327
327
Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider adoption of Resolution No. 24-003 for approval of a
Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 22209
Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-025), and determine a
Categorical Exemption for the project in accordance with Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Article 19, Section
15303 (New Construction)."
My puzzlement arises from the apparent contradiction that may be stated as:
"If the evaluation of the application is "ministerial", what is the roll of the Planning Commission in this
hearing?"
If any of the members of the Planning Commission, at this point are not entirely certain as to the role of the Planning Commission in this matter, may I ask that the Planning Commission continue the hearing of item 8C until such time as any such uncertainty has been resolved to their satisfaction. It is my impression that any member of the Planning Commission, on his or her own initiative, can "make a motion to continue the hearing of item 8C to a later date", and my understanding that if a second member of the Planning Commission "seconds the motion", the motion must then be voted upon, and then acted on, accordingly.
In my attempt to understand these issues, I sent, via email, on Friday, March 14, 2025, the following inquiry to City Attorney Jennifer Guerrero:
****copy of email to Jennifer Guerrero below******
Dear Jennifer Guerrero,
Would you, or someone else in the City Attorney office, without delay, please send to me your answers to the
following questions that have been raised by the
scheduling of agenda item 8C for hearing by the Planning Commission on March 19, 2025.
The notice posted by the City describes item 8C in the
following manner:
328
328
"Consideration of a Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family
residence with accessory dwelling unit (ADU), on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at
22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-025)."
...
"a public hearing and consider adoption of Resolution No. 24-003 for approval of a Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-
025)."
Followed by the recommendation:
"Recommendation of the Community Development Director that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider adoption of Resolution No. 24-003 for approval of a
Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence,on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 22209
Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-025), and determine a
Categorical Exemption for the project in accordance with Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Article 19, Section
15303 (New Construction)."
I have obtained a copy of a statement made by Luis
Velazquez, Planning Associate, Community Development
Department, regarding Agenda Item 8C, which asserts that:
"The project is tentatively scheduled for March 19. The applicant is currently working on constructing story
poles, and a revised set of plans is available for review at the Permit Center.
This project is similar to previous ones, featuring a two- story residence with an attached garage and an ADU. Given its comparable height and staff's assessment, we
determined it could move forward for scheduling.
In particular, I ask the City to state, and explain to me, in detail, the basis, if any, upon which Luis Velazquez, and the City based his response. Please includes cites to the specific sections of State Law, and the court
decisions, if any, upon which the statement by Luis
329
329
Velazquez is based. Please also describe the reasoning, if any, that you can provide to support the statement made by Luis Velazquez.
May I ask that you promptly provide the response to me, so that residents interested in Item 5C, will be able to
submit comment, prior to, and at, the hearing of Item 5C on March 19, 2025.
Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck, resident of the Hillside for 41 years." ******copy of email to Jennifer Guerrero - above*****
I have not, as yet, received any response from the City Attorney's office to my inquiry and request.
For these reasons, I ask the Planning Commission to continue the hearing of Item 5C until the uncertainties, that I describe above, have been resolved.
Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck - Resident of the Hillside for 41 years.
330
330
From: Onorio
To: Planning Commission
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - PRE23-00013 - Ave A & Susana
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 10:06:20 AM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> Members of the Planning Commission,
>
> I am writing this email in opposition to this proposed project. > I support the neighbors which will be affected by this large house on a small lot. > The hillside overlay ordinance should be followed.
> The builder has no regard for the neighbors.
> They just want to maximize profit without making any effort to diminish impact to neighboring properties. > The hillside overlay ordinance and the FAR should be respected. > The footprint could be reduced and the height of the structure could be lowered by excavating the lot. >
> We welcome new development as long as the developer respects hillside overlay ordinance. >
> We encourage the builder and the neighbors to have a dialogue to come up with a solution agreeable by all parties involved, and in line with the hillside overlay ordinance. >
>
> Best regards,
>
> Onorio Marsella
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
331
331
From: Bruce Kim
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment - PRE23-00013 - Ave. A & Susana Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 7:19:58 AM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed development at Avenue A & Susana (Case No. PRE23-00013). This project undermines the long-standing protections provided by the Hillside Overlay and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked two-story developments that threaten our neighborhood's character, privacy, and views.
