CC RESOLUTION 5319RESOLUTION NO. 5319
A RESOLUTION (1) CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA-1248), ADOPTING
A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, MAKING
FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PACIFIC COAST COMMONS SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT; (2) ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
GPA 19-01; (3) APPROVING SUBDIVISION NO. SUB 19-03; (4)
APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. SPR 19-01; (5) APPROVING A
PARKING DEMAND STUDY AND SHARED PARKING USE ANALYSIS;
AND (6) APPROVING A WAIVER OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
DEDICATIONS FOR THE PACIFIC COAST COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN
AND PACIFIC COAST COMMONS MIXED -USE PROJECT
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:
A. On May 31, 2019, BRE El Segundo Property Owner A LLC, BRE El Segundo
Property Owner B LLC, and BRE El Segundo Parking LLC, submitted applications
for Environmental Assessment No. EA-1248, General Plan Amendment and
General Plan Map Amendment No. GPA 19-01, Specific Plan No. SP 19-01, Zone
Change and Zoning Map Amendment No. ZC 19-01, Zone Text Amendment No.
ZTA 19-08, Development Agreement No. 19-02, Subdivision No. SUB 19-03, Site
Plan Review No. SPR 19-01, Parking Demand Study and Shared Parking Use
Analysis, and waiver of public right-of-way dedications for the Pacific Coast
Commons Specific Plan and Pacific Coast Commons mixed -use project (Project);
B, The project applications were reviewed by the City's Development Services
Department for, in part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the
El Segundo Municipal Code ("ESMC");
C. The City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA"),
the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et
seq., the "CEQA Guidelines");
D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the requirements
of CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 as more fully set forth in Section 3 below;
E. On November 18, 2021, December 9, 2021 and February 10, 2022, the Planning
Commission held duly -noticed public hearings at the conclusion of which the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2905 recommending the City Council
certify the EIR and approve the Project;
F, The City Council of the City of El Segundo held a duly -noticed public hearing on
March 15, 2022 to review and consider the Project, receive public testimony, and
review all of the evidence in the administrative record; and
G. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to
the City Council at its March 15, 2022 hearing, including the staff reports submitted
by the Development Services Department and the totality of the evidence in the
administrative record.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds that the following
facts exist:
A. The subject property is located at 475-629 North Pacific Coast Highway in the
northwest quadrant of the City of El Segundo.
B. The property site is a level 6.385 gross acre site located on two blocks along Pacific
Coast Highway.
C. The project site is comprised of two blocks and is currently improved with two
existing hotels and two existing paved parking lots. The block bounded by Pacific
Coast Highway, Holly Avenue, Indiana Street and Mariposa Avenue is currently
developed with the 350-room Fairfield Inn and Suites and the 246-room Aloft hotels
totaling approximately 325,000 gross square feet combined and a paved parking
lot. The portion of the project site on the block north of Mariposa Avenue and south
of Palm Avenue is developed with a paved surface parking lot. No trees are located
on the parking lot site.
D. The project is a residential and commercial mixed -use concept. The Specific Plan
would allow 622,398 gross square feet of development including 282,398 square
feet of existing development that would remain. The proposed maximum
development density is a 2.70 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) after dedications for right-
of-way improvements. The Specific Plan would allow a maximum of two hundred
sixty-three (263) residential dwelling units including thirty-two (32) affordable
housing units located among three of the Land Use Districts within the Specific
Plan. Each new lot will meet or exceed the minimum size and dimension
requirements.
E. The surrounding land uses include a fast food restaurant (Carl's Jr.), a vacant
restaurant and parking lot, and multi -family residential uses to the north and a gas
station on the northwest corner of Mariposa Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway;
restaurants and office uses, a Ralphs market, two commercial shopping centers
with retail and restaurant uses, and a 6- story office building to the east; a small
commercial shopping center with a drug store, bank, two restaurants and retail
store to the south; and multi -family residential uses to the west.
IRIESOLU TM NO. 5319
Page 2 of 25
F. Development standards for allowable uses have been developed for the Specific
Plan and all uses within the Plan area must be compliant. The allowed uses
identified in the development standards include multiple -family residential uses
including both townhomes and apartments, and a range of commercial uses
including but not limited to, hotel, retail, restaurant, and offices.
G. The proposed General Plan re -designation and rezoning of the Project Site would
change the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial and
Parking to the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (PCCSP) land use
designation and rezone the area from the General Commercial (C-3) Zone and
Parking (P) Zone to the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (PCCSP) Zone.
H. The PCCSP contains five land use designations. These are: PCC Mixed -Use 1
(PCC MU-1), PCC Commercial-1 (PCC COM-1), PCC Commercial-2 (PCC COM-
2), PCC Commercial-3 (PCC COM-3), and PCC Mixed -Use 2 (PCC MU-2). The
PCC MU-1 designation applies to one parcel comprised of 1.241 acres after right-
of-way dedications. The PCC COM-1 designation applies to one parcel comprised
of 0.905 acres after right-of-way dedications. The PCC COM-2 designation applies
to one parcel comprised of 1.549 acres after right-of-way dedications. The PCC
COM-3 designation applies to one parcel comprised of acres after 0.728 acres
after right-of-way dedications. The PCC MU-1 designation applies to two parcels
comprised of 1.806 acres after right-of-way dedications.
The Project includes completion of a roadway widening on Mariposa Avenue and
the addition of a new eastbound dedicated right -turn only travel lane that turns
south onto Pacific Coast Highway. The Project also includes roadway widening on
Holly Avenue.
SECTION 3: Environmental AssessmentlCalifornia Environmental Quality Act. The City
Council makes the following findings based on the whole of the administrative record:
A. The City completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Pacific Coast
Commons Specific Plan project. A noticed public scoping meeting was held on
June 10, 2020 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15083. A Notice of Preparation of
the DEIR was circulated for public review from May 26, 2020 through June 25,
2020 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15082. A Notice of Completion for the DEIR
was filed with the State Office of Planning and Research on February 25, 2021
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15085. The public comment and review period for
the DEIR was open between February 25, 2021 and April 12, 2021 in compliance
with CEQA Guidelines §15087.
B, A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) dated October 2021 was prepared
which included comments received by the City, responses to the comments,
changes to the DEIR, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The
FEIR was posted on the City's website on November 4, 2021.
RIEES01....V-UTNON INO. 5319
IF:lsge 3 of 25
C. On December 8, 2021 a letter was submitted to the City by attorney Mitchell M.
Tsai on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (the "Carpenters'
Letter") objecting to the Project.
D. At its December 9, 2021 continued public hearing, the Planning Commission was
presented with an additional letter commenting on the FEIR. The letter was
received from a law firm representing the "Supporters Alliance For Environmental
Responsibility" ("SAFER"). The Planning Commission continued the public
hearing in order to allow adequate time for the preparation of substantive written
responses to the comments provided in the Carpenters' Letter and the SAFER
letter. The City's environmental consultant prepared an additional document
entitled "Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
Responses to Additional Comments Received" dated January 2022 (hereafter
referred to as the "Additional Responses").
E. The DEIR, FEIR and Additional Responses are jointly referred to herein as the
EIR. At its February 10, 2022 continued public hearing, the Planning Commission
adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR for the
Pacific Coast Commons Project, make findings of fact and adopt a statement of
overriding considerations.
F. The EIR was presented to the City Council and each Councilmember has
independently reviewed and considered the EIR and its appendices prior to making
a decision on the Project. Furthermore, each Councilmember has reviewed and
considered the testimony and other additional evidence presented at or prior to the
public hearing on March 15, 2022;
G. The EIR is an accurate and complete statement of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and is in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
The EIR was prepared under the City's direction and reflects its independent
judgment and good faith analysis of the potential environmental impacts and
includes substantive and thorough responses to comments received during the
public review period, as well as responses to the Carpenters' Letter, the SAFER
letter, and oral comments made at public hearings;
H. In response to comments from the public and other public agencies, some other
minor changes have been made to the Draft EIR. Additionally, the Additional
Responses adjusted the CalEEMod land use inputs. Minor changes were made
to the tables relating to: Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions; Estimated
Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions; Localized
Significance Thresholds for Project Construction; Estimated Annual GHG
Emissions; and Estimated Operational GHG Emissions. The changes were all
insignificant, did not result in any change in determination regarding the
significance of any impact, and do not require recirculation.
I1:::1sg 4 of 25
�. In accordance with CEQA and for the reasons set forth in Section 4.1 of the
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, incorporated herein
by this reference, the City Council finds that recirculation of the EIR is not required.
J. The project would result in the following unavoidable significant adverse impacts
after mitigation:
Air Quality (AQ). The project site is located within the South Coast
Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD administers
the Air Quality Management Plan for the region which relies on
population growth estimates in the Final SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS for
the 2012-2040 period. Using population and housing estimates from
the California Department of Finance, the City has a household size
of 2.35 persons per household (DOF 2020). Assuming a household
size of 2.35 persons per household, the proposed Project's
residential units would accommodate 618 individuals upon its
anticipated full occupancy in 2025. Considering the population
growth anticipated in the 2016 RTP/SCS of 600 individuals within the
City between 2012 and 2040, the proposed Project would result in a
population growth in the City that would exceed the growth
assumptions in the 2016 RTP/SCS, and would thereby exceed the
population growth assumptions in the AQMP. There are no feasible
mitigation measures for population growth. As a result, for the
purposes of CEQA analysis, the proposed Project will have a
significant and unavoidable impact with regard to AQ.
K. The City's obligations to make findings and adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081(a) and
CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093 are met by the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations incorporated herein by this reference. The
City Council concurs with the findings set forth therein, including that the
alternatives are infeasible for the reasons stated.
L. The City Council has weighed and considered the project's benefits against its
significant and unavoidable impacts. The City Council finds that the proposed
project's benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts and, therefore,
that those impacts are acceptable in light of the proposed project's benefits as set
forth in Section 5 of the of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Flage 5 of 25
SECTION 4: General Plan Consistency Findings. The City Council finds that the
proposed Project will further the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and
not obstruct their attainment. The Project's consistency with the General Plan is analyzed
below:
A. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Goal ED1: To create in El Segundo a strong, healthy economic
community in which all diverse stakeholders may benefit.
Objective ED1-1 To build support and cooperation among the City of El
Segundo and its business and residential communities for
the mutual benefits derived from the maintenance and
expansion of El Segundo's economic base.
Policy ED1-1.1: Maintain economic development as one of the City's and
the business and residential communities' top priorities.
Policy ED1-2.1; Seek to expand El Segundo's retail and commercial base
so that the diverse needs of the City's business and
residential communities are met.
Policy ED1-2.2: Maintain and promote land uses that improve the City's
tax base, balancing economic development and quality of
life goals.
Analysis: In order to have a strong economic base and maintain and attract
high -caliber businesses, there needs to be housing for employees in nearby
areas. The provision of 263 new housing units, ranging in size from studio
units to townhome style condominiums, including 32 affordable units,
provides new housing opportunities that will help maintain and expand the
City's business community. The addition of new residents will help support
the local businesses in the area. The redevelopment of the project area,
from unused buildings and surface parking lots, along with new commercial
development, will add to the City's tax base allowing the City to continue
providing high quality services to the residents and daytime population.
B. LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU1-5.8: Innovative land development and design techniques as
well as new materials and construction methods should
be encouraged.
Goal LU3: Promote the health, safety, and well-being of the people of El
Segundo by adopting standards for the proper balance, relationship, and
distribution of the residential land uses.
Objective LU3-1: Preserve, protect, and extend, if possible, existing Single -
Family Residential uses.
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 6 of 25
Policy LU3-2.1: Promote construction of high -quality Multi -Family
Residential development with ample open space, leisure
and recreational facilities.
Policy LU3-2.2: Multi -family development will be located only in
appropriate places and evaluated carefully to ensure that
these developments are not detrimental to the existing
single-family character.
Objective LU3-3.1: Adopt and enforce recreational area requirements for
large multiple unit developments.
Analysis. The project is located on the eastern edge of the residential area
of the City, adjacent to multi -family development and will not impact existing
single-family neighborhoods. The project will be of the highest quality
residential development with common space areas such as pools,
courtyards, and a community center.
Goal LU4: Provide a stable tax base for the City through development of
new commercial uses, primarily within a mixed -use environment, without
adversely affecting the viability of Downtown.
Objective LU4-I.Promote the development of high -quality retail facilities in
proximity to major employment centers.
Policy LU4-1.1: Require landscaping, its maintenance, and permanent
upkeep on all new commercial developments.
Policy LU4-1.2: All commercial facilities shall be built and maintained in
accordance with Health and Safety Code requirements
and shall meet seismic safety regulations and
environmental regulations.
Policy LU4-1.4 New commercial developments shall meet seismic safety
standards and regulations, as well as comply with all
noise, air quality, water and environmental regulations.
Analysis: The project is a mixed -use project, mixing residential and
commercial development on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway. The
commercial development will serve the new residents and adjacent
business community and not detract from the businesses in Downtown.
The developments will be required to maintain the landscape and premises
and all buildings will be constructed to meet the most current building code
requirements as well as be designed to comply with all environmental
regulations.
Objective LU4-4. Provide areas where development has the flexibility to
mix uses, in an effort to provide synergistic relationships
which have the potential to maximize economic benefit,
reduce traffic impacts, and encourage pedestrian
RIES ILU N NO. 5319
Page 'i of 25
environments.
Policy LU4-4.6: Promote mixed -use development near transit nodes and
encourage modes of transportation that do not require an
automobile.
Analysis: The project is located along a major bus route corridor and
approximately % mile from a Green Line Station and within close proximity
to major employment centers allowing for people to walk, ride bicycles,
and/or use public transportation. Additionally, as the project is mixed -use,
there will be amenities for the resident population on -site, thereby reducing
vehicular trips.
Goal LU7: Provide the highest quality public facilities, services, and
public infrastructure possible to the community.
Policy LU7-1.2: No new development shall be allowed unless adequate
public facilities are in place or provided for.
Policy LU7-2.3: All new development shall place utilities underground.
Analysis: The project will be required to pay public facility impact fees,
including for facilities, vehicles, and equipment for law enforcement, fire
suppression, and general services, as well as libraries, community centers,
and road projects.
C. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Goal Cl: Provide a safe, convenient, and cost-effective circulation
system to serve the present and future circulation needs of the El Segundo
community.
Objective C1-1.: Provide a roadway system that accommodates the City's
existing and project land use and circulation needs.
Policy C1-1.8: Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas
with efficient and safe access to the major regional
transportation facilities.
Policy C1-1.9: Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas
with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles.
Policy C1-1.14. Require a full evaluation of potential traffic impacts
associated with proposed new developments prior to
project approval. Further require the implementation of
appropriate mitigation measures prior to, or in conjunction
with project development. Mitigation measures may
include new roadway links on segments that would
connect the new development to the existing roadway
system, intersection improvements, and other measures.
Mitigation measures shall be provided by or paid for by
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 8 of 25
the project developer.
Objective C1-3: Ensure that the City's Master Plan Truck Route System
efficiently serves the shipping needs of the commercial
and industrial land uses in El Segundo while balancing
potential conflicts with residential and recreation land
uses throughout the City.
Policy C1-3.2: Ensure that the development review process incorporates
consideration of off-street commercial loading
requirements for all new projects.
Objective C2-1: Provide a pedestrian circulation system to support and
encourage walking as a safe and convenient travel mode
within the City's circulation system.
Policy C2-1.6: Encourage shopping areas to design their facilities for
ease of pedestrian access.
Policy C2-1.7; Closely monitor design practices to ensure a clear
pedestrian walking area by minimizing obstructions,
especially in the vicinity of intersections.
Objective C2-2: Provide a bikeway system throughout the City to
support and encourage the use of the bicycle as a safe and convenient
travel mode within the City's circulation system.
Policy C2-2.1:
Implement the recommendations on the Bicycle Master
Plan contained in the Circulation Element, as the
availability arises; i.e., through development, private
grants, signing of shared routes.
Policy C2-2.2:
Encourage new development to provide facilities for
bicyclists to park and store their bicycles and provide
shower and clothes changing facilities at or close to the
bicyclist's work destination.
Policy C2-5.1:
Ensure that Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures are considered during the evaluation of new
developments within the City, including but not limited to
ridesharing, carpooling and vanpooling, flexible work
schedules, telecommuting and car/vanpool preferential
parking.
Policy C3-1.8.
Require the provision of adequate pedestrian and bicycle
access for new development projects through the
development review process.
Policy C3-2.1.
Ensure the provision of sufficient on -site parking in all new
development.
Analysis: The project was thoroughly reviewed by the City's Development
Services Department to ensure the adequacy of parking facilities and
pedestrian access and also reviewed by the Fire and Police Department.
