City wants to know if influx of storage facilities is hurting Simi
By Kyle Jorrey kjorrey@theacorn.com

Self-storage facilities: a threat to public health, safety and welfare in Simi Valley?

As strange as it sounds, that was the suggestion made by city staff Monday at the first City Council meeting of 2007, prompting the council to adopt a 45-day moratorium on all new selfstorage applications.

According to assistant city planner Sean Gibson, the city will use that time to research the proliferation of these facilities in the community and their impact on the city's ability to provide potential professional and industrialrelated jobs for local residents.

Assistant city manager Brian Gabler said a lack of office space is nothing new to Simi Valley, but the issue's significance is heightened each passing year as the city's amount of developable land dwindles.

"Every piece of property is being looked at with a different set of eyes than we did 10 years ago when there was ample vacant land in the community," Gabler said.

Simi Valley currently has 10 self-storage facilities in operation, with another under construction and yet another awaiting approval from the planning commission.

According to staff findings, there is 6.63 square feet of selfstorage space per capita in Simi, while the demand in Ventura County is only 4.38 square feet per capita. Councilmember Michelle Foster said she's heard that storage unit vacancy rates are at a two-year high.

The urgency ordinance, which passed 5-0, was mainly the result of two factors, according to Gabler: the city's lack of developable land for commercial and industrial use and the high volume of self-storage landuse requests the city has received in the past year.

"One main issue is that a selfstorage facility doesn't create many employment opportunities," Gabler said. "You've got a building that takes up one, two, three acres and creates maybe three jobs- that's not creating employment opportunity for our residents. Right now we have too many residents who live in the city of Simi Valley but work outside of Simi. We want to create more opportunities for people to live and work here."

The lone challenge to the moratorium came from Dr. Fariboz Bardi.

Bardi has been working with city staff for the past 18 months on a Conditional Use Permit to construct a self-storage facility on his property at 525 E. Los Angeles Ave., a lot he purchased in February 2005 for $1.9 million. His project is scheduled to come before the planning commission on Jan. 17 for approval of a CUP.

Larry Turner, Bardi's paid consultant, spoke on his behalf Monday and entered into the public record a letter from attorney Gary Arnold stating the ordinance lacked "sufficient legal grounds" and had been sprung on Bardi "with virtually no advance warning or notice."

"Some of the words (in the ordinance) that came up really caught our attention, such as the use of the words that his project is 'a threat to the public health, safety and welfare,'" Turner said. "We're somewhat puzzled by that, as our attorney has outlined in the letter. He feels it's only fair that specific findings would be made as to what the potential threat is, and he goes as far as to say there is no legal basis for the adoption of the ordinance."

Turner said in addition to costs related to interest payments, property taxes and maintenance insurance, Bardi had paid $60,000 in paperwork related to his CUP application. He asked that the city either reject the proposed ordinance or exempt Mr. Bardi's project from its wording.

City attorney David Hirsch responded by defending the ordinance, saying the findings are sufficient and that the city is within its rights to adopt the moratorium under state government code.

"(Self-storage facilities) would affect the welfare of the community if we continue to lose that land, and the underlying purpose of adopting a moratorium is to put a freeze on things so that matters can be studied further," said Hirsch, who believes the moratorium would hold up against a legal challenge.

In the end, the council agreed to allow Bardi's project to be exempted from the ordinance because he was so far along in the process, but Councilmembers Glen Becerra and Barbra Williamson both warned the applicant they would make an appeal if the facility were approved by the planning commission on Jan. 17.

"I don't think this is good planning for a major boulevard in our community," Williamson said of the Bardi project. "I don't mind them going forward as long as they understand that there's no guarantee when they get to the planning commission or if it's appealed to this body that they will get approval."

Becerra, who told Bardi he wished he had consulted the council prior to getting so far along in the application process, was clear on his opinion of the applicant's project.

"It's beautiful, but I would love to see it filled with 200 office workers being productive, earning a living and supporting their families," Becerra said. "Instead, what's going to happen is we are going to fill it with our junk. It's going to produce no jobs, and it's not going to be productive for the community, and I don't agree with that."