[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6658648,"mediaKeyId","3858146-fa2cdc3349dbb031ad73de06b6facb70","parentId",3858146,"title","Council upholds hillside protections in one variance; appeal over ADU‑linked two‑unit project remains unresolved","audioSeconds",1738,"startMs",12527000,"endMs",14265000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3858146-fa2cdc3349dbb031ad73de06b6facb70&start=12527&end=14265","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3858146-fa2cdc3349dbb031ad73de06b6facb70/thumbnail_12527000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6658648/Torrance-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-upholds-hillside-protections-in-one-variance-appeal-over-ADUlinked-twounit-project-remains-unresolved","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6658648-3f6d0d9a0bd2760f2917557e12cf0159/orig.mp4?Expires=1773588224&Signature=Kj2JhrtNyJtTHEEvbaGMw2inCdrry2YQiUG6YYY210f9glLQneVS8HZjdTxV0kXcj4UKNyPqiyu4kRNyvdQzqEKRavuzmVbSPz9JgnxoefDBxOmrfbohZRHrgbtz9reWd8CSjWro9gqodNxvur3Tg95zMxiiJ51oQecDlGff-XDaUuzzPop~3~rG9ZluGhTxFP32~CSsjbCkudvKNFeaksrvz8dDkabZ1mGUK2c7S-Q9FPsdyumX4-FCPwFK28xfPDLy0NoUS~anOGPoAHvRfjfDbY9S22O~eLSBGVg9foJduPzVuOBYfLFXWjjoJgDR5AGl0q61vnTOy0swif0CDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-18T05:31:44Z","article","The Torrance City Council on June 17, 2025 adopted a resolution denying a variance request that would have exempted a proposed two‑story single‑family residence at 417 Via Nita from the city’s Hillside Overlay development review process (Resolution No. 2025‑38). The council voted to accept the planning commission and community development director’s recommendation to deny the variance; the clerk recorded the motion as carried with Councilmember Sheikh absent.

Why it matters: The Hillside Overlay (adopted in the 1970s) established discretionary review standards meant to limit impacts on view, light, air and privacy in hillside neighborhoods. The denial preserves the requirement that projects in the overlay undergo discretionary hillside review rather than obtain a blanket exemption.

What the council decided on 9a: Staff presented the planning commission’s unanimous 5–0 recommendation (with one recusal and one abstention at the commission) to deny the variance. Staff indicated the applicant had not demonstrated special circumstances or practical difficulties that would justify exempting the property from the overlay’s discretionary review. After public comment from adjacent residents who said a second story would substantially harm light, view and privacy, the council voted to adopt the resolution denying the variance and to determine a statutory exemption under CEQA for the denial. The motion carried with Councilmember Sheikh absent.

Separate appeal — 22209 Susanna Avenue (agenda item 9b): The council then heard a longer appeal of a planning commission approval for a revised project at 22209 Susanna Avenue: a new two‑story single‑family residence with an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Staff told council that under the state’s Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5) a two‑unit development is a “housing development” subject only to objective standards; consequently, subjective overlay criteria such as individual views, privacy and “compatibility” cannot be applied to deny a project that meets those objective standards. Staff recommended denying the appeal and affirming the planning commission’s approval.

Public comment and positions: The Susanna Avenue hearing drew dozens of speakers. Appellants argued the project would block long‑held views and that the hillside overlay’s discretionary protections should be preserved. The appellant, Matt Minnick, and neighbors showed photographs of existing vistas they said would be lost and urged the council to preserve local control and resist state pressure. The project’s applicants and their architect said they had repeatedly revised the design in response to staff and neighborhood feedback, that the structure complies with all R‑1 objective standards and that adding a small attached ADU was necessary to make the project financially feasible after prolonged delays and carrying costs.

Legal and policy context: Staff and the city attorney advised the council that state housing law places limits on local discretion for developments that qualify as housing developments under the Housing Accountability Act; an attached ADU converted the proposal into a two‑unit development that triggers the act’s protections. Councilmembers expressed frustration with the state framework; several said they opposed the outcome on policy grounds but that state law narrowed the city’s options. Members discussed possible longer‑term responses such as working to update local regulations or pursue state‑level advocacy to protect local review standards.

Outcome for 9b: The meeting transcript records extensive council and public discussion but does not include a final roll‑call vote on the Susanna Avenue appeal in the provided record. Staff had recommended denying the appeal and approving the project; councilmembers repeatedly said they felt constrained by state law but debated the policy implications. One councilmember asked staff to pursue code updates and another suggested refunding the appellant’s appeal fee.

