9A
Date: June 17, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Planning Commission;
Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director
By: Robert Garcia, Planning Manager | [email protected] Subject: Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt a RESOLUTION for the Denial of a Variance Request to Exempt a Proposed New Two-Story, Single-Family Residence from Enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, on Property Located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 417 Via Anita and Determine a Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of the Planning Commission and Community Development Director that City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing; and
2. Adopt a RESOLUTION for the denial of a Variance request to exempt a proposed new two-story, single-family residence from enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 417 Via Anita; and
3. Determine a Statutory Exemption for the denial of a Variance request in accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Article 18, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved).
FUNDING
None required.
DISCUSSION
The project applicant, Jehan Mir (Rukhsana Mir), requests consideration by the City Council for the approval of a Variance to exempt a proposed new two-story, single-family residence from enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 417 Via Anita.
1 City Council
June 17, 2025
4 9
1 Project Site
The property currently contains a one-story single-family residence with an attached two-car garage, originally constructed in 1954. The property is bordered on the east and west by one-story residences, with several two-story residences located nearby that were built prior to adoption of the Hillside Overlay.
The property is situated on a trapezoidal-shaped lot measuring 7,357 square feet in area, which exceeds the minimum lot area and minimum dimensions required in the R-1 Zone. The lot is situated along a hillside bluff and slopes slightly upward from the front yard toward the rear yard before descending at the edge of the bluff. The existing building pad sits slightly above the adjacent sidewalk at the junction of Via Anita and Via La Soledad.
Analysis
The development standards of the R-1 Zone (Single Family Residential District), as well as the planning and design provisions of the Hillside Overlay are applicable to the construction of a new two-story, single-family residence, and therefore an exemption from enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, requires approval of the following entitlement:
•Variance (VAR) to exempt enforcement of Code.
The attached project plans serve as a conceptual project for reference only. The specific details and merits of the plans are not subject to review under the Variance request.
Background
The applicant, Jehan Mir (Rukhsana Mir), is requesting a Variance for the proposed project to be exempt from the Hillside Overlay and its development standards, design-review criteria, and limitations.
In 1977, the City Council adopted the Hillside Overlay to provide development standards, design- review criteria, and limitations for hillside and coastal development. The Hillside Overlay recognizes that there are development difficulties due to topography of the area, and the need for development-review criteria to prevent adverse impacts upon the view, light, air, and privacy interests of other properties in the vicinity. Since its adoption, the Hillside Overlay has evolved from general guidelines into a formal development review and permitting process.
Projects within the Hillside Overlay require discretionary review to determine whether the project has the potential to result in adverse impacts or result in significant public controversy. Various factors are taken into consideration when evaluating potential Hillside Overlay impacts, such as the project height, massing, and layout, field observations, existing site conditions, and silhouette placement.
Not all impacts are considered substantially adverse. In litigation related to the Hillside Overlay, Youngern v. City of Torrance, the Court ruled that the only reasonable interpretation of “adverse impact” is a “substantial impact,” for otherwise the regulations would preclude all development. That decision further noted that every development has an impact on the view, light, air, and privacy interests of surrounding properties, and finally, that front yards are within the public realm and do not enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy.
As stated earlier, the property is situated on a trapezoidal-shaped lot measuring 7,357 square feet in area, with the rear property line wider than the front, and the western property line longer than the eastern side. The lot is situated along a hillside bluff, with the rear descending at the 2 City Council
June 17, 2025
4 9
1 edge of the bluff. The parcel is oriented towards the south and is located along the north side of Via Anita at the junction with Via La Soledad. Via Anita descends from east to west, and Via La Soledad descends from south to north. These downward slopes begin east and south of the property, with residences along Via Soledad and Via Alameda at a higher elevation, and continue north and west of the Property, with residences along Via Pasqual at a lower elevation. The building pad of the adjacent one-story residence to the west sits slightly below the Property as opposed to the adjacent one-story residence to the east, which sits slightly above the Property. The nearby residences along Via Anita and Via La Soledad are predominately one- story structures, with a number of two-story structures located intermittently nearby.
Considering the physical characteristics of the property and surrounding properties, the topography of the area is consistent with the original intent of the Hillside Overlay, in that there are development difficulties due to topography, and there is a need for development-review criteria to prevent adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The Property is situated in an area and manner that may create the potential for substantial adverse impacts to neighboring properties when development is proposed.