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 9 of 25
FBI
E
F
A parking study was provided to demonstrate the adequacy of the parking.
The project will provide 70 bicycle parking spaces for residents and guests.
The sidewalks along Pacific Coast Highway are 12 feet wide, allowing for a
pedestrian -friendly environment for the mixed -use development. The
project will include a widening of eastbound Mariposa Avenue, approaching
Pacific Coast Highway, to include a right -turn only lane. Additionally, the
project will provide dedications and irrevocable offers of dedication for other
right-of-way improvements.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Goal 3: Provide opportunities for new housing construction in a variety of
locations and a variety of densities in accordance with the land use
designations and policies in the Land Use Element.
Analysis: The project provides a variety of new housing opportunities,
including 32 affordable units, at the eastern edge of the City's residential
area along Pacific Coast Highway, along with densities that are not
realistically achievable in other areas of the City.
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ELEMENT
Goal OS1: Provide and maintain high quality open space and recreational
facilities that meet the needs of the existing and future residents and
employees within the City of El Segundo.
Analysis: The project will pay impact fees, including those for libraries,
public use facilities, and parks/open space and recreation facilities.
Additionally, the project will provide common open space areas including
rooftop pools, courtyards and community rooms which would provide an
alternative to public parks and recreational facilities.
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Policy CN2-5: Require new construction and development to install
water -conserving fixtures and appliances to reduce the
amount of new demand.
Policy CN2-7: Require new construction and development to
incorporate the principles and practices of sound
landscape design and management, particularly those
conserving water and energy.
Policy CN2-8; Encourage the retrofitting of existing landscapes to
incorporate the principles and practices of sound
landscape design and management, particularly those
conserving water and energy.
Policy CN2-11: Encourage, whenever appropriate and feasible,
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 10 of 25
development techniques which minimize surface run-off
and allow replenishment of soil moisture. Such
techniques may include, but not be limited to, the on -site
use and retention of storm water, the use of pervious
paving material (such as walk -on -bark, pea gravel, and
cobble mulches), the preservation of vegetative covers,
and efficiently designed and managed irrigation systems.
Analysis: The project will comply with all requirements of the Cal -Green
Code, including the installation of water -saving fixtures, as well as comply
with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, and low -
impact development requirements.
G. AIR QUALITY ELEMENT
Goal AQ3: Vehicle work trip reduction for private employees.
Objective AQ-3-1: Increase the proportion of work trips made by transit.
Analysis: The project is located along a major bus route corridor and
approximately % mile from a Green Line Station and within close proximity
to major employment centers allowing for people to walk, ride bicycles,
and/or use public transportation. Additionally, as the project is mixed -use,
there will be amenities for the resident population on -site, thereby reducing
vehicular trips.
Goal AQ12: Reduction in Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Energy
Consumption.
Objective AQ-12-1: Enact the recommendations of the AQMP Energy
Working Group for commercial and residential buildings
and adopt ordinances to mitigate air quality impacts from
water and pool heating systems.
Policy AQ-12-1.2:It is the policy of the City of El Segundo that the City
encourage the incorporation of energy conservation
features in the design of new projects and the installation
of conservation devices in existing developments.
Analysis: The project will comply with Cal -Green requirements. There will
be 200 EV capable spaces, including 50 installed EV chargers across the
PCC Specific Plan area. Additionally, solar panels will be installed in both
the PCC North and PCC South developments that will generate sufficient
power for their respective common area power needs.
H. NOISE ELEMENT
Goal N1: Encourage a high quality environment within all parts of the
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 11 of 25
City of El Segundo where the public's health, safety, and welfare are not
adversely affected by excessive noise.
Objective N1-1: It is the objective of the City of El Segundo to ensure that
City residents are not exposed to mobile noise levels in
excess of the interior and exterior noise standards or the
single event noise standards specified in the El Segundo
Municipal Code.
Objective N1-2: It is the objective of the City of El Segundo to ensure that
City residents are not exposed to stationary noise levels
in excess of El Segundo's Noise Ordinance standards.
Policy N1-2.1: Require all new projects to meet the City's Noise
Ordinance Standards as a condition of building permit
approval.
Program N1-2.1A: Address noise impacts in all environmental documents
for discretionary approval projects, to ensure that noise
sources meet City Noise Ordinance standards. These
sources may include mechanical or electrical equipment,
truck loading areas, or outdoor speaker systems.
Analysis: The project underwent a thorough environmental analysis,
including for noise, and it was determined that there would not be significant
noise impacts. The project will be designed to meet the City's noise
standards.
PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS1: Protect the public health and safety and minimize the social
and economic impacts associated with geologic hazards.
Objective PSI-1: It is the objective of the City of El Segundo to reduce
exposure to potentially hazardous geological conditions
through land use planning and project review.
Policy PS1-1.1: Continue to review proposals for new development and
for the expansion of existing development in areas of
potential geological hazards.
Program PS1-1.1A: The City shall review projects to ensure that slope
design considers the potential effects of high rainfall,
private sewage systems, landscaping irrigation, and
possible runoff from adjacent future development.
Policy PS1-1.2: Enforce, monitor and improve development standards
which place the responsibility on the developer, with
advice from qualified engineers and geologists, to
develop and implement adequate mitigation measures as
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 12 of 25
conditions for project approval.
Program PS1-1.2A: The City shall review projects to ensure that adequate
geotechnical investigation has been completed in areas
susceptible to land sliding and debris flows and in areas
where collapsible or expansive soils occur, and to
approve only those which mitigate these hazards to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Policy PS2-1.2: The City shall assist in the prevention of structural
damage in areas with a high potential for liquefaction,
landslides, and mudslides by requiring geotechnical
studies for new development to mitigate potential
impacts.
Analysis: The project underwent a thorough environmental review, including
for geological issues and it was determined that by following the building
codes, no mitigation measures were required.
Goal PS6: A fire safe community.
Objective PS6-1: It is the objective of the City of El Segundo that the City
minimize threats to public safety and protect property
from wildland and urban fires.
Policy PS6-1.1: Review projects and development proposals, and
upgrade fire prevention standards and mitigation
measures in areas of high urban fire hazard.
Policy PS6-1.2: Continue efforts to reduce fire hazards associated with
older buildings, high-rise buildings, and fire -prone
industrial facilities, and maintain adequate fire protection
in all areas of the City. Review projects and development
proposals, and upgrade fire prevention standards and
mitigation measures in areas of high urban fire hazard.
Program PS6-1.2C: The City shall continue to require that all property be
maintained in compliance with the fire code.
Analysis: The project will comply with the most current version of the
California Fire Code, as adopted by the City.
Goal PS7: Protect public health, safety, and welfare, and minimize loss
of life, injury, property damage, and disruption of vital services, resulting
from earthquakes, hazardous material incidents, and other natural and
man-made disasters.
Analysis: The project will be built to the most current version of the California
Building Code to protect against disasters such as earthquakes. Mitigation
measures will be imposed to protect against the release of hazardous
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 13 of 25
materials.
SECTION 5: General Plan Amendment Findings. In accordance with Government Code
section 65358, and based on the findings set forth in Sections 2 and 4, together with the
evidence in the administrative record as a whole, the City Council finds that amendment
of the General Plan and the General Plan Map to change the land use designation from
General Commercial and Parking to Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan and to update
the text of the General Plan, is in the public interest and consistent with other provisions
of the General Plan.
SECTION 6: Subdivision. With respect to Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 82806)
(SUB 19-03), attached as Exhibit "F," the City Council finds that the evidence in the record
does not support any of the findings for denial set forth in ESMC § 14-1-6:
A. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as
specified in Government Code § 65451. As set forth in Section 4 of this Resolution,
this project generally meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan and it is
consistent with the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract
Map (VTTM) No. 82806 proposes 6 new lots. The proposed lots vary in size and
meet the minimum lot size requirements established in the Pacific Coast Commons
Specific Plan.
B. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans. As set forth in Section 4, the design of this subdivision and the
proposed development project meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development in that the
proposed lots meet the size and dimension requirements to allow the subdivision
of the existing project site. The previous land use designation was General
Commercial and Parking and the zoning designation for the property was General
Commercial (C-3) and Parking (P). The new Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan
allows for the continued operation of the two existing hotels (Fairfield Inn and
Suites and Aloft) and allows for both new multiple -family residential uses and
expanded commercial development that is consistent with existing development
surrounding the Project area.
D. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The
proposed project involves subdivision of an approximately 6.385-acre project site
into 6 parcels. The Specific Plan allows 622,398 gross square feet of development
including 282,398 square feet of existing development that will remain. The
proposed maximum development density is a 2.70 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) after
dedications for right-of-way improvements. The Specific Plan allows a maximum
of two hundred sixty-three (263) residential dwelling units located among two of
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 14 of 25
the Land Use Districts within the Specific Plan. This density is consistent with the
Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan. Each new lot will meet or exceed the
minimum size and dimension requirements.
E. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is unlikely to cause
substantial damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat. The proposed project site is comprised of two blocks and is currently
improved with two existing hotels and an existing paved parking lot. The block
bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Holly Avenue, Indiana Street and Mariposa
Avenue contains the 350-room Fairfield Inn and Suites and the 246-room Aloft
hotels totaling approximately 325,000 gross square feet combined. The portion of
the project site on the block to the north of the hotels on the north side of Mariposa
Avenue contains the paved surface parking lot. No trees are located on the parking
lot site. The project site is also predominately surrounded by developed urban land
permanently altered with buildings, roads and hardscape. There are no fish or
wildlife habitats on the site that could be damaged by the proposed subdivision or
new development.
F. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements authorized are not
likely to cause serious public health problems. Vesting Tentative Tract Map
(VTTM) No. 82806 proposes 6 new lots. The proposed lots vary in size and meet
the minimum lot size requirements established in the Pacific Coast Commons
Specific Plan. The subdivision will facilitate a development project consisting of
four new buildings consisting of 257 apartment units, 6 townhome condominium
units, 11,252 square feet of commercial uses, and parking structures containing
792 parking spaces. The development project is consistent with all the
development standards in the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan. Before
issuance of permits for construction detailed project plans will be submitted and
reviewed for compliance with the California Building and Fire Codes and all other
applicable safety codes. Furthermore, the development project's potential
environmental impacts were evaluated pursuant to CEQA and mitigation
measures will be implemented to reduce all impacts to the maximum extent
feasible.
G. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision. The proposed subdivision is not anticipated to conflict with any known
easements located at or near the property.
SECTION 7. Site Plan Review Findings. With respect to Site Plan Review No. SPR 19-
01, the City Council finds:
A. The proposed development is consistent with the general plan, any applicable
specific plan and the Zoning Code
RIE WILUMIN INO. 5319
IPage 15 of 25
The proposed development is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of
the general plan. A specific plan (the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan) is
applicable to the property involved in the proposed development which is
consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the general plan. The Pacific
Coast Commons Specific Plan establishes the development standards and the
design standards. The development project for the project site is consistent with
the development standards and design guidelines of the Pacific Coast Commons
Specific Plan.
The land use designation of the project site under the general plan will be the
Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (PCCSP) Zone. The PCCSP has 5 districts
within the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (PCCSP) Zone (see Chapter III
Land Use Plan in the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan). The 5 districts are:
PCC Mixed -Use 1 (PCC MU-1), PCC Commercial-1 (PCC COM-1), PCC
Commercial-2 (PCC COM-2), PCC Commercial-3 (PCC COM-3), and PCC Mixed -
Use 2 (PCC MU-2).
The PCC MU-1 is a mixed -use district that permits a maximum of 120 apartments
and various commercial uses generally in the categories of retail, restaurant and
office uses.
The PCC Commercial-1 (PCC COM-1) allows hotels and several other commercial
uses that either accessory to hotel uses or complementary and compatible
commercial uses. PCC COM-1 contains the existing Aloft Hotel which will remain.
The PCC Commercial-2 (PCC COM-2) allows hotels and several other commercial
uses that either accessory to hotel uses or complementary and compatible
commercial uses. PCC COM-2 contains the existing Fairfield Inn and Suites Hotel
which will remain.
The PCC Commercial-3 (PCC COM-3) allows hotels and several other commercial
uses that either accessory to hotel uses or complementary and compatible
commercial uses.
The PCC MU-2 is a mixed -use district that permits a maximum of 137 apartments
and 6 townhomes, and various commercial uses generally in the categories of
retail, restaurant and office uses.
The proposed development is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of
the general plan as outlined in Chapter 11 Section C of the Pacific Coast Commons
Specific Plan.
B. The project is functionally compatible with the area in which it is located.
The project is functionally compatible with the area in which it is located as the
RIEm 0LUT9 N NO. 5319
Page 16 of 2
project site already has 2 existing hotels. The project site has commercial retail
and restaurant uses to the north and south of the project site on the same side of
the street and a mix of office uses, and commercial retail and restaurants across
the street. Additionally, the project site is located on a portion of Pacific Coast
Highway between Grand Avenue and Imperial Highway that is primarily zoned
General Commercial (C-3) that allows a mix of office, hotel, retail and restaurant
uses. The subject site is currently zoned General Commercial (C-3) and Parking
(P) Zone. Multi -family residential uses are located to the west, southwest and
northwest of the project site.
C. The proposed development will not adversely affect the general welfare of the City.
The proposed development will not adversely affect the general welfare of the City
in that the existing hotels that will remain are permitted uses both under the existing
zoning and in the proposed Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (PCCSP). The
proposed new multi -family residential apartments, townhomes, commercial uses,
and parking structures are designed in compliance with the development
standards and design standards in the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan Zone
and its 5 Districts. All of the proposed multi -family uses will be permitted by right
as specified in the new PCCSP. The commercial uses will either be permitted by
right or by Conditional Use Permit in the PCCSP depending upon the individual
type of commercial use.
The physical improvements have been designed to comply with all building code
regulations, the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan and the City's General Plan.
The site has adequate and safe ingress and egress via multiple driveways along
the street frontages of the property and a minimum of one driveway for each legal
parcel). The project site has street frontage on Pacific Coast Highway, Mariposa
Avenue, Holly Avenue, Indiana Street and Palm Avenue.
Additionally, the project site is surrounded by developed urban land permanently
altered with buildings, roads and hardscape. There are no fish or wildlife habitats
on the site that could be damaged by the proposed subdivision or new
development.
SECTION 8. Parking Demand Study and Shared Parking Use Findings. With respect to
the Parking Demand Study and Shared Parking Use attached hereto as Exhibit "G," the
City Council finds:
A. The parking demand study for shared use demonstrates that no substantial conflict
will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for the uses in which joint use is
proposed.
A Parking Demand Study and Shared Use Parking Analysis ("Study") was
prepared dated February 17, 2021 for the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 17 of 25
("Plan"). The Study assessed the parking demand for the three new development
sites ("Fairfield Parking Site", "PCC South Site" and "PCC North Site") within the
Plan boundaries along with the existing peak parking demand for the two existing
hotel uses. The two hotels, other commercial uses, and the guest parking for the
multiple -family residential apartments will share parking spaces in the three
parking structures that will be located on Lots 1, 4, and 5 of Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 82806 (PCC South Site, Fairfield Parking Site and PCC North Site
respectively). Assigned parking will be provided for the tenants of the multiple -
family residences except for 5 unassigned parking spaces each in the PCC South
Site and PCC North Site parking structures. The townhomes have their own two -
car garages for the residents. The guest parking for the townhomes will be
provided on Lot 5 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 82806 (PCC North Site) as
part of the joint use parking shared with the hotels, other commercial uses, and
multiple -family residential guest parking.
The Study determined the peak parking demand rate for Pacific Coast Commons.
Peak parking for the two existing hotels was calculated using empirical data
collected at the hotel sites in May 2019 based upon the total number of parking
spaces and total number of rooms occupied to develop a peak parking rate. Peak
parking demand for the commercial uses (other than the hotels) and all of the
residential uses were then evaluated for peak occupancy based upon ITE 5tn
edition peak parking demand again using conservative analysis that did not take
any discount for proximity to transit service, internal capture or mode split.
Parking rates for commercial uses such as retail and restaurants were based upon
El Segundo Municipal Code requirements as referenced in the Pacific Coast
Commons Specific Plan. Parking rates for all the residential uses were based
upon requirements in the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan which is a modified
residential requirement based on unit type/number of bedrooms which is more
conservative than the parking demand rate.
