Agenda Item 9B — Torrance City Council, May 19, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

b) Excavation is located directly on the property line, violating surcharge limits.

Section 13.15 also states:
• No surcharging is allowed within 5 feet of the temporary excavation.

Yet the adjacent commercial property uses this 5-foot zone for:
• daily vehicle parking
• delivery truck operations
• a large Southern California Edison transformer
All of these impose significant surcharge loads directly on the edge of the proposed vertical excavation. This creates a known and unacceptable risk of soil movement, wall failure, or structural damage to the adjacent property. c) The soils report itself warns of dangerous soil movement. Section

13.19 states:
• Major yielding of the adjacent soils may occur during construction. Care should be taken that any movements associated with the yielding are not excessive to harm any underground utilities or adjacent structures.

Given that the project proposes a vertical cut on the property line, in highly expansive soils, near active parking and utility infrastructure, the conditions for “major yielding” directly contradict the required safety margin. The project does not provide any design, shoring plan, vibration mitigation, or monitoring program capable of addressing this risk.

2. The Project’s Excavation Height Conflicts With Its Own Required Remedial Grading
Section 13.3 – Site Preparation identifies required remedial over-excavation and recompaction for support of the building’s foundation systems. The submitted drawings fail to incorporate:
• remedial cut depth / over excavation
• slab thickness
• footing depth
• grade beam depth (see attached Exhibit B)
When these are included — as required — the true excavation height becomes 23 feet, which materially exceeds the assumptions used in the soils report’s temporary excavation safety calculations. This is not a small discrepancy. It is a fundamental engineering mismatch that invalidates the temporary shoring safety analysis and exposes neighboring properties to subsidence, cracking, and structural risk.

Page 3 of 5 ends

• engineering reevaluation for deeper cuts
• protections for the existing transformer
• monitoring plan for soil movement
• indemnification or mitigation for damage to adjacent structures Given that the adjacent property is fully developed, occupied daily by commercial tenants, and houses critical electrical infrastructure, the absence of these protections is unacceptable.

Conclusion – Project Should Not Be Approved as Submitted The deficiencies described above originate from the developer’s own soils report and drawings. They demonstrate that:
• Required remedial excavation depths and safety requirements were not incorporated in the recommendations
• The proposed vertical cut exceeds all stated safe limits. • The adjacent property’s active use violates the soils report’s 5-foot surcharge exclusion zone.
• The soils report acknowledges the real possibility of “major yielding” that could damage neighboring structures.

Until these geotechnical inconsistencies are fully resolved — with revised excavation depths, updated shoring recommendations, and protections for adjacent property — the project presents unacceptable safety and liability risks. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny approval of the project in its current form.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Rolling Hills Business Centre, LLC
Scott Douglas, Manager
263 328
December 9, 2025

Page 4 of 5 ends

Exhibit A
264 329
December 9, 2025

Page 5 of 5 ends

Exhibit B
265 330
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Mike Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 3:48 PM
To: Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: FW: Walteria Terrance Garden Project
Attachments: WCCP-Torrance Planning Commission - 2025-12-09.pdf Hi YolandaIf you have any questions on the matters raised in the attached letter, we would like to discuss them with you.

If you have time and are willing, prior to the meeting next week, we would also appreciate the opportunity to discuss some of these concerns on site. Please let me know if that’s a possibility Thank you.

Michael Rosa
West Coast Capital Partners
25500 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 2250
Torrance, CA 90505
O: 310-698-5318
[email protected]
From: Mike Rosa
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 3:46 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>; Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Subject: Walteria Terrance Garden Project
Please see the attached letter in regard to the proposed project.

Regards,
Michael Rosa
West Coast Capital Partners
25500 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 2250
Torrance, CA 90505
O: 310-698-5318
[email protected]

266 331
25500 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2250
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505
T: 310-698-5310
December 9, 2025
City of Torrance Planning Commission
c/o Community Development Department
3031 Torrance Blvd.

Torrance, CA 90503
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Public Comment
CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009
East Side of Hawthorne Blvd, Approximately 200 Ft. North of Rolling Hills Rd.

Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing to respectfully request denial of the proposed project in its current form due to significant unresolved geotechnical and construction-safety risks that directly affect the adjacent commercial property to the south. These risks are clearly documented within the applicant’s own geotechnical report and project section drawings, and they have not been adequately addressed in the development submittal. Below is a summary of the most critical deficiencies, all sourced from the project’s own documentation.

1. Temporary Excavation Hazards Are Not Properly Addressed or Mitigated a) Excavation depth exceeds what the soils report identifies as safe. The soils report states in Section 13.15 – Temporary Excavations, that:
• Excavations more than 16 feet are not anticipated.
• The same section includes a chart indicating that any cut greater than 20 feet requires special engineering review and reevaluation.

However, the developer’s Building Section A drawing shows the parking level floor elevation at 207.5 feet, which does not include:
• slab thickness
• footings / grade beams
• required remedial excavation depth per Section 13.1 – Remedial Grading Recommendations
Using the site’s highest adjacent grade and the report’s own remedial grading requirements, the actual excavation height is 23 feet (see attached Exhibit A – applicant’s survey), well above both the 16-foot assumption and the 20-foot reevaluation threshold. This requires a completely new engineering analysis—none has been provided. 267 332
December 9, 2025

Page 2 of 5 ends

b) Excavation is located directly on the property line, violating surcharge limits.

Section 13.15 also states:
• No surcharging is allowed within 5 feet of the temporary excavation.

Page 3 of 5 ends

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Rolling Hills Business Centre, LLC
Scott Douglas, Manager
269 334
December 9, 2025

Page 4 of 5 ends

Exhibit A
270 335
December 9, 2025

Page 5 of 5 ends

Exhibit B
271 336
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Mike Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 4:07 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Gomez, Yolanda; Scott Douglas
Subject: RE: Walteria Terrance Garden Project
Attachments: Hawthorne Bl Development - Site Access Comments.pdf Please see an additional letter in regard to traƯic safety concerns that is also being submitted as Public Comment for the project.

Regards,
Michael Rosa
West Coast Capital Partners
25500 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 2250
Torrance, CA 90505
O: 310-698-5318
[email protected]
272 337
100 Oceangate, Suite 1425 Long Beach, CA 90802
Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Scott Douglas
West Coast Capital Partners
25500 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 2250
Email: [email protected]
Re: Review of Site Access for Proposed Senior Residential and Mixed-Use Development in Empty Lot located along East Side of Hawthorne Boulevard (north of Rolling Hills Road), Torrance CA.

Dear Scott,
Please find below our brief summary of comments and questions upon our review of Site Access Memo dated May 8th, 2023, for the proposed senior residential mixed-use project located at APN# 7547-004-049, Torrance, CA.

The memorandum provides a summary of the Stopping Sight Distance Analysis for the proposed driveway location, referencing guidance from the California Highway Design Manual. However, the appropriate methodology should have been an intersection sight distance analysis per AASHTO standards for right-turn movements. Vehicles executing a right turn require adequate sight distance to observe oncoming traffic from the left, ensuring they can complete the maneuver and accelerate to prevailing or design speeds without being overtaken. For passenger vehicles making a right turn onto roadways with a speed limit of 45 mph, the required intersection sight distance is 430.0 feet.

Additionally, the driver's eye position should be located 14.5 feet from the edge of the roadway, which generates a sight distance triangle that differs from what is depicted in the original memo.

Vehicles not entering the property, such as delivery vehicles stopped at the curb, may obstruct the view of drivers exiting the project's driveway and create unsafe conditions for departing vehicles. The project should clarify how restrictions will be implemented for loading, unloading, and temporary parking along the curbspace in front of the proposed development.

The proposed driveway design incorporates a sharp turn immediately upon site entry. This configuration will necessitate wider turns by vehicles, particularly larger passenger cars and delivery trucks, as they access the site via the driveway. Should a vehicle be stopped while exiting, incoming vehicles must wait until the departing vehicle has cleared the driveway before completing their maneuver, potentially impeding the sight lines of vehicles leaving the premises.

The construction phase of this project poses challenges regarding site access for delivery vehicles and other trucks, alongside ongoing construction activities. What is the project's proposed traffic and parking management plan during the construction period to address safety concerns and minimize impacts on adjacent land uses?
Please review these materials and, as you deem appropriate, share the aforementioned comments with the City of Torrance Planning Department. Please feel free to reach out to me at 310-382-4947 or at [email protected] if you have any questions. 273 338
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8A (SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 1)
DATE: December 17, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Yolanda Gomez, Planning Associate
SUBJECT: East side of Hawthorne Boulevard, approximately 200 feet north of Rolling Hills Road
Conditional Use Permit (CUP21-00018)
Development Permit (DVP21-00001)
Precise Plan of Development (PRE21-00009)
Division of Lot (DIV21-00009)
Consideration of a series of entitlements to allow the construction of a new mixeduse development comprised of 20 senior residential apartments and 1,608 square feet (sq. ft.) of commercial space. The request includes a Conditional Use Permit (CUP21-00018) in conjunction with a Density Bonus, Development Permit (DVP21-00001), Precise Plan of Development (PRE21-00009), and Division of Lot (DIV21-00009), on property located within the Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay District (R-H) in the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan-Walteria District (HBCSP-WT) Zone, on the east side of Hawthorne Boulevard, approximately 200 feet north of Rolling Hills Road (APNs: 7547-004-040 through 7547-004-046).

SUPPLEMENTAL
Please find attached Draft Minutes of the November 19, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting.

The Minutes have not been reviewed by Planning staff, as they were received on December 16, 2025. In the spirit of transparency, staff is including them for the Commission’s review, with the caveat that corrections may need to be made.

Additionally, attached is correspondence from the applicant’s representative noting their request to implement State Government Code Section 65915, subsection (p), for this project. This Density Bonus Code Section states that upon request of the developer, the city may not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, of a development. The applicant had previously requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow the sharing of the residential guest parking requirement with the commercial parking. Nevertheless, a Conditional Use Permit is still required to allow the construction of more than 15,000 sq. ft. of area, and to allow senior citizen housing.

Correspondence from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District is also attached.

Lastly, please find additional attached correspondence from members of the public, received after distribution of the meeting agenda and staff report.

Staff continues to recommend approval of the project, as conditioned.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Minutes of the November 19, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting

2. Applicant’s Email Request

3. LA County Sanitation District Email and Comment Letter

4. Public Correspondence
1 339
ITEM 8A
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Minutes of the November 19, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting ITEM 8A
ATTACHMENT 1
2 340
0 Tracy Weaver, CMC Torrance Planning Commission
Recording Secretary November 19, 2025
INDEX
TORRANCE PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 19, 2025

SUBJECT PAGE

OPENING CEREMONIES

1. Call to Order/Roll Call 1

2. Flag Salute 1

3. Posting of the Agenda 1

4. Withdrawn, Deferred, and/or Supplemental Items 1

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1
CONSENT CALENDAR 1
6A. Approval of Minutes: 1
None 1

7. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 1
7A. None 1

8. HEARINGS 2
8A. CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009: 2-5 Zeina Awad (Mahmoud H. Awad Trustee for the Mahmoud and Nawal Awad Trust)

9. RESOLUTIONS 5
None 5

10. COMMISSION AND STAFF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5

11. ADJOURNMENT 5
Adjourned at 8:23 PM to Wednesday, December 3, 2025, at 6:30 PM in the LeRoy J. Jackson Council Chamber 3031 Torrance Boulevard.
3 341
1 Tracy Weaver, CMC Torrance Planning Commission
Recording Secretary November 19, 2025
November 19, 2025

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE

TORRANCE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Torrance Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:30 PM on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, in the Council Chamber.

ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners Anunson, Riggs, Turner, Yeh, and Chair Kartsonis

Absent: Commissioners Borgialli and Obejas
Also Present: Planning Manager Robert Garcia, Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez, Planning Associate Niemeyer, Planning Associate Yolanda Gomez, Senior Fire Prevention Specialist Christoper Rhodes, Building and Safety, Engineering Division, and Deputy City Attorney Jennifer Guerrero
MOTION: Commissioner Turner moved to excuse the absence of Commissioners Borgialli and Obejas for the November 19, 2025 meeting. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 5-0 approval. (Absent: Commissioners Borgialli and Obejas)

2. FLAG SALUTE
Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair Kartsonis

3. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ON THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA
Planning Manager Garcia stated that the agenda was posted on the Public Notice Board at 3031 Torrance Boulevard and on the City’s Website on Thursday, November 13, 2025.

4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF WITHDRAWN, DEFERRED, AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS Planning Manager Garcia reported the following Supplemental Items:

Item #1 for 8A; received after posting of agenda and staff report. The documents provide information on deleting Condition No. 46 from the CUP Resolution and Code Requirement No. 8 from Division of Lot. Therefore, Resolution No. 24-021 is revised, as well as the Code Requirements Document. A letter from Los Angeles County Sanitation District and public correspondence received before 5:00 PM is attached.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

None
4 342
2 Tracy Weaver, CMC Torrance Planning Commission
Recording Secretary November 19, 2025

7. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
None
7A. None

8. HEARINGS
Chair Kartsonis recused himself from the hearing due to his candidacy for City Council and one of the neighbors opposing the project is a donor to his campaign, creating a perceived conflict of interest under the Levine Act. The meeting was turned over to Vice Chair Turner for the remainder of the meeting.
8A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009: ZEINA AWAD (MAHMOUD H. AWAD TRUSTEE FOR THE MAHMOUD AND NAWAL AWAD TRUST)
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing for consideration of a series of entitlements to allow the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 20 senior citizen residential apartments and 1,608 square feet of commercial space on vacant land. The request includes a Conditional Use Permit (CUP21-00018), Development Permit (DVP21-00001), Precise Plan of Development (PRE21- 00009), and Division of Lot (DIV21-00009), in conjunction with a Density Bonus, on property located within the Hillside Overlay District (R-H) in the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan Walteria Sub-District (HBCSP-WT) Zone, on the east side of Hawthorne Boulevard, approximately 200 feet north of Rolling Hills Road (APNs: 7547-004-040 through 7547-004-046).