The City has previously rejected this project twice, recognizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of our community and the intent of the Hillside Overlay. However, the developer is now exploiting a legal technicality to bypass these protections. Approving this project would not only impact the immediate neighbors but would also open the door for further developments that disregard established zoning rules.
I urge the Planning Commission to uphold the original intent of the Hillside Overlay and reject this proposal once again. Preserving our neighborhood’s views, privacy, and property values is critical to maintaining the quality of life in Torrance.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bong Sug Kim
332
332
From: Andrew CaseyJonez
To: Velazquez, Luis
Subject: PRE23-00013
Date: Sunday, March 16, 2025 10:34:54 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Do not allow the local community to be destroyed by this abuse of the hillside overlay rule that has governed this area. Many people will have their views be negatively affected. Home values will diminish. The character of the neighborhood will be altered. The reason families have moved here will be lost. Property values will decline. Views will be lost. It’s the tipping point. If this is allowed then the owners will have a problem with neighbors who hate them before they even move in. The ADU is a fine idea but 2 stories is not.
Existing homeowners have wanted to build up two stories but haven’t due to the hillside overlay rules.Please do not allow this project to break the rules.
333
333
From: joedsl
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment to Agenda Item 8C for Planning Commission hearing on March 19, 2025, re: 22209 Susana Avenue
Date: Saturday, March 15, 2025 3:50:40 PM
Attachments: Public Comment re Planning Commission Agenda Item 8C, March 19, 2025.pdf Please accept and post as a Supplemental to the Planning Commission Agenda Item 8C for March 19, 2025,
re: 22209 Susana Avenue, the
document that I have attached hereto, identified as:
"Public Comment re: Planning Commission Agenda Item 8C, March 19, 2025.pdf".
Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck
- Resident of the Hillside for 41 years
334
334
Public Comment re: Planning Commission Agenda Item 8C, March 19, 2025 I submit the following Public Comment to the Planning Commission for its consideration in connection with Planning Commission Agenda Item 8C, set for March 19, 2025.
With respect to Agenda Item 8C, I obtained a copy of a response from Luis Velazquez, Planning Associate, Community Development Department, that he provided to a neighbor living near the property in question. In his response, Luis Velazquez, stated:
"The ADU is exempt from the Hillside provisions; however, the overall project now qualifies as a housing development under state law. As a result, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) takes precedence in the review process. This
means the project must be evaluated based on objective
standards, and discretionary provisions—such as those in the Hillside Overlay—cannot be applied to deny the
project."
In this circumstance, I have no understanding as to why the matter is scheduled for consideration (as Agenda Item 8C) by the Planning Commission.
The notice of the hearing that was posted by the City described item 8C in the following manner:
"Consideration of a Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family
residence with accessory dwelling unit (ADU), on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at
22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-025)."
....
"a public hearing and consider adoption of Resolution No. 24-003 for approval of a Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-
025)."
Followed by the recommendation:
"Recommendation of the Community Development Director that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider
335
335
adoption of Resolution No. 24-003 for approval of a
Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 22209
Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-025), and determine a
Categorical Exemption for the project in accordance with Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Article 19, Section
15303 (New Construction)."
My puzzlement arises from the apparent contradiction that may be stated as:
"If the evaluation of the application is "ministerial", what is the roll of the Planning Commission in this
hearing?"
If any of the members of the Planning Commission, at this point are not entirely certain as to the role of the Planning Commission in this matter, may I ask that the Planning Commission continue the hearing of item 5C until such time as any such uncertainty has been resolved to their satisfaction. It is my impression that any member of the Planning Commission, on his or her own initiative, can "make a motion to continue the hearing of item 5C to a later date", and my understanding that if a second member of the Planning Commission "seconds the motion", the motion must then be voted upon, and then acted on, accordingly.