The PCC Fairfield Site will provide 215 parking spaces and it will have a peak
parking demand of 191 spaces, leaving a 24-space surplus during the peak
parking demand period. The PCC North Site will provide 241 parking spaces and
it will have a peak parking demand of 160 residential parking spaces and a peak
shared parking demand for 49 spaces for all other uses for a total demand of 209
spaces. However, because 189 parking spaces at the PCC North Site are
reserved exclusively for residential use, there will only be a 3-space surplus. The
PCC South Site will provide 336 parking spaces and it will have a peak parking
demand of 144 residential parking spaces and a peak shared parking demand for
192 spaces for all other uses for a total demand of 336 spaces. However, because
165 parking spaces at the PCC South Site are reserved exclusively for residential
use, there will be a 21-space deficit for the guest parking and commercial uses at
the peak period. This 21-space deficit will be accommodated however by the 24-
space surplus at the Fairfield Parking Site and if needed, the 3-space surplus at
the PCC North Site. There will be a net 6-space surplus for joint uses among all
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 18 of 25
three parking structures. Therefore, the parking demand study for shared use
demonstrated that there will not be substantial conflict in the peak hours of parking
demand for the uses in which joint use is proposed.
B. The number of parking stalls which may be credited against the requirements of
the structures or uses involved will not exceed the number of stalls reasonably
anticipated to be available during different hours of operation; and
The PCC Fairfield Site will provide 215 parking spaces and it will have a peak
parking demand of 191 spaces, leaving a 24-space surplus during the peak
parking demand period. The PCC North Site will provide 241 parking spaces and
it will have a peak parking demand of 160 residential parking spaces and a peak
shared parking demand for 49 spaces for all other uses for a total demand of 209
spaces. Due to additional assigned residential parking above the peak demand
period requirements to comply with the development standards, the PCC North
Site will have a net 3-space surplus during the peak parking demand period. The
PCC South Site will provide 336 parking spaces and it will have a peak parking
demand of 144 residential parking spaces and a peak shared parking demand for
192 spaces for all other uses for a total demand of 336 spaces. However, because
165 parking spaces at the PCC South Site are reserved exclusively for residential
use, there will be a 21-space deficit for the guest parking and commercial uses at
the peak period. This 21-space deficit will be accommodated however by the 24-
space surplus at the Fairfield Parking Site and if needed, the 3-space surplus at
the PCC North Site. There will be a net 6-space surplus for joint uses among all
three parking structures.
The peak period demand analysis was conservative as it did not take any
adjustments to discount for proximity to transit service, internal capture, or mode
split but did take into account time of day, seasonal variations, and average auto
occupancy for the hotel demand rates. Therefore, the analysis demonstrated that
the number of parking stalls for the joint uses would not exceed the number of
stalls reasonably anticipated to be available during different hours of operation.
C, A written agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, must be executed
by all parties concerned assuming the continued availability of the number of stalls
designed for joint use.
Each of the three parking structures that will be located on Lots 1, 4, and 5 of
Vesting Map No. 82806 in the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan will be used
for overflow parking if needed because of on -site parking demand exceeding on -
site parking supply for the joint uses as described above. A Shared Use Parking
Agreement will be prepared and reviewed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney
and then executed and recorded.
SECTION 9. Street Dedication Waivers.
ESOII....V..UTIION NO. 5319
Page 19 of 25
A. As indicated on the Street Dedication Waivers request attached hereto as Exhibit
"H," the applicant is requesting the following waivers:
A 3-foot waiver of the 7-foot dedication along the eastern side of Indiana
Street only along the project frontage of Lot 1 of Vesting Tentative Map. No.
82806 resulting in a required 4-foot dedication.
2. A 3-foot waiver of the 7-foot dedication along the eastern side of Indiana
Street only along the project frontage of Lot 4 of Vesting Tentative Map. No.
82806 resulting in a required 4-foot dedication.
3, A 7-foot waiver of the 7-foot dedication along the eastern side of Indiana
Street only along the project frontage of Lots 2 and 3 of Vesting Tentative
Map No. 82806 resulting in a 0-foot dedication.
4, A 3-foot waiver of the 7-foot dedication on the south side of Mariposa Avenue
along the project frontage of Lot 4 of Vesting Tentative Map. No. 82806
resulting in a minimum dedication of 4 feet near Indiana Street to a maximum
dedication of 12 feet near Pacific Coast Highway to accommodate the
proposed 10-foot wide right -turn only lane and 2-foot widening and
reconfiguration of the two existing lanes in compliance with the Circulation
Element requirements.
B. Findings for Approval of Street Dedication Waiver Request. In connection with this
request, the City Council makes the following findings:
1. The proposed waiver maintains the minimum roadway width necessary for
emergency vehicle access as determined by the fire chief;
The proposed waivers maintain the minimum roadway width necessary for
emergency vehicle access. Mariposa Avenue will be widened to a minimum
40' curb -to -curb street width and Indiana Street will maintain a 34-foot
roadway width, which meets the required 26' clear width needed.
2. The proposed waiver maintains the minimum roadway width and lane width
deemed necessary for safe two -directional vehicular passage. The minimum
lane width cannot be less than ten (10') feet in width for a travel lane and eight
(8') feet in width for a parking lane;
The minimum lane width and parking width standards will be achieved on
Mariposa Avenue and Indiana Street with all proposed travel lanes being a
minimum of 10-feet wide and proposed parking lanes being a minimum of 8-
feet wide.
IRIESOIL.UT01N NO. 531
Page 20 of 25
3, The proposed waiver will maintain the necessary roadway width for the traffic
volumes projected during the general plan buildout as determined by the
director of development services unless the director determines that the
dedication or irrevocable offer to dedicate will require the removal will require
the removal of all or a portion of an existing building;
The proposed waivers will maintain the necessary roadway widths for the
projected traffic volumes. The traffic study prepared as part of this project's
application process has indicated that the surrounding streets can
accommodate the projected traffic volumes.
4. The proposed waiver complies with any requirements of state and federal
regulations, including without limitation, disabled access requirements for
public sidewalks;
Public sidewalks surrounding the project site are a minimum of 5 feet, which
complies with state and federal regulations. Additionally, the applicant is
required to provide a minimum 4-foot sidewalk clearance around any
obstruction in the sidewalk (i.e. posts, power poles, etc.) along any property
frontage where new construction is taking place.
5. The proposed waiver would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or district
in which the property is located;
A thorough evaluation by the Department of Public Works has revealed no
evidence that these waivers would be detrimental to the neighborhood in
which this project is located.
6. That the proposed waiver is necessary in order that the applicant is not
unreasonably deprived the use or enjoyment of his property;
Provision of full dedications along Indiana Street and Mariposa Avenue would
have the following impacts on the existing and proposed structures on the
project site:
a. Along Indiana Street, there are existing buildings with a 0-foot setback
from the property line. Any dedication along this frontage would require
demolition of the existing buildings.
b. Along the portions of Indiana Street and Mariposa Avenue where new
development is proposed, additional dedication would reduce the
buildable area on the Project site. Due to the narrow dimensions of the
Project site, any additional reductions in those dimensions would create
significant design issues with ramp design in the proposed parking
structures and/or reduce the number of parking spaces that could be
provided for the existing and proposed uses on the Project site. Further,
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 21 of 25
additional dedication would substantially impact the design and size of
proposed residential and commercial uses on the Project site. Finally,
the above changes to the project design would jeopardize the financial
feasibility of the Project. Therefore, the proposed waivers are necessary
in order that the applicant is not unreasonably deprived use of their
property.
7. The proposed waiver is consistent with the legislative intent of this title [Title
15].
The proposed waiver is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 15 in that
the proposed waiver will still allow roadways and sidewalks along the Project
site in compliance with the minimum width standards for local commercial
streets specified in the Circulation Element.
SECTION 10: Approvals. Based upon the foregoing and the evidence in the record as
a whole, the City Council takes the following actions:
A. The City Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report for Environmental
Assessment No. 1248 consisting of the DEIR, the FEIR, and the Additional
Responses; adopts the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
dated February 2022, incorporating the facts set forth in Section 3 of this
resolution; and
B. The City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. GPA 19-01 for the
Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan and Pacific Coast Commons mixed -use
project as set forth in Exhibits "B" through "E"; and
C, The City Council approves Subdivision No. SUB 19-03 (VTTM 82806) as set forth
in Exhibit "F," Site Plan Review No. SPR 19-01, dated 10.29,2021, Parking
Demand Study and Shared Parking Analysis as set forth in Exhibit "G," and waiver
of public right-of-way dedications for the Pacific Coast Commons mixed -use
project as set forth in Exhibit "H," all subject to the conditions of approval set forth
in Exhibit "A."
SECTION 11: Exhibits. This Resolution includes the following exhibits which are
attached hereto and a part hereof:
A. Project Conditions of Approval
B. Amendment to General Plan Land Use Designations
C. Amendment to General Plan Land Use Plan Northwest Quadrant subsection
D. Amendment to 1992 General Plan Summary of Existing Trends Build -out
E. Amendment to General Plan Land Use Map
F. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 82806
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 22 of 25
G. Parking Demand Study and Shared Parking Analysis
H. Street Dedication Map, including waivers
In addition to the Exhibits listed above, this Resolution also includes by reference:
A. The EIR as described in Section 3, above
B. The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration, dated February
2022
C. The Site Plan dated 10.29.2021
SECTION 12: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determination
in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and
written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and
determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council
in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the
record as a whole.
SECTION 13: Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the project is
based on information available at the time of the decision. It is inevitable that in evaluating
a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will
not exist. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions.
SECTION 14. Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings,
which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The
absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular
finding is not based in part on that fact.
SECTION 15: Effective Date.
A. The Council's certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Coast
Commons Project will take effect immediately upon adoption of this Resolution.
B. General Plan Amendment No. 19-01 will take effect 30 days after the adoption of
this Resolution.
C. Subdivision No. SUB 19-03 (VTTM 82806), Site Plan Review No. SPR 19-01, the
Parking Demand Study and Shared Parking Analysis, and the waiver of public right-of-
way dedications (collectively, the "Entitlements") will take effect immediately upon the
effective date of Ordinance No. 1635 approving the Zone Change, Zone Text
Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan, and
related development agreement for the Pacific Coast Commons Project. The adoption
and effectiveness of Ordinance No. 1635 are conditions precedent to the Entitlements
taking effect.
IRE OILUT� ON NO. 5319
IPage 23 of 25
SECTION 16: The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15t" day of March 2022.
n�
ell
Drew Boyle` ayor
ATTEST:
(i
louff �
Tracy WeaNMr, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:.
Mark D. Hesley, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 24 of 25
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. 5319 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by said City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 15t" day of March, 2022, approved and signed by the Mayor,
and attested to by the City Clerk, by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Boyles, Mayor Pro Tern Pimentel, Council Member Pirsztuk,
Council Member Nicol and Council Member Giroux
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF SAID CITY this day of March,
2022.
'MIA uk6
Tra6y Weaver, City Clerk
of the City of El Segundo,
California
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
Page 25 of 25
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In addition to all applicable provisions of the El Segundo Municipal Code ("ESMC"), the
Applicant agrees to comply with the following provisions as conditions for the City of El
Segundo's approval of Environmental Impact Report for Environmental Assessment No.
EA-1248, General Plan Amendment and General Plan Map Amendment No. GPA 19-01,
Specific Plan No. SP 19-01, Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment No. ZC 19-01,
Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 19-08, Development Agreement No. DA 19-02,
Subdivision No. SUB 19-03 for Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) No. 82806, Site Plan Review
No. SPR 19-01, Parking Demand Study and Shared Parking Analysis, and Waiver of
public right-of-way dedications for the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan and mixed -
use development project ("Project Conditions").
This approval is for the project as shown on the plans dated October 7, 2021, and
on file with the Development Services Department.
2. Before the City issues a building, grading, and/or demolition permit for each
building site within the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (PCCSP), the
applicant must submit plans, showing that the project substantially complies with
the plans and conditions of approval on file with the Development Services
Department. Any subsequent modification must be referred to the Development
Services Director for a determination regarding the need for Planning Commission
review and approval of the proposed modification.
3. This approval shall not become effective unless and until the City Council adopts
an ordinance approving Specific Plan No. SP 19-01, Zone Change No. ZC 19-01,
Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 19-08, and Development Agreement No. 19-02
and said ordinance takes effect.
4. This approval allows for the following development within the Pacific Coast
Commons Specific Plan (PCCSP) area:
a. Demolition of the existing food and beverage building in the PCC COM-2 Land
Use District and the construction of a parking structure with 3,273 gross square
feet of new commercial uses;
b. Construction of a mixed -use building consisting of 120 residential apartment
units and 5,756 gross square feet of new commercial uses and a parking
structure in the PCC MU-1 Land Use District;
c. Construction of a mixed -use building consisting of 137 residential apartment
units, 2,223 gross square feet of new commercial uses, and a parking structure
-1-
in the PCC MU-2 Land Use District;
d. Construction of a building consisting of six townhome residential condominium
units with individual garages for each unit in the PCC MU-2 Land Use District.
e. Up to 3,700 gross square feet of the total 11,252 gross square feet of
commercial floor area may be used for fast casual restaurant space. The
remainder may be used for other commercial uses allowed in the Pacific Coast
Commons Specific Plan.
A change in uses or changes in the square footages specified above, must be
referred to the Development Services Director for a determination regarding the
need for Planning Commission review and approval of the proposed changes.
5. The applicant shall comply with the requirements set forth in Ordinance 1594
(Public Art).
6. New signs proposed for each phase of the project, including monument signs, shall
be designed to conform to the sign guidelines and standards of the Pacific Coast
Commons Specific Plan. All proposed signage shall require separate application
and approval by the Development Services Director or designee. Before the City
issues any Certificate of Occupancy a master sign program for each development
phase must be approved by the Development Services Director. The Master Sign
Program for each development phase is required to include wayfinding/directional
signs to the parking structures within the Specific Plan area to the satisfaction of
the Director of Development Services. The Master Sign Program for each phase
shall be consistent in design and make clear that parking is shared throughout the
Specific Plan area.
7. All new exterior mechanical equipment shall be architecturally screened in
accordance with Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan design guidelines, to the
satisfaction of the Development Services Director.
8. All new utilities to and on the property shall be provided underground for each
phase of the project. Existing utilities in the public rights -of -way surrounding each
development phase are not required to be relocated underground.
9. Project entrances at the following locations: (i) PCC South entrances/exits on
Indiana and Pacific Coast Highway; (ii) Fairfield Parking Structure entrance/exits
on Pacific Coast Highway; and (iii) PCC North entrances/exists on Mariposa
Avenue and Palm Avenue, shall be provided with admixture colored concrete
and/or design that enhance and complement the project, to the satisfaction of the
Development Services Director.
10. A trellis or other approved covering must be maintained over any external trash
enclosure on the property. Before the City issues building permits for each phase
of the project, the applicant must submit plans for Development Services
Department review and approval that show the design of the exterior trash
enclosures and the required trellis covers. The enclosures and trellises must
comply with the PCCSP Design Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Director.
11.. The applicant shall submit a photometric lighting plan for each phase of the project
that illustrates that there is no light spillover beyond the project property line for
review and approval by the Development Services Department and the Police
Department. Exterior lighting design for the project shall comply with the Pacific
Coast Commons Specific Plan design guidelines. Light shields shall be used to
block light and reduce spill over light and glare as necessary. Light spill over on
the property shall be zero foot-candles at the property line. Prior to the final
inspection and issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule
an evening inspection with the Planning Division to verify compliance with this
requirement.
12, Each phase of the project site shall be fenced and screened during construction.
Signage to report dust, noise and other construction related problems shall be
posted on site at a location clearly visible to the public from all public streets
surrounding the Project site.
13. The applicant must comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project. A Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared as part of the environmental review for
the project. The mitigation measures of the MMRP are incorporated into these
conditions of approval by reference. All mitigation measures and conditions of
approval must be listed on the plans submitted for plan check and the plans for
which a building permit is issued.
14. Prior to any demolition, clearing, grubbing or grading or as otherwise appropriate,
the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all of the Mitigation Measures
contained in the MMRP. In the event of a conflict between the adopted mitigation
measures and these conditions of approval, the stricter of the two shall govern.
The applicant is responsible to bear all costs should a consultant be required to
manage and implement the MMRP.
15. Before the City issues building permits for each building site within the Pacific
Coast Commons Specific Plan (PCCSP), the applicant must submit site specific
landscape and irrigation plans to the Development Services Department for review
and approval to demonstrate compliance with the project plans on file with the City,
the City's Water Conservation regulations and Guidelines for Water Conservation
in Landscaping (ESMC §§10-2-1, et seq.), and the PCCSP Development
Guidelines and standards. The landscaping and irrigation must be completely
installed before the City issues a final Certificate of Occupancy.
