BACKGROUND
The 2040 General Plan, adopted February 8, 2022, includes a vision for establishing a downtown that will create community gathering spaces, restaurants, entertainment venues, hospitality uses, offices, and housing opportunities, all within a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly environment.
In January 2024, the City applied for a Caltrans Sustainable Communities Competitive Grant for the development of the Town Center Telegraph Corridor Specific Plan (aka Downtown Specific Plan). The Project would create a Specific Plan along Telegraph Road to establish a downtown as the geographic heart of the community by facilitating higherdensity residential projects within mixed-use zones. The Project would fulfill and implement the policies, goals, and objectives of the 2040 General Plan.
In July 2024, the Community Development Department was notified of a conditional award of $673,000 by Caltrans.
On September 3, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9927 to execute agreements with Caltrans for funding of the Downtown Specific Plan.
On April 1, 2025, the City Council authorized staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) to secure a qualified firm to prepare the Downtown Specific Plan.
On April 14, 2025, the Downtown Specific Plan RFP was released, and proposals were due by May 22, 2025.
The City received nine proposals from qualified firms, with costs ranging from $713,340 to $1,043,795. A selection panel comprised of staff from Community Development and Public Works reviewed the proposals and scored them based on the following criteria:
1. Experience of proposer & project personnel (40 points)
2. Proposed approach & work plan (30 points)
3. Proposed fees for items/services (20 points)
4. Responsiveness to RFP (10 points)
Three firms were selected for interviews, which were conducted on July 23rd and 24th.
ANALYSIS
Following the scoring and interview process, The Arroyo Group ranked highest among the interviewed firms based on the established evaluation criteria. Their proposal demonstrated a clear understanding of the project’s objectives, a structured approach to community engagement, and a cost proposal consistent with the City’s available funding.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2025
PSA WITH ARROYO GROUP FOR DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
The three shortlisted firms all presented well-developed proposals and demonstrated relevant qualifications. The Arroyo Group’s prior work on multiple Specific Plans for cities within the Gateway COG region over the past decade provides additional familiarity with the area’s planning context, which contributed to their overall evaluation score.
If selected, The Arroyo Group’s responsibilities will include:
• A detailed assessment of the current conditions within the plan area; • A robust community engagement program;
• Land use alternatives analysis;
• Market demand analysis;
• An infrastructure and services plan;
• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance; and • Zoning Code updates to ensure consistency with the comprehensive Zoning Code Update process.
Final deliverables will include draft and final versions of the Downtown Specific Plan, to be completed no later than June 30, 2027.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.), the action is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it is reasonably foreseeable that the execution of a professional services agreement would not have a direct or indirect impact on the environment. The action does not constitute approval of any specific project, entitlement or property development.
DISCUSSION
The Specific Plan will guide future development process by:
• Establishing the community’s vision for the plan area; • Reducing developer risk and permitting time;
• Lowering construction costs through pre-planned public infrastructure; and • Streamlining the permitting process.
Ultimately, the Downtown Specific Plan will support efficient land use, promote economic development, and enhance the quality of life for Santa Fe Springs residents and visitors.
SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
If approved, City staff will finalize the Professional Services Agreement with The Arroyo Group. The attached PSA is a working draft using the City’s standard agreement and requires review and approval by The Arroyo Group’s attorney and OMLO before being finalized. No substantive changes to the PSA will occur. Once both parties sign the PSA, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2025
PSA WITH ARROYO GROUP FOR DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
staff will schedule a project kick-off meeting with The Arroyo Group to outline the scope of services, project timelines, and key deliverables. Regular progress updates will be provided to the City Manager’s Office to ensure the Downtown Specific Plan project remains on schedule and completed within budget.
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. RFP 25-13 Downtown Specific Plan
B. Specific Plan Area Map
C. Proposal from Arroyo Group
D. Draft Professional Services Agreement with The Arroyo Group
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
No. 25 - 13
Downtown Specific Plan
Issue Date: Monday, April 14, 2025
Questions Due Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2025, at 2 PM Pacific Proposal Due Date: Thursday, May 22, 2025, at 2 PM Pacific 2 (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
3 TO PROSPECTIVE PROPOSERS
The City of Santa Fe Springs (“City”) invites qualified firms to submit proposals in response to this Request for Proposals (“RFP”). The City will evaluate responses to this solicitation to determine qualifications. Submissions must adhere to the format and content described. Only proposals that adhere to the requirements will be considered.
The information set forth is the minimum required to qualify for consideration. The successful Proposer will be required to enter into a Professional Services Agreement based on the specifications outlined in this RFP.
DATE OF SOLICITATION
April 14, 2025
PROJECT
Downtown Specific Plan
PROPOSAL OWNER
City of Santa Fe Springs – Community Development Department 11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Attn: Cuong Nguyen, Director of Community Development
Contact Phone: (562) 868 - 0511
Contact E-Mail: [email protected]
PROPOSAL CONTACT
City of Santa Fe Springs – Department of Finance
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Attn: Micah Herd, Procurement Manager
Contact Phone: (562) 868 - 0511
Contact E-Mail: [email protected]
Any questions about this RFP should be submitted via the City's PlanetBids Portal by Tuesday, April 29, 2025, at 2 PM Pacific.
Proposals must be submitted by Thursday, May 22, 2025, at 2 PM Pacific.
Prospective proposers must register their business with PlanetBids before being able to submit questions and/or proposals. To access the City's PlanetBids Portal, please go to:
https://vendors.planetbids.com/portal/65093/bo/bo-detail/128728 4 CONTENTS
I. Notice Inviting Proposals ...............................................................................................................5 II. Background.......................................................................................................................................5 III. Timeline.............................................................................................................................................7 IV. Scope of Work/Services ...............................................................................................................7 V. Proposal Submittal........................................................................................................................14 VI. Proposal Content and Format ..................................................................................................15 VII. Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................................................17 VIII. Proposal Protests ......................................................................................................................18 IX. Execution of Agreement.............................................................................................................19 X. Insurance Requirements.............................................................................................................19 XI. Business License Requirements.............................................................................................22 XII. Use of Federal Funds.................................................................................................................22 XIII. Non-Commitment of City .........................................................................................................23 XIV. Labor Requirements .................................................................................................................23 XV. Records .........................................................................................................................................24 XVI. Use of Subcontractors.............................................................................................................24 XVII. Modifications/Changes...........................................................................................................24 XVIII. Disclosure of Information .....................................................................................................24 IX. Ex-Parte Communications.........................................................................................................24 XX. General Rights of the City........................................................................................................25 5 I. Notice Inviting Proposals
The City of Santa Fe Springs (hereinafter referred to as “City”) invites Proposals from qualified consultant teams that specialize in public outreach, preparation of specific plans and/or corridor plans, and preparation of environmental documents (hereinafter referred to as “Proposers”) interested in providing consultant services for the Downtown Specific Plan (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”) following the specifications, terms, and conditions identified in this RFP. Prospective respondents should carefully read information related to this opportunity before submitting a proposal.
The Selected firms or individuals must be familiar with grant-funded projects and demonstrate recent, relevant experience in projects similar in scope to this one. The project will require the expertise of a team of diverse disciplines to successfully deliver the required services.
To view the complete RFP package, please visit:
https://vendors.planetbids.com/portal/65093/bo/bo-detail/128728 Prospective Proposers must register with PlanetBids before being able to view all documentation or submit a response.
Questions must be submitted by Tuesday, April 29, 2025, at 2 PM Pacific. *****QUESTIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED VIA PLANETBIDS*****
Proposals must be submitted via PlanetBids by Thursday, May 22, 2025, at 2 PM Pacific. Responses to this RFP will be evaluated to determine the most qualified Proposer. Responses must adhere to the format and content described in the RFP.
The successful Proposer will be required to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with the City for the project's duration. Final terms, including compensation and length of the agreement, are subject to City Council approval.
II. Background
Santa Fe Springs is a predominantly industrial city in southeast Los Angeles County. It provides a full range of municipal services, including police and fire protection, street maintenance, water utilities, recreational services, a public library, and cultural events.
The City also oversees two (2) legally separate entities: the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Successor Agency to the Housing Authority.
Santa Fe Springs has approximately 18,800 residents and over 3,000 businesses.
Though incorporated in May 1957, the City's history dates back to 1871 when Dr. James E. Fulton discovered a sulfur spring that was later developed into a health spa. Santa Fe Springs is a built-out city with few to no vacant properties remaining. Much of its land was historically used for oil extraction and refining until the 1970s, when the oil industry waned 6 and consolidated operations. The boom period of the 1980s and 1990s— when the City actively led redevelopment of former oil field sites and aging industrial properties— vanished almost entirely with Governor Jerry Brown's dissolution of the City's Redevelopment Agency in 2012. In the post-redevelopment era, private redevelopment activity has been driven largely by well-funded logistics industries looking to meet increasing consumer demands related to online shopping and rapid goods delivery.
Interest by other industry clusters remains more moderate but steady, reflecting the City's business-friendly environment and strategic location along Interstates 5 and 605.
The City's population increased modestly during the first two decades of the 2000s—from 16,413 in 2000 to 18,295 in 2020, with the increase primarily associated with the development of the Villages at Heritage Springs, a residential neighborhood built on a former oil field. Other housing development has been on sites formerly occupied by schools, open spaces, and industrial uses. For the State's housing planning period extending from 2021-2029, Santa Fe Springs was assigned a housing production goal of 952 units.
The City adopted its 2040 General Plan in 2022, which included a vision for creating a downtown. Santa Fe Springs has never had a traditional or historic downtown. While the Civic Center complex serves as a de facto center for community events, residents have long expressed a desire for a vibrant downtown with shopping, dining, and social gathering spaces. The City envisions a new downtown at the center of the City that will create community gathering spaces, restaurants and entertainment venues, hospitality uses, offices, and housing opportunities all within a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly environment. Telegraph Road will serve as the primary arterial with direct connectivity to other major arterials and the I-605 freeway. The Civic Center’s library, aquatics center, Clarke Estate, and community garden will complement this new urban environment, where industrial and business park sites will gradually transition into three- to five-story mixed-use buildings and public plazas that foster pedestrian activity and connectivity between the Civic Complex and Heritage Park.
To support this vision, the City added mixed-use designations in the general plan and rezoned industrial properties along Telegraph Road to mixed-use. Properties north of the Civic Center complex and vacant land at the southeast corner of Telegraph Road and Bloomfield Avenue were rezoned MU: Mixed-Use, and the Heritage Corporate Center was rezoned MU-DT: Mixed-Use – Downtown. In total, the Plan Area is comprised of 98.7 acres, with the City owning approximately 65 percent of the land area. A map of the Plan Area is provided as Attachment C.
To advance this downtown initiative, the City secured a $673,000 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant from Caltrans (Agreement No. 74A1658) to develop a Downtown Specific Plan for the newly designated mixed-use areas along Telegraph Road. A copy of the City’s Scope of Work approved by Caltrans is provided as Attachment D (this provides further background on the City’s goals and objectives in preparing the Plan). Per the City’s agreement with Caltrans, all work on the specific plan, including the adoption of the final Downtown Specific Plan, must be completed by June 2027. 7 III. Timeline
• Release RFP Monday, April 14, 2025
• Online Q&A Deadline Tuesday, April 29, 2025, at 2 PM Pacific • Deadline to Submit Proposals Thursday, May 22, 2025, at 2 PM Pacific • City Review of Submissions Late May 2025
• Interviews TBD (If Necessary)
• Notifications Sent to Proposers Early June 2025
• Award of Contract June/July 2025
IV. Scope of Work/Services
The City seeks proposals from qualified consultants to prepare a Specific Plan to create a new downtown. The Specific Plan will implement the 2040 General Plan goals and facilitate the conversion of industrial and business park land into a vibrant, mixed-use downtown along Telegraph Road. Tentatively titled the Downtown Specific Plan, this bold vision will transform the City center.
The specific plan should embody pragmatic design and development standards that are objective in nature. The type and intensity of commercial and residential development proposed shall mesh with and enhance accessibility to public transportation and other forms of active transportation. The nexus between land use and transportation mobility is paramount. The project will recommend prospective development scenarios of key parcels or catalytic projects that can be analyzed in greater detail in terms of the physical form and project economics. In terms of financial feasibility and marketability, the project shall also include:
• A comprehensive financial feasibility analysis;
• A prototypical proforma analysis of no fewer than five distinct projects; and • A phased implementation strategy, if necessary, to enhance the marketability and maximize community benefits.
The project should streamline the development process by providing objective development/design standards that are vetted through financial analysis and typical prototypical proformas. The project will facilitate the development process by presenting the community's vision for the Plan Area, reducing developer risk and permitting time, and lowering construction costs with the pre-planned public infrastructure. The physical form of the Plan Area will be a noticeable departure from the historical suburban landscape of one- and two-story buildings with segregated land use patterns. The Plan Area will exhibit a more compact, dense, and walkable district wherein residents have viable alternative active transportation options.
The City will manage and administer the project according to the Caltrans Grant Application Guidelines, Regional Planning Handbook, and the executed grant contract between Caltrans and the City. Many of the tasks below are included in the City’s Scope of Work approved by Caltrans, a copy of which is included as Attachment D. 8 The City encourages Proposers to recommend refinements or innovative approaches to how this scope of services can be better fulfilled to increase efficiency and effectiveness.
The City and stakeholders alike have high ambitions for this pivotal project and welcome creative, visionary proposals to help maximize its success.
Task 1: Project Administration
The Consultant shall develop a timeline and milestones for the project that align with the City’s budget. Each phase of the project must be planned with an awareness of the financial limitations, ensuring that all deliverables, public outreach efforts, and meetings are completed within the allocated funds.
The Consultant shall conduct a kick-off meeting with City staff to refine the project scope, timeline, and deliverables. The Consultant shall prepare an action plan with phases of work and a schedule to accomplish the action plan that identifies minor milestones, including regular meeting dates with staff and work product review deadlines, and major milestones, including a public outreach program. The action plan will outline regular progress check-ins with City staff and involve input from various departments, as needed, to ensure all relevant stakeholders are aligned throughout the process.
The Consultant and City staff shall participate in reoccurring meetings, as needed, for up to one hour each to review and discuss deliverables, provide status updates on the study area, and refine specialized aspects of the Specific Plan. Meetings may be in person or via conference call, as appropriate.
The Consultant shall submit monthly invoicing in a timely manner.
During the course of the project, the City will conduct quarterly meetings, as needed, with the Consultant and Caltrans to monitor the project’s progress, review completed and upcoming tasks, and address any challenges. These meetings will provide the opportunity for staff to discuss obstacles and conduct problem-solving to ensure that the project stays on schedule and within the framework of the grant budget.
Minimum Required Deliverables:
• Kick-off meeting
• Action plan
• Project schedule
• Meeting agendas and action minutes
• Monthly invoices
Task 2: Existing Conditions Analysis
The Consultant shall conduct a survey of existing conditions and present findings in an Existing Conditions Report. The Consultant shall review existing City documents that may inform the preparation of the report (Active Transportation Plan, 2040 General Plan- in 9 particular, Housing, Circulation, Land Use, Economic Development, and Environmental Justice Elements, Annual Housing Progress Reports, Public Infrastructure plans, etc.).
The Consultant shall also meet with City staff and local agencies familiar with socioeconomic conditions within the community; review staff reports of projects and programs affecting properties within the Plan Area; review public infrastructure plans and reports concerning service delivery problems; public safety records (vehicular accidents and crime statistics), traffic studies, and special studies and reports (engineering, market demand, traffic, Phase I and II ESAs, etc.) related to past and current development projects.
Minimum Required Deliverables:
• Existing Conditions Report
Task 3: Community Engagement
Developing an effective Community Engagement Strategy or Plan is the first step that the Consultant will complete with City staff input. The Consultant shall adhere to the following three key elements: i) To inform the community with objective information so they can learn and stay informed about the project; ii) To consult the community to obtain valuable feedback on specific project decisions and analysis; and iii) To involve and work directly with the community to ensure that their concerns and feedback are understood and considered throughout the project. The Community Engagement Strategy shall identify the “who, what, where, when, and how.”
The strategy will address residents and businesses located within and adjacent to the Plan Area as well as the wider community. The Consultant will ensure that outreach to hard-to-reach segments of our community includes the following: meeting with our elderly residents at senior housing sites and senior community centers; engaging with our youth and school districts, including principals and teachers; connecting with lower-income residents at food banks, neighborhood gathering spots, and community centers; and engaging with transit riders at bus stops. The Consultant shall prepare social media posts and a dedicated city webpage as a central repository of project information. City staff will gather email lists from city departments of residents who wish to be informed of city projects. Printed articles in the quarterly community newsletter, the local paper, and colorful graphics for posters will be used. Bilingual translation and interpretation services will be available for printed materials and community meetings.
The Consultant will also engage with utility companies, businesses, developers, and brokers who are familiar with mixed-use and residential projects. Within this group, special attention will be given to affordable housing providers and ancillary services (e.g. social and supportive services) to better design an inclusive and holistic program. The project will also seek consultation and engagement from local and regional transportation and planning agencies, such as Caltrans, Metro, SCAG, Gateway Cities COG, and utility companies. Discussions may focus on development opportunity areas that may require or influence future service delivery options.
10 For this project, the City anticipates conducting approximately two community-wide workshops, five focus group meetings, ten private stakeholder meetings, and numerous meetings with city staff. Meetings should not be held at City Hall but rather in locations that community stakeholders are comfortable and familiar with. An Advisory Committee will also be established to facilitate project review and implementation. The Advisory Committee may be comprised of eleven individuals representing a cross section of the community and may meet up to seven times during the course of the project. Both print and digital mediums will be used for social media, the City's website, emails, and community newsletters. Online surveys, printed questionnaires, and informational FAQ sheets will be distributed at senior housing sites, and public counters to maintain effective and continuous communication.
The community engagement process will start one month after project initiation and continue through project completion. Throughout the entire process, the community must be informed, consulted, and involved in the project. To minimize confusion and misunderstanding, periodic updates will also be presented at public meetings, such as the City Council and Planning Commission meetings, as well as public service announcements through newsletter articles, and short videos posted on the website.
Minimum Required Deliverables:
• Community Engagement Strategy (Report)
• Community engagement materials (e.g., PowerPoint Presentations, flyers, website announcements, sign-in sheets, community surveys, conceptual drawings)
• Facilitation of two (2) community-wide workshops (with translated materials and interpretation services in Spanish)
• Advisory Committee Meeting facilitation and materials for up to seven (7) meetings (agendas, presentations, meeting notes, list of attendees, list of action items)
• Up to five (5) focus group meetings
• Up to ten (10) private stakeholder meetings
• Community Meeting Summary Memoranda
• Supplemental meetings with City staff
Task 4: Development of Land Use Alternatives
Following initial meetings and outreach, the Consultant will develop an opportunity sites analysis and land use alternatives to accommodate potential residential, commercial, and office development in the TCTCSP area. The opportunity sites analysis will highlight larger-scale development opportunities within the TCTCSP area while the alternative scenario analysis will complement the opportunity site analysis to support enhanced vibrancy, housing density, and economic activity in the TCTCSP area.
Land uses should be thoughtfully and strategically placed to maximize community connectivity and create synergy between residents and businesses. The alternatives 11 should consider findings from previous analyses, community outreach, and Staff feedback.
Each alternative must address:
1. Alternatives to support the character of a new, vibrant downtown area with variety of retail and commercial uses, including considerations for sidewalk width, public amenities/furniture and street parking.
2. A mix of housing units that aligns with the City’s Housing Element, analyzing the effects of increased building height, density, and parking demand within the TCTCSP.
3. Distribution and evaluation of proposed new uses, including residential units by type, non-residential square footage by type, and projected jobs generation.
The findings of the study must be summarized in a technical memorandum. The Consultant will prepare a comprehensive report with associated maps, describing and analyzing the land use alternatives to quantify development potential in terms of housing units, non-residential floor area, population and employment. Projected population and jobs numbers for each alternative must be included. The report and maps should be assembled such that each alternative is easy to understand and compare with the other.
Upon completing the report, the Consultant will present the alternatives to Staff for review and feedback. Following this meeting, the Consultant will conduct a community meeting to solicit comments and feedback from community members regarding their preferences and vision. This may result in a clear preference for one alternative or the development of a hybrid concept that combines components of each alternative.
Minimum Required Deliverables:
• Alternative land use plan visuals, including sketches and elevations • Alternative land use plan report, including quantified development build-out potentials
• Meeting attendance, including sessions with Staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and relevant stakeholders
Task 5: Market Demand Analysis
The Consultant will prepare a market demand analysis to assess future market conditions for residential, retail, and office development in the Plan Area, taking current conditions and long-range potential into consideration.
The market demand analysis will assess the future potential for housing of various types and at increased densities, at all levels of affordability, and the viability of incorporating specific commercial uses, such as neighborhood serving retail, office spaces, mixed use developments, and hospitality businesses, based on market demand and feasibility. In terms of financial feasibility and marketability, the project shall also include detailed financial feasibility analysis and prototypical proforma analysis of no fewer than five (5) identified opportunity sites.
12 Minimum Required Deliverables:
• Market demand analysis report for residential, retail, and office • Proforma analysis for financial and market-viable developments of at least five (5) identified opportunity sites, considering factors such as land costs, construction expenses, market demand projected revenues, and regulatory constraints.
Task 6: Preferred Land Use Alternative
Based on input received at Community/Commission/Council meetings, as well as input received from other methods of community outreach, the Consultant, in consultation with Staff, will develop a preferred land use alternative which will serve as a basis for the draft TCTCSP. The preferred alternative will be presented to Staff and the Planning Commission/City Council for review and feedback. The community will also be asked to respond to the preferred Plan. Feedback from these stakeholders will be used to refine the alternative and develop the draft TCTCSP.
Suggested Deliverables:
• Preferred land use plan visuals, including sketches and elevations • Potential Phased Development and Implementation Plan
• Preferred land use plan report, including quantified development potentials • Meeting attendance – meeting(s) with Staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and relevant stakeholders
Task 7: Infrastructure Development and Service Plan
The Consultant must prepare an Infrastructure Development and Services Plan and Budget to determine, at a preliminary level, the infrastructure needed to support uses and improvements identified in the preferred alternative. The analysis must identify infrastructure conditions and improvements needed to support the Plan in terms of water, wastewater, storm drainage, electricity, gas, cable, telephone service, internet/fiber, transportation (public transit, vehicular, pedestrian, and cycling traffic), greenways, and parks. Working in collaboration with Public Works Staff, Consultants will:
1. Analyze and summarize both existing and needed service capacities
2. Assess the services envisioned in the Plan Area and those that would be required to meet the preferred alternative
3. Provide detailed descriptions of needed public improvements, including street improvements to meet City standards, upsizing of water and wastewater mains and storm drains, undergrounding utilities, and associated development costs
4. Provide comprehensive descriptions of needed improvements associated with private utilities, such as natural gas, electric, phone, cable, and internet connectivity
5. Provide comprehensive descriptions of any changes required to public services and facilities
13 6. Provide detailed cost estimates and phasing recommendations for needed improvements and service systems within the Plan Area
Minimum Required Deliverables:
• Public Infrastructure Improvement Plans and Budget
Task 8: Draft and Final Specific Plan
The Consultant shall prepare two (2) drafts and one (1) final administrative public review draft. Additional changes may be required at each successive public hearing with the Planning Commission and City Council. A final Specific Plan will be prepared following the adoption of the Specific Plan. The Consultant is anticipated to include the following elements in the new TCTCSP. The requirements listed below may be satisfied with a variety of proposed chapter outlines for the Specific Plan.
Proposed development regulations for the TCTCSP area shall be consistent with and complement existing regulatory documents in the City of Santa Fe Springs. The TCTCSP shall reference existing objective development standards for mixed-use districts and create new objective design standards and design guidelines for the Plan Area.
1. Vision Statement and Guiding Principles
2. Preliminary Policies
3. Land Use Intensity Alternatives and Corresponding Development Standards
4. Objective Design Standards and Design Guidelines
5. Prototypical Mixed-Use and High-Density Residential Project Proformas
6. Public Infrastructure Upgrades
7. Financial Sustainability Strategy Plan
8. Implementation Plan and Financing Strategy
Minimum Required Deliverables:
• Two (2) Drafts of the Specific Plan
• Administrative Draft for Public Review
• Final Plan that includes a summary of next steps towards implementation and credits FHWA, FTA, and/or Caltrans on the cover or title page (City to submit to Caltrans in an ADA accessible electronic copy)
Task 9: Zoning Code Updates
The City is currently undertaking a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. It is essential that both projects are coordinated to ensure consistency between the Zoning Code and the Specific Plan. The consultant will be expected to work closely with the team handling the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to avoid conflicting provisions and ensure cohesive land use regulations.
14 Task 10: CEQA Compliance
The Consultant shall prepare environmental documentation based on the Consultant’s recommendations for the best way to ensure compliance with the CEQA Statute and Guidelines. The City of Santa Fe Springs is open to different strategies to fulfill this requirement. The Consultant’s proposed approach should allow streamlined environmental review of future projects pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
The EIR for the 2040 General Plan can be found at this link:
https://www.santafesprings.org/departments/planning_and_development_department/pl anning/environmental_documents.php
Technical studies may include traffic impact analysis, parking studies, air quality technical analysis (up to three CalEEMod runs), GHG emissions (up to two energy consumption spreadsheets but does not include Climate Action Plan), Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis (up to two short-term and two long-term monitoring locations), and more.
Task 11: Presentation and Adoption of Specific Plan and Environmental Document The Consultant shall prepare and present materials, PowerPoint, etc. at meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council. These meetings are in the form of Study Sessions and Public Hearings. The Consultant shall attend up to six meetings. The Consultant will prepare staff reports, resolutions, and ordinances for the meetings.
Minimum Required Deliverables:
• Meeting attendance (up to six)
• Staff reports, resolutions, and ordinances
• Meeting presentation materials
V. Proposal Submittal
Please see Section VI – Proposal Content and Format for specific details regarding the information that needs to be included in your submission. Failure to provide all requested information may be considered “non-responsive” and rejected.
Responses to this RFP must be submitted electronically via the City’s PlanetBids Portal by the deadline. Any responses transmitted and/or time-stamped after the deadline will not be accepted. Proposers planning to submit responses to this request are highly encouraged to submit all documentation before the deadline to avoid technical difficulties/errors.
15 VI. Proposal Content and Format
Proposal Content
Proposers shall prepare a compelling, clear, and concise proposal. The City is requesting proposals which contain, at a minimum, the following information:
A. Letter of Interest - Please include a letter expressing your interest in being considered for the project. Include a statement regarding the Proposer's availability to dedicate time, personnel, and resources to this effort. Indicate the address and telephone number of the Proposer's office nearest Santa Fe Springs, and the office from which the project will be managed. The letter of interest must include a commitment to the availability of the Proposer and all key project staff during the planning period and a proposed schedule designed to meet the City's needs. If applicable, include the proposed working relationship with any subcontractors. An individual authorized to bind the Contractor must sign the letter.
B. Project Understanding and Summary - Please include a statement demonstrating your understanding of the City, the work to be done, and the objectives to be accomplished. Describe your general approach to completing the project successfully and the methodologies and technologies you would employ.
Describe what information you would expect the City to supply.
C. Proposed Statement of Work - Please provide a proposed Statement of Work that will be used to fulfill each requirement listed in the Scope of Work of this RFP.
Include key deliverables, milestones, and tasks. Explain what the respective roles of City staff and Proposer staff would be to complete the tasks specified in the Scope of Work. Discuss any ideas for modifying, clarifying, or improving the City's proposed scope of work.
D. Detailed Project Schedule: Provide a realistic and detailed project schedule identifying all tasks and deliverables to be performed, durations for each task, and overall time of completion.
E. Relevant Experience & Key Personnel - Please include information describing your experience providing similar services for public agencies. Provide a minimum of three (3) specific examples of relevant experience. At a minimum, the Proposer should provide a list of the most recent projects (i.e., completed within the last five (5) years is preferred, but samples outside of this timeframe will be accepted if relevant) for which the Proposer has performed similar services of similar size, scope, and complexity. Identify key personnel who would be assigned to provide the services described in the Proposal, and the functions to be performed by each.
Resumes may also be included in this section.
Using Attachment A – References, please provide details regarding each reference. This should include the name, contact person, address, phone number, and e-mail address of each party for whom the service was provided, as well as a 16 description of the service performed, the dollar amount of the contract, and the date of performance. The City may contact the individual listed at its discretion.
F. Conflict of Interest Statement – The Proposer shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City that may impact the selection process.
If the Proposer has no such conflicts, a statement declaring such should be included in their submission.
G. Cost Proposal – Cost proposal should include the following:
Total All-Inclusive Not-To-Exceed Maximum Price: The cost proposal should contain all pricing information relative to performing the scope of work as described in this request and identified in the Line-Item list (See “Line-Item” tab in PlanetBids).
The total all-inclusive maximum not-to-exceed price should contain all direct and indirect costs, including all out-of-pocket expenses. Provide a budget for each significant milestone for the entire scope of services. The proposed budget should include all meetings, conference calls, site visits, and deliverables. It should also include a list of anticipated reimbursable expenses with rates charged for each.
Component Costs: Include separate schedules of all fees and expenses for each of the work tasks and deliverables described in this RFP. These schedules should include hourly rates, the number of hours anticipated for each staff level, and outof-pocket expenses such as travel and transportation, meals, communications, and duplication costs. The total of these separate schedules should be directly related to the total all-inclusive maximum price.
Rates for Additional Services: If it should become necessary for the City to request the successful Proposer to render additional services to either supplement services requested in this RFP or to perform any additional work as a result of the specific recommendations included in any report issued, resulting from this engagement, then such additional work shall be performed only if outlined in an addendum to the contract between the City and the Proposer. Unless otherwise noted in the proposal, any such additional work would be performed at the same rates submitted in the dollar cost bid.
Proposal Format
To facilitate the evaluation process, all responses must adhere to the following format requirements. The City strongly encourages respondents to thoroughly review their proposals prior to submission to ensure they adhere to the requirements. If the proposal is not formatted or does not include all the listed items/sections, it may be deemed nonresponsive.
Responses shall not exceed thirty (30) pages when printed on 8-½ -inch by 11-inch paper.
The thirty (30) page requirement does not include a cover letter/letter of transmittal, or 17 any items included as additional attachments. Proposals should also include the following:
A. Title Page showing the request for proposals subject; the Proposer's name; the name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the contact person; and the date of the proposal.
B. Table of Contents identifying the items/section listed in the “Proposal Content” section of this RFP.
C. Detailed proposal following the order set forth in the "Proposal Content" of this RFP.
VII. Evaluation Criteria
The City will establish an evaluation committee to review and rate each proposal. The proposal evaluation process will be conducted using a multi-step method, which will include the following steps:
A. Preliminary Proposal Review - The evaluation committee will review each submission to ensure adherence to the minimum/proposal format requirements.
B. Proposal Evaluation - In the second part of this process, the evaluation committee will review and rate proposals based on the following:
1. Experience of Proposer and Project Personnel (40 points) • Experience, resources, and qualifications of the Proposer and assigned individuals to perform tasks identified in the scope of work. • Good reference checks from primary and/or secondary sources.
2. Proposed Approach & Work Plan (30 points)
• Proposer has a clearly defined approach, strategy, and execution plan. • The timeline meets the City’s requirements.
• Proposal clearly defines what is required from the City.
3. Proposed fees for items/services (20 points)
• Proposed fees are reasonable.
4. Responsiveness to RFP (10 points)
• Compliance with the required format.
• Offered new/innovative services, suggestions.
City Staff will present to the City Council the ratings assigned to each proposal by the evaluation committee, together with Staff’s recommendations. The City Council exercises discretion and judgment in its award of a contract, which is a legislative act, and shall in no way be bound to follow the evaluation committee’s ratings or Staff’s recommendations. 18 Interviews
If necessary, the City may require top-rated proposers to participate in an interview. The City will e-mail proposers selected for the interview to schedule a date and time.
VIII. Proposal Protests
Proposal Protest Procedures (Before Proposal Opening)
A protest filed before the proposal opening must be filed in writing no later than ten (10) working days before opening. The most common types of protest that might be filed before a proposal opening include those based upon restrictive specifications or alleged improprieties in any solicitation that is apparent before the scheduled proposal opening.
When a protest is filed before a scheduled proposal opening, certain steps must be followed:
A. The protest must be submitted in writing within the specified time frame (no later than ten (10) working days prior to a proposal opening). All protests must be filed with the City’s Director of Finance for determination. Protest must be submitted to the Director of Finance by mail or e-mail within the specified time frame. Protests can be sent to:
Mail:
Lana Dich
City of Santa Fe Springs
Attn: Finance Department
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Or
E-mail:
[email protected]
B. The protest must contain factual and legal reason(s) and should recommend a proposed remedy. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the City reserves the right not to implement the proposed remedy but to offer alternative solutions where applicable.
C. Where appropriate, the City will hold an informal conference on the merits of a protest with all interested parties allowed to attend. Interested parties may include all proposers, subcontractors, or suppliers, provided they have a substantial economic interest in a portion of the RFP.
D. All potential proposers will be advised of a pending protest. 19 E. The City shall not open proposals prior to the resolution of the protest unless it is determined that:
• The items to be procured are urgently required;
• Delivery or performance will be unduly delayed by failure to make the award promptly; or
• Failure to make a prompt award will otherwise cause undue harm to the City.
The City will respond in writing within ten (10) business days after receipt of a properly filed protest. The Director of Finance will respond and include a response to each substantive issue raised in the protest.
After the exhaustion of administrative remedies, the protesting party will be given the City’s final decision. The Director of Finance has the authority to decide on all protests.
Proposal Protest Procedures (After Proposal Opening/Post Award) A protest filed after a proposal opening must be filed within three (3) working days after the award. The City will grant the protesting party a fair review and shall have up to ten (10) business days to review the protest and render its decision.
IX. Execution of Agreement
The resulting agreement (see attached sample Attachment B) shall be signed by the successful Proposer and returned within the required insurance within ten (10) business days after the City has provided written notice that the Consultant has been awarded.
Failure to execute the agreement and file acceptable insurance documents as provided herein shall cause, at the City's option, for annulment of the award. Please review the insurance requirements and indemnification clause in the attached sample agreement.
Should the successful Proposer decline to execute the agreement, the City can either reject all proposals, accept one of the other proposals, or issue a new solicitation.
X. Insurance Requirements
Any Consultant conducting services for the City of Santa Fe Springs must obtain and maintain insurance at their own expense. Insurance must be held until completion of services and formal acceptance by the City. The following insurance placed with an insurer admitted to write insurance in California or a non-admitted insurer on California’s List of Eligible Surplus Lines Insurers (LESL):
A. Commercial General Liability
Commercial General Liability (CGL) (equivalent in coverage scope to Insurance Services Office, Inc. Form CG 00 01) shall cover on an “occurrence” basis for bodily injury and property damage, including premise-operations, products-completed, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury or bodily injury, and advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per 20 occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, the limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
If requested, the "City of Santa Fe Springs, its officials, employees, and agents" must be separately endorsed to the policy as additional insureds on an endorsement equivalent to the Insurance Services Office, Inc. Form CG 20 10 11 85 of CG 20 26 1185.
B. Business Automobile Liability
For owned vehicles, hired, and non-owned vehicles, Insurance Services Office Form CA 00 01 covering, Code 1 (any auto), or if Consultant has not owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned) with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
If an automobile is not necessary to perform services, the Consultant must submit a written request for a waiver of this requirement.
C. Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions
Depending on the work or services to be performed, professional liability or errors and omissions liability insurance may be required. The City will require the Consultant to provide professional liability or errors and omissions liability insurance in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim. Architects' and engineers' coverage shall be endorsed to include contractual liability.
D. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability
Workers' Compensation as required by the California Labor Code and Employer's Liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
E. Cyber Liability Insurance (if applicable)
With limits not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.
Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as is undertaken by Consultant in this agreement and shall include, but not be limited to, claims involving security breach, system failure, data recovery, business interruption, cyber extortion, social engineering, infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, and alteration of electronic information. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs, regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses.
21 F. Technology Professional Liability Errors & Omissions (if applicable) Coverage must be appropriate to Consultant's profession and work hereunder, with limits not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations undertaken by Consultant shall include, but not be limited to, claims involving security breach, system failure, data recovery, business interruption, cyber extortion, social engineering, infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, and alteration of electronic information. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs, regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses.
The policy shall include, or be endorsed to include, property damage liability coverage for damage to, alteration of, loss of, or destruction of electronic data and/or information “property” of the City in the care, custody, or control of Consultant. If not covered under Consultant’s liability policy, such “property” coverage of City may be endorsed onto Consultant’s Cyber Liability Policy as covered property.
Required insurance documentation
A. Certificate of Insurance
The Certificate Holder must be listed as follows:
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Attn: Risk Management
B. Endorsements (if requested)
In addition to the Certificate of Insurance, the Consultant must provide the following endorsements:
1. Additional insured endorsements to the general liability and auto liability insurance policies. The "City of Santa Fe Springs, its officials, employees, and agents" must be endorsed to the Consultant's general liability policy as well as the auto liability policy as additional insureds on an endorsement equivalent to ISO forms CG 20 10 11 85 or CG 20 26 11 85.
2. Cancellation notice endorsements. Each policy must be endorsed to certify that it will not be cancelled or non-renewed by either party or reduced in coverage or limits (except by paid claims) unless the insurer has provided the City with thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation (ten (10) days for cancellation due to nonpayment of premium is acceptable). 22 3. Primary, non-contributory coverage endorsements. The general liability and professional liability (if required) policies must be endorsed to provide that each policy shall apply on a primary, non-contributing basis with any insurance or self-insurance, primary or excess, maintained by or available to the City or its officials, employees and agents.
