title
CC - PUBLIC HEARING: 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: October 13, 2025
Contact Person/Dept: Gabriela Silva, Associate Planner
Emily Stadnicki, Current Planning Manager
Phone Number: (310) 253-5736 / (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: July 24, 2024
Public Notification: (Mailed) Property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius and extended area (09/22/2025); (Email) Public Notifications - City Council (09/23/2025), Meetings and Agendas - City Council (10/08/2025); (Posted) City website (09/22/2025), Social Media (09/23/2025)
Department Approval: Mark E. Muenzer, Planning and Development Director (07/16/25)
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council 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 denying the Appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2024-P007 (Attachment 1)
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 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 listed in the Project Summary (Attachment 7), 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. The Project Vicinity Map and the Preliminary Project Plans are included as Attachment 4 and 10, respectively.
Planning Commission Public Hearing and Decision
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 (see Attachment 8).
The July 24, 2024, approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-P007, Staff Report, Project Summary, CEQA Class 32 Report, Meeting Minutes, and Preliminary Development Plans, provide more detailed information (Attachments 5 through 10).
DISCUSSION
Appeal
The Appellant states the following, as further detailed in the appeal letter and subsequent email (Attachment 2):
1. The Project will have significant health risks or other air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the vicinity, as there are such receptors in close proximity to the Project site and said receptors were not adequately analyzed or considered and are closer than the distancing recommendation from the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
2. The Project does not fit within the Class 32 Categorical Exemption under criteria (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, as it relates to air quality and traffic; specifically, as it relates to air quality.
3. The Project incorrectly applied trip credits in the corresponding Transportation Study, for existing commercial buildings to be demolished.
4. The Project does not apply common sense expectation that Costco membership at this location will increase due to the increase in the fueling station dispensers.
5. The Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment Technical Report does not analyze all volatile organic compounds (VOCs) present in vehicle exhaust and vapor loss from fueling operations.
6. The Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption because it falls under the exception 153002.2(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, based on its proximity to preschools.
7. The Project does not meet the required finding for a CUP/M, per Zoning Code Section 17.530.020.E, 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 zoning district in which the property is located.
8. The supporting documents for the Class 32 exemption were not included in the staff report or attachments.
9. The Health Risk Analysis (HRA) conclusion that risks from combined construction and operational emissions are below the Southern California Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) risk significance threshold is not supported by underlying data from the analysis.
10. The determination that the Project qualified for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA does not comply with Section 17.500.030 of the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC), because it was not transmitted in writing following the submittal of a complete application.
Applicant Response to Appeal
The Applicant team submitted a point-by-point response to the appeal (Attachment 3). The response reiterates the adequacy of the CEQA Class 32 report and supporting technical reports, including the Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment Technical Report and the Transportation Study, demonstrating there was substantial evidence in the materials to adopt the Class 32 Categorial Exemption. Further, the response includes additional memorandums from both technical specialists addressing each of the issues raised by the appellant. In summary, the response states the following:
1. There will be no significant health risks or other air quality impacts to any sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity as demonstrated by the Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment Technical Report, and the Appeal incorrectly claims that the report did not assess potential impacts on sensitive receptors in the area.
For example, all surrounding receptors, as shown on Figure 03 (and as updated in the response memo dated September 18, 2024, within Attachment 3), including Sol y Luna, Morning Glory preschool, and Venice High School were more conservatively assessed as residential or worker receptors, which assume a greater exposure period than school receptors. Additionally, the report demonstrates less than significant impacts as allowed by CARB for Projects closer to sensitive uses than the CARB siting distance recommendation.
2. The appellant claims a commonsense conclusion pertaining to air quality effects in relation to the Class 32 Categorical Exemption criteria; however, no credible evidence is provided in support. Additionally, the CEQA Class 32 Report clearly outlines with supporting materials and technical studies how the Project meets all criteria, including as per criteria (d) of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption.
3. The traffic analysis correctly reduced trips based on the uses proposed to be removed, in accordance with established Memorandum of Understanding with the City and prior legal precedent stated, in compliance with established methodologies under CEQA. Further, the additional Transportation Memo demonstrates the Project's CEQA impacts (i.e., vehicle miles traveled), would be less than significant even without the trip credit (i.e., an adjustment/reduction to projected trips) resulting from the proposed demolition of 8,480 square feet of existing retail floor area.
