U-Haul Makes a U-Turn

Last night the Phoenix based U-Haul truckers were stopped for speeding by city officials, cited, and they’ll have to make an appearance in a few weeks to pay their fine.

BACKGROUND

On June 27 the Planning Commission (PC) approved a plan to build a U-Haul storage and rental facility on Jeronimo Rd in the space currently occupied by the Nursery. Despite the rubber stamp from the pro-business/ pro-development new kids on the PC, Council members Nick and McCullough listened to their citizens and asked that the project be re-examined by the Council. Click here for more details.

PROCESS

An appeal by Council members basically throws the proceedings open and everyone has to go back to square one. Staff and the U-Haul people presented their plan, and six residents gave input. Quite frankly the resident input was very impressive. Nothing makes a city stronger than informed citizens who are willing to take time out of their busy lives and make a difference.

COUNCIL COMMENTS

Everyone agreed that U-Haul is a good company and the now vacant Nursery space needs to be re-developed. But was this the right project? Some of the concerns raised by the Council members were –

·  The building is tall and unattractive, and doesn’t fit into the neighborhood. (Nick, Herzog, McCullough)

·  There was no line of sight study to see the impact on neighbors. (Nick, McCullough)

·  The parking lot where trucks will be stored will make the area look like a used-truck lot. (Nick, Herzog)

·  Jeronimo Rd is a “gateway” to the City and we just did street-scaping in that area. The trucks and building will not be attractive as a gateway. (Herzog)

·  There are substantial problems with traffic in this area making the rationale for the site problematic. (McCullough)

·  There is no attempt to deal with the existing problems, like day laborers, narrow streets, etc. (McCullough)

DECISION

The Council voted to send the application back to the PC, but not before a serious debate about whether or not the PC should be avoided and the new design reviewed by the Council itself. After all, the PC approved a design that just about everyone (except the U-Haul folks) thinks is woefully lacking, so why would the PC be given a second bite at the apple when they already proved they didn’t mind the worms? Despite this concern, the Council ultimately decided to use the normal procedure and refer the matter back to the PC.

RANDOM NOTES

I was seriously impressed by the comments from Council members McCullough, Herzog, and Nick. They obviously did their homework and gave the topic a lot of thought. Each of them was trying hard to balance the needs of the developer against the needs of the community, but each of them kept the well-being of the City uppermost.

Councilman Nick’s new brevity is a welcome change of pace. Keep it up. Less is more.

Councilwoman McCullough cried out “What’s going on with this Planning Commission?” when she realized just how inadequate the U-Haul proposal was, and yet the PC passed it. Note to Mrs. McCullough – please follow up on your question, and keep this in mind when the PC gets a new appointment later this month.

Councilman Herzog was worried about whether or not a “storage” building was a good fit for the area, and wanted a project that blended in with the Valley Building and Ganahl Lumber businesses. It’s a good idea, but it’s not fair to invite a business like U-Haul into an area without disclosing that you had special desires for what goes in that area. If the City wants to reserve that space for a project compatible with the existing businesses (and I think that’s an excellent idea), it’s only fair to let that be known so others don’t waste their time and money.

Council Robinson’s “business friendly” approach is starting to worry people. From his comments, I gathered he wasn’t opposed to this project and was inclined to respect the property rights of the land owner (U-Haul) to do what he wanted. His comments sparked a lively debate with Mrs. McCullough who said “I normally don’t debate my fellow council members, but you asked for it so let me give it to you sweetheart.” I’d urge Councilman Robinson to harken to Mr. Nicks caution that “Our first obligation is to the people who call Lake Forest home.”

One can’t help but compare these proceedings with the recent Brookfield proceedings. Both of them were appeals of PC decisions (what does that tell you about the PC?), yet they had very different outcomes.

·  Brookfield was exempted from going through the PC (unprecedented) and U-Haul was sent back to the PC (normal).

·  Brookfield was allowed to do fewer studies, U-Haul was asked to do more studies.

·  In Brookfield’s case the staff report was ignored. In U-Haul, staff comments were taken as law.

·  Brookfield was allowed to skirt rules and regulations; U-Haul was criticized for varying from “guidelines”.

·  Brookfield succeeded, U-Haul failed.

Hmmmm.

Can the difference be that Brookfield laid out nearly $100,000 to help elect City Council members, and the naïve folks from U-Haul forgot to make campaign contributions? Note to U-Haul. It’s not too late. Check with the City Clerk to get the addresses for the campaign committees for Voigts, Herzog, and McCullough, all of whom are coming up for re-election in 2014.