commissioner Williams Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Planning Commission vincent.acuna@cityofrc.us Attn:Elizabeth Thornhill,Executive Assistant City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us Re: Comment on Planning Commission Agenda Item D1;Design Review DRC2021- 00320(Industrial Building at Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route) Dear Chair Oaxaca,Vice Chair Dopp,Honorable Commissioners,Ms. Thornhill,and Mr.Acuna: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility("SAFER") regarding the project known as Site Plan and Design Review(DOR)No. 1864-21,including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of a 49,745 square foot industrial/warehouse building on a vacant 2.43-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route in the City of Rancho Cucamonga("Project"),which is being heard tonight by the Planning Commission as Agenda Item Di. SAFER objects to the City staff's decision to exempt the Project from review under the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and argues that an initial study should be conducted and a CEQA document prepared to analyze the Project and mitigate its environmental impact.For this reason, SAFER requests that the Planning Commission declines to approve the Project unless and until proper CEQA review is conducted. Sincerely, Victoria Ann Yundt LOZEAU DRURY LLP Core 5 Industrial Partners D RC202 1 -00320 March 23 , 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Irfr Project Description Who: Core 5 Industrial Partners What: A request to construct a 49,745 square-foot industrial/warehouse building on a vacant 2.43-acre parcel. Where: Northeast corner of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route Entitlements: Design Review DRC2021 -00320 crrx`ir� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Land Use , General Plan , and Zoning Table Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Neo Industrial Employment Neo Industrial (NI) North Industrial Building City Corridor High Neo Industrial (NI) South Industrial Building Neo Industrial Employment Neo Industrial (NI) East Self-Storage Facility City Corridor High Neo Industrial (NI) West Vacant Neo Industrial Employment Neo Industrial (NI) r- (r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Location .,i i _ .. .. _. . , . :i. : , .1 .,. • .• •a. • EpicenterlSperts a _d351 ` — • Complex `/ _- • - • . o: E351 1 966- 996 1 996 11996 _ �� I; 1t1f �' �r. ^ .. II' J.' •.c' - Jack Benny D 44 1!^;. .]{ J.Ich Eicn iy Or f '� J• '� ^ jr * .. i C: Nil` . '1`.., y�• •�1. ,' wr• q, I'1 • * {v 4 r • e( f 955 t ! yew S�; . Arta .11.1 .� 1 935 if 1LYJ if9 {t .it r I = t ys4, -r. �r. k !. .^ . ' 7 955=i; { �. i�005 .� 3. { kkk li ► I� .: {_ J �<. + 1 - •_ .. . 1i 9si ,.; , 120aa •, '�� , 11-,., _...— — ,_1 _ _. - .I. i ! .- .• r_ .-11 ,7 I , ... ' �p lTE 1199E 7-141111117. i• ' ; •` Arrow Pie _. Arrow Rto. . E I Arrow Rtn Arrow Rte �i .. r ' .. _ f . . /1!alit - :!i•!+•.li� aF rira�{ i _ 1 r — IF17 j w -i.. {{ 11 �r �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Street View _ . - - _ _ -......muniimmos _ .. ;411. -w- --� -- - t Looking North from Arrow Route �r r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA crr- Street View a ._ _.......„___ , , „ -,. ....,_ ,_ ..f,,„,............ 1 , , ,, _ .. . _ _ L if .44, .. .„ ,_____ - . . ,...., .,., ..., ,.. • . ..:. -'''It [7— _ .. , ,j -__.. c ' _..,.ate. .,,, .. - - " .illirk,,r, Looking West from Rochester Avenue � �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA o --x xe o f x x o x x p{�I - r r v �0nu r C " C v — n,� �— — — — — — _________ o O I d \ F - /` I ° DE D■ ..:u [ �cwr uc 6 a,'I I I 4 d-- — d 1 I % 1 � � 1t a i - - _ — - - - re-� s I ? �q i a � I � $ i 33 1 k 1 ------f--------L-----1--------�---- I 31 <-, <., 1 1 I I0. C I 2 J —* 8 Doak DooDR ' 1 i�i �� ® 1 a� 4a © l d ®� e14 O I I ' iO +_O` I El D L'�:1 � 1!'AID! 8 n i il, eil t _,-.„., .....c.:...... O ,--11 a .0I®ww� (") 41 / .--01 04 . li '. 1.1,1, _ . ....1... any c [ n D O zI* O D 0 ' '-)'-)'-) . `X X, e f X X o X x-----K l II C yr I. or 14.4-:\ .„ y.