In the judgment of staff, a Variance from the entire Hillside Overlay does not satisfy the criteria for approving a Variance, as the Hillside Overlay was specifically implemented for areas with unique topography, for which the property qualifies.
Criteria for Granting a Variance
In accordance with Article 1, Chapter 4, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, the City Council shall approve or deny an application for a Variance based on the following criteria:
a) There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from the strict enforcement of this Division.
b) If it will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity thereof.
c) If it will not substantially interfere with the orderly development of the City as provided for in the Official Land Use Plan.
In addition, under State law, a Variance may be granted “only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.” (Gov. Code § 65906)
In this case, the basis for the applicant’s request for a Variance is that, according to the applicant, its project will not result in any adverse impacts to the views, light, air, or privacy interests of any of the surrounding properties, and that any claims of such impacts by the surrounding neighbors are allegedly false.
It should be noted that this is not a basis for granting a Variance from the review criteria established by the Hillside Overlay process. The applicant has failed to point to any special circumstances of the property (such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings) that would justify exempting it from the Hillside Overlay process, or any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that would result from strict application of that process. Instead, the positions advanced by the applicant are merely an argument that, in applying those criteria to the project, no adverse impacts on the surrounding properties should be found. However, that is not a determination that is made through the granting of a Variance, but instead through the review 3 City Council
June 17, 2025
4 9
1 of the project under the normal Hillside Overlay process. During that process, the applicant is free to present evidence and argument as to why a finding of no adverse impacts should be made.
The Hillside Overlay review process was purposefully considered and devised to allow for greater discretionary control over developments in the subject area, with additional design-review criteria, and with the intent to prevent adverse impacts to surrounding view, light, air, and privacy interests. In light of these purposes, granting the requested Variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to the properties located in the vicinity of the project because, without additional design-review criteria and limitations established by the Hillside Overlay, a project on the property can potentially have significant adverse impacts to surrounding view, light, air, and privacy interests. For example, a proposed project that complies with the underlying R-1 Zone can potentially build to the maximum allowable height of 27 feet, and to the maximum allowable floor area of 4,414 square feet. Depending on how that height and mass is designed and laid out, the project can have significant adverse impacts to nearby properties. Relatedly, the project can propose balconies and roof decks which can have even more adverse impacts.
Furthermore, granting the requested Variance would substantially interfere with the orderly development of the City. Doing so would create a singular scenario for the property that deviates from the neighborhood and surrounding area, which would be dissimilar, inconsistent, and not only incompatible, but contrary to the intent of the Hillside Overlay. Under State law, any granting of a Variance “shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.” Here, exempting the proposed project from the entire Hillside Overlay process, on the alleged ground that no adverse impacts would result from the project, would constitute a grant of a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity.
The Hillside Overlay and its review process do not preclude the development of a two-story single- family residence. The proposed project would simply have to be designed to cause the least intrusion and be the least impactful to surrounding properties. Most recently, PRE23-00009 was approved on February 21, 2024, to allow a new two-story, single-family residence at 202 Paseo de Suenos. In another example, PRE22-00016 was approved on March 1, 2023, to allow a new two-story, single-family residence at 5446 Linda Dive. And yet another example, PRE22-00012 was approved on November 16, 2022, to allow a new two-story, single-family residence at 425 Paseo de la Playa.
In addition to the above examples, staff notes that recent changes in State law allow the property to be developed and improved with an additional structure in the form of Accessory Dwelling Unit, which is not subject to the discretionary review process of the Hillside Overlay. Therefore, granting the Variance is not necessary for allowing the Property to be developed and improved upon.
Prior Precise Plan Applications for the Property
In 2006, a development application was filed by Jehan Mir (Rukhsana Mir) to obtain a Precise Plan of Development (Record No. PRE06-00037) to allow the construction of a new two-story, single-family residence on the Property. In 2007, the Planning Commission considered and denied PRE06-00037. An appeal was filed by the applicant, and the matter was considered by the City Council in 2008, at which time the appeal was denied and the denial of PRE06-00037 was upheld.