This project is categorically exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Article 19, Section 15332 (In-Fill Development) and Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions). (Res. No. 24- 021, 24-022, 24-023, 24-024)
Recommendation: Approval
Planning Assistant Gomez introduced and presented item 8A.

Greg Tross (Newmeyer & Dillion LLP) and Dan Withee (BSB Design), representing applicant, gave a brief report on the item and requested waivers.

Members of the public spoke.

Greg Tross and Dan Withee gave closing remarks, answered the publics concerns, and answered Commissions questions.

Vice Chair Turner – stated she has visited the site and will base her decision on the evidence presented and the safety of the community. Asked the following questions of the applicant and staff;
• Was a study done on how many response vehicles would show up during a 911 call; applicant stated he was unaware if this was reviewed and that it could be part of the traffic study. This would have be signed off and approved by the Fire Department.
• Has the applicant considered the emergency egress on Hawthorne Blvd. from the hill and considered the life safety impact on a situation that could occur at the building and what this would mean for this major intersection; applicant stated city traffic engineers looked at this and requested a six-foot-wide easement to widen the lane, vans can get into the garage, such as a paramedic emergency vehicle, 5 343
3 Tracy Weaver, CMC Torrance Planning Commission
Recording Secretary November 19, 2025
however, a fire truck cannot, fire trucks will need to park on Hawthorne Blvd. Staff added that Fire Department access and turning movements were reviewed and no objections were raised.
• Questioned the guardrail, didn’t see any details on the structural design of the proposed new guardrail, will this guardrail be safe enough to actually withhold a vehicle coming around the corner; applicant stated the guardrail will be installed to city standards and conditions as required for approval. • Asked what type of commercial use is planned; applicant stated office space. • Inquired about the set-backs, is it standard to waive all setbacks in their entirety; staff stated the applicant can request waivers; however, waivers can be denied if there is evidence for life safety or health concerns.
• Stated there is a vacant area near a light pole between two homes, has staff considered a better design would be to create a driveway off of that street to provide safe access to the building; staff’s practice is typically not to recommend changes to plans, staff reviews what is submitted and when these plans were submitted to our traffic engineering team, they reviewed all plans and concluded that no mitigation measures were required.
• Questioned parking requirements; staff stated the project requires 20 parking spaces for the 20 senior citizen units, with 4 guest spaces and 5 spaces for the commercial component of the project. Staff has requested that the guest and commercial spaces be shared. Applicant clarified, the parking is adequate per the state density bonus law.
• Asked everyone to consider the quality of life and air quality that this area would be subject to if this project moves forward. Feels the parking situation doesn’t net out with senior citizens and the possibly of needing in home care.

Commissioner Riggs – asked the following questions of the applicant and staff; • Asked about the 6-foot set back from Hawthorne Blvd; applicant stated the traffic department felt 6 feet was adequate, this moved the property line and curb, which is what they are calling the easement, but it’s really a dedication. No parking is allowed on the property side of the street (which is still a parking lane), but with the added 6-foot set back the lane will be wider than normal. • Questioned the projects compatibility of the neighborhood; staff stated compatibility is subjective and since the project under the HAA (Housing Accountability Act), subjective standards cannot be viewed for reviewing the project. Commission must base its decision on objective standards. • Asked about environmental reports; staff stated the applicant is seeking a class 32 in-fill exemption to CEQA and staff has reviewed the technical studies which include traffic, noise, and air, staff has found the studies to be adequate. • Is there Phases 1 and 2; staff stated the project is conditioned for Phase 1 and possibly a Phase 2.

Commissioner Yeh – asked the following questions of the applicant and staff:
• Asked for clarification on the waivers request, Mr. Tross stated they applied for 2 waivers, but on the staff report it states 3 waivers were requested; staff stated initially the applicant applied for 3 waivers; however, the height waiver was not required and was removed.
• Asked a question regarding the mix-use commercial space; staff stated the applicant requested office use only, no restaurants, retail space and/or medical uses.
6 344
4 Tracy Weaver, CMC Torrance Planning Commission
Recording Secretary November 19, 2025
Commissioner Anunson – stated he has visited the site and will base his decision on the evidence presented. No particular questions regarding the project, however, stated he was hoping speakers would have given suggestions as to what should go on the site if they are opposed to the project, but none were given.

Deputy City Attorney Guerrero stated to the Commission that this is a HAA (Housing Accountability Act) project and therefore the commission must look at the factors of this project objectively. Vice Chair’s comments regarding the quality of life, that is a subjective standard, the commission must look at the objective standards. If the commission denies the project, specific findings of fact to support the denial will need to be made.

Vice Chair Turner stated she understood, however, the impact would objectively impact the quality of access to Hawthorne Blvd., to the surrounding residents and to the commercial building above the site.

Applicant stated they have provided soils and technical reports which show the potential impacts the project will have on the property and staff has determined that there are no significant impacts to the environment. At the end of the day, the project is a Class 32 infill development plan.

MOTION: Commissioner Riggs moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Yeh seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 4-0 approval. (Recused: Chair Kartsonis and

Absent: Commissioners Borgialli and Obejas)
Commission Discussion;
Commissioner Yeh – stated the commission is mostly concerned with safety and feels the commission has the authority to look further into the project to make sure residents are safe.

Commissioner Riggs – stated this is tough situation and safety is a major concern in this area; especially do speeding down from the hill. Great job of the city employees.

Commissioner Anunson – stated if the commission turns this project down, the commission will need a point-by-point reason for doing so. It will make denial difficult to prove.

MOTION: Commissioner Yeh moved to deny CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21- 00009, DIV21-00009. Vice-Chair Turner seconded the motion. No vote was taken; Vice Chair Turner made a substitute motion.

Discussion amongst Commission and staff continued.

Planning Manager Garcia reminded the commission that if this body is going to move forward denying this project, it will need to make specific adverse impacts. That means a significant quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact based on objective identified written public health or safety standards. This is just not voting to deny the project; the findings will need be substantive and needed tonight.

Commissioner Yeh asked if the motion is to approve and the commission doesn’t’ pass the motion, will they still need to provide the substantive findings? Deputy City Attorney suggested a recess in order to research and confirm procedurally what needs to be done.

MOTION: Commissioner Yeh moved to take a recess at 7:55 PM. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 4-0 approval. (Recused: Chair Kartsonis and

Absent: Commissioners Borgialli and Obejas)
Chair Turner called the meeting back to order at 8:05 PM. 7 345
5 Tracy Weaver, CMC Torrance Planning Commission
Recording Secretary November 19, 2025
Roll Call vote reflected 4-0; the following commissioners were present; Anunson, Riggs, Yeh and Chair Turner. (Recused: Chair Kartsonis and Absent: Commissioners Borgialli and Obejas)
Vice Chair Turner asked staff to report on the findings discovered during recess.

Planning Manager Garcia stated in response to the motion to deny, which is a pending motion, the commission will need to provide factual information as to why the commission is denying the project; this means to state adverse impacts, significant impacts, and unavoidable impacts based on objective, identified public health and welfare, most of what the commission has stated as concerns related to safety is mostly related to traffic and this is not part of the project. Reminded the commission staff has reviewed the technical study in relation to the traffic analysis, this has been signed off on and is adequate. This has been done for noise and other technical studies as well. The review has been done and professional staff has no objections.

If the commission still wished to deny the project, commission will need to provide definitive findings for the denial.

Deputy City Attorney Guerrero reiterated the appropriate city departments have reviewed the project and have found the project to acceptable. If the commission denies the project, the denial needs to be tied to facts or code that can be placed in a resolution. Once the resolution is written, it will be brought back to the commission for approval.

Planning Manager Garcia stated the applicants do not want a continuance.

Deputy City Attorney Guerrero stated if the commission’s basis for denial is due to lack of facts, then the more appropriate action would be to continue the hearing.

MOTION: Vice Chair Turner motioned to continue the hearing to an unspecified date based on insufficient information to make a decision. Commissioner Yeh seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 3-1 approval. Yes; Anunson Yeh and Turner No; Riggs (Recused: Chair Kartsonis and Absent: Commissioners Borgialli and Obejas) For the motion; it was suggested the following items need more clarification; electrical service, structural and civil public utilities (how these would be rerouted or utilized without impacting neighboring buildings).

Commissioners were advised utility and engineering aren’t the purview of the commission, these reviews occur after Planning Commission’s approval. Once the project moves from the Planning Commission it will then go through plan check, grading review, and other departments, including the utility companies for permitting. This review occurs post land use entitlements approvals.

9. RESOLUTIONS
None

10. COMMISSION AND STAFF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None

11. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: At 8:23 PM Vice Chair Turner moved to adjourn the meeting to December 3, 2025, at 6:30 PM in the LeRoy J. Jackson Council Chamber. Commissioner Yeh seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 4-0 approval. Recused: Chair Kartsonis and Absent:

Commissioners Borgialli and Obejas)
8 346
ITEM 8A
ATTACHMENT 2
Applicant's Email Request
ITEM 8A
ATTACHMENT 2
9 347
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Gregory D. Tross <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 1:28 PM
To: Gomez, Yolanda; Garcia, Robert
Cc: Zeina Awad; Dan Withee
Subject: New Walteria Project - Parking Ratio
Importance: High
Yolanda and Robert,
The applicant of the New Walteria Project (“Project”) would like to request on the record that the City of Torrance invoke the parking ratio as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (p) for the Project. The Project is therefore adequately parked without the requirement of a condition use permit. Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Gregory D. Tross
Counsel
949.271.7349 | [email protected]
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
895 Dove Street, 2nd Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
www.newmeyerdillion.com
| View my bio
10 348
ITEM 8A
ATTACHMENT 3
LA County Sanitation District Email & Comment Letter
ITEM 8A
ATTACHMENT 3
11 349
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Garcia, Robert
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 4:55 PM
To: Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: Fw: NOPH Response for CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009 Attachments: DMS-#7661640-v2-NOPH_Response_for_CUP21-00018__DVP21-00001__PRE21-00009 __DIV21-00009.PDF
Hi Yo,
We received this comment from the Sanitation District.

From: Wang, Shirly <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 10:57 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: NOPH Response for CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009

Dear Mr. Garcia,
Attached is the comment letter for the subject project. Please contact me with any questions.

Thank you.

Shirly Wang (she/her/hers)
Annexation and Will Serve Desk Coordinator
Property Management Group
562-908-4288 ext. 2708
[email protected]
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Website | Facebook | X (Twitter | Instagram | YouTube

12 350
DOC 7661640.D05
December 11, 2025
Ref. DOC 7659133
VIA EMAIL [email protected]
Mr. Robert Garcia, Planning Manager
Community Development
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, CA 90503
Dear Mr. Garcia:

NOPH Response for CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009 This is in reply to your notice, which was received by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) on December 8, 2025. Previous comments submitted by the Districts in correspondence dated November 14, 2025 (copy enclosed) to your agency, still apply to the subject project. • All other information concerning Districts’ facilities and sewerage service contained in the document is current.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (562) 908-4288, extension 2708, or at [email protected].

Very truly yours,
Shirly Wang
Annexation and Will Serve Desk Coordinator
Property Management Section
SW:sw
Enclosure
cc: J. Chang
A. Howard
13 351
DOC 7640554.D05
November 14, 2025
Ref. DOC 7640379
VIA EMAIL [email protected]
Mr. Robert Garcia, Planning Manager
Community Development
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, CA 90503
Dear Mr. Garcia:

NOPH Response for CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009 This is in reply to your notice, which was received by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) on November 10, 2025. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundary of District No. 5. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:

1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge directly to the Districts’ Madison Street Trunk Sewer, located in Rolling Hills Road at Hawthorne Boulevard. The Districts’ 7.5–inch diameter lined trunk sewer has a capacity of 0.6 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 0.3 mgd when last measured in 2017. A 6-inch diameter or smaller direct connection to a Districts’ trunk sewer requires a Trunk Sewer Connection Permit issued by the Districts. An 8-inch diameter or larger direct connection to a Districts’ trunk sewer requires submittal of Sewer Plans for review and approval by the Districts. For additional information, please contact the Districts’ Engineering Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 1205, or [email protected].

2. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility (formerly known as the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant) located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of 400 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 246 mgd.

3. The expected average wastewater flow from the project, described in the notice as 20 senior citizen residential apartments and 1,608 square feet of commercial space, is 3,643 gallons per day. For a copy of the Districts’ average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater Program and Permits and select Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link.

4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is used by the Districts for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-programs-permits/wastewater-revenue-program/revenueprogram-rates. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family Home, etc.) that best 14 352
Mr. Robert Garcia 2 November 14, 2025
DOC 7640554.D05
represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at [email protected] or (562) 908-4288, extension 2727.

5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise the applicant that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the applicant of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts’ facilities.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (562) 908-4288, extension 2708, or at [email protected].

Very truly yours,
Shirly Wang
Annexation and Will Serve Desk Coordinator
Property Management Section
SW:sw
cc: J. Chang
A. Howard
15 353
ITEM 8A
ATTACHMENT 4
Public Correspondence
ITEM 8A
ATTACHMENT 4
16 354
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Vivian Lee
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 4:28 AM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Gomez, Yolanda; Martinez, Oscar
Subject: “Public Comment”, Project Record Number: CUP21-00018, Project Address: East Side of Hawthorne Blvd., 200 ft North of Rolling Hills Road
Attachments: Eleda Letter_VL Dec 2025.pdf
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I’m writing to share an overview of the primary issues our neighborhood is facing with the proposed mixed-use development project on the small triangular lot located on the eastside of Hawthorne Blvd north of Rolling Hills road. I am a long-time resident at Eleda Drive (which is adjacent to the lot) and have attached a detailed document with photos and visual examples for clarity.

