Cerritos commission split over lifting limit on self-storage; no recommendation sent to council

The Cerritos Planning Commission on Oct. 1 did not reach a majority recommendation on Development Code Amendment DCA 2025‑3, a proposal to remove the citywide limit of four self-storage facilities. After extended public hearing and more than an hour of commissioner debate, neither a motion to recommend approval nor a motion to forward a recommendation of denial achieved finality; staff said the inaction will be reported to the City Council.

Staff presented DCA 2025‑3 as a council‑directed amendment (City Council, Aug. 14, 2025) to remove the numerical cap from section 22.40.073 of the Cerritos Municipal Code while leaving other development standards intact. Advanced Planning Manager Sabrina Chan told the commission that the code cap dates to a 2019 development code amendment following a 2018 moratorium and staff assessment. The current proposal would allow additional self-storage facilities only where permitted by zoning (Industrial M and Industrial Commercial 2 / MC‑2), and any new facility would still require conditional use review and planning commission and City Council review through the city’s development process.

Staff summarized local self-storage market data in the agenda packet: the city’s four facilities house roughly 300–2,000 units each, with average occupancy rates near 90%; unit sizes cited in the packet range from about 9 to 480 square feet, with monthly rents between roughly $7 and $641. The packet and staff presentation noted that self-storage operations produce business license revenue and limited sales tax (largely from packing and moving supplies), but are not major sales-tax generators compared with retail uses. Staff said the amendment is consistent with the general plan and the Cerritos Economic Development Strategic Plan, and if the commission recommended approval the City Council hearing was tentatively scheduled for Oct. 13 with second reading Nov. 13 and implementation Dec. 13, 2025.

Commissioners expressed a range of views. Supporters described the change as pro‑business and a way to allow property owners flexible reuse of industrial parcels. Opponents cited the 2019 staff findings that unlimited self-storage could displace sales-tax-generating commercial uses and jobs, and said the city has limited industrial land and a low industrial vacancy rate (staff estimated ~6%). Several commissioners asked for alternative controls rather than a straight removal of the cap — for example, minimum and maximum parcel-size limits (examples discussed from other cities ranged from about 1 to 3 acres), spacing requirements and continued restriction to the existing M and MC‑2 zones.

Multiple commissioners asked legal and planning staff questions about how a parcel-size or acreage cap would be implemented and whether the planning commission should add such a recommendation to a motion. Commissioners also asked whether any pending applications exist (staff said none; inquiries numbered roughly five in the past year). After several motions and votes — including a motion to approve the amendment that failed on a 2‑3 vote — the commission did not adopt a definitive recommendation. Staff later stated that because the commission neither recommended approval nor prepared a resolution recommending denial, the matter will be reported to the City Council without a planning commission recommendation.

The discussion produced several specific requests and suggested follow-ups that commissioners said could inform council review if the Council chooses to act: additional market data about demand and who uses local facilities (resident vs. nonresident occupancy breakdowns), consideration of parcel-size limits, and legal review of any owner or operator disclosure requirements (for example, restrictions on hazardous materials stored on-site). Staff said such analyses would require a council referral and could entail consultant costs depending on scope.