AGENDA ITEM 9B
CUP24-00028, DVP24-00001
1 PRESENTATION OUTLINE
2C I T Y O F T O R R A N C E C I T Y C O U N C I L | A U G U S T 1 9 , 2 0 2 5
1. Project Location
2. Background
3. Appeal
4. CEQA
5. Site Plan
6. Massing Diagram
7. Recommendation
PROJECT LOCATION
3C I T Y O F T O R R A N C E C I T Y C O U N C I L | A U G U S T 1 9 , 2 0 2 5 22209
TORRANCE BOULEVARD
3475
BACKGROUND
4C I T Y O F T O R R A N C E C I T Y C O U N C I L | A U G U S T 1 9 , 2 0 2 5 •June 18, 2025 : The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed mixed-use project. During the hearing, the applicant presented an overview of the project, including its key components and intended operations. The Planning Commission heard public comments, reviewed the project, made deliberations, and a unanimous motion followed to approve the project by a roll call vote of 4-0.
•July 2, 2025 : Appeal filed by the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), disputing the project’s CEQA determination, arguing that it does not meet the criteria for the Class 32 In-Fill Development Exemption. Appeal requests that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared to allow for a full public evaluation of the project’s potential environmental impacts prior to any approval.
APPEAL
5C I T Y O F T O R R A N C E C I T Y C O U N C I L | A U G U S T 1 9 , 2 0 2 5 •The appeal disputes the project's CEQA determination, arguing that it does not meet the criteria for the Class 32 In-Fill Development Exemption. The appellant contends that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared to allow for a full public evaluation of the project’s potential environmental impacts prior to any approval.
CEQA
6C I T Y O F T O R R A N C E C I T Y C O U N C I L | A U G U S T 1 9 , 2 0 2 5 •The mixed-use development meets the five required criteria for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption:
a. The project is consistent with the C-CTR land use designation and its corresponding zone district. b. The project site is located within the City of Torrance limits and is located on an approximate 1.23-acre site, below the five-acre maximum requirement. The project site is surrounded by hotel, residential, and professional office uses.
c. The project site is not a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d. The potential traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality associated with the project were assessed in technical studies prepared in consultation with the Torrance Community Development Department and the Torrance Public Works. The studies found the project would not result in significant or less than significant traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality impacts. e. The project site is currently served by existing utilities and public services.
SITE PLAN
7C I T Y O F T O R R A N C E C I T Y C O U N C I L | A U G U S T 1 9 , 2 0 2 5
MASSING DIAGRAM
8C I T Y O F T O R R A N C E C I T Y C O U N C I L | A U G U S T 1 9 , 2 0 2 5
RECOMMENDATION
9C I T Y O F T O R R A N C E P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N | A U G U S T 1 9 , 2 0 2 5 Planning Commission and Community Development
Director recommend that City Council:
•Deny the appeal; and
•Approve the project.
AGENDA ITEM 9B
CUP24-00028, DVP24-00001
10