10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10C. Community Development – Adopt RESOLUTIONS to Deny the Appeal and Approve a Series of Entitlements to Allow the Construction of a New MixedUse Development Comprised of 20 Senior Residential Apartments and 1,608 Square Feet of Commercial Space on Property Located on the East Side of Hawthorne Boulevard, Approximately 200 Feet North of Rollings Hills Road (APNs: 7547004040 through 7547004046) and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.
Name
Mike Griffiths
Comment 10/03/2026 05:49 PM : (Against)
Please see my attached file with my detailed comments for this item.
Thank you,
Mike Griffiths
1 AGENDA ITEM 10C
PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT #2
Dear Mayor Kalani and members of the Torrance City Council, I am writing for 2 reasons - first, to thank you, and the City Council, and secondly, to discuss my thoughts about agenda item 10C on Tuesday’s upcoming Council meeting, regarding the proposed senior housing project on Hawthorne Blvd. Unfortunately, I will be out of town for this meeting and won’t be able to attend.
So first, I wanted to thank Torrance City Council for ensuring that we had a voting delegate from the City Council (CM Sheikh) who attended the Cal Cities (aka The League of California Cities) General Assembly on September 25th, in Anaheim. An item of high importance was on the Cal Cities agenda, requesting Cal Cities to become more involved with the issue of protecting ‘local control’ rights of Cities to do their own land-use and zoning, as opposed to having the State continue to take that responsibility away from Cities. As it turns out, it is my understanding that there were only enough voting delegates present to create a quorum needed for voting by only 1 member! Had we been absent, it may have caused this opportunity for a vote on this item to fail, which thankfully, did not happen. The Resolution for having Cal Cities become more actively involved in protecting local control for Cities passed by virtually a unanimous roaring voice vote.
This is a significant shift for Cal Cities, and I am hopeful that it signals a shift statewide about the issue of local control of land-use and zoning, which has been significantly eroded by State Legislation for the past many years. Torrance has been known as a leader in standing up for ‘Local Control’, and it would be wonderful to see that leadership continue! Making this vote was one way to show that leadership! Thank you Mayor Kalani and Councilmember Sheikh! My second reason for writing is regarding Agenda Item 10C. I have previously shared my comments about this horrible proposed project, specifically, my strong belief that there are just some places that should NEVER be developed, or are otherwise unbuildable. For a developer to leverage State Laws to allow this project to be pushed through confirms that a project that the Council voted unanimously to reject (May 19, 2026) should never be built. However, the purported THREAT of State punitive action against the City for not approving the project caused the Council to reverse their position (Sept 15, 2026), and approve the project moving forward by a 5-1 vote. (And Thank You to Councilmember Lieu for voting against this reversal!). Further, the CIty produced NO DOCUMENTATION to the public showing the specifics of such a threat to the City. If there is a threat being made to the City, I believe the public has a right to know the specific nature of these threats. This is a matter of CIty-wide concern! The residents should know clearly what the State is doing to Cities regarding housing policies taking away our previously held rights to manage our own land-use and zoning as well as forcing the City to abandon the protections of our residential housing via our long-standing ordinances like the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.
Torrance has been a ‘good citizen’ City from the standpoint of moving the State’s agenda for new housing forward, approving thousands of new residential units throughout the City, not because we wanted to, but because the State-imposed mandate to allow for building 5000 new residential units in Torrance before 2029 ‘tied’ your hands and forced you to say yes to the developments. To my knowledge, the City Council has not voted against ANY new housing 2 project over many, many years! This new project is for only 20 units, a drop in the bucket for the number of new housing units in process in our City. And yet, this project, if allowed, will have permanent long term negative consequences for the surrounding neighborhood and businesses, not to mention putting the very residents that this housing project is designed for - our seniors, at significant safety risk as discussed in so many previous conversations.