- F. — 2 CI / M �� as arl C il i of'i� � i I f ill:17-,,,,r a c �� s I �r � er 1 x-r �� { I � } 33 ------f----- Lii- - j jI �. I Ps 1—* I ooac oaona eJ PI I:1 ' \ "Nzi.....-r mi— . A \I ' \ , ,. 1 , , .., n ® 1 7-1 Is r—-------- , - -< . Li. • r �� �� .p 73 ..,;;Emu zI tI t__Z ••• s n ..! t ♦ 4 ` • l4.I p:I e ♦i 4 = 0 1 "O wo 40 Y rim yr .il_i ,�,. ' i n D i 0 of A W$ $ C _ _ n,.r n � r D O zI* O D o --x xe e f X x o x x p{ 1 r \,:c- 444-0 u r C II C v SWAM.1,0 Ilgat_Ar- .p o O ■ ■ter --. Milli iroi . a DINI 17:14N ir \'r,..„.„ • .Nro.... , 1 9 i Ada i i I 1 , '\ 1 1 ii‘.1 ., i ...: i p I f. i H � 1n n -i IIIIIIIII ,--'.'."=C" , �� . :it p pi 2,,, o, ,iiiiii , ,° . , 11 ; O I U . 1 - 73 11111111r7- MI D1111111'1 _ 8 9 z 3 Z 1 �_ ,•.; •�a n ,toSI p; 0 - ,BESillizimir:_ 1,6,-,...••.."4"CiI.b.�.� • o n D O zI* O D I" I ! II II 3 W i b EXISTING BUIL.NC. I I 's'i` I I I I I I L t\\ gOdp114P11.111Witrir-td9°-IV —4111111.11111912141111.1111111110."1 > "PP f.4.:-..104, o,‘ I 4, Ed NW _...,,,,, , u ■Ire �';T,-•.!a �,- r'.� — — 1 ....4W ,,, AIM 16 I 1 uNE' . 1 111i1j 0.1 till f.:III I D' -----_______. 0 a } j .,. Fit. lea I MIN �,�� ���,�f�I I lii�l O� !„ I . ` hrr''o�- a`s`'`O. I BUILDING, Vic• 311/1 ill ° ilit i 'r��l ill16 R t etaf`a iI tlllll • �1I .II 1 2 �;Roi I I 111E1 OA, 11111 41411'401 lir JIM, Of PPfaOHG LQL .�. i� W O Fill El I O I ,,,F s a 1s... o !1 , , O; 4 0tea.,ERA I t (___.__ .,..r / e 1 F. ESTIELIS411 1-PEP10O �' I �, ;l/�L�.`i. 0 ' 44,P W.. ,-"- - �OC70Q427A.O.:OD000Ot`Z70400•ooOCOOY�r -r vIt k rite./.. -rw.PAa//./,A i ll,r,tIII ��_000u�� aIa d • s+fir /i •-• Er h/ - s t gt"Lyt i it �, 4i 4y� �� , y1 ire:4•' 1✓%\ r\r 4� $ V: $ ' 'I - st"w5�/ 10 O�j,I1 11. illi. II\\� ra�'��1�"���Qi�� lil. . Mil".—A— L 1p • • _4_..j 4 _......- ----- — -- ------ � rs�r rs 111 Jew II rc�71 I \� 'rc ra ec se -- �� I I \ _! _ , �\\ll� (-� r- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t UJEST ELEVATION (ROG1-(ESTER AVENUE) r U i ., .r Y .Mr+-- - km" - _ . SOUTH ELEVATION (ARROW ROUTE) • ;ii 6W "b .ta _ EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION rcr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0 08 0 8 0 0 ii ...:' .1, 1 j1 . II' . EAST ELEVATION 00 $ ©o 8 0 00 o 3 ©0 8 rir . Ti ..:7 . a.. a.. a.. . .„:1...2L. .:.1. di : . _ _ • SOUTH ELEVATION (ARROW ROUTE) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 MI . Ip! „.. 1 Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin WIMIlamp Sharron WII[lams Sherwin WIlhams Aluminum Blue Reflaclire Shaiwin Wil limn* SW 7905 SW 7661 SW 7663 SW 7002 SW 7635 01W(AnOdisatl GLAZING Acrgnc Lai.aroma CR Pure While Reneelion Monorail Silver Downy Palisade MULL14N8 n co GloSW?DT pariprmane In cow!M.1 I C Nees screen �M.ia14 A H4PY 1 �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Code Compliance Table Development Standard Required Proposed Complies? Building Height Max. 70' * 35' YES ✓ Floor Area Ratio 0.4-0.6 .47 YES ✓ Front Setback- Major Arterial Min. 45' 47' —2" YES ✓ (Milliken Avenue) Front Setback- Major Arterial Min. 45' 48' YES ✓ (Rochester Avenue) Rear Setback 0' 147' — 8" YES ✓ Open Space/Landscape Area Min. 10% 24.1% YES ✓ *Max 70 feet as long as building is set back 1 foot from front setback for every 1-foot building height exceeds 35 feet. rr r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Parking Table Type of Use Floor Area Parking Number of Spaces (Square Feet) Ratio Required Proposed Building (overall) 49,745 Office 3,000 1/250 12 Warehouse 46,745 varies' 32 Total Required/Total Provided: 44/442 1 - For warehouse uses, the parking calculations are 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet; 1 space per 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet;and 1 space per 4,000 square feet for additional floor area in excess of the first 40,000 square feet. 2 -The trailer parking requirement is calculated separately from the standard parking requirement and is based on a ratio of one stall per dock door. The number of trailer parking spaces that is required is 4 spaces and the number that is provided is 4 spaces. r �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA sr r,� Public Art • Project is subject to Public Art requirement. Total art value required is $49,745. • Project