C. Waiver and Modifications of the Insurance Requirements The City has the authority to modify these insurance requirements at any time at its discretion.
In general, any contract deemed sole source, professional/professional services, involve the disclosure of proprietary information, and/or a public works project, may require revisions to the City's standard insurance requirements. Any revisions to the insurance requirements will be identified within the associated service contract terms and conditions.
Consultants may request a waiver or modification of these insurance requirements.
Waiver or modification requests must be submitted in writing. The request should state the specific insurance requirement that is being considered for waiver or modification and provide a brief explanation for the request. Requests will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the decision will ultimately depend on the scope of services. The final decision to approve or deny a request will be at the City's legal authority or an authorized designee's discretion.
XI. Business License Requirements
Consultants that conduct business within city limits may be required to obtain City of Santa Fe Springs business license if selected. The business license must be acquired before commencing any work. Additional information regarding the City's Business License program may be obtained by visiting the City's website at:
https://www.santafesprings.org/business/opening_a_business/new_application.php Or by calling the City of Santa Fe Springs Business Support Center at (562) 264 - 5219.
XII. Use of Federal Funds
The City may elect to use funding from Federal sources for a portion of or all expenses related to this project. The United States Federal Government requires purchases of items and services to meet specific standards when using Federal funds, including grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and Federal funds "passed-through" to the City from a non-Federal entity (i.e., sub-recipient agreements). These requirements are codified under the Code of Federal Regulation's (CFR) Title 2, Subtitle A, Chapter II, Part 200 (also referred to as "2 CFR 200" or "Uniform Guidance") and the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), as applicable.
The following standards apply to all purchases of items and services using Federal funds:
• Transactions shall be conducted lawfully and ethically. 23 • Unnecessary/duplicative purchases are not permitted. • Utilizing a vendor or supplier on the U.S. Federal Government's Debarred and Suspended List (available at SAM.gov) is prohibited.
• All individuals involved in the expenditure of federal monies must avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest.
• Procurement transactions must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition.
• Opportunities should be provided to minority businesses, women's business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms when possible. • Contracts and purchase orders should include the contract provisions required by 2 CFR 200 Appendix A.
• Purchases of goods and services must include documentation detailing the procurement history.
XIII. Non-Commitment of City
While the City intends to select a Consultant through this process, this intention is subject to change at any time during the process. The City does not commit to awarding an agreement, paying any costs incurred in preparing the proposal for this request, and/or procuring or contracting any items or services.
XIV. Labor Requirements
A. Background: All personnel engaged in the performance of this work shall be employees of the Consultant and, as such, shall be warranted to possess sufficient experience and reliability to perform this work.
B. Health: All personnel engaged in the performance of this work shall be in good health and free of contagious diseases. The Consultant shall not allow any person(s) under the influence of alcohol or drugs on the premises or in the building.
Neither shall the Consultant allow the use of or presence of alcohol or drugs on the premises or in the building.
C. Non-Discrimination: The Consultant shall not engage in discrimination in the employment of persons because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, mental/physical disabilities, sex, or religion of such persons.
D. Conduct: No person(s) shall be employed for this work that is found to be incompetent, disorderly, and troublesome, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, which fails or otherwise refuses to perform the work properly and acceptably or is otherwise objectionable. Any person found to be objectionable shall be discharged immediately and not re-employed for this work.
E. Age: The Consultant will only hire individuals who are of legal age to work. 24 XV. Records
The Consultant agrees to permit the City Manager or designee access to records, reports, files, and other papers or property of the Consultant to audit any performance aspect under this agreement.
XVI. Use of Subcontractors
The Consultant shall be responsible for all work performed under the final agreement and shall keep all work under their control. No portion of the work may be subcontracted without the prior written consent of the City. All subcontractors used on this work shall be 18 and be under the direct supervision of the Consultant and shall be considered as their employees. Any approved subcontractors must provide insurance indemnifying the City with limits at or exceeding the limits of the primary's insurance.
XVII. Modifications/Changes
Changes in the areas serviced and/or specifications may be necessary during the agreement term. Changes in the agreement requirements and corresponding changes in compensation may be implemented upon mutual understanding between the City and the Consultant. These changes will be processed by the City Manager.
XVIII. Disclosure of Information
A. The Consultant agrees that it will not, during or after the term of the agreement, disclose any proprietary information or confidential business information of the City, including but not limited to its costs, charges, operating procedures, or methods of doing business to any person, Consultant, corporation, association, or other entity or the general public for any reason or purpose whatsoever, without the prior written consent of the City. Such confidential or proprietary information received by the Consultant shall be used exclusively in connection with the performance of services.
B. The Consultant shall not issue or release for publication any articles, advertising, or publicity matters relating to the services performed by the Consultant hereunder or mentioning or implying the name of the City or its respective personnel without the prior written consent of the City.
IX. Ex-Parte Communications
Consultants and their representatives should not engage in unauthorized communications with elected officials, officers, employees, or agents of the City about this RFP. This requirement also includes any evaluation panel member, except for designated RFP facilitators. This requirement remains in effect until after award notifications have been made.
25 This restriction does not prohibit consultants and their representatives from making oral statements or presentations to City representatives during a scheduled public meeting.
XX. General Rights of the City
At its discretion, the City reserves the right to:
A. Reject any and/or all proposals for no reason or any reason including, but not limited to, the following:
1. The proposal is incomplete, non-responsive, obscure, irregular, or lacking necessary detail and specificity.
2. The Proposer, in the sole judgment of the City, lacks the qualifications, experience, and/or responsibility necessary to provide the services.
3. The Proposer failed or neglected to complete and submit any information within the time specified by the City and as may be otherwise required herein.
B. Reject any proposal that, in the opinion of the City, is so unbalanced in comparison to other proposals received and/or to the City’s internal estimates that it does not accurately reflect the cost to perform;
C. Accept all or any part of a proposal;
D. Make multiple awards;
E. Cancel the entire RFP;
F. Issue subsequent RFPs; or
G. Waive any errors or informalities in any proposal to the extent law permits
PLEASE REVIEW
Attachment A – References
Attachment B – Sample PSA
Attachment C – Map of Specific Plan Area
Attachment D – Caltrans Approved Scope of Work
Attachment C: Specific Plan Area Map
Civic
Center
Heritage
Corporate
Center The Villages at
Heritage Springs
Pioneed Blvd
Telegraph Rd
Norwalk Blvd
Clark St
Santa Fe Springs Rd
Geary Ave
RFP 25-13 | MAY 22, 2025
SANTA FE SPRINGS - DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
PROPOSAL
The Arroyo Group, Planning and Community Engagement
Sasaki, Urban Design
Kosmont Companies, Economics
Iteris, Transportation
Sherwood Design Engineers, Infrastructure
Impact Sciences, Environmental
2 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. LETTER OF INTEREST..................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 B. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................3 C. PROPOSED STATEMENT OF WORK............................................................................................................................................................................6 D. DETAILED PROJECT SCHEDULE...................................................................................................................................................................................14 E. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL.................................................................................................................................................15 F. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT AND COST PROPOSAL.....................................................................................................30
PLANNERS, URBAN DESIGNERS & ARCHITECTS
40 E COLORADO BOULEVARD
SUITE B
PASADENA
CALIFORNIA
91105-1902
VOICE 626 795.9771
1 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal May 22, 2025
City of Santa Fe Springs – Community Development Department 11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Attn: Cuong Nguyen, Director of Community Development
Dear Mr. Nguyen and Members of the Selection Committee:
The City of Santa Fe Springs has set forth an ambitious and inspiring goal: to establish a vibrant downtown where none has existed before. As experienced planners with a strong track record of shaping successful and distinctive city centers across Southern California, The Arroyo Group would be honored to help bring this vision to life through the preparation of a Downtown Specific Plan. In this effort, we will be supported by the following subconsultants:
• Sasaki, Urban Design
• Kosmont Companies, Economics
• Iteris, Transportation
• Sherwood Design Engineers, Infrastructure
• Impact Sciences, Environmental Analysis
We believe you should select our team because:
1. We understand what makes a successful downtown. While every downtown is unique – and Santa Fe Springs’ downtown would certainly be different than most – successful downtowns share several key ingredients: a dynamic mix of land uses that meet community needs, a distinctive and connected network of streetscapes and open spaces, and strong integation between the public and private realms. These principles have guided our work since our founding in the late 1970s, when we prepared the landmark plan to preserve and revitalize Old Pasadena. Throughout the years, our commitment to this approach has been recognized with awards from both the American Planning Association and the International Downtown Association.
2. We are very familiar with the Gateway Cities subregion. Over the past decade, The Arroyo Group has prepared nine Specific Plans in the Gateway Cities alone. Through this work, we’ve come to understand the deep community desire for places to gather, celebrate life, and foster a sense of local pride—needs that have long gone unmet across much of the region. In partnership with Kosmont, with whom we are collaborating on several current efforts, we also bring a clear-eyed understanding of the area’s market dynamics and the economic constraints that shape what can realistically be built.
3. We have a long track record of working together to create comprehensive Specific Plans. The Specific Plans that we and our subconsultants have collaborated to prepare are holistic and implementation-oriented. A key emphasis is placed on strong mobility networks that encourage usage of active and public transportation with safe and inviting facilities, while minimizing traffic impact. We also assess infrastructure capacity, with a focus on green infrastructure that can provide environmental benefits and bring in grant funds. We cost infrastructure improvements and formulate tailored strategies for funding, leveraging private development and drawing on grants and financing strategies.
4. We know how to build consensus among stakeholders and catalyze implementation.
We have extensive experience collaborating with City Councils, stakeholders, and the general public to deliver plans that meet their goals. In addition to the projects presented in the proposal, The Arroyo Group and Kosmont are currently working with the City of Temple City to implement a ten-year-old unbuilt Specific Plan by creating a phased development strategy that coordinates the interests of the owners of a complex multi-owner shopping center and removing regulatory barriers to development in the Specific Plan.
LETTER OF INTEREST A
2 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal A: LETTER OF INTEREST
We will manage the project from our office in Pasadena, whose address is listed on the letterhead.
We are available and committed to completing the project prior to the June 2027 funding deadline, with use of key staff beginning with myself as Project Manager, Principal-in-Charge and President of the corporation.
We thank you very much for your attention to this proposal and look forward to the opportunity to discuss with you further through an interview.
Most respectfully,
Philip Burns, AICP
Principal and President
[email protected]
(323)382-2402
Project Understanding
We understand the goal of the Downtown Specific Plan to be the realization of one of the key “Big Ideas” of Santa Fe Springs’ recently completed General Plan: the creation of a vibrant Downtown with “community gathering spaces, restaurants and entertainment venues, and hospitality uses all within a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly environment,” in the Telegraph Road Corridor, with particular focus on the Heritage Corporate Center.
The Arroyo Group Team’s approach is focused on implementation. We aim to deliver not just a Specific Plan on paper, but clear regulations, viable projects, and buy-in from stakeholders that will empower the City and property owners to begin building the future immediately after adoption.
Since we’ve heard similar aspirations from many communities in the Gateway Cities region, we resonate deeply with the community’s desire for a place in their own City to gather and enjoy life. Yet, as surrounding cities pursue similar goals (see Figure 1), the defining question will become: what sets Santa Fe Springs Downtown apart?
2 1
5 6
4 3
Norwalk Entertainment District Specific Plan
The Walk -
New Mixed use development with civic uses,
restaurants, open space and residential
2 Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan
Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan
Front St Historic District -
Nightlife and entertainment district
in a historic setting
1 Downey Landing Specific Plan
Downey Landing/Promenade -
Brand name shopping and movie theater 4
Downtown Downey Specific Plan
Downey Ave -
Sleepy, but revitalizing downtown with Porto’s 3
Pico Rivera TOD Specific Plan
Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard -
Transit-oriented district with light industrial base 5 Uptown Whittier Specific Plan Green Leaf Avenue -
Historic downtown district with
small businesses and offices.
6 2
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND SUMMARY B
Figure 1 - Current and Planned Downtown/Gathering Areas The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs - Downtown Specific Plan - RFP Because Santa Fe Springs never had a historic downtown, it now has the rare opportunity to shape one from the ground up—distinct in character, function, and form. Rather than mimicking the past, Santa Fe Springs’ Downtown can be original and purpose-built to meet contemporary needs – differentiating it from many other downtowns in the subregion. The key ingredients to this unique identity will be a unique land use mix and unique built environment, which we describe below.
Unique Land Use Mix
The Specific Plan area benefits from its location within an employment-rich district where unmet demand presents a key opportunity. There is likely already a market for additional hospitality and dining establishments, and the predominantly industrial and office character presents opportunities for a wider spectrum of uses that extend beyond typical vertical mixed-use typologies. For example, uses involving light production—such as beverage crafting, prototyping, custom manufacturing, and creative studios—can support placemaking by drawing foot traffic and shaping a distinct identity.
We bring experience from similarly complex industrial mixed-use environments, including projects in places like Vernon, where integrating housing with production has required creative land use strategies and design standards.
Moreover, the plan area is uniquely composed of large parcels, with approximately 65% under City ownership. While engaging remaining property owners will be a central component of our outreach and Stakeholder Advisory Committee process, this concentrated ownership and parcel configuration provide a rare degree of flexibility. It allows for creative approaches to horizontal mixed-use development—often more financially viable and diverse in use types than traditional vertical mixed-use models—and may help attract anchor uses like national hotel chains.
Unique Built Environment
The Telegraph Corridor is home to several of the City’s most successful open spaces. The Civic Center Complex—including the historic Clarke Estate, an aquatic center, and several plazas—functions as the City’s primary gathering space for community events. Nearby Heritage Park offers both recreational amenities and a cultural experience, with its buildings and features evoking 18th and 19th century life.
Though these spaces have room for enhancement, they represent a tremendous asset—spaces that already serve as community anchors, something many other cities struggle to establish. They are amenities around which vibrant, mixed-use development can grow.
3 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal B: PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND SUMMARY
However, these assets are not yet connected in a cohesive urban environment. Our plan will address this gap by establishing a compelling Streetscapes and Open Spaces Network (see Figure 2) that links open spaces, employment centers, retail hubs, and housing clusters. This network will create a distinct and memorable identity for Downtown Santa Fe Springs, and support a seamless pedestrian experience throughout the district. We foresee at least three major components to this network:
Figure 2 - Streetscapes And Open Space Network
Since we developed plans for the key districts of Downtown Pasadena - Old Pasadena, Civic Center, and Playhouse District - we seek to develop unique streetscapes and open space networks for each area we plan for. The network is comprised of public realm spaces which facilitate movement between key destinations and create experiences which reinforce the vision of the district.
4 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal B: PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND SUMMARY
Figure G1 - The Arroyo Group’s Complete Streets Approach The Seven Functions of a Complete Street*
*This example is from The Arroyo
Group’s award-winning plan for
University Avenue in Riverside
(Inland Empire and California
Chapter APA Awards).
1 Carrier - of automobiles, buses,
bicycles and pedestrians
1 2
Connector -
between
Downtown
Riverside
and UCR
3 Communicator - through banners,
signage, lighting and landscaping
City
Builder -
generating
new
development
6 Space - de ned by
buildings and trees
5 Place - “I’ll meet you on
University Avenue”
7 Sustainer - enabling groundwater recharge
along the Avenue and at streetscape-fed
catchment basin/park
4 The Arroyo Group’s Complete Streets approach starts with the accommodation of different modes of transportation including pedestrians, bicycles, buses and automobiles. However, it goes beyond the norm in enhancing a street’s overall role in a city as a carrier, connector, communicator, space, placemaker, city builder and sustainer.
Complete streets (re)designed by The Arroyo Group and built to plan include Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena, Garfield Avenue and Holly Street in Pasadena, Pine Avenue in Long Beach and Magnolia Avenue in Riverside.
Figure 3 - Complete Streets Approach
1. Telegraph Road – While Telegraph Road is not designated in the General Plan as a major transit or bicycle corridor, it must nevertheless function as a “complete street” as we define the term (see Figure 3)—one that supports a high-quality public realm and sets the tone for Santa Fe Springs’ Downtown identity. As the City’s primary east-west corridor and interface with the broader region, Telegraph must be designed to accommodate new uses and foster a pedestrian-friendly environment.
With daily traffic volumes of 44,000 vehicles, as noted in the General Plan Circulation Element, design solutions must carefully balance mobility and placemaking. The Arroyo Group and Iteris bring extensive experience managing such trade-offs. In Vernon, for example, we helped reroute truck traffic from Santa Fe Avenue—slated for mixed-use development—to the more appropriate Alameda Street East. A similar approach was taken in the Compton Station Specific Plan for Compton and Alondra Boulevards.
Iteris will apply state-of-the-art analysis to determine whether a comparable strategy—shifting some regional traffic to Florence Avenue—could be effective here. If successful, this would free up space along Telegraph Road for wider sidewalks, on-street parking, and/or pedestrian amenities. Alternatively, if existing geometries must be maintained, we will explore enhancing the corridor’s underutilized trail systems and integrating green infrastructure to elevate the corridor’s character and connectivity. 5 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal B: PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND SUMMARY
2. Streetscapes interior to the Heritage Corporate Center complex, such as a potential mixed-use/ retail “main street” along Heritage Center Drive, and other streets as well. Given the concentration of ownership among three key owners (one being the City), there is also the potential to redraw parts or all of the street grid within the complex, establishing street patterns that are more pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-scaled and/or separating vehicular ways from pedestrian ways where appropriate.
3. Open spaces that complement land uses, allowing people to spill out from residential, restaurant, office and hospitality uses to activate these spaces; that create different experiences that relate to the spaces’ location and adjacent uses; and that serve a wide variety of people and times of the day/week/year.
With careful planning, these open spaces can be seamlessly integrated with surrounding uses as can be seen in recent Southern California master planned developments like Playa Vista or Liberty Station.
Some of these key urban design opportunities are mapped in Figure 4.
Existing Employment Anchors
Open Space Anchors
Unified Downtown Development Potential
Downtown or Corridor Development Potential
Corridor Development Potential
Telegraph Road Corridor Complete Street Potential
Bridges Dividing Street Into Segments
Active Transportation Network Potentials
Main Street Potential
Pioneed Blvd
Telegraph Rd
Norwalk Blvd
Clark St
Santa Fe Springs Rd
Geary Ave
0’
1’ = 1000’
500’ 1000’
6 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal B: PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND SUMMARY
Figure 4 - Urban Design Opportunities
This section presents The Arroyo Group Team’s scope of work. The scope of work is intended to be consistent with the RFP and Caltrans grant scope of work, but is presented in condensed fashion due to page limitations. Upon request, a more detailed scope of work can be prepared.
Task 1: Project Administration
Task 1.1: Kick-Off Meeting and Action Plan
The Arroyo Group Team will hold an in-person kick-off meeting with City staff.
Deliverables: Kick-Off Meeting, Budget, Schedule, Scope, Agenda, Materials, Notes with Action Items and List of Attendees, Action Plan.
Task 1.2: Coordination Meetings
The Arroyo Group and City staff shall have biweekly virtual check-in meetings through the length of the project.
Deliverables: Agendas, Materials, Notes with Action Items and List of Attendees, Monthly Invoices.
Task 1.3: Quarterly Caltrans Meeting
The Arroyo Group, City staff, and Caltrans staff shall have quarterly virtual check-in meetings.
Deliverables: Agendas, Materials, Notes with Action Items and List of Attendees.
Task 2: Existing Conditions Analyses
The Arroyo Group Team will compile a comprehensive multidisciplinary existing conditions report on the existing conditions within the Specific Plan area, including the following sections:
2.1 Land Use and Urban Design
The Arroyo Group and Sasaki shall review all relevant existing plans, reports and projects that will inform our understanding of existing conditions in the Specific Plan area. We will also conduct a field visit as part of this Existing Conditions task. The results of this field visit will include an ground-truthed existing land use map, existing building conditions map, and observations about each key streetscape and open space in the area. This section of the report will conclude with identification of private & public realm activation potentials to help guide Task 4.
2.2 Existing Infrastructure Conditions
Sherwood will conduct the following research and mapping tasks to be included in the Existing Conditions Report: Site Visit support for visual observation of civil infrastructure; Review Available City Documents, Zoning Code and Street Design Standards; Mapping of city issued data; Wet Utility Map; Dry Utility Map; Topography and Drainage; Civil Infrastructure Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Mapping; and Development of Existing Conditions Narrative.
2.3 Existing Transportation Conditions
Iteris will prepare a memorandum to be included in the Existing Conditions Report documenting the existing mobility/circulation conditions in the vicinity of the Downtown Specific Plan area. The memo will include discussion of the roadways in the study area, transit conditions, active transportation conditions and vehicle volumes along Telegraph Road and parallel routes such as Florence Avenue. Iteris will review the history of collisions along Telegraph Road and utilize its Clearguide platform to identify congestion “hotspots” along the corridor, in order to help inform the evaluation of future scenarios.
Iteris will also evaluate current off-street parking supply and occupancy, with parking counts collected for up to five (5) hours on one typical weekday at each of the major parking lots along the corridor. 7 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF WORK C
2.4 Existing Environmental Conditions
Impact Sciences will review existing conditions related to air quality, hazardous materials, noise and other environmental topics. We will provide input to the team regarding the environmental conditions in the Plan area and any potential constraints, leading to recommendations regarding environmental policies or design features to be potentially included in the Plan.
2.5 Market Study
Kosmont will outline the current national and regional trends for specific land use typologies including retail, office, multifamily residential, and hospitality (hotel). The analysis will evaluate current (most recent quarter) market conditions and short/long range potential for these land uses. Kosmont will gather current data for variables including asset inventory, vacancy, lease rates, average daily rates, revenue per available room, market absorption rates, new construction, and other relevant real estate data, as appropriate, for each land use in the following geographies: the Specific Plan area, the City boundaries, and a 5-mile radius of Norwalk Blvd. and Telegraph Rd. (indicative of a local submarket).
2.6 Social Conditions
The Arroyo Group will review relevant social and socioeconomic conditions affecting the Specific Plan area, drawing from a demographic analysis of residents and employees conducted by Kosmont. The analysis will draw from meetings with local agencies familiar with socioeconomic conditions within the community such as the Community Services Department and the Gus Velasco Neighborhood Center, early community engagement activities, and a review of crime statistics.
Deliverables: Draft and Final Comprehensive Existing Conditions Report.
Task 3: Community Engagement
The Arroyo Group anticipates preparing all presentation materials for outreach events and organizing/ administering events. We anticipate that City staff will be responsible for the logistics of events, and for publicizing all outreach, utilizing graphic announcements prepared by The Arroyo Group. The Arroyo Group’s budget includes printing of presentation materials for in-person events, but outreach printing, mailing, refreshments, etc. are assumed to be the responsibility of City staff.
Members of The Arroyo Group staff are bilingual (Spanish and English) and will be able to provide translation services for printed materials, graphic announcements, and more. Additionally, The Arroyo Group’s bilingual staff members will be able to provide translation during meetings.
3.1 Community Engagement Plan
Starting with this scope of work and the Action Plan in Task 1.1, The Arroyo Group will prepare a Community Engagement Plan implementing an equitable, inclusive, and community participatory approach to outreach. The Community Engagement Plan is subject to change with input from City staff and may modify the scope described below.
Deliverables: Community Engagement Plan Stakeholder including objectives and goals, stakeholder list, location list.
3.2 Direct Community Outreach
The Arroyo Group will conduct five focus group meetings with groups such as seniors, youth, school leadership, lower-income residents, and transit riders. These focus group meetings are anticipated to take place in conjunction with Task 2.
Deliverables: Materials for Five Focus Group Meetings, Written Results of Five Focus Group Meetings. 8 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal C: PROPOSED STATEMENT OF WORK
3.3 Business and Property Owner Outreach
The Arroyo Group will conduct five virtual private stakeholder meetings with business owners, property owners, and local developers including affordable housing developers. These meetings will take place in conjunction with Task 2.
Deliverables: Materials for Five Private Stakeholder Meetings, Written Results of Five Private Stakeholder Meetings.
3.4 Agency and Utility Outreach
The Arroyo Group will conduct virtual private stakeholder meetings with representatives from utility companies, local transportation and planning agencies, and social and supportive services as needed at any time during the project.
Deliverables: Materials for Private Stakeholder Meetings, Written Results of Private Stakeholder Meetings.
3.5 Council Member Outreach
The Arroyo Group will conduct virtual private interviews with each of the five City Council members during Task 2.
Deliverables: Materials for Five Councilmember Interviews, Written Results of Five Councilmember Interviews.
3.6 Stakeholders Advisory Committee
City staff and The Arroyo Group will form a Stakeholder Advisory Committee comprised of key implementation actors and ensuring a diversity of perspectives. Potential members include major property owners within the Specific Plan area, business owners, resident and community group leaders, non-profit representatives, social/supportive services providers, representatives of the Historical and Community Preservation Advisory Committee, local school leadership, and the Chamber of Commerce. Council may wish to designate liaisons to sit on the committee as well. This Committee would meet at seven key times throughout the planning process and provide significant direction to The Arroyo Group Team at key decision points.
Deliverables: Materials for Seven Stakeholders Advisory Committee Meetings, Meeting Minutes.
3.7 Community Workshops
The Arroyo Group Team will develop and host two in-person community-wide workshops at the completion of Task 4 to solicit feedback on land use alternatives. The workshops will encourage active participation through the use of multiple large format boards.
Deliverables: Two In-Person Community Workshops with Relevant Presentation Materials. Summary Memorandum.
Task 4: Development of Land Use Alternatives
Following the completion of the Existing Conditions Report and after receiving direction from City Staff as well as the community’s direction included in the recent General Plan, The Arroyo Group Team will prepare a report describing three distinct development alternatives. The process will begin with an internal charrette attended by the entire Team providing initial direction for each of the three development alternatives.
Each alternative will consider both the public and private realm, illustrating large-scale and supportive site redevelopment, a mix of housing units that aligns with the City’s Housing Element, and a unique open space/streetscape/green infrastructure network, including active and public transportation. 9 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal C: PROPOSED STATEMENT OF WORK
Following this initial direction, The Arroyo Group and Sasaki will work together to build out each alternative with different land use programs, roadway locations and cross-sections, maps of proposed development, buildout calculations including jobs and population. Iteris will calculate parking demand and provision, and conduct a Level of Service (LOS) analysis considering up to ten (10) intersections on each alternative.
Kosmont will also coordinate its development feasibility analysis work with these. Built character will be demonstrated through an illustrative plan, simple 3D massing models, and “study model” quality renderings or loose hand-drawn illustrations of proposed development. Each alternative will also include a summary graphic illustrating the “big moves” to help synthesize and communicate to the public, and summary text describing how each alternative responds to community engagement and direction.
Deliverables: Land Use Development Alternative Report Including Different Land Use Programs, Maps of Proposed Development, Build Out Calculations, Illustrative Plans, Simple 3D Models, “Study Model” Quality Renderings or Loose Hand-Drawn Illustrations of Proposed Development, and Summary Graphics.
Task 5: Market Demand Analysis
5.1 Opportunity Site and Development Feasibility Analysis Kosmont will expand on the Market Study Analysis from Task 2.5 and gather historical (up to 10 years) data from CoStar for similar variables across the observed land use asset classes (retail, office, multifamily residential, and hospitality). Kosmont will observe historic trends in construction, vacancy, lease rates, and other variables, as appropriate, to evaluate opportunities, constraints, and demand for these land uses.
Based on community engagement findings and land use alternatives developed by The Arroyo Group, Kosmont will work with The Arroyo Group team and City staff in selecting five targeted development opportunity sites. Once the development opportunity sites are finalized, Kosmont will conduct a highlevel Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT”) Analysis for each area to evaluate development potential and determine which areas should be prioritized for future development To measure financial feasibility, Kosmont will conduct a high-level illustrative proforma analysis of for each identified development scenario (up to five pro formas). The pro formas will be presented in tabular format and a brief description of financial feasibility for each scenario will be summarized in written form.
Deliverables: Findings and Data Tables from Expansion of Market Study Analysis, Opportunity Site Analysis including SWOT Analysis and Maps of Five Development Opportunity Sites, Five Pro Forma Analyses.
Task 6: Preferred Land Use Alternative
6.1 Preferred Land Use Alternative
Following direction from City staff and direction from the community gathered during community engagement activities, The Arroyo Group and Sasaki will finalize the preferred land use development alternative and prepare two professional renderings to support the visualization.
The Arroyo Group and Sasaki will also work with Kosmont to establish a phasing strategy at this stage linked to the financing strategy (Task 8.3), if not prior in the process.
Deliverables: Illustrative Plan and 3D Model of Preferred Land Use Alternative, Two Professional Renderings to be included in the Specific Plan.
10 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal C: PROPOSED STATEMENT OF WORK
Task 7: Infrastructure Development and Service Plan
7.1 Public Realm Infrastructure
The public realm component of the Specific Plan will include a thorough description and standards for streets and sidewalks, open spaces, public parking facilities, and any other public realm element proposed in the Plan. The Specific Plan will also include guidelines and standards for the enhancement and use of streetscapes, such as conceptual street furniture and street tree palettes. Additionally, Sherwood will provide support on stormwater/green infrastructure design.
Deliverables: Public Realm Infrastructure to be described in the Specific Plan, including street crosssections and typical plans, Conceptual Street Furniture Guidelines, Street Tree Palette Guidelines.
7.2 Utility Infrastructure
Upon approval of the preferred land use alternative by City staff, Sherwood will undertake a study of utility infrastructure in the Plan area, which will result in the writing of an Infrastructure Chapter, to be included in the Specific Plan, describing the planned Wet and Dry Utility networks and Stormwater Management & Green Infrastructure.
Deliverables: Infrastructure Chapter in Specific Plan.
7.3 Cost Estimates
The Arroyo Group, Sasaki, Sherwood, and Iteris will work together to provide rough planning level cost estimates for all infrastructure and public realm improvements identified in the Specific Plan.
Deliverables: Planning Level Cost Estimates for all Infrastructure Projects.
Task 8: Draft and Final Specific Plan
8.1 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards
The Arroyo Group will prepare a land use map, use regulations and development standards for current or newly defined districts within the Specific Plan area. Development standards will draw upon opportunity site analyses, 3D models, the vision direction, and other developments in the Gateway Cities area to ensure feasibility. We will coordinate closely with the City’s Comprehensive Zoning Code Update team to ensure consistency between the code and Specific Plan, as we have recently done in the City of Bell. We would propose to use similar use categories and development standard frameworks as the new Zoning Code to the extent feasible. Nevertheless we have used a variety of regulatory standard frameworks in the past and will have much to draw upon as we develop the right approach for this Specific Plan.
Deliverables: Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Chapter to be Included in the Specific Plan.
8.2 Objective Design Standards and Design Guidelines
The City of Santa Fe Springs adopted objective architectural design standards in 2023. The Arroyo Group and Sasaki will build upon these standards and develop additional design guidelines and objective design standards consistent with the Plan vision. These objective design standards may touch both public and private realm within the Specific Plan area, and the relationship between them, through standards such as frontage type regulations.
Deliverables: Objective Design Standards for Specific Plan area, to be Included in the Specific Plan. 11 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal C: PROPOSED STATEMENT OF WORK
8.3 Fiscal Analysis
Kosmont will also conduct a net fiscal impact and economic benefit analysis of the final preferred land use plan to inform the implementation and financing plan and ensure financial sustainability to corroborate viability of the land use plan.
Deliverables: Fiscal Analysis memorandum
8.4 Implementation and Financing Plan
The Arroyo Group and Kosmont will develop an implementation strategy for the Specific Plan, drawing upon the phasing identified in Task 6.3 and including feasible potential funding mechanisms for the capital improvements identified in Task 7.3. Actions will be described and prioritized for implementation by the City or key outside actors, many of whom may be present on the Stakeholders Advisory Committee.
As an optional task (requiring additional budget), Kosmont will also be available to conduct a net fiscal impact and economic benefit analysis of the final preferred land use plan to inform the implementation and financing plan.
Deliverables: Implementation Chapter in the Specific Plan.
8.5 Administrative Draft Specific Plan
The Specific Plan will include the deliverables of Tasks 5, 6, 7, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 as well a Vision/Introduction Chapter and compliance with all statutory requirements from Government Code 65451 et seq.
Deliverables: Administrative Draft Specific Plan.
8.6 Further Draft Specific Plans
The Arroyo Group will refine the Administrative Draft Specific Plan into a Screencheck, Public Review, and Public Hearing Draft. The Arroyo Group will consider comments from the public, Planning Commission, City Council, and City staff when editing each Draft.
Deliverable: Screencheck Draft, Public Review Draft, Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan.
8.6 Final Specific Plan
After City Council adoption of the Specific Plan, The Arroyo Group will make a final Specific Plan incorporating any changes included in the adopting motion. At this time, The Arroyo Group will also provide to the City final editable files of the Specific Plan and all associated documents.
Deliverables: Final Specific Plan, Final Editable Specific Plan, GIS shapefiles.
Task 9: Zoning Code Updates
9.1 Zoning Code Updates
As stated in the scope for Task 8.1, The Arroyo Group intends to refer out to the regulations and standards of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. The Arroyo Group and the Update consultant will work together to ensure consistency between the Zoning Code and Specific Plan.
Deliverables: Consistent references in the Specific Plan out to the Zoning Code, and vice versa if necessary. 12 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal C: PROPOSED STATEMENT OF WORK
Task 10: CEQA Technical Studies
This task comprises the technical studies that will feed into the environmental document and can be paid for out of the Caltrans grant. Preparation of the environmental document has been moved to Task 12.
10.1 Development Capacity
The Arroyo Group will calculate the development capacity of the preferred land use plan to serve as the basis for all CEQA technical studies. The development capacity can be prepared in advance of the Draft Specific Plan if necessary to accelerate the schedule.
10.2 CEQA Transportation Analysis
Iteris will prepare a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis evaluating the project’s effects on regional mobility, based on requirements in the City’s guidelines. The analysis will first evaluate whether the project would screen out from further analysis based on its size, components, and/or location. If the project does not screen out, Iteris will perform an evaluation of the project’s impact on regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). In order to prepare the evaluation, Iteris would utilize the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) travel demand model which Iteris has used recently for similar planning efforts in Norwalk and Vernon.
10.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Study
Impact Sciences will prepare stand-alone reports consistent with the City’s protocol for the implementation of CEQA, and consistent with the recommendations of the CARB and the SCAQMD. The reports will include, but not be limited to, description of the regulatory environment as it relates to air quality and GHGs, existing air quality and GHG conditions, relevant graphics, impact analysis consistent with City policy and regulatory guidance, and identification of relevant and necessary mitigation measures.
10.4 Noise and Vibration Technical Study
Impact Sciences will prepare a Noise and Vibration Technical Study that will include noise levels along roadways affected by the proposed Plan and vibration levels resulting from the operation of construction equipment at nearby sensitive land uses such as residential uses and potentially vibration-sensitive structures and/or operations. Using Federal Highway Administration noise factors, noise levels will be presented for typical construction activity in urban areas. The operational noise analysis will estimate changes in mobile source noise on a representative sample of roadway segments using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (TNM2.5) (or RD-77-108 noise calculation formulas, as applicable) and data provided in the transportation analysis.
10.5 Water Supply Assessment
The development of a water supply assessment is based on final dwelling unit count and level of water studies performed by local water purveyor. Working in close coordination with the Client, Sherwood will assess the proposed development scenarios to understand how the future plans will affect water utility infrastructure and supply. Sherwood will provide a qualitative assessment of the existing infrastructure and proposed water improvements based on client provided building/program information and will review existing system sizing and associated capacity to help inform capital improvement recommendations necessary. It is assumed that this work will be coordinated with the Golden State Water Company and City of Santa Fe Springs. As part of the assessment Sherwood will inform the Client if modeling and/or additional studies are warranted. This scope does not include a full Water Supply Assessment for the future development, as it is assumed the Water District or City would take on this effort. If determined necessary, Sherwood can provide an additional service contract aligned with the proposed development assumptions.
Deliverables: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Study, Noise and Vibration Technical Study, Conceptual Assessment of Existing Water Infrastructure and Proposed Improvements 13 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal C: PROPOSED STATEMENT OF WORK
Task 11: Presentation and Adoption of Specific Plan and Environmental Document
11.1 Public Hearings
The Arroyo Group will facilitate one (1) Planning Commission study session and one (1) City Council study session on the Specific Plan at the conclusion of Task 4, the land use alternatives stage of the project. Additionally, The Arroyo Group will attend four (4) public hearings, shared between the Planning Commission and City Council.
Deliverables: Presentation Materials, Staff Reports, Resolutions, Ordinances.
Task 12: Environmental Document
Option 1: Addendum
Our proposed work product will consist of a stand-alone Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), demonstrating the Plan would comply with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164. Specifically, we will present a summary of each impact issue, impact conclusion, and any relevant, necessary and required mitigation measures identified. The General Plan 2040 PEIR identified mitigation measures for air quality; greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, utilities (water supply). Any necessary modifications to the approved mitigation measures will be addressed on a caseby-case basis. While addenda do not specifically offer opportunities for later projects to ‘tier’ or streamline, the addendum could provide information related to streamlining options that may be available for projects within the Plan area. It is likely that many future projects would qualify for streamlining options under CEQA guidelines section 15183, information regarding these exemptions and how/when they apply could be provided within the addendum and the Specific Plan to help facilitate streamlining of projects.
Option 2: EIR
Our approach will be to use as much of the analysis from the 2022 General Plan EIR as feasible. Tiering serves to reduce repetitive analysis and provide subsequent site-specific analysis at a time when it is meaningful. Tiering is common and appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from a General Plan EIR to a program of lesser scope, such as a specific plan (CEQA Guidelines Section 15152[b]).