My request at this time with the information available to me is that Council should RECONSIDER their September 15th vote, and instead vote to UPHOLD the appeal (denying the project). Torrance should not just ‘roll over’ and take the abusive policies forced upon us by the State, especially over a truly disastrous small project. Our residents are worth fighting for! Fight! Take a Stand! IF the State actually moves beyond a threat, then take action at that time.
Torrance is not a bad actor when it comes to the State Housing bills - we have built and approved hundreds of ADUs and thousands of residential units in larger housing developments.
Imagine if every City started pushing back on these abuses by the over-reaching State Laws! We must stand up against bullying by the State and greedy developers, and stand up for the City and its residents! And if you are concerned about risk mitigation, I think even rolling over and allowing the State to threaten you into changing your previous unanimous decision AGAINST this project opens the City to potential liability and other litigation.
Lastly, every Councilmember has a voice and the opportunity to speak without a time limit. Take EVERY opportunity to EDUCATE the public on what is going on, give them options on what they can do to fight with you, and SPEAK OUT against what the State legislature has been doing.
Staff can’t speak for you - they are required to follow the State Laws. If you have passion about this subject as I do, show it! This is way more than just a vote on a 20 unit project. It is a perfect example of what has gone wrong in the State, and regardless of how you vote, because this is such an important topic, take the opportunity to speak up and show what you stand for! Thank you as always for listening.
Mike Griffiths
Torrance Resident
Founder of California Cities for Local Control
https://localcontrolca.com/
3 10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10C. Community Development – Adopt RESOLUTIONS to Deny the Appeal and Approve a Series of Entitlements to Allow the Construction of a New MixedUse Development Comprised of 20 Senior Residential Apartments and 1,608 Square Feet of Commercial Space on Property Located on the East Side of Hawthorne Boulevard, Approximately 200 Feet North of Rollings Hills Road (APNs: 7547004040 through 7547004046) and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.
Name
Andrea Reilly
Comment 10/05/2026 05:19 PM : (No Vote)
Dear Mayor and Council Members
cc City Clerk
Subject: Torrance City Council Agenda 10.6.26 Agenda Item 10C. Community Development – Adopt RESOLUTIONS to Deny the Appeal and Approve a Series of Entitlements to Allow the Construction of a New MixedUse Development Comprised of 20 Senior Residential Apartments and 1,608 Square Feet of Commercial Space on Property Located on the East Side of Hawthorne Boulevard, ***************************************************************** ****
I am concerned with the traffic safety impacts of this project.
I am requesting the Council to consider the following:
1) Reject the project for traffic road safety reasons. SB 79 does not direct or imply cities to allow unsafe project to be approved. To improve SB79 clarity, the City of Torrance should champion a revision to SB79 to explicitly state safety conditions where a new housing project is justified as unsafe (e.g. Traffic or soil conditions) and allowed to be denied.
2) Reconsider amending the 9/15/26 vote (Torrance Rules of Order Section 3.6 #3) with the following:
a) Extend the current turn pocket (refer to attached photos) to include this parcel. b) Include a steel barrier (Safety protection). Current steel barrier starts beyond the north end of the property. No barriers along this project or the parcel directly south. c) Define location(s) where proposed business signage will be located, including size and illumination. Currently a 6–7foot hedge along south side edge of this property (neighbors). Signage blight.
d) Improve street lighting in this area
e) Reduce speed limits from 45 mph to 35 mph. This north bound section of Hawthorne Blvd begins a more traffic congested commercial zone to the north.
The above recommendations are based on my weekly drives past this area that include drivers exceeding the 45 mph as well as those accelerating through the red light on Hawthorne Blvd at Rolling Hills Road. This road has large construction vehicles (e.g. cement delivery trucks) as well as tractor trailers using this road daily. This section has a steep grade and acerbated with an S curved road. Line of sight could be impacted.
Ihtthdlidildiht
4 Hawthorne Blvd at Rolling Hills Road. This road has large construction vehicles (e.g. cement delivery trucks) as well as tractor trailers using this road daily. This section has a steep grade and acerbated with an S curved road. Line of sight could be impacted.
