10E
Date: September 23, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Aram Chaprayan, City Manager
Patrick Q. Sullivan, City Attorney
By: Carlos Huizar, Management Associate | [email protected] Subject: City Manager and City Attorney – Reconsideration of a Council Action to Deny an Appeal and Uphold a Planning Commission's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP24-00028) and Development Permit (DVP24-00004) on Property Located within the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan - Del Amo Business Sub District Two (H-DA2 Zone) at 3475 Torrance Boulevard (APN 7524-014-110).
Expenditure: None.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of the City Manager and the City Attorney that the City Council consider a motion to reconsider a Council Action to Deny an Appeal and Uphold a Planning Commission’s Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP24-00028) and Development Permit (DVP24-00004) on property located within the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan – Del Amo Business Sub-District Two (H-DA2 Zone) at 3475 Torrance Boulevard (APN 7524-014-110).
It is further recommended that in the event the City Council decides to reconsider their prior Council action, that the matter be brought back to the City Council at a future date.
FUNDING
None required.
DISCUSSION
On August 19, 2025, the City Council voted to deny an appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP24-00028 and DVP24-00004 by a vote 7-0. On September 16, 2025, Councilmember Aurelio Mattucci received concurrence from the City Council to direct staff to bring forth an agenda item for the City Council to consider a motion to reconsider their prior council action. After the City Council meeting on August 19, 2025, it came to the attention of the City of Torrance that a letter and attachments from the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) was inadvertently excluded during the preparation of the agenda and did not become part of the record. In order to protect the due process rights of SAFER to have their letter included in the record and considered by the City Council as well as the due process rights of the applicant to respond to the letter, the City Council concurred in the request to bring this item for reconsideration.
1 City Council
September 23, 2025
The item this evening is only a yes or no vote on whether to reconsider the matter. It is not a discussion of the merits of upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP24-00028 and DVP24-00004. If a majority of City Council decides to reconsider the matter, than an agenda item to consider the merits of the matter will be brought back to City Council at a future date. 2