Each resource topic of the EIR will follow a master format designed to demonstrate CEQA compliance and increase the ability of the public to understand the information in the EIR using established thresholds.
Impact Sciences will analyze up to three alternatives to the proposed Project. Impact Sciences will submit the Screencheck Draft EIR to the team for review. Our scope assumes one (1) round of consolidated (staff and City attorney review) comments will be provided to the team in electronic format. Impact Sciences will revise the document and prepare the Draft EIR for public review. After the final round of comments from the team, Impact Sciences will prepare the document for public review. Impact Sciences will finalize the Draft EIR and distribute the document to State Clearinghouse to start the 45-day comment period. The time necessary to complete the Final EIR depends on the volume and depth of the comments received.
The budget for this task will be reviewed with the City and adjusted, if needed, after review of all comments received on the Draft EIR. If any significant impacts are identified, findings and a statement of overriding considerations will be necessary. Impact Sciences will prepare the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) for the Project, if necessary.
Deliverables: Addendum or EIR
14 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal C: PROPOSED STATEMENT OF WORK
15 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Jan-26 Feb-26 Mar-26 Apr-26 May-26 Jun-26 Jul-26 Aug-26 Sep-26 Oct-26 Nov-26 Dec-26 Jan-27 Feb-27 Mar-27 Apr-27 May-27 TASK 1: PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
1.1 Kick-Off Meeting and Action Plan
1.2 Coordination Meetings
1.3 Quarterly Caltrans Meetings
TASK 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSES
2.1 Land Use and Urban Design
2.2 Existing Infrastructure Conditions
2.3 Existing Transportation Conditions
2.4 Existing Environmental Conditions
2.5 Market Study
TASK 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
3.1 Community Engagement Plan
3.2 Direct Community Outreach
3.3 Business and Property Owner Outreach
3.4 Agency and Utility Outreach
3.5 Council Member Outreach
3.6 Stakeholders Advisory Committee
3.7 Community Workshops
TASK 4: DEVELOPMENT OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Land Use Alternatives
TASK 5: MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS
5.1 Opportunity Site and Development Feasibility Analysis TASK 6: PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE
6.1 Preferred Land Use Alternative
TASK 7: INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICE
7.1 PLAN Public Realm Infrastructure
7.2 Utility Infrastructure
7.3 Cost Estimates
TASK 8: DRAFT AND FINAL SPECIFIC PLAN
8.1 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards
8.2 Objective Design Standards
8.3 Fiscal Analysis
8.4 Implementation and Financing Plan
8.5 Administrative Draft Specific Plan
8.6 Further Draft Specific Plans
8.7 Final Specific Plan
TASK 9: ZONING CODE UPDATES
9.1 Zoning Code Updates
TASK 10: CEQA TECHNICAL STUDIES
10.1 Development Capacity
10.2 CEQA Transportation Analysis
10.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Study
10.4 Noise and Vibration Technical Study
10.5 Water Supply Assessment
TASK 11: PRESENTATION AND ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC
PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 11.1 Public Hearings
TOTAL CALTRANS FUNDED
TOTAL CALTRANS FUNDED
TARGET
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT OPTIONS
TASK 12A: ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN PEIR
12.A General Plan PEIR Addendum
TOTAL WITH ADDENDUM
TASK 12B: EIR
12.A EIR
TOTAL WITH EIR
Schedule -
Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific
Plan MONTHS
DETAILED PROJECT SCHEDULE D
The Arroyo Group Team is confident we can complete the project prior to the City’s intended adoption date of May 2027, even while using the longer EIR option for environmental documentation. 16 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL E
Responsible Staff/Project Manager
Philip Burns, AICP
40 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite B, Pasadena CA 91105
(323) 382-2402, [email protected]
Legal Name: The Arroyo Group
Form of Business: Corporation, incorporated 1976
Certifications: SBE, DBE
Offices: 1 (Pasadena)
Employees: 7
Specific, Area and Master Plans:
• The Plan for Old Pasadena, Pasadena Heritage
• Pasadena Civic Center/Mid-Town Design Plan,
City of Pasadena
• Downtown Riverside Specific Plan, City of
Riverside
• Inglewood Transit-Oriented Development
Plans (Downtown Inglewood, Fairview Heights,
Westchester/Veterans and Crenshaw/Imperial),
City of Inglewood
• Tweedy Boulevard and Hollydale Village
Specific Plans, City of South Gate
• Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, City of Orange
• Compton Station Specific Plan, City of
Compton
• Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan, City of Norwalk
• Vernon Westside Specific Plan, City of Vernon
• Old Town La Verne Specific Plan, City of La
Verne Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan,
City of Temple
• Foothill Gold Line Extension Phase 2B First/
Last Mile Plan (TAG)
• Carson Neighborhood Mobility Area Plan, City
of Carson
About The Arroyo Group
The Arroyo Group is a 47 year-old Southern California
professional planning and urban design firm that
balances diverse interests and inspired design with
economic realities. We design revitalized downtowns,
dynamic districts, livable neighborhoods and inviting
public spaces that build on the unique physical
attributes of a community as well as its distinctive
identity and character. Throughout our body of work:
• We foster and sustain a sense of place • We plan and design vital environments • We accelerate the development of affordable and mixed-income housing
The Arroyo Group has collaborated with our
subconsultants and their leaders for many years,
on many different projects. The strengths of each of
these firms for this project include:
Sasaki has a very strong master planning practice, with extensive experience in campuses and largescale developments. This experience is especially relevant for the Heritage Corporate Center area,
which has the potential to be planned as a unified
development. In addition, Sasaki Associate Principal
Ian Dickenson has worked with The Arroyo Group
on many projects over the last five years in a variety
of roles.
Kosmont Companies brings knowledge of the City from its participation in the recent General Plan and current Economic Development Opportunities Plan,
as well as extensive market experience from the City
of Norwalk in conjunction with The Arroyo Group.
Kosmont is also recognized for being a leader in
financing strategies and implementation, which will
be key focuses of the effort in this Specific Plan.
Iteris has a strong track record working with The Arroyo Group to produce vetted, progressive transportation plans and associated CEQA analyses.
Iteris delves deeply into the feasibility of roadway
changes, parking strategies and other design team
proposals and works creatively to find ways to
achieve bold visions while keeping vehicles moving.
Sherwood Design Engineers surpasses the typical civil engineering experience in utilities and infrastructure capacity by participating as a full
member of the design and planning team, focused
on stormwater infrastructure, sustainability and
urban design.
Impact Sciences is a WBE that has prepared environmental documentation on time and on budget for many recent The Arroyo Group plans.
17 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
Urban Planning, Engagement, Project Management
Philip Burns, AICP, Principal-in-Charge, Team Project Manager, Planning Lead* Lance Lowrey, ASLA, Sr. Associate, Placemaking and Landscape Anton Anderson, Sr. Associate, Community Engagement Strategy William Bowser, Associate, Document Design, Drafting and 3D Modeling Margaret Muñoz, Associate, Planning and Engagement Support Below is our team organizational chart, illustrating the breadth and depth of the project with their project functions.
The resumes of key staff are given on the following pages *FIRM PROJECT MANAGER TEAM ORGANIZATION
THE ARROYO GROUP
Transportation
Deepak Kaushik, PE, Principal
Engineer*
Sean Daly, AICP, PTP, Senior
Planner
Bill Zhou, Associate Engineer
Jin Eo, Assistant Engineer
ITERIS
Economics
Ken K. Hira, President, Principal
Advisor*
Ryan Aubry, Senior Advisor, Pro
Forma and Fiscal Analysis
Fernando Sanchez, Vice
President, Market Analysis
Adira Strauber, Project Analyst
Urban Design
Ian Dickenson, Associate
Principal, Urban Design Lead
Ethan Lay-Sleeper, Senior
Planner, Master Planning and
Representation
Surbhi Agrawal, Data Analyst,
Mapping and Analysis
SASAKI KOSMONT
IMPACT SCIENCES
Infrastructure
Jimmy Galvez P.E.,
Principal*
Jim Remlin, Associate
Principal, Green Infrastructure
Design
Ian McRae, Project Manager,
Utilities
Environmental
Jessica Kirchner, AICP,
Principal*
Brett Pomeroy, Associate
Principal, Technical Studies
Lead
Brad Perrine, Senior Project
Manager
Amber Williams, Technical
Specialist
Elani Getachew, Planner
SHERWOOD
18 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
City of Norwalk, CA
Heart of Norwalk Vision Plan (2020-2021)
Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan (2022-2025)
Project Team: Philip Burns, Lance Lowrey, Anton Anderson, William Bowser, Margaret Muñoz (The Arroyo Group) Ken Hira, Fernando Sanchez (Kosmont), Deepak Kaushik (Iteris), Jimmy Galvez (Sherwood), Jessica Kirchner (Impact Sciences), Ian Dickerson (Sasaki)
Reference:
Carlos Rojas,
Senior Planner,
Norwalk, CA 90650,
[email protected],
562-929-5769
The Arroyo Group prepared the Heart of Norwalk Vision Plan, which articulated a clear, consensus-driven direction for the San Antonio Village and Firestone Corridor, two aging areas in Norwalk’s core. The Plan was based on a broad, comprehensive and meaningful outreach process conducted during the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. Included was a consistent social media campaign with over 700 followers and 3,000 post likes and comments; a paper and online survey reaching 363 households; four engaging videos with over 3,000 reproductions; and almost 100 participants in online workshops. The Plan uncovered the desire of Norwalk’s population, particularly the large youth and young adult population, to have higher quality commercial amenities and experiences located within a vibrant, mixed-use setting.
Putting form to the community’s desire and operating within the context of economic realities, the Specific Plan establishes three vibrant mixed-use districts in the Heart of Norwalk – the Front Street Historic District, the Town Square District and the Triangle District. The districts are linked by complete streets and infill multifamily development corridors along Firestone Boulevard and San Antonio Drive.
The Specific Plan includes detailed use and development controls, objective design standards and streetscape guidelines intended to streamline the approval process and encourage investment and placemaking. The objective design standards are the City's first comprehensive ones and apply to all types of development permitted under the Specific Plan. 19 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
The Arroyo Group prepared zoning code and General Plan Amendments to introduce a mix of uses including residential, live/work, creative office, production retail and R&D facilities into a city which up to this point has been considered “exclusively industrial.” The purpose of these zoning and General Plan Amendments was to increase the City’s tiny population, strengthening the City’s long-term governance, and to strengthen Vernon as a center of production by attracting talent, creativity and design. These zoning and General Plan Amendments create viable and livable potential for development withing the heavy industrial environment.
Along with the zoning code and General Plan Amendments, The Arroyo Group prepared a graphically rich vision document detailing catalytic developments, transportation changes, streetscape improvements, implementation strategies and other actions that can be undertaken to help the new mixed-use zones transform into a livable and productive part of the community. Detailed traffic analysis were conducted to evaluate how trucks could be moved away from mixed-use zones and toward other routes. . These changes and improvements detailed in the vision document aim to improve the experience of living in Vernon for current and future Westside residents.
City of Vernon, CA
A Vision for the Westside of Vernon Westside
Mixed Use Zoning Amendment
Housing Element (2020-2023)
Project team: Philip Burns, Lance Lowrey, William Bowser, Margaret Muñoz, Ian Dickerson (Sasaki)
Reference:
Daniel Wall,
Director of Public Works
Vernon, Ca 90058
[email protected]
(323) 583-8811 x305
Freight rerouting plan for the City of Vernon
20 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
The Astra Apartments, a new mixed use development within the Downtown Inglewood TOD Plan area.
City of Inglewood, CA
Inglewood Transit Oriented Development Plans and Design Guidelines (Ph I 2015-2016, PH II 2016-2021)
Housing Element, Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and Objective Design Standards (2021-2024)
Project team: Philip Burns, Anton Anderson, Margaret Muñoz, William Bowser, Ian Dickerson (Sasaki)
Reference:
Bernard McCrumby,
Planning Manager
(310) 412-5230
[email protected]
The Arroyo Group team prepared transit-oriented development plans for four Metro station areas in the City of Inglewood. The plan for Downtown Inglewood and Fairview Heights stations was adopted unanimously by City Council in December 2016, while the plans for Westchester/Veterans and Crenshaw stations were adopted in December 2021. The plans were developed with an extensive program of community participation including stakeholder interviews, a stakeholder’s advisory committee appointed by the mayor, community workshops held at Inglewood’s two largest churches, surveys and youth outreach at Inglewood High School. As a result of the TOD Plans, over 1,000 units have been entitled and/or constructed, including nearly 300 affordable units.
In 2023, The Arroyo Group completed the City of Inglewood’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, which was notable because it relied on historical development trends to justify site inclusion and project affordability levels, rather than assuming 100% lower-income development on multifamily sites as many other jurisdictions did.
Currently, The Arroyo Group is completing its work on two Housing Element Implementation tasks. Objective design standards related to fifteen different topics have been drafted to streamline housing approvals while ensuring pedestrian-friendliness, livability, and privacy. A carefully calibrated inclusionary zoning ordinance will increase affordable housing production, while decreasing processing time by clarifying density bonus procedures and creating a menu of no-questions-asked density bonus concessions. 21 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
The Arroyo Group and Iteris developed a land use plan, streets/streetscape plan and programmatic mobility improvements in suburban residential areas (“neighborhood mobility areas”) to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase access to neighborhood services via alternatives to the automobile. The land use plan designates the creation of “neighborhood nodes” which concentrate business activity, while the streets and streetscape plan link them to neighborhoods through a network of low-stress routes for pedestrian and bicycle activity. Sufficiently protected from the frequent trucks which serve this industrial City. Recommendations are also made on the latest topics in mobility, including bikeshare/scootershare, curb space utilization, and neighborhood electric vehicles. The plan draws heavily on academic research regarding VMT reduction, and the estimated effectiveness of these strategies are quantified through travel modeling. Recommendations were incorporated in the City's General Plan.
City of Carson, CA
Carson Neighborhood Mobility Area Plan (2018-2020)
Project team: Philip Burns, Sean Daly (Iteris)
Reference:
Alvie Betancourt
Former Planning Manager
Carson, CA 90745
[email protected]
(562) 801-4332
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Proposed Urban Design Framework
East Carson
Feet N
2 minute bike (1,760’)
2 minute NEV (3,168’)
5 minute walk (1,200’)
Remove Truck Route
Remove truck route designation from street
New Connections at Street Ends
New ped/bike connection at existing cul-de-sacs or T-intersections Existing Parks
Proposed Parks
Existing Schools
Other Major Arterials
City of Carson
Metro Line A
Land Use Districts
Multimodal Streets and Pathways
Multimodal
Boulevards
Multimodal
Connectors
Separated
Slow-Speed Paths
Other Elements
Neighborhood
Nodes
Neighborhood
Corridors
MAP 8-1
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Ave
Southern Paci c RR
Alameda St
Alameda St
Carson St
Carson St
E Je
erson St
S Prospect Ave
Van Buren St
223rd St
223rd St
221st St S Harbor View Ave
Metro Line A
Los Angeles River Bike Path
McHelen Ave
Embassy Ave 218th St
Interstate 710
Interstate 710
Union Paci c RR
Del Amo Blvd Del Amo Blvd Bataan Ave
Southern Paci c RR
Interstate 405
Dominguez St
Interstate 405
Evonda Ave
22 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
Confidential Client | Los Angeles
County, California
Confidential Redevelopment & Specific Plan (2023)
Project team: (Sasaki), Ian Dickenson
Sasaki is serving as master planner and lead consultant for the repositioning of a large and geographically complex urban remediation site in Southern California. The site’s complexity derives from abrupt changes in terrain elevation, earthquake fault zones, and the bisection of the site by a major boulevard in a sunken right-of-way.
This is compounded by a complex network of mineral extraction rigs, some more productive than others, as well as pipelines serving the rigs. The development project requires a sophisticated rig deaccessioning strategy, which in turn impacts project phasing considerations.
Sasaki’s approach has been to conduct a rigorous analysis of topography, site access, rig location and productivity, and other conditions, to derive a clear picture of the land and its opportunities. To achieve this picture, Sasaki Strategies created a bespoke web-based tool that allows the consultant and client teams to game out different scenarios of decommissioning, so as to understand where, economically, the first phases of the development project will make the most sense.
Detatched to
Walk-up Residential
Townhome to
Midrise Residential
Walk-up to Highrise
Residential
Medium to High
Density Mixed Use
High Density
Mixed Use
Low to Medium
Density Flex Zone
Medium to High
Density Flex Zone
TYPE RR-1 TYPE RR-2 TYPE RR-3 TYPE MU-1 TYPE MU-2 TYPE F-1 TYPE F-2 Allowable % within regulating zones:
Detached Dwellings: Min 0% - Max 60%
Townhomes: Min 20% - Max 40%
Walk-up: Min 10% - Max 30%
Neighborhood Retail: Min 0% - Max 15%
Allowable % within regulating zones:
Townhomes: Min 20% - Max 75%
Walk-up Residential: Min 20% - Max 75%
Mid-rise Residential: Min 10% - Max 50%
Neighborhood Retail: Min 0% - Max 25%
Allowable % within regulating zones:
Walk-up Residential: Min 10% - Max 30%
Mid-rise Residential: Min 30% - Max 75%
High-rise Residential: Min 10% - Max 20%
Neighborhood Retail: Min 0% - Max 10%
Allowable % within regulating zones:
Walk-up Residential: Min 0% - Max 20%
Mid-rise Residential: Min 40% - Max 75%
High-rise Residential: Min 10% - Max 30%
Mid-rise Office: Min 15% - Max 30%
Neighborhood Retail: Min 0% - Max 20%
Allowable % within regulating zones:
Mid-rise Residential: Min 30% - Max 50%
High-rise Residential: Min 30% - Max 50%
Mid-rise Office: Min 30% - Max 50%
Allowable % within regulating zones:
Detached Dwellings: Min 0% - Max 50%
Townhomes: Min 0% - Max 50%
Walk-up Residential: Min 0% - Max 50%
Mid-rise Residential: Min 10% - Max 50%
Mid-rise Office: Min 10% - Max 50%
Stand-alone Office: Min 0% - Max 50%
Maker / Industrial: Min 0% - Max 50%
Institutional: Min 0% - Max 50%
Neighborhood Retail: Min 0% - Max 30%
Allowable % within regulating zones:
Walk-up Residential: Min 0% - Max 25%
Mid-rise Residential: Min 10% - Max 50%
Mid-rise Office: Min 10% - Max 50%
Stand-alone Office: Min 0% - Max 50%
Maker / Industrial: Min 0% - Max 50%
Institutional: Min 0% - Max 50%
Detached
Residential Dwelling
Walk-up
Residential
Mid-rise
Residential
High-rise
Residential
Maker / Industrial
Office
Stand-alone
Office
Mid-rise
Office
Neighborhood
Retail Townhomes Institutional
Low Density
Residential
Medium Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
Low Density
Mixed Use
Medium Density
Mixed Use
High Density Mixed
Use Office Maker / Industrial Institutional
REGULATORY TOOL PERMISSIBLE USE TYPOLOGIES NEIGHBORHOOD / PLACE TYPE
R O O F
D E C K
R E T A I L
A C T I V E S T R E E T
R E T A I L
R O O F
D E C K
A C T I V E S T R E E T
P O C K E T P A R K
R E T A I L
P O C K E T
P A R K
A C T I V E S T R E E T
R E T A I L O P T .
THE ARROYO GROUP
Philip Burns, AICP
Principal & Project Manager
EDUCATION
BA, Urban Studies
Brown University
MA, Planning
University of Southern
California
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Community
engagement and
public participation
• Housing Policy
• Zoning
• Active transportation
• Bilingual (English/
Spanish)
Philip Burns is Managing Principal and project manager at The Arroyo Group.
Philip directs and manages the firm’s Master/Specific planning practice, having led the preparation of ten such plans over the past several years. His particular areas of expertise include land use planning/zoning, housing policy, and bilingual community engagement. He also has extensive experience working on and or managing staff or consultants in the areas of urban design, transportation (particularly active transportation and traffic studies), economics, infrastructure and environmental clearance.
Possessing a variety of technical skills, Philip often manages multidisciplinary teams and serves as primary agency point of contact for complex planning projects. His management experience includes:
• Inglewood Transit-Oriented Development Plans. Philip served as project manager for TOD Plans for two Metro stations and project planner for two others. Together the plans provide for 8,000 new housing units and 10,000 new jobs. He led the development of the City of Inglewood’s 6th cycle Housing Element, Objective Design Standards, and an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance throughout the city. • Heart of Norwalk Vision/Specific Plan. Philip served as project manager, leading The Arroyo Group in its’ preparation of the Heart of Norwalk Vision Plan which articulated a clear, consensus-driven direction for the San Antonio Village and Firestone Corridor, two aging areas in Norwalk’s core. The Specific Plan establishes three vibrant districts in the Heart of Norwalk.
• Metro Foothill Gold Line Extension Phase 2B First/Last Mile Planning. Philip led this active transportation project which involved extensive coordination and negotiation between the five local city governments, Metro and the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority.
Philip oversaw and conducted thirty outreach events which garnered comments from over 1,500 people, and guided the design process. • Vernon Mixed-Use Specific Plan. Philip managed this controversial project to introduce housing into the “exclusively industrial” city of Vernon, which needed to grow its population to ensure stability of the municipal government. The project included a customized new zoning system, extensive traffic analysis and roadway design, intensive stakeholder outreach, and conceptualization of several catalytic site developments, including the repositioning of the Civic Center into a mixed-use, mixed-income hub for the community.
A native of Southern California, Philip is Chair of the Congregational Land Committee of Making Housing and Community Happen (MHCH). Philip is also a member of the Pasadena Planning Commission and Mayor’s Housing Task Force. He is fluent in Spanish after having served in the Peace Corps and International Organization for Migration in Guatemala for four years. 23 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
24 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
Anton brings over 30 years of technology and design experience, with 15+ years collaborating with The Arroyo Group. He has led social media strategies in Inglewood, Norwalk, and Compton, and facilitated public workshops. A regional native, Anton draws on personal experience to engage in discussions on land use, revitalization, and gentrification. He has developed tech strategies, custom software, and executive IT support for various organizations, and has presented at industry events since 1990.
Selected experience:
• Compton Station Specific Plan. As part of The Arroyo Group team, in conjunction with city staff, this project explores actionable opportunities to add higher density and low income housing, cultural and entertainment destinations, and open space using first-last mile concepts to increase accessibility to Compton Station and activating the station area. Anton facilitated outreach conducted via community events, paper and online surveys, and Instagram. He was also one of the presenters for in-person and virtual workshops and stakeholder outreach. • The New Downtown Inglewood. Anton worked as part of The Arroyo Group Team to prepare Form Based Concept Plans and TOD Overlay Zoning for the City of Inglewood. Anton helped lead stakeholder workshops, public forums, and managed the social media outreach for the project
• The Heart of Norwalk. Anton coordinated outreach and introducing concepts of proposed mixed-use housing and complete streets in the center of the city. In particular, Anton led the Instagram campaign which resulted in robust engagement of the community’s young people.
THE ARROYO GROUP
Anton Anderson
Senior Associate,
Community Engagement
EDUCATION
BA, Computer Science and
Visual Arts, Dartmouth
College
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Strategic planning
• Technology/social
media
• Community outreach
Lance has 20 years of professional experience in the fields of Landscape Architecture, Urban Design, and Planning. His work has spanned a broad range of project types and scales, with experience and thought leadership both nationally and internationally, garnering numerous state and national awards over his professional career.
Recent work in Orange, San Marino, South Pasadena, and Glendora focused on enhancing downtown areas and overall visitor experience. Strategies included expanding pedestrian connections, diversifying open space types, and analyzing programming to reach broader user groups. Collaborated with economic partners to add targeted placemaking supported by adjacent development, and with transportation teams to ‘right size’ streets, reclaiming underutilized roadway space for pedestrian use. Brings strong experience in detailed design, using specificity in form, materiality, and detailing to inform planning-level work.
Selected experience:
• Compton Station Specific Plan. As urban design lead on this project, Lance developed the concept for the “Compton Walk,” a funded complete streets and placemaking redesign of Compton Boulevard creating spaces to showcase past, present and future creatives in Compton. • South Pasadena Slow Streets. Lance directed several stages of this project to explore the complete streets redesign of historic Mission Street and upgrade pandemic-era parklets.
• Orange Plaza Paseo Streetscape Study. Lance designed a seasonal pedestrian-only zone along Glassell Avenue in the historic Old Town Orange district, drawing upon a pandemic-era road closure.
THE ARROYO GROUP
Lance Lowrey, ASLA
Placemaking Sr. Associate
EDUCATION
BS, Landscape Architecture
Colorado State University
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Urban Design • Landscape Design and
Open Space Planning
William’s role at the Arroyo Group involves site planning and design, graphic representation through drafting and 3D modelling as well as supporting community meetings and presentations. He has worked on a variety of project scales from parklets to district scale planning.
William possesses a bachelor’s degree in architectural design from Academy of Art University in San Francisco. While studying he was also involved through the conceptual and development phases working towards securing planning approvals on several San Francisco housing projects and other land use projects in Northern California.
Selected experience:
• Vernon Mixed-Use Specific Plan: William provided drafting and 3D modelling support during the Vernon Mixed-Use Specific Plan process. • Orange Plaza Paseo Streetscape Study: William provided drafting and 3D modelling support for the envisioning of a seasonal pedestrianonly zone along Glassell Avenue in the historic Old Town Orange district.
William also supporting community engagement efforts during this project.
• Congregational Land Campaign for Affordable Housing: William has conducted site planning studies for potential affordable housing developments on several different sites owned by congregations. • South Pasadena Slow Streets: William provided design and 3D modelling support in several stages of this project to explore the complete streets redesign of historic Mission Street and upgrade pandemic-era parklets.
THE ARROYO GROUP
William Bowser
Associate
EDUCATION
BA, Architectural Design
Academy of Art University
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Modeling
• Site planning
• Architecture
Margaret’s work with The Arroyo Group involves writing code amendments, writing housing elements, writing vision plans, visioning affordable housing on congregational and institutional land, planning and hosting community engagement activities, and working on affordable housing initiatives such as congregational land overlay zones.
A native of the Pasadena area, Margaret studied Urban Studies at Haverford College, including a semester studying in Berlin. At the University of Southern California, she concentrated in housing and real estate development, through which she developed a strong background in policy that incentivizes affordable housing development. Additionally, Margaret has experience organizing in communities across Los Angeles County to help address Southern California’s housing crisis.
She earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Urban Studies from Haverford College, as well as a Masters in Urban Planning from the University of Southern California.
Selected experience:
• Inglewood Housing Element: Margaret wrote served as lead writer and analyst for the City of Inglewood’s Housing Element. This process included the identification of sites to accommodate more than 7,000 housing units, analysis of the City’s policies and practices to affirmatively further fair housing, and extensive community engagement. • The Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan: Margaret serves in a supportive role for the Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan. This process included the creation of map exhibits, analysis of residential and commercial capacity, examination of existing conditions, the crafting of new zoning districts, and extensive community outreach.
• Congregational Land Campaign for Affordable Housing: Margaret conducts the zoning research in the preparation for feasibility studies to ensure zoning compliance for all congregational land projects.
THE ARROYO GROUP
Margaret Muñoz
Associate
EDUCATION
MA, Urban Planning
University of Southern
California
BA, Urban Studies
Haverford College
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Community
engagement and
public participation
• Affordable housing
policy
• Zoning
25 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
SASAKI
Ian Dickenson
Associate
EDUCATION
BS, Architecture
Arizona State University
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Architectural Design • Urban Design
SASAKI
Surbhi Agrawal
Data Analyst
EDUCATION
MA, City Planning
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
MA, Science Urbanism
Delft University of
Technology, Netherlands
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Data Collection • Sustainable Solutions
Ian is an associate principal architect/Sasaki’ s in our Los Angeles Studio. He is responsible for heading a diverse array of firm initiatives, including leading design teams, project and firm strategy, creative direction, and carrying out research agendas.
Ian has delivered numerous complex, award-winning projects on time and within budget, including large mixed-use developments, civic and institutional work, campus buildings and master planning, affordable housing, and community led advocacy and policy projects. This diverse range of pursuits is bound by a process that engages the deeper underlying context of a project, focused on how broader societal and cultural influences can be translated to inform the built environment.
Selected experience:
• Vernon Mixed-Use Specific Plan Ian led the architecture component of the Westside Specific Plan in Vernon, California. This process included the identification of existing assets viable for redevelopment and an incremental development strategy for vacant and underutilized projects. • Inglewood Objective Design Standards.
• City of Vernon Westside Specific Plan; Vernon, California • Culver City Streetscape Standards; Culver City, California • City of Beverly Hills Rodeo Drive Reimagined; Beverly Hills, California
• City of West Hollywood Housing Element Implementation; West Hollywood, California
• Isla De Los Angeles Supportive Housing; Los Angeles, California • Isla Intersections; Los Angeles, California
Surbhi is an urban data analyst and planner specializing in geospatial data science and remote sensing. She focuses on equitable, sustainable solutions for built environment challenges, combining data-driven insights with community-centered innovation.
At Sasaki, she leads geospatial efforts, with projects ranging from analyzing environmental sensor data in Detroit to mapping urban heat islands in Los Angeles. She graduated from the Master in City Planning Program at MIT with a focus on Urban Science. She has a background in Urbanism and Architecture and has previously worked as a Planning and Technology Consultant for City Governments, Civic Innovation Agencies, and Consulting Practices in San Francisco, New York, Amsterdam, Nairobi, Mumbai, Hanoi, and Colombo.
Selected experience:
• Bedrock Urban Sensing; Detroit, Michigan
• Dredge for Change, United States
• City of Denver Parks and Recreation Asset Inventory & Condition Assessment; Denver, Colorado
• City of West Hollywood Housing Element Implementation; West Hollywood, California
• Great Rivers Greenway Master Plan; St. Louis, Missouri • LA Heat Equity Mapping; Los Angeles, California
• Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Resiliency Tool; Central Ohio
• NYC Digital Equity Neighborhood Vision; New York, New York 26 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
Mr. Ken K. Hira serves as President for Kosmont Companies. An expert in real estate and economic development, Mr. Hira brings over 30 years of varied experience in virtually every aspect of acquisition, entitlement, development, financing, asset management, disposition, downtown revitalization, and strategic plans. His strengths include a keen understanding of retail trends, business retention/attraction, negotiating public-private transactions and implementing blended-use projects that revitalize communities and assist in economic development/tax generation programs.
A former Executive Vice President and mixed-use developer, Mr. Hira managed a portfolio of over $100 million of retail sites, while operating the commercial division of the company. Prior to this, as Managing Director of Acquisitions for a development company and Vice President of Development at a development firm, he evaluated and underwrote hundreds of acres of land, successfully captured and negotiated anchor tenant commitments creating $60 million of value in ground-up development and redevelopment and was responsible for 800,000 square feet of retail entitlement, design and development.
Selected experience:
• City of Norwalk, Norwalk, CA - Served as Principal Advisor / Project Manager: Economic Development Opportunity Plan, Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan, Public Private Project
• City of San Dimas, San Dimas, CA - Served as Principal Advisor:
Downtown Specific Plan Market Analysis / Economic Development Strategy
• City of Tustin, Tustin, CA - Served as Principal Advisor: Market Analysis for Specific Plan
Mr. Fernando Sanchez is a Vice President with Kosmont Companies assisting public and private sector clients with market and economic analyses, strategic planning, and real estate development advisory. His recent work includes market supply and demand analysis, prioritization of strategic opportunity sites for retail and future development, analysis of potential development uses, and geospatial analysis of boundaries and funding and financing feasibility studies of new infrastructure financing districts, including Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs).
Prior to joining Kosmont Companies, Mr. Sanchez also worked as an Analyst for Entertainment and Culture Advisors, a Los Angeles-based economic consulting firm specializing in the entertainment and attractions industry. Other previous experience includes working as an Analyst and Project Manager for JDT International Inc., a residential real estate developer in Philadelphia, and working as a Transportation Planner with the City of Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Utilities.
Selected experience:
• City of Norwalk, Norwalk, CA - Served as Project Support / Data Manager: Economic Development Opportunity Plan, Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan, Public Private Project
• City of San Dimas, San Dimas, CA - Served as Project Support / Data Manager: Downtown Specific Plan Market Analysis / Economic Development Strategy – sub to Interwest
• City of El Monte, El Monte, CA - Served as Project Support / Data Manager: Economic Development Opportunities Plan
KOSMONT COMPANIES
Ken K. Hira
President & Principal
Advisor
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Economics
and Business, UCLA
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Economic Development • Market and Land Use
Analysis/Strategies • Public Private Projects
KOSMONT COMPANIES
Fernando Sanchez
Vice President & Project
Manager
EDUCATION
Master of City Planning,
Univ. of Pennsylvania,
(focus: public and private
real estate development)
BA of Arts,
Princeton University
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Market Analysis
• Economic Development
Strategies
27 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
Mr. Daly is a Senior Manager for Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions. He has 21 years of public sector and professional consulting experience in transportation planning and has been with Iteris since 2006. Sean’s approach to planning puts people first to ensure access and connectivity rather than barriers and isolation. He is supported by Iteris’ focus to bring professional planning services to his clients through a broad array of knowledge, expertise, and experience.
Selected experience:
• CEQA Adaptive Mitigation Program, VCOG: Served as Project Manager leading development of a regional adaptive management program for transportation to streamline the CEQA process by providing a wider range of VMT reduction strategies and mitigation options, consistent methodology and standards for VMT reduction analysis and monitoring, credible substantial evidence for CEQA transportation analysis, and an in-lieu fee mechanism.
• Valley Blvd Transportation Improvement Project, City of Los Angeles: Project Manager and Traffic Analysis Lead for the Valley Blvd Multi-Modal Transportation Improvement Project which envisions transformative corridor improvements for all modes of transportation, including auto, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian activities along the corridor. • General Plan and Specific Plan Circulation/Mobility Elements:
Led technical tasks for the development of the following General Plan Circulation/Mobility Elements:
• • City of Ojai (in development)
• City of Moorpark
• City of Ventura (in development)
• City of Santa Barbara (in development)
• City of Manhattan Beach CA • City of Long Beach CA
Mr. Kaushik serves as a Principal Engineer for Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions and has been with the firm since 2008. He has over 22 years of transportation planning and engineering experience, which includes transportation systems analysis, multimodal mobility planning, highway operations, traffic safety, and travel-demand modeling. He enjoys the technical aspects of the projects he manages, but also embraces the interaction with stakeholders, city officials, and the public. Most of all, he welcomes the challenge of finding solutions that improve mobility for all users.
Selected experience:
• Compton Station TOD Specific Plan, City of Compton: Served as a Project Manager leading the evaluation of traffic and parking for the Compton Station TOD Specific Plan (and PEIR). His role included preparing a parking study as well as a traffic impact analysis in support of the environmental documentation (PEIR), which included both VMT analysis and intersection-level LOS analysis to measure localized congestion effects.
• Eastern Avenue Multimodal Transportation Improvements, City of Los Angeles: Served as Project Manager for the Eastern Avenue Multimodal Transportation Improvements project in the City of Los Angeles, leading the traffic and parking evaluation.
• Slauson Corridor Transit Neighborhood Plan (TNP), City of Los Angeles: Led the preparation of a transportation analysis as part of an EIR addendum. The City’s travel demand model was used to estimate vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per service population.
ITERIS
Sean Daly, AICP, PTP
Senior Manager
EDUCATION
MCP, City Planning,
University of Pennsylvania,
2002
BA, Geography, University
of California, Los Angeles,
Minor in Public Policy, 1998
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Transportation
Planning • Traffic Engineering &
Operations
• Goods Movement
ITERIS
Deepak Kaushik, PE
Principal Engineer
EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering,
University of California,
Irvine, 2001
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Transportation
Planning • Multimodal Planning • Travel Demand
Modeling • Transit
28 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
Jimmy Galvez has extensive depth of design experience on projects at the residential, commercial, mixed use, streetscape and public right of way, institutional/higher education campus scale and neighborhood district-scale throughout California, Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas, Louisiana, Latina America and the Middle East . He has served as project lead in coordination with owner representatives, government agencies, multi-disciplinary design teams, contractors, and other stakeholders for clients in both the private and public sectors. He has been responsible for site design from early concept planning to the preparations of construction and permitting documentation including specifications, cost and bond estimates and constructions administration for a variety of land development protects.
Selected experience:
• West LA Vision Plan: Completed the initial stage for the vision of a 50 acre area in west Los Angeles assessing all utility and roadway infrastructure including consideration and assessment of impacts for the 7 existing local and regional bus lines with routes in and around future development.
• LA Union Station & Esplanade: Directed stormwater management strategies to support the adpation of the existing parking lot along the frontage into a visionary courtyard esplanade that enhances the pedestrian experience.
• LA Metro - ESFV Climate Adaptation Plan: Led the study of the 9.1 mile East San Fernando Valley corridor to assess the impact of climate change on station user experience.
• Main and Naud Redevelopment: As part of the campus redevelopment Jimmy led the infrastructure adaptive reuse strategies.
SHERWOOD DESIGN
ENGINEERS
Jimmy Galvez, P.E.
Principal, Main Point of
Contact
EDUCATION
B.S. in Civil Engineering
California Poly State
University
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Site Utility and Grading
• Stormwater
Management
• Adaptive Reuse
• Bilingual (English/
Spanish)
Jessica will serve as the Principal in Charge and will be responsible for corporate commitment. Jessica has 20 years of broad experience in environmental analysis. She has contributed to the preparation of environmental impact analysis under both CEQA and NEPA for both public and private development projects covering a diverse range of land uses. Impact analyses prepared by Jessica include Initial Studies, Mitigated Negative Declarations, and EIRs (draft, final, supplemental, subsequent, and addenda), as well as SCEAs, Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, and Categorical Exclusions. She has also prepared Findings of Fact, Statements of Overriding Considerations, and MMRPs. She has prepared environmental justice analyses and health impact assessments for major transportation projects in Southern California and the Central Valley.