has been conditioned to meet the Public Art requirement prior to occupancy. Environmental Assessment • Project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under state CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 — In-Fill Development Projects. ccXrr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committees • Design Review Committee: Reviewed on February 15, 2021 . No major or secondary issues discussed. Recommended approval to the PC. Public Correspondence • Notices were mailed to all property owners within 660 feet (40 property owners) on March 8, 2022 and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on March 9, 2022. • Staff has not received any correspondence in response to the notices. (711(- r-Fr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission : • Approve Design Review DRC2021 -00320 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. ccFir CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Interim Moratorium on Service Stations Planning Commission March 23, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Q�r� zI•�� Background • General observations: o Recent increase in the number of applications for service station uses; o Recent increase in the number of requests to add alcohol sales to existing service stations; and o Increased interest for building service stations and a greater concentration of existing service stations in the southwest area of the City, i.e. the "Cucamonga Neighborhood" • Topics of concern: o Long-term impacts on land use, the environment, and economic development; and o Benefits of service stations versus potential impacts to neighborhoods • Current status of service station development o Two services stations under construction (at Foothill + Red Hill CC and Arrow + Archibald) (., 4 r �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ■f r Background (continued ) • City Council directed staff to conduct an analysis of service stations to determine the following: o The land use benefits of service station to the community; o The fiscal benefits of service stations and comparison to other retail uses; o The land use impacts of service stations on surrounding commercial districts and residential neighborhoods; o The fiscal impacts to City for providing public safety services at service stations; o The land use policies implemented through the General Plan update; and o The potential performance standards and conditions that could be placed on future service stations • The City Council adopted, on April 21, 2021, Urgency Ordinance 980 for an interim moratorium on the development of new service stations and expansion of existing service stations onCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Definition of a Service Station A "service station" is defined as follows in the Development Code: o F. 9. Service station. A retail business selling gasoline or other motor vehicle fuels. May include a convenience store. Vehicle services which are incidental to fuel services are included under Vehicle services, minor. o F.11. Vehicle services, minor. Minor facilities specialize in limited aspects of repair and maintenance (e.g., muffler and radiator shops, quick-lube, smog check, and tires). Does not include repair shops that are part of a vehicle dealership on the same site (see Auto and vehicle sales) or automobile dismantling yards, which are included under Recycling facility, scrap and dismantling. r' �- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rr r Sirrrr rr vmra V'nra L o c a t i o n ofmon Ave 3 Lemon Ave • 9e Dr 9 or A P ` S ' M Alto Loma Dr - -— �` n Highland.Ave----- _--------- 210 4tand Ave Service Stations `I",, `. 19th St Alta Loma 19th St "' ' .. Victoria St Grapeland Victoria Park Ln m Victoria St 1 149)S n d Quantity by District 3 ,3eLr T w d Hills ry Club I O Base Line Rd• ° a Pose Line Rd Base Line Rd o • r n • District 1 — 5 stations !