1& The applicant must plant trees and/or other landscape materials along the entire
15-foot setback area between PCC North and the residential properties to the west
extending from Mariposa Avenue to Palm Avenue to contribute to screening and
sound attenuation. Before the City issues building permits for the PCC North site,
the applicant shall submit detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for
Development Services Director review and approval showing trees and/or other
landscape materials along the entire 15-foot setback area. The final species,
number and location of the trees shall be specified to the satisfaction of the
Director.
17. Before the City issues building permits for each building site within the PCCSP,
the applicant must submit detailed architectural plans for Development Services
Director review and approval, including fully dimensioned site plans, floor plans,
elevation, and section drawings identifying the depth of building step -backs as well
as dimensions of architectural building features, such as exterior columns,
parapets, cornices, balconies, and tower elements.
18. Before the City issues building permits for each building site within the PCCSP,
the applicant must submit detailed architectural plans for Development Services
Director review and approval that promote a pedestrian oriented design along the
Pacific Coast Highway frontage, including recessed storefronts that do not result
in the loss of square footage, but provide space for outdoor dining, outdoor retail
displays, bicycle parking and similar amenities, to the satisfaction of the Director.
19. The applicant shall replace any existing chain -linked fencing visible from the public
right-of-way with other walls and/or fencing at the time of development of the PCC
South or the Fairfield Parking, whichever occurs first. Before the City issues
building permits for either phase of the development, the applicant shall submit
plans for Development Services Director review and approval showing the
proposed replacement walls and/or fencing. The replacement walls or fencing
must be consistent with the PCCSP Design Guidelines and standards for walls and
fencing to the Director's satisfaction.
20„ With development of PCC South, the applicant shall install seating that is available
to the public along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage between Holly Avenue and
Mariposa Avenue, including in front of the Aloft Hotel and the Fairfield Hotel. Six
single -occupant chairs shall be located in front of the Fairfield Hotel in the existing
landscaped area, and four single -occupant chairs shall be located in front of the
Aloft Hotel in the existing landscaped area. Before the City issues building permits
for the PCC South phase of the development, the applicant shall submit plans for
Development Services Department review and approval showing the location,
number and proposed design of the public seating. The seating must be consistent
with the PCCSP Design Guidelines to the Director's satisfaction.
21. The applicant shall install six new trees in the Pacific Coast Highway public right-
of-way in front of the PCC South portion of the PCCSP. Before the City issues
building permits for the PCC South phase of the development, the applicant shall
submit detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for Development Services
Department review and approval showing the location and species of trees. The
IM
trees must be consistent with the City's Master Street Tree Plan to the Director's
satisfaction.
22. The applicant shall install new street trees in the Indiana Street public right-of-way
on the west side of the street between Holly Avenue and Mariposa Avenue only
within existing parkway areas with existing irrigation systems in place. Before the
City issues building permits for the PCC South phase of the development, the
applicant shall submit detailed landscaping plans for Development Services review
and approval showing the location and species of trees. The trees must be
consistent with the City's Master Street Tree Plan to the Director's satisfaction.
23. Before the City issues building permits for the townhomes in the PCC North area
of the PCCSP, the applicant shall submit detailed plans for Development Services
Director review and approval that incorporate equal detail and variety in building
planes and materials on all the elevations to the Director's satisfaction that do not
result in the loss of square footage.
24. New trash and recycling enclosures must be provided and shown on site plans
that are sufficiently large enough to store the necessary bins required for the
regular collection of commercial solid waste and recyclable materials. The site plan
with the location and dimensions of the trash and recycling enclosure and an
elevation view of the enclosure must be provided to the Development Services
Department for review and approval before the City issues building permits.
25. New ground level mechanical equipment, refuse collectors, storage tanks,
generators, and other similar facilities must be screened from view consistent with
the development standards and design guidelines contained in the Pacific Coast
Commons Specific Plan.
26. Exterior lighting must be designed to minimize off -site glare.
27. Buildings must be designed to comply with all ESMC standards for the attenuation
of interior noise.
28. Before the City issues a grading permit, building permit, or certificate of occupancy,
as applicable, the applicant must provide evidence to the Director of Development
Services that all mitigation measures in the MMRP are or will be implemented.
29. Each phase of the project must meet all design guidelines of the Specific Plan to
the satisfaction of the Director Development Services.
30. Before the City issues a certificate of occupancy for each parking structure, the
applicant must clearly identify the designated residential tenant spaces and the
spaces to be shared by retail uses, residential guests, and/or hotel guests. The
spaces shall be identified through the use of signage and stencils on the pavement
in each parking structure to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director.
-5-
31. If any portion of the Project is developed as condominiums, before the City issues
a certificate of occupancy for each of the proposed buildings the applicant shall
draft and submit CC&Rs for Development Services Director and City Attorney
review including provisions for:
a) Maintenance and cleaning of common areas and landscaping onsite;
b) Maintenance of landscaping in the public right-of-way immediately abutting the
subject property;
c) Maintenance and cleaning of the balconies of the residential units; and
d) Cleaning the public sidewalk along the Pacific Coast Highway public right-of-
way immediately abutting the commercial uses on each building site (PCC
South, Fairfield Parking and PCC North) to maintain it clear of any trash and
debris from the commercial uses and project trash facilities.
32. Before the City issues building permits for each of the building sites, the applicant
shall submit detailed plans for Development Services Director review and
approval, including the locations, materials, and colors of enhanced paving areas
on private property, in conformance with Section 5.6 of the Development
Agreement, as well as in the public right-of-way immediately abutting the subject
property. The enhanced paving must be consistent with the architectural and
landscaping plans on file with the City to the satisfaction of the Director.
33, A Shared Parking Agreement shall be prepared and reviewed and approved by
the Director of Development Services and the City Attorney. The Shared Parking
Agreement shall be recorded after the final map for Vesting Map No. 82806 has
been recorded and the Fairfield Parking Site has been constructed and received
its Certificate of Occupancy. The Shared Parking Agreement will grant Lots 1
through 5 of Vesting Map No. 82806 rights to shared use of parking provided on
Lots 1, 4 and 5 of Vesting Map No. 82806. The shared parking will be permitted
for all commercial uses and guest parking for the multi -family residential uses
located on Lot 1 and 5 of Vesting Map No. 82806. Guest parking for the townhomes
that are located on Lot 6 will be provided on Lot 5 of Vesting Map No. 82806.
The Shared Parking Agreement will rescind "Covenant and Agreement Regarding
Maintenance and Use of Off -Site Parking" for property commonly known as 629
North Sepulveda Boulevard (now known as 629 North Pacific Coast Highway),
recorded on July 1, 2015, as Instrument No. 20150792116, of Official Records,
Recorder's Office of the County of Los Angeles, California. The Shared Parking
Agreement will rescind "Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance and
Use of Off -Site Parking" for property commonly known as 629 North Sepulveda
Boulevard (now known as 629 North Pacific Coast Highway), recorded on July 1,
2015, as Instrument No. 20150792117, of Official Records, Recorder's Office of
the County of Los Angeles, California. The Shared Parking Agreement will rescind
"Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance of Parking Site" for property
commonly known as 629 North Sepulveda Boulevard (now known as 629 North
Pacific Coast Highway), recorded on April 1, 2015, as Instrument No.
M
20150351986, of Official Records, Recorder's Office of the County of Los Angeles,
California.
34, After the final map for Vesting Tentative Map No. 82806 has been recorded, a
document shall be recorded to rescind the "Covenant and Agreement to Hold
Property as One Parcel" for property commonly known as 629 North Pacific Coast
Highway (formerly 629 North Sepulveda Boulevard), recorded on April 1, 2015, as
Instrument No. 20150351988, of Official Records, Recorder's Office of the County
of Los Angeles, California.
35. A Reciprocal Easement Agreement shall be prepared to provide reciprocal access
between Lots 5 and 6 of Vesting Tract Map No. 82806 and reciprocal access to
the public rights -of -way of Palm and Mariposa Avenues. The Reciprocal
Easement Agreement shall rescind "Reciprocal Easement Agreement", recorded
on April 1, 2015, as Instrument No. 20150351989, of Official Records, Recorder's
Office of the County of Los Angeles, California. The Reciprocal Easement
Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development
Services and the City Attorney. The Reciprocal Easement Agreement shall not be
recorded until the final map for Vesting Tentative Map No. 82806 is recorded, the
Fairfield Parking Site and PCC South Site are constructed, and a building permit
is issued for the PCC North Site.
36. A positive balance shall be maintained in all project reimbursement accounts at all
times. If the balance of the Reimbursement Account(s) associated with the project
becomes negative at any time, all work on the project shall be suspended,
including the issuance of permits and project inspections, until such time as the
sufficient funds are deposited to return the account(s) to a positive balance.
Building Division Conditions
37. Before the City issues grading permits for each building site in the PCCSP, the
applicant must submit a geotechnical/soils report for that building site, along with
an associated grading plan that addresses the current code to the Development
Services Department for review and approval.
38. Before the City issues grading permits for each building site in the PCCSP, the
applicant must submit a soils report for that building site to the Development
Services Department for review and approval.
39, Before the City issues building permits for each building site in the PCCSP, the
applicant must submit plans for that building site to the Development Services
Department for review and approval showing compliance with the version of the
California Building Code, as adopted by the ESMC, in effect at the time of building
permit application.
_7-
40. Before the City issues building permits for the PCC North Site and/or the PCC
South Site ("Sites"), the applicant must show proof of Los Angeles County Health
Department approval for any public pools proposed for those Sites.
41. Each phase of the project must comply with all applicable requirements in the
California Fire Code and the International Fire Code, as adopted by the ESMC,
and El Segundo Fire Department regulations, in effect at the time of building permit
application.
4Z Before the City issues a building permit for each building site, the applicant must
submit a Fire/Life Safety Plan for that building site to the Fire Chief (or designee)
identifying fire safety precautions during demolition and construction, emergency
site access during construction, permanent fire department access, fire hydrant
locations and any existing or proposed fire sprinkler system and fire alarm
systems.
General
43. All work in the City's right-of-way or on City -owned and maintained facilities shall
require review and approval of the City Engineer or his/her designee. "City
Engineer" = City Engineer or his/her designee throughout this document.
44. The applicant shall ensure that encroachment permits are secured from the Public
Works Department/Engineering Division before commencing any and all work in
the City's public right-of-way (ROW), including lane closures.
45. Construction inspection shall be coordinated with the Public Works Inspector and
no construction shall deviate from the approved plans without approval of the City
Engineer. If plan deviations are necessary, the applicant shall provide a revised
plan or details of the proposed change for review and approval of the City Engineer
prior to construction.
46. Prior to issuing of the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure
installation of all improvements required by the Public Works Department are
inspected and approved by the City Engineer for that building site.
47. All construction -related parking shall be accommodated on -site or on other private
property. No construction related parking shall be permitted off -site in the public
right-of-way.
4& A grading and drainage plan shall be provided and stamped by a California (CA)
State -licensed civil engineer as part of the Building Permit process.
49. A utility plan for each building site shall be provided that shows all existing and
proposed utility lines and their sizes (sewer, water, gas, storm drain, electrical,
etc.), including easements, within 200 feet of the project site boundary.
50. All record drawings (PDF and CAD format) and supporting documentation shall be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division prior to scheduling the project's
final inspection for that phase.
51. Haul trucks are to use PCH north to Imperial Highway and PCH south to El
Segundo Boulevard. All three of these streets are currently designated as truck
routes in the City.
52, The applicant shall record Vesting Map No. 82806, subject to review and approval
by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Development Services.
Street Improvements & Traffic Control
53. The applicant shall dedicate to the City in fee that certain portion of real property
that includes the eastern 25 feet of Indiana Street (from the centerline of
Indiana Street) between Mariposa Avenue to the north and Holly Avenue to
the south as depicted on Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 82806. Such
dedication shall occur through and upon recordation of the Final Map.
54. The applicant shall dedicate to the City in fee that certain portion of real property
that includes the northern 25 feet of Holly Avenue (from the centerline of Holly
Avenue) between Indiana Street to the west and Pacific Coast Highway to the east
as depicted on Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 82806. Such dedication shall
occur through and upon recordation of the Final Map.
55, Before the recording of the Final Map, the applicant shall record a lot tie covenant
if any buildings are to be constructed across existing lot lines or if any building
location does not meet the development standards of the Pacific Coast Commons
Specific Plan (PCCSP) due to the location of the existing lot lines. No Certificates
of Occupancy shall be granted for any use or structure until the recording of the
Final Map.
56. General Provisions regarding dedications and improvements in Conditions 57
through 59:
a. Improvements and dedication shall be required in conjunction with the
development of the lot immediately adjacent to the street or streets where the
improvement and dedication is required.
b. The applicant shall prepare a grant deed and legal description of the land to
be dedicated, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney for any
required dedications.
c. All dedications shall be in favor of the City of El Segundo.
d. Before the issuance of a building permit for the related site, the applicant
In
shall submit Street and Public Right -of -Way Improvement Plans for review and
approval to the Director of Public Works and the Director of Development
Services. Said plans shall include any required dedications, roadway
widening, sidewalks and parkway in accordance with the conditions below,
to be developed to City standards, except as modified by these conditions.
e. All required right-of-way dedications shall be made prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building on the related site.
f. All right-of-way improvements shall be completed before the issuance of a
"Final Inspection Approval." The improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and Director of Development Services.
g. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs to modify and construct the
roadway widening and sidewalk improvements as described in conditions 57
through 59.
57. Street dedication and improvement conditions related to the development of
Lot 4 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 82806 (Pacific Coast Commons —
Fairfield Parking Site):
a. The applicant shall construct a new 10-foot wide right -turn only lane along
the south side of Mariposa Avenue, roadway widening improvements, and
a new public sidewalk.
b. The applicant shall dedicate a variable width dedication on the south side
of Mariposa Avenue ranging from a minimum of 4 feet on the west at Indiana
Street, prior to the 10-foot wide right -turn only lane, to a maximum of 12 feet
on the east at Pacific Coast Highway to accommodate the 10-foot wide right -
turn only lane and 2-foot widening and reconfiguration of the two existing
lanes in compliance with the Circulation Element requirements.
c. In addition to the 25-foot dedication required by Condition 53 above, the
applicant shall dedicate an additional 4 feet along the eastern side of Indiana
Street along the frontage of Lot 4 of Vesting Tentative Map. No. 82806.
d. Before the construction of the right-of-way improvements on the south side
of Mariposa Avenue, including the new right -turn lane that would intersect
Pacific Coast Highway and any improvements on Pacific Coast Highway,
the applicant shall obtain a Caltrans Encroachment Permit, if required, for
any alteration to Pacific Coast Highway. All alterations shall be in accordance
with relevant Caltrans Encroachment Permit requirements and conditions shall
be shown on the Final Working Drawings.
58. Street dedication and improvement conditions related to the development of
Lot 1 of Vesting Tentative Map No. 82806 (Pacific Coast Commons South
Site):
a. In addition to the 25-foot dedication required by Condition 54 above, the
applicant shall dedicate an additional 7 feet along the northern side of Holly
Avenue along the frontage of Lot 1 of Vesting Tentative Map No. 82806.
b. In addition to the 25-foot dedication required by Condition 53 above, the
applicant shall dedicate an additional 4 feet along the eastern side of Indiana
Street only along the frontage of Lot 1 of Vesting Tentative Map. No. 82806.
atoll
c. Before the construction of the right-of-way improvements on the north side of
Holly Avenue, including the 2-foot roadway widening that would intersect
Pacific Coast Highway and any improvements on Pacific Coast Highway,
the applicant shall obtain a Caltrans Encroachment Permit, if required, for
any alteration to Pacific Coast Highway. All alterations shall be in
accordance with relevant Caltrans Encroachment Permit requirements and
conditions shall be shown on the Final Working Drawings.
59. Street dedication and improvement conditions related to the development of Lot 5
and Lot 6 of Vesting Tentative Map No. 82806 (Pacific Coast Commons North
Site). These conditions shall apply with the development of Lot 5 or Lot 6,
whichever develops first:
a. The applicant shall dedicate 7 feet on the north side of Mariposa Avenue along
the frontage of Lot 5.
b. The applicant shall dedicate 12 feet on the south side of Palm Avenue along
the frontage of Lot 6.
60. The applicant shall provide reciprocal access agreements, subject to review and
approval by the City Attorney, between any parcels that do not have
independent direct vehicle access to a public right-of-way. Such agreements
shall be recorded before issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for a building
on an affected parcel.
61. All new sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway approaches, and curb ramps shall be
constructed per the latest Standard Plans for Public Works Construction (SPPWC)
"Greenbook" and City standards.
62. All existing sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway approaches, and curb ramps that are
broken or not in conformance with the latest SPPWC or City standards shall be
removed and constructed per the latest SPPWC and City standards.
