CC RESOLUTION 5518RESOLUTION NO. 5518
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADDENDUM (EA-1360) TO THE EL
SEGUNDO SOUTH CAMPUS SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT APPROVED UNDER EA-905 FOR A LAND USE
CHANGE OF LOT 14 WITHIN PHASE II OF THE EL SEGUNDO SOUTH
CAMPUS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1; Recitals. The City Council hereby finds and declares that:
A. On December 15, 2015, the El Segundo City Council adopted Resolution
No. 4958 certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (EA-905) for the El
Segundo South Campus Specific Plan (ESSCSP) (State Clearinghouse No.
2012101081).
B. In approving Resolution No. 4958, the Council found that:
The City completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
project and a noticed Public Scoping meeting was conducted on November
5, 2012 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15083. A notice of Preparation of the
DEIR was circulated for public review from October 29, 2012, to November
28, 2012, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15802. A Notice of Completion for
the DEIR was filed with the State Office of Planning and Research on July
14, 2014, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15085. The public comment and
review period for the DEIR was open between July 14, 2014, and August 27,
2014, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines §15087.
The Final EIR was reviewed by the City Council and the information
contained in the Final EIR was considered by the City Council before
approving the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15090.
iii. The Final EIR was prepared under the City's direction and reflects its
independent judgement and analysis of the environmental impacts and
comments received on the Draft EIR.
iv. The Draft EIR generally identified, for each potentially significant impact of
the project, one or more corresponding mitigation measures to reduce
impacts to a level of insignificance, with the exception of air quality and noise
impacts. The City Council found that nearly all of the potentially significant
impacts identified in the Draft EIR were mitigated by corresponding
mitigation measure to the extent set forth in the Draft EIR.
V. Written findings were considered for each of the significant environmental
effects identified in the DEIR before certifying the Final EIR, which included
an explanation of how mitigation measures lessened the significant
RESOLUTION NO. 5518
PAGE 1 of 11
environmental effects to a less than significant level for those effects that
were identified as mitigatable. For the four environmental effects that were
identified in the DEIR as not mitigatable to a less than significant level (Land
Use and Planning, Transportation and Traffic, Air Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions), the findings provide an explanation of how proposed
mitigation measures have substantially lessened each of the environmental
effects.
vi. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15093, a Statement of Overriding
Consideration adopted by the City Council.
C. On February 1, 2024, Lionel Uhry on behalf of CDC Mar East Campus 2,
LLC ("Applicant") filed an application for Environmental Assessment No. EA-
1360 and Specific Plan Amendment No. SPA 24-01 to amend the land use
designation for Lot 14 within the ESSCSP ("Project").
D. The proposed project amends the ESSCSP land use designation for Lot 14
from Commercial/Office Mixed Use (CMU) to Office/Industrial Mixes Use (0/1
MU). The proposed land use change would expand the permitted uses for
Lot 14 to include data centers, general storage and warehousing, high and
medium bay labs, light industrial uses, and parking structures and surface
parking lots.
E, The site is currently not developed and is within Phase 2 of the Raytheon
development site.
F. The application was reviewed by the City's Community Development
Department for, in part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity
with the ESSCSP, and El Segundo Municipal Code ("ESMC").
G. Fehr and Peers was retained by the applicant to evaluate the potential traffic
impacts associated with the proposed modifications to the ESSCSP.
H. City staff has peer reviewed the memorandum prepared by Fehr and Peers
and concurs with its findings and conclusions.
On September 12, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the
proposed amendment to the ESSCSP.
J. On September 12, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2956 recommending that the City Council approve this addendum.
K. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information, findings and
conclusions contained in the Addendum to the EIR, including, without
limitation, the EIR and supporting documents, together with all comments
provided at the public hearing and all other information in the administrative
record. This Resolution, and its findings, are made based upon the totality of
RESOLUTION NO. 5518
PAGE 2 of 11
the evidence in the administrative record before the City Council at its
October 15, 2024, public hearing.
SECTION 2: Approval and Findings in Support. The City Council approved the
Addendum to the FEIR based upon the following:
A. The Addendum to FEIR was presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission during a public hearing at its meeting held on September 12,
2024.
B, On September 12, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2956 recommending that the City Council approve this addendum.