I have attached slides including photos.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Andrea Reilly
Torrance resident
representing my self
5 Existing
Bldg
New driveway
cut
Traffic Light
Proposed 20 unit senior
hsg. mixed use
Safety – This property is located on a curved and 30 – 40 % down grade section of Hawthorne Blvd (Photos next page)
Steel Barrier
6 South direction Hawthorne Blvd/Rolling Hills Rd. North direction Hawthorne Blvd/Rolling Hills Rd.
Safety - Turn pocket lane from prior business needs to be extended to include this property Entrance to
proposed
construction
S N
Traffic light
T intersection
7 Safety – Steel safety barrier currently start at the north end of property. Currently no Protection along the entire length of the west side of property Steel Barrier starts at south
end of proposed projects
N
8 Recommendations
• Reject this project. SB 79 does not direct cities to allow unsafe projects to be approved.
• City of Torrance - champion a revision to SB79 to explicitly state, for all projects justified as unsafe (e.g. Traffic safety, soil contamination) to be denied. • Reconsider amending 9/15/26 vote, (TCCROO, Section 3.6, #3) City council project approval to include:
• Extend current turn pocket lane to include this new property (Safety protection) • Include a steel barrier (Safety protection). Current steel barrier starts past north end of property
• Define location(s) where the proposed business signage will be located, including size and illumination. (Currently a 6–7-foot hedge boards entire north edge of this property,). (Signage blight)
• Improve street lighting in this area. (Safety protection) • Reduce speed from 45 MPH to 35 MPH. This begins business sections of Hawthorne Blvd. (Safety)
Lawsuit from denied projects vs Lawsuit from accident(s) TCCROO – Torrance City Council Rules of Order
9 10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10C. Community Development – Adopt RESOLUTIONS to Deny the Appeal and Approve a Series of Entitlements to Allow the Construction of a New MixedUse Development Comprised of 20 Senior Residential Apartments and 1,608 Square Feet of Commercial Space on Property Located on the East Side of Hawthorne Boulevard, Approximately 200 Feet North of Rollings Hills Road (APNs: 7547004040 through 7547004046) and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.
Name
Judy Brunetti
Comment 10/05/2026 05:22 PM : (No Vote)
To: Mayor Kalani and City Council October 5, 2026 From: Judy Brunetti, area resident
Re: Proposed senior development on Hawthorne Blvd. near Eleda Street Good afternoon,
After having already seen the developer try to push this project through earlier, I was surprised to see it was being considered by council again this year.
The location has many problems.. The building would be on very steep, uneven terrain on top of unconsolidated soil, next to the former mining site. It must support a 50foot concrete wall, which may be uncertain and unsafe. When the soil is dug up during construction, there may be powdery diatomaceous earth brought up, which would constitute an airborne hazard for anyone nearby.
Even worse, it is next to Hawthorne Blvd, so close that the guard rail along the road must be removed. There will be no new guard rail protecting the building and occupants from accidents on the road.
The driveway entrance and exit are too short to exit safely from the speed of the highway, expecially for senior driver. Hawthorne Blvd. is a major highway for the peninsula, and drivers coming down the hill, heading North, often travel faster than the speed limit. Divers also hurry to get through the traffic light at Hawthorne and Rolling Hills Rd.
The steep driveway of this building would be inadequate for incoming cars going highway speed, the soil is problematic, the project is too close to other buildings, the terrain is too uneven and too dangerous to even consider construction here.
The State of California does not want to see unsafe buildings go up, and the City of Torrance has done a good job of building new units to meet the state’s RENA numbers.
I suggest along with many others that the City of Torrance point out all the problems with this project and ask that the State of California reconsider this development, and that both agencies deny the project.
