title
CC - PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Adopt Resolution No. 2025-P011, Approving Conditional Use Permit, P2025-0174-CUP and a Class 1 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Consideration of a Supplemental Class 32 Categorical Exemption for In-fill Development to Allow a Vehicle Service Facility Within an Existing 42,333 Square-Foot Building at 10150-10200 Jefferson Boulevard.
body
Meeting Date: January 12, 2026
Contact Person/Dept: Gabriel Barreras, Senior Planner
Emily Stadnicki, Current Planning Manager
Phone Number: (310) 253-5776 / (310) 253-5727
Fiscal Impact: Yes [ ] No [X] General Fund: Yes [ ] No [X]
Attachments: Yes [X] No [ ]
Commission Action Required: Yes [X] No [ ]
Commission Name: Planning Commission Date: September 24, 2025
Public Notification: (Mailed) Property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius (12/19/2025); (Email) Public Notifications - City Council (12/22/2025), Meetings and Agendas - City Council (01/07/2026); (Posted) City website (12/22/2025), Social Media (12/22/2025)
Department Approval: Mark E. Muenzer, Planning and Development Director (12/18/2025)
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the appeal of Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P011, approving Conditional Use Permit, P2025-0174-CUP, a Class 1 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), further considering adoption of a subsequent and supplemental Class 32 Categorical Exemption for In-fill Development, to allow a new vehicle service-maintenance and repair facility within an existing industrial building located at 10150-10200 Jefferson Boulevard (Project), and adopt a Resolution denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P011 and further finding that the Class 32 Categorical Exemption applies to the Project (Attachment 1). [NOTE: Subsequent to the Planning Commission's decision, the Applicant prepared a Class 32 Categorical Exemption from CEQA which is also added to the record.]
PROCEDURES
1. The Mayor seeks a motion to receive and file the affidavit of mailing, publishing, and posting of public notice.
2. The Mayor calls on staff for a brief staff report and the City Council poses questions to staff.
3. The Mayor seeks a motion to open the public hearing, providing the appellant the first opportunity to speak, followed by the applicant, and then the general public.
4. The applicant and appellant are given one opportunity to provide rebuttal comments.
5. The Mayor seeks a motion to close the public hearing after all testimony has been presented.
6. The City Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
REQUEST
On October 8, 2028, Lauren Fishelman ("Appellant"), an adjacent homeowner, filed an appeal to the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P011 for the above-described Project. The Appellant's appeal letter is included as Attachment 2.
BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2025, Cadillac of Beverly Hills, (the "Applicant"), filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a new vehicle service - maintenance and repair facility within an existing 42,333 square-foot (sq. ft.) industrial building (the "Project").
The Project site is a single 1.82-acre parcel on the east side of Jefferson Boulevard between College Boulevard and Raintree Circle. The Project site is designated Mixed Use Corridor 2 in the General Plan 2045, and is located in the Mixed Use Corridor 2 (MU-2) Zone, which permits the proposed vehicle services with a CUP, pursuant to Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) Section 17.220.015.
The existing site is improved with a one-story, industrial building, built in 1966. The property has frontage on Jefferson Boulevard and is accessed by 2 driveways on the southerly (ingress) and northerly (egress) corners of the site, leading to surface parking areas. The existing driveways and on-site circulation will be maintained.
The proposed Project will convert the existing industrial building into a vehicle service center, requiring no changes to the building height, footprint, or existing floor area. It will include the following improvements:
* Interior installation of 39 service bays and hoists - half dedicated to electric vehicle (EV) service and half for internal combustion engine (ICE) service;
* Interior improvements including a pedestrian entrance lobby and lounge, vehicle drop-off area, men and women's locker rooms with shower facilities, offices, records room, re-circulating automated car wash, and ancillary storage for auto parts and supplies;
* Exterior painting, paneling, the removal of 13 windows and the addition of 8 roll-up utility doors along the north and east elevations;
* Roof-mounted air filtration units compliant with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); and
* Restriping the surface parking from 76 to 67 spaces to accommodate fire distancing and emergency access.
Planning Commission Public Hearing and Decision
On September 24, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-P011, approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP), P2025-0174-CUP and making the associated findings for the CUP and the Class 1 CEQA exemption. The approval also included an extension of a Temporary Use Permit (P2025-0141-TUP) to allow limited vehicle services until final building permits are approved.
The approved Resolution, Staff Report, Project Summary, CEQA Class 1 Notice of Exemption, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Preliminary Development Plans provide more detailed information (Attachments 5 through 11).