4. Membership, as opposed to existing member visits to the relocated and expanded gas station, is not expected to increase with the Project. The appellant confuses Costco membership with patrons to the fuel facility in arguing that an expanded fuel facility will increase Costco membership.
Costco data shows that when a fuel facility is expanded, there is an increase in patronage of the fuel facility from the existing membership. However, overall Costco membership does not increase - i.e., the expanded fuel facility does not result in new Costco members. In this case, while it is expected that there will be more trips to the expanded fuel facility than the existing facility alone, those additional trips are modest due to the fact that they are trips from the existing member base, as membership is not expected to increase merely because lines are shorter/faster at the fueling station. As importantly, the projected trip increase is offset by the trips from the existing retail buildings to be demolished (trip credit), as demonstrated in the traffic analysis.
Additionally, the appellant's speculation that membership will increase and thus gas sales will increase under the Project appears to imply that the Air Quality analysis is inadequate, which is incorrect. The Air Quality analysis and the health risk assessment were based on the maximum throughput of 26.64 million gallons per year allowed under the SCAQMD-issued Permit to Operate. Therefore, even if gas sales increase to the maximum allowed throughput, such an increase has been assessed in the analysis, and the conclusion that impacts would be less than significant would remain unchanged.
5. All contaminants in fuels dispensing operations and vehicle exhaust that have toxicity values were analyzed in the Project. Further, as set forth in the Applicant's Air Quality Memo, including the seven VOCs identified by the Appellant in the HRA would not materially change the health risks to sensitive receptors, and impacts would remain less than significant.
6. The criteria for unusual circumstances (location), under the exception 153002.2(c) Significant Effect, are not met and the Project qualifies for the Class 32 Categorical Exemption. A fueling station already exists at the site, which is within an urbanized area where fueling stations are common rather than unusual. Further, a preschool is another type of sensitive receptor, like a residence, and fuel facilities are commonly located near residences throughout the area; specifically, there are several existing gas stations in the vicinity of the Project Site that are near sensitive receptors.
7. The Planning Commission's findings in approving the CUP/M, including the 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 zoning district in which the property is located, were supported by substantial evidence, including the technical reports prepared, which concluded no significant impacts.
8. All Project documents, including the additional technical document reports listed as attachments to the CEQA Class 32 Report as referenced by the appellant, have been available in the City's project file and available to the public (including the Planning Commission) upon request.
9. The comment regarding combined emissions misrepresents the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the air quality analysis follows applicable guidance as noted on page 26 of the Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment Technical Report. OEHHA Guidance Manual methodology for spatial averaging indicates: "Averaging results over a small domain will give a more representative picture of individual exposure and risk than an estimate based on one single location within their property."
The approach used in the analysis follows the OEHHA Guidance Manual to represent the potential health risk to the maximally exposed individual resident. A similar approach at each location would be more accurate. However, as the potential health risks at all other receptors were below SCAQMD thresholds (i.e., less than significant) using a more conservative approach, no further analysis is necessary.
10. The assertion that the City violated CCMC Section 17.500.030 by determining that the Project qualified for the Class 32 exemption as part of the Project Review Committee (PRC) comments dated May 20, 2024, is without merit. The appellant admits the PRC did not make any such determination but merely noted that "the project may qualify for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines."
In fact, it was the Planning Commission that determined the Project qualifies for the Class 32 Exemption. Consistent with CEQA and CCMC Section 17.500.030, the Commission based its determination on substantial evidence in the record, including the Staff Report and CEQA Class 32 Report and its supporting expert technical reports. While Staff thoroughly reviewed all relevant information and made a non-binding recommendation to the Commission, this is their responsibility; CCMC Section 17.500.030 in no way prohibits this.
The Applicant response further describes that none of the appeal issues have merit or are supported by credible evidence of a potential significant impact; therefore, the appeal fails to demonstrate any error on the part of the Planning Commission in adopting Resolution No. 2024-P007 approving the Project and Class 32 Categorical Exemption.
