August 11, 2025 Page 1 2025-R____
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-R___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL FILED BY
SOL Y LUNA MONTESSORI SCHOOL , 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 BOULEVARD
(P2024-0191-Appeal of Conditional Use Permit Modification P2021-0135-CUP/M)
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2021, Costco Wholesale (the “Applicant”) filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit Modification (CUP/M), to allow demolition of existing (eight dispenser) fueling station and two commercial structures (±8,480 square feet); and the construction of a new expanded (15-dispenser) and relocated fueling station and associated project design feature and site improvements (the “Project”). The Project Site is more specifically described as a ±3.2-acre portion of land within the parcels identified by Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 4236-029-003, 4236-029-008, and 4236-029-009, in the City of Culver City, County of Los Angeles, State of California; and WHEREAS, in order to implement the proposed Project, approval of the following application is required:
1. Conditional Use Permit Modification, P2021- 0135-CUP/M, for the relocation and expansion of a fueling station, to ensure the Project complies with all required standards, design guidelines, and City ordinances; establish all onsite and offsite conditions of approval necessary to address the site features; minimize potential adverse effects on
August 11, 2025 Page 2 2025-R____
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
surrounding properties and the environment; and ensure compatibility of the proposed Project with the development on adjoining properties and in the surrounding neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Project qualifies for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as analyzed in the Class 32 CEQA Report dated June 28, 2024 (summarized in Exhibit A). The Class 32 CEQA Report describes in detail the Project’s eligibility for said exemption pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15332, including exceptions under Section 15300.2, demonstrating there are no potentially significant impacts and no exception that would disqualify the Project from a Categorical Exemption; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2024, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, including full consideration of the applications, plans, staff report, environmental information and all testimony presented, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 to 2, adopted Resolution No. 2024-P007, which adopted a Class 32 Categorical Exemption, in accordance with CEQA, finding the Project will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts, and made required findings and conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit Modification, P2021-0135-CUP/M; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2024, Frank P. Angel of Angel Law on behalf of Sol y Luna Montessori School (“Appellant”) filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 2024- P007, pursuant to Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) Section 17.640.030, claiming that the City cannot rely on a Class 32 Categorical Exemption and that the required findings for a CUP/M are not adequately made, and that the City should instead conduct further environmental study under CEQA and that the City should not approve the Project until the appropriate level of environmental review is completed; and
August 11, 2025 Page 3 2025-R____
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
WHEREAS, the appeal does not include substantial evidence that demonstrates the inadequacy of the Planning Commission’s decision and CEQA determination; and WHEREAS, Staff’s response to the appeal is that the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024-P007, including adoption of required findings and the Class 32 Categorical Exemption was made on the basis of substantial evidence and in accordance with established procedures and methodologies, and the Class 32 Categorical Exemption provides sufficient environmental review pursuant to CEQA statutes and guidelines and no further analysis is required; and
WHEREAS, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc submitted a point -by-point response to the appeal on behalf of the Applicant on September 26, 2024, and the response demonstrates the appellant’s claims have no merit nor are supported by credible evidence, provides subsequent memorandum s to further clarify the relevant points , restates the adequacy of the Class 32 CEQA Report, and confirms the Planning Commission did not err in approving the Project; and
WHEREAS, Staff sought the additional expertise of an additional qualified environmental consultant to evaluate the points presented, as well as the Applicant’s responses to those points , resulting in Peer Review Memorandum prepared by ESA, dated May 14, 2025, which further 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 WHEREAS, on August 11, 2025, after a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal of 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 for the
August 11, 2025 Page 4 2025-R____
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
relocation and expansion of a fueling station, fully considering the whole administrative record, including, but no limited to, the Planning Commission’s decision, application materials, plans, staff report, Appellant Appeal letter, Applicant response, Peer Review Memorandum, environmental information and all testimony presented, the City Council by a vote of ___ to ___, denied the appeal filed by the Appellant and affirmed the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 2024- P007, including the Class 32 Categorical Exemption, in accordance with CEQA, for Conditional Use Permit Modification, P2021-0135-CUP/M.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Culver City, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Since the Planning Commission adoption of Resolution No. 2024- P007, which approved the Project and Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the Project, the circumstances under which the Class 32 CEQA Report have not significantly changed, and no new significant information has been found that would impact the Class 32 Categorical Exemption; therefore, no additional environmental analysis is required.
SECTION 2. There is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record , demonstrating that the Class 32 Categorical Exemption applies to the Project and no exception applies.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
August 11, 2025 Page 5 2025-R____
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SECTION 3. Pursuant to all of the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Culver City, California, hereby denies the appeal filed by the Appellant and affirms the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 2024- P007, approving C onditional 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 Boulevard.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of August, 2025.
________________________________
DAN O’BRIEN, Mayor
City of Culver City, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ________________________________ JEREMY BOCCHINO, City Clerk HEATHER BAKER, City Attorney