Selected experience:
• City of Bell Environmental Justice Element, Health & Safety Element, Addendum to the Certified EIR for the 2030 Comprehensive General Plan Update and Bicycle Master Plan. As Principal in Charge, Jessica worked closely with The Arroyo Group and the City to develop policies reflective of the City’s background and need.
• County of Los Angeles Environmental Documentation for Four Housing Ordinances. As Principal in Charge, Jessica was responsible for project oversight, project management, and QA/QC. • Southern California Association of Governments 2020 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy Program EIR. As Principal in Charge, Jessica oversaw preparation of the environmental document, reviewed subconsultant deliverables for technical accuracy, and represented the team at project and public meetings.
IMPACT SCIENCES
Jessica Kirchner, AICP
Principal in Charge
EDUCATION
Masters in Urban Planning,
University of Southern
California
Bachelors in Journalism,
Rutgers
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• CEQA/NEPA Compliance
• Senior Review
• Corporate Comitment
29 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan Proposal E: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE & KEY PERSONNEL
30 The Arroyo Group - Santa Fe Springs - Downtown Specific Plan - RFP Cost ProposalThe Arroyo Group Team proposes to complete all granteligible tasks in the Proposed Statement of Work on an a time-and-materials basis not to exceed the grant amount of $673,000. Milestone costs are given in the targets listed for each task in the rightmost column. Environmental documents will additionally be completed for a not-to-exceed cost of $40,340 for an addendum of $113,440 for an EIR.Hourly billing rates and an anticipated hourly breakdown are provided to the right. Costs for additional services will be bases on the rates cited in this Table, plus CPI escalation. Non-labor costs for the project include Budgeted traffic counts for (10) intersections, parking counts, two (2) professional renderings, printed materials for community outreach events, and travel to the site. All reimbursable expenses will be billed at cost, with mileage billed at IRS rates.Conflict of Interest Statement - The Arroyo Group possesses no conflicts of interest with regard to this proposal.
F CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT AND COST PROPOSAL
Principal / PM
Philip Burns,
Sr Assoc -
Outreach
Sr Assoc -
Placemaking
Associate -
Design
Associate -
Planning
Associate
Principal
Sr Assoc III
Ethan LayData Analyst
Surbhi Agrawal
Ken K. Hira,
President
Ryan Aubry
Sr Advisor
Fernando
Sanchez
Adira Strauber
Project Analyst
Principal
Engineer
Senior Planner
Sean Daly
Associate
Engineer
Assistant
Engineer
Principal
Jimmy Galvez
Associate
Principal
Project
Manager
Design
Engineer II
Principal,
Jessica Kirchner
Assoc Principal,
Pomeroy
SR PM, Perrine
Tech Sp,
Williams
Planner,
Getachew
$215
$160
$160
$120
$120
$300
$225
$165
$425
$395
$295
$195
$270
$250
$185
$165
$285
$260
$220
$195
$310
$260
$200
$170
$160
TASK 1: PROJECT ADMINISTRATION $20,720 $4,800 $11,625 $3,320 $0 $0 $37,145
1.1 Kick-Off Meeting and Action Plan 8 4 4 4 8 $4,440 4 $1,200 3 3 3 3 $3,930 $0 $0 $0 $9,570
1.2 Coordination Meetings 36 48 $13,500 12 $3,600 7 4 8 4 $7,695 6 4 2 2 $3,320 $0 $0 $24,795
1.3 Quarterly Caltrans Meetings 8 8 $2,680 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,680 Non-Labor $100 $0 $0 $100
TASK 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSES $28,820 $21,960 $7,520 $13,530 $30,875 $8,000 $97,175
2.1 Land Use and Urban Design 28 8 40 50 $18,100 18 12 84 $21,960 $0 $0 2 6 6 $3,010 $0 $43,070
2.2 Existing Infrastructure Conditions 8 8 $2,680 $0 $0 $0 1 12 36 72 $25,365 $0 $28,045
2.3 Existing Transportation Conditions 8 8 $2,680 $0 $0 8 6 12 20 $9,180 $0 $0 $2,6802.4 Existing Environmental Conditions 8 8 $2,680 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 8 10 10 10 $8,000 $10,6802.5 Market Study 8 8 $2,680 2 3 10 13 $7,520 $0 $0 $10,200 Non-Labor $0 $0 $0 $4,350 $2,500 $0 $2,500
TASK 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT $64,520 $16,310 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,830
3.1 Community Engagement Plan 4 2 10 $2,380 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,380
3.2 Direct Community Outreach 6 50 64 $14,970 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,970
3.3 Business and Property Owner Outreach 12 16 $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,500
3.4 Agency and Utility Outreach 12 $2,580 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,580
3.5 Council Member Outreach 8 4 8 $3,160 $03.6 Stakeholders Advisory Committee 70 28 28 $21,770 12 4 22 $8,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,900
3.7 Community Workshops 24 8 28 28 $13,160 8 4 22 $6,930 $0 $0 $0 $20,090 Non-Labor $2,000 $1,250 $0 $3,250TASK 4: DEVELOPMENT OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES $34,400 $33,600 $0 $19,240 $6,895 $0 $74,895
4.1 Land Use Alternatives 40 40 80 40 $29,400 22 32 120 $33,600 $0 8 10 36 48 $19,240 5 3 16 6 $6,895 $0 $69,895 Non-Labor $5,000 $0 $5,000
TASK 5: MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS $2,200 $0 $36,280 $0 $0 $0 $38,480
5.1 Opportunity Site and Development Feasibility Analysis 8 4 $2,200 $0 12 30 34 40 $34,780 $0 $0 $0 $36,980 Non-Labor $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $1,500
TASK 6: PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE $17,540 $15,750 $10,575 $0 $0 $0 $43,865
6.1 Preferred Land Use Alternative 20 4 20 20 $10,540 6 18 60 $15,750 5 8 10 12 $10,575 $0 $0 $0 $36,865 Non-Labor $7,000 $0 $0 $7,000
TASK 7: INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICE PLAN
$47,425 $10,380 $0 $11,890 $36,640 $0 $94,445
7.1 Public Realm Infrastructure 55 55 120 $35,025 14 4 32 $10,380 $0 16 12 14 12 $11,890 4 16 12 $6,900 $0 $52,305
7.2 Utility Infrastructure 8 8 $2,680 $0 $0 $0 2 16 48 60 $26,990 $0 $29,670
7.3 Cost Estimates 8 20 40 $9,720 2 2 4 4 $2,750 $12,470 Non-Labor $0 $0 $0 $0
TASK 8: DRAFT AND FINAL SPECIFIC PLAN $51,740 $22,365 $28,970 $0 $5,135 $0 $108,210
8.1 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards 20 20 20 $9,100 4 8 24 $6,960 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,060
8.2 Objective Design Standards 32 32 16 $12,640 16 8 5 $7,425 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,065
8.3 Fiscal Analysis 2 $430 3 25 4 1 $12,5258.4 Implementation and Financing Plan 16 $3,440 7 15 15 16 $16,445 $0
8.5 Administrative Draft Specific Plan 16 60 60 $17,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,840
8.6 Further Draft Specific Plans 12 24 16 $7,380 6 4 32 $7,980 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,360
8.7 Final Specific Plan 2 4 $910 $0 $0 $0 1 4 12 6 $5,135 $0 $6,045 TASK 9: ZONING CODE UPDATES $6,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,900
9.1 Zoning Code Updates 12 36 $6,900 2 2 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,900 TASK 10: CEQA TECHNICAL STUDIES $6,890 $0 $0 $12,250 $3,635 $36,960 $47,485
10.1 Development Capacity 6 18 $3,450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,450
10.2 CEQA Transportation Analysis 4 $860 10 12 14 24 $12,250 $0 $0 $860
10.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Study 4 $860 $0 $0 4 16 80 22 $22,520 $23,38010.4 Noise and Vibration Technical Study 4 $860 $0 $0 4 16 40 14 $14,440 $15,30010.5 Water Supply Assessment 4 $860 $0 1 2 4 10 $3,635 $0 $4,495 TASK 11: PRESENTATION AND ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT $33,080 $10,450 $0 $60 $0 $40 $43,570
11.1 Public Hearings 86 60 60 $32,890 16 10 20 $10,350 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,240 Non-Labor $190 $100 $0 $60 $40 $330
TOTAL CALTRANS FUNDED $314,235 $135,615 $94,970 $60,290 $83,180 $45,000 $673,000 TOTAL CALTRANS FUNDED $314,235 $135,615 $94,970 $60,290 $83,180 $45,000 $673,000 TASK 12A: ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN PEIR $860 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,480 $40,340
12.A General Plan PEIR Addendum 4 $860 $0 $0 $0 $0 20 8 24 80 80 $39,480 $40,340 TOTAL WITH ADDENDUM $315,095 $135,615 $94,970 $60,290 $83,180 $84,480 $713,340 TASK 12B: EIR $3,440 $0 $0 $0 $0 $110,000 $113,440
12.A EIR 16 $3,440 $0 $0 $0 $0 40 20 80 200 265 $110,000 $113,440 TOTAL WITH EIR $317,675 $135,615 $94,970 $60,290 $83,180 $155,000 $786,440
KOSMONT
ECONOMICS
ITERIS
TRANSPORTATION
SHERWOOD ENGINEERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPACT SCIENCES
ENVIRONMENTAL
TEAM
Budget -Santa Fe Springs Downtown Specific Plan
THE ARROYO GROUP
PLANNING, ENGAGEMENT
SASAKI
URBAN DESIGN
Contract No. [insert contract number]
1 2025
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
With The Arroyo Group and City of Santa Fe Springs
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (hereinafter, “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___________ day of __________________ 2025 (hereinafter, the “Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, a municipal corporation (hereinafter, “CITY”) and The Arroyo Group (hereinafter, “CONSULTANT”).
For the purposes of this Agreement, CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to collectively by the capitalized term “Parties.” The capitalized term “Party” may refer to CITY or CONSULTANT interchangeably, as appropriate.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires professional consulting services for the preparation of a Downtown Specific Plan (collectively, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, CITY staff has determined that CONSULTANT possesses the experience, skills and training necessary to competently provide such services to CITY; and
WHEREAS, the execution of this Agreement was approved by the Santa Fe Springs City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 19, 2025, under Agenda Item No. ______.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, CITY and CONSULTANT agree as follows:
I.
ENGAGEMENT TERMS
1.1 TERM: This Agreement shall have a term commencing from the Effective Date through June 30, 2027 (hereinafter, the “Term”). Nothing in this Section shall operate to prohibit or otherwise restrict the CITY’s ability to terminate this Agreement at any time for convenience or for cause as provided under Article V (Termination), below. The Term may be extended for one (1) additional one-year period at the option of the CITY, provided that CITY provides CONSULTANT with written notice of CITY’s intent to exercise CITY’s option to extend the term of the Agreement no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the Term or any prior extension term. In the event CITY exercises its option to extend this Agreement, all terms, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect and govern the duties, responsibilities, and liabilities of the parties hereto.
1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES:
A. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, CONSULTANT agrees to provide the services and tasks described in that certain Request for Proposals of CITY entitled “REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS No. 25-13 Contract No. [insert contract number]
2 Downtown Specific Plan” (hereinafter, “CITY RFP”) and the written proposal of CONSULTANT entitled “SANTA FE SPRINGS – DOWNTOWN
SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSAL” (hereinafter, the “CONSULTANT
Proposal”). The CITY RFP and the CONSULTANT Proposal are attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit “A” and “B” respectively. The term “Scope of Services” shall be a collective reference to the CITY RFP and the CONSULTANT Proposal. The capitalized term “Services” shall be a collective reference to all the various services and tasks referenced in the Scope of Services. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of the document entitled CITY RFP and the provisions of the document entitled CONSULTANT Proposal, the requirements of the document entitled CITY RFP shall govern and control but only to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency and no further. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of the Scope of Services and the provisions of this Agreement to which the Scope of Services is attached, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern and control.
1.3 PROSECUTION OF SERVICES:
A. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services contemplated under this Agreement on an on-call, as-needed basis. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to grant CONSULTANT the exclusive right to perform any of the types of services or tasks contemplated under this Agreement nor shall anything in this Agreement be construed to entitle CONSULTANT to the receipt of any sums under this Agreement, except to the extent CITY requests the performance of any Services in the manner described below and such Services is in fact performed and completed by CONSULTANT and accepted by CITY. CITY requests for the performance of specific services or tasks contemplated under this Agreement shall be made in the form of a written work order(s) issued by the City Representative (each such written request hereinafter referred to as a “Work Order”). Each Work Order shall include the following information:
1. A detailed description of the specific services or tasks requested;
2. The location of where the particular services or tasks are to be performed, if applicable;
3. A not-to-exceed budget for performing the services or tasks;
4. A timeline for completing the requested services or tasks;
5. Any other information CITY deems necessary and relevant to the requested services or tasks; and
6. The signature of the City Representative, confirming that the services or tasks have been authorized by the City Representative.
B. CONSULTANT shall not perform any of the Services contemplated under this Agreement without a written Work Order request from the City Representative, containing the information set forth in Section 1.3(A), above;
Contract No. [insert contract number]
3 C. CONSULTANT shall perform all assigned Services continuously and with due diligence so as to complete all assigned Services by the completion date indicated in each Work Order. CONSULTANT shall cooperate with CITY and in no manner interfere with the work of CITY, its employees or other consultants, contractors, or agents;
D. CONSULTANT shall not claim or be entitled to receive any compensation or damage because of the failure of CONSULTANT, or its subconsultants, to have related services or tasks completed in a timely manner; E. CONSULTANT shall at all times enforce strict discipline and good order among CONSULTANT’s employees; and
F. CONSULTANT, at its sole expense, shall pay all sales, consumer, use or other similar taxes required by law.
1.4 COMPENSATION: CONSULTANT shall perform the Services in accordance with the “CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND COST PROPOSAL” which is attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit “C” (hereinafter, the “COMPENSATION RATE”).
The foregoing notwithstanding, CONSULTANT’s total compensation for the performance of all Services contemplated under this Agreement, may not exceed the aggregate sum of seven hundred thirteen thousand three hundred forty dollars ($713,340) (hereinafter, the “Not-to-Exceed Sum”) during the Term of this Agreement, unless such added expenditure is first approved by the City Council.
In the event CONSULTANT’s charges are projected to exceed the Aggregate Notto-Exceed Sum prior to the expiration of this Agreement, CITY may suspend CONSULTANT’s performance pending CITY approval of any anticipated expenditures in excess of the Aggregate Not-to-Exceed Sum or any other CITY approved amendment to the compensation terms of this Agreement.
1.5 PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION: Following the conclusion of each calendar month, CONSULTANT will submit to CITY an itemized invoice indicating the services performed and tasks completed during the recently concluded calendar month, including services and tasks performed and any reimbursable out-ofpocket expenses incurred. If the amount of CONSULTANT’s monthly compensation is a function of hours worked by CONSULTANT’s personnel, the invoice should indicate the number of hours worked in the recently concluded calendar month, the person(s) responsible for performing the Services, the rate of compensation at which such services and tasks were performed, the subtotal for each task and service performed and a grand total for all services performed.
Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of each invoice, CITY will notify CONSULTANT in writing of any disputed amounts included in the invoice. Within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of each invoice, CITY will pay all undisputed amounts included on the invoice. CITY will not withhold applicable taxes or other authorized deductions from payments made to CONSULTANT.
1.6 ACCOUNTING RECORDS: CONSULTANT will maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all matters covered under this Agreement for a period of three (3) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement. CITY will have Contract No. [insert contract number]
4 the right to access and examine such records, without charge, during normal business hours. CITY will further have the right to audit such records, to make transcripts therefrom and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings, and activities.
1.7 ABANDONMENT BY CONSULTANT: In the event CONSULTANT ceases to perform the Services agreed to under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the undertaking contemplated herein prior to the expiration of this Agreement or prior to completion of any or all tasks set forth in the Scope of Services, CONSULTANT will deliver to CITY immediately and without delay, all materials, records, and other work product prepared or obtained by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. Furthermore, CONSULTANT will only be compensated for the reasonable value of the Services performed up to the time of cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages, costs, or additional expenses which CITY may incur as a result of CONSULTANT’s cessation or abandonment.
II.
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT
2.1 CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE: The CITY hereby designates René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager (hereinafter, the “City Representative”) to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement. The City Representative or the City Representative’s designee will act on behalf of the CITY for all purposes under this Agreement. CONSULTANT will not accept directions or orders from any person other than the City Representative or the City Representative’s designee.
2.2 CONSULTANT REPRESENTATIVE: CONSULTANT hereby designates Philip Burns, AICP to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement (hereinafter, “Consultant Representative”). Consultant Representative will have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the CONSULTANT for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant Representative or the Consultant Representative’s designee will supervise and direct the performance of the Services, using his/her best skill and attention, and will be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all Services under this Agreement. Notice to the Consultant Representative will constitute notice to CONSULTANT.
2.3 COORDINATION OF SERVICE; CONFORMANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS:
CONSULTANT agrees to work closely with CITY staff in the performance of the Services and this Agreement and will be available to CITY staff and the CITY Representative at all reasonable times. All work prepared by CONSULTANT will be subject to inspection and approval by City Representative or his or her designees.
2.4 STANDARD OF CARE; PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYEES: CONSULTANT represents, acknowledges, and agrees to the following:
A. CONSULTANT will perform all Services skillfully, consistent with and adhering to its professional standard of care, that is, the degree of care and Contract No. [insert contract number]
5 skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing at the same time and in the same or similar locality; B. CONSULTANT shall at all times employ such force, plant, materials, and tools as will be sufficient in the opinion of the CITY to perform the Services within the time limits established, and as provided herein. It is understood and agreed that said tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor, and material shall be furnished and said Services performed and completed as required by the Agreement, and subject to the approval of the CITY’s authorized representative.
C. CONSULTANT will perform all Services in a manner reasonably satisfactory to the CITY;
D. CONSULTANT will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including the conflict of interest provisions of Government Code §1090 and the Political Reform Act (Government Code §§81000 et seq.) CONSULTANT shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services. If CONSULTANT performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations, CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom;
E. CONSULTANT understands the nature and scope of the Services to be performed under this Agreement as well as any and all schedules of performance;
F. All of CONSULTANT’s employees and agents possess sufficient skill, knowledge, training, and experience to perform those services and tasks assigned to them by CONSULTANT; and
G. All of CONSULTANT’s employees and agents (including, but not limited to, subcontractors and subconsultants) possess all licenses, permits, certificates, qualifications, and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the tasks and services contemplated under this Agreement and all such licenses, permits, certificates, qualifications, and approvals will be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement and made available to CITY for copying and inspection.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that CONSULTANT will perform, at CONSULTANT’s own cost and expense and without any reimbursement from CITY, any services necessary to correct any errors or omissions caused by CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with the standard of care set forth under this Section or by any like failure on the part of CONSULTANT’s employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and subconsultants. Such effort by CONSULTANT to correct any errors or omissions will be commenced immediately upon their discovery by either Party and, notwithstanding Section 5.2(B), will be completed within seven (7) calendars days from the date of discovery or such other extended period of time authorized by the City Representative in writing and in her sole and Contract No. [insert contract number]
6 absolute discretion. The Parties acknowledge and agree that CITY’s acceptance of any work performed by CONSULTANT or on CONSULTANT’s behalf will not constitute a release of any deficiency or delay in performance. The Parties further acknowledge, understand, and agree that CITY has relied upon the foregoing representations of CONSULTANT, including but not limited to the representation that CONSULTANT possesses the skills, training, knowledge, and experience necessary to perform the Services under the standard of care as articulated under section 2.4(A).
2.5 ASSIGNMENT: The skills, training, knowledge, and experience of CONSULTANT are material to CITY’s willingness to enter into this Agreement. Accordingly, CITY has an interest in the qualifications and capabilities of the person(s) who will perform the services and tasks to be undertaken by CONSULTANT or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. In recognition of this interest, CONSULTANT agrees that it will not assign or transfer, either directly or indirectly or by operation of law, this Agreement, or the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s duties or obligations under this Agreement, without the prior written consent of the CITY. In the absence of CITY’s prior written consent, any attempted assignment or transfer will be ineffective, null and void and will constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
2.6 SUBSTITUTION OF KEY PERSONNEL: CONSULTANT has represented to CITY that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, CONSULTANT may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval of CITY. In the event that CITY and CONSULTANT cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, CITY shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause. As discussed below, any personnel who fail or refuse to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the CITY, or who are determined by the CITY to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the CONSULTANT at the request of the CITY. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows:
Philip Burns, AICP, Principal-in-Charge, Team Project Manager, Planning Lead
2.7 CONTROL AND PAYMENT OF SUBORDINATES; INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR: The Services will be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s strict supervision. CONSULTANT will determine the means, methods, and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. CITY retains CONSULTANT on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee. CONSULTANT reserves the right to perform similar or different services for other principals during the term of this Agreement, provided such work does not unduly interfere with CONSULTANT’s competent and timely performance of the Services contemplated under this Agreement and provided the performance of such services does not result in the unauthorized disclosure of CITY’s confidential or proprietary information. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT are not employees of CITY and will at all times be under CONSULTANT’s exclusive Contract No. [insert contract number]
7 direction and control. CONSULTANT will pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel and will assume responsibility for all benefits, payroll taxes, Social Security and Medicare payments and the like. CONSULTANT will be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, workers’ compensation insurance and the like. Notwithstanding any other CITY, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, CONSULTANT and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors performing the Services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by CITY, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of CITY and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by CITY for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
2.8 REMOVAL OF EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS: If any of CONSULTANT’s officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors or subconsultants is determined by the City Representative to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely performance of the tasks assigned to CONSULTANT, a threat to persons or property, or if any of CONSULTANT’s officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors or subconsultants fail or refuse to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the CITY, such officer, employee, agent, contractor, subcontractor or subconsultant will be promptly removed by CONSULTANT and will not be reassigned to perform any of the Services.
2.9 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: CONSULTANT will keep itself informed of and in compliance with all applicable federal, state, or local laws to the extent such laws control or otherwise govern the performance of the Services. CONSULTANT’s compliance with applicable laws will include, without limitation, compliance with all applicable Cal/OSHA requirements and applicable regulations of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urbanization.
2.10 NON-DISCRIMINATION: CONSULTANT represents that it is an equal opportunity employer, and it shall not discriminate against any subconsultant, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff, or termination.
2.11 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS: The Parties acknowledge, understand, and agree that CONSULTANT and all persons retained or employed by CONSULTANT are, and will at all times remain, wholly independent contractors and are not officials, officers, employees, departments, or subdivisions of CITY.
CONSULTANT will be solely responsible for the negligent acts and/or omissions of its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and subconsultants.
CONSULTANT and all persons retained or employed by CONSULTANT will have no authority, express or implied, to bind CITY in any manner, nor to incur any obligation, debt, or liability of any kind on behalf of, or against, CITY, whether by Contract No. [insert contract number]
8 contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred to CONSULTANT under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred by CITY in writing.
III.
INSURANCE
3.1 DUTY TO PROCURE AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE: Before performing any Services contemplated under this Agreement, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain policies of insurance that meet the requirements and specifications set forth under this Article. CONSULTANT will procure and maintain the following insurance coverage, at its own expense:
A. Commercial General Liability Insurance: CONSULTANT will procure and maintain Commercial General Liability Insurance (“CGL Coverage”) as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG 0001) or its equivalent. Such CGL Coverage will have minimum limits of no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) in the general aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, property damage, operations, products and completed operations, and contractual liability.
B. Automobile Liability Insurance: For any owned, non-owned, or hired vehicles used in connection with the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain Automobile Liability Insurance as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto). Such Automobile Liability Insurance will have minimum limits of no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
C. Workers’ Compensation Insurance/ Employer’s Liability Insurance: A policy of workers’ compensation insurance in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which will indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for both CONSULTANT and CITY against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by or any persons retained by CONSULTANT in the course of carrying out the Services contemplated in this Agreement.
D. Errors & Omissions Insurance: For the full term of this Agreement and for a period of three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain Errors and Omissions Liability Insurance appropriate to CONSULTANT’s profession. Such coverage will have minimum limits of no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per claim.
E. [IF RELEVANT] Cyber Security: Cyber Security coverage to include technology/professional liability insurance, intellectual property infringement, and data protection liability insurance. CONSULTANT shall Contract No. [insert contract number]
9 procure and maintain coverage for cyber liabilities and financial loss resulting or arising from acts, errors, or omissions, in connection with data maintenance, hosting, software development and other information technology services provided under this agreement. Coverage shall include protection for liability arising from: intellectual property infringement arising out of software and/or content (excluding patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets); breaches of security; violation or infringement of any right, privacy, breach of federal, state, or foreign security and/or privacy laws or regulations including; data theft, damage, destruction, or corruption, including without limitation, unauthorized access, unauthorized use, identity theft, theft of personally identifiable information or confidential corporate information, transmission of a computer virus or other type of malicious code; and participation in a denial of service attack on a third party. The minimum limits shall be three million dollars ($3,000,000) for each and every claim and in the aggregate.
3.2 ADDITIONAL INSURED REQUIREMENTS: The CGL Coverage and the Automobile Liability Insurance will contain an endorsement naming the CITY and CITY’s elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds.
3.3 REQUIRED CARRIER RATING: All varieties of insurance required under this Agreement will be procured from insurers admitted in the State of California and authorized to issue policies directly to California insureds. Except as otherwise provided elsewhere under this Article, all required insurance will be procured from insurers who, according to the latest edition of the Best’s Insurance Guide, have an A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII. CITY may also accept policies procured by insurance carriers with a Standard & Poor’s rating of no less than BBB according to the latest published edition the Standard & Poor’s rating guide. As to Workers’ Compensation Insurance/ Employer’s Liability Insurance, the CITY Representative is authorized to authorize lower ratings than those set forth in this Section.
3.4 PRIMACY OF CONSULTANT’S INSURANCE: All policies of insurance provided by CONSULTANT will be primary to any coverage available to CITY or CITY’s elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY or CITY’s elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers will be in excess of CONSULTANT’s insurance and will not contribute with it.
3.5 WAIVER OF SUBROGATION: All insurance coverage provided pursuant to this Agreement will not prohibit CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’s officers, employees, agents, subcontractors or subconsultants from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. CONSULTANT hereby waives all rights of subrogation against CITY, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.
3.6 VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE: CONSULTANT acknowledges, understands, and agrees, that CITY’s ability to verify the procurement and maintenance of the insurance required under this Article is a material consideration of this Agreement.
Contract No. [insert contract number]
10 Accordingly, CONSULTANT warrants, represents, and agrees that it will furnish CITY with certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing the coverage required under this Article on ACORD-25 or forms satisfactory to CITY in its sole and absolute discretion. The certificates of insurance and endorsements for each insurance policy will be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and will be on forms provided by the CITY if requested. Before performing any Services, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with all certificates of insurance and endorsements referenced herein. Upon CITY’s written request, CONSULTANT will also provide CITY with copies of all required insurance policies and endorsements.
3.7 The insurance coverage requirement set forth under this Article 3 are in addition to any coverage requirements set forth under Section X. Insurance Requirements of the CITY RFP.
3.8 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN COVERAGE: In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced immediately so as to avoid a lapse in the required coverage, CITY has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary, and any premium paid by CITY will be promptly reimbursed by CONTRACTOR or CITY will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, CITY may cancel this Agreement effective upon notice.
3.9 SPECIAL RISKS OR CIRCUMSTANCES: City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances. Any amendment to the insurance requirements of this Article shall be memorialized and approved in the form of a written amendment to this Agreement, signed by the Parties. The requirement for written amendments, modifications or supplements cannot be waived and any attempted waiver will be void or invalid.
IV.
INDEMNIFICATION
4.1 CITY’s elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers (hereinafter, the “City Indemnitees”) should, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be protected from any and all loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost, expense, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, or any other cost arising out of or in any way related to the performance of this Agreement. Accordingly, the provisions of this indemnity provision are intended by the Parties to be interpreted and construed to provide the City Indemnitees with the fullest protection possible under the law.
CONSULTANT acknowledges that CITY would not enter into this Agreement in the absence of CONSULTANT’s commitment to indemnify, defend and protect CITY as set forth herein Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent CONSULTANT’s services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to Claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT’s obligation to indemnify Contract No. [insert contract number]
11 shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the CITY, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
4.2 To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the CITY Indemnitees from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and all other costs, and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with CONSULTANT’s performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such loss or damage which is caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY.
4.3 CITY shall have the right to offset against the amount of any compensation due to CONSULTANT under this Agreement, any amount due to CITY from CONSULTANT as a result of CONSULTANT’s failure to either pay CITY promptly for any costs associated with CONSULTANT’s obligations to indemnify the CITY Indemnitees under this Article or related to CONSULTANT’s failure to either (i) pay taxes on amounts received pursuant to this Agreement or (ii) comply with applicable workers’ compensation laws.
4.4 The obligations of CONSULTANT under this Article will not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. CONSULTANT expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to CITY and CITY’s elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.
4.5 CONSULTANT agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth herein this Article from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. In the event CONSULTANT fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required herein, CONSULTANT agrees to be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY and CITY’s elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all claims and losses, costs or expenses for any damage due to death or injury to any person and injury to any property resulting from any alleged intentional, reckless, negligent, or otherwise wrongful acts, errors or omissions of CONSULTANT’s subcontractors or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by counsel of CITY’s choice.
4.6 CITY does not and shall not waive any rights that it may possess against CONSULTANT because of the acceptance by CITY, or the deposit with CITY, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. This hold harmless and indemnification provision shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost, or expense.
4.7 This Article and all provisions contained herein (including but not limited to the duty Contract No. [insert contract number]
12 to indemnify, defend, and hold free and harmless) shall survive the termination or normal expiration of this Agreement and is in addition to any other rights or remedies which the CITY may have at law or in equity.
V.
TERMINATION
5.1 TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE: CITY may immediately terminate this Agreement at any time for convenience and without cause by giving prior written notice of CITY’s intent to terminate this Agreement which notice shall specify the effective date of such termination. Upon such termination for convenience, CONSULTANT will be compensated only for those services and tasks which have been performed by CONSULTANT up to the effective date of the termination.
CONSULTANT may not terminate this Agreement except for cause as provided under Section 5.2, below. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, CITY may require CONSULTANT to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined in section 6.1 below, and other information of any kind prepared by CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of the Services.
CONSULTANT will be required to provide such Documents and Data within fifteen (15) calendar days of CITY’s written request. No actual or asserted breach of this Agreement on the part of CITY pursuant to Section 5.2, below, will operate to prohibit or otherwise restrict CITY’s ability to terminate this Agreement for convenience as provided under this Section.
5.2 EVENTS OF DEFAULT; BREACH OF AGREEMENT:
A. In the event either Party fails to perform any duty, obligation, service, or task set forth under this Agreement (or fails to timely perform or properly perform any such duty, obligation, service, or task set forth under this Agreement), an event of default (hereinafter, “Event of Default”) will occur. For all Events of Default, the Party alleging an Event of Default will give written notice to the defaulting Party (hereinafter referred to as a “Default Notice”) which will specify: (i) the nature of the Event of Default; (ii) the action required to cure the Event of Default; (iii) a date by which the Event of Default will be cured, which will not be less than the applicable cure period set forth under Sections 5.2B and 5.2C below or if a cure is not reasonably possible within the applicable cure period, to begin such cure and diligently prosecute such cure to completion. The Event of Default will constitute a breach of this Agreement if the defaulting Party fails to cure the Event of Default within the applicable cure period or any extended cure period allowed under this Agreement.
B. CONSULTANT will cure the following Events of Defaults within the following time periods:
i. Within ten (10) business days of CITY’s issuance of a Default Notice for any failure of CONSULTANT to timely provide CITY or CITY’s employees or agents with any information and/or written reports, documentation, or work product which CONSULTANT is obligated to Contract No. [insert contract number]
13 provide to CITY or CITY’s employees or agents under this Agreement.
Prior to the expiration of the 10-day cure period, CONSULTANT may submit a written request for additional time to cure the Event of Default upon a showing that CONSULTANT has commenced efforts to cure the Event of Default and that the Event of Default cannot be reasonably cured within the 10-day cure period. The foregoing notwithstanding, CITY will be under no obligation to grant additional time for the cure of an Event of Default under this Section 5.2B.i. that exceeds seven (7) calendar days from the end of the initial 10-day cure period; or ii. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of CITY’s issuance of a Default Notice for any other Event of Default under this Agreement. Prior to the expiration of the 14-day cure period, CONSULTANT may submit a written request for additional time to cure the Event of Default upon a showing that CONSULTANT has commenced efforts to cure the Event of Default and that the Event of Default cannot be reasonably cured within the 14-day cure period. The foregoing notwithstanding, CITY will be under no obligation to grant additional time for the cure of an Event of Default under this Section 5.2B.ii that exceeds thirty (30) calendar days from the end of the initial 14-day cure period.
In addition to any other failure on the part of CONSULTANT to perform any duty, obligation, service or task set forth under this Agreement (or the failure to timely perform or properly perform any such duty, obligation, service or task), an Event of Default on the part of CONSULTANT will include, but will not be limited to the following: (i) CONSULTANT’s refusal or failure to perform any of the services or tasks called for under the Scope of Services; (ii) CONSULTANT’s failure to fulfill or perform its obligations under this Agreement within the specified time or if no time is specified, within a reasonable time; (iii) CONSULTANT’s and/or its employees’ disregard or violation of any federal, state, local law, rule, procedure or regulation; (iv) the initiation of proceedings under any bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, reorganization, or similar legislation as relates to CONSULTANT, whether voluntary of involuntary; and/or (v) CITY’s discovery that a statement representation or warranty by CONSULTANT relating to this Agreement is false, misleading or erroneous in any material respect.
C. CITY will cure any Event of Default asserted by CONSULTANT within fortyfive (45) calendar days of CONSULTANT’s issuance of a Default Notice unless the Event of Default cannot reasonably be cured within the 45-day cure period. Prior to the expiration of the 45-day cure period, CITY may submit a written request for additional time to cure the Event of Default upon a showing that CITY has commenced its efforts to cure the Event of Default and that the Event of Default cannot be reasonably cured within the 45-day cure period. The foregoing notwithstanding, an Event of Default dealing with CITY’s failure to timely pay any undisputed sums to CONSULTANT as provided under Section 1.5, above, will be cured by CITY within five (5) calendar days from the date of CONSULTANT’s Default Notice to CITY.
Contract No. [insert contract number]
14 D. CITY, in its sole and absolute discretion, may also immediately suspend CONSULTANT’s performance under this Agreement pending
CONSULTANT’s cure of any Event of Default by giving CONSULTANT written notice of CITY’s intent to suspend CONSULTANT’s performance (hereinafter, a “Suspension Notice”). CITY may issue the Suspension Notice at any time upon the occurrence of an Event of Default. Upon such suspension, CONSULTANT will be compensated only for those services and tasks which have been rendered by CONSULTANT to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY up to the effective date of the suspension. No actual or asserted breach of this Agreement on the part of CITY will operate to prohibit or otherwise restrict CITY’s ability to suspend this Agreement as provided herein.
E. No waiver of any Event of Default or breach under this Agreement will constitute a waiver of any other or subsequent Event of Default or breach.
No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party will give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.
F. The duties and obligations imposed under this Agreement and the rights and remedies available hereunder will be in addition to and not a limitation of any duties, obligations, rights, and remedies otherwise imposed or available by law. In addition to any other remedies available to CITY at law or under this Agreement in the event of any breach of this Agreement, CITY, in its sole and absolute discretion, may also pursue any one or more of the following remedies:
i. Upon written notice to CONSULTANT, the CITY may immediately terminate this Agreement in whole or in part;
ii. Upon written notice to CONSULTANT, the CITY may extend the time of performance;
iii. The CITY may proceed by appropriate court action to enforce the terms of the Agreement to recover damages for CONSULTANT’s breach of the Agreement or to terminate the Agreement; or
iv. The CITY may exercise any other available and lawful right or remedy.
CONSULTANT will be liable for all legal fees plus other costs and expenses that CITY incurs upon a breach of this Agreement or in the CITY’s exercise of its remedies under this Agreement.
G. In the event CITY is in breach of this Agreement, CONSULTANT’s sole remedy will be the suspension or termination of this Agreement and/or the recovery of any unpaid sums lawfully owed to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for completed services and tasks.
5.3 SCOPE OF WAIVER: No waiver of any default or breach under this Agreement Contract No. [insert contract number]
15 will constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant, warranty, agreement, term, condition, duty, or requirement contained in this Agreement. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party will give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.
5.4 SURVIVING ARTICLES, SECTIONS AND PROVISIONS: The termination of this Agreement pursuant to any provision of this Article or by normal expiration of its term or any extension thereto will not operate to terminate any Article, Section or provision contained herein which provides that it will survive the termination or normal expiration of this Agreement.