� r� v x • District 2 — 13 stations �,I <I z • District 3 — 11 a t`I < I • church, npgovd stations* I Not Operational •• Foo'EBbd 6 • •• •• 6 • •• • 6 • d o= I a I • District 4 — 5 stations Rancho Mnmvee Cucamonga ``o� N.Operational uo Arrow lea Arrow Rtr-. • - I m 9th St 34 service stations total; North • Jersey Blvd Cucamonga ath st— Rllc s,` 23 currently sell alcohol E 7th St ‘\ 7th St ♦ I 6th St 1 ¶ c6th St 6th St *most recent approval 7 '� E Sth St I. occurred I n L 01 1 — ouncil District 1 has 5 Stations I D <D • P 4t„r3r 1 —aefPSr 4NTlr9t--4 Council District 2 has 13 Stations Esri,NASA,NGA,USGS,FEMA,City of Rancho Cucamonga,Esri,HERE,Garm in,SafeGra0t,METI/NASA, Ralph's Gas on Haven Council District 3 has 11 Stations USGS,Bureau of Land Management,VA,NPS,USDA Council District 4 has 5 Stations Avenue N o 0.25 0.5 1 Gas Stations by Alcohol Sales AMiles Gas Stations O Sells alcohol 1" = 3 4 0 0 feet • Does not sell alcohol 1 rrA r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r die art Driving Time to . ._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. .; .._ ___________ ____5____r V. r r r ' I ti f 1 I .1 Service Stations ;- Duncan Cany (S minutes) J I I —_7 /tAve Areas in blue are within , 5 minutes drive time of a service station. n \-8` • Alta Loma ; N, ,,,,,a St GrapelandCtiwal,d O * '^ o Wa Note: this does not ‘1 _ include the drive time to �" •' ' ` •J50' Baseline r a service station outside - -;k m the City. • Approved Chrirch 5' 15 n Not operational • ••• 6 • • • t • • • r 66 ) 3 I Rancho I s,. F Approved 3 I N.tOp•Arrva Cucamonga ;, 1" • fte o a1r • I r. I North • torsey Blvd I „ Kaise} I Cucamonga I rV __ Ceres Ave r_d,.i1- st . r - eti,st 1 rz, X Esri,NASA,NSA,USGS,FEMA,City of ncho Cucamonga,Esn,HERE,Gamin,SafeGraph,METIT�JASN,, I USGS,Bureau of Land Management,EPA,NPSOJSD2S c San Bernardino Ave x D co n ,, N 0 0.5 1 Legend 5 Minute Drive Time A Miles 1" = 5,2 8 0 feet from Gas Stations • Gas Stations 5.0 Minutes fl CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Public Safety Service Calls Analysis Service Stations - Public Safety Services Analysis City Population 5 YEAR TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Data I AVERAGE At Service Stations 637 910 1034 979 1059 923.8 City Overall 146,254 159,059 155,537 151,562 142,344 150,951 2015: 175,232 Incomplete 2016: 176,540 Percentage of Calls at Service Data Stations Relative to the City 0.44% 0.57% 0.66% 0.65% 0.74% 0.61% 2017: 177,446 (overall) 2018: 177,742 2019: 177,614 TIME SPENT ON LOCATION 5 YEAR 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2020: 174,453 (HOURS) AVERAGE At Service Stations 1,100.75 1,867.44 1,982.12 1,946.32 2,455.44 1,870.41 2021: not available 158 217. 227 420. 220 288. 231 371. 216 508. City Overall 34 26 82 81 65 210,761.38 Incomplete Percentage of Time at Service Data Stations Relative to the City 0.70% 0.82% 0.90% 0.84% 1.13% 0.88% (overall) ti rr6-cr• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r Service Calls for Service Stations Ongoing analysis of the correlation between service calls and the following factors: .om^ i ..a • Locations o D C, n......a, ®° • Zoning designations w „ ,.., F°' • Hours of operation . 0 8. • Limited operating hours OD `, 0 . . . 00 0-0 Rancho vs Cucamonga • Operating 24-Hours .., _ _ 0 • Retail sale of alcohol E„^,; „^,. a o9a® ,; ,9 • Other factors TBD ...t on.,, aonnn=., -- AVG_CFS z 4 I. e _ 'a, _ _ .. 0>40,70 i _non - 0 >204040 em., ( , _. 0 >10,20 Z,. ng.rnnv1 0 0To 10 Number of Service Calls for Gas Stations(5-Year Average) •�r �- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r Annual Sales Tax - Revenue Analysis (2008 - 2020) Year Annual Sales Tax Revenue $3.00 L _ 2008M $2,041,400.68 2009 , $1,615,184.14 $2.50 2010 $1,868,335.21 I ` iNgEM $2,238,239.53 $2.00 . .. ... ... .. ... MIME $2,426,457.82 MII-2013 ■ $2,261,404.95 $1.50 2 Er 2014 A $2,244,070.71 $1.00 2015 $2,049,208.59 Er 20161i $1,768,133.12 $0.50 Mb 2017 $1,816,753.47 $ Or 2018 $2,031,354.18 2008 2009 2010 20112012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 r 2019- $2,194,465.74 I 2021. $1,496,374.00 ti �r• �- trPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rr r Analysis - General Plan and Development Code • Updated General Plan adopted by City Council on December 15, 2021 • Update to Development Code is in process with adoption pending by end of Q2 2022; • Determination that existing regulations don't comprehensively address