El Segundo Planning Commission reviews Vision 2050 land use update, requests fiscal analysis

The El Segundo Planning Commission held a study session on the Vision 2050 land use update, receiving a presentation from consultant MIG and city staff on existing conditions, public engagement and preliminary vision and guiding principles for the land use element.

Consultant Laura Stetson of MIG summarized the technical work and public outreach completed to date, including stakeholder interviews, a community workshop and an online questionnaire that drew roughly 860 responses. Stetson said the update focuses only on the land use element of the general plan and is intended to set a course for the next 20–30 years. "I want to emphasize that the city is just updating the land use element," Stetson said during the presentation.

The presentation highlighted housing pressures and the city’s jobs-to-housing imbalance. Stetson reported that El Segundo has “just over 13,000 people” and that 57% of households are renters; she said more than half of households are cost-burdened (paying more than 30% of income on housing) and about 30% are ‘‘extremely cost-burdened’’ (paying more than 50%). The housing element's estimated need of roughly 600 units for the 2021–2029 period was noted as the baseline; the land use update will look beyond that horizon.

Economics and market analysis presented by the consultant team (including Kaiser Marston Associates) described a strong retail, industrial and hotel market near LAX and a high concentration of jobs on the east side of the city. Stetson told commissioners the city has a very high jobs-to-housing ratio and that many employers say lack of nearby housing constrains hiring younger workers.

Commission discussion focused on a small set of focus areas the consultant recommended for detailed alternatives: the area east of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), the housing overlay along Imperial Highway on the west side of PCH, downtown, Smoky Hollow, and sites with large surface parking. Commissioners raised questions about school-district boundaries (the presentation and discussion referenced the Wiseburn School District) and the fiscal implications of allowing housing in east‑of‑PCH areas, noting business‑tax revenue, property‑tax flows and school fee mechanics.

City staff and commissioners also discussed potential state action. Stetson said there is pending legislation (referred to as SB 79 in the presentation) that, if signed, could require residential development around high-frequency transit stations and change local zoning constraints; staff noted they would circulate a memo on the bill. Staff showed preliminary maps of quarter‑mile and other station radii and discussed the kinds of densities the legislation contemplates, including examples of maximum densities and height ranges that had been raised in the presentation (staff cited illustrative maximums presented by the consultant, such as up to 120 units per acre with bonuses in some cases and heights in the 75–95 foot range near some stations).

On density and historic development patterns, Paul (city staff) explained that parts of the city developed in the 1950s–1970s show average densities of about 40–44 units per acre, while the city’s more recently adopted multifamily densities were historically lower (roughly 27 units per acre) and were recently increased to about 30 units per acre through the housing element. "The average density on the properties there is about 40 to 44 units per acre," Paul said when describing older multifamily blocks.

Commissioners requested several follow-up items for the project team and consultants: (1) a high‑level fiscal analysis showing directional flows (for example, how business license revenue, property tax and school funding would be affected by changes east of PCH); (2) maps identifying properties within quarter‑mile station radii and identification of Metro‑ or transit‑owned parcels; (3) identification of large surface parking areas and their owners as potential redevelopment opportunities; and (4) a memo summarizing SB 79 and how the bill would affect El Segundo if signed. Staff said they will take the commission’s feedback to the City Council and proceed to develop land‑use alternatives for public review and return to the commission.

The formal action recorded at the end of the session was to "receive on file" the presentation and initial feedback; no rezoning or regulatory changes were adopted that night.

Next steps described by staff included a similar presentation to the City Council, development of alternatives for public review, continued outreach to under‑represented groups, and incorporation of commission feedback into the alternatives that will inform the draft land use element.