Main Concerns
 Excavation & Risk to Neighboring Structures: The project’s own soils report assumes a temporary cut no deeper than 16 feet, yet the actual excavation (once required remedial work and foundation elements are included) reaches about 23 feet, exceeding the report’s safety thresholds without any updated engineering analysis. The excavation is also placed directly on the property line, even though the report prohibits surcharge loads within 5 feet of the cut. The adjacent commercial property uses that zone for daily parking, truck access, and an SCE transformer, creating conditions the report specifically warns against. No shoring plan, monitoring program, or protective measures have been provided, leaving significant risks to neighboring structures unaddressed.  Size & Fit: The building appears roughly 49 ft above our elevation and stretches along our property lines. It’s far too large for this site and our hillside neighborhood.  Loss of Views & Privacy: Instead of hillside views, we’ll face a long wall with windows, balconies, and nighttime lighting directed toward our homes.  Noise: Garage vents, rooftop equipment, and traffic noise funneled through the garage will be ongoing issues.
 Security: Elevated patios and walkways look directly into our backyards.  Traffic: High-speed traffic on Hawthorne makes the short turn lanes and low garage clearance unsafe.
 Fire & Safety: Emergency access, ventilation reliability, and methane mitigation remain unresolved.
 Property Values: The project’s size and proximity will likely diminish surrounding home values.

I encourage you to visit our neighborhood Eleda Drive to see the silhouette from our perspective. I’m available if you’d like to discuss any of these points.

Thank you,
Vivian Lee
17 355
1 December 11, 2025
Yolanda Gomez, Planning Associate
Community Development Department
3031 Torrance Blvd.

Torrance, CA 90503
RE: Walteria Terrace Garden Project
Dear Ms. Gomez & Members of the Torrance City Council & Planning Commission:

I am a resident on Drive and consider it my childhood home. Please find below my response to the latest project’s building plans for the land parcel directly south and west of our property.

Excavation Discrepancies. The proposed excavation conflicts with the conditions and safety limits set out in the project’s own soils report. The temporary excavation analysis in the report was based on an assumed maximum depth of 16 feet, with an explicit requirement for new engineering review for any cut deeper than 20 feet. When the necessary remedial overexcavation, foundation elements, grade beams, and slab thickness are properly accounted for, the actual excavation depth reaches approximately 23 feet. This exceeds both the assumptions used in the soils investigation and the threshold that mandates reevaluation, yet no updated engineering study has been provided.

Additionally, the plans continue to show the vertical excavation located directly on the property line, even though the soils report prohibits any surcharge loading within 5 feet of the temporary cut. The neighboring commercial parcel actively uses this area for daily parking, truck access, and supports a large SCE transformer—each imposing significant surcharge forces.

Proceeding without addressing these conditions exposes both properties to preventable risks of soil movement and potential wall or structural failure.

The soils report also warns that substantial yielding of adjacent soils may occur during construction and could harm nearby structures or utilities. Despite this explicit caution, the submittal still lacks essential protective measures, including a verified shoring system, vibration and movement monitoring, and safeguards for the transformer and other infrastructure on the adjacent site.

In summary, the discrepancy between the project’s actual excavation requirements and the soils report’s underlying assumptions remains unresolved. The current design does not satisfy the report’s own safety criteria and continues to create unnecessary and avoidable risks for neighboring properties.

Structure Proximity. Because the parcel itself is oddly-shaped and narrow, the resulting building is incredibly tall & irregular in order to accommodate for its commercial & residential spaces.

This makes it stand out from the surrounding structures, and the silhouette itself towers above 18 356
2 other buildings. This can be seen from not only Eleda Drive, but also Madison Street & Hawthorne Blvd.

Our home & our neighbors’ homes also sit directly at the bottom of the slope along the northern part of the parcel. There is a history of soil erosion, mudslides & runoffs in the Rollings Hills & Rancho Palos Verdes area. As the impacts of El Nino and La Nina grow more substantial as climate change continues to worsen, I am skeptical of the stability of the proposed project & its extreme grading.

We also already feel the rumbling of large vehicles driving along Hawthorne Blvd from the west.

Cars of all sizes already drive at high speeds downhill from Palos Verdes & the Rolling Hills Road/Hawthorne Blvd. intersection is already busy. With the property proposing to bring the curb even closer to our home and add a subterranean parking garage, there will be a dramatic increase in not only the sound & ground movement at our property, but also an increased risk of traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) accidents.

Sunlight & Security. The project’s shade study report shows that the building will block all sunlight on the south and west ends of our home. Virtually all daylight hours (9am-3pm) are impacted during the winter, which means that our utility costs will increase. The new building would lead an air flow blockage via a closed-in wall effect. As a result, both heating and air conditioning costs would skyrocket. We would also be unable to install solar panels to offset those increased costs due to the limited daylight exposure.

Numerous windows and open decks face the south and west ends of our property. These stretch across both floors of the building because almost all of the building’s 20 residential units have exposures that look out into our property. The lack of privacy is also combined with total coverage of any views from our property, as shown in the following photos on the next page:
19 357
3 Photos #1 & 2 — Views from Upstairs Bedrooms
20 358
4 Photos #3-5 — View from Back Yard
21 359
5 Photos #5-7 — View from Front & Side Yards
22 360
6 23 361
7 The project fully surrounds our home both horizontally and vertically, which presents a significant likelihood of devaluing our property. We recorded a 50-second Youtube video that shows the silhouette from various points of our home: https://youtu.be/OdsIUo5V4LI. All photos & this video can also be found in a shared Google Drive that is linked here.

Closing Remarks. Having grown up on Eleda Drive, I have been able to witness how the neighborhood has changed & grown over many years. While I commend the project’s efforts to continue developing the Walteria area, its proposed specifications are not in synergy with its surroundings as it allegedly claims. The extraordinary proportions of its building plans come at the expense of significant impacts on privacy, safety & financial costs for its commercial and residential neighbors. The developer team & members of the Torrance City government are free to visit us over at Eleda Drive to see its impacts.

Sincerely,
Vivian Lee

24 362
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: ANNI LEE
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 8:38 AM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Martinez, Oscar; Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: Public Comment, Project Record Number CUP21-00018, Project Address: East Side of Hawthorne Blvd, 200 ft North of Rolling Hills Road
Attachments: 3620 Eleda Letter_AL Dec 2025.pdf
Hello Planning Commissioners,
As a 30+ year resident at Eleda Drive in Torrance, I am submitting this message to highlight several important issues related to the proposed development on the narrow triangular parcel along Hawthorne Boulevard north of Rolling Hills Road that's right behind my property. Although the site should be developed thoughtfully, the current plan raises significant compatibility, safety, and environmental concerns for the homes immediately below it. A more detailed write-up, including photos and visual references, is attached.

Primary Issues Identified
• Excavation Depth and Adjacent Property Risks
Updated review shows that the project’s excavation will be significantly deeper than what the soils report evaluated. When the required remedial grading and foundation components are factored in, the cut extends to roughly 23 feet, well beyond the report’s assumptions for safe temporary excavation. Despite this, no revised engineering study has been submitted. In addition, the dig is planned directly at the property line, even though the soils report prohibits surcharge loading near the edge of the excavation. The neighboring commercial parcel uses this area daily for vehicles and contains a large transformer, creating conditions that could destabilize the soil without proper shoring, monitoring, or protections in place.

These unresolved discrepancies pose avoidable risks to surrounding properties. • Excessive Massing for the Site
Due to the parcel’s elevation, the building would appear nearly 50 feet tall from our properties and run a considerable length along our rear lot lines. This scale is out of proportion with the surrounding hillside homes and would dominate the neighboring residences.
• Visual, Lighting, and Privacy Impacts
The structure’s windows, lighting, and elevated outdoor areas face directly toward nearby homes. This results in a loss of privacy, increased nighttime illumination, and the replacement of open hillside views with a long, tall façade. • Security and Neighborhood Character
Raised walkways and patios give direct sightlines into backyards and living areas, changing the sense of security and privacy that residents have enjoyed for decades.
• Vehicle Access and Traffic Safety
Short turn pockets and the low clearance of the garage entrance pose questions about how delivery vehicles, emergency responders, and residents will safely enter and exit given the fast-moving traffic on Hawthorne. • Fire Access and Hazard Planning
The layout appears to offer limited fire-truck access to the upper portions of the building. Ventilation reliability, methane mitigation, and emergency access require further evaluation.

I ask that the Planning Commissioners and Council Members visit my home & surrounding street before making any decisions.

Sincerely,
Anni H. Lee
25 363
1 December 11, 2025
Yolanda Gomez
Planning Associate, Community Development
3031 Torrance Blvd.

Torrance, CA 90503
RE: Walteria Terrace Garden Project
Dear Ms. Gomez, Members of the City Council & Planning Department, I am a homeowner on Eleda Drive and have resided here since purchasing the home in 1995, having lived in Torrance itself since 1987. The purpose of this letter is to outline my concerns with the development plans for the mixed-used project on the vacant lot directly next to the southern & western borders of my home.

Excavation & Safety Concerns
The project’s excavation plans do not match the assumptions or safety limits established in the developer’s own soils report. The report indicates that temporary excavations were not expected to exceed 16 feet, and that any cut deeper than 20 feet requires a new engineering review.

However, once required remedial over-excavation, slab thickness, footings, and grade beams are included, the actual cut depth is approximately 23 feet—well beyond the report’s stated thresholds. No updated engineering analysis has been provided.

The excavation is also proposed directly on the property line, despite the soils report prohibiting surcharge loads within 5 feet of the cut. The adjacent commercial property uses this area for daily parking, truck operations, and supports a large SCE transformer—activities that impose significant surcharge loads and increase the risk of soil movement or wall failure.

The soils report itself warns that major yielding of adjacent soils may occur during construction and that such movement could damage nearby structures and utilities. Despite this, the project provides no shoring design, vibration mitigation, monitoring program, or protections for the adjacent property or its critical electrical infrastructure.

Taken together, these issues represent a fundamental mismatch between the soils report’s safety assumptions and the project’s actual excavation requirements. As submitted, the plans do not meet the report’s own safety criteria and pose avoidable risks of subsidence, cracking, and structural damage to neighboring properties.

Shading, Airflow & Privacy
Based on the project’s building plans, a total of 12 residential units (6 on each floor) will overlook the entire southern & western lines of my home. 10 of these units (5 on each floor) have private decks that will also overlook into my property along the southern line. This means that a majority of the project’s residences will get a front-line view to my home. With the entire 26 364
2 building towering at over 40 feet, the resulting building will entirely obstruct the views from my backyard & indoor living spaces. I have included photos outlining the projected impact on my home’s privacy, safety and airflow based on the wooden silhouettes that were put up recently:

A. View of silhouette & design from backyard (ground floor) 27 365
3 28 366
4 B. View of silhouette from 2nd floor bedrooms
C. View of silhouette & design from front & side yards
29 367
5 30 368
6 D. East Elevation Comparison with Typical 2-Story Home As demonstrated in these photos, the entire southern part of my home will be completely wrapped around by the project and tower over my home. From the 2nd floor, the views from the windows in the two bedrooms will be completely obstructed by the new project. This essentially gives the project’s residents complete visibility into my home from their windows and decks. I 31 369
7 have also recorded a 50-second video showing the silhouette from various points of my home:
https://youtu.be/OdsIUo5V4LI. All photos and videos mentioned in this letter can also be accessed via Google Drive using this link.

The project’s own shade study underscores its impacts on the light flowing into my home.

During the winter, my home will be enclosed in shade from the project between 9am-3pm and between 12-5pm during the fall, respectively. This would dramatically increase the heating costs of my home during that time due to deprivation of natural sunlight that currently falls onto the home during those seasons. During the spring & summer, the building’s height will disrupt airflow and cut down on the wind that currently flows around the property as part of a natural cooling process. This results in an air flow blockage due to the new building creating a closed-in wall effect due to having a 250ft lateral extent. As a result, both heating and air conditioning costs would skyrocket.

Traffic & Air/Noise Pollution
The project has outlined 26 parking stalls for all of its proposed commercial space & 20 residential units. This allotment severely underestimates the actual amount of traffic that the development will incur & relies on the assumption that each residential unit will only warrant one parking spot. Additional residential, guest & commercial parking needs are underserved by the extra 6 parking spaces, which will result in an overflow onto neighboring residential side streets and commercial lots. Considering that the residential units will be intended for senior living, each unit should actually anticipate more than 1 parking space being needed (e.g. for visiting family members and routine caretakers).

The project is also located on a sloping area of Hawthorne Blvd. in an already busy traffic corridor. Ingress and egress for the project’s garage — which also features unsafe low ceiling heights — are a concern due to limited visibility around the sloped area, as well as limited space & guardrails for vehicles to safely decelerate. Narrow U-turn access at the garage’s entrance also exacerbates the lack of safety when entering from a high-speed roadway.

The project will also involve pushing the curb line back even further to the western property line of my home, which raises safety, air and noise pollution concerns due to the increased volume & proximity of vehicle activity. The garage’s proposed entrance is approximately 25ft from a 20ft steep drop-off to Eleda Drive. The noise generated by constant vehicular entry & departures from the subterranean parking garage will also cause significant disruption to neighboring residences, especially since the garage’s vents are facing our properties. This also doesn’t account for the occupant/pedestrian noise from an uptick in density of new residential units.

During construction, parking overflow will occur with similar crowding impacts on neighboring commercial & residential streets. The surrounding area is at-risk of being exposed to potentially hazardous silica dust being generated — as occurred with the prior excavation at Sunrise alongside inadequate dust control methods — which will aggravate asthma and other respiratory issues.