potential impacts of service stations: • Environmental impacts resulting from long term use, fuel storage resulting in "brownfield sites; • Major streets and intersections identified as sites for gateway development; • Environmental Justice perspective; • Regulations and permitting process to avoid undue concentration r' �- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rr r rr rrr r�' Summary - Operational Impacts • 34 service stations in the City: o 32 active; and o 2 inactive — under reconstruction • Number of services station in neighboring cities: o Fontana — 21 stations; o Ontario — 20 stations; and o Upland — 17 stations • Disproportionate concentration of service stations in the Southwest and Central areas of the City: o Northwest area — 5 stations (4 active, 1 inactive — under reconstruction); o Southwest area — 13 stations (12 active, 1 inactive — under reconstruction); o Central area — 11 stations; and o North and East areas — 5 stations r' �- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rr r rrr (tor Summary - Fiscal Impacts • Recent decline in demand resulting in a reduction in sales tax generated o Apparent decline in demand for gasoline o Apparent decline in demand for certain products o Competitive ride sharing options; increase in electric vehicle use • Potential decline due to alternative energy sources o Increased acceptance of electric vehicles leading to the use of charging stations and the need for more charging station locations o Hydrogen, liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, biofuels are more readily available • Significant investment to remediate former gas station/brownfield sites o Potential ground contamination; inactive sites left abandoned/unused; potential health risks • Public Safety Fiscal Impacts o Demand for services on CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Summary - Fiscal Impacts (continued) • Calls for public safety service has increased since 2016: o 637 calls in 2016 o 1,059 calls in 2020 • Average number of calls for public safety service per year: o 924 calls • Time spent on calls for public safety service has increased since 2016: o 1,101 hours in 2016 o 2,455 hours in 2020 o Average of 1,870 hours spent on site between 2016 and 2020 • Combined calls for public safety service for all service stations since 2016: o 4,754 calls ti �r• t- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r Ongoing Activity and Next Steps Staff is in the process of: o Collecting additional information and conducting further analysis of data; o Evaluating options for amendments to the Development Code and/or the Zoning Map regarding service stations; o Prepare recommendations to the City Council; o This effort is incomplete at this time The existing moratorium expires on April 20, 2022. An extension of the moratorium is pending subject to the adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council on April 6, 2022. onCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss, provide comments, and receive and file this report. ti rr• �- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rr r - Pacific Summit- Foothill , LLC D RC202 1 -00440 March 23 , 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Project Description Who: Pacific Summit-Foothill, LLC What: A request to allow the second, one (1 ) year time extension of a previously approved Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16605M), Design Review, Variance, and Tree Removal application. Where: North side of Foothill Boulevard, between Red Hill Country Club Drive and the Pacific Electric Trail Right-of- Way. Entitlements: Time Extension DRC2021 -00440, Design Review DRC2012-00672, Variance DRC2016-00207, & Tree Removal Permit DRC2012-00673 rrcrrr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,rr Location .1"- -- _ ,.... . . .7...41-, . - �' Win' -_+ fi:.3 • 1+ f .. y 7„7. ori .r„ir,,- . _ w- '*7Y k r ' - - r 'y - - - - Vim. T, 4i-"4,,,, . • ylr per. *4, $ - • � . - PROJECT SITE , ' ;. �• �• . •P$ } �- . r {• r ■ ' ' � I. r' ' " .4. IV .-— • ., ,.e• .43145:044r.. --' ...:*•111...k '''''f - ' P.. .- . =06 .4000!?P.°. . ‘ r. 1.*-irilli P.' ../ s•t y — ill { Sr'•w elf I� .. T...