AGENDA ITEM 9A
CUP24-00028 AND 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 | F E B R U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 2 6
1. Project Location
2. Background
3. CEQA
4. Site Plan
5. Massing Diagram
6. 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 | F E B R U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 2 6 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 | F E B R U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 2 6 •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. •August 19, 2025: City Council held a public hearing to consider SAFER’s appeal of the mixed-used project proposal.
During the hearing, the appellant presented their CEQA related concerns. The applicant’s team responded to the appellant’s arguments and a public comment was heard. City Council reviewed the project, deliberated, and unanimously voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project by a roll call vote of 7-0.
BACKGROUND
•Following the City Council meeting of August 19, 2025: The City of Torrance became aware that a letter with accompanying attachments from SAFER were inadvertently omitted during agenda preparation and therefore not included in the record. To preserve SAFER’s due process rights to have their correspondence included in the record and considered by the City Council, as well as the applicant’s due process rights to respond to the letter, the item required reconsideration
•September 23, 2025: City Council held a public meeting to reconsider its prior action that upheld Planning Commission’s June 18, 2025, approval. At that meeting, City Council unanimously approved the motion to reconsider by a roll call vote of 7-0.
•October 8, 2025: The applicant requested the application of Assembly Bill 130, a new law signed by the Governor, creating a new exemption from CEQA‘s environmental reporting requirements for qualifying urban infill housing development including previously approved mixed-use projects. Projects with applications deemed complete prior to July 1, 2026, may notify the applicable local government of the project’s eligibility for the CEQA exemption. 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 | F E B R U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 2 6 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 | F E B R U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 2 6 •The mixed-use development meets the requirements of the AB 130 CEQA Exemption:
•The project is a primarily residential mixed-use development located on a site of less than 20 acres within an incorporated city.
•The site is currently developed and is surrounded by urban uses, including residential, commercial, and public institutional uses.
•The project site is not located within a sensitive area, meets applicable minimum density requirements, and is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning regulations. •Tribal consultation was conducted and completed.
•A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the project was completed prior to the City Council meeting and determined that there would be no significant environmental impacts.
Response To SAFER Appeal
SAFER’s correspondence primarily alleges deficiencies in the applicant’s air quality and noise analysis, asserting that construction noise was not properly evaluated and that vibration and operational noise impacts are underestimated.
Staff determined that the noise, vibration, and air quality technical reports were adequate and sufficient.
However, with the application of AB 130, the concerns raised in SAFER’s correspondence no longer apply to the project. The project is no longer classified as a CEQA exempt Class 32 In-Fill project. 7C 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 | F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 2 6
SITE PLAN
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 | F E B R U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 2 6
MASSING DIAGRAM
9C I T Y O F T O R R A N C E C I T Y C O U N C I L | F E B R U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 2 6
RECOMMENDATION
10C 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 | F E B R U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 2 6 Community Development Director recommend that City Council:
•Approve the project.
AGENDA ITEM 9A
CUP24-00028 and DVP24-00001
11