Elevation & Stability
32 370
8 The parcel of land that is directly south of my home slopes sharply downward along its northern property line. Significant grading is warranted to accommodate the project’s building plans and subterranean garage. My home is located at a significantly lower elevation than the proposed development. Aside from the privacy concerns outlined already, there are also runoff and erosion concerns as a result of the substantial elevation difference. While the building plans denote a 10- to 20-feet distance from the property line, the sloping that occurs along its northern and western property lines means that the distance in actuality will be much narrower.

Conclusion
The project’s proposed plans present significant privacy & safety concerns, as well as heavy health- and financial-related costs to the surrounding commercial & residential parcels. The latest proposal has neglected to address my concerns raised during earlier iterations of this project and as a result, I strongly oppose this project. I am more than welcome to have members of the Torrance City Planning Department & City Council to visit my home and neighborhood to see the silhouette from Eleda Drive to further evaluate the impacts. Thank you for your time and review of my concerns.

Best regards,
Anni H. Lee

33 371
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Garcia, Robert
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 7:40 AM
To: Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: Fw: December 17th - Item 8A - Community Development – Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider Approval of CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009: ZEINA AWAD (MAHMOUD H. AWAD TRUSTEE FOR THE MAHMOUD AND NAWAL AWAD TRUST)
Hi Yo,
Received this comment on your Walteria project. Thanks.

ROBERT GARCIA
Planning Manager - Community Development Department
310-618-5835 | [email protected]
This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Kenny Johnson
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 5:21 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: December 17th - Item 8A - Community Development – Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider Approval of CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009: ZEINA AWAD (MAHMOUD H. AWAD TRUSTEE FOR THE

MAHMOUD AND NAWAL AWAD TRUST)

Commissioners,
I am writing in support of Item 8A. Torrance desperately needs more senior housing for our aging population, especially in Walteria where there are limited options. I welcome the addition of 20 agerestricted units and the inclusion of 1 very low income unit. However, Torrance urgently needs 100% affordable projects, not just a patchwork of a few affordable units at a time. I'd really like for the planning commission and city to prioritize more deeply affordable units. Torrance should be actively recruiting non-profit and mission-driven developers and look to using city-owned property to ensure more affordable units are built. We should also look at reduced fees and gap financing.

Seniors on fixed incomes are at a high risk of homelessness, especially with ever increasing rents that far outpace inflation (which has also been high). Affordable housing shouldn't be optional. It should be our number one strategy on preventing homelessness.

This project fits well with this site, but I don't want it to become the default model. I've been very supportive of Torrance's continued approval of multi-family housing throughout the city. They are much needed, but we shouldn't be just looking to make sure we comply with RHNA. We should be looking to make sure our residents, especially our seniors, have affordable housing options. Future projects should deliver greater affordability as part of our long term housing strategy.

Thank you,
Kenneth Johnson
Torrance Resident
34 372
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From:

Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 10:58 AM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Martinez, Oscar; Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: "Public Comment", Project Record Number: CUP21-00018, Project Address: East Side of Hawthorne Blvd., 200 ft North of Rolling Hills Road
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are Torrance residents whose home is located on the south side of Eleda Drive and adjacent to the ‘proposed’ Walteria Mixed-Use Development. This large proposed Project has many short-comings that make it unsuitable for the small vacant property where it will be located. The proposed large wrap-around elevated building will be as close as 10 Ō from our neighbor’s residenƟal property line and 20 Ō from our property line.

The proposed Project will present numerous negaƟve environmental impact problems that include:

1. ConstrucƟon of the equivalent of a 5-story tall wrap-around building very close to our neighbor to the west and our home.

2. The presence of numerous windows, paƟos, and elevated walkways that will create privacy and security problems.

3. The installaƟon of numerous large acousƟcally transmissive garage vents facing our neighbor’s home, our home, and other homes on Eleda Drive that will radiate noise from visitors and automoƟve horns, Ɵre squeal, engines, door slams, etc.

4. PotenƟally excessive spill-over night Ɵme project illuminaƟon from the many windows and project lighƟng leading to privacy loss and sleep-deprivaƟon related issues since our bedroom windows face the property.

5. Significant reducƟon of sunlight in the aŌernoon and airflow blockage by the tall wrap-around building.

6. The potenƟal generaƟon of ‘hazardous’ airborne parƟculates during extensive excavaƟon which can aggravate breathing issues.

7. The potenƟal generaƟon of intense earth-transmiƩed ground-shock during extensive deep excavaƟon causing physical damage to our homes and interfering with daily living.

AND MOST IMPORTANT!

1. The Sharp-U-Turn subterranean garage divided-driveway with adjacent entry and exit lanes that connects to the potenƟally hazardous high-speed downhill traffic lane on Hawthorne Blvd where traffic speeds approach or even exceed 60 mph can present a serious challenge to slow-reacƟng senior residents and visitors.

2. One can expect that occasionally an over-sized truck will aƩempt to access the semi-subterranean garage, but not being able to clear the entrance ceiling it will have to back-out making a reverse U-turn onto Hawthorne Blvd. This could present serious access problems for vehicles exiƟng the garage onto Hawthorne Blvd and for those behind the truck aƩempƟng to enter the garage requiring that they back-up potenƟally into the northbound downhill traffic on Hawthorne Blvd.

3. Southbound traffic on Hawthorne Blvd. will have to make two consecuƟve rapid U-Turns to access the subterranean garage. The first U-Turn at the Rolling Hills Road intersecƟon with Hawthorne Blvd and the second U-Turn to enter the garage from northbound lanes on Hawthorne Blvd.

4. A ‘Safe’ loading and unloading access area is needed for ‘large and tall’ service vehicles so traffic collisions can be avoided in the presence of high-speed downhill traffic on Hawthorne Blvd. The 35 373
2 ‘service vehicle parking strip’ should not be located downhill of the subterranean garage divideddriveway since it’s a very-narrow strip of highly-elevated land having a potenƟally unstable curved steep-slope adjacent to residenƟal homes on Eleda Drive. It currently has a guardrail to prevent vehicles from plunging down the highly elevated steep-slope onto the residenƟal properƟes located on Eleda Drive.

5. The proposed narrow parking strip for large delivery and hauling trucks adjacent and north of the semisubterranean garage will require deparƟng large trucks to back-up across the garage divided-driveway blocking entry/exit to the garage and potenƟally interfere with high-speed northbound downhill traffic on Hawthorne Blvd.

6. The semi-subterranean garage will have very limited parking! Where will the 20+ senior residents, family visitors, business patrons, care-givers, maintenance workers, and emergency vehicles park when all the 26 parking stalls in the semi-subterranean garage are filled? If vehicles enter the garage and parking is not available, will they have to exit the garage and park somewhere downhill on Hawthorne Blvd which is a very unsafe road to park on?

7. This locaƟon for the Proposed Project does not appear to be suitable or safe for senior residents, family visitors, care-givers, maintenance workers, emergency vehicles, and large delivery/hauling trucks due to ‘limited parking’, challenging entry/exit divided-driveway with limited visual access from the semi-subterranean garage, and close proximity of high-speed northbound downhill traffic on Hawthorne Blvd.

8. The conclusion that this locaƟon is unsafe for the Proposed Senior-Housing Facility is supported by the occurrence of frequent loud audible Ɵre-squeals, braking noise, deceleraƟon noise, and high-speed vehicular noise on Hawthorne Blvd near Rolling Hills Road heard from the westside of our home.

9. The senior resident, visitor, and commercial parking spaces will be located in the basement of the building. Deep excavaƟon will be required to complete the parking space in the basement. ExcavaƟon could reach depths of 23 Ō and within one-foot of the 8-foot cinder-block wall shown in the photo/drawing below. Since the exisƟng soil under the Rolling Hills Business Center parking lot consists largely of unconsolidated fill it could collapse during excavaƟon. This collapse could cause major damage to the exisƟng cinder-block wall, the parking lot surface, automobiles and trucks parked in the lot, and make the ‘exisƟng parking lot’ seen in the Figure below unsafe for use! 36 374
3 10. The Proposed Project appears to be within 1,000 Ō of the Palos Verdes Landfill northern boundary necessitaƟng the installaƟon of a methane barrier to protect the senior residents living in the Project from landfill generated methane and other noxious gases/vapors potenƟally infiltraƟng their future living quarters. Refer to the Gas Hazard MiƟgaƟon Policy and Standards California Building Code, Volume 1, Title 26, Los Angeles County Code, EffecƟve: January 1, 2020

11. There is a groundwater monitoring well M63B near the center of the Project property that is currently used to monitor the concentraƟon of hazardous inorganic and organic chemicals in the groundwater due to landfill leakage. Will the Los Angeles SanitaƟon District relocate this groundwater monitoring well? Groundwater Monitoring Well M63B is seen toward the upper leŌ on the map of the Palos Verdes Landfill shown below. The Landfill perimeter is represented by the dashed line. 37 375
4 12. How will large earth moving machinery safely excavate this steeply sloped property, and move or transport extensive soil without significantly interfering with traffic on Hawthorne Blvd and neighboring streets?
In conclusion, one can readily see that the Proposed Mixed-Use Development has many negaƟve features and safety issues related to construcƟon and compleƟon that can’t be readily remedied. Therefore, we can’t support the approval of this Project! However, we do support appropriate and safety-conscious development of this property.

Thank you for your Ɵme spent reviewing these ‘criƟcal issues’, and we hope that you will make the appropriate decision for our neighbors and us.

Dave & Elaine Brent
Eleda Drive Resident
Torrance, CA
38 376
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Garcia, Robert
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:49 AM
To: Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: Fw: Opposition points for record entry
Hi Yo,
We received this comment on your Walteria project.

From: Kristine Kobe
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 10:33 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition points for record entry

Good afternoon -
I am unable to attend the meeting on Dec. 17, 2025 so am submitting my concerns for consideration by this commission.

The proposed 20- unit Senior housing project at Hawthorne and Rolling Hills Road is not a fit for the tiny, hillside site.

In this email, I will focus my strong objection to this proposed project from a traffic access/safety stand point for the sake of time only. I trust that others will dig into the countless additional issues development of this "slice" of land presents to the community. It's a vacant lot for good reason and shall remain one.

1. Located at a MAJOR intersection with only 1 ingress and egress.

2. Downhill speeds average 50-60mph with no access lane to merge

3. Southbound traffic is not able to access subteranean garage driveway at complex unless a U-turn at a major intersection.

4. Not ADA compliant for access and sidewalks

5. Underground parking is NOT adequate or allowing for visitors, rideshare vans nor deliveries.* It would require cars to back out onto high traffic highway.

6. Nowhere to safely exit as main intersection sits on highway. adjacent to intersection with high traffic constantly making , right, left and sharp turns.

7. Does not meet TMC Sec. 93,3,1, for 10ft in by 25ft^
39 377
2 8. Eastside will have NO access for Fire or safey support equiptment.

9. Any vehicle other than a standard car must park along the main boulevard which does not have any parking area creating an hazardeous situation

10. PV landfill is there with recorded escessive levels of vinyl chloride and other known carcinogens.

These are just a few of the non negotiable, factual safety/health issues that this project can not overcome nor ignore.

Thank you for your diligent, community first evaluation of this critical issue.

Kindly,
Kristine
Country Hills Resident.
40 378
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Garcia, Robert
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 11:29 AM
To: Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: Fw: Project in Walteria Hillside
Attachments: Public Hearing Notice (Torrance Planning Commission) 110725.pdf Hi Yo,
Please include this correspondence in the supplemental. Thank you.

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Dominic Borgialli
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 11:20 AM
To: Garcia, Robert <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Project in Walteria Hillside
From: Mike Griffiths
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 2:14 PM
To: Dominic Borgialli
Subject: Project in Walteria Hillside
Hi Dominic -
This project (see attached) is coming forward to planning, and is not the first time. I hope that this project can be killed for so many reasons, not the least of which is that some lots just should never be built on. This will have very detrimental impact on the residents below the steep drop off from this project.

Please be sure to look closely from the neighborhood (near me) below this project that will suffer tremendously from this project, if built.

Thanks for listening!
Mike
Mike Griffiths
41 379
42 380
43 381
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Garcia, Robert
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 11:31 AM
To: Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: Fw: In case I can't come tomorrow night
Hi Yo,
Please include this correspondence in the supplemental package. Thank you.

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Mario Obejas
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 9:49 AM
To: Garcia, Robert <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: In case I can't come tomorrow night

I quickly realized this is public comments on the Dec 17 agenda item and stopped reading .

My belief is the proper vehicle for public comments is via the official city mechanisms - not via an individual commissioner. Please accept the forwarded email as full disclosure and for proper entry in official public comments channels
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joan Davidson"
To: "Mario Obejas"
Sent: Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 7:30 PM
Subject: In case I can't come tomorrow night
Dear Mario,
Hope you don't mind. I'm sending comments to you because I have a cold and if I'm worse I may not be there tomorrow night to comment on the Walteria project.

Here are my comments- Thanks Joan

 A 20-unit senior housing project on a major speedway with only 1 ingress and egress is

UNACCEPTABLE

Downhill slope cars speed at 50-60 mph Entrance and Exit too difficult with high- speed downhill traffic

 Site is not ADA compliant for adequate access -and NO HAWTHORNE sidewalks.

44 382
2  Underground parking inadequate. Little if any Handicap Van Access

 Does not meet Torrance Municipal Code (TMC) Sec. 93.3.1, for 10-ft. in by 25- ft-  AB 130 and SB 131 Applicable to the Project are NOT addressed in this project application  Torrance Fire/Ambulance and Police services to the Senior Apartments who will be more frequent that average. Cost to Redondo Beach units = $120,000 for similar project- Who bears these COSTS?
 C-1 states:
 "right-of-way acquisition, and cooperation with adjacent cities are keys to addressing circulation issues and managing growth." This has not been done. RHE and PVE NOT CONTACTED FOR

TRAFFIC IMPACTS

 In 2002 a Major Landslide occurred in Country Hills - NO studies have been done on landslide and stability issues at the current site.