VI.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
6.1 DOCUMENTS & DATA; LICENSING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: All Documents and Data will be and remain the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use or dissemination by CITY. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Documents and Data” means and includes all reports, analyses, correspondence, plans, designs, notes, summaries, strategies, charts, schedules, spreadsheets, calculations, lists, data compilations, documents or other materials developed and/or assembled by or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement and fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to Documents and Data stored digitally, magnetically and/or electronically. This Agreement creates, at no cost to CITY, a perpetual license for CITY to copy, use, reuse, disseminate and/or retain any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in all Documents and Data. CONSULTANT will require all subcontractors and subconsultants working on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement to agree in writing that CITY will be granted the same right to copy, use, reuse, disseminate and retain Documents and Data prepared or assembled by any subcontractor or subconsultant as applies to Documents and Data prepared by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement.
6.2 CONFIDENTIALITY: All data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by CONSULTANT or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and will not be disclosed by CONSULTANT without prior written consent by CITY. CITY will grant such consent of disclosure as legally required. Upon request, all CITY data will be returned to CITY upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement. CONSULTANT will not use CITY’s name or insignia, photographs, or any publicity pertaining to the Services in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of CITY.
6.3 FALSE CLAIMS ACT: CONSULTANT warrants and represents that neither CONSULTANT nor any person who is an officer of, in a managing position with, or has an ownership interest in CONSULTANT has been determined by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to have violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C., §§3801 et seq. and the California False Claims Act, Government Code §§12650 Contract No. [insert contract number]
16 et seq.
6.4 NOTICES: All notices permitted or required under this Agreement will be given to the respective Parties at the following addresses, or at such other address as the respective Parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
CONSULTANT: CITY:
The Arroyo Group
40 E. Colorado Blvd, Suite B
Pasadena, CA 91105
Attn: Philip Burns, AICP
Phone: 323-382-2402
City of Santa Fe Springs
Community Development
Department
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Phone: 562-868-0511 x7550
Attn: Cuong Nguyen
Such notices will be deemed effective when personally delivered or successfully transmitted by facsimile as evidenced by a fax confirmation slip or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit with the United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the Party at its applicable address.
6.5 COOPERATION; FURTHER ACTS: The Parties will fully cooperate with one another and will take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as are reasonably necessary, appropriate, or convenient to achieve the purposes of this Agreement.
6.6 SUBCONTRACTING: CONSULTANT will not subcontract any of the Services contemplated under this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without the prior written approval of CITY. Subcontracts (including without limitation subcontracts with subconsultants), if any, will contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement, including provisions relating to insurance requirements and indemnification.
6.7 CITY’S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS: CITY reserves the right to employ other independent contractors in connection with the various projects worked upon by CONSULTANT.
6.8 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:
A. CONSULTANT warrants, represents, and maintains that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants and represents that it has not paid, nor has it agreed to pay, any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, CITY will have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer, or employee of CITY, during the term of his or her service with CITY, will have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present Contract No. [insert contract number]
17 or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
B. CONSULTANT may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of CITY or whose business, regardless of location, would place CONSULTANT in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code §81000 et seq.
C. CONSULTANT shall not employ any official or employee of the CITY during the Term of this Agreement or any extension term. No officer or employee of CITY shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate Government Code §§1090 et seq. CONSULTANT warrants and represents that no owner, principal, partner, officer, or employee of CONSULTANT is or has been an official, officer, employee, agent, or appointee of the CITY within the twelve-month period of time immediately preceding the Effective Date. If an owner, principal, partner, officer, employee, agent, or appointee of CONSULTANT was an official, officer, employee, agent, or appointee of the CITY within the twelve-month period immediately preceding the Effective Date, CONSULTANT warrants that any such individuals did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and CONSULTANT will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and CONSULTANT will be required to reimburse the CITY for any sums paid to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code §1090.
6.9 TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.
6.10 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE: This Agreement shall be interpreted and governed according to the laws of the State of California. In the event of litigation between the Parties, venue, without exception, will be in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. If, and only if, applicable law requires that all or part of any such litigation be tried exclusively in federal court, venue, without exception, will be in the Central District of California located in the City of Los Angeles, California.
6.11 ATTORNEYS’ FEES: If either Party commences an action against the other Party, legal, administrative, or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation will be entitled to have and recover from the losing Party reasonable attorneys’ fees and all other costs of such action.
6.12 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: This Agreement will be binding on the successors and assigns of the Parties.
6.13 NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFIT: There are no intended third-party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. All rights and benefits under this Contract No. [insert contract number]
18 Agreement inure exclusively to the Parties.
6.14 CONSTRUCTION OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement will not be construed in favor of, or against, either Party but will be construed as if the Parties prepared this Agreement together through a process of negotiation and with the advice of their respective attorneys.
6.15 SEVERABILITY: If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions will continue in full force and effect.
6.16 AMENDMENT; MODIFICATION: No amendment, modification or supplement of this Agreement will be valid or binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties, subject to CITY approval. The requirement for written amendments, modifications or supplements cannot be waived and any attempted waiver will be void and invalid.
6.17 CAPTIONS: The captions of the various articles, sections and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this Agreement.
6.18 INCONSISTENCIES OR CONFLICTS: In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and any of the exhibits attached hereto, the provisions of this Agreement will control.
6.19 ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement, including all attached exhibits, constitutes the entire, complete, final, and exclusive expression of the Parties with respect to the matters addressed herein and supersedes all other agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, which may have been entered into between CITY and CONSULTANT prior to the execution of this Agreement. Any statements, representations, or other agreements, whether oral or written, made by either Party that is not embodied herein will not be valid or binding on the Parties. No amendment, modification or supplement to this Agreement will be valid and binding unless in writing and duly executed by the Parties pursuant to Section
6.16, above.
6.20 FORCE MAJEURE: The completion deadline for any Services assigned to CONSULTANT may be extended in the event of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control of CONSULTANT and without the fault or negligence of CONSULTANT, including but not limited to severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall within three (3) calendar days of the commencement of such delay notify the City Representative in writing of the causes of the delay. The CITY Representative shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the CITY Representative such delay is justified. The City Representative’s determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall CONSULTANT be entitled to recover damages Contract No. [insert contract number]
19 against the CITY for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, CONSULTANT’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.
6.21 COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement will be executed in three (3) original counterparts each of which will be of equal force and effect. No handwritten or typewritten amendment, modification, or supplement to any one counterpart will be valid or binding unless made to all three counterparts in conformity with Section
6.16, above. One fully executed original counterpart will be delivered to CONSULTANT and the remaining two original counterparts will be retained by CITY.
(SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE)
Contract No. [insert contract number]
20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first appearing in this Agreement, above.
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS:
By:
René Bobadilla, City Manager
Date:_______________________
THE ARROYO GROUP:
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:_______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _____
Rick Olivarez, City Attorney
Date:____________________________
ITEM # 25
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: Cuong Nguyen, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: APPROVE AND ADOPT THE 2025 CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES PLAN (EDOP)
DATE: August 19, 2025
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Review, approve and adopt the 2025 City of Santa Fe Springs Economic Development Opportunities Plan (EDOP), as prepared by Kosmont Companies; 2) Direct staff to begin implementing priority action items identified in the EDOP; and 3) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.
FISCAL IMPACT
The preparation of the EDOP was funded through the Community Development Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 budget. Implementation of the recommended strategies may require future budget appropriations, which will be presented to the City Council on a project-by-project basis.
BACKGROUND
In June 2025, Kosmont Companies completed the City’s EDOP, fulfilling a 2040 General Plan implementation measure to identify strategies, tools, and opportunity sites for advancing economic development objectives.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2025 APPROVE AND ADOPT THE 2025 SFS EDOP
The EDOP provides:
• A comprehensive market and demographic analysis;
• A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) assessment of eight strategic opportunity sites;
• Recommendations for targeted economic development tools; and • An implementation roadmap aligned with the City’s five key economic development goals: maintaining business strengths, business expansion/attraction/retention, meeting community and business needs, maintaining fiscal strength, and fostering public/private partnerships.
ANALYSIS
The EDOP identifies eight priority opportunity sites across Santa Fe Springs, including privately-owned properties and publicly-owned/Caltrans remnant parcels. These sites represent both near-term and long-term opportunities for new development, adaptive reuse, and revitalization.
Key findings include:
• Market Demand: Strong industrial/flex base (56.5 million sq. ft.), healthy commercial and multifamily markets, and projected demand for ~250 new upper midscale/upscale hotel rooms over the next decade.
• Challenges: Limited local dining/entertainment, absence of a centrally located grocery store, infrastructure repair needs, and complex permitting processes. • Opportunities: Hotel development, re-tenanting older properties, adaptive reuse of industrial space, and targeted retail attraction.
The EDOP also outlines a range of economic development tools, including:
• Business Expansion, Attraction, and Retention (BEAR) strategies; • Real estate strategies for publicly-owned land (Surplus Land Act compliance); • Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) and other tax increment tools; • Value capture zoning and specific plan updates;
• Revenue replacement strategies (STAR*)®; and
• Pursuit of state and federal grant funding.
Kosmont recommends initiating BEAR strategies immediately, focusing on proactive business outreach, collaboration with property owners, targeted marketing at industry events, and streamlined permitting to attract and retain investment.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2025 APPROVE AND ADOPT THE 2025 SFS EDOP
ENVIRONMENTAL
Approval of the EDOP is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it is reasonably foreseeable that the adoption of the EDOP will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and therefore no further action is required pursuant to CEQA.
DISCUSSION
N/A
SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
Approval of the 2025 Economic Development Opportunities Plan will provide the City with a comprehensive framework to guide strategic economic development efforts over the coming years. The Plan identifies targeted opportunity sites, actionable strategies, and market-based tools designed to enhance the City’s fiscal stability, diversify its economic base, and improve quality of life for residents and businesses.
Upon adoption, City staff will:
• Initiate implementation of the Business Expansion, Attraction, and Retention (BEAR) strategies as a priority action;
• Actively promote identified development opportunities through targeted marketing efforts, including participation in regional and national industry conferences; • Engage property owners, brokers, and developers to advance redevelopment and re-tenanting opportunities on priority sites; and
• Provide periodic updates to the City Council on progress, including any recommended budget appropriations necessary to implement specific initiatives.
This measured, phased approach will ensure that implementation of the Plan is coordinated, fiscally responsible, and aligned with the City Council’s long-term economic development objectives.
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. Resolution No. 9977
Exhibit A - 2025 City of Santa Fe Springs EDOP
RESOLUTION NO. 9977
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 2025 CITY
OF SANTA FE SPRINGS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITIES PLAN (EDOP) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Fe Springs (“City”) recognizes the need for a comprehensive, data-driven framework to guide strategic economic development efforts and to advance the goals set forth in the City’s 2040 General Plan; and WHEREAS, in June 2025, the City’s consultant, Kosmont Companies, completed the City’s 2025 Economic Development Opportunities Plan (“EDOP”), attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, which includes a market and demographic analysis, a SWOT assessment of eight strategic opportunity sites, recommended economic development tools, and an implementation roadmap; and
WHEREAS, the EDOP identifies opportunities to diversify the City’s economic base, enhance fiscal stability, and improve the quality of life for residents and businesses through strategies such as Business Expansion, Attraction, and Retention (“BEAR”) programs, targeted marketing, public-private partnerships, and infrastructure investment; and
WHEREAS, approval of the EDOP is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) Section 15061(b)(3), as the adoption of the EDOP does not approve any development, and it is reasonably foreseeable this action will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and any subsequent development would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, no further action is required pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (“City Council”) has reviewed the staff report, the EDOP, and all related evidence presented in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to formally approve and adopt the EDOP to serve as a guiding document for future economic development efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference as substantive findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that approval of the EDOP is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), it is reasonably foreseeable that the adoption of the EDOP will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and therefore no further action is required pursuant to CEQA.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, including the staff report and testimony presented, that adoption of the EDOP is in the public interest, supports the implementation of the City’s 2040 General Plan, promotes economic vitality, and provides a strategic framework to attract and retain businesses, stimulate investment, and enhance the City’s fiscal sustainability.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the EDOP and directs staff to proceed with its implementation in accordance with the recommendations and priorities outlined in the staff report and supported by the findings herein.
SECTION 5. The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
ADOPTED and APPROVED this 19TH day of August 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________________
William K. Rounds, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Fernando N. Munoz, CMC
City Clerk
2301 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 4140
El Segundo, CA 90245
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES PLAN
JUNE 2025
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 2
KOSMONT COMPANIES
Kosmont Companies ("Kosmont"), a real estate & economics advisory firm serving hundreds of cities and local governments for over 38 years, has been retained by the City of Santa Fe Springs ("City") to develop an Economic Development and Opportunities Plan (“EDOP”).
▪ Kosmont's expertise covers a full range of economics & real estate advisory services including:
➢ Market and Feasibility Analyses
➢ Fiscal Impact & Economic Benefit Studies
➢ Economic Development Strategies & Implementation
➢ Business/Retailer & Developer Recruitment
➢ Identification of Funding Sources & Financing Strategies ➢ Public-Private Transaction Structuring & Negotiation
▪ Winning track record of initiating and implementing projects for municipalities ➢ In-house team includes economists, registered municipal advisors, financial analysts, lawyers, real estate professionals, former city managers & economic development department heads
➢ Extensive network of brokers, investors and market data for real-time information, and industry leadership Disclaimer: The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation, and administrative actions.
Note: If needed, Financial Advisory and Real Estate Brokerage services can be provided by Kosmont Transactions Services, Inc. (SEC / MSRB Registered Municipal Advisor) and Kosmont Real Estate Services, Inc. (Licensed Real Estate Brokerage Firm), respectively.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary Page 4
1. Opportunity Site Areas and SWOT Analysis Page 12
2. Economic Development Strategies Page 32
Appendix
A. Economic and Demographic Profile Page 52
1. City Revenue Information Page 55
2. Population & Household Demographics Page 62
3. Unemployment & Employment by Industry Page 73
4. Visitation Trends Page 82
B. Market Demand Analysis Page 91
1. Market Trends Page 96
2. Retail Market Page 103
3. Office Market Page 110
4. Industrial / Flex Market Page 114
5. Multifamily Residential Market Page 118
6. Hospitality (Hotel) Market Page 122
C. Stakeholder Outreach Page 130
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Kosmont was retained to develop an Economic Development and Opportunities Plan (“EDOP”) that provides demographic and market analyses, along with economic development tools and action items that meet the City’s needs and achieve the economic development goals outlined in the 2040 General Plan (adopted February 2022) For this assignment, Kosmont performed demographic and market research; spoke to City Staff and City Councilmembers to understand the strengths, challenges, and opportunities that face Santa Fe Springs; prepared a SWOT Analysis to highlight Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats for development opportunity site areas; and outlined potential economic development tools and action items the City may consider to achieve its economic development goals Santa Fe Springs is a diverse and engaged community with a massive industrial/flex base (56.5 million square feet) and a large daytime workforce (~57,600 employees).
Market data for commercial (retail, office, industrial/flex), multifamily residential, and hospitality (hotel) asset classes was culled from CoStar.
The commercial and multifamily markets are healthy, exhibiting strong occupancies and there appears to be demand for ~250 new hotel rooms in an upper midscale / upscale class hotel flag
Key challenges identified in our discussions include the following:
➢ Limited dining and entertainment options (residents tend to leave the City when seeking these experiences)
➢ Lack of a centrally located grocery store (options are on the perimeter of the City, away from where City residents live)
➢ No weight limits for trucks lead to damaged roads; Need for street infrastructure repairs
➢ Public safety concerns with businesses reporting robberies Despite its challenges, there are significant development opportunities present in the City. There is potential for hotel development, based on hotel chain interest, there are vacant/idle properties ready for redevelopment, and existing warehouses could be repurposed for largescale indoor sports/entertainment complexes Based on feedback, Kosmont highlighted several economic development tools the City may use going forward. One such tool is to implement Business, Expansion, Attraction, and Retention (“BEAR”) strategies. A few of the potential action items within BEAR include:
➢ Proactively work with businesses & property owners to understand challenges/opportunities that may align with City’s economic development goals ➢ Maintain strong relationships with brokers/property managers ➢ Explore re-tenanting/development opportunities with property owners to improve older/underutilized space
➢ Attend and market development opportunities at ICSC and other conferences KOSMONT COMPANIES | 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DEMOGRAPHICS
Santa Fe Springs has 18,800 residents and 5,900 households With an average home price of $764,000, the City provides a more affordable option than other cities in Los Angeles County Average household income in Santa Fe Springs is $109,200, lower than Los Angeles County and California averages
Santa Fe Springs experiences a notable influx of workers with ~60,600 workers commuting into the City for jobs, while ~7,400 residents travel outside for employment, resulting in a net inflow of ~53,200 workers
The highest concentrations of employment in the City area along Telegraph Rd. and Florence Ave. in the northern section of the City.
There are some additional areas of high employment in the southern portion of the City where major industrial facilities are located. Majority of employment is concentrated in wholesale trade and manufacturing, making up roughly 25% of the City’s industries From 2012 to 2022, Santa Fe Spring’s sales tax revenue grew 68% (5.3% per year), driven by post-COVID-19 recovery. A majority of the City’s sales and use tax revenues come from business-to-business transactions
Santa Fe Springs is not significantly exposed to hotel tax revenue risk, as transient occupancy tax (TOT) accounted for only 0.2% of the City’s general fund revenues in 2022, compared to approximately 6% of general fund tax revenues for California cities on average City households collectively spend ~$159 million annually on retail goods and services, averaging ~$27,000 per household. Top spending categories include food at home (~$7,100 per household), food away from home (~$3,900 per household), and gas/motor fuel (~$3,000 per household)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS
City of Santa Fe Springs
Commercial
Land Use
% of Space
40+ Years Old
Est. SF to be
replaced /
reimagined
Retail 37% 203,900 SF
Office 58% 311,300 SF
Industrial /
Flex 50% 7.0 – 14.1 million SF
RHNA Allocation
(City of Santa Fe Springs)
Number
of Units
Very-Low Income (<50% AMI) 253
Low-Income (50-80% AMI) 159
Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) 152
Above-moderate Income (>120% AMI) 388
TOTAL UNITS 952
The Market Demand Analysis examined key market variables (e.g., inventory, vacancy, lease rates, absorption) across major asset classes (e.g., commercial [retail, office, industrial/flex], multifamily residential, and hospitality [hotel]), within three principal geographies: the City of Santa Fe Springs, a 5- mile radius from Telegraph Rd. and Norwalk Blvd. (reflective of the local market area), and Los Angeles County
The Market Demand Analysis provided the following:
➢ An examination of recent market trends for each asset class ➢ Existing conditions for the most recent available quarter (Q2 2024) and historical trends over a 10- year span (2013-2023) in inventory, vacancy, lease rates, and absorption for each asset class Kosmont also observed the amount of commercial space greater than 40 years old that could potentially be replaced or reimagined (see adjacent table). For retail and office uses, it was estimated that approximately half of the 37% and 58% of space over 40 years old, respectively, could be replaced/reimagined. Given the strong industrial base of the City and strong demand for industrial uses, Kosmont estimates between a quarter and half of the 50% of industrial/flex space in the City could be replaced/reimagined
The multifamily residential market is strong with 2.5% vacancy. Approximately 278 new apartment units and 50 townhomes have been built in the past 10 years. The City may consider increasing density to meet housing demand and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements (see adjacent table) The hotel market demand analysis showed there is demand for ~250 new hotel rooms in hotels of upper midscale class or higher in the local market area over the next ten years. If the proposed 120-room upper midscale/upscale hotel at the Norwalk Transit Village gets built, this would meet approx. 50% of the projected demand for new rooms
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OPPORTUNITY SITE AREAS AND SWOT ANALYSIS
Eight Opportunity Site Areas with development / redevelopment opportunities were observed across the City, including five Caltrans remnant parcels
For each area, Kosmont provided the following:
➢ An area profile with an aerial map along with parcel information including current uses, size, zoning, and ownership
➢ A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT”) Analysis analyzing key features, constraints, and development opportunities
The Caltrans remnant parcels, while offering strong visibility and an opportunity to assemble multiple parcels and develop a blend of uses (via a Conditional Use Permit), these parcels would need to be offered to State agencies first, then the City. Further, if the City were interested in purchasing the property, Caltrans requires there be a public use and to be purchased at market rate. If the City does not express interest, the parcel would be offered to the owner of the adjacent property The remaining three observed areas (Geezer’s Restaurant, Maggie’s Pub, and Goodman Logistics site) are privately-owned and are not subject to the Surplus Land Act, nor do they have to be offered to State agencies
➢ Geezer’s Restaurant provides a significant development opportunity as the owner may be interested in selling the property and there is interest from a hotel flag ➢ While Maggie’s Pub does offer a potential opportunity for residential or a hotel, it is hindered by it’s Limited Manufacturing (ML) zoning and development outside of manufacturing or retail would require a zone change
➢ The Goodman Logistics site would support the opportunity to create a large blended use (e.g., industrial and retail) project that would serve the local community or a larger industrial development with an economic benefit payment to the City
#
Opportunity
Site Area Timing
1 Maggie’s Pub Short-term
2 Geezers Restaurant Short-term
3 Caltrans Remnant Parcel
(E. Florence Ave. & Orr and Day Rd.) Medium-term
4 Goodman Logistics Site
(12801 Excelsior Dr. and
14420 Bloomfield Ave.)
Short-term
5 Caltrans Remnant Parcels
(13320-13370 Firestone Blvd.) Short-term
6 Caltrans Remnant Parcels
(Freeway Dr.) Long-term
7 Caltrans Remnant Parcels
(Adjacent to Dynasty Hotel) Medium-term
8 Caltrans Remnant Parcel
(Valley View Ave. & Firestone Blvd.) Medium-term
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
▪ Strong, Engaged Community & Leadership: The City is known as “small but mighty,” with a diverse population and a City Council actively working to strengthen the local economy and foster community development
▪ Robust Industrial Base with Infrastructure Challenges: A large daytime workforce highlights the City’s industrial strength, but heavy trucking contributes to road damage—currently without regulations or repair funding mechanisms
▪ Redevelopment Potential on Underutilized Land: Vacant and abandoned properties offer opportunities for strategic redevelopment, including hotels and mixed-use projects
▪ Limited Local Retail & Dining Options: Residents often travel outside the City for shopping and entertainment, indicating unmet demand for more diverse retail, dining, and grocery services ▪ High-Impact Development Prospects: Stakeholders view hotel development as a key opportunity, with interest from major chains and potential to increase TOT revenues
▪ Olympics-Driven Facility Development: Vacant or underused industrial facilities could be transformed into sports or recreational facilities in preparation for the upcoming Olympic Games ▪ Challenges in Business Environment: A slow and complex permitting process is seen as a barrier to investment and new development
▪ Opportunities for Public-Private Partnerships: Streamlining regulations and offering incentives could unlock new projects, including hospitality, dining, and retail ventures
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
FROM 2040 GENERAL PLAN
The 2040 General Plan outlined
five key economic development
goals and associated policies to
achieve these goals. The table to
the right describes the goals and
the policies
These economic development
goals, along with data gathered and
information provided by City staff
and key stakeholders will inform
the economic development
strategies and action items
outlined in the EDOP
#
2040 General Plan
Econ. Dev. Goal Policies
1 Maintain Business Strengths
• Econ. dev. branding and marketing
• Incentivize commercial activities while minimizing costs of increased truck traffic • Invest in strategic infrastructure
• Recruit economic development staff
• Streamline permitting processes
2 Business Expansion,
Attraction,
and Retention (“BEAR”)
• Business outreach for potential retention/expansion and target top sales tax producers
• Encourage entrepreneurial training
• Target key industries that would benefit from being in Santa Fe Springs • Establish workforce devt programs
3 Meeting Community
and Business Needs
• Targeted tenant recruitment
• Downtown development program
• Consider mixed-use development and viability of a hotel • Promote and expand businesses, including entertainment and hospitality along the I-5 corridor
4 Maintaining Fiscal Strength
• Assess the costs / benefits of alternative point of sale • Maximize development and revenues of restaurant businesses • Maximize Transient Occupancy Tax (“TOT”) as part of development strategy • Provide targeted economic incentives and investigate additional revenue sources 5 Public / Private Partnerships
• Develop local business partnerships and coordinate with community-based and regional organizations
• Workforce development
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS,
ACTION ITEMS, AND NEXT STEPS
As part of the City’s long-term economic goals, Kosmont has highlighted several economic development strategies:
➢ Real Estate Strategies for Privately-Owned Properties, including Business Expansion Attraction and Recruitment (“BEAR”)
➢ Real Estate Strategies for Publicly-Owned Property
➢ Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) Districts (currently being analyzed) ➢ Value Capture Zoning / Specific Plan
➢ Revenue Replacement Tools
➢ Grant Funding from Federal and State sources available to jurisdictions focused on infrastructure, energy, and climate-focused investment and projects Based on our review of the City’s economic development goals, the analysis of development opportunity site areas, and conversations with City Staff and City Councilmembers, Kosmont suggests the City focus on implementing BEAR strategies as an immediate next step
The implementation of BEAR strategies will assist in maintaining business strengths, addressing business and community needs, maintaining fiscal strength through attracting new businesses (e.g., hotel will yield higher TOT revenues), and developing stronger relationships between the City and private sector Potential action items the City could consider are outlined in the adjacent table Next steps going forward include actively marketing development opportunities at conferences, such as ICSC, and continuing conversations with interested parties, such as hotel flags
Econ. Dev.
Strategy Potential Action Items
Business
Expansion,
Attraction,
and Retention
(“BEAR”)
1. Proactively work with businesses and property owners to understand challenges/opportunities that may align with the City’s economic development goals. Consider monthly
outreach or town halls with this community to better
understand their needs
2. Maintain a strong relationship with brokers and property management community in the City to stay abreast of
challenging market conditions and provide support for major vacancies
3. Collaborate with property owners to explore re-tenanting or development opportunities on older/underutilized
existing space
4. Attend and market development opportunities at ICSC and other conferences with retail, residential, and hotel
development presence
5. Develop technical assistance and business incentive programs to support emerging businesses in major corridors as well as centers with ongoing vacancy challenges
6. Streamline processes and requirements to appeal to existing and future businesses.
7. Evaluate grants/incentive programs to attract/retain firms KOSMONT COMPANIES | 12
1. OPPORTUNITY SITE AREAS AND SWOT ANALYSIS
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 13
SUMMARY
OPPORTUNITY SITE AREAS AND SWOT ANALYSIS
Opportunity Site Areas in Santa Fe Springs consist of key areas, including several Caltrans remnant parcels, that exhibit strong development / redevelopment potential. In this analysis, eight Opportunity Site Areas were observed (shown on the following slide) For each Opportunity Site Area, Kosmont provided the following:
➢ A profile with an aerial map along with key parcel information such as current uses, size, zoning, and ownership
➢ A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT”) Analysis assessing key features, constraints, and development possibilities for each area
▪ The following slide contains a map of the Opportunity Site Areas within the City’s boundaries
▪ Areas 1 and 2 contain existing restaurants/bars. Area 1 is restricted from additional uses (e.g., residential, hospitality) due to its zoning and would require a zone change. Area 2 is within a Mixed-Use zone that allows for a blend of uses. Given both areas have one private owner and are not subject to State Surplus Land Act requirements, nor do they have to be offered to State agencies, these present shortterm development opportunities ▪ Area 4 is the current site of a Goodman Logistics facility. This is a very large site (over 80 acres), located along major corridors, with potential for a blend of uses or a larger, updated industrial complex.
Due to large scale of this area and the mitigation efforts needed, this is considered a long-term development opportunity
▪ Areas 3 and 5 through 8 are Caltrans remnant parcels and are subject to disposition requirements. The remnant parcels are offered to State agencies first, then the City. If the City is interested in acquiring the parcels, Caltrans stated that future development requires a public purpose / use to be added to the site. Given the disposition requirements in the Surplus Land Act, these areas are considered medium to long-term development opportunities
▪ Area 3 is zoned commercial and allows an array of uses (e.g., commercial uses, medical office, and hospitality)
▪ Areas 5 through 8 are located within M-2 (Heavy Industrial) zone and lie within the Freeway Overlay Zone (except for a portion of Area 5).
Given strong visibility from the 5 Freeway, these sites have solid signage potential along with an opportunity to provide additional uses (e.g., hospitality, single-room occupancy housing, restaurants) to support neighboring businesses
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 14
CITY BOUNDARIES
AND OPPORTUNITY
SITE AREAS
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online
(Accessed November 2024)
# Opportunity Site Area 1 Maggie’s Pub 2 Geezers Restaurant 3 Caltrans Remnant Parcel
(E. Florence Ave. & Orr and Day Rd.)
4 Goodman Logistics Site
(12801 Excelsior Dr. and
14420 Bloomfield Ave.)
5 Caltrans Remnant Parcels
(13320-13370 Firestone Blvd.)
6 Caltrans Remnant Parcels
(Freeway Dr.)
7 Caltrans Remnant Parcels
(Adjacent to Dynasty Hotel)
8 Caltrans Remnant Parcel
(Valley View Ave. & Firestone Blvd.)
1 6
5 Norwalk Blvd.
Imperial Hwy. 2
3 7
8 Florence Ave.
Telegraph Rd.
Pioneer Blvd.
Excelsior Dr.
Rosecrans Ave.
Valley View Ave.
Carmenita Rd.
4 Studebaker Rd.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 15
▪ Address: 11900 Telegraph Rd.
▪ APN: 8009-026-012, -018, and -032
▪ Current use: Maggie’s Pub
(bar/restaurant)
▪ Total parcel size: 169,005 SF
(3.88 acres), [-012 and -018 = 0.93
acres; -032 = 2.95 acres]
▪ Zoning: ML (“Limited Manufacturing”)
▪ Ownership: Piograph Ventures, LLC
(-012 and -018); Yellow Aster Mining
and Milling Company (-032)
OPPORTUNITY SITE #1:
MAGGIE’S PUB
Town Center
Business Park
Sources: Title Pro 247; CoStar; L.A. County Assessor; City of Santa Fe Springs “Zoning Map” (Accessed September 2024) SITE
8009-026-012
8009-026-018
8009-026-032
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 16
SWOT ANALYSIS
MAGGIE’S PUB
STRENGTHS
• Single owner
• Visibility and access on major road (Telegraph Rd.)
• Not part of Planned Development (“PD”) Overlay Zone
WEAKNESSES
• Not visible from hard corner
• Residential or hospitality uses would require a zone change – these uses are not permitted even via a conditional use permit under ML zoning
• If adjacent parcels from the parking lot were assembled along with the two parcels comprising Maggie’s Pub, a developer would need to build within the planned development overlay, including ensuring at least 60% of the area be developed to one or more of the principal permitted, accessory, or conditional uses of the underlying ML zone
OPPORTUNITIES
• Potential replacement with residential, hotel, or new well-known restaurant brand with blend of supporting uses (would require a zone change)
• Transitional and supportive housing will be permitted within a PD Overlay Zone (if adjacent parking lot is acquired)
THREATS
• Market feasibility
• Compatibility with surrounding land uses
• Coordination with private property owner for acquisition • Town Center Park Owners Association may place restrictions on type of development that goes in place of Maggie’s Pub (the group owns the adjacent parking lot)
Sources: Kosmont Companies
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 17
▪ Address: 12120 Telegraph Rd.
▪ APN: 8009-007-064
▪ Current use: Geezer’s (bar/restaurant)
▪ Parcel Size: 34,310 SF (0.79 acres)
▪ Zoning: MU-DT (“Mixed Use
Downtown”)
▪ Ownership: Robert and Angelina
Larue
OPPORTUNITY SITE #2:
GEEZERS RESTAURANT
SITE
Sources: Title Pro 247; CoStar; L.A. County Assessor; City of Santa Fe Springs “Zoning Map” (Accessed September 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 18
SWOT ANALYSIS
GEEZERS RESTAURANT
STRENGTHS
• Single owner
• Large parking lot (on City-owned parcel)
• Visibility and access on major road (Telegraph Rd.)
• Zoning allows for a blend of uses including residential, retail, hospitality, office, and light industrial
WEAKNESSES
• Possible assemblage issues given most of the parking for this restaurant is on City-owned property, which may limit development potential
• Possible environmental/oil well issues (oil wells within parking lot) • Lot line adjustment needed to include parking lot
OPPORTUNITIES
• Owner may be interested in selling the property
• Potential interest from hotel flag
• Master Plan
• Addition of City-owned property subject to Surplus Land Act
THREATS
• Market feasibility
• Compatibility with surrounding land uses
• Coordination with private property owner for acquisition Sources: Kosmont Companies
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 19
▪ Address: 10821 Orr and Day Rd.
▪ APN: 8017-001-900
▪ Current use: Vacant land (possible
utility use)
▪ Total parcel size: 55,757 SF (1.28
acres), however, it appears that the
parcel and the surrounding space
totaling ~116,536 SF (2.68 acres)
could be developable
▪ Zoning: C-4 (“Community
Commercial”)
▪ Ownership: State of California
OPPORTUNITY SITE #3:
CALTRANS REMNANT
PARCEL (E. FLORENCE AVE.
& ORR AND DAY RD.)
Sources: Title Pro 247; CoStar; L.A. County Assessor; City of Santa Fe Springs “Zoning Map” (Accessed September 2024) SITE (adjacent shaded
areas may be suitable
for development)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 20
SWOT ANALYSIS
CALTRANS REMNANT PARCEL (E. FLORENCE AVE. & ORR AND DAY RD.)
STRENGTHS
• Excellent visibility from 5 Freeway and E. Florence Ave. • Large area (suitable for development)
• Single owner
• Vacant land
WEAKNESSES
• Access only from Orr and Day Rd. (E. Florence Ave. is elevated) • Would need to assemble areas adjacent to parcel boundary to maximize land usage • Existing utility on site (cell tower site)
• Requirement to pay market value for the property
OPPORTUNITIES
• Commercial zoning allows for an array of uses, including medical office and hospitality (via a Conditional Use Permit) • Opportunity to create a freeway-visible destination that can serve as a western gateway to the City • Potential signage opportunity
• Remnant parcels offered to State agencies first, then City. If the City is interested in acquiring, Caltrans requires there to be a public purpose and pay market value for the property
THREATS
• Market feasibility
• Potential removal/relocation of utility
• Coordination with state government for acquisition
Sources: Kosmont Companies
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 21
▪ Address: 12801 Excelsior Dr.; 14420
Bloomfield Ave.
▪ APN: 8082-003-006 (14420); -010
(12801)
▪ Current use: 91,192 SF food
processing facility (14420); 898,620 SF
industrial distribution space (12801)
▪ Total parcel size: 3,575,405 SF (82.08
AC)
▪ Zoning: M-2 (“Heavy Industrial”) with
BP (“Buffer Parking”); BP is along
Bloomfield Ave. and Excelsior Dr.
▪ Ownership: Goodman Group
OPPORTUNITY SITE #4:
GOODMAN LOGISTICS SITE
(12801 EXCELSIOR DR. AND
14420 BLOOMFIELD AVE.)
Sources: Title Pro 247; CoStar; L.A. County Assessor; City of Santa Fe Springs “Zoning Map” (Accessed November 2024) 8082-003-010
8082-003-006
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 22
SWOT ANALYSIS
GOODMAN LOGISTICS SITE
(12801 EXCELSIOR DR. AND 14420 BLOOMFIELD AVE.)
STRENGTHS
• Large total area
• Parcels are contiguous
• Located along major corridors (Bloomfield Ave. and Excelsior Dr.) • Single owner (Goodman Group)
• Access from the 5 Freeway (via Rosecrans Ave. exit)
WEAKNESSES
• Site is adjacent to City of Norwalk residential uses (along west and south sides). Thus, additional neighborhoodserving retail would mainly benefit Norwalk as opposed to Santa Fe Springs residents • EIR required / Mitigation measures needed for new development on site
OPPORTUNITIES
• Assemblage of multiple parcels
• Creation of potential blended use (e.g., industrial and retail) that would serve the local community or a larger industrial development with an economic benefit or payment provided to the City of Santa Fe Springs, in lieu of sales tax revenue (e.g., STAR*®)
THREATS • Need to analyze fiscal impact of potential development program • Need to have discussion with property owner re: creative strategies for land use plan or economic outcome Sources: Kosmont Companies
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 23
▪ Address: 13320-13370 Firestone Blvd.
▪ APN: 7005-001-903 (13320), -904
(13340), -905 (13360), and -906
(13370)
▪ Current use: Shipping
container/trucking parts storage
▪ Total parcel size: 176,063 SF
(4.04 acres)
▪ Zoning: M-2 (“Heavy Industrial”) with
FOZ (“Freeway Overlay Zone”)
▪ Ownership: California Dept. of
Transportation
OPPORTUNITY SITE #5:
CALTRANS REMNANT
PARCELS (13320-13370
FIRESTONE BLVD.)
Sources: Title Pro 247; CoStar; L.A. County Assessor; City of Santa Fe Springs “Zoning Map” (Accessed September 2024) 7005-001-903
7005-001-904
7005-001-905
7005-001-906
SITE
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 24
SWOT ANALYSIS
CALTRANS REMNANT PARCELS (13320-13370 FIRESTONE BLVD.)