Staff Response to Appeal
In reviewing the points raised by the Appellant, as well as the Applicant's responses to those points, staff sought the expertise of an additional qualified environmental consultant. The resulting Peer Review Memorandum prepared by the City's consultant (Attachment 11), details each item point-by-point. The Memorandum concludes that none of the Appeal issues raised have merit or are supported by credible evidence of a potential significant impact; therefore, the Planning Commission did not make an error in approving the Project or its CEQA documentation, and the Appeal should be denied.
In concurrence with staff's assessment, the City's consultant notes the following:
1. Regarding the consideration of all sensitive receptors in the air quality and health risk analyses, while Sol y Luna was not specifically analyzed as a school receptor, it was evaluated as a residential receptor. This approach assumes a more conservative exposure duration of 30 years, which significantly exceeds the duration of a student's attendance at a school facility.
2. Regarding whether the Project fits into a Class 32 Categorical Exemption, based on the Applicant responses the technical studies prepared, there is no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant environmental impact that would not disallow the Class 32 exemption that was prepared for the Project.
3. Regarding the traffic analysis and trip reduction, the City's consultant team conducted a peer review of the Transportation Study; they determined that the use of empirical trip generation rates that are higher than industry-standard rates provide for an accurate evaluation of the Project's impacts on the local roadway network. The consultant concludes the Transportation Study is consistent with industry standards, including some conservative assumptions and data, and concurs with the conclusions of the Transportation Study.
Regarding the application of existing trip credit in the air quality analysis, through Table 3 of the Applicant's Response to Appeal document (Attachment 3), it is demonstrated that the Project's net operational emissions would remain below SCAQMD regional thresholds even without accounting for existing mobile source emission credits.
Therefore, the significance of the Project's operational air quality impacts would not change, as the emissions would still be less than significant even if existing mobile emissions were excluded from the analysis.
4. Regarding the potential for increased gasoline sales, the materials clarify that both the air quality analysis and the health risk assessment were based on a maximum throughput of 26.64 million gallons per year, as permitted under the SCAQMD-issued Permit to Operate. Accordingly, even if gasoline sales were to increase, they must remain within the maximum throughput assumed in the analyses. As such, the impacts evaluated in the Applicant's Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment Technical Report represent the Project's maximum potential air quality and health risk impacts, which were determined to be less than significant.
5. Regarding concerns raised in the comment regarding the inclusion of all relevant VOC toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions in the health risk analysis, the response explains that the VOC TACs considered in the analysis were identified in accordance with SCAQMD guidance. Additionally, the response notes that the Applicant conducted a revised health risk assessment to include the additional VOC TAC pollutants mentioned in the comment, as well as other compounds. The results of the updated analysis demonstrated that including these additional VOC TACs led to a change in health risk of less than 0.007%; therefore, the overall health risk impacts remain less than significant.
6. Regarding the presence of unusual circumstances exception, based on the responses and supporting technical studies prepared in support of the exemption, the consultant finds there is no substantial evidence that the Project would have unusual circumstances that would disallow the Class 32 exemption that was prepared for the Project.
7. Regarding the adequacy of the required findings for the CUP/M, based on the responses and supporting technical studies, the consultant finds there is no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant environmental impact that would disallow the Class 32 exemption nor Planning Commission findings that were prepared for the Project.
8. The consultant concurs that all application documents are available in the City's Project application file, and the public, including the Planning Commission, only needs to make a request to the City to review such documents.
9. Regarding the comment on the spatial averaging methodology, the response clarifies that the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) manual states that averaging results over a small spatial domain provides a more representative estimate of individual exposure and risk than relying on a single point within a property. As such, the response appropriately justifies the spatial averaging approach used in the health risk analysis, as it aligns with OEHHA guidance and more accurately reflects potential health risks to the maximally exposed individual resident.
The Appellant's comment further suggests that spatial averaging should have been applied to all other receptors; however, the response explains that the health risks to all other receptors were already below SCAQMD thresholds, even under the more conservative approach of analyzing a single receptor location. Therefore, applying spatial averaging to those receptors was not necessary.
10. Regarding the CEQA determination's compliance with CCMC Section 17.500.030, the appellant is incorrect. The noted Zoning Code Section does not require a written determination of the CEQA clearance, but rather indicates that a determination will be made following acceptance of a complete application. Following, the PRC comments of May 2024, the applicant resubmitted. Since environmental studies were already in review, the remaining comments were confirmed as addressed and staff proceeded with next steps in scheduling the public hearing, at which time a CEQA recommendation was made to the Planning Commission.