 This is located on top of the Palos Verdes Earthquake Fault

 A LACSD PV Landfill Monitoring Well 63 B is on site. It has serious very high levels of Vinyl Chloride. Vinyl Chloride is a KNOWN CARCINOGEN. WHO WANTS TO ROLL THE DICE ON GIVING CANCER TO THE RESIDENTS AND/OR WORKERS?

 Who in Torrance has checked on this site’s Well? And CONSEQUENCES?

45 383
384
ATTACHMENT 7
2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2025, AT 6:30PM IN THE LEROY J. JACKSON COUNCIL CHAMBER LOCATED AT 3031 TORRANCE BOULEVARD, TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, 90503, ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS:

CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009: Petition of ZEINA AWAD (MAHMOUD H. AWAD TRUSTEE FOR THE MAHMOUD AND NAWAL AWAD TRUST) for consideration of a series of entitlements to allow the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 20 senior citizen residential apartments and 1,608 square feet of commercial space on vacant land. The request includes a Conditional Use Permit (CUP21-00018), Development Permit (DVP21-00001), Precise Plan of Development (PRE21-00009), and Division of Lot (DIV21-00009), in conjunction with a Density Bonus, on property located within the Hillside Overlay District (R-H) in the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan-Walteria Sub-District (HBCSP-WT) Zone, on the east side of Hawthorne Boulevard, approximately 200 feet north of Rolling Hills Road (APNs: 7547-004-040 through 7547-004- 046). This project is categorically exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Article 19, Section 15332 (In-Fill Development) and Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions).

Meeting Calendar Civic Center Map
Planning Commission meetings are held monthly on the first and/or third Wednesday at 6:30pm in the LeRoy J. Jackson Council Chamber located at City Hall, 3031 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90503.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if special assistance is needed to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 618-2780. Notification given 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City Clerk’s Office to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. [28CFR35.102-35.104 ADA Title II] 385
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Ramirez, Michelle
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 7:50 AM
To: Garcia, Robert; Gomez, Yolanda; Oorts, Leo
Cc: Sullivan, Patrick; Strader, Tatia; Guerrero, Jennifer Subject: Fw: Torrance Planning Commission Approval of Senior Apartment on Hawthorne Blvd FYI -

MICHELLE RAMIREZ
Community Development Director - Community Development Department 310-618-5996 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Chaparyan, Aram <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 7:47:54 AM
To: Ramirez, Michelle <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Torrance Planning Commission Approval of Senior Apartment on Hawthorne Blvd

Good morning and FYI Michelle.

ARAM CHAPARYAN
City Manager - Office of the City Manager
310-618-5880 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Kerry Kallman
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 5:42 PM
To: CDD Info <[email protected]>; Poirier, Rebecca <[email protected]> Cc: Chaparyan, Aram <[email protected]>
Subject: Torrance Planning Commission Approval of Senior Apartment on Hawthorne Blvd

Good Evening-

I have received some concerns from PVE residents regarding the recent Planning Commission approval of the Senior Apartment complex on Hawthorne Blvd.

I respectfully request that I be notified if the decsion is appealed to the City Council so that the City of PVE can consider some form of action.

386
2 Thank you,

Kerry

Kerry Kallman
City Manager
City of Palos Verdes Estates
340 Palos Verdes Drive West
Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274
387
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Martinez, Oscar
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 12:24 PM
To: Garcia, Robert; Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: Fw: Appeal to Torrance City Council
FYI in case you didn't receive this.

OSCAR MARTINEZ
Planning Manager - Community Development Department
310-618-5870 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Poirier, Rebecca <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 12:06 PM
To:

Subject: RE: Appeal to Torrance City Council

Dear Mr. Brent,
Every name on the appeal will need to elect one or two speakers. Appellants are given 10 minutes max to speak. Any name listed on that appeal form does NOT get to speak under public comment.

The proponent will be given 10 minutes to speak. Appellant will then have a 5 minute rebuttal.

Members of the public who are NOT involved in the appeal, will be given two minutes each.

Microphone automatically shuts off after the allotted time periods.

No one is required to sign up to speak nor provide their name per the Brown Act, however, speakers may sign up electronically prior to the meeting. Speakers who are signed up are generally called to speak first. After which the Mayor will ask if there are any additional members of the audience who wish to speak. Members of the public may also submit comments through the portal once the agenda is posted.

From the agenda cover:

PARTICIPATE BEFORE THE MEETING by submitting a public comment on the OneMeeting Public Portal at https://torranceca.primegov.com/public/portal?fromiframe=true. Hard copies of public comment may be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office during regular business hours. All comments submitted before 5:30 p.m. on Monday, January 13, 2025, will be published for public review prior to the meeting. Comments received after 5:30 p.m., but prior to the adjournment of the meeting will be added to the record.

REBECCA POIRIER
City Clerk - Office of the City Clerk
310-618-2872 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram 388
2 This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From:

Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 11:57 AM
To: Poirier, Rebecca <[email protected]>
Subject: Appeal to Torrance City Council

Hi Rebecca,
Several others and I are planning on appealing the Planning Commission decision made on Dec 17th approving the Item 8A the Proposed Mixed-Use Senior Housing Project to be located on the Eastside of Hawthorne Blvd about 200 ft north of Rolling Hills Road.

I am wondering what time limit will be set for speakers at the City Council Meeting which includes our attorney(s) and residential/business complainants.

Must all complainants who wish to speak at the meeting send in their names, addresses, and signatures prior to the meeting. If printed meeting guidelines for speakers are available, could you email them to me.

Thank you,
Dave Brent
389
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Gomez, Yolanda
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 11:28 AM
To: Gregory D. Tross
Cc: Dan Withee; Danika Sinohin; Zeina Awad; Gomez, Yolanda; Garcia, Robert Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]:Walteria project appealed
Hi Gregory,
Based on the 15-day appeal period, the last day an appeal should be allowed is January 1st. However, as the first was a holiday, and City Hall was closed, any appeals would be accepted up to Friday, January 2nd instead. During the last hearing, due to neighbor opposition and the likelihood of an appeal, the audience was also made aware of this date. The appellant was in communications with City Clerk Staff, prior to the filing of the appeal, and was informed by Clerk Staff that 01/02/26 was the final appeal date, and the Clerk accepted the appeal on 01/02/26. You may contact her directly at [email protected], should you have further questions on the appeal date.

Regards,

YOLANDA GOMEZ
Planning Associate - Community Development Department
310-618-5862 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Gregory D. Tross >
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 10:32 AM
To: Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>; Garcia, Robert <[email protected]> Cc: Dan Withee ; Danika Sinohin ; Zeina Awad
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]:Walteria project appealed
Yolanda,
As the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and passing of the resolutions was on December 17, 2025, the appeal was due by January 1, 2026 (15 days from 12/17/25). Per the Torrance Municipal Code, our understanding is that the January 2, 2026, appeal is untimely and the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project is now final.

Best,
Gregory D. Tross
Counsel
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
895 Dove Street, 2nd Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
390
2 www.newmeyerdillion.com
|
From: Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2026 9:38 AM
To: Zeina Awad
Cc: Dan Withee >; Danika Sinohin ; Gregory D. Tross
; Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>; Garcia, Robert <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]:Walteria project appealed
Hi Walteria Team,

An appeal of your project was filed by the following persons on January 2, 2026:

David Brent, the neighbor at
Rolling Hills Business Centre LLC, Scott Douglas, Manager Vivan Lee,

Noted as reasons for the appeal are “potential major safety and emergency issues”, see attachment.

You will be contacted as soon as potential future City Council dates are provided to us by the City Manager’s Office. And for that hearing, we will need an additional 10 sets of plans with the same date as before, 11x17” are fine. No rush.

Regards,

YOLANDA GOMEZ
Planning Associate
Community Development Department
310-618-5862
[email protected]
3031 Torrance Blvd. | Torrance, CA 90503
TorranceCA.Gov Facebook
X (Formerly Twitter) Instagram
This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments. Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

391
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Garcia, Robert
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:50 AM
To:

Cc: Gomez, Yolanda; CDD Info
Subject: Re: Walteria Terrace Garden -
Hello Andrea,
The project you are inquiring about was approved by the Planning Commission in December 2025; however, an appeal has been received and is under review. The project Planner assigned to this project is out of the office today but will be returning tomorrow, if you have any further questions, please reach out to Yolanda Gomez directly.

Regards,

ROBERT GARCIA
Planning Manager - Community Development Department
310-618-5835 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Andrea Mason
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 8:02 AM
To: CDD Info <[email protected]>
Subject: Walteria Terrace Garden -
Hello,
Looking for information on a planning and zoning project: Walteria Terrace Garden - What is the status of the municipal approvals? What is the next step for this applicant.

Any information would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to either call or email me at your earliest convenience.
7348082
Andrea Mason
Sr. Content Specialist
p:
392
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Kerry Kallman
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 10:25 AM
To: Gomez, Yolanda; CDD Info
Subject: Re: Torrance Planning Commission Approval of Senior Apartment on Hawthorne Blvd Attachments: Letter to Torrance City Council - City of Palos Verdes Estates - 1-14-26.pdf Hi YolandaThanks for reaching out. The PVE City Council approved the attached letter in regards to the project. It was sent to your City Clerk yesterday.

And more imprtanly, please call me Kerry.

Have a great day.

Kerry Kallman
City Manager
City of Palos Verdes Estates
340 Palos Verdes Drive West
Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274
From: Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 10:13 AM
To: CDD Info <[email protected]>; Kerry Kallman
Cc: Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Torrance Planning Commission Approval of Senior Apartment on Hawthorne Blvd

Hi Mr. Kallman,
Not sure if you needed a response to the below request, and with the holidays, as you can imagine, we were on a skeleton crew. But yes, we’ve placed your contact info on the mailing list for the Walteria project as of 12/19/25, when I received the email from my manager, Robert Garcia. I am the project planner, so please feel free to reach out to me and/or Robert directly, should you have any future concerns. We currently do not have an anticipated date for the City Council Appeal Hearing.

Regards,

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. 393
2 From: Garcia, Robert <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 9:30 AM
To: Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Torrance Planning Commission Approval of Senior Apartment on Hawthorne Blvd

FYI

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: CDD Info <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 7:40 AM
To: Garcia, Robert <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Torrance Planning Commission Approval of Senior Apartment on Hawthorne Blvd

Good Evening-

I have received some concerns from PVE residents regarding the recent Planning Commission approval of the Senior Apartment complex on Hawthorne Blvd.

I respectfully request that I be notified if the decsion is appealed to the City Council so that the City of PVE can consider some form of action.

Thank you,

Kerry

Kerry Kallman
City Manager
City of Palos Verdes Estates
340 Palos Verdes Drive West
Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274
394
395
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From:

Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 12:45 PM
To: Chen, George; Kaji, Jon; Lewis, Bridgett; Sheikh, Asam; Kalani, Sharon; Mattucci, Aurelio; Gerson, Jeremy
Cc: ; ;
; ; ; Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009 East Side of Hawthorne Blvd, Approximately 200 Ft. North of Rolling Hills Rd.

Attachments: 3614 Eleda Brent Letter to City Council.pdf; 3620 Eleda Lee Letter to City Council.pdf; 3631 Eleda Nakano Letter to City Council.pdf; Rigg Letter for Walteria Garden Terrace.pdf; WCCP Letter to City Council.pdf; Hawthorne Bl Development - Site Access Comments.pdf
Mayor Chen and Members of the City Council,
You will soon be reviewing our appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Walteria Garden Terrace project. We respectfully request that the City Council deny this project based on the numerous substantive deficiencies identified in the attached letters from neighboring property owners and from myself.

As detailed in those letters, the project presents significant safety hazards, contains fundamental design flaws, relies on incorrect or unsupported technical studies, and remains incomplete in critical respects. In addition, the City cannot lawfully make the required findings under CEQA, as the project will result in severe and unavoidable negative impacts.

While the project has been characterized as a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act, the Act does not eliminate the City’s obligation to make, and rely upon, objective findings. In this case, multiple objective standards are not met. My letter identifies 13 objective, independent grounds that require denial of the project.

We strongly encourage Council Members to view the project site from the adjacent properties in order to fully understand the scale and severity of the impacts. The effects on the neighbors and public safety are profound and, frankly, appalling.

Please feel free to contact me or any of the neighboring property owners copied on this correspondence if you have questions or would like to meet to discuss these concerns further.

Respectfully submitted,
Allan Rigg, PE AICP
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Tel.

E-mail
RiggConsulting.com
396
397
There are many critical issues that need to be resolved before the project is approved that include:

1. The project silhouette needs to be modified to include elevated east-facing semisubterranean ‘garage roof extension’ which will be 25 ft above adjacent residential property surface. The east-facing garage surface with ‘six’ large 7 ft x 18 ft ‘open’ vents will be located only 10 ft from the adjacent residential west property line at 3620 Eleda Drive. However, the silhouette is erected 20 ft from this property line. Therefore, the current silhouette does not simulate the highly-elevated east-facing surface of the garage containing the ‘six’ large open vents. Poles/line heights and locations also need to be verified and corrected. These are confirmed in the Torrance staff report. In order to make these corrections to the silhouette, existing scrub trees may need to be trimmed or removed.

2. Project construction and development will interfere with high-speed downhill Hawthorne Blvd Highway traffic for many months during excavation and construction.

Also, there will be no available safe storage location on Hawthorne Blvd for building construction materials.

3. Unsafe steep single-driveway for ingress and egress from semi-subterranean garage located on a curved section of Hawthorne Blvd carrying high-speed downhill traffic where senior drivers will experience traffic visibility issues. Semi-subterranean driveway safe dry-design upper-limits have been reached or exceeded. The parallel-slope (20%) is at the safe upper-limit however the cross-slope is 10% which is double the safe permitted slope of 5%. If the driveway is wet, then the driveway will be slippery and potentially very unsafe for ingress and egress. The problem is made even worse if vehicle tires are worn! The steep driveway ingress and egress will challenge senior drivers. It will also be unsafe for senior residents to walk up or down the steep driveway which accesses Hawthorne Blvd.