In 2016, a development application was filed by Jehan Mir (Rukhsana Mir) to obtain a Precise Plan of Development (Record No. PRE16-00006) to allow the construction of a new two-story, 4 City Council
June 17, 2025
4 9
1 single-family residence on the Property. In 2017, the Planning Commission considered and denied PRE16-00006. An appeal was filed by the applicant, and the matter was considered by the City Council in 2017, at which time the appeal was denied and the denial of PRE16-00006 was upheld
Past Litigation
In 2020, Rukhsana Mir and Jehan Mir (the purported purchaser of the Property) filed a Complaint against the City in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, relating to the City’s decisions on the prior Precise Plan applications. The Complaint contended, among other things, that the previous applications were denied on grounds of racial discrimination, and that the denials violated the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, among other statutes. In addition, the plaintiff raised various claims challenging the constitutionality of the City’s Hillside Overlay Ordinance’s review process, as applied to the proposed project.
In response to the Complaint, the City filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the Court. With respect to the claims challenging application of the City’s Hillside Overlay Ordinance review process, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims were not ripe, as they had failed to obtain a “final decision” from the City on the applications, such as by seeking a Variance, as required under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 193 (1985). Based on the ruling, in January of 2021, the Court stayed those claims to allow the plaintiffs time to seek such a Variance. All other claims in the case were dismissed at that time.
In 2023, the Court dismissed the remaining claims in the case, without prejudice, on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to diligently seek a final decision from the City in the intervening two years, such as by diligently pursuing a Variance.
The Variance Application
A summary of the Variance application history, as well as correspondence related to the application and application status, were provided in connection with the Planning Commission Item (May 15, 2024), which is included as an attachment.
Prior Hearings and Publications
In accordance with the Torrance Municipal Code, notices were made on May 2, 2024, that the Planning Commission would conduct a public hearing on May 15, 2024, to consider a development application filed by Jehan Mir (Rukhsana Mir) requesting the approval of a Variance to exempt a proposed new two-story, single-family residence from enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 417 Via Anita. A public notice was posted at the project site in a conspicuous location and notices were mailed to the registered owner of properties located within a 500’ radius of the exterior boundaries of the project site (Attachment 3). Notices were also published in the local newspaper (The Daily Breeze) and posted on the City of Torrance webpage.
At the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter, heard public comments, and a motion for recommendation to the City Council for denial of the Variance request passed by a vote of 5 in favor, 1 abstained, and 1 recused.
Following the Planning Commission hearing, notices were made on October 11, 2024, that the City Council would conduct a public hearing on October 22, 2024, to consider a development application filed by Jehan Mir (Rukhsana Mir) requesting the approval of a Variance to exempt a proposed new two-story, single-family residence from enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, 5 City Council
June 17, 2025
4 9
1 Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 417 Via Anita. A public notice was posted at the project site in a conspicuous location and notices were mailed to the registered owner of properties located within a 500’ radius of the exterior boundaries of the project site (Attachment 3). Notices were also published in the local newspaper (The Daily Breeze) and posted on the City of Torrance webpage. At the request of the applicant, the public hearing was postponed to a date uncertain.
As a date was finally selected, notices were made on June 5, 2025, that the City Council would conduct a public hearing on June 17, 2025, to consider a development application filed by Jehan Mir (Rukhsana Mir) requesting the approval of a Variance to exempt a proposed new two-story, single-family residence from enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 417 Via Anita. A public notice was posted at the project site in a conspicuous location and notices were mailed to the registered owner of properties located within a 500’ radius of the exterior boundaries of the project site (Attachment 3). Notices were also published in the local newspaper (The Daily Breeze) and posted on the City of Torrance webpage.
Conclusion
In the judgment of staff, the request for a Variance to exempt a proposed new two-story, single- family residence from enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, does not satisfy the criteria for approving a Variance. As outlined over the course of this report, the applicant has not established any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that would result from the strict application of the Hillside Overlay process, including granting the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to the properties located in the vicinity thereof, and that granting the Variance will substantially interfere with the orderly development of the City.
The attached project plans serve as a conceptual project for reference only. The specific details and merits of the plans are not subject to review under the Variance request.
