Council Upholds Variance Allowing Auto‑detailing at Longstanding Canyon Gas Station

The Los Angeles City Council on May 9 upheld planning findings and approved a minor variance allowing an auto‑detailing operation to run in conjunction with an 80‑year‑old gas station in the Santa Monica Canyon neighborhood, despite objections from nearby residents.

Councilmember Mzakowski moved to adopt the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee report; the council approved the motion 11‑0. The action affirms prior decisions by the Zoning Administrator and the Area Planning Commission and lets the applicant operate detailing services at the site subject to the conditions attached to the approval.

The committee record and multiple speakers at the public hearing showed sharply divided views. Resident Ted Stohlman, speaking on behalf of neighbors closest to the property, said the detailing operations have increased noise from pressure washers, vacuum systems and workers, and claimed ongoing violations of existing restrictions, including alleged on‑site mechanical repairs and continued advertising of vehicles for sale. “The car wash is what is making the impact,” Stohlman said, and he urged the council to deny the application because of continuing violations.

Elizabeth Straulstrom of Pillsbury Winthrop, counsel for the applicant Canyon Service in Detail, disputed those claims. She told the council the station has operated at the site for nearly 80 years, that the operator invested about $144,000 to bring underground tanks into compliance, and that the neighborhood largely supports the modest modernization. Straulstrom said the website cited by opponents is out of date and that there is not a used‑car business or ongoing mechanical repairs at the site.

George Wolfberg, president of the Santa Monica Canyon Civic Association, told the council the association’s board and members who live in the notification area supported continuation of the existing use. In committee and the administrative record, staff concluded the requested variance would not cause significant additional impacts and recommended upholding the prior approvals.

The council’s vote implements two clarifications offered on the floor: a design limitation was relabeled in the conditions and the applicant must file a plan‑approval application for an operational review no later than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy (or sale/sublease) with an additional review three years later. Those schedule and review requirements were read into the record and included in the motion adopted by the council.

The approval does not remove the council’s ability to review compliance at the review dates noted in the conditions, and neighbors who testified emphasized they will monitor the site and report violations to enforcement staff.