Moreno Valley planning commission fails to approve 130,764 sq ft self‑storage project after residents object

The Moreno Valley Planning Commission on June 11 did not approve a conditional use permit (PEN24‑0154) for a proposed 130,764 square‑foot, climate‑controlled self‑storage facility on a roughly 3‑acre site north of Alessandro Boulevard and east of Indian Street. Staff recommended approval and circulation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), but public opposition and commissioner concerns led a motion to adopt the IS/MND and approve the permit to fail on a 2–3 vote.

Associate Planner Gabriel Diaz summarized the project as a three‑story, climate‑controlled storage building with 52 RV parking spaces, 12 standard parking spaces, a six‑foot decorative wall and a 10‑foot landscape buffer to the adjacent residential properties. The proposed maximum building height is approximately 42 feet, 8 inches; staff said the corridor mixed‑use zoning allows greater height (up to 60 feet) and that the project, as submitted, met applicable municipal code standards. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment April 21–May 21, 2026; SoCal Gas submitted a comment letter responding to the draft.

Christopher Golder, representing Public Storage, said the units are interior, climate‑controlled units accessed through ground‑floor vestibules and elevators, that the retail/management office will be staffed during normal business hours (typically up to two employees per shift), and that the facility will have remote monitoring and access controls; he also said rooftop solar is planned to meet Title 24 requirements and the company would consider higher percentages if feasible.

Dozens of nearby residents testified against the project during the public hearing. Speakers raised similar concerns: the site's proximity to single‑family homes would reduce sunlight and views for adjacent yards; the project would add more storage/warehouse footprint to a city many said is already saturated with similar uses; RV storage may increase vehicle idling and local pollution; and the economic benefit appeared limited given the applicant's low on‑site staffing plans. Several speakers urged the commission to deny the CUP and to favor uses that produce more local jobs and community benefit.

Commissioner deliberations focused on neighborhood compatibility, notice and outreach, landscaping and setback details, solar and energy demands for a climate‑controlled building, and whether the IS/MND and conditions of approval adequately addressed resident concerns. One commissioner suggested enlarging the rear setback, requiring a staggered double row of trees, and increasing rooftop solar subject to utility limits.

A motion to adopt the IS/MND and approve the conditional use permit was made and seconded but failed 2–3. The transcript shows the motion failed and staff said the decision is final unless appealed to the Community Development Director within 10 days per the municipal code.

What happens next: the applicant may appeal the commission’s decision to the Community Development Director within the 10‑day appeal window. If appealed, the item would return according to the municipal code schedule. The Planning Commission scheduled several relevant items for upcoming meetings, including the logistics mitigation ordinance and other land‑use proposals.