STRENGTHS
• Large total area
• Parcels are contiguous
• Excellent visibility from the 5 Freeway and Firestone Blvd. • Single owner
• Expressed letter of interest on the property
WEAKNESSES
• Existing use (container/trucking parts storage) currently under temporary leases • 5 Freeway offramp exits to elevated section of Carmenita Rd. (i.e. no direct access to site exiting freeway) • Requirement to pay market value for the property
• Caltrans recently auctioned this property but received no bids
OPPORTUNITIES
• Assemblage of multiple parcels
• Potential signage opportunity
• Blending of additional uses (e.g., hospitality and single-room occupancy housing [via Conditional Use Permit]; restaurants/cafes [as an accessory use])
• Remnant parcels offered to State agencies first, then City. If the City is interested in acquiring, Caltrans requires there to be a public purpose and pay market value for the property. If the City does not express interest, adjacent property owner would be the next in line
THREATS • Coordination with state government for acquisition • Removal/relocation of containers/trucking parts
Sources: Kosmont Companies
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 25
▪ Address: N/A
▪ APN: 8069-016-903, -907, -908, -910,
-911, -913, -915
▪ Current use: Vacant land (former
freeway offramp); Adjacent to Tom’s
Truck Center
▪ Total area: 85,570 SF (1.96 acres). An
additional, 15,880 SF that is located
next to -903 that could be suitable for
development
▪ Zoning: M-2 (“Heavy Industrial”) with
FOZ (“Freeway Overlay Zone”);
Parcels north of -907 and -908 are not
part of the FOZ
▪ Ownership: State of California
OPPORTUNITY SITE #6:
CALTRANS REMNANT
PARCELS (FREEWAY DR.)
Sources: Title Pro 247; CoStar; L.A. County Assessor; City of Santa Fe Springs “Zoning Map” (Accessed September 2024) SITE (shaded areas in
red may be suitable for
development)
Tom’s Truck
Center
Not part of
Freeway
Overlay Zone
8069-016-910 8069-016-903
Parcel #1 (no APN)
8069-016-907
Parcel #2 (no APN)
Parcel #3 (no APN)
Parcel #4 (no APN)
8069-016-911
8069-016-908
8069-016-915
Parcel #5 (no APN)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 26
SWOT ANALYSIS
CALTRANS REMNANT PARCELS (FREEWAY DR.)
STRENGTHS
• Excellent visibility from 5 Freeway
• Vacant land
• Single owner
WEAKNESSES
• Site cannot be accessed directly from the 5 Freeway
• Parcels lack depth making development difficult
• Parcels are not contiguous, and some parcels are missing APNs (possible readjustment needed) • Some parcels not within Freeway Overlay Zone, possibly limiting development potential • Requirement to pay market value for the property
OPPORTUNITIES
• Potential signage opportunity
• Tom’s Truck Center could be a candidate for acquisition of parcels on western side of Freeway Dr. • Southeastern parcel (-903) plus adjacency offers most development potential for either EV charging opportunity or fast-food/fast-casual / drive thru opportunity
• Remnant parcels offered to State agencies first, then City. If the City is interested in acquiring, Caltrans requires there to be a public purpose and pay market value for the property. If the City does not express interest, adjacent property owner would be the next in line
THREATS
• Coordination with state government for acquisition
• Owner of parcel containing Tom’s Truck Center owns the parcels that provide access via Freeway Dr. making assemblage of parcels on west side of Freeway Dr. difficult • Due to limitations of the parcels in this area, this would be considered a long-term development opportunity Sources: Kosmont Companies
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 27
▪ Address: 13460-13500 and 13560-
13580 Firestone Blvd.
▪ APN: 7005-014-917 (13460), -918
(13500), -914 (no address given), -913
(13560) and -915 (13580)
▪ Current use: Vacant land and truck
trailer storage facility
▪ Total parcel size: 243,936 SF
(5.60 acres), however, ~151,180 SF
(3.47 acres) is actual developable
space
▪ Zoning: M-2 (“Heavy Industrial”) with
FOZ (“Freeway Overlay Zone”)
▪ Ownership: California Dept. of
Transportation; State of California
OPPORTUNITY SITE #7:
CALTRANS REMNANT
PARCELS (ADJACENT TO
DYNASTY HOTEL)
Sources: Title Pro 247; CoStar; L.A. County Assessor; City of Santa Fe Springs “Zoning Map” (Accessed September 2024) 7005-014-917
7005-014-918
7005-014-913
7005-014-915
7005-014-914
SITE (area shaded
in red may be
suitable for
development)
Dynasty
Hotel
Budget
Inn
Added shaded area
= ~7,250 SF
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 28
SWOT ANALYSIS
CALTRANS REMNANT PARCELS (ADJACENT TO DYNASTY HOTEL)
STRENGTHS
• Excellent visibility from the 5 Freeway and Firestone Blvd. • Large developable area (particularly east of hotel)
• Vacant land on eastern parcels
WEAKNESSES
• Site cannot be accessed directly from the 5 Freeway
• Parcel boundaries extend into the 5 Freeway limiting actual developable land • Dynasty Hotel divides the land making the total area non-contiguous • Potential existing use (truck trailer storage) on western parcels • Requirement to pay market value for the property
OPPORTUNITIES
• Assemblage of parcels on either side of Dynasty Hotel (~0.82 AC opportunity west of hotel and ~2.65 AC opportunity east of hotel)
• Blending of additional uses (e.g., hospitality and single-room occupancy housing [via Conditional Use Permit]; restaurants/cafes [as an accessory use]) that are complementary to Dynasty Hotel • Potential signage opportunity
• Remnant parcels offered to State agencies first, then City. If the City is interested in acquiring, Caltrans requires there to be a public purpose and pay market value for the property. If the City does not express interest, adjacent property owner would be the next in line
THREATS • Coordination with state government for acquisition • Removal/relocation of truck trailers
Sources: Kosmont Companies
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 29
▪ Address: 14060 Firestone Blvd.
▪ APN: 7003-001-906
▪ Current use: Truck trailer storage; 5
Freeway elevated offramp to Valley
View Ave.; Elevated access road from
Firestone Blvd. to Valley View Ave.
▪ Total parcel size: 408,593 SF (9.38
acres), however, it appears that
~256,200 SF (5.88 acres) is actual
developable space
▪ Zoning: M-2 (“Heavy Industrial”) with
FOZ (“Freeway Overlay Zone”)
▪ Ownership: State of California
OPPORTUNITY SITE #8:
CALTRANS REMNANT
PARCEL (VALLEY VIEW
AVE. & FIRESTONE BLVD.)
Sources: Title Pro 247; CoStar; L.A. County Assessor; City of Santa Fe Springs “Zoning Map” (Accessed September 2024) SITE (shaded areas in
red may be suitable for
development)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 30
SWOT ANALYSIS
CALTRANS REMNANT PARCEL (VALLEY VIEW AVE. & FIRESTONE BLVD.)
STRENGTHS
• Single owner
• Excellent visibility from the 5 Freeway and Firestone Blvd. • Partially vacant land (southeastern parcel)
WEAKNESSES
• Site cannot be accessed directly from the 5 Freeway
• Road from Firestone Blvd. and freeway offramp to elevated section of Valley View Ave. divide the parcel (making opportunity non-contiguous) and limit developable area
• Existing use (truck trailer storage)
• Requirement to pay market value for the property
OPPORTUNITIES
• Western parcel has the strongest development potential (~3.47 AC) • Mike Thompson RV is interested in acquiring the western parcel – move service parts to one side of the channel and sales on the opposite side of the channel
• Blending of additional uses (e.g., hospitality and single-room occupancy housing [via Conditional Use Permit]; restaurants/cafes [as an accessory use])
• Potential signage opportunity
• Remnant parcels offered to State agencies first, then City. If the City is interested in acquiring, Caltrans requires there to be a public purpose and pay market value for the property. If the City does not express interest, adjacent property owner would be the next in line
THREATS • Coordination with state government for acquisition • Removal/relocation of truck trailers on western parcel Sources: Kosmont Companies
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 31
OPPORTUNITY SITE AREA DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
Sources: Kosmont Companies
Based on data found for each site and conversations with City staff, Kosmont assembled the following development table to show which opportunity site areas could be developed in the short (within 5 years), medium (5-20 years), or long-term (20+ years). # Opportunity Site Area Short-Term Medium-Term Long-Term 1 Maggie’s Pub
2 Geezers Restaurant
3 Caltrans Remnant Parcel
(E. Florence Ave. & Orr and Day Rd.)
4 Goodman Logistics Site
(12801 Excelsior Dr. and
14420 Bloomfield Ave.)
5 Caltrans Remnant Parcels
(13320-13370 Firestone Blvd.)
6 Caltrans Remnant Parcels
(Freeway Dr.)
7 Caltrans Remnant Parcels
(Adjacent to Dynasty Hotel)
8 Caltrans Remnant Parcel
(Valley View Ave. & Firestone Blvd.)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 32
2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 33
SUMMARY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS
Using information gathered from stakeholder outreach meetings, the 2040 General Plan, and the opportunity site area SWOT analysis, the City could consider utilizing the following economic development tools:
➢ Business Expansion, Attraction, and Retention (“BEAR”) Strategies ➢ Real Estate Strategies for Publicly-Owned Land
➢ Infrastructure Financing Districts, such as Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (“EIFDs”) (currently being analyzed) ➢ Zoning and Land Use Strategies, such as Development Opportunity Reserve (“D.O.R.®”)
➢ Revenue Replacement Tools: Sales Tax Assessment Revenue (“STAR*®”) ➢ Grant funding from Federal and State sources, focused on infrastructure, energy, and climate-focused investment/projects
▪ As a priority for the City’s goals related to its retail and industrial space, the immediate next step for the City should include the following:
➢ Implementing “BEAR” (Business Expansion, Attraction, and Retention) strategies highlighted in the adjacent table
➢ Creating a strategy for marketing business opportunities 1) Business Expansion,
Attraction, and Retention
(BEAR)
Proactively attract new businesses and development,
and retain and expand existing businesses to generate
revenues (sales tax, TOT) for the City
2) Real Estate Strategies for
Publicly-Owned Land
(Surplus Land Act)
Consider maintaining ownership and leveraging an
income stream via ground leases. SLA requires public
agencies to offer a property for sale or lease to
housing sponsors and affordable housing developers
prior to sale or lease of the property.
3) Infrastructure Financing
Districts
Use tax increment financing (TIF) districts, such as
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD) to
capture taxes from assessed value increases to fund
infrastructure needs to unlock private investment
4) Zoning and Land Use
Strategies: Specific Plans
with Development
Opportunity Reserve
(D.O.R.)®
Create flexible zoning with updated Specific Plans to
adapt to market trends and customer dynamics;
Capture the value from zoning changes to link new
density to community benefits and public amenities.
5) Revenue Replacement
Tools: Sales Tax Assessment
Revenue (STAR*)
®
Create General Fund revenues through development
agreements / public-private partnerships via Sales Tax
Assessment Revenue (STAR*)®
6) Grants and Other Public
Funding
Pursue grant funds available at the state and regional
level for infrastructure, climate resilience, housing,
and other development projects
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 34
TODAY’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAYBOOK
Grant Funding – Federal and State Sources
$1.6T+ in overall funding made available for infrastructure, energy, and climate focused investment and projects; Prop 4 ($10B) Value Capture Using Zoning / Specific Plan
New Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts
(e.g., EIFDs, CRDs, CRIAs)
Real Estate Strategies for Privately-Owned Properties:
Business Expansion, Attraction, & Retention (BEAR) Strategies 4 3
1 Real Estate Strategies for Publicly-Owned Properties:
Surplus Land Act (SLA) 2
5 Revenue Replacement Tools
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 35
PLAYBOOK PT. 1: REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES FOR PRIVATELY-OWNED PROPERTY – BEAR = BUSINESS EXPANSION, ATTRACTION, AND RETENTION The BEAR strategy focuses on cities pro-actively reaching out to select private property owners to facilitate real estate developments to advance the City’s economic development goals. Property Owner Outreach – collaborate with property owners to understand their plans for properties, challenges that they face with development, and opportunities that may align with economic development goals. Regularly contact the top Sales Tax generators / employers / suppliers.
Rehabilitation / Renovation – encourage rehabilitation and/or renovation of facilities, signage or store-front facades; can include public programs such as façade improvement loans / grants, or assisting with identifying other sources of funding. Marketing – Highlight the City as a business-friendly destination with community assets, talented workforce, and success stories. Outreach – Conduct targeted outreach to developers, businesses, and brokers with opportunity site marketing collateral, correspondence, meetings / site tours, and participation at industry events (e.g., ICSC). Public-Private Partnerships (P3) – Enter into formal partnerships with property-owners that commit City resources to fund improvements (e.g., infrastructure) that will advance both the property owner’s goals for development and the City’s goals for economic development.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 36
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (BEAR)
BUSINESS INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
There are a wide range of business and economic development incentive programs utilized by communities across the State.
The City can create such a program, but first it is important to set specific goals (e.g. assist small business, expand job creation, attract major tax generator, attract specific type of development) and create a system to measure the success of each initiative.
Cost of implementing can vary: job credits, façade improvement and infrastructure represent out of pocket costs, while tax sharing agreements and fee waivers are offset by new development tax revenues.
Examples of incentives include:
Façade improvement program
Infrastructure investment
Tax sharing agreements / tax abatements
Efficient permitting
Job tax credits / Workforce training
Fee waivers / deferrals in targeted areas
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 37
Public agency land is often under-utilized, offering the potential to increase value and revenues (e.g., property tax, sales tax, TOT). Local governmentowned real estate can be leveraged to increase revenue and help stimulate economic development projects. The land can include former redevelopment Agency (“RDA”) properties, public use properties (civic centers, fire stations, recreation), and surplus property (city, school district, utility, other), rights of way (streets, alleys, parking lots and parking structures).
The State, in its push to have cities develop more affordable housing, has made subsequent legislative changes (e.g., AB 1486) to strengthen the Surplus Land Act (“SLA”). The SLA now requires public agencies in the State of California to first offer a property for sale or lease to ‘housing sponsors’ and affordable housing developers prior to the sale or lease of the asset (unless otherwise exempt) and will assess penalties if a public agency is not in compliance.
Key Strategies include:
• Performance-Based Leases / Ground
Leases: Santa Fe Springs can maintain
ownership and leverage an income stream
from an asset via a ground lease (e.g., lease
revenues) as well as establish a rent structure
based on specific performance benchmarks
thereby reducing risk for lenders/private
investors.
• Monetizing Assets: Santa Fe Springs can
raise revenues by monetizing assets such as
surface parking lots / garages.
• Acquisition or Sale of Property: Santa
Fe Springs can make strategic acquisitions
and/or sell property for preferred private
development opportunities, as well as utilize
strategies such as lease-back strategies,
continued operation of existing use, and
redevelopment of properties into new uses.
PLAYBOOK PT. 2: REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES FOR PUBLICLYOWNED PROPERTY – THE SURPLUS LAND ACT (SLA) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 38
SURPLUS LAND ACT CONSIDERATIONS
(FOR PUBLIC AGENCY-OWNED PROPERTIES
The Surplus Land Act (SLA) was passed in response to the housing shortage in California. Public agency owned property cannot be sold or leased until it complies with the SLA, with certain exceptions.
After navigating the SLA for a City-owned site, either an affordable housing project will be ready to come to the site, or the City will have the ability to market the land for a different use.
SLA requires an up to 150-day (NOA for 60 days + good faith negotiations for 90 days) RFP process to either select or reject an affordable housing project/proposal. City does not have to sell the property for less than fair market value. If rejected, property can be sold to broader market.
After completing the process, any development will be subject to a covenant requiring any residential development with 10 or more units to provide at least 15% of units available to low-income households.
If local agency does not comply with SLA, HCD will impose fine of 30% of final sale price for first violation, 50% of final sale price for second violation. City should engage real estate and legal counsel to navigate SLA process and conduct appropriate property due diligence.
Potential exemptions include leases existing prior to 1/1/2019, land dedicated for 75% or more affordable housing or public uses and land not suitable (too small).
SLA Required Disposition Process
1. Declaration of the property as either “surplus” or “exempt surplus.”
2. If declared “surplus,” disseminate a Notice of Availability (NOA) offering the property to other government agencies and
affordable housing developers for a period of 60 days.
3. If the City receives letters of interest from government agencies and/or affordable housing developers, then it must negotiate in good faith with those interested parties for a period of 90 days.
4. After the 90-day good faith negotiation period, the City must notify the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) and provide information that documents compliance with the process and request a letter of compliance.
5. HCD has 30 days to respond to City with questions/request for more information and, at the conclusion of the 30-day period, must provide a letter stating that the City has complied with the process or not.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 39
PLAYBOOK PT. 3:
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) TOOLKIT
Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing District
(EIFD)
Most flexible, most
widely used
Climate Resilience
District
(CRD)
NEW - focus on climate
related mitigations &
infrastructure
TIF Districts can elevate eligibility for State funding Community
Revitalization
& Inv.
Authority
(CRIA)
More emphasis on
affordable housing (25% setaside)
TIF Fundamentals
TIF is a method of capturing
increased property tax revenue
from new development or
property value increases within
a designated area to fund
public improvements or those
that implement public policy,
such as housing.
How it Works
As private property investment
occurs, the resulting increase
in property tax revenue is
“captured” and deposited into
a separate TIF fund and used
to pay for public improvements
within a district.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 40
WHY PUBLIC AGENCIES AUTHORIZE TIF DISTRICTS?
1. Resource Preservation: No encumbrance of existing City / County resources
2. Private Sector Catalyst: Private sector investment induced by district commitment on a “but for” basis accelerates growth of net fiscal revenues, job creation, housing production, essential infrastructure improvements
3. Other Public Money (“OPM”): Ability to attract tax increment contributions from other taxing entities (e.g., County, special districts); Increased priority for Federal / State grants loans (e.g., for TOD, water, housing, parks, remediation). Provides increased priority for grant fundings
4. No New Taxes: TIF districts do not impose a new tax on residents. They capture the value of new development KOSMONT COMPANIES | 41
EIFD WITH A POTENTIAL CITY/COUNTY PARTNERSHIP
Federal & State Sources
• Cap-and-Trade / HCD grant & loan
programs (AHSC, IIG, TCC)
• Prop 68 parks & open space grants
• Prop 1 water / sewer funds
• Caltrans ATP / HSIP grants
• Federal DOT / EPA / EDA funding
• Federal IRA and IIJA direct funds
• Prop 4 (10B)
Private Sector based Funding Sources
• Development Agreement / impact fees
• Benefit assessments (e.g. contribution from CFD)
• Private investment
• Private tax credits available through IRA and IIJA for climate investments
▪ Ideal strategy includes a County contribution
➢ Santa Fe Springs receives approximately 2.9% of every $1 collected in property taxes on average (varies by Tax Rate Area) ➢ City additionally receives equivalent of approximately 2.5% of property tax in lieu of MVLF, also available to EIFD ➢ County receives approximately 39.7% of every $1 collected in property taxes on average ➢ School-related entities cannot participate
▪ TIF Districts which involve a City / County joint effort are more likely to win state grant funding sources KOSMONT COMPANIES | 42
TIF DISTRICT CASE STUDY:
CITY / COUNTY EIFD PARTNERSHIP
Placentia / Orange County EIFD Partnership
• 300+ acres: Old Town Placentia Revitalization Plan, Metrolink Station, TOD Packing House Area
• Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) will fund $13 million in public infrastructure improvements for those areas
• Water, sewer, streets, parking, transit connectivity
• $460M+ expected in new AV from residential, retail,
restaurant development
• Net Fiscal Benefit: $22M to City, $15M to County
BEFORE
AFTER
Implementation
• EIFD feasibility analysis & formation process
• Led education/outreach meetings with County BOS
• Developed County EIFD Policy for City/County EIFD
• Completed first EIFD Court Validation in the state
• Working on TIF Bond – expected by fall of 2025
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 43
PLAYBOOK PT. 4: VALUE CAPTURE ZONING /
UPDATED SPECIFIC PLANS
• Increase Flexibility: Review and revamp zoning and permitting requirements to ensure flexible requirements that can accommodate market and changing business and customer dynamics. • Streamline Process: Identify business and project categories that are particularly beneficial and create a fast and predictable process for review / approval.
• Encourage Active Uses: Provide an easy permit process for interesting and dynamic uses – such as pop-up users, live music / events, outdoor dining permits, and artistic improvements / installations – that can enhance visitors’ experiences
• Incentivize Reuse of Struggling Spaces: Provide flexible building permit rules for properties suited for adaptive reuse and incentivize conversion of vacant commercial buildings into other uses (such as hotel and residential). • Specialize: Tailor requirements for infill development to recognize the often-challenging circumstances involved in infill developments.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 44
VALUE CAPTURE ZONING
USES ZONING AS CURRENCY
City “manufactures”
new bank of Density via
Specific Plan / Zoning
City places pre-approves new
Density places in DOR® Bank &
adopts amenity list;
Development projects apply
City selectively distributes DOR®
Density for Projects that deliver
Amenities & Infrastructure via D.A.
(Zoning as Currency)
What is a DOR® Bank? Pre-approved new density that is linked to preapproved public amenities / infrastructure or a density fee via a Development Agreement
When possible, Cities should avoid giving away density in a specific plan or entitlements without tying density to projects that deliver community benefits and public amenities and/or pay fees KOSMONT COMPANIES | 45
CASE STUDIES USING VALUE CAPTURE ZONING
VALUE CAPTURE ZONING STRATEGY:
HERMOSA BEACH
LAND VALUE RECAPTURE PROGRAM
City council recently approved a land value recapture program to recover & reinvest land value increases via new approved residential zoning for redevelopment in the City’s commercial districts.
Market-rate housing developments will be required to pay $76 - 104 per square foot to a Hermosa Beach fund that aims to support development of affordable housing.
VALUE CAPTURE ZONING STRATEGY:
BUELLTON
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY RESERVE (DOR)®
The City of Buellton included a DOR® tool in its Avenue of the Flags Specific Plan to encourage development in the downtown area and create a vibrant main street.
DOR® tool trades zoning incentives (density, building heights, parking, setbacks, fees, etc.) to projects that deliver community amenities, infrastructure, or other benefits.
The following communities have implemented or are considering Value Capture Zoning / DOR®:
• El Monte
• Temecula
• Palmdale
• Buellton
• Placentia
• Burbank
• Seaside
• Jurupa Valley
• Scotts Valley
• Hermosa Beach
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 46
PLAYBOOK PT. 5: REVENUE REPLACEMENT VIA
SALES TAX ASSESSMENT REVENUE (STAR*)®
Loss in retail sales
resulting from online
/ non sales tax
generating uses
Analyze sales tax
potential of opportunity
sites & zoning
designations
Create equivalent General
Fund revenue through
entitlement document /
development agreement
The Sales Tax Assessment Revenue (STAR*)® program addresses the stagnation and decline in city fiscal revenues as a result of the evolution of consumer spending in today’s economy. It is a framework that analyzes the fiscal revenue loss related to lower tax revenue generating uses and eases city general fund pressures by creating an equivalent revenue stream through entitlement / development agreement negotiations.
Use STAR*® when reimagining a shopping center with a blend of non-retail uses, re-entitling property for development from retail to residential / office / industrial, or when a developer proposes a project with low fiscal revenue impact.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 47
PLAYBOOK PT. 6: GRANTS AND OTHER PUBLIC FUNDING
There is a wide variety of grant programs and funding sources available through the state and federal government.
New grant programs are added every year, many with a focus on housing and climate resiliency.
Cities should periodically review available grant sources and pursue grants that align with the City’s economic development goals (a grant-writing firm can provide assistance if the City’s internal resources are limited).
Recent Economic Development &
Climate Grant / Funding Programs
• Regional Early Action Planning (REAP)
• Local Early Action Planning (LEAP)
• Infill Infrastructure Grants (IIG)
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
(AHSC)
• Community Economic Resilience Fund (CERF)
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
• ICARP Regional Resilience Grant Program (RRGP)
• Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF)
• Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention
(HHAP)
• Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF)
• Coastal Conservancy Grants
• Adaptation Planning Grant Program (APGP)
• Strategic Growth Council grants
• Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 48
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ON STATE AND FEDERAL
LEVEL
Federal Programs State Programs
Inflation Reduction Act
(IRA)
Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law
(Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs
Act) [IIJA]
Affordable Housing
and Sustainability
Communities
Program (AHSC)
Infill Infrastructure
Grants (IIG) +
Catalyst Program
(IIGC)
Multifamily Housing
Program (MHP)
Funds available through tax
credits and rebates for
individuals and tax-exempt
financing for projects aimed at
inducing private sector
investment.
Funds for roads, bridges,
railroads, broadband, water,
public transportation, airports,
cyber security, climate
resiliency, brownfield cleanup,
electric vehicles, and more
CA Program:
EIFD Preference
$1 - $30 million awards
for affordable housing,
housing infrastructure,
transportation, related
amenities, program costs
CA Program:
EIFD Preference
$1 - $7.5 million grants for
infill projects / areas, gap
funding for
infrastructure for
residential / mixed-use
with some affordability
requirements
Funding for rental housing;
includes land lease
payments, construction /
rehab, offsite
infrastructure
improvements
$400 Billion in IRA Funds, $550 Billion in Federal Infrastructure Funds, Millions More in State Programs KOSMONT COMPANIES | 49
There are several different economic development tools which Santa Fe Springs can use to attract, finance, and optimize development Santa Fe Springs can leverage existing City-owned assets as a means to increase revenues. For example, City can create an income stream from a City-owned asset in a ground-lease or sell assets for preferred private development opportunities (must go through SLA process first)
TIF districts, such as EIFD (currently being analyzed), can capture property taxes from increases in assessed value (from new development) to fund vital infrastructure and development projects focused on housing
Santa Fe Springs can use D.O.R.® to create a “bank” or “reserve” of density during the planning process and give density to development projects that provide community benefits and public amenities STAR*® can be used if considering expanding/modernizing industrial space (potentially at Goodman site). After analyzing the loss in sales tax revenues, Santa Fe Springs can utilize STAR*® to create an equivalent revenue stream through entitlement and development agreement negotiations
Based on conversations, Santa Fe Springs should consider using BEAR strategies as an immediate next step to proactively attract new businesses/development (e.g., hotel) and retain/expand to maintain existing businesses to generate revenues. Key action items are outlined in the table below
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS RECAP AND
ACTION ITEMS
Econ. Dev.
Strategy Potential Action Items
Business
Expansion,
Attraction,
and
Retention
(“BEAR”)
1. Proactively work with businesses and property owners to understand challenges/opportunities that may align with the City’s economic development goals. Consider monthly outreach or town halls with this community to better understand their needs
2. Maintain a strong relationship with brokers and property management community in the City to stay abreast of challenging market conditions and provide support for major vacancies
3. Collaborate with property owners to explore re-tenanting or development opportunities on older/underutilized existing space
4. Attend and market development opportunities at ICSC and other conferences with retail, residential, and hotel development presence
5. Develop technical assistance and business incentive programs to support emerging businesses in major corridors as well as centers with ongoing vacancy challenges
6. Streamline processes and requirements to appeal to existing and future businesses. Evaluate grants/incentive programs to attract/retain firms KOSMONT COMPANIES | 50
City Council presentation
Additional implementation / advisory services:
➢ Assist in developing business expansion, attraction, and retention (“BEAR”) strategies; ➢ Marketing business opportunities at various conferences, including ICSC ➢ Continue conversation with hotel flags and market opportunities to them
NEXT STEPS
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 51
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
OPPORTUNITIES PLAN
JUNE 2025
2301 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 4140
El Segundo, CA 90245
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 52
A. ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 53
SUMMARY
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
City Revenue Information
Santa Fe Springs is highly reliant on sales and use tax compared to other cities in California. In 2022, 50% of City tax revenues to the general fund come from sales and use tax, while the California cities average is 22%. A majority of Santa Fe Springs’ sales and use tax revenue comes from business-to-business transactions
The City is not overexposed to hotel tax risk since just 0.2% of the City’s general fund revenues in 2022 comes from transient occupancy tax (“TOT”). In contrast, TOT is 6% of general fund tax revenues for California cities
In addition to business-to-business transactions, the City’s sales tax revenues also comes from clothing stores (including clothing manufacturing), motor vehicles and parts, and building materials In the 10-year period between 2012 and 2022, sales tax revenues in Santa Fe Springs have grown by 68% (5.3% per year). Over the same period, sales tax revenues from the County Pool have more than tripled. County Pool revenues grew significantly due to rise in ecommerce sales, (10-year compound annual growth rate of 11.7%) Population and Household Demographics
18,800 residents and 5,900 households in the City
City has a significant daytime population (~57,600)
Average household size in the City is 3.08, higher than County and State (2.78 and 2.83, respectively)
Median age in the City is 40.7, older than both County and State (38.4)
25% of Santa Fe Springs residents hold a Bachelor’s degree or higher (34% lower attainment than the County, 35% lower than the State) Education levels are correlated with incomes. The average household income in Santa Fe Springs is $109,200 (14% lower and 22% lower than County and State, respectively)
Santa Fe Springs is slightly more affordable than other cities in California with the average price of a home is $764,000, 14% lower than Los Angeles County and 3% lower than the State
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 54
SUMMARY
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE (CONT’D)
Employment
More employees come to the City compared to residents who leave the City for work, yielding a net inflow of jobs
Employees who work in Santa Fe Springs are coming from Los Angeles, Norwalk, Long Beach, Whittier, and South Whittier CDP.
Residents go to Los Angeles, Anaheim, Whittier, Downey, and Long Beach for work
The top five industries with the most employees in the City are:
wholesale trade, manufacturing, construction, administration and support, and transportation/warehousing. Of these industries, one (admin and support / waste management / remediation) is among the top five fastest growing industries in L.A. County
The jobs/housing ratio for Santa Fe Springs is 8.43, significantly higher than County and State (1.32 and 1.28, respectively). This number indicates a possible need for more housing in the Santa Fe Springs to accommodate the significant labor force that works in the City
Visitation Trends
Visitation data, including visitor and employee demographics, to Sante Fe Springs was pulled from Placer.ai, a mobile data analytics provider
In the most recent available one-year period between 7/1/23 and 6/30/24, Santa Fe Springs received a total of 27.4 million visits from visitors and 14.1 million visits from employees
A majority of visitors and employees are of Hispanic ethnicity and have average household incomes of approximately $100,000 Santa Fe Springs is a more local draw given most visits to the City by visitors and employees are from a 7-mile distance or less. Many visitors are arriving from the adjacent communities of Whittier, Norwalk, and Pico Rivera
Observing the top visited retail locations by retail category by Santa Fe Springs residents, it was observed that residents tend to travel just outside the City’s boundaries to access sit-down restaurants, bars/pubs, and entertainment venues (theatres, concert halls) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 55
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
A.1 – CITY REVENUE INFORMATION
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 56
Property
Taxes, 9.8%
Sales and Use Tax,
50.1%
Transient Occupancy
Taxes & STR Fees,
0.2%
Utility User Fee,
9.6%
Business License Tax,
1.0%
Franchise Fee, 4.8%
Transportation
Tax, 1.9%
Property
Transfer
Fee, 0.5%
Other, 22.0%
2022 GENERAL FUND TAX REVENUES
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS VS. ALL CA CITIES
Source: Kosmont Companies; CA DOF; CDTFA (Accessed June 2024) Notes: Other revenues may include interest, penalties, delinquent taxes, employer payroll tax, etc.
City of Santa Fe Springs
Property Taxes, 39.1%
Sales and Use Tax,
21.9%
Transient Occupancy
Taxes & STR Fees,
6.0%
Utility User Fee, 4.9%
Business License Tax,
6.3%
Franchise Fee, 3.5%
Transportation Tax,
3.5%
Property
Transfer Fee,
4.0%
Construction, 1.5%
Parking , 0.5%
Admission, 0.1%
Other, 8.6%
All CA Cities
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 57
2018 VS. 2022 TAX REVENUES (% PROPERTY, SALES, HOTEL TOT)
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITIES VS ALL CA CITIES Source: Kosmont Companies; CA DOF; CDTFA (Accessed June 2024)
12.9%
39.4% 40.5%
58.8%
17.8%
22.0%
0.4%
7.1%
8.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles County Cities California Cities 2018 Tax Revenues
PROP % SALES % HOTEL %
9.8%
38.4% 39.1%
50.1%
17.8%
21.9%
0.2% 5.2%
6.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles County Cities California Cities 2022 Tax Revenues
PROP % SALES % HOTEL %
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 58
HISTORIC TAX REVENUE GROWTH TABLES (2018-2022)
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITIES VS ALL CA CITIES
Source: Kosmont Companies; CA DOF; CDTFA (Accessed June 2024) Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
City of Santa Fe Springs
YEAR TOTAL PROPERTY SALES AND USE HOTEL PROP % SALES % HOTEL % 2018 $ 44,048,585 $ 5,676,154 $ 25,905,733 $ 162,224 12.9% 58.8% 0.4% 2019 $ 50,393,523 $ 6,179,023 $ 28,360,308 $ 145,661 12.3% 56.3% 0.3% 2020 $ 62,641,418 $ 6,752,210 $ 30,497,960 $ 132,232 10.8% 48.7% 0.2% 2021 $ 68,006,060 $ 7,860,359 $ 32,097,995 $ 172,204 11.6% 47.2% 0.3% 2022 $ 78,444,235 $ 7,670,101 $ 39,335,559 $ 158,797 9.8% 50.1% 0.2% % Chg. ‘18-’22 78% 35% 52% (2%) (24%) (15%) (45%)
Los Angeles County Cities
YEAR TOTAL PROPERTY SALES HOTEL PROP % SALES % HOTEL %
2018 $ 9,365,891,719 $ 3,693,338,550 $ 1,663,636,730 $ 664,272,234 39.4% 17.8% 7.1% 2019 $ 9,962,713,016 $ 3,945,306,831 $ 1,811,498,455 $ 686,201,674 39.6% 18.2% 6.9% 2020 $ 9,973,259,931 $ 4,146,176,314 $ 1,674,122,681 $ 512,573,659 41.6% 16.8% 5.1% 2021 $ 10,533,231,636 $ 4,505,071,415 $ 1,825,720,001 $ 310,604,715 42.8% 17.3% 2.9% 2022 $ 12,063,160,472 $ 4,629,152,762 $ 2,146,683,814 $ 629,887,650 38.4% 17.8% 5.2% % Chg. ‘18-’22 29% 25% 29% (5%) (3%) 0% (26%)
All CA Cities
YEAR TOTAL PROPERTY SALES HOTEL PROP % SALES % HOTEL %
2018 $ 31,799,746,521 $ 12,890,489,342 $ 7,005,395,050 $ 2,585,451,532 40.5% 22.0% 8.1% 2019 $ 34,539,905,371 $ 14,177,924,698 $ 7,726,240,615 $ 2,748,778,129 41.0% 22.4% 8.0% 2020 $ 34,343,088,470 $ 14,733,616,783 $ 7,273,442,316 $ 2,052,851,870 42.9% 21.2% 6.0% 2021 $ 37,523,287,391 $ 15,875,562,038 $ 7,935,922,642 $ 1,299,716,160 42.3% 21.1% 3.5% 2022 $ 42,007,714,014 $ 16,441,856,815 $ 9,212,861,760 $ 2,532,105,390 39.1% 21.9% 6.0% % Chg. ‘18-’22 32% 28% 32% (2%) (3%) 0% (26%)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 59
HISTORIC TAX REVENUE GROWTH (2018-2022)
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITIES VS ALL CA CITIES
Source: Kosmont Companies; CA DOF; CDTFA (Accessed June 2024) -10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Property Tax Revenue
Growth Since 2018
Santa Fe Springs
Los Angeles County Cities
All CA Cities
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Sales Tax Revenue
Growth Since 2018
Santa Fe Springs
Los Angeles County Cities
All CA Cities
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TOT Revenue
Growth Since 2018
Santa Fe Springs
Los Angeles County Cities
All CA Cities
Source: CA DOF; CDTFA; Kosmont Companies (Accessed June 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 60 Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
Year City Subtotal County
Pool
City
Total
2012 $20,930,000 $2,440,000 $23,370,000
2013 $22,048,000 $2,589,000 $24,637,000
2014 $23,919,000 $2,961,000 $26,880,000
2015 $22,503,000 $2,940,000 $25,443,000
2016 $22,205,000 $3,171,000 $25,376,000
2017 $22,318,000 $3,130,000 $25,448,000
2018 $23,292,000 $3,310,000 $26,602,000
2019 $25,761,000 $4,351,000 $30,112,000
2020 $24,306,000 $6,700,000 $31,006,000
2021 $27,978,000 $6,189,000 $34,167,000
2022 $35,112,000 $7,347,000 $42,459,000
10-Year Growth 67.8% 201.1% 81.7%
COVID-19 Effect
(2019-2020) (5.6%) 54.0% 3.0%
CAGR 5.3% 11.7% 6.2%
SALES TAX REVENUES BY YEAR
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS (2012-2022)
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Change Since 2017:
City Subtotal and
County Pool
SANTA FE SPRINGS SANTA FE SPRINGS County Pool
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 61
RETAIL SALES BY CATEGORY BY YEAR
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS (2015-2022)
Retail Category 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 % Growth (2015-22)
2022 % of
Total
Motor Vehicle & Parts $104,055,975 $111,055,696 $122,197,770 $115,105,827 $110,640,109 $135,191,770 $145,698,498 $148,821,097 43.0% 4.5% Home Furnishings $33,024,307 $34,040,567 $37,048,055 $50,802,728 $43,790,603 $34,772,259 $26,673,594 $33,717,573 2.1% 1.0% Building Materials $69,486,420 $66,281,383 $61,116,988 $44,943,496 $60,721,773 $82,590,098 $112,792,458 $139,183,062 100.3% 4.2% Food & Beverage $22,812,650 $25,092,136 $24,574,937 $21,650,603 $21,633,787 $23,834,751 $25,987,056 $23,426,999 2.7% 0.7% Gas Stations $61,952,160 $53,415,341 $57,804,645 $72,286,575 $71,353,838 $49,393,548 $66,301,046 $84,115,926 35.8% 2.5% Clothing Stores $25,964,865 $30,682,303 $24,268,889 $25,350,393 $25,916,786 $28,952,587 $97,496,125 $218,391,626 741.1% 6.5% Gen. Merchandise $81,605,283 $81,436,017 $81,047,497 $81,154,202 $80,678,081 $93,510,667 $91,830,890 $89,955,356 10.2% 2.7% Restaurants/Bars $80,401,769 $84,793,782 $85,949,042 $87,275,709 $91,169,672 $80,175,366 $94,993,103 $104,893,901 30.5% 3.1% Other Retail $84,772,438 $92,417,248 $106,682,399 $111,596,587 $113,835,698 $105,847,550 $116,574,157 $132,858,864 56.7% 4.0% Total Retail &
Food Services
$564,075,867 $579,214,473 $600,690,222 $610,166,120 $619,740,347 $634,268,596 $778,346,927 $975,364,404 72.9% 29.2% All Other Outlets $1,670,404,985 $1,603,908,905 $1,594,312,399 $1,731,170,689 $1,875,071,407 $1,782,694,897 $2,029,390,352 $2,359,689,147 41.3% 70.8% TOTAL $2,234,480,852 $2,183,123,378 $2,195,002,621 $2,341,336,809 $2,494,811,754 $2,416,963,493 $2,807,737,279 $3,335,053,551 49.3% 100.0% Source: CA DOF; CDTFA; Kosmont Companies (Accessed March 2024) Notes: *Numbers reflected are in thousands of dollars. Other retail may include pet supply stores, tobacco stores, art dealers, etc. All other outlets refers to business to business or business to government transactions. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 62
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
A.2 – POPULATION & HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 63
1 Mile
3 Miles
CITY LIMITS &
RADII
FROM
INTERSECTION
OF TELEGRAPH
RD. AND
NORWALK BLVD.
