Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The Torrance City Council convened on June 9, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. for a closed session, reconvening in open session at 6:32 p.m. The meeting included adoption of the FY 2026‑27 operating and capital budgets, approval of two pipeline franchise ordinances, renewal of the military equipment use policy, an update on homelessness efforts, and extensive public comment opposing a proposed right‑of‑entry agreement for construction access through Alta Loma Park. Mayor Chen was absent for all votes.
Good evening. I'd like to call the city council meeting to order at five o'clock p.m. City Clerk, may I have a roll call, please? Yes, Your Honor. Councilmember Gerson. Present. Council Member Kodji. Present. Councilmember Lewis. Present. Councilmember Matucci. Here. Councilmember Shake. Councilmember Shake is absent at this time. Mayor Pro Tem Kalani. Present. Okay. Uh before we go into recess for closed session. I notice there are many members of the public here. Uh, if you would like to speak prior to City Council uh recess, uh and before we go into closed session, I'll allow oral communications. Uh we do have a time-sensitive matter in closed session. So we will allow 30 minutes at one minute each to give as many of you as possible the opportunity to speak. Remember, there's also an opportunity to speak in oral session number one later on after we come back from closed session. Thank you. All right, we'll go ahead and start with the first speaker. One minute, please. I have this acceptance letter into the administrative record regarding agenda item 13A. As torrents residents, we respectfully submit this formal objection to any proposed right of entry agreement allowing construction access through Altoloma Park for the proposed Cali Mobile Home Park solar development. While California law strongly supports solar development, neither the California Solar Rights Act nor related state solar policies exempt the city from compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA or the Brown Act when considering separate discretionary approvals involving public land and park access. Based on the publicly available information, we believe the city faces substantial legal and procedural risks if the project proceeds without further public review and environmental analysis. First, there are serious SQL concerns regarding potential peacemealing project approvals. The proposed solar development appears fundamentally dependent upon the city authorization to use Altoloma Park as the only practical access route to the landlock project site. Without park access, the project itself may not be feasible. Accordingly, this raises substantial questions regarding whether the proposed ROE agreement constitutes an integral component of the overall project under CEQA that must be evaluated together with the already approved amendment to the open space easement to accommodate solar and the required permitting of the solar project by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. California courts have consequently held that CEQA requires agencies to evaluate the whole of an action rather than segmenting interconnected approvals into smaller components that may avoid full environmental review. See Laurel Heights Improvement versus Regions of University of California 1988. Banning ranch conservancy versus the city of Newports Beach 2012. We are also concerned that the project documentation reference in the city's August 19th, 2025 planning commission staff report relies heavily on conceptual plans that do not fully define the final construction access route through Altoloma Park or clearly identify the ultimate placement of certain ancillary project infrastructure near residential areas. Under CEQA, environmental review should occur before discretionary commitments are made, and while meaningful alternatives and mitigation measures remain available for consideration. Second, there are substantial questions regarding whether any claim sequel exemption. Thank you. Second, there are substantial questions regarding whether any claim sequa exemption adequately accounts for the unusual circumstances associated with this project site and access configuration. Altolema Park serves as an established residential neighborhood, serves an established neighborhood and cannot only be assessed through a single narrow driveway that also functions as parking for 12 vehicles. It is not a thoroughfare. Construction undoubtedly will interfere with residents' ability to access the park. Construction access associated with a 700 panel commercial scale solar installation could heavily involve it could involve heavy equipment, worker traffic, material deliveries, and repeated construction vehicle trips through public, active public recreation areas adjacent to playgrounds, pedestrian activity in nearby homes.