DISCUSSION
Appeal
In the appeal letter, the Appellant contends that the approval of the CUP will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare by exposing nearby residents, including young children and the elderly, to increased fire risk, pollution, and noise impacts. The Appellant's arguments are summarized below and further detailed in the appeal letter (Attachment 2).
Staff clarifications and responses to the appeal comments follow later in this report.
1. The proposed CUP will increase local fire risk:
* the Project site is located in the CalGEM Inglewood Oil Field (IOF) area with adjacency to active oil derricks, and the Resolution erroneously claimed that only plugged oil wells are located nearby;
* the site is within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) as designated by the Culver City Fire Department (CCFD);
* the CUP will authorize the use of known combustibles, including lithium batteries and chemicals in close proximity to an active oil field, a VHFHSZ, and a residential community, home to over 1,500 people, including children and elderly individuals; and
* there was no representative from the CCFD at the Planning Commission hearing on September 24, 2025.
2. Concerns of current and future noise violations:
* the combination of indoor and outdoor uses of the site, the turnover of vehicles and deliveries, and the general operation of roll-up doors and site activities will be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and general welfare in the vicinity;
* recent noise-related incidents at the site including diesel transport trucks delivering and loading vehicles in the late-evening and nighttime hours; and
* the Applicant has not conformed to noise restriction conditions of the Temporary Use Permit (P2025-0141-TUP).
3. The CUP will create a pollution burden that jeopardizes health and safety, and traffic concerns that have not been adequately studied:
* the Project will bring heavy industrial uses and increase associated traffic, dust, debris, odor, particulate matter, and other airborne particles;
* the Traffic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) does not adequately account for the impact of vehicle transport trucks; and
* there is greater potential for vehicle congestion and idling on Jefferson Boulevard as vehicles are received and processed at the site.
4. The CUP is antithetical to the General Plan:
* the CUP cannot make an affirmative finding that, "the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or general welfare, or injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and the zoning district in which the property is located;"
* the proposed use does not address the General Plan's goals for climate change, greenhouse gas reduction, mitigating natural hazards, and addressing noise in the community from sources like industrial plants; and
* the CUP undermines the Land Use and Community Design Element's history stating that, "the City's industrial areas have transitioned away from heavier industrial uses toward office and light manufacturing uses."
5. The Project is not eligible Class 1 Categorical Exemption:
* the proposed Project does not constitute a negligible expansion of use, noting that that the site's previous uses included offices, warehousing, and distribution;
* the proposed use and presence of combustible materials near the IOF and in proximity to a VHFHSZ creates an unusual circumstance and risk; and
* the Planning Commission did not adequately consider the impacts of increased traffic and presence of diesel trucks on the Raintree community.
6. Procedural improprieties nullify the CUP's issuance: at the September 24, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, the Commissioners disclosed previous meetings or discussions with the Applicant team after the Public Comment period, which was sequenced out of order.
Applicant Response to Appeal
On December 2, 2025, attorneys from Rand, Paster, Nelson, LLP, on behalf of the Applicant team, submitted a detailed, point-by-point response to the appeal (Attachment 3). The response affirms the adequacy of the Planning Commission's approval of the Project, citing its conformance with the permitted and intended uses under the Zoning Code through the Conditional Use Permit, evidence that the Project will not harm the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of nearby residences and the surrounding area, and the sufficiency of the CEQA Class 1 analysis, which determined that adaptive reuse of the existing building and property would not result in significant environmental impacts.
In response to the Appellant's concerns, the Applicant team elected to conduct a supplemental CEQA Class 32 - In-Fill Development Categorical Exemption analysis along with required technical studies evaluating traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality.
Staff has reviewed the Class 32 analysis and confirms that the Project would not result in significant impacts to the surrounding community in any category (Attachment 9).
In summary, the Applicant's response states the following:
1. The proposed Project location and uses do not create hazards in the vicinity. Appellant states that the Project poses heightened fire risks due to the servicing of EVs with lithium-ion batteries and the Site's proximity to the IOF and the VHFHSZ. These allegations are not supported by substantive evidence.
In response, the Applicant team prepared a detailed Fire Safety Memo evaluating potential fire and life safety impacts associated with the storage, repair, and maintenance of both EVs and conventional vehicles. The analysis, which examines building fire protection systems, operational fire risks, and life safety measures, concludes that the Project does not pose significant fire safety hazards (Attachment 9, Appendix D).
