Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident opposes proposed three-story self-storage near Moreno Beach Drive, cites size and traffic concerns
Summary
A Moreno Valley resident urged the council to oppose a recently approved conditional-use permit for a three-story self-storage facility on Moreno Beach Drive, citing building height, unit count and limited parking as incompatible with the neighborhood and missed opportunities for other development.
A Moreno Valley resident told the City Council April 1 he opposes a conditional-use permit the planning commission approved last week for a three-story self-storage facility at the southeast corner of Moreno Beach Drive and Alessandro Boulevard.
Seth Cox described the project as a "26,000 plus square foot 3 story self storage facility" on 2.3 acres with a building height of about 37.6 feet and, he said, 887 storage units and only 14 parking spaces. "You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig," Cox said, arguing the project does not fit the character of the east end and that the site is better reserved for retail, restaurants or other services he said the community needs.
Cox also noted a previously approved, separate storage project on the southwest corner of the intersection and said the two developments combined would yield nearly 1,880 storage units on adjacent corners. He urged District 3 residents to attend future hearings and said he believes the site is "prime real estate" for uses other than warehouse-style storage.
Other speakers during public comment raised broader concerns about city decision-making and development influence; Christopher Baca asked whether pavement and road-improvement projects include work that developers had previously agreed to fund, specifically referencing portions of Alessandro Boulevard and other infrastructure promises.
The planning commission's approval of the conditional-use permit was referenced by speakers; council members deferred detailed land-use status questions to planning staff and the planning commission process during the consent and general business discussions. No council action on the specific storage project occurred during the April 1 meeting.