63. Any obstruction located within existing curb ramps shall be relocated.
64. All unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with full -height curb, gutter
and sidewalk per SPPWC standards and City standards.
65. The applicant shall provide a minimum 4' sidewalk clearance around any
obstruction in the sidewalk i.e. posts, power poles, etc. along any property frontage
where new construction is taking place. This condition does not apply on Indiana
Street along the frontage of proposed Lot 2 and 3 of Vesting Tentative Map No.
82806.
66. PG-64-10 tack coat and hot mix asphalt shall be used for all slot paving required
next to new concrete installations. Slot paving shall be 3 feet wide and 1 foot deep,
consisting of 6 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of base.
-11-
67. The applicant shall coldmill 2" Asphalt Concrete (AC) pavement surface and
overlay with 2" AC PG-64-10 the curb -to -curb full street width of Mariposa Avenue
along the property frontages and the curb -to -centerline half street width of Palm
Avenue, Indiana Street, and Holly Avenue along the property frontages. AC mix
specification shall conform to Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction (SSPWC) "Greenbook", section 203-1.
68. The applicant shall provide street signing and striping plans for the new
development. All striping in the public ROW shall consist of thermoplastic paint
per the latest CA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
69. The applicant shall provide traffic control plans for all work requiring a lane closure.
70. The work scheduled in the public right-of-way on major arterial streets shall be
Monday through Friday from 9am to 3pm, except holidays. Work scheduled on all
other street classifications shall be Monday through Friday from 7am to 4pm.
Contractor shall obtain prior approval from the City Engineer for performing
weekend work, night work, or work on a holiday.
71. During construction, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to provide safe
pedestrian traffic control around the site. A pedestrian protection plan shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City
Engineer. This may include but not be limited to signs, flashing lights, barricades
and flag persons.
72. Once the ROW improvements are accepted by the City Engineer, they are not to
be used for staging building construction activities, including but not limited to,
storage of construction materials and equipment. The street and sidewalks shall
be kept free of construction debris, mud and other obstacles and shall remain open
to traffic at all times. The applicant shall bear the entire cost of replacement or
repair to any damage to improvements caused by its use, or its Contractors' and
Subcontractors' use, of the improvements after acceptance by the City Engineer.
73. The applicant shall submit any new traffic signal plans to the City Public Works
Department and LA County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) for review and
approval. The applicant will coordinate all inspections with the LACDPW inspector
for acceptance of the traffic signal poles and related equipment. The applicant will
inform the City of any updates during this process.
Water
74. The proposed improvement will impact the capacity of the existing City owned
water main lines. The applicant must submit a water study to determine if there is
a capacity deficiency in the affected water main lines and if so, water main
upgrades will be required. The water study shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer.
-12-
75. Any existing water meters, potable water service connections, fire backflow
devices and potable water backflow devices for each new building site must be
upgraded to current City Water Division standards. These devices shall be placed
or relocated onto private property.
76. The applicant must submit plans for water system upgrades for each new building
site to the City of El Segundo Public Works Department for review and approval.
77. Any unused water laterals for each new building site shall be abandoned and
properly capped at the City main. The Contractor is to obtain necessary permits
and licenses, and provide traffic control plans and shoring plans.
Sewer
78. The proposed improvement will impact the capacity of the existing City owned
sewer main lines. The applicant must submit a sewer study for each new building
site to determine if there is a capacity deficiency in the affected sewer main lines
and if so, sewer upgrades will be required for that new building site. The sewer
study shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
79. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each new building site, the
sewer connection fee for must be paid to the City of El Segundo Public Works
Department for that building site.
80, Any unused sanitary sewer laterals shall be abandoned and properly capped at
the City main for each new building site. The Contractor is to obtain necessary
permits and licenses, and provide traffic control plans and shoring plans.
Storm Drain
81. Provide a Low Impact Development Study (LID) signed and stamped by a
registered Civil Engineer. Make sure to comply with the project design
requirements to retain on site (infiltrate or store for use) volume of runoff from 3/
inch storm or the 85t" percentile 24-hour storm, whichever is greater (SWQDv) for
each phase of the project.
82. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to size appropriate storm
drain facilities to control on -site drainage and mitigate off -site impacts. Refer to the
most recent Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual. Instructions and the manual
are available at the County website at
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Publication/index.cfm. Calculations shall be signed by
a registered civil engineer.
81 The project shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements and shall provide Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
sediment control, construction material control and erosion control.
Landscaping & Irrigation
-13-
84. Irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and
approval for each new building site. All irrigation meters and mechanical
equipment shall meet the City Water Division standards.
85. All public landscape improvements shall be designed to City standards and
approved by the Parks & Recreation Department.
86. The property owner shall maintain all landscaping and irrigation in the public ROW
fronting the property.
87. The applicant shall coordinate any tree removals in the public right-of-way with the
Parks & Recreation Department prior to the start of construction.
88, Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant must submit a Photometric
Lighting Plan complying with El Segundo Security Code, Ordinance 1540,
Sections, 13-20-15.E; 13-20-161; 13-20-17.M.
89. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant submit a Wayfinding Plan
complying with El Segundo Security Code, Ordinance 1540, Sections, 13-20-15.C.
90. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant must submit a Construction
Site Security Plan complying with El Segundo Security Code, Ordinance 1540,
Section, 13-20-20.C.
91. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant must submit an Emergency
Access Plan complying with El Segundo Security Code, Ordinance 1540, Sections,
13-20-18 and 13-20-19.C.
92. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant must provide a Parking
Surveillance Camera Plan parking structures complying with the following
standards:
a) High Definition color cameras shall be installed at all vehicle and pedestrian
entrances and be capable of clearly capturing an entire vehicle including
license plate and driver. Cameras at pedestrian entrances shall clearly capture
the entire person and a recognizable face image.
b) Camera images shall be digitally stored for at least 30 days.
c) A camera surveillance plan noting the type and mounting height of cameras,
demonstrating compliance with this section, shall be developed as part of the
construction plans.
MEAN
93. Prior to authorization to use, occupy, and/or operate, the applicant shall arrange
for and have passed an inspection, to be performed by the Police Department, to
ensure compliance with the Parking Surveillance Camera Plan.
94. Prior to authorization to use, occupy, and/or operate, the applicant shall arrange
for and have passed an inspection, to be performed by the Police Department, to
ensure compliance with the Emergency Access Plan.
Irnioact Fee Conditions
95. Pursuant to ESMC §§ 15-27A-1, et seq., and before building permits are issued,
the applicant must pay a one-time fire services mitigation fee in accordance with
City Council Resolution No. 4687 for the building that the permit is applicable to.
96. Pursuant to ESMC §§ 15-27A-1, et seq., and before building permits are issued,
the applicant must pay a one-time police services mitigation fee in accordance with
City Council Resolution No. 4687 for the building that the permit is applicable to.
97. Pursuant to ESMC §§ 15-27A-1, et seq., and before building permits are issued,
the applicant must pay a one-time park services mitigation fee in accordance with
City Council Resolution No. 4687 for the building that the permit is applicable to.
98. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must pay the required sewer
connection fees (as specified in ESMC Title 12-3) for the building that the permit
is applicable to.
99. Pursuant to ESMC §§ 15-27A-1, et seq., and before the City issues a certificate of
occupancy for buildings within the Specific Plan, the applicant must pay a one-time
traffic mitigation fee in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 4443 for the
building that the permit is applicable to.
100, Subject to any applicable limitations set forth in the Development Agreement,
permittee agrees to pay City any development impact fees ("DIFs") that may be
applicable to the Project. Permittee takes notice pursuant to Government Code §
66020(d) that City is imposing the DIFs upon the Project in accordance with the
Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000, et seq.). The permittee is informed
that it may protest DIFs in accordance with Government Code § 66020.
101. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must pay the required School
Fees. This condition does not limit the applicant's ability to appeal or protest the
payment of these fees to the school districts(s).
Miscellaneous
102. Prior to completion of construction and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the PCC North project area, the applicant shall install signage and pavement
-15-
markings at the project driveway entrance/exit at Palm Avenue restricting turns out
of the project site to right turns only. Before the City issues a building permit for
the PCC North project area, the applicant shall submit plans to the Development
Services Department including the above signage and pavement markings for
review and approval.
103. To ensure that there is no vehicle queueing extending onto public streets, the
vehicular entrances to PCC North from Mariposa Avenue and Palm Avenue shall
not have gate arms located at the intersection of the private driveway and the
property line preventing vehicles from entering onto the private driveway. The exits
to Mariposa Avenue and Palm Avenue from the onsite access driveway may have
gate arms. Before the City issues building permits for the PCC North site, the
applicant shall submit plans to the Development Services Department including
the location and design of the gate arms at the driveway exits at Mariposa Avenue
and Palm Avenue.
104. The owner of the residential (apartment) component of the PCC North site shall be
responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the community meeting room
located at the Fairfield Parking Site.
105. Residential lease agreements shall prohibit the storage of bicycles and goods on
balconies of residential units. The prohibition against storage on balconies shall
not prevent typical use of balconies as private outdoor space.
106. Unless otherwise provided by the Development Agreement, the vesting tentative
map will expire pursuant to Government Code § 66452.6 and ESMC § 14-1-12.
107. Approval of this Project shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified herein or in the Development
Agreement or Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan, all other requirements of the
El Segundo Municipal Code shall apply.
108. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project by the Planning Commission, pursuant
to the provisions of the El Segundo Municipal Code.
109. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City Department, the stricter
standard shall apply.
110. The Applicant, agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against
any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees),
injuries, or liability, arising from the City's approval of an Environmental Impact
Report for Environmental Assessment No. EA-1248, General Plan Amendment
No. GPA 19-01, Specific Plan No. SP 19-01, Zone Change and Zoning Map
-16-
Amendment No. ZC 19-01, Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 19-08, Development
Agreement No. DA 19-02, Subdivision No. SUB 19-03 for Vesting Tentative Map
(VTM) No. 82806, Site Plan Review No. SPR 19-01, Parking Demand Study ad
Shared Parking Analysis, and Waiver of public right-of-way dedications for the
Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan and mixed -use development. Should the
City be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or
otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of the City approval
of an Environmental Impact Report for Environmental Assessment No. EA-1248,
General Plan Amendment No. GPA 19-01, Specific Plan No. SP 19-01, Zone
Change and Zoning Map Amendment No. ZC 19-01, Zone Text Amendment No.
ZTA 19-08, Development Agreement No. DA 19-02, Subdivision No. SUB 19-03
for Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) No. 82806, Site Plan Review No. SPR 19-01,
Parking Demand Study and Shared Parking Analysis, and Waiver of public right-
of-way dedications for the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan and mixed -use
development project, the Applicant, agrees to defend the City (at the City°s request
and with counsel satisfactory to the City) and will indemnify the City for any
judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise. For
purposes of this section "the City" includes the City of El Segundo`s elected.
officials, appointed officials, officers, and employees.
By signing this document, Brian Kaufman, on behalf of BRIE EL SEGUNDO
PROPERTY OWNER A LLC, BRE EL SEGUNDO PROPERTY" OWNER B LLC, and
BRE EL SEGUNDO PARKING LLC, certifies that he has read, understood„ and
agrees to the Project Conditions listed in this document.
Brian Kaufman, anagng Director and Vice President
BRE EL SEGUNDO PROPERTY OWNER A LLC,
BRE EL SEGUNDO PROPERTY OWNER B LLC,
BRE EL SEGUNDO PARKING LLC
-17-
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
EXHIBIT "B"
El Segundo General Plan Land Use Element Excerpt - Pages 3-5 and 3-6
Modify the following text on pages 3-5 and 3-6
Land Use Designations
Following is a discussion of each type of land use designation found
in the City. Each contains a short description and an indication of the
maximum land use density or intensity allowed. Land use density
refers to the number of dwelling units per acre of land (du/ac). This
distinction is generally used only for residential designations. Land
use intensity refers to the quantity of building on a specific lot size.
For example, a 3,000 square foot single-family home would be
considered a more intense use than a 1,600 square foot home on
the same size lot. An example of non-residential intensity would be a
multi -story building, which is considered a more intense use than a
single -story building on the same sized lot. For non-residential uses,
intensity is expressed in terms of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which
describes the ratio of the lot size to the building size or as otherwise
defined in the Zoning Code from time to time. For example, typically
a lot with a land area of 10,000 square feet and a FAR of 1.0, would
allow a building area of 10,000 square feet. The allowed FAR may
be exceeded for properties east of -Pacific
Coast Highway only, with approval of a Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) Plan.
Residential Designations
Single -Family Residential
Permits one single-family home on one legal lot at a maximum
density of eight dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot size for new
lots is 5,000 square feet.
Two -Family Residential
Permits two residences on one legal lot, either attached or detached,
at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot
size for new lots is 7,000 square feet.
Multi -Family Residential
Permits multiple dwelling units in either a condominium or apartment
configuration. A condominium or apartment is a structure or group of
structures containing three or more dwelling units, as defined by the
Zoning Code. The maximum permitted density for multi -family
residential is 27 dwelling units per acre on properties equal to or less
than 15,000 square feet and 18 du/ac on properties greater than
15,000 square feet.
540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan
Permits a mix of residential uses with two possible development
options. Option 1 would allow up to a maximum of 304 units in a
Senior Housing Community with a Multi- Family Residential (R- 3)
component, or Option 2 would allow up to a maximum of 58 units in a
Mixed Residential Development (single-family and multi -family units).
This designation is intended to encourage design flexibility and
provide transitional densities and uses that are compatible with
surrounding land uses. This designation is not intended to be used
elsewhere within the City.
Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan
Permits a mix of hotel commercial and residential uses. The existing
Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott and Aloft Hotels which have 350
and 246 rooms res ectivel remuain and are considered conformin
uses. The maximum allowed gross floor area for the commercial
uses is 11,252 square feet. The maximum number of residential
units is 263.
RESOLUTION NO. 5319
EXHIBIT "C"
General Plan Land Use Plan Excerpt Pages 3-10 thru 3-12
Modify the following text on pages 3-10 and 3-12:
Proposed Land Use Plan
"The following is a discussion of the 1992 Land Use Plan, which
indicates future land uses for the entire City. For ease of discussion,
the City is divided into four quadrants and the proposed land use
designations within that quadrant are discussed. To know what is
allowed under each designation, please reference the land use
definitions listed above.
Northwest Quadrant
The northwest quadrant of the City has the most varied mix of uses
within the City. All of the City's residential units, the Downtown area,
the Civic Center, and the older industrial area of Smoky Hollow, are
located in this quadrant. The 1992 Plan retains the three residential
designations found on the old Plan: single-family, two-family, and
multi -family, plus &-new- etiort-two new designations of 540
East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan and Pacific Coast Commons
S ecific Plan which is a mixed -use high -density residential and
commercial designation. The Plan shows 357.2 acres of single-
family, 57.4 acres of two-family, 126.74 acres of multi- family, and
5.65 acres of 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan and 6.38 acres
of Pacific Coast Commons Specific flan. The total number of
dwelling units projected by the Plan is 8,089ok'. One of the major
goals of the 1992 Plan is to preserve the residential neighborhoods.
The Smoky Hollow area, which houses many of the City's older
industrial uses, has been designated Smoky Hollow Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan allows a combination of office, industrial, research
and development, public facilities, parking facilities, and limited retail
and restaurant uses. The Smoky Hollow area is approximately 94.3
acres.
The 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan (222 KSSP) consists of 4.83
acres, which were previously a part of the Smoky Hollow area. The
222 Kansas Street Specific Plan permits primarily office, light
industrial, manufacturing, and research and development uses. The
southerly portion may be used for governmental purposes subject
toa development agreement. Commercial retail and restaurant uses
are prohibited.
The Downtown area is designated as Downtown Commercial
(8.4acres) and Downtown Specific Plan (26.3 acres), where existing
uses are already of a community -serving nature. There are also 7.0
acres designated for Neighborhood Commercial uses along Grand
and Imperial Avenues and at Mariposa and Center Streets. These
have been designated only where there are existing neighborhood -
serving commercial uses.
The public schools, private schools, Library, and other public uses are
all shown as Public Facilities. The Civic Center is included in the
Downtown Specific Plan area. In addition, each of the existing public
parks are designated as such. The open space areas under utility
transmission corridors and the preserve for the Blue Butterfly are
designated as Open Space.
The areas designated for parking on the Plan include public- and
privately -owned lots which are necessary to serve existing
businesses and the Downtown area.
The southwest corner of ,Sege Pacific Coast
Highwayand Imperial Avenue is designated Corporate Office (17.8
ac) allowing a mix of office uses, similar to what exists there now,
with retail in the lobby.
