Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cerritos council orders staff study to lift cap on self‑storage after debate over "oligopoly"
Summary
After a lengthy public and council debate, Cerritos directed staff to prepare an amended municipal code removing the city’s limit of four self‑storage facilities and to return with market data, property details and environmental analysis. The motion passed after a substitute for further information briefly carried, then a final directive passed unanimously.
The Cerritos City Council voted unanimously to direct city staff to prepare an amendment to the municipal code removing a cap that limits the city to four self‑storage facilities and to return with supporting market analysis and historical documentation.
The action follows an informational presentation from Community Development Director Kristen Aguila on existing regulations (Cerritos Municipal Code section 22.47.30) and extended council questioning about building heights, land‑use impacts and the market for storage. Mayor Frank Yokoyama raised consumer‑protection concerns, warning the cap creates a constrained market: "So the City Of Cerritos is allowing an oligopoly to exist in our city for self storage businesses," he said during deliberations.
Council members pointed to a 2019 moratorium and subsequent code changes that established the cap, and asked staff to include in the report the original agenda materials and council discussion that led to the 2019 rules. The mayor asked staff to include details on the four existing facilities — unit counts, square footage, rates and capacity — plus documentation of the 2024 sale of an Extra Space Storage property in the city.
City Manager Robert Lopez and Director Aguila told the council that the 35‑foot height limit remains the default in most commercial and industrial zones and that any code amendment would require environmental review under CEQA; depending on the scope of changes that environmental work could require outside consultants and carry a cost to the city.
Councilmember Mark Pulido urged due diligence into whether the cap discouraged investment, while Councilmember Se and others emphasized potential resident benefits — e.g., additional storage reducing curb clutter. After an initial substitute motion to return with more information narrowly passed, the council voted 5–0 on a final motion directing staff to prepare an amended ordinance (to be routed to the Planning Commission as required) that removes the numerical cap and includes the requested market and sale information.
What happens next: staff will prepare an agenda report and an amended development code for Planning Commission review, including any CEQA analysis and cost estimates for required studies. The council’s motion asked staff to attach prior 2019 reports and the 2024 sale documentation to the Planning Commission packet.