2. The Project is subject to extensive regulations that reduce potential risks of fire hazards in the vicinity. The Project does not pose unusual fire hazards, as storing and servicing internal combustion vehicles and EVs is common in the community. The building will meet or exceed all fire and building codes, including the 2022 California Fire Code and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards; it includes 13 sprinklers, fire-rated construction, alarms, egress, and NFPA 30A safeguards.
Operational measures-such as flammable-liquid controls, hot-work permits, EV charging protections, ventilation, and staff training-further reduce risks. The CCFD will review and approve all proposed measures during the plan check process.
3. The Site is not located within a fire prone area. Appellant claims the Project poses a fire risk due to proximity to VHFHSZ and the IOF. In fact, the Site is over 2,500 feet from the nearest state VHFHSZ, approximately 500 feet from the nearest local VHFHSZ, and adjacent to a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone requiring no special measures. All nearby wells have been properly abandoned, with the closest active well 630 feet away. The California Geologic Energy M?anagement Division's (CalGEM) oversight, including inspections and safety systems, minimizes any potential risk.
4. Project operations, including transport vehicles, will not jeopardize health and safety. The Applicant team addressed Appellant's claims that the Project could create health and safety risks from noise, traffic, and air quality, including vehicle transport impacts, noting that the Appellant provides no supporting evidence. Comprehensive analyses were completed under the Class 1 and Class 32 Categorical Exemptions, covering traffic, noise, and air quality (Attachment 9, Appendices A, B, and C); these studies confirm that the Project's operations will not result in significant impacts.
5. Project operations will not violate the City's noise ordinance. The Applicant team refutes the Appellant's claim that the Site currently violates the City's Noise Ordinance and that the Project would perpetuate such violations. Under the new CUP, carrier truck loading and unloading will be strictly limited to 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM, with these restrictions enforced as conditions of approval. Additionally, the Class 32 CEQA findings confirm that the Project will comply with applicable noise thresholds and the City's Noise Ordinance and will not result in significant noise impacts.
6. Project operations would not result in traffic hazards. Appellant's claim that the Project will create traffic hazards from carrier truck operations is unsupported. The Project will only generate about 4 carrier truck trips per month, all loading and unloading will occur exclusively in the designated commercial loading zone on Jefferson Boulevard, and trucks will be prohibited from using the center left-turn lane. The Applicant team acknowledges that these restrictions, including limited hours and locations, will be enforced as conditions of approval and will not create traffic-related safety hazards.
7. The Project would not violate any established air quality threshold. The Applicant refutes the claim that the Project would create health and safety risks from air quality emissions, noting that the claim lacks supporting evidence or technical analysis. Following the filing of the appeal, an air quality assessment was conducted in accordance with Class 32 Categorical Exemption requirements, determining that the Project complies with applicable General Plan air quality policies and will not exceed regional or localized emission thresholds during construction or operation (Attachment 9, Appendix C).
8. The Project complies with the General Plan. The Applicant addresses Appellant's claim that the Project conflicts with the General Plan, citing fire hazards, noise, traffic, air quality, and policy goals. The Applicant notes that the Site is located in a Mixed Use Corridor, which permits the proposed vehicle repair and maintenance use.
Further, these uses do not constitute heavy manufacturing, and therefore, do not conflict with the General Plan's land use intent. The Applicant directly addressed these concerns as evidenced in the Class 32 findings, that found no significant impact or risks for fire hazards, noise, traffic, or air quality.
9. The City's CEQA exemption findings are supported by substantial evidence. Appellant's claim that the Project is ineligible for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is unsupported and disregards substantial evidence. The Project involves only conversion of the existing building with a minor increase in vehicle trips, requiring no "massive buildout" (Attachment 9, Appendix A).
Appellant's assertion of an "unusual circumstance" due to proximity to residential areas, EVs, and the IOF is unfounded, as vehicle service facilities are common in this and similar nearby communities, the Site is outside fire hazard zones, and no active oil wells are nearby. Compliance with the California Fire Code, NFPA standards, and CalGEM regulations will result in no significant impacts. Consequently, the Project qualifies for both the Class 1 and Class 32 Categorical Exemptions.
Staff Response to Appeal
Following review of Appellant's letter and the Applicant's response, City staff has provided additional clarifications (below) of the CUP request, the existing conditions of the Project Site, as well as details that further define and clarify the Project's uses and intended operations. These were taken into consideration during interdepartmental review and resulted in numerous conditions placed on the Project to support compatibility and protect the health and safety of the surrounding community and residents.