There are General Commercial uses indicated along
;lie -d Pacific Coast Highway,where there are existing
commercial uses ' a H There is also one
General Commercial area along Imperial Avenue, where the Crown
Sterling Suites Hotel now exists."
1 The new total of 8,089 represents the maximum number of units developed under Option I of the 540
East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan. This number will be lower (7,843 units) if Option 2 is developed with
a maximum of 58 units.
RESOLUTION NO.5319
EXHIBIT "D"
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN EXISTING TRENDS BUILDOUT
........ _....._ .......�
1992 General Plan
Suminar v of Existing Trends Buildout
Land Use Category
Acres Dwelling Square Footage
Units
Sin le Fa 1 ly Residential
357.2 2,858
Two -Family Residential
57.4 934 -
540 East Imperial Avenue Specific
- - -
Plan
5.65 3043
Multi -Family Residential
119.7 3,531 -
Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan
6.38 1 263 293,650
Neighborhood Commercial
6.6 851 89,110
Downtown Commercial
8.8 181 383,328
General Commercial
-37432.62 - 1,6185 0 421,093
Corporate Office
213.62 - 12,461,324
Commercial Center
85.8 - 850,000
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
94.3 126 2,973,010
Urban Mixed -Use North
232.5 - 13,166,010
Urban Mixed -Use South
70.6 - 3,997,936
124th Street Specific Plan
3.9 1 73,530
Aviation Specific Plan
5.4 - 66,000
Downtown Specific Plan
26.3 232' 1,145,628
Corporate Campus Specific Plan
46.5 - 2,550,000
199 North Continental Boulevard
- - -
Specific Plan
1.75 - 70,132
222 Kansas Street Specific Plan
4.65 - 121,532
888 No. Sepulveda Boulevard
-
Specific Plan
2.98 - 206,710
El Segundo South Campus
- - -
Specific Plan
142.28 - 4,231,547
Parking
44- 89.95
Light Industrial
213.82 - 16,190,266
Heavy Industrial
1001 - -2
Public Facilities
87.9 - -
Federal Government
90.6 -
Open Space
77.0 - -
Parks
50 -
Street and Railroad R.O.W
442.6 _.
.......�.._.....�............_.
Totals _
3,497 ,352 17M60,290,806
Pc) latlon 1 rQjectio���I
17,287.......... _ .........
1 Existing construction and recently constructed,
renovated commercial centers and legal non -conforming
residential uses at densities that are currently
higher than allowed by the land use designations in this plan will not
realistically be converted to mixed commercial/residential uses and these buildings are expected to remain for the
life of the Plan.
2 The heavy industrial shown on this plan includes the Chevron Refinery and former Southern California Edison
Generation Station. These facilities have processing equipment and tanks rather than buildings and are expected to
remain for the life of the Plan. Therefore, no
estimated building square footage is shown.
3 This number represents the maximum number of dwelling units that can be developed in Option 1 of the 540
East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan. If Option 1 is not built, the maximum number of units that can be developed
in Option 2 of the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan is 58 residential dwelling units.
EXHIBIT E
] Single -Family
S;nee-Fa�niiy
Pubbc
F ITRE y'
STREET
s ELEMENTARY
Single -Family
?_e
tSingle-Family
g
E 14.1Ey-A-
E�I:'ub3€sao
Fa�a}p
Muliia33u3y
>�syiti-€amt[y� � 3
hluitfm�ly:
M E...... S a_
_. _... E:
�a�iti-1=�r§aly
Public
Facil Ry n
P €tea
City of El Segundo Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan EL�EGUNDo
Existing General Plan
City of El Segundo Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan E L E GU N D o
Proposed Specific Plan and General Plan
EXHIBIT F
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No 82806
A
SHEET 1 OF 3
VESTING TENTATIVE TRA CTMAP No 82806
EXISTING CONDITIONS
-'T
Z—
LL111
- ----
V3
LLI
z
10
1,25 15
i5
WASHINGTON STREET
nic �
ipbTRtiT
Uil
LU
12
Lij
---,,-----L-PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
y
Jlr
t
C-1
2- 25 -ONR)
r Z-Z�T
iq- il, .14 1AKIA q-rocc7r -111Y mm
-4 ll�r �
Ir
U-j
428
Ls
zs
><f JQ�6'
LLJ
LU.,
LINETYPES ABBREVIATIONS 1�:t �tN Q
z
—M.
SHEET 2 OF 3
PROPOS D LOT a
...
k P ,.9-:"
3
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 82806
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
PACIFIC COAST € HYVAY
_s r r N �_l _'E�YMA 511%lu
i
PaOPOaaO Lola
g
�1\ 4
4
IND ANA STREET
�PUBLIG STREET) _
U
k
s 4
WASHING-1 ON STREET
- Lu "I `
Luiw
LU
25'
\.
w
Zr
P9oPoa a LET T W
77
kpff
EXHIBIT NO. G
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 17, 2021
To: Lionel Uhry, Mar Ventures
From: Vivian Lee and Tom Gaul
Subject: Pacific Coast Commons — Shared Parking Analysis
LA 19-3078
Fehr & Peers conducted a shared parking analysis for the proposed Pacific Coast Commons (PCC)
development. The objective of the shared parking analysis is to assess the potential parking demand of
each of the three various sites of the project at full buildout to determine whether the proposed supply is
adequate to meet peak demand. This report outlines the methodology used for the shared parking
analysis, as well as the methodology used to determine the parking ratios used for the hotel and the
residential land uses that is used in the shared parking analysis.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Pacific Coast Commons is proposed mixed -use development in the City of El Segundo consisting of 263
residential dwelling units and 11,000 square feet of commercial space. The project is just over 1/2-mile
from the Metro Mariposa Green Line Station and is also serviced by several bus routes including two local
Metro (Route 232 and 625), one local Beach Cities Transit (109), and two LADOT Commuter Express
(Route 438, 574) routes. The residential buildings would provide a mix of 91 studio, 119 one -bedroom,
and 47 two -bedroom units with parking provided in new parking structures. Six townhouse -style units are
also proposed, each of which would provide individual garages. For the purpose of this analysis, the
project is separated into three different sites, as follows:
PCC North Site [Land Use Area 5]
o 143 residential units (137 apartments & 6 townhomes)
47 Studios
■ 67 One -Bedrooms
23 Two -Bedrooms
0 2,223 square feet of retail space
0 253 total parking spaces
a 241 parking spaces
HIV 12 townhome parking spaces in individual garages
PCC Fairfield Site [Land Use Area 3 & 4]
o Fairfield Hotel (350 rooms, already in operation)
0 3,273 square feet of retail space
0 215 replacement parking spaces for the Fairfield Hotel
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 2 of 18
PCC South Site [Land Use Area 1 & 21
0 120 residential units
■ 44 Studios
■ 52 One -Bedrooms
24 Two -Bedrooms
o 5,756 square feet of commercial space
2,056 square feet of retail space
M 3,700 square feet of fast casual restaurant
o Aloft Hotel (246 rooms, already in operation)
0 336 parking spaces
PARKING DEMAND MODEL
The shared parking analysis was conducted using methodology provided in the Urban Land Institute's
(ULI) Shared Parking, 2nd Edition.' The model was calibrated and adjusted based on the current parking
demand for the existing hotels at the site based on the empirical parking counts conducted in May 2019
and ITE parking ratios for multifamily residential properties. These include adjustments to specific base
parking rates and time -of -day occupancy factors.
BACKGROUND ON URBAN LAND INSTITUTE'S SHARED PARKING
ULI sponsored a national study in 1984 that established a basic methodology for analyzing parking
demand in mixed -use developments and developed averages for parking rates by land use. Fehr & Peers
staff was involved in the 2004 update of this national study sponsored by ULI. The analysis presented in
this memorandum uses data from the updated Shared Parking, 2nd Edition report.
Shared parking is a concept in which land uses in close proximity share a "pool" of available parking
spaces in order to reduce the overall supply needed for the development as a whole. Shared parking is
practical in situations where variations exist in vehicles by hour, by day, or season at individual land uses.
In the shared parking methodology, the base parking rate and daily/hourly/seasonal patterns for each
land use are established, and then the overall parking demand is calculated by taking into account the
unique travel characteristics of the project being analyzed. In this analysis, certain adjustments were made
to the base parking rate and time -of -day occupancy factor.
The calibrated model was then used to estimate peak parking demand for the peak month of the year for
each project site.
' Shared Parking. Urban Land Institute. (2004). https:HuIi.bookstore.ipgbook.com/shared-parking-products-
9780874202328.php
Page 2
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 3of18 It
PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS
To determine the parking demand for Pacific Coast Commons, the following assumptions were made:
• Each of the three garages can be utilized as "overflow" parking if needed due to one of the other
sites parking demand exceeding its on -site supply.2
• Peak parking demand rates for the residential units was estimated based on data from the El
Segundo Municipal Code parking requirements and the Institute of Transportation Engineers'
(ITE) Parking Generation, 5th Edition 3; as discussed further below.
• The parking provided for residents of the townhouses in the individual garages were not included
as part of the analysis, but guest parking for the townhouses were included in the shared parking
calculation.
• The hotel peak parking demand rate was calculated using empirical data collected in May 2019 as
part of this study at the Aloft and Fairfield hotels already operating onsite; as discussed further
below.
• Peak parking demands for the retail and restaurant uses was estimated based on the El Segundo
Municipal Code parking requirements for those uses.
RESIDENTIAL PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND RATE
Residential Parking Demand Research
To better understand the appropriate residential parking demand at Pacific Coast Commons, Fehr & Peers
researched available data on parking demands at similar multifamily residential developments.
ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition
The Institute of Transportation Engineers published Parking Generation, 5th Edition in early 2019. The
manual has traditionally provided parking demand rates for various land uses based on survey data
collected in suburban, low -density areas. The 51h Edition includes additional survey data from Center City
Core and Dense Multi -Use Urban locations as well. The latest survey information differentiates whether
the survey data was collected within close proximity (1/2 mile) to rail transit. While the report does not
provide authoritative findings, recommendations, or standards on parking demand, it is often referenced
by planners and designers in making parking supply estimations and decisions.
Table 1 summarizes the parking supply recommendations from ITE for mid -rise multifamily housing
developments. The General Urban/Suburban not within'/2 mile of rail transit rates are the most
conservative, although it should be noted that Pacific Coast Commons is located approximately 1/2 mile
from the Metro Green Line Mariposa Station.
z Based on Conditional Use Permits approved by the El Segundo Planning Commission on October 9, 2014.
3 Parking Generation, 5th Edition. Institute of Transportation Professionals. (2019). https://www.ite.org/technical-
resou rces/topics/tri p-a nd -pa rki ng-generation/
Page 3
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 4 of 18
Table 1: Mid -Rise Multifamily Apartment Parking Generation Rates
Settinq
Proximitv to Rail Transit
Per Dwellin Unit Per Bedroom
Center Cit Core
Within'/z mile of rail transit
1.1
1.0
Dense Multi -Use
Within'/z mile of rail transit
1.2
0.9
Urban
Not within'/z mile of rail transit
1.2
0.8
General
Within 1/2 mile of rail transit
1.5
0.8
Urban/Suburban
Not within'/z mile of rail transit
1.71
1.0
Palo Alto Multifamily Parking Demand Rate Study
Fehr & Peers conducted a study in April 2018 to provide the City of Palo Alto with parking demand rate
data for multifamily developments. This report includes information from available reports, documents,
studies, and the results of parking surveys conducted at multifamily developments as part of this study.
Empirical data informed the parking demand rate information for market rate, affordable, and senior
housing projects, as well as the change in parking demand when located near a robust transit system.
To begin, Fehr & Peers reviewed several reports and studies that included parking demand rates for
multifamily market rate, affordable, and senior residential developments in the Bay Area. Fehr & Peers
also conducted new parking surveys at nine multifamily complexes in the City of Palo Alto. Available
information about each site, such as the number of units, walking distance ('/z mile) to the nearest rail
station, type of rail service, peak parking demand, parking supply and demand rates were documented.
Parking occupancy surveys were conducted to count the numbers of parked vehicles by space type on a
weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) at three time periods (midday, evening, and late night — after
midnight) and on a weekend day at two time periods (midday and late night).
Relevant conclusions for Pacific Coast Commons from the data collection effort, which includes all prior
studies and the Palo Alto surveys are:
* For Market Rate units, the average surveyed parking demand rate is approximately 0.75 spaces
per bedroom
o Proximity to transit can reduce the rate by approximately 25 percent
El Segundo Municipal Code Parking Requirements
The El Segundo Municipal Code provides the number of required on -site parking spaces for the different
land uses allowed within the city. Section 15-15-6 presents the following requirements for multifamily
developments:
Two spaces per dwelling unit
One guest space for every 3 units (3-5 units = 1 visitor space, 6-8 units, 2 visitor spaces, etc.)
Page 4
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 5of18
Table 2 summarizes the relevant parking data previously presented and applies it to the Pacific Coast
Commons project. The table shows the projected demand based on the different parking rates.
Table 2: Summary of Parking Demand Rates
Parking Spaces
Parking Spaces
Pacific Coast Commons
Per DU
Per Bedroom
Parkina Demand
437 spaces (based on # of
ITE Parking
1.7
1.0
DUs); 304 spaces (based on #
Generation Manual
of bedrooms)
Palo Alto Multifamily
228 spaces (based on # of
Parking Demand Rate
N/A
0.75
bedrooms)
Stuff
El Segundo Municipal
2 per resident DU
601 spaces (based on # of
Code Parking
plus 1 guest space per
N/A
DUs)
Requirements
3 DUs
Pacific Coast Commons Residential Parking Demand Rate
Based on the residential parking demand studies reviewed above, the following parking demand rates
based on using a combination of ITE Parking Generation rates and El Segundo Municipal Parking
requirements were used for the shared parking analysis:
• One resident space per bedroom
• One guest space for every 3 units (3-5 units = 1 visitor space, 6-8 units, 2 visitor spaces, etc.)
As shown in Table 2, this demand rate for the Pacific Coast Commons is conservative when compared to
other similar projects (market rate, outside the mile rail, etc.). Assuming that the demand is equal to the
El Segundo Municipal Code requirements or the ITE rates based on dwelling units would likely result in an
oversupply of parking and underutilization of spaces.
Table 3 shows the total parking demand based on the above demand rate.
Table 3: Pacific Coast Commons Residential Parking Demand
Land Use
Proposed Parking Rate
Size
Proposed
Vehicle
S aces
Residential
Studio
1
space/ bedroom
91
bedrooms
91
1 Bedroom
1
space/ bedroom
119
bedrooms
119
2 Bedroom
1
space/ bedroom
94
bedrooms
94
Guest
1
space/ 3 units [a]
263units
87
Total
391
Page 5
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 6 of 18
Parking demand for residents is projected to be 304 spaces. Demand for residential guests is estimated to
be 87 spaces, for a total demand of 391 parking spaces.
Pacific Coast Commons Residential Parking Supply
However, the Pacific Coast Commons project is proposing to provide parking using a modified residential
parking requirement, based on unit type/number of bedrooms, which is more conservative than the
demand rate. The follow parking supply is proposed:
• One space per studio unit
• 1.5 spaces per one -bedroom unit
• Two spaces per two -bedroom unit
• One guest space for every 3 units (3-5 units = 1 visitor space, 6-8 units, 2 visitor spaces, etc.)
Table 4 shows the proposed parking supply based on the above modified residential parking
requirements.
Table 4: Pacific Coast Commons Proposed Residential Parking Supply
Land Use
Proposed Parking Rate
Size
Proposed
Vehicle
Spaces
Residential
Studio
1 space/ unit
91 units
91
1 Bedroom
1.5 space/ unit
119 units
179
2 Bedroom
2 space/ unit
47 units
94
Guest
1 space/ 3 units
263 units
87
Total
451
Based on the proposed parking supply rates, 364 total spaces would be supplied for residential tenant
use. The estimated demand for the residents is 304 spaces, which projects an oversupply of 60 spaces.
Guest parking would be provided in the shared pool of parking.
Page 6
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 7of18
HOTEL PARKING DEMAND RATE
Although hotel rates are available from ITE, these rates are highly variable. Since the hotels for this project
are currently in operation, Fehr & Peers conducted an empirical analysis of the existing parking demands
at the Fairfield and Aloft Hotels, in place of using the ITE rates.
Existing Parking Supply
A series of parking lots currently serve the Fairfield Hotel and the Aloft Hotel. The "North" parking lot,
located north of Mariposa Avenue, provides 232 parking spaces. This parking lot is currently gate
controlled. The on -site parking lot at the Fairfield Hotel provides 33 parking spaces. The Aloft Hotel
parking lot, located north of Holly Avenue, provides 165 parking spaces. The Conditional Use Permit for
the hotels allows the Fairfield and Aloft Hotels to share the parking in the North parking lot north of
Mariposa Avenue; therefore, the series of parking lots is viewed in this analysis as a system containing a
total of 430 parking spaces. All parking lots are utilized by hotel guests and employees.