In my attempt to understand these issues, I sent, via email, on Friday, March 14, 2025, the following inquiry to City Attorney Jennifer Guerrero:
****copy of email to Jennifer Guerrero below******
Dear Jennifer Guerrero,
Would you, or someone else in the City Attorney office, without delay, please send to me your answers to the
following questions that have been raised by the
scheduling of agenda item 8C for hearing by the Planning Commission on March 19, 2025.
The notice posted by the City describes item 8C in the
following manner:
"Consideration of a Precise Plan of Development to allow
336
336
the construction of a new two-story single-family
residence with accessory dwelling unit (ADU), on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at
22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-025)."
...
"a public hearing and consider adoption of Resolution No. 24-003 for approval of a Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-
025)."
Followed by the recommendation:
"Recommendation of the Community Development Director that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider adoption of Resolution No. 24-003 for approval of a
Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence,on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 22209
Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-025), and determine a
Categorical Exemption for the project in accordance with Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Article 19, Section
15303 (New Construction)."
I have obtained a copy of a statement made by Luis
Velazquez, Planning Associate, Community Development
Department, regarding Agenda Item 8C, which asserts that:
"The project is tentatively scheduled for March 19. The applicant is currently working on constructing story
poles, and a revised set of plans is available for review at the Permit Center.
This project is similar to previous ones, featuring a two- story residence with an attached garage and an ADU. Given its comparable height and staff's assessment, we
determined it could move forward for scheduling.
In particular, I ask the City to state, and explain to me, in detail, the basis, if any, upon which Luis Velazquez, and the City based his response. Please includes cites to the specific sections of State Law, and the court
decisions, if any, upon which the statement by Luis
Velazquez is based. Please also describe the reasoning, if
337
337
any, that you can provide to support the statement made by Luis Velazquez.
May I ask that you promptly provide the response to me, so that residents interested in Item 5C, will be able to
submit comment, prior to, and at, the hearing of Item 5C on March 19, 2025.
Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck, resident of the Hillside for 41 years." ******copy of email to Jennifer Guerrero - above*****
I have not, as yet, received any response from the City Attorney's office to my inquiry and request.
For these reasons, I ask the Planning Commission to continue the hearing of Item 5C until the uncertainties, that I describe above, have been resolved.
Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck - Resident of the Hillside for 41 years.
338
338
message or any part of it including any attachments. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately.
339
339
From: Michael Timmermann
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 22209 Susana Ave
Date: Thursday, March 13, 2025 5:35:15 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
I’m writing to object to the proposed development at 22209 Susana Ave, specifically in regard to its sham use of the California Housing Accountability Act. Clearly, it was never the homeowner’s intent to include an ADU for purposes of increasing housing supply within our city. Rather, the ADU was only added after initial failed attempts for project approval.
Every homeowner/developer deserves the right to improve their property—but not through the exploitation of a loophole that is dubiously legal and certainly not in the spirit of the state legislation. The precedent that an approval of this project would provide has implications throughout the entire Hillside Overlay that are far beyond this individual project.
Michael Timmermann
120 Via Colusa
340
340
From: Juliet Babros
To: Planning Commission
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT – PRE23-00013 – 22209 Susana Avenue, Torrance Date: Thursday, March 13, 2025 10:42:49 AM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important As a resident and business owner in Torrance , I strongly oppose the approval of the home at Avenue A and Susana that uses a loophole to violate the hillside overlay.
Please do not allow
them to get away with this and open the door to others violating the rules that preserve our beautiful community and views.
Juliet Babros
JB Communications | Public Relations
t:
m:
e:
341
341
From: Abrahim and Jenny Bagheri
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment - 22209 Susana Ave. - PRE23-00013 Date: Thursday, March 13, 2025 10:36:28 AM
Attachments: Appraisal May 2024.pdf
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Planning Commission Members:
We reside at 22213
Shadycroft Ave.
Introduction:
The applicant initially sought approval from the City for a two-story, approximately 4,000 sq. ft. single-family home under a discretionary Precise Plan (91.41.6). The City informed the applicant that the project, as designed, would likely not be approvable because it failed to satisfy objective and discretionary criteria explicitly set forth in the Hillside Overlay Ordinance, including view, privacy, and property value protection under Section 91.41.6(a) and (d).