Thank you
Judy Brunetti, past president, Riviera Homeowners Assoc. 10 Thank you
Judy Brunetti, past president, Riviera Homeowners Assoc. 11 Tom Newman
Bluff Street
1¡!r_- ;:-ìI i_- i,,.,:r'j.i¡.
j:La lj:\j j Lq rirL¡:i4i;-
Torrance, CA 9050
October 5,2025
Mayor Sharon Kalani and Council Members
.Torrance City Hall
3031 Torrance Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90503
Council Meeting Oct. 6, 2026,ltem 10 C
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am writing in opposition to the Mixed-Use Development Project between Hawthorne and Eleda Drive. Please deny the project.
The proposed development wedged between Eleda Drive and Hawthorne Boulevard appears to present real opportunities for police and fire department personnelto practice stepping into swiftly moving traffic to try to stop people speeding down the hill. Look at a map, especially a topographical rTìâp, and see the issues. Factor in the reality that motorists speed both ways on that stretch of highway. Think back to that famous golfer heading to "work"'ât a suspected 85 MPH. We have to look at reality here, regardless of what staff and the legal department say to the contrary.
This is a bad location for a multistory mixed-use development. The Eastern exposure fronts on the Eleda Drive cul-de-sac with a center island. Residential in nature, it has extremely limited parking and extremely limited access for emergency vehicles. The Torrance Fire Department has already said that if they require emergency response and the proposed development, it would be from apparatus parked on Hawthorne Boulevard on the Western exposure. BUT, again looking at those maps: the width of Hawthorne and grad changes,present real challenges. Even if metal barricades are repositioned slightly and the road expanded a few feet by builder concessions, the problems of access and egress persist for autos, emergency services, and pedestrians.
Eleda Dr Oct 5 2026 Page 1
12 The ugly reality is there will predictably be delivery vehicles, emergency service vehicles, pickup trucks and vans, trash trucks, not to mention the horror of senior drivers(!)
-
the residents and their families who want to access ihe upper floors. Most vehicles would approach from up on the hill, from the South, applying brakes to make a severe.right turn into the proposed decoration lane when not occupied by a parked car or truck, and try to safely negotiate the complex downgrade. At the .ame iime, it is {ikely that other vehicles under the building will be trying to exit onto Hawthorne Boulevard as approaching vehicles bear down on them, pedal to the metal with bloodshot eyes. And let's noi forget there are employees and their customers/clients working onsite. For that narrow strip of land, with limited parking, with limited turnaround space, we can envision a lot of high-density issues evolving if we really want to look at it. But the Planning Department has said, in effect, "Wð will deal with those issues AFTER the plans are approved." (Believe me! Gó back and look at the digital archives.)
So, putting the mix in the food processon pretend the Torrance FD responds to a g11 call, places a pumper truck on a diagonal across northbound Hawthorne to reduce traffic on one of the few major evacuation routes from cities higher on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. A ladder truck arrives from Calle Mayori hangs a U-turn at Via Valmonte and prepares to access the roof. Torrance PD prepares to block tratfic at Rolling Hills Road. [To skirt blocked traffic, resourceful drivers will cut through the parking lot of Rolling Hills Business Center on the Rolling Hills Road intersection, requiring more police resources to redirect traffic.) County Fire responds in a support role. And a famous golfer comes barreling down the hill in his spanking new muscle-car loaner.
But it doesn't have to be a golfer: it could be grandma who confuses the blake and accelerator pedals in her new-fangled Tesla. lt's Dêmolitioh Derby Timel That may be a slight overstatement, I admit, but we can expect emergency services to respond to the mixed-use facility with senior residents needing assistánce on a somewhat routine basis. Additionally, there will be auto accidents. Emergency services will have rehearsed this many times because training is,key. But WHY? Why approve a project that is severely challenged? Why incur the added real costs to the City, the real costs to the public, when other land would be better suited to a multistory mixed-use development? Ultimately, the Developer should have handled the access/egress issues in the conceptual design phase rather than relying on the City to find solutions AFTER the approvals are generated. Let the architect and his professionals solve his own projects.
Sincerely,
Please deny the project.
Eleda Dr Oct 5 2026 Page2
13