C. The Addendum to FEIR was presented to and considered by the City Council
during a public hearing at its meeting held on October 15, 2024
D. The Addendum was prepared for the Project in compliance with the
requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and is adequate and
appropriate for the City's use as the lead agency.
E. Based upon the totality of the evidence in the record and as demonstrated
by the analysis set forth in the Addendum, none of the conditions described
in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration
have occurred. Specifically:
The proposed modifications to the ESSCSP and the related
entitlements do not constitute substantial changes in the project
that will require major revisions to the FEIR due to the involvement
of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects; and
II. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which
will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; and
III. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was
not known and could have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified,
that shows any of the following: (A) the modifications will have one
or more significant effects not discussed in the certified EIR; (B)
significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shows in the certified EIR; (C) mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant
RESOLUTION NO. 5518
PAGE 3 of 11
effects of the project; but the project proponent declines to adopt
the mitigation measures or alternative; or (D) mitigation measures
or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the certified EIR would substantially reduce one or
more significant effect on the environment, but the project
proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
F. The evaluation of the proposed modifications to the ESSCSP project,
certified EIR, and Addendum reflects the City Council's independent
judgement and analysis based on the Commission's review of the entire
administrative record.
G. The City Council finds and determines that the ESSCSP EIR, together with
the Addendum, satisfy of all CEQA requirements and are adequate to serve
as the required environmental documentation for the project.
H. All Conditions and Mitigation Measures identified in the original EIR (EA-
905), on file with the State of California (SCH # 2012101081), remain in full
force and effect.
Per State CEQA Guidelines §15164(c), the Addendum is not required to be
circulated for public review but can be attached to the adopted ESSCSP EIR.
SECTION 3: Reliance and Record. Each and every one of the findings and determination
in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and
written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and
determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council
in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record
as a whole.
SECTION 4: Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid
by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not
affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions of applications and, to this end, the
provisions of this Resolution are severable.
SECTION 5: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic
signatures in accordance with Government Code § 16.5. Such electronic signatures will
be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.
SECTION 6: Signature Authority. The Mayor or presiding officer is hereby authorized to
affix his signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City
of El Segundo, and the City Clerk or her duly appointed deputy is directed to attest thereto.
SECTION 7: Effective Date. This Resolution will take effect immediately.
SECTION 8: City Clerk Direction. The City Clerk will certify to the passage and adoption
of this Resolution, enter it in the City's book of original Resolutions, and make a record of
this action in the meeting's minutes.
RESOLUTION NO. 5518
PAGE 4 of 11
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th DAY OF OCTOBER 2024.
Drew es, Mayor
ATTEST:
()ud4l-x k�-W�
Tracy Weav4W, City Clerk
Mark C. Hensley, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 5518
PAGE 5 of 11
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. 5518 was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and
signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said City, all at a
regular meeting of said Council held on the 15t" day of October 2024, and the same was
so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Boyles, Mayor Pro Tern Pimentel, and Council Member Pirsztuk
NOES: Council Member Giroux and Council Member Baldino
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF SAID CITY this day of October,
2024.
(�p 0
q��l P—Ab�)
Tr y Weaver, City Clerk
of the City of El Segundo,
California
RESOLUTION NO. 5518
PAGE 6 of 11
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 5518
EXHIBIT A
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO EL SEGUNDO SOUTH CAMPUS SPECIFIC PLAN (ESSCSP)
ENVIRONEMTNAL IMPACT REPORT
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA-905)
October 15, 2024
On December 15, 2015, the El Segundo City Council adopted Resolution No. 4958
certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (EA-905) for the El Segundo South
Campus Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2012101081), on property located at
2000 East El Segundo Boulevard. The DEIR was circulated for public comment from
October 29, 2012 through November 28, 2012. The Draft EIR generally identified, for each
potentially significant impact of the project, one or more corresponding mitigation
measures to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance, with the exception of air quality
and noise impacts. The City Council found that nearly all of the potentially significant
impacts identified in the Draft ERI were mitigated by corresponding mitigation measure to
the extent set forth in the Draft EIR. Written findings were considered for each of the
significant environmental effects identified in the DEIR before certifying the Final EIR,
which included a rationale of how mitigation measures lessened the significant
environmental effects to a less than significant level for those effects that were identified
as mitigatable. The City Council made certain environmental findings in association with
the DEIR and found no evidence that the project would have the potential for an adverse
effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends, because the
project is infill development in a built -out urban environment.
Standard of Review
When only some changes or additions to a previously certified EIR are necessary and
none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines §15162 are met, the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") allows the lead agency to prepare an addendum to a
previously certified EIR (State CEQA Guidelines §15164(a)).
State CEQA Guidelines §15164 provide the following concerning an Addendum to an EIR:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously
certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions
described in §15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described
in §15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration
have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or
attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
RESOLUTION NO. 5518
PAGE 7 of 11
(d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or
adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to
§15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings
on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by
substantial evidence.
State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a) specifies that when an EIR has been certified or a
negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that
project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light
of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous
EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any
of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Additionally, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15162(b), "[i]f changes to a project or
its circumstances occur, or new information becomes available after adoption of [an EIR
or] a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required
RESOLUTION NO. 5518
PAGE 8 of 11
under [State CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)]. Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine
whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further
documentation.
The Addendum need not be circulated for public review (CEQA Guidelines §15164[c]);
however, an addendum is to be considered by the decision -making body prior to making
a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines §15164[d]).
This Addendum to the previously -adopted FEIR demonstrates that the environmental
analysis, impacts, and mitigation requirements identified during the preparation of the EIR
for the original project remain substantively unchanged despite the proposed changes to
the approved project, and supports the finding that none of the conditions described in
State CEQA Guidelines §15162 are present.
Pro°ect Revisions
The City Council is currently considering a revision to the El Segundo South Campus
Specific Plan to change the existing land use designation for Lot 14 of the El Segundo
South Campus Specific Plan (ESSCSP) from Commercial/Office Mixed Use (CMU) to
Office/Industrial Mixed Use (0/1 MU), which will result in additional permitted uses on Lot
14, including general storage and warehousing, high and medium bay labs, data centers,
parking structures and surface parking lots, and light industrial uses. The proposed
amendment and addendum were considered by the Planning Commission at the
September 12, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission adopted
resolutions recommending City Council approve the proposed amendment and
addendum.
Impact Comparison
The approved FEIR (adopted December 15, 2015) concluded that the project included a
rationale of how mitigation measures lessened the significant environmental effects to a
less than significant level for those effects that were identified as mitigatable. Several
areas of concern were noted as potentially significant if not mitigated. These areas
include: Hydrology/Water Quality, Air Quality, Aesthetics, and Mandatory Findings of
Significance. However, the city determined that incorporation of the mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study and the certified EIR, and contained in the associated
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (adopted December 15, 2015) would reduce
the impacts for each of these areas to "Less Than Significant."
The ESSCSP allows for transfers between land use types and planning area subject to
certain requirements; specifically, the total number of traffic trips cannot exceed the
established trip ceiling of 26,585 daily trips. The memorandum dated July 1, 2024,
prepared by Fehr and Peers (attached hereto) assessed the proposed land use
designation change which is intended to allow for three additional permitted land uses at
Lot 14.The analysis compared the trip generation rates of the most intense permitted uses
and the three uses currently not permitted and concluded that there is no evidence that
the proposed changes to the ESSCSP are substantial and will not result in significant
impacts because the uses currently not permitted on Lot 14 have lower trip generation
rates than the permitted uses. A comparison of trip generation rates shows that the
proposed land use types to be permitted for Lot 14 generate lower daily trips, AM peak
RESOLUTION NO. 5518
PAGE 9 of 11
hour trips, and PM peak hour trips when compared to the most intense currently permitted
office and retail land use types under the CMU district designation. High/Medium Bay Labs
generate the highest trip rates of the proposed land use types, and the corresponding daily
trip rate is approximately 25% lower than General Office use and 80% lower than Retail
use. High/Medium Bay Labs AM peak hour rate is roughly 20% lower than General Office
and 70% lower than retail for the PM peak hour trip generation rate. This trip generation
comparison demonstrates that the new land uses proposed to be permitted are less trip
intensive than what was analyzed for Retail and Office land uses to establish the site's trip
ceiling.
The amendment does not change the circulation and improvements required by the
Specific Plan; thus there are no new or increased significant impacts. There would be no
new or increased significant impacts. The potential lowering of traffic generated by the
change in use allowed on Parcel 14 would lead to a corresponding reduction in air
emissions under the proposed changes. Additionally, as trips would decrease if the
proposed changes were to be developed, mobile source emissions should decrease.
Therefore, permitting them on the site would be consistent with and within the maximum
allowable development analyzed in the FEIR for ESSCSP Lot 14 and there would not be
any new or increased significant impacts.
The FAR will remain the same, no new uses are being introduced into the Specific Plan
area, and there will be no change to the trip cap. All city, state, and federal regulatory
measures and all mitigation measures adopted and set forth in the mitigation monitoring
and reporting program continue to apply in all impact areas. The development standards
of the Specific Plan remain the same and any development will be required to undergo
site plan review approval ensuring compliance with the development standards of the
Specific Plan.
Although the addendum will change the land use district from CMU to 0/1 MU the additional
uses allowed are no more intense than what was already permitted and any new uses will
not change the analysis and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation.
City Staff peer reviewed the memorandum dated July 1, 2024, prepared by Fehr and
Peers; and concurs with its methodology, analysis, and findings of the memorandum; and
approves the memorandum.
Conclusion
The Proposed modifications do not constitute a substantial change in the approved El
Segundo South Campus Specific plan FEIR and there are no substantial changes to the
approved project; thus, the modifications will not introduce new significant environmental
effects or substantially increase the severity of the environmental impacts that were
previously identified and analyzed in the certified FEIR. Furthermore, the trip generation
comparison demonstrates that the new land uses proposed to be permitted are less trip
intensive than what was analyzed for Retail and Office land uses to establish the site's trip
ceiling in the FEIR. The proposed land use change and additional permitted uses for Lot
14 can be permitted without exceeding the ESSCSP development trip ceiling cap. There
are no new mitigation measures or alternatives which are now feasible that were not
RESOLUTION NO. 5518
PAGE 10 of 11
known at the time the EIR was certified.
The ultimate use of the development allowed on Parcel 14 does not change the analysis
as to potential hazards. The change only provides additional opportunities for development
on Parcel 14 as the commercial/retail landscape continues to change. Therefore, the
ESSCSP remains consistent with both the RTP/SCS and the General Plan Land Use
Element for this area which permits a mix of office, commercial, retail, research and
development, industrial and related recreational uses.
As such, the City Council has independently reviewed this item and determined that the
amendments proposed under ESSCSP Revision C are not considered to be significant;
there is no substantial evidence that the amendments would introduce any new significant
environmental effects; and there is no evidence that a substantial increase in the severity
of the effects as previously identified in Environmental Assessment No. 905 and the FEIR
would occur as a result of the amendments proposed under ESSCSP Revision C.
As a result based upon the information contained herein and specified in the memorandum
dated July 1, 2024, prepared by Fehr and Peers (Attached hereto), no further
environmental review is necessary other than the adoption of this Addendum to the original
Environmental Assessment and Certified EIR.
RESOLUTION NO. 5518
PAGE 11 of 11
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 5518
EXHIBIT B
FEHR AND PEERS MEMORANDUM
DATED JULY 1, 2024
FEHR,t PEERS
W�?A .07"'TIT-vo
Date: July 1, 2024
To: Jake Douglas, Manager of Acquisitions and Development, Mar Ventures, Inc.
From: Mo Mills, Miguel Nunez, and Michael Kennedy, AICP
Subject: Trip Generation Assessment — Minor Modification to Ell Segundo South Campus
Specific Plan on Lot 14
LB24-0727
This memorandum summarizes a trip generation analysis conducted to evaluate a modification to
the El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan (ESSC-SP). The modification is intended to allow for
three additional land uses at Specific Plan Lot 14, that are not allowed under the current
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) zoning designation and are allowed in the Office/Industrial Mixed
use (O/IMU). Based on information in the Specific Plan and from Mar Ventures, Fehr & Peers has
conducted an analysis comparing the trip generation rates of the most intense permitted uses
and the three uses currently not permitted. The uses currently not permitted have lower trip
generation rates than the permitted use, so permitting them on the site would be consistent with
and within the maximum allowable development analyzed in the Specific Plan for Parcel 14.
The October 2015 update to the ESSC-SP provided Raytheon the flexibility to either expand its
existing operations or develop a mixed -use project that would be compatible with the existing
Raytheon Campus facilities and operations. The roughly 142.28-acre specific plan area allows a
maximum development intensity of 3,718,889 net square feet. Figure 1 depicts the 2015 ESSC-SP
land -use plan, which identified the various parcels and designated land -use types.
100 Oceangate I Suite 1425 1 Long Beach, CA 90802 1 (562) 294-5848 1 www,felirandpeers.com
Jake Douglas, Mar Ventures
July 1, -M24
Page 2 of 11
Figure 1: ESSC-SP Land Use Plan (Existing)
. .. . . ......... �,
Source: Exhibit 5, El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan, Specific Plan No. 7 7 -0 7, City of El
Segundo, October 2075
I
0 A
Jake Douglas, Mar Ventures
July 1, 2024
Page 3 of 11
The Specific Plan's Development Regulation allow for transfers between land use types and
planning areas, subject to the following requirements:
• The overall FAR of the Campus cannot exceed 0.60 based on the gross acreage of
the site, resulting in a maximum development intensity of 3,718,889 net square
feet of building area (4,231, 547 square feet gross building area);
• Land uses conform to allowable uses as outlined in the Permitted Use Table in the
Development Standards section of this Specific Plan; and
• The total number of traffic trips cannot exceed the trip ceiling established for the
Project. As shown in Table 1, the trip ceiling for trip generation of new
development within the Project area is:
0 631 PM peak hour inbound trips and 2,489 PM peak hour outbound trips,
for a total of 3,120 PM peak hour trips as outlined in the trip budget
mechanism for the Project.
0 2,634 AM peak hour inbound trips and 408 outbound AM peak hourtrips,
for a total of 3,042 AM peak hour trips as outlined in the trip budget
mechanism for the Project.
0 26,585 daily trips as outlined in the trip budget mechanism for the
Project.
Table 1: ESSC-SP Development Trip Ceiling
Source: Table 111-3 - Project Trip Ceiling for trips associated with new development within the
ESSCSP area. El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan, Specific Plan No. 11-07, City of El Segundo,
October 2015
Jake Douglas, Mar Ventures
July 1, 2024
Page 4 of 11
Appendix A summarizes land use types currently zoned on Lot 14. The table identifies if the use is
a permitted use (P), permitted accessory use (A), permitted by an administrative use permit (AUP),
or a conditional use permit (C). The table also identifies proposed zoning changes to Lot 14 to
allow for additional land use types. The subject of this analysis is a potential modification to the
Specific Plan to allow land uses consistent with the O/IMU zoning on Lot 14 not currently
permitted under CMU zoning, as shown in Figure 2. Fehr & Peers has documented and compared
daily, morning (AM) peak hour, and afternoon (PM) peak hour trip generation rates for the
following land uses not permitted in the CMU zone and compared them to permitted office and
retail rates in the O/IMU zone.
• Warehousing
• Self -storage
• High and medium Bay Labs
• Light industrial
ESSC-SP was approved for 3,718,889 net square feet of building area (4,231, 547 square feet gross
building area) and a total daily trip ceiling of 26,585. A detailed breakdown of inbound and
outbound peak hour trip ceilings is shown in Table 1 above. Table 2 below is the trip generation
summary for Phase 2 — Full Buildout of the ESSC-SP Area.
The trip generation analysis shown in Table 2 was obtained from the ESSC-SP Environmental
Impact Report. To be consistent with the trip generation analysis in 2015 El Segundo South
Campus Specific Plan, rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9th
Edition. Since Lot 14 was determined to be located within a convenient walking distance to the
Green Line (now known as the C Line) light rail transit (LRT), a transit trip credit of 5% was applied
to office use proposed for this parcel. A 1% internal capture was also applied to the office use to
account for trips occurring between land uses proposed or already operating within the site.
Table 3 provides a description of land use types permitted under the ESSC-SP. Retail and General
Office (shown in bold), are permitted under the current CMU zoning for Lot 14. General Office
space is a broad category description, and generally includes any professional services that
require employees to commute to and from the site. General Office does not include any "hands
on" space for research and development, fabrication, or medium -to -large scale storage.
Conversely, Warehousing/Mini-Warehousing, Bay Labs, and Light Industrial space allocate space
for these activities, along with the inclusion of office areas. Retail land use is mixed — it includes
the sale of merchandise, as well as experience -based retail like restaurants and entertainment.
Jake Douglas, Mar Ventures
July 1, 2024
Page 5 of '11
Figure 2: ESSC-SP Land Use Plan (Proposed)
Jake Douglas, Mar Ventures
July 1, 2024
Page 6 of 11
Table 2: Total Forecasted Trip Generation El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan — Phase 2 (Full
Buildout)
Forecast Trip Generation of Proposed Project Buildout
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Daily
Land Use
Trips
In Out Total
In Out Total
136.438 tsf General Office
187
26
213
34
169
203
1,505
ITE internal Trip Capture (1% PM, 1% ADT)
0
0
0
0
-2
-2
-15
ITE Transit Service & Light Rail Trip Adjustment (5%)'
-9
-1
-10
-2
-8
-10
-75
Subtotal General Office
178
25
203
32
159
191
1,415
1,615.483 tsf General Office
2,213
307
2,520
404
2,003
2,407
17,819
ITE Internal Trip Capture (1% PM 1% ADT)
0
0
0
-4
-20
-24
-178
Subtotal General Office
2,213
307
2,520
400
1,983
2,383
17,641
73.577 tsf Warehouse
18
4
22
6
18
24
262
ITE Internal Trip Capture (1 % )-M, 1% ADT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
-3
Subtotal Warehouse
18
4
22
6
18
24
259
168 tsf Light Industrial
138
18
154
20
143
163
1,171
ITE Internal Trip Capture (1% PM, 1% ADT)
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-12
Subtotal Light Industrial
136
18
154
20
142
162
1,159
148.96 tsf Retail'
89
54
143
265
287
552
6,361
ITE Internal Trip Capture (1%PM, 1%ADT)
0
0
0
-3
-3
-6
-64
ITEPass-by Trip Reduction (34% PM)
0
0
0
-89
-97
-186
-186
Subtotal Retail
89
54
143
173
187
360
6,111
Proposed Project Trip Generation
2,634
408
3,042
631
2,489
1 3,120
26,585
Note: tsf = thousand square feet; 1 = includes 92.96 tsf of retail land use associated with Phase 1 project;
= trip generation adjustment discount associated with proximity to transit service for similar sites based on
recommendations published by LOS Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA) and ITE.
Source: Table 1Z Transportation Impact Study, El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report, 2075
Jake Douglas, Mar Ventures
July 1, 2024
Page 7 of 11
Table• Use Category• •
���I11)J,IJIII � ,,,1. III I ,.,��llr�a� ,��1>>,11 l�1i11111J �� illllJJl�l,,,1�,11
JIII,)�III,I �����l�llllNlk(f1�Y,�7iiQl!rfiNNi4�i//INI AlrNllff,J.�i�l I.>�I. ����P�IIII�!%Il������I��1�11J11;'/G��uilflllll//11,�(+t;!:��//%H/�l/!/(I,A>�N�II,NN%�!..1
Warehouses are primarily devoted to the
Warehouse 150 storage of materials, but they may also
include office and maintenance areas.
Mini warehouses are buildings in which a
Mini -Warehouse 151 number of storage units are rented for
the storage of goods. Typically referred to
as "self -storage" facilities.
Bay labs are facilities devoted almost
High/Medium Bay Labs 760 exclusively to research and development
activities. These facilities may contain
offices and light fabrication areas.
Typically, a single -tenant site devoted to
Light Industrial 110 light industrial activities such as printing,
material testing, assembly, fabrication,
packaging, and processing materials.
Retail composition is related to its market
area in terms of size, location, and type of
Retail 820 store. Often, retail includes non -
merchandising facilities, such as movie
theaters, gyms, or restaurants.
General offices employ persons in the
management, legal, accounting,
General Office 710 engineering, consulting, real estate,
insurance, financial, or other professional
services.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9th Edition.
Jake Douglas, Mar Ventures
July 1, 2024
Page 8 of 11
Trip Generation Comparison
M
Table 4 compares trip generation rates for the current and proposed land uses for Lot 14. For
consistency with the ESSC-SP, trip generation rates were taken from the 9th Edition of ITE's Trip
Generation Manual. While the 9th Edition is no longer the current edition, it is being applied
because the purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate consistency with the EIR analysis, which is
based on the 9th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual. Of the permitted uses, Retail and General
Office land use categories (bottom two rows in Table 3) have the highest daily trip rates out of all
categories and are the basis for the trip generation comparison. Retail exhibits the highest daily
trip generation rates with 42.70 daily trips per thousand square feet of floor area and also
generates the highest PM peak hour trips at 3.71 trips per thousand square feet, as shown in bold
below. General Office exhibits the highest AM peak hour trip generation rate with 1.56 trips per
thousand square feet of floor area (also bold).
Of uses not yet permitted, High/Medium Bay Labs generate the highest daily trip rate of the
proposed land use categories to be permitted for Lot 14 across all three time periods, with 8.11
daily trips per thousand square feet, 1.22 AM peak hour trips per thousand square feet, and 1.07
PM peak hour trips per thousand square feet, as underlined in Table 4.
A comparison of trip generation rates shows that the proposed land use types to be permitted for
Lot 14 generate lower daily trips, AM peak hour trips, and PM peak hour trips when compared to
the most intense currently permitted office and retail land use types under the CMU zoning
designation. High/Medium Bay Labs generate the highest trip rates of the proposed land use
types, and the corresponding daily trip rate is approximately 25% lower than General Office use
and 80% lower than Retail use. High/Medium Bay Labs AM peak hour rate is roughly 20% lower
than General Office and 70% lower than retail for the PM peak hour trip generation rate. This trip
generation comparison demonstrates that the new land uses proposed to be permitted are less
trip intensive than what was analyzed for Retail and Office land uses to establish the site's trip
ceiling.
Jake Douglas, Mar Ventures
July 1, 2024
Page 9 of 11
Table 4: Comparison of Trip Generation Rates for Lot 14
Permitted Uses
Retail
General Office
Uses to be
Permitted
Mini -Warehouse
Lower than Retail?
Lower than General
Office?
High/Medium Bay
Labs [d]
Lower than Retail?
Lower than General
Office?
Light Industrial
Lower than Retail?
Lower than General
Office?
Notes
820 per ksf 42.70 0.96 62% 38% 3.71 48% 52%
710 per ksf 11.03 1.S6 88% 12% 1.49 17% 83%
151 per ksf 2.50 0.14 55% 45% 0.26 50% 50%
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
760 per ksf 8.11 1.22 83% 17% 1.07 15% 85%
Yes No Yes
Yes Yes
110 per ksf 6.97 0.92 88%
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
12% 0.97 12% 88%
Yes
Yes
a. Source: Consistent with the 2015 El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan, rates from Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9th Edition were used.
b. Internal capture and transit service and light rail trip adjustment consistent with the 2015 El
Segundo South Campus Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.
c. Trip generation adjustment discount associated with proximity to transit service for similar sites
based on recommendations published by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority and ITE.
d. This category uses ITE's "Research and Development Center" land use code and rates.
Conclusion & Next Steps
Table 4 compares trip generation rates for the current and proposed land uses for Lot 14. As
described, the proposed land use types could be permitted on Lot 14 without exceeding the
Jake Douglas, Mar Ventures
July 1, 2024
Page 10 of 11
ESSC-SP development trip ceiling. Permitted and Retail and General Office land use categories
have the highest daily trip rates out of all categories and the proposed land uses, permitted on
neighboring sites, generate lower rates for each analyzed time period.
Jake Douglas, Mar Ventures
July 1, 2024
Page 11 of 11
Appendix A: Current and Proposed Allowable Uses, ESSC-SP Lot 14
EL SEGUNDO SOUTH CAMPUS SPECIFIC PLAN
Allowable Uses for CMU 6 Oil MU Zones
Lot 14
Current2oriing
Cafes
P
P
Data Centers
C
P
Financial institutions
P
P
""
General Offices, including medical and dental
P
P
--
Recreation Facilities (public and private)
P
P
P
''.Research and Developmerd, including scientific research and experimental development
P
P
-,
laboratories
Restaurants, full service
P
P
Lot 14
Proposed Chingos
on MU
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
A
AUP
AUP
C
C
C
C
AIAUP
PIA
AAUP
C