After two unsuccessful attempts at obtaining discretionary approval, the applicant revised their proposal by making minimal changes to the original design by adding a small, approximately 355 sq. ft ADU. This strategic addition allowed them to assert that their project now constitutes a “housing development” under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). By doing so, the applicant seeks to invoke the mandatory approval protections of the HAA, arguing that the City must approve their project if it meets all objective standards.
However, the applicant’s interpretation of the HAA improperly attempts to override the City’s constitutional home-rule authority to regulate zoning and local land use, an authority expressly protected for charter cities under Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution.
Land-use regulation, particularly concerning views, privacy, and property values, is fundamentally a municipal affair, and the City retains discretion unless a state statute is narrowly tailored to address a specific statewide concern.
Moreover, the Hillside Overlay Ordinance explicitly provides an objective path for residential development under Section 91.41.7. This section allows property owners to construct a single- story residence with a maximum height of 14 feet without requiring discretionary approval.
Importantly, this standard is not only feasible but also fully accommodates the applicant’s intent of developing two housing units. The applicant’s attempt to invoke HAA protections while deliberately ignoring this objective alternative demonstrates that their proposal is not about increasing housing supply in good faith, but rather about circumventing local standards to obtain a discretionary approval they otherwise could not secure. Because a clear, objective, and compliant path exists under Section 91.41.7, the City is under no obligation to approve a discretionary deviation from these well-established standards. 342
342
A. Intent and Misuse of HAA Protection:
The HAA is intended to incentivize genuine housing developments, especially those enhancing density or providing affordable housing. Specifically, Government Code §65589.5(a)(2) highlights the Legislature’s intent to ensure local governments facilitate the development of genuine density increases and affordable housing, not to provide loopholes for 4,000 sq. ft.
luxury single-family homes that add negligible or no meaningful density or housing supply.
The applicant’s minimal addition of a 355 sq. ft. ADU does not genuinely further affordable housing or meaningful density increases.
B. Objective Standards are Clearly Available and Feasible:
Under Section 91.41.7, the Hillside Overlay already explicitly provides clear and objective standards for residential construction, specifically, a 14-foot maximum height and single-story construction. This section exists precisely to allow property owners a guaranteed, objectively approvable development path. The City’s objective standard clearly provides a means for the applicant to construct two genuine housing units (e.g., a single-story duplex or a primary residence and ADU within the one-story, 14-foot standard under Section 91.41.7). Because this objectively compliant path is feasible, the City need not grant discretionary approvals under Section 91.41.6 to accommodate a development that exceeds these explicit standards.
Furthermore, objective standards under the HAA are clearly defined as those which require no subjective judgment and can be independently verified by reference to benchmarks or measurements. Here, diminution in property value has been quantified and documented, satisfying the definition of objective criteria.
C. Quantifiable and Objective Impacts (Views, Privacy, Property Values):
The applicant’s proposed two-story, 27-foot-tall home significantly and adversely impacts neighbors’ views, privacy, and property value. These impacts can be objectively quantified through specific measurement standards and percentages. For instance, the City can measure the exact percentage of view and privacy loss attributable to the proposed development.
Additionally, the quantifiable adverse impact on neighboring property values has already been professionally documented: a May 2024 appraisal (attached) established a diminution of our property’s value in the amount of $46,050 if this project was approved. Importantly, this appraisal was conducted before the applicant revised their plans to further increase the size, height, and resulting view and privacy obstruction of the proposed development.
Consequently, the current proposal will result in an even greater, quantifiable reduction in property value than initially assessed.
Thus, by converting view and privacy loss into quantifiable and measurable impacts, these previously discretionary considerations under Section 91.41.6(a) and (d) of the Hillside Overlay Ordinance are rendered objective for purposes of enforcement under the HAA. The Hillside 343
343
Overlay Ordinance explicitly provides objective criteria to prevent harmful impacts on views, privacy, and property values of neighboring properties. Under the HAA framework, these quantified impacts justify denial of the applicant’s discretionary Precise Plan request under Section 91.41.6. This is particularly warranted since the City already provides clear and feasible objective standards (single-story, 14-foot maximum height under Section 91.41.7) that allow the applicant to achieve their goal of developing two housing units without causing substantial and quantifiable harm to neighboring properties.