It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Community Development Director that the City Council deny the subject request.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
Projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are Statutorily Exempt by the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 18, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Location and Zoning Map
3. Proof of Publication and Notification
4. Planning Commission Staff Reports (May 15, 2024)
5. Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt (May 15, 2024)
6. Correspondence
7. Project Plans (Limited Distribution)
6 RESOLUTION NO. 25-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AS PROVIDED FOR IN DIVISION 9,
CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 1 OF THE TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE,
FOR THE DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO EXEMPT A PROPOSED
NEW TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE FROM
ENFORCEMENT OF ARTICLE 41, CHAPTER 1, DIVISION 9, OF
THE TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE, HILLSIDE AND LOCAL
COASTAL OVERLAY ZONE, ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN
THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY IN THE R-1 ZONE AT 417 VIA ANITA.
VAR22-00001: JEHAN MIR (RUKHSANA MIR)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 15, 2024, to consider an application filed by Jehan Mir (Rukhsana Mir) for a Variance to exempt a proposed new two-story, single-family residence from enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 417 Via Anita; and WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission meeting of May 15, 2024, a motion for a recommendation to the City Council for denial of the Variance request passed by a vote of 5 in favor, 1 abstained, and 1 recused; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Torrance conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 17, 2025, to consider the application filed by Jehan Mir (Rukhsana Mir) for approval of a Variance to exempt a proposed new two-story, single-family residence from enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 417 Via Anita; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Torrance by roll call vote denied the subject request; and
WHEREAS, due and legal publication of notice was given to owners of property in the vicinity thereof, and due and legal hearings have been held, all in accordance with the provisions of Division 9, Chapter 4, Article 1 of the Torrance Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Torrance does hereby find and determine as follows:
a) That the property is located at 417 Via Anita;
b) That the property is described as Lot 154 of Tract 19306, as per map recorded in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, State of California;
c) That projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are Statutorily Exempt by the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Article 18, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved);
d) That there are no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from the strict enforcement of this Division, as the applicant has failed to point to any special circumstances of the property (such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings) that would justify exempting it from the Hillside Overlay process. The property exceeds the minimum lot area and minimum dimensions required in the R-1 Zone, is bounded by parcels that share the same zoning designation and Hillside Overlay, and share similar physical characteristics to surrounding properties in terms of size, shape, and topography. Furthermore, the Hillside Overlay and its Attachment 1
7 review process does not preclude the development of a two-story single-family residence, and recent changes in State law allow the property to be developed and improved with additional structures in the form of Accessory Dwelling Units, Two Unit Projects, and Urban Lot Splits; e) That granting the Variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity thereof because, without additional design-review criteria and limitations established by the Hillside Overlay, a project on the property can potentially have significant adverse impacts to surrounding view, light, air, and privacy interests, as the property is situated in an area and manner that may create the potential for substantial adverse impacts to neighboring properties, for which the Hillside Overlay review process was purposefully considered and devised to allow for greater discretionary control over developments in the subject area;
f) That granting the Variance will substantially interfere with the orderly development of the City as provided for in the Official Land Use Plan, as doing so would create a singular scenario for the property that deviates from the neighborhood and surrounding area, which would be dissimilar, inconsistent, and not only incompatible, but contrary to the intent of the Hillside Overlay.
Furthermore, under State law, any granting of a Variance “shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.” Granting the Variance would constitute a grant of special privileges that is inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that VAR22-00001 filed by Jehan Mir (Rukhsana Mir) to exempt a proposed new two-story, single-family residence from enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 417 Via Anita, on file in the Community Development Department of the City of Torrance, is hereby DENIED.
INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June 2025.
_______________________________
Mayor George K. Chen
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patrick Q. Sullivan, City Attorney ATTEST:
________________________________ _______________________________ Tatia Y. Strader, Assistant City Attorney Rebecca Poirier, MMC, City Clerk
8 .
Attachment 2
9 VAR22-00001 Jehan Mir (CC 6-17-25 AOKI) - Page 1 of 2 Daily Breeze
2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
(310) 543-6635
0011739384
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Blvd
Torrance, California 90503
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles
I am a citizen of the United States and
a resident of the County aforesaid; I
am over the age of eighteen years, and
not party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of Daily Breeze, a
newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the City of
Torrance*, County of Los Angeles, and
which newspaper has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of County of Los
Angeles, State of California, under the
date of June 15, 1945, Decree No.
Pomo C-606. The notice, of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type
not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates, to wit:
06/06/2025
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated at Hermosa Beach, California
On this 6th day of June, 2025.
