Board upholds Planning Commission approval of proposed Secure Space self‑storage project in Bonita

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors on April 9 denied an appeal to the Planning Commission’s December decision approving the Secure Space self‑storage project located on Quarry Road in the Sweetwater planning area of Bonita.

The Planning and Development Services (PDS) staff recommendation before the board was to deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission’s approval. The project calls for a 132,000‑square‑foot self‑storage building with 1,023 storage units, a leasing office and 109 covered recreational‑vehicle parking spaces on a site the applicant designed with large setbacks, perimeter trails and about 1.97 acres of open space. The design also includes a 160‑kilowatt rooftop solar system and several EV‑ready parking spaces; the applicant agreed to maintain a public restroom for trail users during business hours and to limit operating hours to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Appellants — including the Sweetwater Community Planning Group and other nearby residents — argued the project is incompatible with the “semi‑rural” character reflected in the Sweetwater Community Plan, asserted building bulk and lot coverage exceeded acceptable neighborhood scale and requested a market analysis for commercial land use. The Sweetwater group voted unanimously to deny the project and to appeal the planning commission’s approval.

PDS staff and the applicant’s team said the project complied with applicable development standards, that the building height (28 feet) is below the 35‑foot limit, and that topography and landscaping would reduce the visual scale of the buildings from Quarry Road and neighboring properties. Staff said the site had access to utilities and that the project proposed intersection improvements to Quarry Road to improve safety. Planning staff also reviewed procedural concerns raised about the planning commission hearing and concluded Brown Act or Roberts Rules violations did not occur.

The applicant and members of the public described extensive community outreach and multiple rounds of design revisions. The applicant said it reduced overall building visibility by locating portions of the facility into the hillside; adjusted the architectural palette to reflect local design guidance; and committed to trail improvements and a staffed public restroom during business hours. Union representatives and local construction trades urged approval for the jobs the project would create.

The board denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission’s decision; supervisors present voted to approve the project as conditioned. The decision includes conditions of approval and requires the applicant to enter into an indemnity agreement and to construct the identified road and trail improvements. The board also approved an errata correcting zoning and coverage language in the staff report.

Why this matters: The vote resolves a contested land‑use decision in a semi‑rural area that generated broad public input and debate about compatibility, community character and local traffic and trail access.

Next steps: The applicant will be required to meet the conditions of approval and execute required agreements before final permits are issued. Construction timing will depend on final permitting and funding.