Moreover, the loss of property value, view, and privacy of neighbors affected by this development is materially detrimental to the public welfare and other properties in the vicinity as explicitly acknowledged in Section 91.41.6(e).
D. Inapplicability of HAA to Discretionary Deviations:
The intent of the HAA is to facilitate and promote increased housing and density. However, the applicant’s original and primary intent has consistently been to construct a large (~4,000 sq. ft.) single-family residence, which previously failed to obtain approval under the City’s Hillside Overlay Ordinance on two separate occasions. Only after these prior attempts did the applicant add a 355 sq. ft. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), thereby classifying the project as a “housing development” under the HAA to circumvent the City’s discretionary approval process.
The City’s Hillside Overlay Ordinance provides clear, objective standards under Section
91.41.7, limiting residential construction to a single-story structure not exceeding 14 feet in height. The applicant’s current proposal seeks discretionary approval under Section 91.41.6, despite the fact that the project is objectively feasible under fully objective standards outlined in Section 91.41.7.
Because compliance with Section 91.41.7 allows for two housing units to be constructed on the property without violating objective height and story standards, the City’s discretion to deny any discretionary variance or Precise Plan request under Section 91.41.6 remains intact.
The City is therefore justified in enforcing its objective standards and denying discretionary variances or Precise Plan applications that exceed these clearly defined standards, especially when the HAA’s intent to increase housing density can be fully satisfied under the existing objective requirements of Section 91.41.7.
In other words, the applicant’s attempt to “opt” into a discretionary Precise Plan under Section 91.41.6 for increased height and additional stories ignores that the Hillside Overlay Ordinance explicitly provides an objective, ministerial standard under Section 91.41.7 that achieves the exact housing density (two units) the applicant purports to seek. The availability of the Precise Plan option does not entitle the applicant to discretionary deviations from objective standards.
344
344
The Legislature’s clear intent behind the HAA is to remove barriers to housing density and affordability, not to serve as a loophole to build oversized luxury homes that do not meaningfully contribute to increased housing supply. The applicant’s proposed 4,000 sq. ft. residence, only minimally modified with a 355 sq. ft. ADU, does not align with the HAA’s purpose of fostering higher-density, affordable housing. Instead, it seeks to exploit the HAA’s protections to override objective local development standards (Section 91.41.7), despite the clear feasibility of complying with them. Granting approval under these circumstances would set a harmful precedent, allowing applicants to misuse state housing laws to bypass legitimate zoning regulations without delivering the density or affordability the HAA was designed to promote.
Under Section 91.41.5, the Hillside Overlay Ordinance requires discretionary review for developments that exceed the objective standards of Section 91.41.7. However, because the applicant has a clear, feasible, and legally compliant alternative under Section 91.41.7, the Commission should reject this discretionary application outright. The City is under no obligation to hear or approve applications that attempt to circumvent objective zoning standards when a fully compliant, non-discretionary alternative exists.
Additionally, given the significant potential for long-term adverse impacts on the Hillside Overlay Zone, the Planning Commission should exercise its authority to initiate its own hearings to provide formal recommendations to the City Council. The Commission should consider advising the Council on strengthening protections against procedural abuses like this case, ensuring that future applicants cannot misuse state housing laws to force approvals for oversized luxury homes that do not contribute to actual housing supply. This approach is consistent with the City’s duty to uphold the purpose of the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.
For these reasons, we respectfully request denial of the applicant’s Precise Plan request.