5 Miles
Santa Fe Springs
City Limits
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed June 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 64
POPULATION & INCOME
CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE
2024 Santa Fe Springs
City
Los Angeles
County
California
State
Population 18,825 9,768,886 39,530,491
Daytime Population 57,563 9,888,388 39,374,875
Households 5,882 3,436,464 13,641,471
Average HH Size 3.08 2.78 2.83
Median Age 40.7 38.4 38.4
% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 25.1% 37.8% 38.7%
% Hispanic Origin 78.2% 49.1% 40.7%
Per Capita Income $34,184 $44,932 $48,206
Median HH Income $87,269 $87,857 $97,646
Average HH Income $109,192 $127,405 $139,308
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed June 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 65
5 Minutes
10 Minutes
DRIVE TIMES
FROM
INTERSECTION
OF TELEGRAPH
RD. AND
NORWALK BLVD.
15 Minutes
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed June 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 66
POPULATION & INCOME
RADII AND DRIVE TIMES
2024 1 Mile 3 Miles 5 Miles 5 Minutes 10 Minutes 15 Minutes Population 10,365 211,984 572,682 43,652 258,502 697,486 Daytime Population 22,145 211,369 545,840 61,574 248,970 691,081 Households 3,575 62,278 172,880 12,450 76,611 211,921
Average HH Size 2.88 3.36 3.27 3.44 3.33 3.25
Median Age 40.6 38.2 38.3 38.5 38.3 38.5
% Bachelor's Degree
or Higher 30.1% 22.2% 25.8% 21.4% 22.1% 27.0%
% Hispanic Origin 73.2% 80.3% 74.5% 81.8% 79.8% 69.9%
Per Capita Income $37,048 $33,859 $35,495 $30,561 $33,911 $35,746 Median HH Income $84,578 $90,444 $90,886 $86,073 $90,180 $90,842 Average HH Income $107,689 $115,145 $117,338 $106,877 $114,176 $117,300 Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed June 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 67
5% 5% 5%
13%
14% 14% 14%
12%
10%
5%
3%
5% 5% 5%
13%
16%
15%
13%
12%
9%
5%
2%
5%
6% 6%
13%
15%
14%
13%
12%
9%
5%
2%
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles County
Median Age
Santa Fe Springs 40.7
Los Angeles County 38.4
California 38.4
POPULATION BY AGE - 2024
SANTA FE SPRINGS HAS A SLIGHTLY OLDER POPULATION
COMPARED TO COUNTY AND STATE
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed June 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 68
POPULATION BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT - 2024
SANTA FE SPRINGS HAS LOWER LEVELS OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
COMPARED TO COUNTY AND STATE
17%
26%
31%
18%
7%
18%
21%
24% 25%
14% 13%
21%
26%
24%
15%
No high school diploma High school graduate or
equivalent
Some college or
Associate's degree
Bachelor's degree Graduate or prof. degree
Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles County California
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed June 2024); Notes: Population observed includes people aged 25 and older. % Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
Santa Fe Springs 25%
Los Angeles County 38%
California 39%
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 69
10%
4%
6%
8%
15% 14%
20%
14%
10%
9%
6% 6%
8%
14%
12%
17%
11%
17%
8%
5% 5%
8%
13% 12%
18%
11%
20%
<$15K $15-$25K $25-$35K $35-$50K $50-$75K $75-$100K $100-$150K $150-$200K $200K+ Santa Fe Springs LA County California
POPULATION BY INCOME - 2024
44% OF SANTA FE SPRINGS HOUSEHOLDS EARN >$100K ANNUALLY HH Income Median Average
Santa Fe Springs $87,269 $109,192
Los Angeles County $87,857 $127,405
California $97,646 $139,308
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed June 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 70
57%
40%
3%
43%
52%
5%
51%
42%
7%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Vacant
Santa Fe Springs LA County California
HOUSING BY TENURE - 2024
SANTA FE SPRINGS HAS MORE OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS
Avg. HH Size
Santa Fe Springs 3.08
Los Angeles County 2.78
California 2.83
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed June 2024) Source: Zillow.com (Accessed June 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 71 $889K
$361K
$787K
$764K
HOME VALUE HISTORY
2016 - 2024
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 72
RETAIL GOODS
AND SERVICES
EXPENDITURES
Current Households City of Santa
Fe Springs
% Share
Per HH 5-Mile Radius % Share Per HH
Households: 5,900 - 172,900 -
Average HH Income $109,200 - $117,300 -
Avg. HH Expenditures for Select Categories
Food at Home $7,088 26.3% $7,534 26.0%
Food Away From Home $3,863 14.3% $4,164 14.4%
Alcohol $677 2.5% $722 2.5%
Housekeeping Supplies $835 3.1% $889 3.1%
Household Furnishings / Equipment $1,868 6.9% $2,020 7.0% Apparel $2,323 8.6% $2,421 8.4%
Vehicle Payments (excl. leases) $2,400 8.9% $2,616 9.0% Gasoline / Motor Fuel $3,008 11.1% $3,311 11.4%
Health (OTC/Prescription Drugs, Eyewear) $520 1.9% $554 1.9% Fees / Admission $794 2.9% $834 2.9%
TV / Video / Audio Equipment $1,176 4.4% $1,254 4.3%
Pets $962 3.6% $1,064 3.7%
Toys / Games / Hobby $163 0.6% $172 0.6%
Personal Care Products $552 2.0% $594 2.1%
Reading $149 0.6% $162 0.6%
Education (School Books and Supplies) $38 0.1% $42 0.1% Tobacco Products $323 1.2% $337 1.2%
Sports / Recreation / Exercise Equipment $246 0.9% $280 1.0% Total Per Household $26,985 100.0% $28,970 100.0%
Total Annual Spending Potential $158,725,300 - $5,008,203,000 - The ~5,900 households in the City of Santa Fe
Springs spend approximately $159 million
annually across these select retail expenditure
categories. The top three spending categories
are Food at Home (e.g., groceries), Food Away
From Home (e.g., restaurants, fast food), and
Gasoline / Motor Fuel.
The ~172,900 households in the 5-mile radius
spend approximately $5.0 billion across the
observed retail expenditure categories annually.
Similarly, the top three spending categories are
Food at Home, Food Away From Home, and
Gasoline / Motor Fuel.
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed June 2024); Note: The Fees/Admission category primarily reflects spending on entertainment, including tickets to the theatre, movies, parks/museums, and sporting events.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 73
A.3 – UNEMPLOYMENT & EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 74
5.6%
4.5%
3.6%
3.2% 3.1% 3.0%
8.4%
6.1%
3.3%
3.4%
8.2%
6.7%
5.3% 4.8% 4.6% 4.5%
12.3%
9.0%
5.0% 5.0%
7.6%
6.3% 5.5%
4.8% 4.2%
4.1%
10.1%
7.3%
4.3%
4.8%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles County California
UNEMPLOYMENT HISTORY
CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE
Source: California Employment Development Department (Accessed June 2024); Notes: Numbers are not seasonally adjusted. Annual averages are observed for years 2014 to 2023.
Unemployment Rate
(May 2024)
Santa Fe Springs 3.4%
Los Angeles County 5.2%
California 4.5%
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 75
SANTA FE
SPRINGS
EMPLOYMENT
DENSITY MAP
The highest concentrations of
employment in the City of Santa Fe
Springs area along Telegraph Rd. and
Florence Ave. in the northern section of
the City. There are some additional areas
of high employment in the southern
portion of the City (major industrial
facilities)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2021, Accessed June 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 76
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
Resident Employed Population (Age 16+)
Sector Share
Health Care and Social Assistance 15.5%
Retail Trade 10.4%
Manufacturing 10.2%
Educational Services 8.3%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 7.9% Wholesale Trade 7.1%
Accommodation and Food Services 6.8%
Transportation and Warehousing 6.0%
Construction 5.7%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 4.6%
Public Administration 4.5%
Finance and Insurance 2.7%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 2.3%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 1.9%
Information 1.6%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1.5%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.3%
Utilities 0.9%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 0.7%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.0%
Workers Employed in Study Area (Age 16+)
Sector Share
Wholesale Trade 23.9%
Manufacturing 21.2%
Construction 12.2%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 10.4% Transportation and Warehousing 8.6%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 4.0%
Retail Trade 3.9%
Health Care and Social Assistance 3.4%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 2.7%
Accommodation and Food Services 2.5%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 2.4%
Educational Services 1.4%
Public Administration 1.1%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1.1%
Finance and Insurance 0.5%
Utilities 0.3%
Information 0.2%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.1%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.1%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 0.0%
“Industries in which City residents work” “Jobs in the City” Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2021, Accessed June 2024) Notes: Categorized by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Sectors KOSMONT COMPANIES | 77
SANTA FE SPRINGS
RESIDENT
CONCENTRATION
MAP
Residents are mostly located in the
northwestern section of the City, west of
Norwalk Blvd. adjacent to the 5 and 605
Freeways.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2021, Accessed June 2024) Employed residents / Sq. Mile
Employed residents / Sq. Mile
Employed residents / Sq. Mile
Employed residents / Sq. Mile
Employed residents / Sq. Mile
Employed residents
Employed residents
Employed residents
Employed residents
Employed residents
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 78
Outflow:
Where Residents Commute To For Work
City Count Percentage
Los Angeles city, CA 1,143 13.8%
Santa Fe Springs city, CA 904 10.9%
Anaheim city, CA 294 3.5%
Whittier city, CA 271 3.3%
Downey city, CA 215 2.6%
Long Beach city, CA 215 2.6%
Norwalk city, CA 191 2.3%
Commerce city, CA 174 2.1%
Industry city, CA 155 1.9%
Santa Ana city, CA 154 1.9%
Irvine city, CA 148 1.8%
Orange city, CA 147 1.8%
Cerritos city, CA 124 1.5%
Fullerton city, CA 124 1.5%
Brea city, CA 97 1.2%
Vernon city, CA 97 1.2%
La Mirada city, CA 85 1.0%
Montebello city, CA 85 1.0%
Buena Park city, CA 81 1.0%
Pico Rivera city, CA 81 1.0%
San Diego city, CA 81 1.0%
Carson city, CA 75 0.9%
Costa Mesa city, CA 73 0.9%
South Whittier CDP, CA 72 0.9%
Bellflower city, CA 65 0.8%
All Other Locations 3,138 37.9%
Inflow:
Where Workers Come From
City Count Percentage
Los Angeles city, CA 5,055 8.2%
Norwalk city, CA 2,254 3.7%
Long Beach city, CA 2,181 3.5%
Whittier city, CA 1,960 3.2%
South Whittier CDP, CA 1,702 2.8%
Anaheim city, CA 1,540 2.5%
Downey city, CA 1,338 2.2%
Pico Rivera city, CA 1,042 1.7%
Fullerton city, CA 1,016 1.7%
Santa Fe Springs city, CA 904 1.5%
South Gate city, CA 860 1.4%
La Habra city, CA 824 1.3%
La Mirada city, CA 786 1.3%
Bellflower city, CA 779 1.3%
West Whittier-Los Nietos CDP, CA 765 1.2%
Buena Park city, CA 761 1.2%
East Los Angeles CDP, CA 710 1.2%
Lakewood city, CA 635 1.0%
El Monte city, CA 632 1.0%
West Covina city, CA 621 1.0%
Compton city, CA 617 1.0%
Huntington Beach city, CA 616 1.0%
Santa Ana city, CA 579 0.9%
Garden Grove city, CA 575 0.9%
Riverside city, CA 564 0.9%
All Other Locations 32,162 52.3%
WORKER
DESTINATIONS &
ORIGINS
CITY OF SANTA
FE SPRINGS
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2021, Accessed June 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 79
Workers employed in City
but living outside
Workers living & employed
in City
Workers living in City but
employed outside
*Employment Ratio = People employed within City (living and working in City + those who come into City for work) / Employed population of City (living and working in City + workers who live in the City, but work outside of the City) Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2021, Accessed June 2024) Employees who work in the City are coming from Los Angeles, Norwalk, Long Beach, Whittier, South Whittier CDP, and Anaheim Employed residents living in Santa Fe Springs are traveling to Los Angeles, Anaheim, Whittier, Downey, Long Beach, and Norwalk for work
WORKER INFLOW / OUTFLOW
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
Reference Santa Fe
Springs
L.A.
County
Workers Living and
Working 904 3,370,445
Workers Coming
(Inflow) 60,574 1,107,719
Workers Going
(Outflow) 7,385 830,815
Net Inflow/Outflow 53,189 276,904
Employment Ratio* 7.42 1.07
Per the 2022-2023 ACFR, top 10
employers in Santa Fe Springs include:
➢ FN Logistics, LLC (1,100 employees)
➢ McMaster Carr Supply Co. (788)
➢ Vans (510)
➢ L.A. Specialty Produce Co. (474)
➢ FedEx Ground Package System (450)
➢ SE Pipe Line Construction (440)
➢ Southern Glazer’s Wine & Spirits (417)
➢ Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC (355)
➢ Harbor Distributions, LLC (350)
➢ Pactiv, LLC (315)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 80
JOBS / HOUSING
BALANCE
2024
Santa Fe
Springs
City
Los Angeles
County
California
State
Employment 49,602 4,531,369 17,417,963
Households 5,882 3,436,464 13,641,471
Jobs / Housing
Ratio 8.43 1.32 1.28
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed June 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 81
Industry 2020 2030
Annual
Growth
2020-2030
Total
Growth
2020-2030
Total
Change
2020-2030
Health Care and Social Assistance 698,100 850,500 15,240 152,400 21.8% Accommodation and Food Services 328,600 480,300 15,170 151,700 46.2% Professional, Scientific, and Tech. Services 289,300 341,200 5,190 51,900 17.9% Admin. and Support / Waste Mgmt. 248.200 297.200 4,900 49,000 19.7% Retail Trade 380,200 424,900 4,470 44,700 11.8%
Information 191,000 231,200 4,020 40,200 21.0%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 64,900 103,700 3,880 38,800 59.8% Transportation and Warehousing 196,100 234,600 3,850 38,500 19.6% Other Services (excludes Private
Household Workers) 128,700 161,300 3,260 32,600 25.3%
Educational Services (Private) 122,200 147,600 2,540 25,400 20.8% Government 570,200 595,200 2,500 25,000 4.4%
Construction 146,500 165,300 1,880 18,800 12.8%
Wholesale Trade 200,000 216,300 1,630 16,300 8.2%
Financial Activities 212,600 225,100 1,250 12,500 5.9%
Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 62,200 68,800 660 6,600 10.6% Utilities 11,700 11,600 (10) (100) (0.9%)
Manufacturing 315,100 296,300 (1,880) (18,800) (6.0%)
Total Nonfarm 4,167,300 4,852,500 68,520 685,200 16.4%
Total Other 296,700 313,600 1,690 16,900 5.7%
Total Farm 4,400 4,000 (40) (400) (9.1%)
Total Employment 4,468,400 5,170,100 70,170 701,700 15.7%
EMPLOYMENT
PROJECTIONS BY
INDUSTRY
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
Source: California Employment Development Department, (Accessed June 2024) Notes: Other refers to self-employed and private household workers. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate negative numbers.
Professional and Business Services include professional, scientific, tech services, admin support and waste management and remediation, and management of companies.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 82
A.4 – VISITATION TRENDS
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 83
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
1/1/20203/1/20205/1/20207/1/20209/1/2020
11/1/2020
1/1/20213/1/20215/1/20217/1/20219/1/2021
11/1/2021
1/1/20223/1/20225/1/20227/1/20229/1/2022
11/1/2022
1/1/20233/1/20235/1/20237/1/20239/1/2023
11/1/2023
1/1/20243/1/20245/1/2024
Visitors Employees
SANTA FE
SPRINGS
VISITOR AND
EMPLOYEE VISITS
PER MONTH (AS %
OF 2019 BASELINE)
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed July 2024)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 84
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
VISITOR / EMPLOYEE FOOT-TRAFFIC OVERVIEW
Visitor / Employee Summary Data
(7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024)
Visitors Employees
Annual Visits 27.4 million 14.1 million
Visit Frequency 8.4 171.2
Avg. Visit Length 132 minutes 443 minutes
Avg. HH Income $101K $103K
Visitation Data:
Distance from Home Area
0-3
Miles
3-7
Miles
7-10
Miles
Visitors 45% 17% 12%
Employees 42% 24% 13%
10-30
Miles
30-100
Miles
100+
Miles
Visitors 16% 6% 4%
Employees 17% 3% 1%
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed July 2024);
Notes: Considers a minimum of 1 visit to the City of Santa Fe Springs by visitors over the period from July 2023 to June 2024.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 85
Avg. HH Income Ethnicity Top Home Location
Zip Codes
Visitors Employees
90650 Norwalk 90650 Norwalk
90605 Whittier 90670 Santa Fe Springs
90604 Whittier 90660 Pico Rivera
90606 Whittier 90605 Whittier
90660 Pico Rivera 90604 Whittier
WHAT IS THE VISITOR AND EMPLOYEE PROFILE TO
THE CITY? (7/1/2023 TO 6/30/2024)
Visitors $101,000
Employees $103,000
Visitors Employees
Hispanic 73.4% Hispanic 69.0%
White 11.9% White 13.0%
Asian 9.4% Asian 11.7%
Black 3.1% Black 3.6%
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed July 2024);
Notes: Considers a minimum of 1 visit to the City of Santa Fe Springs by visitors over the period from July 2023 to June 2024.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 86
TRADE AREA COVERAGE: 7/1/2023 TO 6/30/2024
EMPLOYEES AND VISITORS TO SANTA FE SPRINGS
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed July 2024); Notes: Considers a minimum of 1 visit by visitors to the City of Sante Fe Springs over the last year. True trade area reflects where 70% of visitors and employees to the City of Santa Fe Springs come from.
Visitor True Trade Area Employee Trade Area
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 87
RESIDENTS (CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS)
TOP VISITED PLACES – PLACER.AI
Location City Dist. (miles) %
Restaurants
Olive Garden Downey 3.2 14%
Olive Garden Whittier 2.7 11%
BJ’s Restaurant and Brewhouse Downey 3.4 10%
Denny’s Whittier 2.7 10%
Lucky Thai Cuisine Whittier 1.0 10%
Fast Food / QSR
In-N-Out Burger Santa Fe Springs 1.0 40%
McDonald’s Santa Fe Springs 1.0 22%
Chick-Fil-A (Imperial Hwy.) Norwalk 1.1 18%
Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers Whittier 3.3 13%
Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers Downey 3.2 12%
Location City Dist. (miles) %
Breakfast / Coffee /
Dessert Shops
Starbucks Santa Fe Springs 1.7 28%
IHOP Norwalk 1.3 11%
Porto’s Bakery and Café Downey 4.1 9%
Tierra Mia Coffee Pico Rivera 3.3 9%
IHOP Santa Fe Springs 2.8 8%
Grocery Stores
Northgate Gonzalez Markets Pico Rivera 3.2 24%
Northgate Gonzalez Markets Norwalk 1.9 23%
Food 4 Less Santa Fe Springs 1.2 22%
Stater Bros. Markets Norwalk 2.0 20%
El Super Santa Fe Springs 0.9 20%
Sources: Placer.ai; Percentage reflects the percentage of employees of the City of Santa Fe Springs who visited each location 1 or more times from 7/1/23 to 6/30/24. (Accessed August 2024); *Location listed as permanently closed now.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 88
RESIDENTS (CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS)
TOP VISITED PLACES – PLACER.AI
Location City Dist. (miles) %
Bars / Pubs
Gardens Bar & Grill Pico Rivera 2.8 6%
The Bottle Room Whittier 3.5 4%
The Junction Bar Downey 2.8 4%
S&P Restaurant and Sports Bar* Santa Fe Springs 0.9 4%
Ojos Locos Sports Cantina Downey 4.0 2%
Fitness
Esporta Fitness (Imperial Hwy.) Norwalk 1.0 9%
Center Court Santa Fe Springs 1.7 8%
Planet Fitness (Telegraph Rd.) Santa Fe Springs 1.2 7%
Planet Fitness (Washington Blvd.) Santa Fe Springs 2.7 7% Esporta Fitness* Santa Fe Springs 0.9 5%
Location City Dist. (miles) %
Entertainment (Theatres /
Music)
AMC Norwalk 20 Norwalk 1.4 23%
Cinemark Downey Downey 4.1 11%
LOOK Dine-In Cinemas Downey 4.1 6%
Cinepolis Cinemas Pico Rivera 5.1 5%
AMC La Mirada 7 La Mirada 4.1 3%
Super Stores
Walmart Santa Fe Springs 0.9 57%
Target (Carmenita Rd.) Santa Fe Springs 0.9 47%
Costco Norwalk 2.5 35%
Target (Imperial Hwy.) Norwalk 1.3 30%
Target (Firestone Blvd.) Norwalk 2.6 26%
Beauty & Spa
Ulta Beauty Downey 3.9 9%
Ulta Beauty Pico Rivera 4.3 6%
Ulta Beauty Whittier 3.7 6%
J&J Nails Spa** Santa Fe Springs 1.9 5%
Pauline’s Nails Santa Fe Springs 1.9 4%
Sources: Placer.ai; Percentage reflects the percentage of employees of the City of Santa Fe Springs who visited each location 1 or more times from 7/1/23 to 6/30/24. (Accessed August 2024); *Location listed as permanently closed now. **Business changed its name.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 89
EMPLOYEES (CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS)
TOP VISITED PLACES – PLACER.AI
Location City Dist. (miles) %
Restaurants
Olive Garden Whittier 2.7 7%
Olive Garden Downey 3.2 6%
BJ’s Restaurant and Brewhouse Cerritos 5.0 6%
Applebee’s Norwalk 1.3 6%
NORMS Whittier 3.2 5%
Fast Food / QSR
In-N-Out Burger Santa Fe Springs 1.0 18%
Chick-Fil-A Norwalk 1.1 11%
McDonald’s Santa Fe Springs 1.0 9%
Chick-Fil-A Santa Fe Springs 0.9 9%
In-N-Out Burger La Mirada 4.1 8%
Location City Dist. (miles) %
Breakfast / Coffee /
Dessert Shops
Starbucks Santa Fe Springs 1.7 7%
Porto’s Bakery and Café Buena Park 6.7 7%
Porto’s Bakery and Café Downey 4.1 7%
Panera Bread Norwalk 1.1 6%
Joe’s Italian Ice Anaheim 12.9 4%
Grocery Stores
Northgate Gonzalez Markets Norwalk 1.9 12%
El Super Santa Fe Springs 0.9 9%
Food 4 Less Santa Fe Springs 1.2 9%
Stater Bros. Markets Whittier 3.2 7%
Stater Bros. Markets Norwalk 2.0 6%
Sources: Placer.ai; Percentage reflects the percentage of employees of the City of Santa Fe Springs who visited each location 1 or more times from 7/1/23 to 6/30/24. (Accessed August 2024); *Location listed as permanently closed now.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 90
EMPLOYEES (CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS)
TOP VISITED PLACES – PLACER.AI
Location City Dist. (miles) %
Bars / Pubs
The Bottle Room Whittier 3.5 3%
Ojos Locos Downey 4.0 2%
Ballast Point Brewing Long Beach Long Beach 13.2 2%
Gardens Bar & Grill Pico Rivera 2.8 2%
S&P Restaurant & Sports Bar* Santa Fe Springs 0.9 2%
Fitness
Esporta Fitness Norwalk 1.0 5%
Planet Fitness (Telegraph Rd.) Santa Fe Springs 1.2 3%
24 Hour Fitness (Apollo Wy.) Downey 4.1 2%
Planet Fitness (Washington Blvd.) Santa Fe Springs 2.7 2% 24 Hour Fitness (Imperial Hwy.) Santa Fe Springs 1.4 2% Location City Dist. (miles) %
Entertainment (Theatres /
Music)
AMC Norwalk 20 Norwalk 1.4 11%
Cinemark Downey Downey 4.1 6%
AMC Montebello 10 Montebello 7.2 3%
Cinepolis Cinemas Pico Rivera 5.1 3%
Regal Edwards Cerritos Cerritos 4.3 3%
Super Stores
Walmart (Telegraph Rd.) Santa Fe Springs 0.9 24%
Target (Carmenita Rd.) Santa Fe Springs 0.9 18%
Costco Norwalk 2.5 17%
Target (Imperial Hwy.) Norwalk 1.3 14%
Costco La Habra 5.3 13%
Beauty & Spa
Ulta Beauty Whittier 3.7 5%
Ulta Beauty Pico Rivera 4.3 3%
Beauty 24 Santa Fe Springs 0.9 3%
Ulta Beauty Downey 3.9 2%
Ulta Beauty La Habra 5.8 2%
Sources: Placer.ai; Percentage reflects the percentage of employees of the City of Santa Fe Springs who visited each location 1 or more times from 7/1/23 to 6/30/24. (Accessed August 2024); *Location listed as permanently closed now.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 91
B. MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 92
Overview
The Market Demand Analysis evaluates major asset
classes (e.g., retail, office, industrial/flex, multifamily residential, and hospitality [hotel]). Geographies
observed in the Market Demand Analysis include:
➢ City of Santa Fe Springs (“City”)
➢ 5-mile radius from Telegraph Rd. and Norwalk Blvd.
(a reflection of the local market area without
entering into northern Orange County cities)
➢ Los Angeles County (“County”)
The Market Demand Analysis observes the following:
➢ Recent market trends across asset classes
➢ Existing supply conditions for commercial (retail and industrial/flex space), residential (multifamily), and
hospitality (hotel) for the most recent available
quarter (Q2 2024)
➢ Historical trends in vacancy and market asking rents
on an annual basis over the last ten years (2013 to
2023)
OVERVIEW
MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS
City of Santa
Fe Springs
5-mile
radius
Los Angeles
County
Orange
County
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 93
MARKET SUMMARY
MARKET TRENDS AND RETAIL MARKET
Market Trends
Retail: Retail store closures, bankruptcies, and e-commerce has changed economics of retail centers; Retail centers are being reimagined into mixed/blended use developments; Retail is driven by trip-generators like entertainment, experience, and essential Office: Leasing activity has declined as remote work becomes new normal; shift to suburban offices and integrating office amenities in blended use environments
Industrial: E-commerce is accelerating growth of industrial; Significant demand for fulfillment, last-mile, flex / R&D, and warehouse facilities Residential: Home have become live, play, and work environments; Home offices are the new home amenity as single and multifamily housing projects are designed to accommodate work space Hospitality: The hospitality sector (including conventions and tourism) was hurt significantly by the COVID-19 pandemic; Leisure travel is showing signs of rebounding
Retail
▪ Limited demand for retail space, given e-commerce trends; major available retail space in the City (34,119 SF) and approx. six store closures (~23,500 SF) in the last 10 years
▪ Retail vacancy is lower than both the 5-mile radius and the County which has been the case over the last seven years. Current retail rents are higher than the 5-mile radius but lower than the County ▪ The only addition to the market in the last 10 years was 16,000 SF of grocery space; a net loss of 5 stores and 7,500 SF
▪ 7,500 SF of retail space is under construction with 6,000 SF proposed ▪ ~203,900 SF of retail space over 40 years old could be replaced or reimagined in a blended-use project
▪ Some retail leakage to neighboring cities of Norwalk and Downey to general merchandise stores and clothing retailers
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 94
Office
▪ No new office construction since 2017; limited inventory added to the market in the last 10 years (32,000 SF medical office building) ▪ Office vacancy is slightly higher than that of the 5-mile radius and lower than the County; office rents are 2.4% lower than rents in the 5-mile radius, but 23.8% lower when compared to County rents ▪ Demand for office space is further limited as there is no office space currently planned, proposed, or under construction
▪ 58% of overall office space is older than 40 years, half of which (~311,300 SF) could be replaced or reimagined
Industrial / Flex
▪ Industrial/Flex base in the City is massive (56.5 million SF) ▪ Industrial vacancy in the City is on par with vacancy rates in both the 5-mile radius and the County; rents are slightly higher compared to the 5-mile radius and lower compared to the County ▪ Significant demand for industrial space with seven new industrial buildings under construction (~693,000 SF) and six industrial buildings proposed (~442,100 SF)
▪ Fluctuations in the industrial market over the last 10 years with a loss of 20 buildings but an overall net positive growth in the market (~1.6 million SF added)
▪ The industrial market in the City is older with 50% of the industrial / flex space older than 40 years. An estimated ~7.0M-14.1M SF (between a quarter or half of total industrial space) could be redeveloped or upgraded to meet the needs of shifting industrial market
MARKET SUMMARY
OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL / FLEX MARKETS
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 95
MARKET SUMMARY
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND HOSPITALITY (HOTEL) MARKET
Multifamily Residential
▪ Strong multifamily residential market in the City (2.5% vacancy), lower than both the 5-mile radius and the County. Aside from new construction spikes, multifamily vacancy trends lower than the observed geographies
▪ 55% of units are market-rate, 26% affordable, and 19% marketrate/affordable. Senior housing accounts for 33% of housing units ▪ Majority of the City’s units are Class C (70%), followed by Class A (20%) and Class B (10%)
▪ 278 new residential apartment units and 50 townhomes have been built in the City over the last 10 years
▪ Lakeland Apts. is currently under construction and is scheduled to open in 2025, adding 139 new apartment units
▪ The City may consider allocating greater density to future projects to meet the demand for housing and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) requirements (952 new units, 48% of which are affordable)
Hospitality (Hotel)
▪ 67 hotels totaling 2,359 rooms exist within the 5-mile radius. 56% of the rooms are operated by chain/franchise hotels while 44% are from independently operated hotels
▪ Majority of chain/franchise hotels are upper midscale to upper upscale class (56%), while majority of independently operated hotels are economy or midscale class (97%)
▪ Late summer and early fall months are the most successful period with occupancy and RevPAR peaking in October. Hotels perform worst in January (based on post-COVID trends)
▪ Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, hotel occupancy averaged 81.3%.
Due to the lockdowns and lack of business and leisure travel, occupancy and demand for rooms nights dropped by 23%
▪ Post-COVID occupancy has since rebounded to 78.2%, indicating strong demand
▪ Within a 5-mile radius, only one hotel is currently proposed – a ~120-room upper midscale to upscale development planned at the Norwalk Transit Village. This development would meet roughly half of the projected demand for rooms over the next decade
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 96
B.1 – MARKET TRENDS
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 97
MARKET TRENDS SUMMARY
Key trends in the post-COVID-19 economy:
➢ Retail
• Retail store closures, bankruptcies, and e-commerce
has driven changes in retail; Retail centers are being
reimagined (e.g. blended use development)
• Retail driven by trip-generators such as
entertainment, experience, and essentials (e.g. food)
➢ Office
• Office leasing activity dropping as remote work
becomes new normal; Social distancing led to offices
resizing/reconfiguring
• Integrating office in blended use environments;
Possible shift to suburban offices
➢ Industrial
• E-commerce is accelerating growth of industrial;
• Retail and industrial are merging, with space being
used for Buy Online Pick Up in Store (BOPIS),
fulfillment, last mile and warehousing (including flex) ➢ Residential
• Homes are live, play, and work environments
• Strength in suburban markets; Home office is the
new home amenity as single and multifamily housing
developments are designed to facilitate work
• New residential sites within shopping centers
➢ Hospitality
• Hospitality sector hurt the most by COVID-19
(conventions and business), but leisure travel is
rebounding
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 98
Housing is Not a Loss
Leader, it’s a
Growth Driver
Retail is Not Just
Retail Anymore
Telework is
Reconfiguring Office
Industrial /
Distribution is Critical
for the Economy
Housing Creation as
Economic Development
Retail Reimagination as
Economic Development
Office Conversions as
Economic Development
Industrial & Fulfillment as
Economic Development
• New housing can generate
significant new tax revenues and
support local jobs from resident
spending
• Housing is not necessarily a net
negative fiscal impact, especially at
current property values
• U.S. retail over-built and needs
“right sizing;” Covid accelerated
trends; today its about essentials,
experience & e-commerce
• Blended/mixed use projects
integrate multiple uses (housing,
retail, open space, creative office,
hotel)
• Telework and work from home
options are reshaping the needs for
office space and business districts
• Job redistribution tied to housing
• Vacancies can lead to fiscal impact
pressure
• Modern industrial is not “your
father’s industrial” – it is a blend
• Retail can’t thrive without
distribution; Booming demand for
e-commerce, particularly smaller
last-mile delivery facilities
• Flex space (a blend of industrial,
office, research and development
space) is a growing market. Cities
can attract high tech / skill firms
with such space
Key Market and Economic Development Trends
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 99
HOUSING AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Live
Work
Shop
Rooftops Needed
New housing can
generate new demand for
commercial and retail
uses, significant new tax
revenues, and support
local jobs. Office
reconfiguration and work
at home schedules are
keeping “wallets” in local
communities -- capturing
local spend is a key
objective.
Housing / hybrid living spaces.
High costs are a burden, but
high assessed value = tax $$$
Telecommuting now common.
Remote work can alleviate
traffic and support local
businesses.
E-commerce will capture 25%
of sales within 5 years
(~$9K per CA household).
E-commerce spending by each
household is equivalent to 11 SF
of retail
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 100
E-COMMERCE RESHAPING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EST. E-COMMERCE SALES BY RESIDENTS
Population 18,800
Avg HH Size 3.08
HH 5,900
Average HH Income $109,200
% of HH Income for Expenditures 86%
% of Expenditures for Retail Spending 24%
% Retail spending via e-commerce 20%
Avg HH E-commerce sales $4,570
Retail Sales PSF $400
Per HH Retail Space Equivalence 11 SF
Community E-Commerce Sales $26,963,000
Community Retail Space Equivalence 67,400 SF
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.25
Retail Acreage Equivalence 6.2 AC
Sources: Kosmont Companies, ESRI, Placer.ai (Accessed December 2024) Notes: Assumptions made for % of HH Expenditures for e-commerce spending, retail sales PSF, and FAR. Kosmont estimated the impact that e-commerce has on physical retail space by estimating the average e-commerce sales per household and the total ecommerce sales across all households in the City. ESRI data shows the approximate amount spent by households across different expenditure categories over a year. The sum of expenditures divided by the average household income yields the percentage spent on expenditures. In this case, 86% of Santa Fe Springs households spend their money on a variety of expenditures. Of these expenditures, 24% are from key retail categories, such as food, entertainment, shopping club membership fees, housekeeping supplies, household furnishings, apparel, and personal care. Kosmont assumed that 20% of retail spending was conducted via e-commerce platforms. Using Kosmont’s assumptions and calculations, the average household in Santa Fe Springs spent about $4,570 per year on e-commerce, which, assuming retail sales average ~$400 PSF, equates to approximately 11 SF of retail space. On a City-wide basis, the 5,900 households in Santa Fe Springs spend approximately $27M or 67,400 SF of retail space. Assuming a Floor Area Ratio of
0.25, 6.2 acres of developable commercially-zoned land would be needed to accommodate this amount of retail space. Thus, while e-commerce does generate increasing revenues to the City via the County Pool, it is also lessening the need for additional retail space in the market.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 101
E-COMMERCE GROWTH
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON BRICK-AND-MORTAR RETAIL
Historically, e-commerce sales in the U.S. have increased steadily over time from 2000 to 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic saw
increased online retail utilization and e-commerce sales soared by 42% compared to 2019. E-commerce sales continued to grow by double-digits into 2021 but cooled to just 6% growth in 2022. 2023 saw an increase in e-commerce sales by 9%
The share of e-commerce sales continues to grow as well with ecommerce reaching 17.1% of total retail sales by year-end 2023. FTI Consulting’s 2024 Online Retail Report projections indicate U.S. online retail sales would hit $1.2 trillion in 2024, an increase of 9.8% or $108 billion compared to 2023. Additionally, the report states that e-commerce sales growth represented 46% of total retail sales growth in 2023.
