Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Torrance council approves 106-unit mixed-use project at 3475 Torrance Boulevard under AB 130 CEQA exemption
Summary
The City of Torrance voted to deny an appeal and approve a conditional use permit and development permit for a 106-unit mixed-use project at 3475 Torrance Boulevard, after staff concluded the project qualifies for the state AB 130 CEQA exemption following additional environmental work and tribal consultation.
The Torrance City Council on Monday denied an appeal and approved permits for a proposed mixed-use development at 3475 Torrance Boulevard that would replace an existing medical office building with 106 residential units and 12,226 square feet of medical office space.
City staff recommended reapproval after concluding the project meets the requirements of Assembly Bill 130, a recent change to state law that provides a CEQA exemption for qualifying infill housing. "Based on this, staff concludes that the development meets the requirements of AB‑130," Community Development staff Robert Garcia said during the presentation.
The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission and appealed by a local group that questioned the environmental exemption used. Garcia told the council that after additional environmental review, tribal consultation and a Phase I environmental site assessment, staff determined the project now qualifies for the AB 130 exemption and that previously raised concerns no longer apply. The developer's representative, Jim Sir, said the project team worked with staff to demonstrate compliance with the statute and noted that a historic resources assessment found the existing building is not a historic resource.
During public comment Dr. Joseph Odenkrantz told the council he had revoked authorization for use of his expert work that had been cited in litigation related to the Del Amo project settlement and said he planned to file a supplemental declaration with the court. A separate resident asked whether the project proponent might hire nearby tiny-home residents for light work, an idea the developer did not directly adopt during the hearing.
After closing public testimony, the council voted to deny the appeal and adopt resolutions approving a conditional use permit and a development permit for the project. The council's action reaffirms the Planning Commission's earlier approval with council members noting the changed statutory framework provided by AB 130.
The council's resolutions include findings that the project is exempt from CEQA under AB 130. The council did not detail design-level permit conditions in the hearing record beyond staff's presentation; staff said the administrative record will include the supplemental environmental materials and tribal consultation correspondence.