Ending: The council acted to deny the variance at 417 Via Nita and left unresolved the broader policy tensions raised by the Susanna Avenue appeal — a dispute that illustrates the interplay between local hillside protections and state housing rules that limit local discretion for two‑unit developments.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Torrance City Council Meeting June 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Torrance council adopted a resolution denying a variance that would have exempted 417 Via Nita from the Hillside Overlay and held an extended public hearing on an appeal of a separate two‑unit project at 22209 Susanna Avenue; the Susanna Avenue hearing highlighted conflicts between local hillside review and state housing law.","taxTitle","Torrance City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",4696,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6658652,"Torrance council declines to amend airport rules, keeps restrictions on touch-and-go operations",1669,9590000,11259000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3858146-fa2cdc3349dbb031ad73de06b6facb70&start=9590&end=11259","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3858146-fa2cdc3349dbb031ad73de06b6facb70/thumbnail_9590000.jpg","/articles/6658652/Torrance-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Torrance-council-declines-to-amend-airport-rules-keeps-restrictions-on-touch-and-go-operations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6658652-48d1f6670c71d33a923584c76fabc458/orig.mp4?Expires=1773588224&Signature=NhzObjYPndGd31FyKZaqhV54ntZ8tu72IRI6Agwdx7sRI6wro6sMKfF-BfNlu6CT26-O0jFDYM6xx~2OGFq7sAADy-WEoPUjZ98qOBQ5UfXR-0Qb3dxuW8rRVbzek7ZHfwPipdJryTMLwfzhzUlzxVdxsI9ZdQtNURcc4PfDgJe3lLYi~m6Rn8AnOLQh08YqkB-yYaQTHN~8eaY0BCSBdwva14Upj4n3hMdiIKtaxQ0QKYsm~czR58EVGgM8PmJTlBNeyluHG0h2MEej3vy9cehE6C~proQIj2WHe5dKLE~aceTb0HsvY4YteySzk5Gu0jZEZ-ZQZC2zpfwnFzC9mg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Torrance City Council on June 17, 2025 voted to decline a proposed amendment to the city’s airport ordinance that would have relaxed restrictions on touch-and-go, full-stop taxi-backs and low approaches at Torrance Municipal Airport. Councilmember Dante Mateucci moved the motion to reject the amendment and continue defending the existing ordinance; the council carried the motion, with Mayor Tim Chen recorded as voting no and Councilmember Sheikh absent.

The item (agenda 10b) returned to the council after city attorneys presented a draft ordinance negotiated as part of litigation over a 1990 ban on the maneuvers. City Attorney Patrick Sullivan told the council the draft would allow touch-and-go operations Monday–Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturdays 11 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., and would prohibit them on Sundays and holidays; staff said the proposal grew out of settlement discussions in an ongoing legal dispute and included a scrivener’s correction in the supplemental materials that restored an emergency exemption section.

Why it matters: The change would have reduced blanket limits on certain flight maneuvers at the municipal airport, an issue that residents say affects quality of life in neighborhoods under the airport’s flight paths. Opponents argued that restoring broader operations would return the city to the prior volume of flights and harm residents’ peace and quiet; supporters said the draft would restore balance and return the airport to pre‑COVID operating patterns.

Councilmembers framed the vote as a choice about whether to accept a settlement-driven compromise or defend the ordinance adopted last year. Councilmember Mateucci said he would not support the settlement, calling it necessary to “fight for the well-being of our residents.” Councilmember Wilma Kalani, Councilmember Shana Lewis and Councilmember Kaji likewise said they would vote against amending the ordinance; Councilmember Gerson repeated that the airport belongs to Torrance residents and said the question was whether the ordinance is legally sustainable.

Public comment was lengthy and sharply divided. Dozens of residents urged the council to keep restrictions, describing repeated, low-altitude and frequent touch-and-go flights as a “mind‑numbing” disruption to daily life; several speakers said the prior 15‑month restrictions had been a relief. Speakers who identified with pilot groups and local aviation interests urged the council to accept the proposed amendment, saying the change would return the airport to earlier operating norms and that the proposal complied with applicable rules.

City staff and outside counsel told the council the FAA controls aircraft operations in the air but that the city retains the right to regulate certain local operations on the airport property; the ordinance history presented goes back to a 1990 ordinance that restricted maneuvers and led to litigation and a proposed settlement. Patrick Sullivan also corrected the record that portions of earlier filings were dismissed for failure to prosecute in a related federal case.

