Torrance City Council Appeal from
the Planning Commission Decision
of December 4, 2024
AGAINST THE APPROVAL OF
PRE24-00012, WAV24-00007 - 671 Calle Miramar
March 25, 2025
Agenda Item 9A
Submitted by Cameron and Mary Roberts 285 Via Linda Vista 1 Preserve Hollywood Riviera’s character and
the Hillside Overlay’s privacy protection
• The City Council should approve the appeal.
• Deny the Precise Plan of Development (PRE24-00012) to Allow One and Two-Story Additions to an Existing One-Story Single-Family Residence, in Conjunction with a Waiver (WAV24-00007) of the Setback Requirements, on Property Located within the Hillside Overlay in the R- 1 Zone at 671 Calle Miramar (APN 7514-019-013).
• Require changes to PRE24-00012 so that the design causes the least intrusion on the views, light, air, and privacy of other nearby properties. 2 671 Calle Miramar
3 671 Calle Miramar is upslope and looks down
on Via Linda Vista
• As evidenced by
the roof lines of:
• Garage 2
• Garage 1
• House
• 2nd story
bedroom
• 671 Calle
Miramar is
upslope.
4 Reasons for Appeal – Notice failures
• The December 4, 2024, the City/Planning Commission failed to meet City’s notice requirements:
• Comments that are submitted no later than 5:00pm on Tuesday one week before the meeting will be attached to the agenda item and posted on the City Comments that are submitted no later than 5:00pm on Tuesday the day before the meeting will be included as a supplemental agenda item and will be posted on the City webpage on the day of the meeting webpage. Comments that are submitted after 5:00pm on Tuesday the day before the meeting will be filed with the public record.
• The March 25, 2025, meeting, City’s website did not permit comment during the 7-day period:
• Members of the public may comment on the matter during a 7-day comment period that begins on March 17, 2025, and ends at 5:30 p.m. on March 24, 2025. Comments may be submitted via the OneMeeting Public Portal at
https://torranceca.primeqov.com/public/portal?fromiframe=true. • The website did not permit comment until March 24, 2025, at approximately 10 AM.
5 The City did not provide a 7-day comment
period
• PUBLIC COMMENTS
• Members of the public may comment
on the matter during a 7 -day
comment period that begins on
March 17, 2025, and ends at 5:30 p.m.
on March 24, 2025.
• The City’s website did not allow for
comment until approximately 10 AM
on March 24, 2025, prejudicing those
who oppose the Plan.
6 Reason for the Appeal -
PRIVACY
• The Planning Commission did not accurately consider the loss of privacy despite the photos showing the direct line of sight between the 2nd story deck and windows and a
downslope private backyard.
• The Planning Commission incorrectly determined that the 2nd story deck and windows faced away from a downslope
private backyard.
• The Planning Commission did not consider alternative
designs that would reduce the loss of privacy.
7 PRIVACY
• Privacy is an inalienable right enshrined in the California Constitution. Cal. Const., art. I, § 1. Under the privacy amendment, the definition of the right to privacy is
simply the right to be left alone. In re M.T., 106 Cal. App. 5th 322, 322, 326 Cal. Rptr. 3d 808 (2024).
• A fenced backyard is an area intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically, where
privacy expectations are most heightened. People v.
Thompson, 221 Cal. App. 3d 923, 949, 270 Cal. Rptr.
863, 878 (1990).
8 PRIVACY
• This photo is taken from our
bedroom window and
approximates where the 2nd
story deck and windows will be
placed.
9 PRIVACY
10 PRIVACY
• The 2nd story deck and windows
have a direct line of sight to our
bedroom windows and
backyard.
11 PRIVACY
GARAGE
GARAGE
BEDROOMS
12 PRIVACY?
13 SUNLIGHT
• The slope limits the amount of
light in our backyard.
• The second story reduces the
sunlight to our backyard,
especially during the winter
months.
14 Reason for Appeal – Approval to avoid red tape
• During the meeting, staff did not
provide the Planning Commission
with the option to deny the Plan. Staff
only prepared a motion to approve.
When there was a discussion about
continuing the vote, staff advised the
Planning Commission that there was
no room on the next agenda. Staff
inserted undue influence into the
hearing process favoring approval.
15 Applicant did not discuss plans with us before
they were submitted to the City
• The applicant told us they may make “some improvements” before the flags went up, but never mentioned a 2nd story, deck, or windows overlooking our private backyard.
• Applicant did not offer to share their plans or discuss the 2nd story. • Following the December 4, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, we invited a discussion and compromise.
• Applicants refused to meet with us unless we withdrew our appeal. 16 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
• Make opaque, move or
remove windows on the 2nd
story that look down into
our backyard.
• Planting of mature
hedges/trees that are at
least 20’ high.
17 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
• Relocation of the 2nd
story deck.
18 CONCLUSION
• The City Council should approve the appeal.
• Deny the Precise Plan of Development (PRE24-00012) to Allow One and Two-Story Additions to an Existing One-Story Single-Family Residence, in Conjunction with a Waiver (WAV24-00007) of the Setback Requirements, on Property Located within the Hillside Overlay in the R- 1 Zone at 671 Calle Miramar (APN 7514-019-013),
• Require changes to PRE24-00012 so that the design causes the least intrusion on the views, light, air, and privacy of other nearby properties. 19