Staff notes the following:
1. Regarding location, the Project Site is not located in the Inglewood Oil Field "Surface Boundary" - this is the portion where the oil field operator maintains access rights. The Site lies within the broader State-designated "Field Boundary" indicating where underground oil and gas reservoirs are believed to exist. Specifically, there are no existing or former oil wells or oil related facilities or operations at the Project Site.
Six wells on adjacent parcels to the east have been fully capped, abandoned, and certified by CalGEM, the State's oversight agency. City staff confirms the nearest active well is approximately 630 feet north of the Site, across College Avenue, and will not be disturbed. None of the capped and abandoned wells, nor any active wells in the broader vicinity, will be affected by the Project. Therefore, these wells do not constitute an "unusual circumstance" for the existing environment and do not preclude a categorical exemption per CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Further, on December 7, 2023, the City executed a Settlement Agreement with the IOF's operator, prohibiting any new drilling or redrilling of oil wells, and requiring the termination of all oil field activity within Culver City by December 31, 2029, including the complete plugging and abandonment all remaining wells. Accordingly, oil field related operations and equipment in the surrounding area will continue to diminish over time.
2. Regarding proximity to the VHFHSZ, the Site is not within the State's or Culver City's 2025 designated VHFHSZ. The CCFD reviewed the Site, imposed conditions for adequate vehicle spacing and breaks, and verified fire lane access and circulation onsite.
3. Regarding EV battery storage, the Applicant may store only 1 minimally charged replacement EV battery, kept in a fire-suppression cabinet at the northeast corner of the Site-the farthest point from the Raintree community. Additional batteries will remain off-site unless a scheduled replacement service requires one.
4. Regarding on-site vehicles receiving service, the CCFD reviewed operations and conditioned that internal combustion vehicles must maintain minimal fuel, and EVs must stay below 50% charge, reducing potential fire intensity. No fueling is allowed onsite.
5. Regarding traffic and circulation, the Applicant submitted a site-specific Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) analysis on July 2, 2025. As verified by the City's Mobility & Traffic Engineering Division, the Project will generate 159 net new trips (233 total per day), below the City's 2020 Transportation Study Criteria and Guidelines. No further analysis is required.
6. Regarding Project based noise, the Applicant submitted a Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Attachment 9, Appendix B) evaluating existing and projected one-hour noise levels [dBA Leq (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level)] at the Project site and at 3 sensitive receptors within 0.25 miles including: the Raintree residences, the Jackson Avenue residences, and West LA College. The Report analyzed noise and vibration from construction activities, vehicle traffic, and vehicle transport trucks and concluded that at the 3 sensitive receptors:
* Project construction would increase noise levels by only 0.1 to 1.3 dBA; and
* Project operations would increase noise levels by less than 0.1 dBA.
Therefore, the Project would not result in significant noise impacts on the surrounding community.
7. Regarding noise and traffic created by vehicle transport trucks, the CUP requires the Applicant to coordinate with the Mobility & Traffic Engineering Division to set time, frequency, and location limits for vehicle transport trucks and deliveries to avoid impacts to Jefferson Boulevard. The City and Applicant have confirmed this coordination, and will limit vehicle transport truck loading to 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.
8. Regarding impacts on air quality, the Applicant submitted an Air Quality Technical Report (Attachment 9, Appendix C) evaluating potential Project related air quality impacts at 3 sensitive receptors within 0.25 miles: the Raintree residences, the Jackson Avenue residences, and West LA College.
Using the policies and methodologies established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the City's General Plan, the analysis determined that future Project construction and operations would not exceed regional emission thresholds for identified air pollutants (Tables 6 and 7 of the report). Therefore, the Project's impacts on air quality would be less than significant.
9. Regarding General Plan consistency, the Project will reuse the existing building and site, with minor improvements to the fa?ade, the building interior, and a reduction in outdoor parking to accommodate fire access and safety requirements. This approach and the use are consistent with the General Plan.
10. The site was originally zoned M-1 (manufacturing) to support light industrial uses; it is currently zoned MU-2, which permits the proposed vehicle services with a CUP. Auto repair is classified as a "service" use and not industrial under the Culver City Municipal Code Section 17.220.015. As such, no industrial products will be manufactured on the site, there will be no body shop work, or paint or spray booth work at this site.
Staff concurs that the Planning Commission did not make an error in approving the Project or its CEQA Categorical Exception, and the appeal should be denied.
City Council Review Authority
The City Council's consideration of the appeal is "de novo." This means the City Council is holding a new hearing. In that regard, the Council is not solely limited to considering the record that was before the Planning Commission. The City Council's review authority for this appeal is governed by CCMC Sections 17.640.015 and 17.640.030, which provide that the Council may consider any issue involving the matter that is the subject of the appeal in addition to the specific grounds that form the basis of the appeal.
