Council approves consent calendar: ordinances on commissioner compensation and Mills Act process adopted
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Torrance City Council unanimously approved its consent calendar, adopting ordinances amending commissioner compensation and establishing a Mills Act application and review procedure, and later adopted Ordinance No. 3954 after a public hearing on ADUs.
At its Aug. 5 meeting the Torrance City Council approved the consent calendar and adopted multiple ordinances and a resolution by unanimous vote.
Items approved on the consent calendar included two ordinances (identified in the meeting record as Nos. 3951 and 3952) amending municipal code provisions related to commissions and commissioner compensation, and Resolution No. 2025-41 establishing a Mills Act application process and review procedures. The council then proceeded to a separate public hearing and adopted Ordinance No. 3954 addressing accessory and junior accessory dwelling units.
The council voted to waive further reading of ordinances and resolutions by number and title, then took a motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety; the clerk reported the motion carried unanimously. Later in the meeting, after the public hearing on ADUs, the council adopted Ordinance No. 3954 (see separate item).
Recorded actions on the consent calendar in the meeting minutes show unanimous approval with all councilmembers present voting yes.
Summary of actions adopted on Aug. 5: - Ordinance No. 3951: Amendments relating to districts and commissioner compensation (titles and specific code sections were read into the record). Outcome: adopted (unanimous). - Ordinance No. 3952: Additional municipal code amendments read into the record. Outcome: adopted (unanimous). - Resolution No. 2025-41: Establishing a Mills Act application process and review procedure. Outcome: adopted (unanimous). - Ordinance No. 3954: Amendment consolidating ADU and junior ADU rules. Outcome: adopted after public hearing (unanimous).
Motions were carried without recorded dissents; specific vote tallies were not read aloud beyond the clerk’s statement that motions carried unanimously. The council indicated no pulls from the consent calendar and no substantive debate on the consent items during the meeting record.