4. There will be inadequate parking in the semi-subterranean garage for friends, caregivers, business patrons, emergency vehicles, cabs/taxis, etc. The project is also ADA non-compliant and there are no designated spaces provided for Torrance senior service vehicles. No surface parking is available or will be provided on or near the property for emergency vehicles and large delivery/hauling trucks. No safe-parking location will be available for vehicles on Hawthorne Blvd near the project!

5. The Project will not have a safe parking location on Hawthorne Blvd for large firetruck, emergency vehicles, and law-enforcement vehicles. These vehicles likely have to stand in the narrow Project Deceleration-Lane on Hawthorne Blvd. The only access to the Project for large vehicles is from the northbound Hawthorne Blvd Highway downhill eastmost lane.
398

6. There will be limited sidewalks available for senior residents and no sidewalk downhill on the eastside of Hawthorne Blvd. Senior residents will have to ‘walk’ on the steep Hawthorne Blvd ‘traffic carrying roadway’ to access nearest stores & restaurants located north & downhill on Hawthorne Blvd near Newton Street.

7. Bothersome airborne & ground transmitted fluctuating intense vehicular noise infiltration into the proposed senior living quarters from high-speed traffic on Hawthorne Blvd Highway which is only about 25 ft west of the building will seriously impact the health of senior residents. Interior noise level should be kept at 35 dBA or lower for maximum healthful comfort for senior residents which is 10 dBA lower than the 45 dBA value shown in the Developer’s Acoustical Report. Due to the very close proximity of the building to intense fluctuating airborne noise & ground transmitted vibration due to heavy high-speed traffic, this is a very poor location for senior housing since this intense noise will penetrate the residential unit’s walls, ceilings, windows, doors, and floors.

8. Required Project SCE transformer location is uncertain and apparently undetermined. It must be safely located and isolated from high-speed traffic on Hawthorne Blvd. Also, an impact assessment has not been done for the proposed relocation of the electrical support pole on eastside of Hawthorne Blvd for power-lines located on westside of Hawthorne Blvd.

9. Project sewage pipe and rainwater drainage pipes should not be connected to Eleda Drive residential lines which have small diameter and are only slightly sloped for adequate drainage. Rainwater collected on the semi-subterranean garage floor will probably be pumped-out onto Hawthorne Blvd along with roof-water collected by project catch-basins leading to potential hydroplaning of vehicles going downhill on Hawthorne Boulevard during rainstorms.

10. Uncertain status of the onsite PV-Landfill hazardous groundwater monitoring well M63B. Potential dangers in plugging or replacing the well which could potentially impact hazardous groundwater table, its drainage under the property, and loss of capability to monitor onsite hazardous-groundwater. The existence of the hazardous groundwater well M63B near center of the property is not discussed in the Developers submitted documents.

This well is important for monitoring the hazardous groundwater status and movement.

11. Hazardous inhalable 2.5 Micron dust will likely be generated during extensive excavation which will impact those residing and working in the area. The SCAQMD and residents will use Air Quality Sensors to monitor air-quality and hazardous dust continuously and will make real-time measurement data available online for the SCAQMD and other authorities to assess!
399

12. Potential damage to neighboring RHBC and neighboring residential buildings due to long-term ‘intense ground-transmitted excavation vibration’. In addition, neighboring residents and RHBC office workers will be subjected to ‘intense excavation and construction noise’ for many months due to the close-proximity of the project.

13. Construction Bond(s) are needed and should be secured by Developer to cover both RHBC/residential property damages due to intense excavation vibration, damage to existing residential walls/fences/homes due to physical impact, and health damage to business/residential neighbors caused by inhaling hazardous airborne particulates during excavation and construction. There is no mention of Bonds in the Developer’s documents submitted to the City of Torrance.

14. Construction of the equivalent of a 5-story tall wrap-around building very close to and seriously impacting adjacent residential properties on Eleda Drive. The presence of numerous windows, patios, elevated walkways, and ‘six’ large 7 ft x 18 ft open-garage transmissive vent screens in close proximity and facing our property that will create privacy and security problems for residential neighbors.

15. The proposed ‘six’ large 7 ft x 18 ft acoustically transmissive garage vents and only 10 ft from neighboring residential properties on Eleda Drive will radiate very-disturbing airborne noise from visitors and automotive horns, tire squeal, engines, door slams, garage interior-hard-surface conducted traffic noise from Hawthorne Blvd, etc.

16. Potentially excessive spill-over night-time project illumination from the many windows and project lighting will lead to privacy-loss and sleep-deprivation related issues since our and our neighbor’s bedroom windows face the project property.

17. The proposed tall wrap-around building placed adjacent to our property and our neighbor’s property will cause significant reduction of sunlight in the afternoon and year-round continuous significant airflow blockage. The blockage of air-flow will force us to use excessive electrical power to cool our homes in the summer. Solar panels will not generate enough electrical power due to reduced incident sunlight exposure by the proposed project.

Thus, there will be many significant ‘negative’ impacts on neighboring residential property values, security, and quality of life for those living on Eleda Drive. These impacts to our home and our neighbor’s homes will be very extensive and have been ignored by the developer and the city. Please review the following photo showing how the project will look from our home. We, as residents of Torrance, are due a thorough and legally appropriate review of this project which has not yet been performed by City staff and the Planning Commission.
400
We hope that the multitude of ‘serious negative environmental, health, and safety issues’ that the proposed project will create, encourages you to make the obvious objective finding to deny this project!
Thank you for the time you have spent reviewing our concerns, David and Elaine Brent
Note: We are the owners of Reliant Environmental Acoustics, LLC located in Torrance and have performed 500+ industrial, commercial, multi-unit residential, and civic environmental acoustical studies in Torrance, Redondo Beach, and neighboring cities. We have performed acoustical studies at the Torrance City Hall Permit Center, Torrance Cultural Arts Center, Torrance High School Stadium, American Honda Motor Company Headquarters, Toyota North American Headquarters, etc. On April 14, 2015 we each received a Volunteer Noise Consultant Award from the Torrance City Council. As a tenured Assistant Professor of physics, Dave taught environmental acoustics and applied physics at the Lawrence Technological University.
401
January 28, 2026
Annie and Vivian Lee
City of Torrance
Attention: City Council
3031 Torrance Blvd.

Torrance, CA 90503
Re: CUP21-00018, Proposed Walteria Mixed-Use Project, Eastside Hawthorne Blvd, 200 Ft. North of Rolling Hills Rd.

Dear City Council,
Our home is the most impacted by the proposed development. We will lose all privacy, most sunlight, and much of the views from our home and rear yard. Please see the simulation of the project from the rear of our home at the end of this letter. We invite you to view the project from our yard and home from 12 pm – 4 pm the Saturday and Sunday before your review of the project. If you are in the neighborhood another time, please knock on our door and hopefully we are home.

The project’s massing places a multi-story residential structure directly against the northern property line, with no meaningful horizontal or vertical buffer. Due to the parcel’s narrow and irregular geometry, the resulting building envelope maximizes height and bulk at the point closest to existing single-family residences. As a result, residential windows and decks are oriented directly toward adjacent private open space, creating line-of-sight conditions that are a 402
foreseeable outcome of the project’s massing strategy rather than a subjective concern.

The project’s silhouette analysis does not accurately represent the full extent of the building mass, particularly where the garage level projects northward beyond upper floors. As acknowledged in the staff report, portions of the structure were obscured by existing vegetation, preventing a complete evaluation of building massing and scale. This omission undermines the ability to objectively assess compliance with height, bulk, and compatibility standards.

The project proposes a driveway and subterranean parking facility immediately adjacent to an existing residence along a steep downhill arterial corridor. As noted by both residents and the civil engineering review, the submitted traffic analysis evaluates only limited sightdistance conditions and does not assess driveway geometry, turning movements, construction-phase impacts, or cumulative effects associated with steep grades and high-speed downhill traffic on Hawthorne Boulevard. These omissions prevent an objective determination of safety impacts.

According to the project’s own shadow study, the proposed structure would cast continuous shadows over the south and west façades of the adjacent residence during winter daylight hours. This represents a material reduction in solar access that has implications for energy consumption, passive heating, and the feasibility of on-site renewable energy systems. These impacts are quantifiable and stem directly from the project’s height, orientation, and massing.

As with other technical components of the project, the excavation design relies on assumptions that are no longer valid once the full scope of construction is considered. Both the project soils report and independent engineering review warn that excavation exceeding 403
specified depths requires additional analysis and protective measures.

Proceeding without updated studies, verified shoring systems, or monitoring plans constitutes a failure to meet the project’s own engineering criteria and creates foreseeable risks to adjacent structures.

The combined effects of building height, massing, proximity, and continuous operational impacts—including lighting, noise, and vehicle activity—raise legitimate concerns regarding land-use compatibility.

These are standard planning considerations used to evaluate whether a project is appropriately scaled and sited relative to existing development.

Consistent with the Housing Accountability Act, we recognize that subjective preferences cannot form the basis for denial. However, as demonstrated above—and as outlined in the analysis from Rigg Consulting —this project contains unresolved design conflicts, inaccurate technical studies, and significant negative impacts that are reasons that give you no choice but to deny this project.

Respectfully,
Annie and Vivian
404
405
406
407
home. Who is liable when a city guardrail is allowed to be removed and our property is damaged or our lives are lost?
We also expressed concerns about the noise created by the driveway towering over our home. The design is such that vehicles will be honking at one another trying to navigate it, and tires will squeal due to the steep design. There will be a significant impact and the city’s CEQA exemption should not be approved.

An additional concern is the proposed sewer line on our property. Long ago an easement to the City of Torrance was created for a public sewer. Now the developer is proposing to place their private sewer in the City’s easement. Our understanding is that an easement’s purpose and beneficiary cannot simply be changed without our permission and proper legal filings. We want to be on record that we oppose any use of the easement by the developer. There is significant risk to us with the failure of the sewer and sewage flowing onto our property and into our home.

In order to enumerate other objective reasons to deny the project, we have engaged Allan Rigg, at no small expense, to provide an expert analysis of the project and the required findings. He has found the design is incorrect, the technical studies are flawed, and that the staff has pushed off many items as conditions of approval, that may or may not be possible. Please deny this project as we have provided you many objective reasons.

Thank you very much for your time,
Rita and Kevin Nakano
408
409
410
25500 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2250
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505
T: 310-698-5310
January 28, 2026
City of Torrance City Council
3031 Torrance Blvd.

Torrance, CA 90503
RE: Public Comment
CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009
East Side of Hawthorne Blvd, Approximately 200 Ft. North of Rolling Hills Rd.

Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers:

I previously wrote to the Planning Commission regarding significant technical and safety concerns with the proposed project’s development. The Planning Commission did not discuss my concerns and seemed intimidated by the characterization of the project as a housing development project under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).

The project should not get a rubber stamp due to the HHA, but should be reviewed based on the objective findings as mandated by law.

Since the Planning Commission meeting, a group of concerned property owners has hired a local land use consultant to review the project. He has found an extensive number of design flaws, errors in technical reports, and unresolved issues in the design. Rather than reiterate all of these, I urge you to review each one of the issues in detail in his letter.

I would also like to comment on the errors in the silhouette, beyond those identified by staff in the staff report. The silhouette omitted the northeast wall of the garage structure, which is approximately 25 feet tall above neighbor’s grade, is approximately 150 feet long, and is also ten feet closer to the neighbor’s property than the constructed silhouette. The developer represents the garage as being subterranean, but this isn’t the case with the down slope portion that will be exposed to the neighbors.

The silhouette as depicted only reflects the construction of the residential living units (not the garage). It is not representative of the total structure that will be built.

My previous letter focused on the significant unresolved geotechnical and construction-safety risks that directly affect the adjacent commercial property to the south. These risks are clearly documented within the applicant’s own geotechnical report and project section drawings, and they have not been adequately addressed in the development submittal. Below is a summary of the most critical deficiencies, all sourced from the project’s own documentation.
411
January 20, 2026

Page 2 of 6 ends

Section 13.15 also states:
• No surcharging is allowed within 5 feet of the temporary excavation.

Page 3 of 6 ends

3. Lack of Protective Measures for Adjacent Commercial Operations The soils report explicitly prohibits loads within 5 feet of the cut and warns of major yielding. Despite this, the submittal offers no:
• engineering reevaluation for deeper cuts
• protections for the existing transformer
• monitoring plan for soil movement
• indemnification or mitigation for damage to adjacent structures Given that the adjacent property is fully developed, occupied daily by commercial tenants, and houses critical electrical infrastructure, the absence of these protections is unacceptable.

Until these geotechnical inconsistencies are fully resolved — with revised excavation depths, updated shoring recommendations, and protections for adjacent property — the project presents unacceptable safety and liability risks. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council deny approval of the project in its current form. 413
414
January 20, 2026

Page 5 of 6 ends

Exhibit A
415
January 20, 2026

Page 6 of 6 ends

Exhibit B
416
100 Oceangate, Suite 1425 Long Beach, CA 90802
Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Scott Douglas
West Coast Capital Partners
25500 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 2250
Email:

Re: Review of Site Access for Proposed Senior Residential and Mixed-Use Development in Empty Lot located along East Side of Hawthorne Boulevard (north of Rolling Hills Road), Torrance CA.

Additionally, the driver's eye position should be located 14.5 feet from the edge of the roadway, which generates a sight distance triangle that differs from what is depicted in the original memo.

Sewer Design – The project is shown to connect to a public sewer in Eleda through an easement on the property at 3631 Eleda. However, the subject property has no right to use the easement as the easement only benefits the City of Torrance and not the subject property. The connection from the proposed building to the public sewer is a sewer lateral and is privately-owned, not a City of Torrance facility. Even if the City of Torrance wanted to allow a private sewer in their public easement, it is not legal. A portion of the tract map establishing the easement is shown below:

Loading and Trash Cannot Occupy the Same Space – The project is required to have one loading space a minimum of 10 feet wide by 25 feet long with a vertical clearance of 419
Rigg Consulting, Inc.
14 feet. Due to the low ceiling in the garage, it must be outside as shown on the plans.