______________________________
Signature
*Daily Breeze circulation includes the following
cities: Carson, Compton, Culver City, El
Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne,
Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale,
Lomita, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Manhattan
Beach, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Palos Verdes,
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes
Estates, Redondo Beach, San Pedro, Santa
Monica, Torrance and Wilmington
Attachment 3
10 VAR22-00001 Jehan Mir (CC 6-17-25 AOKI) - Page 2 of 2 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 Attachment 4
18 19
Williamson County
Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City 20 Youngern
v. City of Torrance
21 not
22 23
24 .
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
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 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 10/01/24
EXCERPT OF MINUTES X Minutes Approved
Minutes Subject to Approval
May 15, 2024
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
TORRANCE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
8C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF VAR22-00001: RUKHSANA MIR
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider a Variance to exempt a proposed new two-story, single-family residence from enforcement of Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9, of the Torrance Municipal Code, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 417 Via Anita. This project is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA per Guidelines Section 15270 Projects Which Are Disapproved.
Commissioner Anunson requested to be recused due to his proximity to the property and financial conflict of interest. Commissioner Anunson recused himself at 7:09 p.m.
Planning Associate Yumul presented Item 8C.
Chair Kartsonis requested clarification on the project. Planning Manager Oorts clarified that the Item is a request for a Variance to be exempt from enforcement of the Hillside Overlay.
In addition, under state law, a Variance may be granted only under special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, property location surroundings, and privacy.
Mr. Johan Mir, brother of the applicant, spoke on the project stating that that the property is on a 7,300 square feet lot and that the owner is entitled to 4,300 square feet of living space.
Mr. Mir stated that the 4,300 square feet living space cannot be done due to the topography and, according to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance, the requested extension will interfere with setback the only option to have the desired living space entitled to the owner is to build up.
Mr. Mir stated that the staff report was improperly prepared by staff as they had never been to the property and that the Hillside Overlay Ordinance was misapplied and not applicable to the project. Mr. Mir requested that the Hillside Overlay Ordinance be set aside and that the permit be granted.
Mr. Mir stated that there are currently no privacy issues as vegetation has been planted
Commissioner Choi inquired on the staff report and requested clarification. Planning Manager Oorts clarified that Article 41, Chapter 1, Division 9 is the Hillside Overlay Ordinance, and that the applicant is requesting to be exempt from the Hillside Overlay so that the property can be developed as a 2-story residence.
Attachment 5
100
10/01/24
Planning Manager Oorts stated that the applicant filed for an application to develop the site into a 2-story residence in 2006, requesting a Precise Plan of Development. The application was denied by the Planning Commission, appealed by the applicant, and denied by City Council.
The applicant applied again in 2016 where it was denied by the Planning Commission and denied by City Council again.
Commissioner Riggs disclosed that he visited the property, spoke with neighbors but did not speak on subject matter pertaining to the property. Commissioner Riggs stated that his decisions will be based on evidence presented.
Commissioner Yeh disclosed that he visited the property and will base decisions on evidence presented.
Commissioner Rudolph inquired why the applicant .
Planning Manager Oorts replied that per what the applicant conveyed, Mr. Mir claimed that the project will not have any adverse impacts. The applicant is utilizing the findings that would be made for the Hillside Overlay process to request a Variance or exemption of the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.
Commissioner Rudolph suggested that the applicant work with an architect that is familiar with the Hillside Overlay Ordinance and has experience in bringing projects before the Commission in a capacity that is normally seen. Mr. Mir stated that he has been working with architects over the past several years regarding the project.
Chair Kartsonis disclosed that he visited the property and will base decisions on evidence and personal observations.
A member of the public spoke on correspondence submitted regarding criticism of the application and requested that the project be denied.
Ms. Judy Brunetti issue has taken
a lot of time from the city, neighbors, and court personnel and does not have factual issues that can be explained clearly. Ms. Brunetti requested that the project be denied.
Mr. Thomas Fallow stated that this was the third he has been through this process and requested denial of the project.
A member of the public stated that the incident has been going on since 2006 and requested that the Hillside Overlay Ordinance be upheld and requested denial of the project.
Mr. Mir stated that members of the public did not speak truth and that the statements did not make sense as the project would not be detrimental to neighbors due to views and natural light not being affected.
