Deny Self-Storage Development (NE Corner Hellman and Walters in Eastvale, CA)

Victory
This petition made change with 677 supporters!
James Sinnema started this petition to City of Eastvale City Council

This petition is to seek support from the residents of Eastvale to ask the City Council to deny approval of Project No. PLN18-20034, a Self-Storage Facility proposed on the northeast corner of Hellman and Walters.

PLEASE ONLY SIGN THIS PETITION IF YOU ARE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE.

The proposed development is immediately adjacent to the Hearthside neighborhood and directly across the street from a new elementary school, which is under construction.  I live in the neighborhood directly north of Hearthside, named Avonlea.  Not only do I drive by this property often, but two of my children will attend the new school when construction is completed.  The full details of the development can be downloaded at https://www.eastvaleca.gov/city-hall/planning/environmental-documents/project-no-pln18-20034-self-storage-facility/-fsiteid-1.  The site plan can be found on page 11 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document (page 15/90 of the PDF).

With the surrounding uses being residential and a school, granting the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) to a commercial use will not fit with the character of the surrounding uses.  The property, as it exists, is blighted and needs to be developed.  The City, rightly, has the proposed land use for this property as residential in the General Plan.

Furthermore, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration asserts that “Although the development project would change the site’s character from partially developed land to a self-storage facility, it would be visually compatible with existing residential development in the vicinity.”  It is completely incredible (not credible) that a development of two-story and three-story (?!?!?) storage buildings would be “visually compatible.”

I work in the land development industry.  I am a civil engineer and senior project manager for a civil engineering and consulting firm in Ontario.  I’ve reached out to Mr. Gossett (developer) to be proactive in helping him with a more reasonable entitlement for the project site.  He has shared with me that the proposed three-story building will now be a two-story building.  He also has shared with me that Lennar (large residential developer) indicated that residential development does not pencil for this site.  However, I believe that a smaller residential developer might be interested in this site.  I had one of my engineers put together a residential site plan as an example of how the site could be developed for residential.  It is reasonable to expect that 16 residential lots could be achieved on this site and could be attractive to a small residential developer.

Another concern, if the GPA, ZC and project are approved, is what is planned for the remainder commercial parcel?  The proposed development only develops a portion of the NE corner and a smaller corner parcel will remain.  As I’ve shared with Mr. Gossett, it seems if the Council were to grant approval for the storage facility and it is constructed, then the remainder parcel would only work for a convenience store such as 7-11 (another use that would not fit with the current adjacent uses).  This all seems like a set of dominoes that are set up to fall for the residential neighborhoods and families sending their kids to the new school to be unhappy in the long term with this development if it is approved.

Mr. Gossett also said in his email to another person in our neighborhood, “We are a family owned business who own and operate several of these facilities throughout the Inland Empire for the past 20+ years.”  I have asked Mr. Gossett to provide information on his family’s other storage developments.  I’d be interested to see how those developments blend in with surrounding residential and schools.  He never sent the requested information.

Another opinion I have is that the project site should have been included with the development to the east when that tract was developed.  I don’t know any of the circumstances of why this site was not developed at that time, but I speculate that the land owner was holding out for more money.  So the development to the east was constructed, leaving this site as less valuable for residential development.  Assuming this is all true, why should the neighborhood and City lower its standards just so this developer can make more profit as a commercial development?

For these reasons and outstanding questions, I oppose the project and the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, and ask that the citizens of Eastvale oppose it as well.

The hearing for this development is scheduled for January 23 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall.  Please show your support in both signing this petition and also attending this meeting to voice your concern over this development.

Victory

This petition made change with 677 supporters!

Share this petition