However, the plans also indicate the trash is within the same area. They simply cannot be in the same location:

Driveway Design – Angle
The City standard for a driveway in the public right of way mandates that it be perpendicular to the curb. However, in an apparent effort to allow for the driveway to curve 180 degrees into the parking garage, the proposed driveway is angled in the right of way as shown below. Drivers simply cannot make such a turn, and as such the driveway design does not work and is non-standard. The thick red line shows the alignment of a proper driveway:

420
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Removal of Guardrail – The project proposes to remove a portion of an existing guardrail in order to build the driveway. The guardrail was originally installed in response to accidents, or the fear of one due to the high speeds on and the curvature of the road. How can the applicant simply remove the guardrail without a study to determine it is now not needed, or provide alternative protection to drivers and to the residents below?
Technical Study Flaws (Provided to Support a CEQA Exemption) Sewer Report – There is no capacity for the project’s sewage in the public sewer. The sewer report has erroneous information about the public sewage pipe being eight inches in diameter. The County Sanitation Department owns the public line and reported it had been lined with an inside diameter of 7.5 inches. When the pipe capacity at Manhole #4 is calculated with the correct 7.5-inch diameter, the half-full capacity is 0.3622 cubic feet per second, less than the 0.364 flow from the combined flow from the project and the existing peak flows (0.01989 cubic feet per second from project). When calculated correctly, the proposed flows push the pipe over capacity. As such, the project would have a significant impact on the environment and could cause sewer overflows. Also, the existing flows are based on measurements from nine years ago, before full occupancy of Sunrise. It also does not account for wet weather flows. Here is the letter from the Sanitation District and then an excerpt from the Sewer Report:

421
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Traffic Access Study – The study is incomplete as it only includes a Stopping Sight Distance analysis, but does not analyze other potential concerns as noted in the attached memo from the traffic engineering firm Fehr & Peers:
• A site intersection analysis per AASHTO should have been completed. • In the analysis in the Traffic Access Study the driver’s eye position is incorrect. • Vehicles temporarily parked at the curb would obstruct drivers’ views and methods to eliminate this situation should have been reviewed. • The driveway design has a sharp curve and vehicles navigating the curve may cause additional view blockage.
• A parking management plan for the construction period should been reviewed due to site constraints. CEQA requires analysis of impacts caused by construction, especially if they create safety issues.

Hydrology Report – The hydrology report is based on the Walteria Townhome proposal in 2021. The report references two driveways, while this project only has one. Also, the proposed imperviousness is shown at 60% when the actual is 82%, so the report is not based on the proposed project. Also, it conveniently does not include a site plan or a map designating where storm flows will be routed. This report is for a different project.

Incomplete Design
Loading Area – The staff report references that a proper loading area is not located on the plans and indicates this will be solved with a condition of approval. Condition #16 for the Conditional Use Permit is shown below and indicates the loading space needs to be revised or relocated to provide for a 14-foot height clearance, and that the outdoor loading space needs to be relocated or redesigned not to provide a traffic collision conflict. This is very inappropriate to approve a plan that does not seem to be able to comply with the Code.

Trash Room – Similar to the Loading Area condition, condition #19 for the Conditional Use Permit is shown below and indicates the trash room needs to be proven to be developable within the building or moved outside. With the interior ceiling being very 422
Rigg Consulting, Inc.
low and that there is minimal open space on the lot to place a trash enclosure. In the staff report it is admitted that it is unclear whether trash trucks can access the interior trash room. Again, this is very inappropriate to approve a plan that does not seem to be able to comply with the Code.

Electrical Transformers – Similar to the Loading Area and Trash Room conditions, condition #28 for the Conditional Use Permit is shown below and requires that the transformers not be located in the front setback. The transformer is currently shown in the front setback. There is little room outside the front setback for a transformer, and SCE has very specific access requirements for their transformers and a location may not be possible. Again, this is very inappropriate to approve a plan that does not seem to be able to comply with the Code.

Driveway Turning Template Study – Similar to the Loading Area, Trash Room, and Electrical Transformer conditions, condition #41 for the Conditional Use Permit is shown below and requires that a study be done to demonstrate that vehicles can turn into the garage. This is similar to the comment provided by our traffic engineer. Again, this is very inappropriate to approve a plan that does not seem to be able to comply with the 423
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Code or be functional. There would seem to be liability for the city to approve a project that has not been properly design and so many potential flaws have been demonstrated:

Parking – Sharing of Commercial and Guest Analysis Not Provided The staff report indicates that four parking stalls will be shared for guest parking and commercial parking per the CUP approval. However, per State Law AB 894 and Torrance engineering standards, a study is required to show that the timing of the usage of the shared stalls is different. It is likely that the parking stalls will be desired to be used by both the commercial and residential guests at the same time and not comply with the shared-parking standard.

We have provided 13 objective reasons why this project cannot be approved. In summary:
• Design flaws:
o The driveway is too steep and contrary to standard design. o The sewer lateral does not have legal authority to be located as designed. o The trash enclosure and loading area cannot occupy the same space. o The driveway angle is inappropriate and contrary to standard design. o The removal of the existing guardrail has not been justified. • Technical study flaws:
o The public sewer size in the capacity calculations is wrong, and there is no capacity for the project’s sewage.
o The traffic access study uses wrong criteria and does not fully evaluate the project’s impacts.
o The hydrology report is based on a different site plan from a previous proposed project.
• Incomplete design, the project may not be able to be designed to comply with critical requirements of the city:
o Loading area.
o Trash room/enclosure.
o Electrical transformers
o Driveway accessibility
o Sharing of parking stalls
424
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

The Housing Accountability Act allows you to use objective criteria such as these to deny a project. Additionally, CEQA does not allow you to use an Exemption when there are possible or know significant impacts from a project. You are allowed, and required, to deny this project.

Sincerely,
Allan Rigg, PE AICP
Attachment – Fehr & Peers Report
425
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From:

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 1:31 PM
To: Chen, George; Kaji, Jon; Lewis, Bridgett; Sheikh, Asam; Kalani, Sharon; Mattucci, Aurelio; Gerson, Jeremy
Cc:
; Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: Re: CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009 East Side of Hawthorne Blvd, Approximately 200 Ft. North of Rolling Hills Rd.

Attachments: 3620 Eleda Lee Letter to City Council.pdf
Hi,
Please see attached revised letter.

Allan Rigg, PE AICP
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Tel.

E-mail
RiggConsulting.com
On Wednesday, January 28, 2026 at 12:45:18 PM PST, wrote:

Mayor Chen and Members of the City Council,
You will soon be reviewing our appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Walteria Garden Terrace project. We respectfully request that the City Council deny this project based on the numerous substantive deficiencies identified in the attached letters from neighboring property owners and from myself.

Please feel free to contact me or any of the neighboring property owners copied on this correspondence if you have questions or would like to meet to discuss these concerns further.

Respectfully submitted,
Allan Rigg, PE AICP
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Tel.

E-mail
RiggConsulting.com
426
427
428
429
430
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From: Gomez, Yolanda
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 3:39 PM
To:

Cc: 'Scott Douglas'; 'Mike Rosa'; 'Kevin & Rita Nakano'; ''Rita Nakano''; ''Vivian Lee''; 'Annie Hou-Lee'; ; Gomez, Yolanda
Subject: RE: Torrance City Council Appeal Date, May 19, 2026 regarding the Walteria Mixed-Use Project
Hello Mr. Rigg,
I’ll attempt to answer your questions. See my responses below in ALL CAPS.

Regards,

From:

Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 4:17 PM
To: Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Scott Douglas' ; 'Mike Rosa' >; 'Kevin & Rita Nakano' ; ''Rita Nakano'' ; ''Vivian Lee'' ; 'Annie Hou-Lee'
;
Subject: Re: Torrance City Council Appeal Date, May 19, 2026 regarding the Walteria Mixed-Use Project Hi,
Can you confirm a few things so we can plan for the meeting:
- How much time will the appellant and applicant have to speak? HERE IS THE ORDER & TIME PORTIONS OF THE APPEAL HEARING: A PRESENTATION BY STAFF FOLLOWED BY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL; NEXT A PRESENTATION BY THE APPELLANT WITH A MAXIMUM OF 10 MINUTES FOLLOWED BY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL; NEXT A PRESENTATION BY THE PROPONENT WITH A MAXIMUM OF 10 MINUTES FOLLOWED BY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL; AFTER WHICH MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE MAY SPEAK WITH A MAXIMUM OF 2 431
2 MINUTES EACH REGARDING THE PROPOSAL; FINALLY, A MAXIMUM 5-MINUTE REBUTTAL BY THE APPELLANT.
- How much time will other interested parties have to speak? SEE ABOVE. - My recollection is that the appellant speaks first, then the applicant, then the public, then the appellant, then the applicant. Is this correct? SEE ABOVE. - Will a PowerPoint type presentation be allowed from the applicant to be shown on a screen to the Council? If so is there a size limit and what format do you need? I REACHED OUT TO THE CITY MANAGER’S AGENDA TEAM, WHEN I GET A RESPONSE I’LL FORWARD IT TO YOU. - When is the deadline for written materials so that they are part of the staff report? 04/27/26: 3 WEEKS BEFORE COUNCIL MEETING.
- When is the deadline for the digital presentation, if allowed? SEE ABOVE, AGENDA TEAM RESPONSE PENDING.

Thank you.

Allan Rigg, PE AICP
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Tel.

E-mail
RiggConsulting.com
432
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From:

Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2026 8:31 AM
To: Gomez, Yolanda
Cc: 'Scott Douglas'; 'Mike Rosa'; 'Kevin & Rita Nakano'; ''Rita Nakano''; ''Vivian Lee''; 'Annie Hou-Lee'; ; Garcia, Robert
Subject: Re: Torrance City Council Appeal Date, May 19, 2026 regarding the Walteria Mixed-Use Project
Attachments: 3614 Eleda Brent Letter to City Council.pdf; 3620 Eleda Drive Letter to City Council.pdf; 3631 Eleda Nakano Letter to City Council.pdf; Allan Rigg Presentation.pdf; Allan Rigg Presentation.pptx; Brent Presentation.pdf; Brent Presentation.pptx; Rigg Letter for Walteria Garden Terrace.pdf; WCCP Letter to City Council.pdf Hi,
Thank you for the clarification.

Attached to this email are letters from the neighbors and two presentations. We sent the letters before, but some have been updated. I have provided the presentations in both PDF and PowerPoint so they can both presentations can be included in the documents sent to the Mayor and Council, as well as shown when David Brent and I speak. Our plan is that David will speak first during the ten minutes, then I will speak. We will determine who speaks in the rebuttal of five minutes depending on what the applicant presents.

Thank you and please let me know if this all works for the meeting.

Allan Rigg, PE AICP
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Tel.

E-mail
RiggConsulting.com
On Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 01:03:42 PM PDT, Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Allan,
In clarifying who may speak on behalf of the appellant, we asked the City Clerk, and she stated that it is fine for the appellant to give his time to you, you will need to declare it at the beginning of the hearing that the appellants have given you their time. But that means if you take up the entire 10- minutes, David Brent will not be able to speak, nor will the other listed appellants on the appeal form: Scott Douglas and Vivian Lee.

Hope that clears things up.

Regards,

From:

Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 9:55 AM
To: Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Scott Douglas' ; 'Mike Rosa' ; 'Kevin & Rita
Nakano' ; ''Rita Nakano'' ; ''Vivian Lee'' ;
'Annie Hou-Lee' ;
Subject: Re: Torrance City Council Appeal Date, May 19, 2026 regarding the Walteria Mixed-Use Project

Hi,
Thank you and I hope this is my final question. The person who files the appeal is David Brent. He has hired me to assist with the appeal. Can I provide testimony and be given the 10-minute period? Allan Rigg, PE AICP
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Tel.

E-mail
RiggConsulting.com
On Monday, April 13, 2026 at 03:38:45 PM PDT, Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Mr. Rigg,
I’ll attempt to answer your questions. See my responses below in ALL CAPS.

Regards,

From:

Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 4:17 PM
To: Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Scott Douglas' ; 'Mike Rosa' ; 'Kevin & Rita
Nakano' ; ''Rita Nakano'' ; ''Vivian Lee'' ;
'Annie Hou-Lee' ;
Subject: Re: Torrance City Council Appeal Date, May 19, 2026 regarding the Walteria Mixed-Use Project

434
3 Hi,
Can you confirm a few things so we can plan for the meeting:
- How much time will the appellant and applicant have to speak? HERE IS THE ORDER & TIME PORTIONS OF THE APPEAL HEARING: A PRESENTATION BY STAFF FOLLOWED BY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL; NEXT A PRESENTATION BY THE APPELLANT WITH A MAXIMUM OF 10 MINUTES FOLLOWED BY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL; NEXT A PRESENTATION BY THE PROPONENT WITH A MAXIMUM OF 10 MINUTES FOLLOWED BY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL; AFTER WHICH MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE MAY SPEAK WITH A MAXIMUM OF 2 MINUTES EACH REGARDING THE PROPOSAL; FINALLY, A MAXIMUM 5-MINUTE REBUTTAL BY THE APPELLANT.
- How much time will other interested parties have to speak? SEE ABOVE. - My recollection is that the appellant speaks first, then the applicant, then the public, then the appellant, then the applicant. Is this correct? SEE ABOVE. - Will a PowerPoint type presentation be allowed from the applicant to be shown on a screen to the Council? If so is there a size limit and what format do you need? I REACHED OUT TO THE CITY MANAGER’S AGENDA TEAM, WHEN I GET A RESPONSE I’LL FORWARD IT TO YOU. - When is the deadline for written materials so that they are part of the staff report? 04/27/26: 3 WEEKS BEFORE COUNCIL MEETING.
- When is the deadline for the digital presentation, if allowed? SEE ABOVE, AGENDA TEAM RESPONSE PENDING.