Existing Parking Occupancy
Parking utilization counts were conducted at the parking lots serving the Fairfield Hotel and the Aloft
Hotel on Thursday, May 2"d and Sunday, May 5th, 2019, at 2:00 AM. These days and times were selected as
they represent the busiest weekday night and weekend night on average for both hotels.
Table 5 shows the occupied spaces at each parking lot on both nights. On Wednesday night/early
Thursday morning, the North parking lot was 53% occupied, the Fairfield on -site parking lot was 58%
occupied, and the Aloft parking lot was 61% occupied. In total, the three lots combined were 56%
occupied. On Saturday night/early Sunday morning, the North parking lot was 69% occupied, the Fairfield
on -site parking lot was 45% occupied, and the Aloft parking lot was 56% occupied. In total, the three lots
combined were 62% occupied. Count sheets can be found in Appendix A.
Page 7
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 8 of 18
Table 5: Hotel Parking Utilization
Thursday, May 2, 2019 - 2:00 AM
Total Total %
Lot Regular Handicap Spaces Spaces Occupied
Occupied
North
123
0
123
232
53%
Fairfield
17
2
19
33
58%
Aloft
98
2
100
165
61%
Sunday, May 5, 2019 - 2:00 AM
Total
Total
Lot
Regular
Handicap
Spaces
Spaces
Occupied
Occupied
North
158
1
159
232
69%
Fairfield
13
2
15
33
45%
Aloft
91
2
93
165
56%
Hotel Room Occupancy
Because of the hotels' close proximity to the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), a portion of rooms
are occupied by flight crews on any given night. On the Wednesday night, the Fairfield Hotel was 94%
occupied (330 out of 350 rooms) and the Aloft Hotel was 98% occupied (242 out of 246 rooms). Of the
total occupied rooms at the Fairfield and Aloft Hotels, 47% and 19% were occupied by flight crews,
respectively. On the Saturday night, the Fairfield Hotel was 76% occupied (265 out of 350 rooms) and the
Aloft Hotel was 75% occupied (184 out of 246 rooms). Of the total occupied rooms at the Fairfield and
Aloft Hotels, 54% and 22% were occupied by flight crews, respectively. Table 6 shows the number of total
occupied rooms.
Page 8
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 9 of 18
Table 6: Hotel Room Occupancy
Thursday, May 2, 2019 - 2:00 AM
Hotel
Total
Rooms
Available
Total
Rooms
Occupied
Total %
Occupied
Fairfield 350 330 94%
Aloft 246 242 98%
Sunday, May 5, 2019 - 2:00 AM
Total
Total
Total %
Hotel
Rooms
Rooms
Occupied
Available
Occupied
Fairfield
350
265
76%
Aloft
246
1 184
75%
Hotel Parking Demand Rates
Table 7 shows the empirical hotel parking demand rates. The parking demand rates were calculated using
the total number of parking spaces occupied and total rooms occupied. Due to the Conditional Use
Permit for the hotel allowing the Fairfield and Aloft Hotels to share parking in the parking lot north of
Mariposa Avenue, a combined demand rate was developed across both properties. On Wednesday night,
the combined demand rate was 0.42 per occupied room. On Saturday night, the combined demand rate
was 0.59 per occupied room.
Table 7: Hotel Parking Demand Rate
Thursday, May 2, 2019 - 2:00 . -�...
AM
Occupied
Total
Total Rooms
Spaces per
Hotel
Spaces
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Room
Fairfield & Aloft Combined
242
572
0.42
Sunday, May 5, 2019 - 2:00 AM
Occupied
Total
Total Rooms
Spaces per
Hotel
Spaces
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Room
Fairfield & Aloft Combined
267
449
0.59
Page 9
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 10 of 18
Both hotels have a higher demand rate on the weekend than weekday, even though more rooms are
occupied during the weekday. This is likely due to more families/tourists staying at the hotel during the
weekends and having personal/rental cars with them. During the week, the hotel guests are more likely to
be there for business and utilize ride sharing vehicles for their stay. Similarly, the flight crews which stay at
the hotel often during the week do not need parking spaces.
Parking Demand at Full Hotel Occupancy
The number of spaces occupied assuming full hotel occupancy was calculated using the higher observed
demand rate for the entire site, which occurred on the weekend. At the Fairfield Hotel, 207 spaces are
projected to be demanded when the hotel is at full occupancy. At the Aloft Hotel, 145 spaces are
projected to be demanded when the hotel is at full occupancy. This is shown in Table 8. The overall
demand for parking is 352 spaces when both the Fairfield and Aloft are at full room capacity.
Table 8: Peak Hotel Parking Demand at Full Occupancy
Peak Parking
Hotel Peak Demand Hotel Rooms Demand at
Rate Full
Occu any
Fairfield 0.59 350 207
Aloft 0.59 246 145
Total 0.59 596 352
Page 10
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 11 of 18
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
In order to evaluate the number of spaces needed under shared parking conditions, a number of
characteristics regarding a particular development must be known. The most important of these
characteristics are the mix of land uses within the project and the size of each individual land use. The
other parking -related factors that must be estimated in order to determine peak parking demand by -hour
are described below.
PARKING RATIO
As described earlier in the report, parking ratios for the existing hotels were developed based on the
counts conducted in May 2019. For the residential land use, a combination of ITE Parking Generation rates
and El Segundo Municipal Parking requirements were used based on the literature review discussed
previously. For the commercial land uses, El Segundo Municipal Parking requirements were used.
Table 9 shows a summary of base parking rates used in the parking demand model for each of the
components. The table also notes the source for each parking ratio.
Table 9: Pacific Coast Common Parking Rates
Land Use Component
............
Parking Rate
Aloft Hotel [1]
0.59 spaces per occupied room
Fairfield Hotel [1]
0.59 spaces per occupied room
Multifamily Residential [2]
1 space per bedroom
Residential Guest Parking [3]
1 space for every third unit
1 space for each 75 ft of dining area;
Fast Casual Restaurant [3]
1 space for each 250 ft of nondining
...............�.
area
Retail [3] _
1 space for each 300 ft
[1] Empirical data collected onsite at the hotels on a weekday (May 2, 2019) and weekend (May 5, 2019). Parking ratio
was determined by dividing the number of occupied spaces being used overnight by the number of occupied hotel
rooms. A combined demand rate was developed as the Fairfield and Aloft hotels share overflow parking at the
parking lot north of Mariposa Avenue.
[2] Rate was taken from ITE Parking Generation, 5th Edition for mid -rise multifamily apartments in general
urban/suburban settings and that are not within'/2 mile of rail transit.
[3] Rates from parking requirements in Section 15-15-6 of El Segundo Municipal Code.
Page 11
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 12 of 18
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
Based on the projected residential demand and the modified residential parking supply, Pacific Coast
Commons is projected to have an oversupply of 60 residential parking spaces. Per the Pacific Coast
Commons Specific Plan, up to five percent of the total non -guest multi -family residential parking is
permitted to be shared with commercial uses 4 Therefore, five non -guest multi -family residential parking
spaces from the North Site and five non -guest multi -family residential spaces from the South Site will be
included for use in the shared parking supply.
GUEST PARKING
In accordance with City of El Segundo Municipal Code requirements, guest parking was presumed to be
provided in addition to the parking for the residential units. One guest parking space is required to be
supplied for every three multifamily units.
MODE SPILT/INTERNAL CAPTURE
To be conservative for the shared parking analysis, no adjustments were made for mode spilt or internal
capture.
AUTO OCCUPANCY
This shared parking analysis used the national averages for auto occupancy for all land uses. No changes
were made to the ULI average auto occupancy rates.
TIME -OF -DAY PATTERNS
Time -of -day occupancy assumptions were adjusted for the Aloft and Fairfield hotels to estimate the guest
and employee split during late (after 9pm) evening hours. Late evening hours are when hotel guests are
anticipated to be settled into their rooms, but hotel staff is slowly decreasing into the morning hours. For
other uses, ULI-recommended time -of -day factors were used.
SEASONAL VARIATIONS
The parking demand model takes into consideration the variation in activity for each of the land uses from
month -to -month. ULI-recommended seasonal factors, which incorporate variations in travel during
seasonal periods such as holiday shopping in the winter, were used.
4 Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan. City of El Segundo (2021).
Page 72
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 13 of 18
PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Because each of the three garages will be utilized as "overflow" parking if needed, the project was
analyzed as one combined site. While each individual site's peak parking demand occurs at different
hours, it was determined that the peak parking demand for the three sites combined would occur at 10:00
PM on a weekday (in June). Shared parking analysis worksheets for each site can be found in the
Appendix B. Table 10 summarizes the proposed parking supply by site and total. Table 11 summarizes
the estimated peak demand.
Table 10: Pacific Coast Common Parking Supply
Parking
Residential
Shared
Site
Supply
Reserved
Spaces
North
241
189
52
Fairfield
215
0
215
South
336
165
171
Total
792
354
438
Table 11: Pacific Coast Common Parking Peak Demand, Weekday, June at 10 PM
Shared Use Demand
Total
Shared
Area
Residential
mmITITITITIT 'ITITITITIT """""""""�
Residential
Shared
Surplus/
Demand
Hotel Retail Restaurant
Guest
Demand
Deficit
North
160
48
0
1
0
49
3
Fairfield
0
0
188
3
0
191
24
South
144
40
133
1
18
192
-21
Total
304
88
321
5
18
432
6
PCC NORTH SITE
As shown in Table 10, the project proposes 241 parking spaces for the North Site, with 189 parking
spaces reserved for exclusively for residential tenant use. The remaining 52 spaces would be shared
between the residential guest parking, commercial uses, and for overflow if needed from the other sites.
As summarized in Table 11, the North site is projected to have a peak residential parking demand of 160
parking spaces and a peak shared parking demand of 49 spaces. As such, the North site is projected to
have a surplus of three shared parking spaces during the peak demand period.
Page 73
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 14 of 18
PCC FAIRFIELD SITE
The Fairfield site's peak parking shared demand is estimated to be 191 spaces. As shown in Table 11, the
project proposes 215 parking spaces, indicating sufficient supply for the anticipated demand with a
surplus of 24 spaces during the peak demand period.
PCC SOUTH SITE
As shown in Table 10, the project proposes 336 parking spaces for the South Site, with 165 parking
spaces reserved for exclusively for residential tenant use. The remaining 171 spaces would be shared
between the residential guest parking, commercial uses, and for overflow if needed from the other sites.
As summarized in Table 11, The South site is estimated to have a peak residential parking demand of 144
parking spaces and a peak shared parking demand of 192 spaces. As such, the South site would have a
deficit of 21 shared parking spaces during the peak demand period. The excess demand can be
accommodated by the surplus of spaces at the North and Fairfield sites, which have a combined surplus
of 27 spaces.
CONCLUSION
The shared parking analysis demonstrates that sufficient parking would be provided to meet the demand
of the various uses on -site.
It is anticipated that retail/restaurant patrons will be provided with free validated parking in the structures,
hotel guests will continue to be charged for parking, and residents will not be charged a separate parking
fee from their base rental rate. A before and after study could be conducted on the adjacent residential
streets to understand if the project has an effect on street parking. Based on the results of the study and if
desired by the City and the residents in the adjacent neighborhoods, a residential parking district could be
implemented to deter non-residential users from parking on the street.
Page 14
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 15of18
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
A parking analysis was also conducted for the Pacific Coast Commons construction period to understand
the parking needs of construction employees and uses on -site. Phase 1 will construct the replacement
parking for the Fairfield Inn & Suites site adjacent to the existing hotel. Phase 2 will consist of the
construction of the South site. Phase 3 will consist of the buildout of the North site.
Construction will be phased based on two potential timelines. The first scenario analyzed is based on a
sequential timeline with three separate phases. The second scenario analyzes a construction timeline in
which Phase 2 and 3 will be constructed concurrently.
The shared parking analysis in Appendix B was used to determine the peak parking demand for each
phase during construction hours. El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) limits construction activities to the
hours from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday, with no construction permitted on Sundays or
holidays.
SEQUENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE
Under a sequential timeline, Phase 1 of development will construct the replacement parking and new
retail for the Fairfield Inn & Suites site adjacent to the existing hotel. During Phase 1, the Aloft and
Fairfield Hotels will continue to be in operation. The second phase would consist of the construction of
the South site, which consists of residential, retail, and parking. During Phase 2, both hotels will continue
to operate, and new retail built in Phase 1 will be occupied. The third phase of development would consist
of the buildout of the North site. During Phase 3, the retail and residential built on the South site in Phase
2 is assumed to be fully occupied.
During Phase 1 of construction, Fairfield and Aloft hotel guests would continue to park at the existing
surface lots at their respective sites. The existing Fairfield surface lot has 232 parking spaces and the
existing Aloft surface lot has 165 parking spaces, for a total of 397 parking spaces. Peak parking demand
is estimate to occur on a weekday in June at 8:00 AM during Phase 15. A peak demand of 171 parking
spaces for the Fairfield Hotel and 119 parking spaces for the Aloft hotel will need to be accommodated,
along with a peak demand of 60 construction employee parking spaces. As shown in Table 12, the total
anticipated demand of 350 spaces can be accommodated by the existing 397 parking spaces, with a
surplus of 47 spaces.
5 For the purpose of this analysis, the month of June was used to determine peak parking demand for all phases of
construction as it is the peak demand month and provides the most conservative results.
Page 15
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 16 of 18
Table 12: Sequential Construction Phase 1 Parking Demand
Site
Retail
Hotel
Construction
Total
Demand
Total Supply
North
-
232
Fairfield
-
171
60
231
-
South/Aloft
ww.
119
-
119
165
Total Overall
0
290
60
350
397
Once Phase 1 is completed, parking for the Fairfield site can be moved into the newly constructed garage,
which will have 215 spaces. During Phase 2 of construction, Aloft parking can be accommodated via the
existing surface lot of 232 spaces at the North site. Peak parking demand is estimated to occur on a
weekday in June at 8:00 AM during Phase 2. A peak demand of 173 parking spaces for the Fairfield Hotel
and newly constructed retail and 119 parking spaces for the Aloft hotel will need to be accommodated,
along with a peak demand of 75 construction employee parking spaces. As shown in Table 13, the total
demand of 367 spaces can be accommodated by the 447 parking spaces supplied, with a surplus of 80
spaces.
Table 13: Sequential Construction Phase 2 Parking Demand
Total
Site
Retail
Hotel
Construction
Demand
Total Supply
North
-
-
-
232
Fairfield
2
171
-
173
215
th/Alof
-
119
75
194
_
-290
LTotuaLlOvea�1�1
2t
75
367
447
Once Phase 2 is completed, newly constructed uses will be able to park at the new South site garage of
336 spaces, in addition to the 215 spaces provided at the Fairfield garage constructed during Phase 1.
Peak parking demand is estimated to occur on a weekday in June at 5:00 PM during Phase 3. A peak
demand of 169 parking spaces for the Fairfield Hotel and newly constructed retail and 280 parking spaces
for the uses on the South site will need to be accommodated, along with peak demand of 75 construction
employee parking spaces. As shown in Table 14, the total demand of 524 spaces can be accommodated
by the 551 parking spaces supplied, with a surplus of 27 spaces.
Page 16
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 17 of 18
Table 14: Sequential Construction Phase 3 Parking Demand
Site
�t"
Hotel
Construction
Total
Demand
Total Supply
North
-
75
75Fairfield
161
-
169
215
South/Aloft
138
29
113
-
280
336
Total Overall
138
37
274
75
524
551
CONCURRENT CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE
Under a concurrent timeline, Phase 1 of development will construct the replacement parking and new
retail for the Fairfield Inn & Suites site adjacent to the existing hotel. During Phase 1, the Aloft and
Fairfield Hotels will continue to be in operation. Phase 2 and 3 would occur concurrently and would
consist of the construction of the South site and the North site. During the construction of these two sites,
both hotels will continue to operate, and new retail built in Phase 1 will be occupied.
During Phase 1 of construction, Fairfield and Aloft hotel guests would continue to park at the existing
surface lots at their respective sites. The existing Fairfield surface lot has 232 parking spaces and the
existing Aloft surface lot has 165 parking spaces, for a total of 397 parking spaces. Peak parking demand
is estimated to occur on a weekday in June at 8:00 AM during Phase 1. A peak demand of 171 parking
spaces for the Fairfield Hotel and 119 parking spaces for the Aloft hotel will need to be accommodated,
along with a peak demand of 60 construction employee parking spaces. As shown in Table 15, the total
demand of 350 spaces can be accommodated by the existing 397 parking spaces, with a surplus of 47
spaces.