Mr. Mir stated that the build would not interfere with the City Code or Ordinances, that all criteria are met, and that there are no practical difficulties.
101
10/01/24
Commissioner Riggs requested further clarifications on the project. Planning Manager Oorts replied that the applicant is requesting that the Variance not enforce the Hillside Overlay Ordinance based on the (3) findings that the applicant has found: there are no practical difficulties or necessary hardships, the project will not be detrimental to public welfare, and that there will be the request is that the applicant has failed to point to any special circumstances on the property that would justify exempting the project from the Hillside Overlay Ordinance process. Staff also found that granting the requested Variance would be detrimental to public welfare due to the impact it will have on neighboring properties and will interfere with development of the city as it would deviate from the neighborhood.
Assistant City Attorney Strader clarified that denying a project with prejudice means that the decision of the Commission is the final determination of merits and that the matter cannot be heard again for a certain period of time. If a project is denied without prejudice, it means that the decision of the Commission would not require the applicant to give up any right or privilege and that the applicant can come back again.
Assistant City Attorney Strader clarified that the Commission is only considering the Variance.
Planning Manager Oorts clarified that decision will be a recommendation to City Council to either approve or deny the request.
Commissioner Rudolph addressed Mr. Mir stating that the Commission could consider giving the applicant a chance to re-do the design after consulting with an architect due to a Variance being presented without an architect or an attorney that specializes in property law present.
Commissioner Rudolph stated that he would prefer postponing the hearing for the applicant to work with staff and once staff and the applicant are ready, decide how the Item would be brought back.
Assistant City Attorney Strader stated that decision of merits would be ideal due to the possibility of lawsuits.
Mr. Mir stated that a lawsuit was filed because there was no reason to deny the application as the building plan was compliant with City Codes.
Mr. Mir stated that he is not willing to withdraw the application.
MOTION: Commissioner Yeh moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 6-0 approval (Commissioner Anunson recused).
Chair Kartsonis disclosed that he was on an online event where someone stated their opposition of the project; Chair Kartsonis stated that this was the extent of the conversation and that his decision will be based on evidence presented.
Chair Kartsonis clarified that there is no appeal to City Council as this is a recommendation that
102
10/01/24
MOTION: Commissioner Choi moved to recommend that City Council deny Variance VAR22-00001 without prejudice. Commissioner Yeh seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 5-0 approval (Commissioner Anunson recused and Commissioner Rudolph abstained).
Commissioner Rudolph stated that he abstained from the vote as the applicant is not pursuing the course of action correctly and did not feel comfortable deciding.
Planning Manager Oorts stated that a staff report will be prepared for City Council.
End of Excerpt
103
Attachment 6
104
105
106
107
108
109
1 Oorts, Leo
Subject: RE: Public Comment (Proposed Construction at 417 Via Anita) From: Patricia Mraz
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 11:01 AM
To: CDD Info <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment (Proposed Construction at 417 Via Anita)
Comment titled Item: Var22-00001 Johanna Mir (Rukhsana Mir)
I live at 214 Via Pasqual with Janet Mellott. We are both strongly opposed to the planned construction at 417 Via Anita. This property is behind our home and the proposed structure is in violation of the Hillside Overlay for not only us but many of our neighbors. As you know this same owner has submitted plans in 2007, 2008 and 2016 which was denied. If the structure proposed does not include changes in compliance with the overlay we again oppose for the same reasons listed below. In addition this neighbor has planted large trees to mitigate objections, which now are a fire hazard and he will not allow SCE to trim. As presented previously this proposed structure remains in violation as follows:
OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AT 417 VIA ANITA: (Sections 91.41.6 and 91.41.7)
Privacy – 2nd story addition looks into our bedroom, family room & entire backyard. Light – During the winter this addition would block sun to our yard due to the low cast of the afternoon sun.
Neighborhood assimilation – the proposed construction is a huge 2 story home taking most of the lot exceeding 50% of the area. It doesn’t fit in with other smaller single story homes in the area.
Precedent – By allowing the proposed construction this sets a precedent, changing the entire character of the neighborhood & negating the very intent of the Hillside Overlay ordinance.
Thank you for your attention and consideration to this matter.
Pat Mraz and Janet Mellott
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 110
Attachment 7
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118