El Segundo council continues public hearing on changing multifamily parking rules after hours of debate

El Segundo City Council on March 4 continued a public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would revise multifamily residential parking requirements in the R‑3 zone from a flat two‑spaces‑per‑unit standard to a bedroom‑based sliding scale and would permit up to 20% of required resident spaces to be tandem configuration.

Council opened the hearing after planning staff described the change as part of Program 9 of the city’s adopted housing element. Principal Planner Paul Samaras said, “This item before you is a part of our continuing efforts to implement the adopted housing element,” and that the proposed sliding scale had been recommended by the Planning Commission and by the state reviewer, the Department of Housing and Community Development.

The proposed ordinance would keep a two‑space requirement for larger units (two bedrooms and up) but reduce parking requirements for studios and one‑bedroom units. Samaras told the council the approach aligns with the Pacific Coast Commons specific plan and with a trend among other jurisdictions that use bedroom‑based ratios. He also noted the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking manual as a comparative data source.

Public comment focused on on‑street parking pressure. Cheryl Smith, a Kansas Street resident, urged the council to “prioritize the needs of our community and refrain from altering the current multi housing parking requirements,” saying El Segundo’s small residential footprint and airport traffic already strain street parking. Another resident described repeated spillover parking and the likely need to expand residential permit zones if requirements were reduced.

Council members debated tandem parking and whether to raise the one‑bedroom requirement. Mayor Pro Tem Baldino said she favored the sliding scale but called tandem parking “a myth” in practice and proposed eliminating a blanket tandem allowance while preserving a route for project‑specific exceptions. Several council members said developers can already apply for adjustments through the city’s administrative use permit (AUP) or a development agreement, and that the city should be cautious about cutting off flexibility that helps projects “pencil.”

Council asked staff to research two follow‑up items before the second reading: (1) whether R‑3 developments can be made ineligible for participation in adjacent residential parking permit zones and (2) whether the sliding‑scale amendment should exclude projects over a specified size (for example, larger sites that would require a development agreement). City staff recommended continuing the hearing to allow that research.

After discussion the council voted to continue the public hearing and the ordinance introduction to the March 18 meeting so staff can report back on the parking‑zone permit question and possible size thresholds. The council did not adopt the ordinance on March 4.

Council direction and next steps: staff will return on March 18 with legal analysis and proposed code language options on (a) restricting adjacent parking‑zone permit eligibility for certain multifamily developments and (b) exempting or treating larger projects differently. Planning staff also said developers would retain the ability to seek site‑specific adjustments through existing AUP or development agreement processes.

The continuation preserves the status quo for R‑3 parking until the council takes further action.