—_ ' .� _ . e a z dm e4 M `A _ .} I ��( I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r �r �•rr Summary Table Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Traditional Town Center Mixed Use (MU) District Residential condominiums, Traditional Neighborhood, Low (L) and Medium (M) North vacant, and Red Hill General Open Space and Residential Districts Country Club Facilities Traditional Town Center, South Residential and Suburban Neighborhood Mixed Use (MU) District and Commercial Low Medium (M) Residential District East Pacific Electric Trail, Route General Open Space and Mixed-Use (MU) District 66 Trail Head, Residential Facilities West Residential and Traditional Town Center Mixed Use (MU) District Commercial ri- rr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,rr trr r Q 0 .M•„4-4 , j $ . ,' . . , , L.4. OA , !._—••'-, ' . ' '+ ! " Z f 1 0 �. i • U 4 j V i r 1. Z . •! Ce CO St' c. 0 w 11 • _. f'; 0 Al' .\ !0 , LLt �i �+ l'._ + f Ewit ✓. < O Fk Y �tF ,3 7 E V7 R -I—+ y i L O I' Z � t 4,0) . r 0 it °'r`. t•, r n , • tr .i = Looking South from Red Hill Country Club Dr. --414N%%44441%.44441%4144444%"----i' . ..„... °h. .. , 1 , _...- .„...,.... . 44 .,.:..„- ram- _ .. K • „.. . .,... . ....._. . .. ., . . . • ._ ., .:. ,, p,,. S} 0. ,3,,,f_.. ..... ., ..„....,, .. . . ,„.._.. •.•_...t......7.--,., ...:1-',.,(.4.4 :....,"; ffi.7.:.....747...1". kitir _ . �-'; .4. . • . - - ,I F"• ../e/ .....4::=3 - • ..'." ---'---'. ••:-. - 1.144.1\111 Er r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Time Extension • The applicant is requesting a second, one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16605M, with associated entitlements: Design Review, Variance, and Tree Removal. • The time extension is being requested to allow the applicant more time to complete site preparations and other outstanding work needed to commence grading and construction. • With the approval of the subject time extension, the expiration of the Tentative Tract Map will be April 4, 2023 and associated entitlements will be October 4, 2024. • The subject Tentative Tract Map is eligible for three additional time extensions �� �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Project Update : • Completed negotiation with Sycamore Inn property owner to resolve restaurant encroachments and utility relocation • Completed acquisition of off-site easement (on south side of Foothill Blvd.) to facilitate drainage facility • Completed consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife to secure Streambed Alteration Agreement • Received design approval for work in SBCTA Right of Way (PE Trail) • Received approval through FEMA for Conditional National Flood Map Revisions (CLOMR) • Completed consultation with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control board (RWQCB) • Completed CVWD investigation into on-site and nearby water infrastructure and received board approval for easement quitclaim • Completed design process for coordinating on-site utility relocations • Nearing approval of public water and sewer plans through CVWD. �j CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Environmental • The City Council certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration on October 24, 2017 (State Clearinghouse #2017071010) through Resolutions 17-098 and 17-099. • The project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. • CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, states that no subsequent or supplemental review is necessary if the scope of the project has not changed from that considered as part of the original CEQA review. c �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Noticing • Notices were mailed to all property owners within 660 feet (408 property owners) on March 9, 2022 and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on March 9, 2022. c(ecr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Recommendation • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Time Extension application through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-06 with the attached Conditions of Approval. c(ecr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA