Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Segundo planning commission continues debate over Tesla EV service-and-delivery facility, moves item to July 9
Summary
Planning commissioners heard competing arguments over whether a Tesla/Griffin Capital electric-vehicle service-and-customer facility fits the city's corporate office (CO) zoning. Staff said the director could not make required findings; the applicant said the use is narrowly tailored to EV operations. The commission continued the item to July 9 to allow a full panel vote.
The El Segundo Planning Commission spent more than three hours on June 25 debating a request from Tesla and Griffin Capital to classify a proposed electric-vehicle maintenance and customer service facility as a permitted use in the city's corporate office (CO) zone, ultimately continuing the matter to its July 9 meeting.
Staff recommended upholding the director's administrative determination (AD2601) that the proposed use is not consistent with the CO zone's purpose and is more akin to vehicle sales or automobile services, which are not permitted in that zone. "The director has determined that the proposed activities are characteristics of an automobile service use," staff said, arguing the use's vehicle storage, on-site servicing and sales-related activities are inconsistent with the CO zone's people- and pedestrian-oriented intent.
The applicant, represented by Marty Acriblam, pushed back, saying the operation would be appointment-only, limited to electric vehicles and mostly indoor service and charging. "This is not a dealership; there's not going to be any loud, unsightly signage ... It's an appointment-based only site," Acriblam told the commission, describing the proposal as a narrow, EV-specific operation that would reuse a long-vacant building at 2050 N. Pacific Coast Highway and 1921 E. Mariposa and bring employees and customers to the corridor.
Applicant materials and the oral presentation estimated roughly 65 new-vehicle pickups per day, about 40 service appointments, 20 test-drive appointments and approximately 12 vehicle deliveries to the site per day, with about 100 employees on site (roughly 60 on day shift and 40 overnight) and 16 on-site EV chargers. The applicant said most sales would be completed online and the site would function primarily as a delivery, service and limited customer-finalization location.
Staff emphasized several points that weighed against granting the administrative determination: the CO zone's stated purpose; the municipal code's process and use tables; and operational details recorded in the staff report that the commission was shown, including a staff-cited operational note that the project description indicates the site could house as many as 285 vehicles at times and could operate 24 hours. A staff representative said those facts and the code's permissive structure supported denying the request without a broader zone text amendment.
Commissioners repeatedly returned to core questions: whether the proposal fits within the "similar in impact and character" test for an administrative determination; whether allowing this use by right would set a precedent when the code does not list vehicle sales or services in the CO zone; and whether the item should be handled as a property-specific determination or require a zone text amendment with citywide analysis. Several commissioners also voiced concerns about future corridor character and pedestrian activation if the property became fenced, gated long-term vehicle storage.
Tesla staff addressed operational issues in detail. "We do have predetermined routes" for test drives and logistics staff said vehicles would be rerouted upstream if holding times exceeded expectations, Art Taylor, regional manager for Tesla, said. The applicant also said that the Sentinel location it plans to replace holds a dealer license, and that the proposed facility would be a relocation rather than an entirely new sales model.
After public comment and extended deliberations about procedure and policy, the commission voted 4'0 to continue the item to the July 9 Planning Commission meeting to allow a possible fifth commissioner to participate and to give commissioners additional time to consider the zoning and conditioning implications. The vote to continue was approved by Commissioners Taylor, Christian, Vice Chair Eningga and Chair Maggie (Commissioner Mccabvery was absent).
Next steps: the item will return to the Planning Commission on July 9. If the commission upholds the director's determination on a later vote, the applicant may appeal to the City Council within the code's appeal period; if the commission overturns the director's determination and grants the use, the change would effectively allow the use either property-specifically or zone-wide depending on how the commission frames any decision and conditions.
The record before the commission included staff's written memorandum and presentation, the applicant's definition and operations description, and public testimony. Commissioners and staff also discussed the alternative path of a zone text amendment, which staff estimated could take six to 12 months or longer to complete and would require broader analysis of zoning impacts across the city.