In its consideration of this matter, the City Council may take the following actions:
* Deny the Appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P011, including the Class 1 Categorical Exemption, and adopt the supplemental Class 32 Categorical Exemption (Staff Recommendation).
* Approve the Appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P011; direct staff to return to the City Council with a proposed Resolution granting the Appeal.
* Refer the Project and related CEQA analyses back to the Planning Commission for further consideration based on new or different evidence presented at the City Council hearing. The Project would be scheduled for a public hearing to return to the Planning Commission for further consideration, likely not until the second quarter of 2026.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
As part of the review process, 2 hybrid (in-person/virtual) community meetings were held for the Project. The first meeting was held on April 10, 2025, during the preliminary review phase, and the second meeting was held July 17, 2025, during the application review phase of the process.
Public notification for the September 24, 2025, Planning Commission hearing was also conducted pursuant to Section 17.630.010 of the Zoning Code (See Attachment 10 for Meeting Minutes).
Similarly, for the January 12, 2026, City Council hearing, a public notice was mailed on December 19, 2025, to owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius, and posted on the City website; the notice was distributed electronically via GovDelivery and posted on social media on December 22, 2025. As of the writing of this report, staff has received 5 public comments in support of the appeal.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
Review of the Planning Commission decision will not result in any direct revenue or expenditures by the City. Although, if the decision is affirmed and the Project is completed, the proposed vehicle maintenance and repair activities will provide revenue to the City in form of sales taxes for auto parts sold at the site, Art in Public Places impact fees, and business taxes.
If the appeal is approved, additional staff time will be required on review and preparation of additional documents, posting environmental documents and findings, and further processing (e.g., scheduling public hearings, etc.), which would not be fully covered by associated review fees.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As determined in the preceding analysis, the Planning Commission's adoption of the Class 1 Categorical Exemption adequately satisfied CEQA requirements, and no substantial evidence was presented to support the alleged deficiencies cited in Resolution No. 2025-P011. In accordance with CEQA Section 15301 - Existing Facilities ("Class 1" exemption), the proposed Project: is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Code standards, is located within City limits on an existing parcel and within an existing industrial building undergoing a change of use with only minor interior or exterior alterations, and involves no increase in floor area or building height. Further, the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area and is fully served by electrical power, water, sewage, and other public utilities.
Additionally, following the appeal, the Applicant submitted supplemental technical studies and findings in support of a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for In-Fill Development Projects to further evaluate and respond to the Appellant's concerns. City staff has reviewed the Class 32 Report and associated technical analyses of air quality, water quality, noise, and traffic, and determined that the proposed Project does not present any unusual circumstances and will not result in any significant environmental impacts; therefore, no additional CEQA review is required for this additional reason.
CONCLUSION
As shown in the preceding analysis, the Project and associated CEQA documentation were reviewed in compliance with applicable requirements and guidelines. The Planning Commission's approval of the Conditional Use Permit and adoption of the Class 1 Categorical Exemption is sufficient to meet Zoning Code and CEQA requirements and no substantial evidence was provided to support the claims of deficiencies in Resolution No. 2025-P011. The supplemental findings in the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report further substantiate the proposed use and appropriate processing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed City Council Resolution Denying the Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P011
2. Appellant Letter, October 8, 2025
3. Applicant Response to Appellant Letter, December 2, 2025
4. Vicinity Map
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-P011 with Exhibit A and B, September 24, 2025
6. Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments), September 24, 2025
7. Planning Commission Project Summary, September 24, 2025
8. CEQA Class 1 Notice of Exemption, September 24, 2025
9. CEQA Class 32 Report (including all attachments), December 2, 2025
10. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, September 24, 2025
11. Preliminary Development Plans, August 8, 2025
12. Public Comments
recommended action
MOTION
That the City Council do one of the following:
1. Adopt Resolution denying the Appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P011 approving Conditional Use Permit, P2025-0174-CUP, and a Class 1 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and additionally adopting a supplemental Class 32 Categorical Exemption, for a new vehicle service-maintenance and repair facility within an existing building at 10150-10200 Jefferson Boulevard (Staff Recommendation); OR
2. Approve the Appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P011; direct staff to return to the City Council with a proposed Resolution granting the Appeal; OR
3. Refer the Project and related CEQA analyses back to the Planning Commission for further consideration based on new or different evidence presented at the City Council hearing.