Furthermore, a UBS report estimates that 45,000 net retail store closures will occur in the U.S. by 2028 (approximately 5% of the total retail store base)
Sources: St. Louis Federal Reserve; FTI Consulting “2024 Online Retail Report”; UBS (Accessed December 2024)
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 E-Commerce Share of Total Retail Sales
(by year-end)
E-Commerce Retail Sales
(Billions)
E-Commerce Retail Sales
E-Commerce Sales
E-Commerce Share of Total Retail Sales
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 102
WORK-FROM-HOME GROWTH
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON OFFICE DISTRICTS & DAYTIME POPULATION Work-from-home is changing where people choose to live, and increases popularity of “15-minute communities” that offer amenities and quality of life
Census Bureau estimated that ~44% of workers are in jobs where working from home is currently feasible, with only a quarter of those in feasible telework jobs actually utilizing this capability Research shows the ability to telework likely varies by educational attainment and income-level; many of the telework occupations are heavily represented by incomes requiring higher levels of education (such as Management / Business / Financial / Professional occupations) Other research shows that while work-from-home days have declined from the pandemic high of 60% to ~40% of days, this is still significantly above pre-pandemic estimates of 5%
Employers are expecting an average of 2.3 work-from-home days per week, suggesting that hybrid home/office model is likely to be wellutilized post-COVID Source: U.S. Census Bureau; St. Louis Federal Reserve; Survey of Working Arrangements (Accessed December 2022)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 1.2
1.4 1.6
1.8 2
2.2 2.4
Percent Paid Full Days WFH
Employer Plans for Post-COVID WFH Days
Work-from-Home: Current Utilization and
Employer Plans for post-COVID
Employer Plans for Post-COVID WFH Days
Percentage of Days WFH
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 103
B.2 – RETAIL MARKET
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 104
Q2 2024
City of
Santa Fe
Springs
5-Mile
Radius
Los Angeles
County
Availability
Market
Asking Rent
$PSF/Yr.
$30.09 $28.87 $36.37
Vacancy Rate 2.0% 6.0% 5.5%
Vacant SF 21,971 1,476,740 24,847,604
Net
Absorption 900 52,016 (864,472)
Inventory
Existing SF 1,104,771 24,433,039 454,379,244
Major available retail space in City
➢ 34,119 SF available at Santa Fe Springs
Promenade (11452-11570 Telegraph
Rd.), largest space is 6,000 SF fmr.
Tempo Furniture and Mattress
In the last 10 years there have been
more contractions than additions in
SFS retail market. Net loss of 5 stores
and 7,500 SF
Only addition to the market was in
2017 (16,000 SF Aldi grocer at 13210
Telegraph Rd.)
Retail space recently opened / under
construction
➢ 7,500 SF retail recently opened Dec.
2024 at 13321-13329 Florence Ave.
(new Dave’s Hot Chicken [4,600 SF]
and Pac Dental [2,900 SF])
➢ Raising Canes under construction at
NEC Bloomfield Ave. and Imperial
Hwy.
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024); Note: Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Available space is the amount of space currently being marketed as available for lease or sale in a given time period. It includes any space that is vacant, occupied, or available at a future date. Negative net absorption refers to the fact that more tenants vacated retail space as opposed to renewing or expanding.
RETAIL MARKET OVERVIEW
Top: Santa Fe Springs Promenade
Above: Aldi grocer on Telegraph Rd.
37% of retail space in the
City is over 40 years old.
Roughly half of the space
(~203,900 SF could be
replaced / re-envisioned)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 105
RETAIL MARKET HISTORY
2013 – 2023
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Market
Asking
Rent PSF
2023 1,104,771 19,700 1.8% 1,833 $29.83
2022 1,104,771 21,533 1.9% 7,931 $28.83
2021 1,112,231 36,924 3.3% (22,447) $27.57
2020 1,114,918 17,164 1.5% (5,083) $26.46
2019 1,114,918 12,081 1.1% 5,364 $25.85
2018 1,114,918 17,445 1.6% (9,163) $25.09
2017 1,117,608 10,972 1.0% 96,705 $24.49
2016 1,101,589 91,658 8.3% 20,812 $23.74
2015 1,105,496 116,377 10.5% (44,950) $23.14
2014 1,112,237 78,168 7.0% (19,906) $22.39
2013 1,112,237 58,262 5.2% (24,634) $21.63
5-MILE RADIUS
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Market
Asking
Rent PSF
2023 24,413,613 1,517,218 6.2% (239,183) $28.85
2022 24,376,229 1,240,651 5.1% 22,586 $28.07
2021 24,402,729 1,289,737 5.3% (37,476) $27.01
2020 24,412,638 1,262,170 5.2% (172,982) $26.09
2019 24,509,932 1,186,482 4.8% (73,441) $25.67
2018 24,455,946 1,059,055 4.3% (230,390) $24.99
2017 24,482,474 855,193 3.5% 422,687 $24.35
2016 24,360,139 1,155,545 4.7% 391,207 $23.60
2015 24,179,535 1,366,148 5.7% 141,761 $22.94
2014 23,940,001 1,268,375 5.3% (39,637) $22.06
2013 23,956,187 1,244,924 5.2% 122,679 $21.26
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Market
Asking
Rent PSF
2023 454,588,009 23,641,957 5.2% (320,444) $36.63
2022 453,818,842 22,559,818 5.0% 482,541 $35.92
2021 453,836,523 23,033,968 5.1% (383,956) $34.69
2020 454,921,462 23,757,351 5.2% (2,649,506) $33.68
2019 454,590,811 20,727,438 4.6% (1,344,346) $33.31
2018 454,273,574 19,205,515 4.2% (1,297,913) $32.49
2017 454,344,925 17,955,012 4.0% 723,564 $31.68
2016 453,344,477 17,604,469 3.9% 4,447,054 $30.68
2015 452,552,919 21,291,277 4.7% 709,140 $29.78
2014 450,932,690 20,607,092 4.6% 2,057,699 $28.58
2013 450,760,392 22,492,798 5.0% 2,378,212 $27.47
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 106
RETAIL MARKET HISTORY
2013 – 2023
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024)
Vacancy Rates Market Asking Rent PSF
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Santa Fe Springs 5-Mile Radius L.A. County
$20.00
$26.00
$32.00
$38.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Santa Fe Springs 5-Mile Radius L.A. County
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 107
RETAIL LEAKAGE
MAP
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed October 2024)
The points on the map show the top retail
centers and establishments across retail
categories where Santa Fe Springs residents
shop outside of the City. Numbers are ordered
by the number of visits made by Santa Fe
Springs residents to these locations.
Santa Fe Springs residents do not travel too far
to shop and are primarily traveling to the west
to neighboring Downey and Norwalk to shop
at major retail centers.
1 8
5 10 City of
Santa Fe
Springs
4 7
6 3
9 2
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 108
TOP 10 AREAS OF RETAIL LEAKAGE
SANTA FE SPRINGS RESIDENTS (9/1/23 TO 8/31/24)
Top 10 Areas Where Santa Fe Springs Resident Sales Are Leaking (by Number of Visits) Rank Location GLA (SF) City Anchor Tenants /
Major Retail # of Residents # of Visits
Average
Distance
From Home (mi)
1 Paddison Square 302,068 Norwalk Target, Rite Aid 12,520 201,310 1.84 2 Stonewood Center 947,068 Downey Kohl’s, Macy’s, JCPenney, H&M, Forever 21 13,580 155,920 2.18 3 Promenade at Downey 607,482 Downey Walmart, 24 Hr. Fitness, Cinemark, Floor & Décor, TJ Maxx, Burlington 12,650 155,310 3.15
4 Pico Rivera Towne Center 602,837 Pico Rivera Walmart, Lowe’s, Marshalls, Ross, PetSmart, Dollar Tree, Aldi, Walgreens 11,170 131,850 2.52
5 The Quad at Whittier 438,838 Whittier Burlington, Vallarta Supermarket, Ross, TJ Maxx, Michaels, Marshalls, Rite Aid, Staples, Petco 11,960 114,640 3.02 6 Los Cerritos Center 1,298,623 Cerritos Macy’s, Nordstrom, Forever 21, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Harkins Theatres, Zara 13,360 105,670 5.94
7 Target (Imperial Hwy.)* 136,362 Norwalk N/A 8,290 100,410 1.79 8 Costco (Hoxie Ave.) 130,196 Norwalk N/A 9,570 97,120 2.11 9 Norwalk Plaza
Shopping Center 136,939 Norwalk Northgate Gonzalez Market, TJ Maxx 8,590 95,250 2.16 10 Firestone &
Studebaker Center 69,341 Norwalk Walgreens 5,220 90,980 1.65 Source: Placer.ai; CoStar (Accessed October 2024)
Note: *Target located in Paddison Square.
**CVS located in Hastings Ranch Plaza.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 109
RETAIL LEAKAGE
(9/1/23 TO 8/31/24)
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed October 2024)
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number (leakage). Limited data available for supply (sales) for the following categories: bars/drinking places, There does not appear to be much retail
leakage among major retail spending
categories among Santa Fe Springs
residents. It is important to note that
many retail sales numbers are reflective of
business-to-business transactions, which
may reflect a larger retail sales surplus.
UNMET RETAIL DEMAND BY RETAIL CATEGORY (SANTA FE SPRINGS RESIDENT PURCHASES) Retail Category Supply (Sales) $ Demand $ Surplus / Leakage Online Sales Leakage Potential
Other General
Merchandise Stores 371.60 M 44.58 M 327.02 M Medium
Building Material & Supplies 317.20 M 25.69 M 291.51 M Low Grocery Stores 241.80 M 47.69 M 194.11 M Low
Gasoline Stations 191.60 M 46.11 M 145.49 M Low
Health & Personal Care Stores 117.20 M 22.55 M 94.65 M Medium Auto Parts / Accessories
Stores 99.80 M 7.32 M 92.48 M Low
Electronics & Appliance Stores 64.50 M 9.36 M 55.14 M High Clothing Stores 71.10 M 16.27 M 54.83 M High
Sporting Goods Stores 33.60 M 4.77 M 28.83 M High
Home Furnishings Stores 26.70 M 3.52 M 23.18 M Medium
Limited-Service Restaurants 50.20 M 32.28 M 17.92 M Low Full-Service Restaurants 48.90 M 34.70 M 14.20 M Low
Shoe Stores 10.30 M 2.07 M 8.23 M High
Department Stores 14.20 M 8.54 M 5.66 M Varies
Book & Music Stores 5.80 M 0.84 M 4.96 M High
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 110
B.3 – OFFICE MARKET
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 111
Major available office space in City
➢ 16,188 SF available at Imperial Square
Office Park (12631 E. Imperial Hwy.) –
primarily a medical office building
➢ 8,714 SF available at Heritage
Corporate Center (10350 Heritage
Park Dr.) [Heritage Corporate Center]
According to CoStar, there is no
office space currently planned,
proposed, or under construction
In the last 10 years there have been
more contractions than additions in
SFS retail market. Net loss of 2
buildings and 29,400 SF
No new office SF added since 2017
(PIH Health medical office building
added at 12400 Bloomfield Ave.)
58% of the overall office space is 40
years or older. Roughly half of the
space (~311,300 SF) could be
potentially replaced/reimagined
Q2 2024
City of
Santa Fe
Springs
5-Mile
Radius
Los Angeles
County
Availability
Market
Asking Rent
$PSF/Yr.
$31.74 $32.51 $41.64
Vacancy Rate 6.7% 5.0% 16.0%
Vacant SF 72,393 418,218 71,048,233
Net
Absorption (5,088) 38,234 (605,229)
Inventory
Existing SF 1,081,000 8,336,124 443,197,746
OFFICE MARKET OVERVIEW
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024); Note: Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Available space is the amount of space currently being marketed as available for lease or sale in a given time period.
It includes any space that is vacant, occupied, or available at a future date.
Top: Imperial Square Office Park
Middle: Heritage Corporate Center
Above: 12400 Bloomfield Ave.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 112
OFFICE MARKET HISTORY
2013 – 2023
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Market
Asking
Rent PSF
2023 1,081,000 60,811 5.6% (11,675) $31.52
2022 1,081,000 49,136 4.5% (15,947) $31.18
2021 1,091,000 43,189 4.0% 39,805 $30.49
2020 1,091,000 82,994 7.6% (33,050) $28.87
2019 1,091,000 49,944 4.6% (15,663) $28.00
2018 1,091,000 34,281 3.1% 21,093 $27.98
2017 1,091,000 55,374 5.1% 16,212 $26.62
2016 1,059,000 39,586 3.7% (44,938) $25.54
2015 1,107,796 43,444 3.9% 17,653 $24.18
2014 1,107,796 61,097 5.5% 9,423 $22.46
2013 1,110,362 73,086 6.6% 35,682 $21.87
5-MILE RADIUS
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Market
Asking
Rent PSF
2023 8,336,124 428,801 5.1% (43,904) $32.32
2022 8,336,124 384,897 4.6% (33,960) $32.08
2021 8,346,124 360,937 4.3% 107,656 $31.18
2020 8,352,228 474,697 5.7% (1,274) $29.43
2019 8,355,954 477,149 5.7% (48,593) $28.72
2018 8,363,255 435,857 5.2% 76,437 $28.26
2017 8,350,360 499,399 6.0% (31,509) $26.69
2016 8,344,952 449,942 5.4% 37,864 $25.31
2015 8,382,551 525,405 6.3% 21,766 $24.33
2014 8,385,758 550,378 6.6% 45,101 $22.95
2013 8,431,372 641,093 7.6% 48,223 $22.25
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Year Inventory SF Vacant SF
Total
Vacant %
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Market
Asking Rent
PSF
2023 443,345,715 68,782,986 15.5% (5,370,601) $41.51
2022 441,692,597 61,752,067 14.0% (1,896,691) $41.67
2021 440,258,772 58,492,295 13.3% (3,374,330) $41.48
2020 437,385,781 52,165,974 11.9% (7,553,215) $41.29
2019 436,886,004 44,125,021 10.1% (1,502,269) $41.82
2018 435,819,881 41,566,794 9.5% 1,170,366 $39.80
2017 436,058,155 42,968,303 9.9% (86,616) $38.34
2016 434,373,139 41,198,967 9.5% 4,006,777 $36.86
2015 433,753,520 44,562,031 10.3% 2,299,042 $34.95
2014 433,260,281 46,388,813 10.7% 2,795,199 $32.41
2013 433,719,377 49,868,060 11.5% 1,040,034 $30.51
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 113
OFFICE MARKET HISTORY
2013 – 2023
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024)
Vacancy Rates Market Asking Rent PSF
0.0%
4.0%
8.0%
12.0%
16.0%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Santa Fe Springs 5-Mile Radius L.A. County
$18.00
$22.00
$26.00
$30.00
$34.00
$38.00
$42.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Santa Fe Springs 5-Mile Radius L.A. County
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 114
B.4 – INDUSTRIAL / FLEX MARKET
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 115
Major available industrial / flex
space in City
➢ 352,466 SF Class B warehouse
space available at 15614-15620
Shoemaker Ave..
➢ 240,395 SF Class B distribution
space at 11130-11290 Bloomfield
Ave. (Bloomfield Business Center)
There are seven new industrial
buildings currently under
construction in the City (totaling
~693,000 SF) and an additional
six industrial buildings proposed
(totaling ~442,100 SF)
The industrial/flex market has
fluctuated in the City over the
last 10 years. While there was a
loss of 20 buildings, there was a
net positive growth with 1.6
million SF added to the market,
indicating larger buildings
entering the market
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024); Note: Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Available space is the amount of space currently being marketed as available for lease or sale in a given time period. It includes any space that is vacant, occupied, or available at a future date. Negative net absorption refers to the fact that more tenants vacated retail space as opposed to renewing or expanding.
INDUSTRIAL / FLEX MARKET OVERVIEW
Top: 15614-15620 Shoemaker Ave.
Above: Bloomfield Business Center
Q2 2024
City of
Santa Fe
Springs
5-Mile
Radius
Los Angeles
County
Availability
Market
Asking Rent
$PSF/Yr.
$16.94 $16.46 $18.70
Vacancy Rate 5.4% 5.1% 5.3%
Vacant SF 3,033,155 5,849,390 51,539,583
Net
Absorption (845,113) (1,319,202) (3,027,829)
Inventory
Existing SF 56,494,154 114,310,627 963,752,327
50% of industrial / flex space in
the City is over 40 years old. We
estimate between a quarter or
half of this space (~7.0M-14.1M
SF) could be redeveloped /
reimagined in the near future
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 116
INDUSTRIAL / FLEX MARKET HISTORY
2013 – 2023
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Market
Asking
Rent
PSF
2023 56,404,128 1,808,457 3.2% (1,204,131) $17.38
2022 56,404,128 604,326 1.1% (2,984) $16.52
2021 56,439,490 636,704 1.1% 1,084,865 $14.73
2020 56,334,062 1,616,141 2.9% (701,299) $13.14
2019 56,228,220 809,000 1.4% 148,619 $12.19
2018 56,055,111 784,510 1.4% 1,383,603 $11.38
2017 54,685,363 790,024 1.4% 236,278 $10.55
2016 54,540,994 881,933 1.6% (121,421) $9.69
2015 54,437,432 575,387 1.1% 759,119 $8.93
2014 54,596,203 1,574,840 2.9% 573,705 $8.22
2013 54,767,487 2,401,843 4.4% 816,332 $7.66
5-MILE RADIUS
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Market
Asking
Rent
PSF
2023 114,255,761 3,803,517 3.3% (2,590,692) $16.91
2022 114,401,935 1,358,999 1.2% (134,798) $16.06
2021 114,415,135 1,237,401 1.1% 2,827,487 $14.32
2020 114,584,372 4,234,125 3.7% (1,079,708) $12.77
2019 114,308,090 2,878,135 2.5% (647,145) $11.85
2018 113,926,727 1,849,627 1.6% 877,015 $11.08
2017 112,571,979 1,363,553 1.2% 723,809 $10.29
2016 112,249,847 1,765,230 1.6% (229,229) $9.46
2015 112,143,343 1,347,934 1.2% 2,716,035 $8.71
2014 112,347,374 4,349,563 3.9% 1,572,521 $8.02
2013 111,955,354 5,612,078 5.0% 191,131 $7.47
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Market
Asking
Rent
PSF
2023 960,924,654 40,464,825 4.2% (15,239,934) $19.16
2022 958,240,336 22,554,033 2.4% (2,469,538) $18.29
2021 956,062,454 17,917,837 1.9% 15,042,938 $16.43
2020 955,376,839 32,272,677 3.4% (7,032,032) $14.76
2019 953,145,727 23,088,852 2.4% (1,695,752) $13.76
2018 953,431,485 21,725,132 2.3% 1,006,491 $12.90
2017 951,970,582 21,346,934 2.2% 3,903,390 $12.01
2016 947,424,154 20,861,288 2.2% 485,043 $11.09
2015 948,856,689 22,699,111 2.4% 7,798,085 $10.26
2014 948,281,266 30,004,036 3.2% 11,703,288 $9.48
2013 948,326,355 41,840,567 4.4% 5,283,684 $8.85
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 117
INDUSTRIAL / FLEX MARKET HISTORY
2013 – 2023
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024)
Vacancy Rates Market Asking Rent PSF
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Santa Fe Springs 5-Mile Radius L.A. County
$7.00
$10.00
$13.00
$16.00
$19.00
$22.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Santa Fe Springs 5-Mile Radius L.A. County
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 118
B.5 – MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 119
MULTIFAMILY MARKET OVERVIEW
Q2 2024
City of
Santa Fe
Springs
5-Mile
Radius
Los Angeles
County
Availability
Asking Rent
Unit/Mo. $2,310 $1,931 $2,255
Avg. SF 882 800 806
Asking Rent PSF $2.62 $2.41 $2.80
Vacancy Rate 2.5% 3.2% 4.8%
Total # of
Vacant Units 36 1,054 47,154
Net Absorption 3 45 3,281
Inventory
Total # of Units 1,437 32,505 974,439
Major multifamily buildings in City
➢ Costa Azul Senior Apts. (10829 Fulton Wells
Ave., Class C, senior, market/affordable garden
apartments; built 1988, renov. 2018; 280 units;
39 du/ac)
➢ Villa Santa Fe Apts. (11850 E. Florence Ave.;
Class C, market-rate garden apartments; built
1972; 199 units; 18 du/ac)
➢ Miro Apts. (12257 Heritage Springs Dr.; Class
A, market-rate, garden apartments; built 2015;
150 units; 26 du/ac)
➢ Alivia (11201 Carmenita Rd.; Class B, marketrate, garden apartments; built 2021; 128 units; 25 du/ac)
According to CoStar, there is one apartment
building currently under construction (Lakeland
Apts., 13231 Lakeland Rd., 139 units, 36 du/ac)
In the last 10 years, a total of 50 townhome
units (not included in table) and 278 apartment
units (Miro Apts. and Alivia) were built
Consider higher densities to meet RHNA
requirement of 952 total housing units
(including 452 affordable [low and very-low
income units])
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024); Notes: Data represents the average asking rents across all unit types (studio, 1BR, 2BR, etc.). Inventory includes buildings that contain 10 or more units but does not include dormitories, mobile homes, condos, or co-ops. Negative net absorption refers to the fact that more residents vacated as opposed to moving into residential units. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
Top: Costa Azul Senior Apts.
Middle: Villa Santa Fe Apts.
Above: Miro Apts.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 120
MULTIFAMILY MARKET HISTORY
2013 – 2023
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units
%
Vacant
Net
Absorp.
Units
Asking
Rent /
Unit
Asking
Rent
PSF
2023 1,437 44 3.1% (3) $2,268 $2.57
2022 1,437 41 2.9% 63 $2,215 $2.51
2021 1,437 104 7.2% 43 $2,073 $2.35
2020 1,309 19 1.5% 4 $1,930 $2.23
2019 1,309 22 1.7% (2) $1,901 $2.20
2018 1,309 20 1.5% (2) $1,815 $2.10
2017 1,309 17 1.3% 22 $1,749 $2.02
2016 1,309 39 3.0% 9 $1,681 $1.94
2015 1,309 47 3.6% 169 $1,587 $1.83
2014 1,159 67 5.8% (19) $1,509 $1.75
2013 1,159 48 4.1% (3) $1,449 $1.68
5-MILE RADIUS
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units
%
Vacant
Net
Absorp.
Units
Asking
Rent /
Unit
Asking
Rent
PSF
2023 32,425 998 3.1% 370 $1,904 $2.39
2022 32,008 951 3.0% (167) $1,857 $2.34
2021 31,931 707 2.2% 372 $1,768 $2.22
2020 31,760 908 2.9% 68 $1,683 $2.12
2019 31,760 975 3.1% 94 $1,640 $2.07
2018 31,684 993 3.1% 16 $1,585 $2.00
2017 31,671 996 3.1% 171 $1,523 $1.92
2016 31,539 1,036 3.3% 89 $1,461 $1.85
2015 31,342 928 3.0% 296 $1,388 $1.76
2014 31,192 1,073 3.4% 72 $1,323 $1.67
2013 31,142 1,096 3.5% (95) $1,275 $1.62
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units
%
Vacant
Net
Absorp.
Units
Asking
Rent /
Unit
Asking
Rent
PSF
2023 968,259 46,530 4.8% 8,873 $2,227 $2.76
2022 952,892 40,107 4.2% 6,889 $2,217 $2.75
2021 941,689 35,664 3.8% 30,219 $2,145 $2.66
2020 928,012 52,712 5.7% 3,874 $2,026 $2.52
2019 914,758 43,385 4.7% 7,007 $2,034 $2.53
2018 902,955 38,491 4.3% 8,252 $1,989 $2.48
2017 892,023 35,855 4.0% 8,951 $1,927 $2.41
2016 885,581 38,368 4.3% 7,940 $1,863 $2.33
2015 873,956 34,682 4.0% 10,408 $1,792 $2.25
2014 863,855 35,248 4.1% 8,473 $1,708 $2.15
2013 855,715 35,328 4.1% 6,388 $1,656 $2.08
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 121
MULTIFAMILY MARKET HISTORY
2013 – 2023
Source: CoStar (Accessed August 2024)
Vacancy Rates Asking Rent PSF
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Santa Fe Springs 5-Mile Radius L.A. County
$1.40
$1.60
$1.80
$2.00
$2.20
$2.40
$2.60
$2.80
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Santa Fe Springs 5-Mile Radius L.A. County
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 122
B.6 – HOSPITALITY (HOTEL) MARKET
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 123
HOSPITALITY (HOTEL) MARKET ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
We observed the area within a 5-mile radius from the
intersection of Telegraph Rd. and Norwalk Blvd. as the hotel market area for Santa Fe Springs. This area contains 67 operational hotels, totaling 2,359 rooms. 44% of the rooms fall within independently operated hotels, while 56% of rooms are in chain/franchise hotels
Of the 67 hotels, 23 are chain/franchise hotels. The other 44 hotels are independently operated and do not pertain to any major hotel flag or brand. 97% of the rooms in
independently operated hotels are within economy or
midscale class hotels
Among chain/franchise hotels, there is more variety in terms of hotel brands (hotel classes range from economy to upper upscale). 56% of rooms across chain/franchise hotels are within upper midscale class or higher hotels (1,328 rooms) Given most newer hotel product built or proposed in the region is of upper midscale to upper upscale class and belong to major hotel flags, Kosmont examined data for upper
midscale to upper upscale class chain/franchise hotels
Key variables observed include historic hotel average daily rates (“ADR”), occupancy, revenue per available room
(“RevPAR”), existing supply and demand of room nights, and regional construction activity
Using the data gathered, Kosmont projected the supportable number of new hotel rooms for the market and assess
general feasibility for prospective hotel development
Using a 2% historic growth rate in room demand, it was determined that there would be demand for ~254 new hotel rooms in hotels of upper midscale class or higher. Should the proposed hotel at the Norwalk Transit Village get built, it would satisfy roughly half of the demand for new hotel
rooms in the next 10 years
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 124
HOSPITALITY MARKET
To better understand the hospitality market, below is a summary of different levels of service type hotels:
➢ A limited-service hotel is a budget-friendly hotel offering low-cost accommodations, minimal amenities, and typically do not offer a full-service restaurant. These hotels typically fall under economy, midscale, or upper midscale classes according to STR
➢ A select-service hotel offers more amenities than a limited-service hotel, such as small meeting spaces and a casual restaurant, but fewer features than a fullservice hotel. Select-service hotels are a blend of full- and limited-service hotels and are the fastest growing type of hotels being developed. These hotels typically are upper midscale or upscale class hotels
➢ A full-service hotel offers more services than a select- or limited-service hotel.
Such services could include larger banquet/conference space, restaurants/bars, shuttle services, laundry service, room service, expanded fitness centers, and spas.
Full-service can refer to different hotel types including boutique hotels and resorts and generally fall under upscale, upper upscale, and luxury class hotels It is important to understand that economy hotels are patronized primarily through drive-by visitors, while large hotel chains have Rewards Programs with millions of loyal customers who search for those properties on the internet, thus increasing demand Examples of various hotels by class are highlighted in the table to the right. Note: STR hotel classes are typically grouped according to actual average room rates Class Hotels
Economy Motel 6, Studio 6, Red Roof Inn, Days Inn, Super 8 Midscale Best Western, Quality Inn, Extended Stay America Upper Midscale Hampton Inn & Suites, La Quinta Inn & Suites, Fairfield Inn & Suites, Holiday Inn
Upscale DoubleTree, Courtyard, Hyatt House, Homewood
Suites, Residence Inn, SpringHill Suites
Upper Upscale Sheraton, Hilton, Marriott, Le Meridien, Embassy Suites, Westin, Wyndham Grand
Luxury JW Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, W Hotel, Shangri-La,
Langham, Four Seasons, Fairmont
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 125
SANTA FE SPRINGS
HOTEL MARKET MAP
(5-MILE RADIUS)
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online; CoStar;
Smith Travel Research (Accessed August 2024)
5-Mile
Radius
Within a 5-mile radius from the intersection of Telegraph Rd. and Norwalk Blvd., there are a total of 67 existing
operational hotels, 23 of which are chain or franchise hotels (totaling 2,359 rooms). Of the 23 chain or franchise hotels, there are 13 economy (754 rooms), 3 midscale (277 rooms), 2 upper midscale (446 rooms), 4 upscale (662 rooms), and 1 upper upscale class hotel (220 rooms). Out of the 44 existing independently operated hotels 88% of the existing rooms are in economy-class hotels.
There is one hotel within the 5-mile radius that is proposed, a ~120-room upper midscale/upscale hotel has been
proposed at the neighboring Norwalk Transit Village in the City of Norwalk.
Given the fact that the hotels proposed within this 5-mile radius are of upper midscale class or higher, the data in this analysis is reflective of the existing and operating
chain/franchise hotels of upper midscale class or higher. Data represented in this section reflects CoStar’s weighted
submarket average. Each hotel in the set is given the
performance of the industry segment and weighted by its own rooms supply and does not include data reported
directly from hotels in the area.
Locations of existing and
operating chain and franchise
hotels of upper midscale class or
higher within a 5-mile radius of
the intersection of Telegraph Rd.
and Norwalk Blvd.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 126
HOTEL MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS – 5-MILE RADIUS
MARKET PERFORMANCE SUMMARY*
Sources: CoStar; Smith Travel Research (Accessed August 2024); Notes: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative percentage change. *Annual averages were calculated during the periods shown.
Year Occupancy Average Daily
Rate (ADR)
Annual Supply
of Room Nights
Annual
Demand for
Room Nights
Change in
Occupied
Room Nights
Revenue per
Available
Room
(RevPAR)
Change in
RevPAR
August ‘18 – July ’19 81.3% $145.50 432,160 351,457 - $118.60 - August ‘19 – July ’20 63.9% $132.41 419,074 271,180 (22.8%) $87.41 (26.3%) August ‘20 – July ’21 62.9% $121.19 432,525 271,905 0.3% $77.22 (11.7%) August ‘21 – July ’22 74.5% $156.68 432,647 322,435 18.6% $117.21 51.8% August ‘22 – July ’23 78.0% $165.22 480,107 374,576 16.2% $129.18 10.2% August ‘23 – July ’24 78.2% $166.11 484,720 378,942 1.2% $130.11 0.7% Total Growth (%) (3.8%) 14.2% 12.2% 7.8% - 9.7% -
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 127
HOTEL MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS – 5-MILE RADIUS
PERFORMANCE BY MONTH (PRE AND POST-COVID-19 PANDEMIC)
Performance by Month (June 2023 – May 2024)
Month Avg.
Occupancy ADR RevPAR
August 2023 80.3% $178.82 $143.61
September 2023 78.7% $166.45 $130.96
October 2023 84.4% $173.42 $146.29
November 2023 75.1% $162.14 $121.80
December 2023 71.8% $155.25 $111.51
January 2024 68.9% $154.62 $106.50
February 2024 77.5% $162.31 $125.84
March 2024 80.2% $168.32 $135.02
April 2024 78.0% $165.62 $129.16
May 2024 80.1% $164.49 $131.81
June 2024 81.3% $165.86 $134.81
July 2024 81.8% $176.07 $143.96
Average 78.2% $166.11 $130.11
A couple of years in this post-COVID era, hotel performance has gradually improved, but occupancy remains slightly short of pre-pandemic numbers. ADR and RevPAR have increased, however this is likely due to an increase in rates imposed by hotels to offset prior years’ losses. Similar trends to the pre-pandemic period with summer months (June to August) remaining the most successful period of the year with avg. occupancy over 81%, while winter months (November to January) are the least successful. This past year saw a bit of an anomaly with October featuring the highest occupancy and RevPAR (although this performance did not cause other fall months to outperform the summer months. August is the highest performing month in terms of ADR.
Performance by Month (June 2018 – May 2019)
Month Avg.
Occupancy ADR RevPAR
August 2018 82.0% $149.01 $122.12
September 2018 77.4% $140.08 $108.44
October 2018 80.0% $148.04 $118.40
November 2018 75.8% $138.99 $105.36
December 2018 73.8% $135.89 $100.35
January 2019 73.9% $142.14 $105.00
February 2019 82.4% $147.49 $121.61
March 2019 85.2% $148.41 $126.40
April 2019 84.0% $145.63 $122.33
May 2019 82.6% $143.06 $118.14
June 2019 88.8% $150.56 $133.71
July 2019 90.2% $156.69 $141.30
Average 81.3% $145.50 $118.60
Pre-COVID-19 pandemic, hotels in the market area performed strongly during the spring and summer months (avg. occupancy from June to August was 87.0%. Winter months featured lower levels of performance (November to January – avg. occupancy was 74.5%). July was the most successful month with the highest occupancy, ADR, and RevPAR.
Sources: CoStar; Smith Travel Research (Accessed August 2024); Note: *Annual averages were calculated during the periods shown.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 128
We observed data from the seven hotels of upper midscale class or higher within a 5-mile radius of the intersection of Telegraph Rd. and Norwalk Blvd.
There are 1,328 rooms across the seven hotels, leading to an existing supply of annual room nights of 484,720
New hotel development typically occurs when the market area achieves ~75-80% occupancy. However, given the market’s strong pre-and-post-COVID occupancy (81.3% pre-COVID; ~78.2% post-pandemic) and high concentration of hotels in the market, we set the ideal occupancy to be achieved by future hotels at 80%
Kosmont forecasted demand growth yielding support for 254 new rooms in the market over the next 10 years, using a 2% historic growth rate
There is one hotel that is proposed within the 5-mile radius that would add ~120 new rooms to the market. If this hotel gets built, it would satisfy part of the market demand for new hotels of upper midscale class or higher. It is important to note, this hotel has only been proposed. Market conditions can vary and so can the programming for this prospective hotel site
COMPETITIVE HOTEL MARKET ANALYSIS
PROJECTION OF SUPPORTABLE NEW ROOMS
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 129
COMPETITIVE HOTEL MARKET DEMAND – 5-MILE RADIUS
PROJECTION OF SUPPORTABLE NEW ROOMS
Year Projected
Demand
Existing Supply
of Room
Nights
Imputed
Occupancy
Demand for
Room Nights
Supportable #
of Rooms
Projected
Supply of
Rooms
Cumulative
Difference
2024* 3,378,942 484,720 78.2% 473,678 0 0 0
2029 418,383 484,720 86.3% 522,978 105 0 105
2034 461,928 484,720 95.3% 577,410 254 0 254
Sources: CoStar, Smith Travel Research, Kosmont Companies (Accessed August 2024); Notes: Target occupancy of 80%; Based on 2% annual increase in room demand; *2024 represents the period between June 2023 to May 2024.. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. The projected supply of rooms accounts for hotels that are in final planning, proposed, or under construction. The cumulative difference reflects the number of supportable rooms after accounting for said hotels.
Projection of Supportable New Rooms
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 130
C. STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 131
Strong, Diverse Community & Active Local Government
➢ City described as “small but mighty”
➢ City Council and municipal leadership are eager to boost local economy and support community development Industrial Base & Infrastructure Concerns
➢ City’s industrial workforce brings in a large daytime workforce (est. at 150-200K people) highlight City’s economic potential ➢ However, heavy trucking damages roads, with no current weight-limit regulations or fees to fund needed repairs Underutilized Land & Redevelopment Potential
➢ Vacant or abandoned properties present redevelopment opportunities ➢ Strategic acquisitions could catalyze major projects, including hotels and mixed-use spaces Gaps in Retail, Dining, & Grocery Options
➢ Residents often leave the City to shop or seek entertainment, underscoring unmet local demand for more diverse offerings
SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 132
High-Potential Development Opportunities
➢ Stakeholders see significant value in pursuing a hotel project, given the interest from major chains and potential tax revenue ➢ Multiple vacant or underutilized sites could be redeveloped for sports facilities, especially ahead of the upcoming Olympics Business-Friendliness & Public-Private Collaboration
➢ Many see the City’s permitting process as too slow or cumbersome, hindering new investments ➢ Streamlining and offering incentives could spur projects including hotels, restaurants, or retail SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH (CONT’D)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 133
SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS RECEIVED
Strengths
▪ Diverse and engaged community
▪ City has a strong industrial base and large daytime workforce ▪ Residents and government open to a variety of community services and amenities ▪ Local government demonstrates a readiness to invest in new land, clean up vacant sites, and attract major business Challenges
▪ Lack of a centrally located grocery store
▪ Limited dining and entertaining options force residents to leave the City for broader dining, nightlife, and entertainment experiences ▪ Heavy trucking has damaged roads; no-weight limit regulations currently exist to mitigate the need for street repairs ▪ Public safety concerns with businesses reporting robberies Opportunities
▪ Several vacant / idle properties (some in need of cleanup) ready for development ▪ Potential for hotel development based on hotel chain interest ▪ Desire for quality sit-down restaurants, local retail, nightlife, and family-friendly venues ▪ Existing warehouse facilities could be repurposed for large-scale indoor sports or multi-use entertainment complexes ▪ Upcoming 2028 Summer Olympics presents a chance to position the City as a practice / training location ▪ Strengthening “Business Expansion, Attraction, and Retention” (BEAR) programs and focusing on relationship-building can ensure that existing businesses stay, expand, and serve as an attraction for new enterprises ITEM # 26
CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Rene Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: Cuong Nguyen, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH LISA WISE CONSULTING DATE: August 19, 2025
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1) Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting (Lisa Wise) to expand the scope of work to include reviewing and making recommendations regarding the City’s industrial design objective standards in an amount that shall not exceed $42,275; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to take any additional, related action(s) that may be desirable.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Lisa Wise has agreed to provide all necessary services associated with the Industrial Objective Design Standards for $42,275. If approved, the agreement will be amended, and the new not-to-exceed amount will be $641,038.
Sufficient funds for this expenditure are budgeted in account code: 10103199; Object No. 542050.
BACKGROUND
On March 18, 2025, the City Council authorized the approval of an agreement with Lisa Wise to prepare a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. Lisa Wise Consulting was selected through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process that evaluated several proposals from qualified consultants. Work on this project commenced shortly after the agreement was approved and is currently in the assessment phase.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – AUGUST 19, 2025
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH LISA WISE CONSULTING