For further clarity, the shift from a potential Mitigated Negative Declaration to a Categorical Exemption referenced by the appellant was related to the criteria that the project site must be no more than five acres. Initially, staff considered the entire shopping center as the site area, which exceeds five acres and would disqualify it from the Class 32 Categorical Exemption, but later confirmed that CEQA allows the project site to be defined more specifically in relation to the work area.
Public Comments
Following the filing of the appeal, public comments were received, supporting the appeal. Many of the points expressed align with the concerns raised by the appellant, including concerns regarding increases in traffic, air quality/pollution, potential health risks, proximity to existing preschools. The complete compiled comments are included as Attachment 12.
City Council Review Authority
The City Council's consideration of the appeal is "de novo." In essence, this means the City Council is holding a new hearing. In that regard, the City 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 Section 17.640.030.D, which provides that the City 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 CEQA adoption (Staff Recommendation).
* Approve the Appeal, overturn the Planning Commission's CEQA adoption, and require further environmental review. This would include additional technical reports and the preparation of an Initial Study. Upon completion of these materials, which will take several months, next steps will be determined based on CEQA Guidelines. If the Initial Study concludes an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required, this would include additional public meetings, technical reports, and further analysis. Following completion of the EIR, the matter would be scheduled for public hearing, likely in late 2026.
* Refer the Project back to the Planning Commission for further consideration if new or different evidence is presented on Appeal. Any new or different evidence, as determined by the City Council, would need further evaluation by staff. This would require the preparation of additional technical reports and/or environmental review, depending on the nature of the additional evidence. Following completion of staff review and preparation, the Project would be scheduled for a public hearing to return to the Planning Commission for further consideration, likely not until mid-2026.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
As part of the review process, two community meetings were held for the Project, one virtually and one in person. The first meeting was held on February 25, 2021, during the preliminary review phase, and the second meeting was held November 9, 2023, during the application review phase of the process.
Public notification for the July 24, 2024 Planning Commission hearing was also conducted pursuant to Section 17.630.010 of the Zoning Code (See Attachment 9 for Meeting Minutes). Similarly, a public notice was mailed on September 22, 2025, to owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius, and posted on the City website; and the notice was distributed electronically via GovDelivery and posted on social media on September 23, 2025. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any additional public comments.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The appeal of the Project, if denied or approved, will not result in any direct revenue or expenditures by the City. Although, if the appeal is denied and the Project is completed, the existing retail facilities will continue to contribute to provide revenue to the City.
If the appeal is approved, 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
No further environmental analysis is required upon affirming the Planning Commission adoption of Resolution No. 2024-P007. Denial of the Planning Commission adoption of Resolution No. 2024-P007, including the Class 32 Categorical Exemption, requires the Applicant conduct additional environmental analysis that must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Referring the Project back to the Planning Commission if new or different evidence is presented may result in additional or different environmental determinations.
CONCLUSION
As shown in the preceding analysis, the Project and associated CEQA clearance were reviewed in compliance with applicable requirements and guidelines. The Planning Commission's adoption of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption is sufficient to meet CEQA requirements and no substantial evidence was provided to support the claims of deficiencies in Resolution No. 2024-P007.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed City Council Resolution Denying the Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2024-P007
2. Appellant Letter and Subsequent Email, August 8, 2024
3. Applicant Response to Appellant Letter Email Comments, September 26, 2024
4. Vicinity Map
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-P007 with Exhibit A and B, July 24, 2024
6. Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments), July 24, 2024
7. Planning Commission Project Summary, July 24, 2024
8. CEQA Class 32 Report (including all attachments), June 28, 2024
9. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, July 24, 2024
10. Preliminary Development Plans, February 7, 2024
11. Peer Review Memorandum (by ESA), July 7, 2025
12. Public Comments
MOTION
That the City Council do one of the following:
1. Adopt a Resolution denying the Appeal and affirming the 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 fueling station at 13431-13463 Washington Blvd (Staff Recommendation); OR
2. Approve the Appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2024-P007, subject to further environmental analysis under CEQA; and direct staff to return to the City Council with a proposed Resolution granting the Appeal; OR
3. Refer the Project back to the Planning Commission for further consideration based on new or different evidence presented in the Appeal.