Table 15: Concurrent Construction Phase 1 Parking Demand
Total
Site
Retail
Hotel
Construction
Total Supply
Demand
North
-
-
-
232
Fairfield
-
171
60
231
-
th/Aloft
119
119
165
Ll Overall
0
290
60
350
397
Page 17
Lionel Uhry
February 17, 2021
Page 18 of 18
Once Phase 1 is completed, the Fairfield site will have 215 parking spaces. Because construction of Phase
2 and 3 occur concurrently under this scenario, the newly constructed garage for the Fairfield Hotel under
Phase 1 will be the only parking available. Peak parking demand is estimated to occur on a weekday in
June at 8:00 AM during the concurrent construction of Phase 2 and 3. A peak demand of 171 parking
spaces for the Fairfield Hotel and newly constructed retail and 119 parking spaces for the Aloft hotel will
need to be accommodated, along with a peak demand of 150 construction employee parking spaces. As
shown in Table 16, the total demand of 442 spaces cannot be accommodated by the 215 parking spaces
supplied, with a deficit of 227 spaces.
In order to accommodate the excess demand in parking during the concurrent construction of Phase 2
and 3, sufficient off -site parking with transport to and from the project site would need to be provided for
hotel guests and employees, and construction employees.
Table 16: Concurrent Construction Phase 2/3 Parking Demand
Total
Site
Retail
Hotel
Construction
Demand
Total Supply
North
75
75
-
Fairfield
2
171
-
173
215
South/Aloft
_
119
75
11 194
-
Total Overall
2
290
150
442
21 S
Page 18
APPENDIX A:
COUNT SHEETS
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Parking Study
Location: 475 North/525 North Pacific Coast Highway Date: 5/2/2019
City: El Segundo, LA Day: Thursday
Lot
Restriction
2:00 AM
North
Regular
123
North
Handicap
0
Fairfield
Regular
17
Fairfield
Handicap
2
Aloft
Regular
98
Aloft
Handicap
2
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Parking Study
Location: 475 North/525 North Pacific Coast Highway Date: 5/5/2019
City: El Segundo, LA Day: Sunday
Lot
North
Restriction
Regular
2:00 AM
158
North
Handicap
1
Fairfield
Regular
13
Fairfield
Handicap
2
Aloft
Regular
91
Aloft
Handicap
2
APPENDIX B:
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
Project Sitewide Peak Hour Parking Demand Determination
Appendix B
Weivkday Estimated Peak -Hour Parking Demand
Site
6AM I
7AM 1
8AM
9AM 1
10 AM
111AM 1
12 PM 1 1 PM 2PM 1 3 PM 4PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
BPM
9PM
10 PM i
11 PM
12 AM
North
189,
194
200
2011
203
2031
2041 204 204 204 204
213
223'
2421
241
240
238
227'
213
Fairfield
149
1541
173
159
150
152
146: 146 153152 160
1691
177
177 1
182
177
1911
195
181
South
280!
294
313
3081
305
307
3041 301 2981 295i 300
323
337
3531
358
350
357
350
320
Total
618i
642
686
6681
658
662
654' 651 655 651> 664
705
7371
7721
781s
767;
7861
772
714
Weekend Estimated Peak -Hour Parking Demand
Site
6AM I
7AM 1
8 AM
9AM 1
10 AM
11AM
12 PM ` 1 PM 2PM 1 3 PM 4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7PM 1
8PM
9 PM
10 PM
IIPM
12 AM
North
1891
1991
199
2011
202
203
203 1 204 2041 204 204
213
222
2411
241
240
238i
228
213
Fairfield
149
1551
173
1591
149
151
145 145 153, 153 161
1681
175
1751
181
177
191
195
181
South
2V
292
309
307
306
306�
304 300 301 294 300
319
335
3511
353
343
3501
343
316
Total
614
646:
681
667:
657
660.
6521 649 658' __651 665
7001
732
767-1
775
760
7791
766I
710
I North Site = Weekday Estimated Peak-HourParkin€s Demand i
6 AM
7 AM
B AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM 3PM
4 PM
5 PM-
6 PM
7 PM
6 PM 9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
12 AM
omrr Eun€ty Shopprn ertler ( 00 kSI
Si%
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3 2
1
Ei11 Ee
80%
-
1
1
1
'Residential Demand
100%
160
144
136
128
120
112
104
112 -
112 112
120
136
144
155
157 158
160
160
160 '..
Reserved
100%
189
189
189
1$9
18s
189
189
1S9
189 189
169
1$9
169
169
1- 189
1$9
169
189
Guest
100%
_-_---5-
-10
--10-
10
10
10
10
10 10
10
19
29
48
48 48
48_
-38
24 '..
TOTAL DEMAND
Customer
-
-
1
1
3
3
4
4
4 4
4
4
4
4
3 2
1
--
Em I�oyee
1
1
1
1
g189
1
�159
_ 1 1
1
1
Rese
189
189
189
189
189
189
189 189
189
1S9
189
189
189 189
189
189
189
Guest
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 10
10
19
29
4B
48 48
46
38
24
189
194
200
201
203
203
204
204
204 204
204
2f3
223
242
241 240
23S
227
213
June
North Site-W"kend Estimated Peak -Hour Parking Demand
6 AM
7 Am
3 AM,
9-AJV,
0.Aj- 11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
'. 2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
6 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
12 AM
Community She ping Center (<400 ksfl a
67%
1
2 3
3
4_
4
4
4
4
3
3
EmPto ee
80%
--_ -
-
-
1
1 1
1
1
y
1
1 _.__-.
1
1
1—
1
1
1
-
m
-
Residential Demand
100%
160
144
136
128
120 112
104
112
12
112
120
136
144
155
15
158
160
160
160
Reserved
1009/.
189
189
189
169
189 189
189
189
_1
189
189
189
189
189
189
169
189
189
189
189
Guest -- -
100%
-
10'.
10
10
10 10
10
10
10
10
10
19
29
-- 48
48
48
48
38
24
TOTAL DEMAND
Customer
-
1
2 3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
1
1
-
Emoloyee
Reserved
1B9
-_
189
189
189
189 189
189
1$9
189
_�_
189
1
189
189
189
___�
189
K_
189
189
189
_
189
189
Gue=£t
f 0
_
f 0
—a
10
_ _
10 ' 10
Y
10
10
__
10
_
10
-----
10
19
29
48
48
� 48
38
24
189
199
199
201
202 203
203
204
204
204
204
213
1 222
241
241
1 2401
238
228
213
June
Fairfield Site -Weekday Estimated Peak -Hour Parking Demand
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
IIAM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PMr55
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
12 AM
Community Shopping Center (�400 ksf�
Employee
67%
80 %
-
-
1
1
2
1
4
1
5
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
5
2
56
22
6
2
6
2
5
1
3
1
2
1
1
Hotel -Business
Emplovee
100%
100%
146
3
138
16
123
48
108
48
92
53
92
53
85
53
85
53
92
53
92
53
1008
533
116
53
116
53
123
53
131
42
146-
42
154
40
54
27
TOTALDEMAND
Customer
146
138
124
110
96
97
91
98
97
1054
122
122
128
134
148
155
154
Employee
_-
3
_
16
_
49 �49
a
54
_
. 55 55�
_ _91
55
55
_
55 55
55
_
55
A 54
43
43
40
27Reserved
ULI Base Data Has Been Modified.
1491
154
173
1591
150
i 152
146
146
153
152
160
169
177
177
182
177
191
195
181
June
Fairfield Site - Weekend Estimated Peak -Hour Parking Demand
6 AM
I 7 AM
8 A,M1
I S AM
I 10 Ar
IIAM
2 MM : PIS
2 P
3 PM
4 PM' PM
6 PM
7 PM
6 PM
9 PM
WPM
IIPM
12'. AM
Community Shoppin Center (<400 ksfl 67%
=
1
2
3
4
5 5
6
—2
6
2
6 5
5
5
4
3
2
1
Empio ee 80°!
_
-
1
1
1
2
2 2
2 2
1
1
1
1
1
1•totel-Business 10D%
146
1 139
1231
8
92
92
85 85
92
92
100 108
116
116
123
131
146
154
154
Employee 100%
3
16
48
48
R53
53
53 53
53
53
_
53 53
v�__=
53
__
53
53
—42
—42
40
v 27
Customer
TOTAL DEMAND Employee
Reserved
146
139
124
110
95
96
90 90
98
98
106 113-
121
----12i-
127
134.---148
155
154
3
16
49
49
54
55
55 55
55
_
55
55 55
54
54
54
�4's
43
40
27
-_
_
------_--
ULI Base Data Has Been Modified.
149
155
173
159
149
151
145. 145
153
153
161 18$
175
175
181
177
191
195
1$1
June ----.
South Site - Weekda Estimated Peak -Hour Parking Dettland
-----
6 AM
7 AM
6 AM
9 AM
1 10 AM
11 A ,
12 PM
'. 1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM 6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
'. 10 PM
11 PM
12 AM
Communes Shoff in- Center (<400 ksf�
67%
-
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3
2
1
Employee
80%
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1 1
1
1
1
_
Eamil Restaurant
95%
6
12
1a
18
20
21
24
21
12
11
11
18 19
1
19
14
__ 13
12
___6_
Employee
100%
4
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
5
5
7 i
7
7
6
5
5
2
Hotel -Business _-- ----
100%
103
97
86
76
65
65
59
59
65
65
70
76 81
81
86
92
103
108
v
108
Em to
Em ioyee
100f
2
1._
11
33
33
37
37
37
37
�_
37
__
37
37
37 37
37
______z
37
30
_,_
30
28
19
1
Residential Reserved
100%
144
130
122
5
108
101
94
101
101
101
108
122 130
140
141
143
144
_______
144
__
144
v
100%
165
165
165
__I!
165
�_
165
_
165
__
165
n
165
'165
165
165
165 165
165
165
165
165
165
165
_Reserved
Guest
100%
4
8
e
8
$
v_
8
8
8
____
8
___
8
_
?8 24
__
40
40
40
40
32
20
TOTAL DEMAND
Customer
109
109
101
95
87
89
86
83
1 80
79
1 84
97 103
103
108
108
117
120
114
Employee
_ 6
16
39
40
45
45
45
45
_n 45
43
43
45 45
45
45
37
35
33
21
Reserved
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
' 165
165
165 165
165
165
165
165
165
165
��E_
Guest
-
4
6
8
B
�
S
8
8
' 8
8
16 _® 24
� 40
�g 40
40
40
32
20
ULI Base Data Has Been Modified.�
280
294
313
308
305
307
304
301
298
295
300
323 337
353
358
350
357
350
320
June
S*tuth Site - Weekend Estimated Peak -Hour Parki2q Demand
6 AM
I 7 AM
6 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM.
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9.PM
10 PM
11 PM
12 AM
Communi Shoo ina Center (<400 ksf)
Emola ee
67 %
60%
2
2
3
3
3
3
_
3
3
3
3
2
2
w 1
1
Family Restaurant
95%
2
6
21
21
24
20
15
10
11
14
17
17
15
7
6
4
2
Em to ee
100%
4
5
7
7
7
7
7
5
5
7
7
7
7
6
5
5
2Hotel-Business
100%
103
97
f
65
65
59
59
65
65
70
76
81
81
86
92
103
106
108
�100%
2
113
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
M
37
30
30
28
19(2esidential
Reserved
1t10°k
1aa
130
108
101
94
101
101
101
108
123
130
140
1d1
143
1a4
1aa
14a
Reserved
100%
165
165
165
165
165
165
185
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
Guest100%
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
16
24
40
40
40
40
32
20
TOTAL DEMAND
Customer
105
103
97
94
86
88
86
83
78
84_
93
10_1
101_
103
101
110
113
110
Em layee
6
16
39
40
45
45
45
_82
45
�j45
43
43
�_ 45
�45
_ 4545
37
35
33
21
Reserved
165
_ __
165
-165
1b'5
- 165
--165
165
-165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
Guest
I -
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
16
24
40
40
d0
40
32
20
-- --
ULI Base Data Has Been Modified.
- 276
292
309
307
306
306
304
300
301
294
300
319
335
351
353
343
350
343
316
_
PACIFIC COAST COMMONS SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY (NORTH SITE)
PFAK MONTH: JUNE -- PEAK PERIOD: 10 PM. WEEKDAY
Projected Parking Supply:
241 Stalls
Weekday
Weekday
Non-
Peak Hr
Peak Mo
Estimated
Project Data
Base
Mode
Captive
Project
Ad'
Ad'
Parking
10 PM
June
Land Use
Quantity Unit
Rate Adj Ratio Rate
Unit
Demand
Community Shopping Center (<400 ksf)
2,223
sf GLA
2.67
1.00
1.00
2.67
/ksf G
0.30
0.67
1
Employee
0.66
1.00
1.00
0.66
/ksf G
0.40
0.80
0
Residential Demand
137
units
1.17
1.00
1.00
1.17
/unit
1.00
1.00
160
Reserved
1.38
sp/unit
1.38
1.00
1.00
1.38
/unit
1
1.00
1.00
189
Guest
143
units
0.33
1.00
1.00
0.33
/unit
1-00
1.00
48
ULI base data have been modified from default values.
Customer
1
Employee
0
Residential Reserved
189
Residential Guest
48
Total
238
PACIFIC COAST COMMONS SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY (FAIRFIELD SITE)
PEAK MONTH: JUNE -- PEAK PERIOD: 10 PM, WEEKDAY
Projected Parkipq Su I 215 Stalls
Weekday
Weekday
Non-
Peak Hr
Peak Mo
Estimated
Project Data
Base Mode Captive Project
Ad'
Ad'
Parking
10 PM
June
Land Use
Quantity Unit
Rate Adj Ratio Rate
Unit
Demand
Community Shopping Center (<400 ksf)
3,273
sf GLA
2.67
1.00
1.00 2.67
/ksf GLA
0.30
0.67
2
Employee
1 0.66
1.00
1.00 0.66
/ksf GLA
0.40
0.80
1
Hotel -Business
350
rooms
0.44
1
1.00
1.00 0.44
/rooms
0.95
1.00
146
Employee
0.15
1.00
1,00 0.15
/rooms
0.80
1.00
42
ULI base data have been modified from default values.
Customer
148
Employee
43
Total
191
PACIFIC COAST COMMONS SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY (SOUTH SITE)
PEAK MONTH: JUNE -- PEAK PERIOD: 10 PM. WEEKDAY
Pro°'ected Parkin Su l 336 Stalls
Weekday
Weekday
Non-
Peak Hr
Peak Mo
Estimated
Project Data
Base Mode Captive Project
Ad'
Ad'
Parking
10 PM
June
Land Use
Quantity Unit
Rate Adj Ratio Rate
Unit
Demand
Community Shopping Center (<400 ksf)
2,056
sf GLA
2.67
1.00
1.00
2.67
/ksf GLA
0.30
0.67
1
Employee
0.66
1.00
1.00
0.66
/ksf GLA
0.40
0.80
0
Family Restaurant
3,700
sf GLA
6.67
1.00
1.00
6.67
/ksf GLA
0.55
0.95
13
Employee
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
/ksf GLA
0.65
1.00
5
Hotel -Business
246
rooms
0.44
1.00
1.00
0.44
/rooms
0.95
1.00
103
Employee
0.15
1.00
1.00
0.15
/rooms
0.80
1.00
30
Residential Demand
120
units
1.20
1.00
1,00
120
/unit
1.00
1.00
144
Reserved
1.38
sp/unit
1.38
1.00
1.00
1.38
/unit
1.00
1.00
165
Guest
120
units
0.33
1.00
1.00
0.33
/unit
1.00
1.00
40
ULI base data have been modified from default values.
Customer
117
Employee
35
Residential Reserved
165
Residential Guest
40
Total
357
PROPOSED STREET DEDICATION PLAN
EXHIBIT NO, H
W €
s
x
.. k F
25I
PART L
_.
r�
x`€A Y 4 8i3it-
I
t 4 E .i3t ayt �
7.:eP
n ax>F 7 }
WA xi I GTON STREET .
- - I MR
c
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
FMILiG a' � tT7
-_
Ll
� q� � ®,
w
5
�.,_
- a
1=4I
PfdOPO®fiP
Us'
---w N
s ,.
ij 25 - 2525
-
_
IN-DIANA STREET
LLI
�-, D
to s -s`v.r z w
LU
a aP
¢' m
LLJ
di
UNETYPES
SET AREA tPOST-?ROPOSEQ DEDIOATiONS:
DEVELOPABLE RO RTY
0
n �� >
SHEET 1 OF 1