Thank you.

Allan Rigg, PE AICP
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Tel.

E-mail
RiggConsulting.com
435
Walteria Terrace Garden Project
(Continued)
1) Project Silhouette & Groundwater Monitoring Well
2) Project Environmental & Security Impacts
3) Project Driveway Concerns
4) Project will Reduce Property Values
436
437
438
NOTE: The Large Garage Vents, Pedestrian Deck, and Residential Patios will be a ‘Source of Noise and Reduced Security’, in addition the Large Number of Windows and Glass Doors will be a ‘Source of Troublesome Spill-Over Night-time Illumination’ onto Neighboring R1 Residential Properties in the ‘Torrance Hillside Overlay District’. Furthermore, there will also be a ‘Significant Reduction in Air-Flow Ventilation and Circulation’ and ‘Reduced Solar-Illumination’ for these Residential Properties. The proposed Wrap-Around Building will be 10 ft from Residential Properties, and will tower over them similar to a five story (50 ft) high building. 439
440
Conclusions
# The Project will be Highly-Invasive and will Wrap-Around the neighboring residential properties on Eleda Drive located in the Torrance Hillside Overlay District. This will Reduce Residential Property Values.
# The Project will Block Sunlight during the winter months and Reduce Air-Flow year-round on neighboring properties on Eleda Drive.
# The Project will generate Bothersome Night-Time Illumination Spill-Over from the many glass windows and doors.
# The Large Garage Ventilation Vents and the Elevated Pedestrian Deck and Patios facing residential properties will be a Source of Bothersome Vehicular and Human Noise. # The Project will Reduce Security & Privacy on Eleda Drive, Madison Street, and Candlewood Road due to the Elevated Pedestrian Deck and Patios facing residential properties on these roadways.
# The Project Hair-Pin U-Turn Entrance Driveway is Unsafe since it very steep and tight. # The Important Well for Monitoring Hazardous PV Landfill Vapors/Liquids will be plugged and capped.
441
Walteria Terrace Garden
Project
May 19, 2026
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
Technical Study Flaw #1: Sewer Capacity
• Sewer report assumed an 8-inch public sewer, but the sanitation district reported a lined inside diameter of 7.5 inches.
• Using 7.5 inches, the half-full capacity at Manhole #4 is calculated in the letter at 0.3622 cfs.
• The combined peak flow would be 0.364 cfs, which would exceed capacity.
• Additional criticisms: old flow data, no wet-weather accounting, and risk of sewer overflows.
457
458
459
Incomplete Design #4 : Driveway Accessibility
• Staff report has a condition of approval “That a turning template study for the proposed driveway is required to demonstrate that vehicles are able to turn into the subterranean garage”.
• It is easy to see the turning movement into the garage, not even including the 50% slope, will be difficult or even impossible. This should have been resolved for a project to be deemed complete.
460
461
Incomplete Design #5 : Parking and Shared-Use Concern
• Staff report indicates four stalls would be shared between guest and commercial parking.
• A formal shared-parking analysis is required under AB 894 and Torrance standards.
• The concern is that residential guests and commercial users will demand the same spaces at the same time.
• Without the study, the project’s parking supply and operations remain unproven.
462
Objective Reasons to Deny the Project Help Support the City Council’s Commitment to Develop Housing in Right Locations Design flaws:
• The driveway is too steep and contrary to standard design. • The sewer lateral does not have legal authority to be located as designed. • The trash enclosure and loading area cannot occupy the same space. • The driveway angle is inappropriate and contrary to standard design. • The removal of the existing guardrail has not been justified. • Soils report recommendations not incorporated in design - unsafe Technical study flaws:
• The public sewer size in the capacity calculations is wrong, and there is no capacity for the project’s sewage.
• The traffic access study uses wrong criteria and does not fully evaluate the project’s impacts. • The hydrology report is based on a different site plan from a previous proposed project.

Incomplete design, the project may not be able to be built to comply with critical requirements of the city:
• Loading area.
• Trash room/enclosure.
• Electrical transformers
• Driveway accessibility
• Sharing of parking stalls
463
Conclusion
• We have presented 14 objective reasons for denial across three categories: design flaws, technical study flaws, and incomplete design.
• The project is not presently eligible for CEQA exemption. • Please deny the project based on these reasons, which support the Council’s commitment to protect single family residential neighborhoods.
464
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From:

Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 9:03 AM
To: Gomez, Yolanda
Cc: 'Scott Douglas'; 'Mike Rosa'; 'Kevin & Rita Nakano'; ''Rita Nakano''; ''Vivian Lee''; 'Annie Hou-Lee'; ; Garcia, Robert
Subject: Re: Torrance City Council Appeal Date, May 19, 2026 regarding the Walteria Mixed-Use Project
Hi,
The 3620 Eleda letter was the only one changed.

We do not expect to speak 10 minutes each and are clear on the time restrictions.

Allan Rigg, PE AICP
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Tel.

E-mail
RiggConsulting.com
On Monday, April 27, 2026 at 08:16:39 AM PDT, Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Allan,
Please contact the City Clerk at 310.618.2870 to obtain clarification on the appellant’s speakers and time they each may speak. As the appeal was filed by multiple people, I understood from the City Clerk’s staff, that there are limitations. As noted in my previous email below, only the appellant or shared appellants may have a total of 10 minutes, not 10 minutes each person. All other members of the public will only have 2 minutes to speak. But I am certainly not the expert on speakers during a hearing, that would be the purview of the City Clerk. I highly recommend that you speak directly with her team to avoid any confusion.

Please inform me of which letters were revised, so that we don’t have to reprint all of them in the Staff Report. The previously provided letters are already included in the packet that has been prepared.

Regards,

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From:

Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2026 8:31 AM
To: Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Scott Douglas' ; 'Mike Rosa' ; 'Kevin & Rita
Nakano' ; ''Rita Nakano'' ; ''Vivian Lee'' ;
'Annie Hou-Lee' ; ; Garcia, Robert
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Torrance City Council Appeal Date, May 19, 2026 regarding the Walteria Mixed-Use Project

Hi,
465
2 Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you and please let me know if this all works for the meeting.

Allan Rigg, PE AICP
Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Tel.

E-mail
RiggConsulting.com
On Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 01:03:42 PM PDT, Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Allan,
In clarifying who may speak on behalf of the appellant, we asked the City Clerk, and she stated that it is fine for the appellant to give his time to you, you will need to declare it at the beginning of the hearing that the appellants have given you their time. But that means if you take up the entire 10-minutes, David Brent will not be able to speak, nor will the other listed appellants on the appeal form: Scott Douglas and Vivian Lee.

Hope that clears things up.

Regards,

Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From:

Tel.

E-mail
RiggConsulting.com
466
January 24, 2026
Anni and Vivian Lee
City of Torrance
Attention: City Council
3031 Torrance Blvd.

Torrance, CA 90503
Re: CUP21-00018, Proposed Walteria Mixed-Use Project, Eastside Hawthorne Blvd, 200 Ft.

North of Rolling Hills Rd.

Dear City Council Members,
Please find below our comments regarding the proposed Walteria Mixed-Use Project. Our residence is immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site and is therefore uniquely affected by the project’s massing, grading, circulation, and operational characteristics.

The issues outlined below are based on the project’s submitted materials, staff reports, and supporting technical studies.

Please also see the simulations of the project from the rear of our home at the end of this letter.

We invite you to view the project from our yard and home from 12 pm-4 pm the Saturday and Sunday before your review of the project. If you are in the neighborhood another time, please knock on our door and/or email us in advance.

1. Project Massing
The project’s massing places a multi-story residential structure directly along the northern property line, with minimal horizontal or vertical separation from existing single-family development. Due to the parcel’s narrow and irregular geometry, the building envelope concentrates height and bulk at its closest point to adjacent residences. As a result, residential windows and decks are oriented directly toward neighboring private open space, creating clear line-of-sight conditions. These conditions arise from the project’s design and massing strategy and are an objective land-use compatibility issue rather than a matter of personal preference.

2. Incomplete Representation of Building Envelope and Silhouette The submitted silhouette and visual analysis does not fully depict the extent of the building mass, particularly where the garage level projects northward beyond the upper floors. As noted in the staff report, portions of the structure are obscured by existing vegetation. This limitation prevents a complete and accurate assessment of the project’s height, bulk, and scale relative to surrounding development, and constrains the City’s ability to objectively evaluate compliance with applicable development standards.

3. Traffic Safety & Driveway Access
467
The project proposes a driveway and subterranean parking access immediately adjacent to an existing residence along a steep downhill segment of Hawthorne Boulevard. Both resident observations and the civil engineering review indicate that the submitted traffic analysis evaluates only limited sight-distance conditions. It does not address driveway geometry, turning movements, construction-phase impacts, or cumulative safety effects associated with steep grades and high-speed downhill traffic. Without this information, potential vehicular and pedestrian safety impacts cannot be fully evaluated.

4. Shadow Study
According to the project’s shadow study, the proposed structure would cast prolonged shadows on the south and west façades of the adjacent residence during winter daylight hours. This represents a measurable reduction in solar access, with implications for interior daylighting, passive heating, energy consumption, and the feasibility of on-site renewable energy systems.

These impacts are directly attributable to the project’s height, orientation, and proximity.

5. Structural Risk Considerations due to Excavation & Grading The excavation and grading approach relies on assumptions that are not supported once the full scope of construction is considered. Both the project soils report and an independent engineering review indicate that excavation beyond specified depths requires additional analysis and protective measures. Proceeding without updated geotechnical studies, verified shoring systems, and construction monitoring plans raises avoidable risks to adjacent properties and infrastructure. --
The combined effects of building height, massing, proximity, and ongoing operational factors (including lighting, noise, and vehicle activity) raise substantive land-use compatibility concerns.

These factors are standard planning considerations used to assess whether a project is appropriately scaled and sited relative to its surroundings.

We recognize that, under the Housing Accountability Act, project decisions must be based on objective standards and substantial evidence rather than subjective preferences. As outlined above & in the analysis from Rigg Consulting, the project presents unresolved design conflicts, incomplete technical analyses, and quantifiable impacts related to massing, safety, solar access, and excavation. These issues warrant careful consideration and resolution prior to any approval.

We have included a simulation of the project as viewed from our rear yard for reference. We also remain available should decision-makers wish to view the site context directly.

Thank you,
Anni & Vivian

468
469
470
1 Gomez, Yolanda
From:

Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 4:25 PM
To: Chen, George; Kaji, Jon; Lewis, Bridgett; Sheikh, Asam; Kalani, Sharon; Mattucci, Aurelio; Gerson, Jeremy; Gomez, Yolanda
Cc: Rigg, Allan; ; ;
; ''Rita Nakano''; ;
Subject: Proposed Mixed-Use Project located on the Eastside of Hawthorne Blvd north of Rolling Hills Road
Honorable Mayor Chen and Members of the Torrance City Council, We are appealing the Torrance Planning Commission’s decision to approve the proposed Mixed-Use Project which will come before you on May 19 for review.

Together with our neighbors Annie and Vivian Lee ( ), Kevin and Rita Nakano ( ), we invite you to view the 40+ Ō SilhoueƩe of the Proposed Mixed-Use Project located on the Eastside of Hawthorne Blvd north of Rolling Hills Road in Torrance. Our residenƟal properƟes on Eleda Drive will be open for you to visit for viewing the SilhoueƩe and its potenƟal impact of this project on our properƟes in the Torrance Hillside Overlay District.

We are available for your visit on the following dates
Sun, May 3 from 1 PM to 4 PM
Sat, May 9 from 1 PM to 4 PM
Sat, May 16 and Sun, May 17 from 1 PM to 4 PM
The ‘gate’ on Hawthorne Blvd which accesses the Developer’s Property should be ‘unlocked’ on these days to allow you to access the Property which also includes the ‘onsite’ LA County SanitaƟon District Hazardous Vapor/Liquid Monitoring Well M63B.

We also encourage you to visit the Rolling Hills Business Center to assess the impact of the proposed extensive and potenƟally hazardous 23-foot deep excavaƟon in unconsolidated soil only one-foot from the exisƟng 8-foot high concrete wall on the northside of their exisƟng parking lot.

We look forward to your visit!
Thank you,
Dave & Elaine Brent
NOTE: The Project SilhoueƩe is currently damaged and not complete. We feel that the property ‘access gate’ on Hawthorne Blvd should be open during your visit Ɵmes.
.
471
Daily Breeze
2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
(310) 543-6635
0011792584
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Blvd
Torrance, California 90503

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles
I am a citizen of the United States and
a resident of the County aforesaid; I
am over the age of eighteen years,
and not party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the
principal clerk of the printer of Daily
Breeze, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in
the City of Torrance*, County of Los
Angeles, and which newspaper has
been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior
Court of County of Los Angeles, State
of California, under the date of June
15, 1945, Decree No. Pomo C-606.

The notice, of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller
than nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement
thereof on the following dates, to wit:
05/08/2026
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Dated at Hermosa Beach, California
On this 8th day of May, 2026.
______________________________
Signature
*Daily Breeze circulation includes the following
cities: Carson, Compton, Culver City, El
Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne,
Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale,
Lomita, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Manhattan
Beach, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Palos Verdes,
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes
Estates, Redondo Beach, San Pedro, Santa
Monica, Torrance and Wilmington

05.19.26 CUP21-00018 Zeina Awad (D. Aoki) - Page 1 of 2 472
ATTACHMENT 8

05.19.26 CUP21-00018 Zeina Awad (D. Aoki) - Page 2 of 2 473

Torrance City CouncilMay 19, 2026

Torrance City Council
May 19, 2026