Council action and next steps: Councilmember Mateucci moved that the council not amend the ordinance and continue to defend the existing regulatory approach; the motion carried with Mayor Chen recorded as voting no and Councilmember Sheikh absent. The transcript does not show further procedural steps for the litigation beyond that direction.

Voices and evidence: Speakers who addressed the council on the record included Patrick Sullivan (City Attorney), Councilmember Dante Mateucci, Councilmember Wilma Kalani, Councilmember Shana Lewis, Councilmember Kaji, Councilmember Gerson, and dozens of residents including Tom Newman, Michael Lyons and Chuck Costello who spoke during public comment. Many residents urged continued enforcement of the ordinance citing health, tranquility and property‑use concerns; pilot‑aligned commenters and at least one speaker from the public defended restoring certain operations.

Ending: The council’s vote preserves the existing municipal restrictions while leaving unresolved litigation and the possibility of future challenges. The city attorney and staff retain discretion to continue settlement negotiations or to defend the ordinance in court; the motion recorded at the hearing directed the city to continue defending the current regulatory approach.","The Torrance City Council voted to decline a proposed settlement amendment that would have relaxed rules on touch-and-go, full-stop taxi backs and low approaches at Torrance Municipal Airport, keeping the existing restrictions in place; the decision followed hours of public comment and divided council debate.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6658642,"Torrance Police Foundation donates $203,543.75 for drone docking systems to support public safety",179,7004000,7183000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3858146-fa2cdc3349dbb031ad73de06b6facb70&start=7004&end=7183","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3858146-fa2cdc3349dbb031ad73de06b6facb70/thumbnail_7004000.jpg","/articles/6658642/Torrance-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Torrance-Police-Foundation-donates-20354375-for-drone-docking-systems-to-support-public-safety","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6658642-336ffb08793e760b6c7158af4b85d627/orig.mp4?Expires=1773588224&Signature=FiqRPDdyz2GbgJ0FG34L~eJIvWLNWqa11hnm83CwdqNx9JZx6k9SikNeLfEWm2wSzJrkoHDnIhMTJH-Qo3D8EpmXfpOH5qakM1K5KHicYCyrz4UXg9TttiNpbOGQ1cijMgyseXZw6zOaQozLFZ2S0trBIGw~HdZXohRZWz1uXi38hXdhla5WJaBa1rKz6ktn1QmPNISPXiUi~~1FDQFFCVgL7A0IKRlQYDEDJJNyaGw1~wJfj695Skhw6quogNC0yky0r8rRCpuMdlf1boU6bUCRtd1dV0OMmB70CeYn0cEhFoJeA36-WhQ7FVXr8ExflmxnChXbyhF-Goy-vJ9cLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Torrance Police Foundation presented a $203,543.75 grant to the city at the June 17, 2025 Torrance City Council meeting to purchase eight drone dock systems for the Torrance Police Department. Jennifer Oveira, board chair of the Torrance Police Foundation, introduced board members and described prior foundation grants for the department, and the council and staff accepted the presentation.

Why it matters: The foundation said the dock systems will be deployed at critical infrastructure locations — including police and fire stations and the Alamo Fashion Center — to provide rapid situational awareness and support resource allocation during emergent incidents. The donation was framed as a public‑private partnership that supplies equipment not funded through the city’s general budget.

Details: Foundation chair Jennifer Oveira and board members (listed by Oveira during the presentation) attended the meeting to present the donation. Oveira said the foundation was established in 2016 and has previously funded canines, AEDs, ballistic shields and training for officers. The donation amount announced at council was $203,543.75 for UAS dock housing systems.

Council and staff response: The mayor and council thanked the foundation for the gift and recognized board members who were present. No formal council action was required; the presentation was ceremonial and informational. The foundation signaled a transition of its chair role to board member Rob Van Lingen effective July 1.

Ending: The gift funds equipment the foundation described as a ‘force multiplier’ for police situational awareness. The council received the presentation and posed no formal questions; staff and foundation representatives indicated deployment plans would follow internal coordination between the police, fire and foundation teams.","The Torrance Police Foundation presented the City Council with a grant of $203,543.75 to fund eight drone dock systems to be deployed at key city facilities, a donation that the foundation says will support situational awareness and response.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council upholds hillside protections in one variance; appeal over ADU‑linked two‑unit project remains unresolved

Torrance council declines to amend airport rules, keeps restrictions on touch-and-go operations

Torrance Police Foundation donates $203,543.75 for drone docking systems to support public safety