title
CC - ACTION ITEM: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Adopt Resolution No. 2024-P007, Approving Conditional Use Permit Modification, P2021-0135-CUP/M and a Class 32 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Relocation and Expansion of an Existing Costco Fueling Station at 13431-13463 Washington Blvd.
body
Meeting Date: March 9, 2026
Contact Person/Dept.: Michael Cobden/City Attorney's Office
Phone Number: (310) 253-5663/ (310) 253-5736
Fiscal Impact: Yes [ ] No [X] General Fund: Yes [ ] No [X]
Attachments: Yes [X] No [ ]
Public Notification: ((Mailed) Property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius and extended area (02/17/2026); (Email) Public Notifications - City Council (02/16/2026), Meetings and Agendas - City Council (03/04/2026); (Posted) City website (02/16/2026), Social Media (02/16/2026)
Department Approval: Heather S. Baker, City Attorney (03/02/2026)
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council continue deliberations following the closed public hearing initiated on October 13, 2025 to consider the appeal of Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2024-P007, approving Conditional Use Permit Modification, P2021-0135-CUP/M and a Class 32 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the relocation and expansion of an existing Costco fueling station at 13431-13463 Washington Blvd (Project), and adopt a Resolution granting the Appeal in part, finding the Project to be subject to CEQA, directing the Project Applicant to prepare appropriate environmental documents for further consideration by the Planning Commission in connection with the proposed Conditional Use Permit Modification (Attachment 1).
PROCEDURES
The public hearing was closed on October 13, 2025. At the meeting of March 9, 2026, the City Council will take the following steps to conclude the appeal process:
1. The Mayor calls the item for continued deliberations.
2. The Mayor calls on staff for a brief staff report and the City Council poses questions to staff.
3. The Mayor opens public comment for this item.
4. The City Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
REQUEST
On August 8, 2024, Frank P. Angel of Angel Law filed an appeal on behalf of Sol y Luna Montessori School (Sol y Luna) ("Appellant"), to the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2024-P007 for the above-described Project. The school is located in the City of Los Angeles. The Appellant's appeal request is included as Attachment 2.
BACKGROUND
The Project is located on a ?3.2-acre site over three existing parcels within a larger commercial center primarily occupied by Costco Wholesale and its fueling station, and consists of:
* Demolition of the existing eight-dispenser Costco fueling station (including underground storage tanks) and two retail buildings (8,480 square feet) at the west end of the commercial center,
* Construction of a new 15-dispenser Costco fueling station relocated in place of the two commercial structures, and
* New surface parking, including 20 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and related equipment in place of the existing fueling station.
The fueling station will include a new 17.5-foot-tall canopy, supporting ground-mounted equipment, controller enclosure, perimeter landscaping, and other project design features, as well as associated site improvements.
Internal vehicle circulation and parking around the area of the relocated fueling station will be adjusted to improve queueing and access; the one-car exit driveway apron from the existing fueling station will be removed.
On July 24, 2024, the Planning Commission (3-2 approval), adopted Resolution No. 2024-P007, approving Conditional Use Permit Modification (CUP/M), P2021-0135-CUP/M and making the associated findings for the CUP/M and the Class 32 CEQA exemption.
On October 13, 2025, the City Council opened this noticed public hearing, heard presentations from the Project Applicant, from the Appellant, and from the public. Following public testimony, the Council closed the public hearing, deliberated, raised concerns, and by a vote of 3-2 continued the deliberations, directing that staff return with an updated resolution that considers concerns raised during the public hearing as they relate to the proposed CEQA Class 32 Exemption, and directing the Applicant to prepare an EIR or to conduct an initial study to determine the appropriate level of environmental review for the project.
The Staff Report for the initial Public Hearing on this appeal, dated October 13, 2025, contains additional background and information. All attachments thereto, comments submitted by the public, and testimony received is considered part of the record in this matter.
DISCUSSION
Under CEQA, the City must evaluate each project according to a procedure which determines whether or not environmental review is required, and if so, the appropriate level of such review. CEQA is intended to provide the public and decisionmakers with sufficient information to allow for an understanding of the potential significant environmental impacts of a proposed project and any viable alternatives which might mitigate such impacts. At the threshold of this process the City considers whether a project is exempt from CEQA under either statutory exemptions or categorical exemptions. Statutory exemptions are absolute, and if a project qualifies for a statutory exemption no further environmental review is required. Categorical exemptions however are subject to exceptions, and if the City determines that an exception applies, the CEQA process will proceed to an Initial Study which determines the appropriate level of environmental review. The highest form of such review is the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") which is a robust and thorough analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project, an evaluation of their significance, and an evaluation of potential project alternatives. An initial study is not necessary if the Project Applicant prepares an EIR.
The Applicant initially proposed that this Project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15332, also known as a "Class 32" exemption for "In-Fill Projects." Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the following conditions:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
As noted above, all categorical exemptions are subject to exceptions, including the "unusual circumstances" exception. (Guidelines ?15300.2(c).) Under this section, the Project would not qualify for a categorical exemption if there is a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental impact due to circumstances specific to the site or project.
During the public hearing, the Council received evidence the proposed location for the fueling station is approximately 213 feet from a daycare facility and 186 feet from a preschool. The Council also received evidence that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has noted potential concerns regarding this distance based on potential air quality impacts on these sensitive receptors.
The record supports a finding that the Project involves unusual circumstances due to its size and location. First, the proposed fueling station is larger than is typical for such projects. The typical fueling station in the area includes approximately 8 pumps. The proposed station will include 30. The presence of two pre-existing daycare and preschool locations within 215 feet of the project is also unusual. These unusual circumstances raise the potential concerns highlighted by CARB's recommendations. Therefore, there is a reasonable possibility that a significant air quality impact on sensitive receptors would occur due to the unusually large size of the proposed project and the proximity to two daycare and preschool facilities. Based on this evidence, the City can find that the exception to the Class 32 exemption applies, and the Project is therefore not exempt from CEQA.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As discussed above, the Council may determine that the Project is not exempt from CEQA and must be further evaluated according to CEQA procedures.
CONCLUSION
If the Council finds that the Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption, it will be subject to CEQA, and the appeal must be granted in part with direction to the Project Applicant to proceed with the CEQA process. This means either conducting an Initial Study to determine whether an EIR is necessary or proceeding directly to preparation of the EIR to be considered along with the Conditional Use Permit Modification Application. The Planning Commission should review the forthcoming CEQA documents and Application at a future meeting. Attached to this report is a draft resolution which makes these findings and grants the appeal in part consistent with this discussion.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The appeal of the Project, if denied or approved, will not result in any direct revenue or expenditures by the City.
If the appeal is granted, additional staff time will be required on review and preparation of additional environmental documents and further processing (e.g., scheduling public hearings, etc.), which would not be fully covered by associated review fees.
If the Project is completed, the existing retail facilities will continue to contribute to provide revenue to the City.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2026-03-09_ATT 1 CC Reso_13431-13463_CUPM Appeal
2. 2026-03-09_ATT 2 Appellant's Appeal Request
recommended action
MOTION(S)
That the City Council:
Adopt a Resolution Granting the Appeal in part, reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2024-P007 to the extent that it found the Project exempt under CEQA.