Sincerely,
Abrahim and Jennifer Bagheri
22213 Shadycroft Ave.
345
345
346
346
347
347
Appraiser License
Form SCNLGL - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE 348
348
349
349
350
350
351
351
352
352
353
353
354
354
2306
OF
REVISION
REVISED
PRINTED
OWNER: KIRK AND PAM FELDKAMP JOB ADDRESS: 22209 SUSANA AVE TORRANCE 119 W. TORRANCE BLVD.,
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277
PHONE:
FAX:
SUITE 24
(310) 372-5580
(310) 318-5801
THESE PLANS ARE COPYRIGHTED AND THE DESIGN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS LEACH, ARCHITECTURE, INC.
CS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE AND A.D.U. FOR
KIRK AND PAM FELDKAMP
22209 Susana Ave., Torrance
Sheet Index
Scope of Work
Demolish existing residence (under separate permit)
Provide temporary power pole (under separate permit)
Construct New 2-story, single family residence w/ 2 car garage and attached A.D.U.
Landscape for entire property (under separate permit)
Automatic Fire Sprinkler System (under separate permit) Photovoltaic System (under separate permit)
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
General Project Information
Site Plan
First Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
Exterior Elevations
Roof Plan
Topographic Survey
CS:
A1:
A2:
A3:
A5:
A7:
TS:
Lot: 181
M.B. 442-44
Legal Description
Height Calculation
Zoning:
Setbacks
Front:
Sides:
Rear:
Height Limit:
Parking:
Type of Construction:
Occupancies:
Number of Stories:
Sprinkler System:
Code Research
R1
20'-0" Average / 15' Minimum
Lot Width @ Midpoint = 65.25'
Therefore Interior South Side
Setback = 6'-6"
10'-0" Mimimum @ Avenue A
20'-0" Minimum
27'-0"/ Max.
2 Enclosed at Garage
V-B
R3 at Living; U at Garage
2 Required Throughout Residence and Garage:
Licensed Installer Shall Submit Shop
Drawings for Approval Prior to Installation
Tract # 17921
APN: 7515-001-025
Lowest Grade at Dwelling = 102.9
DOUGLAS J. LEACH, ARCHITECTS, INC.
Douglas J. Leach
119 W. Torrance Blvd., Suite 24
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Phone: (310) 372-5580
Fax: (310) 318-5801
ARCHITECT:
Architect & Consultants
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
TITLE 24 CALCULATIONS:
SURVEYOR:
First Floor Living
Second Floor Living
Total Main House Living
Garage
Total Area
Decks
Lot Area:
Max. Allowable B.F.A.
Proposed B.F.A.
F.A.R.
Lot Coverage:
Open Space:
A.D.U.:
Areas
1,310 sq. ft.
1,816 sq. ft.
3,126 sq. ft.
450 sq. ft.
3,576 sq. ft.
320 sq. ft.
6,918 sq. ft.
6,918 x 0.6 = 4,151 sq. ft.
3,576 sq. ft. (Total Area) + 96 sq. ft.
(Front Porch) + 118 sq.ft. (Areas > 17' high)
+ 355 sq. ft. (ADU) = 4,145 Proposed <
4,151 sq. ft. Allowable
4,145 sq. ft. / 6,918 sq. ft. = 0.60
2,727.82 sq. ft. / 6,918 sq. ft. = 39.4% < 40%
Required = 1/3 of Lot = 0.333 x 6,918 =
2,304 sq. ft. Min.
Provided = 4,465 sq. ft. > 2,304 sq. ft.
355 sq. ft.
Provided @ Highest Ridge = 128.5
CIVIL ENGINEER:
PERFECT DESIGN
Raymond Meng Zhong
2416 W Valley Blvd.
Alhambra, CA 91803
Phone: (626) 289-8808
PERU CONSULTANTS, INC.
Christian Perez
5061 Rockvalley Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (562) 270-0811
PARSA & ASSOCIATES
Abdy Parsa
118 S. Catalina Ave.
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Phone: (310) 318-6769
Fax: (310) 318-6336
EAGLE EYE LAND SURVEYING
Michael Profet
1311 Manhattan Beach Blvd. #4
Manhattan Beach, CA 92780
Phone: (310) 955-8901
SOILS ENGINEER:NORCAL ENGINEERING
10641 Humbolt Street
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
Phone: (562) 799-9469
Fax: (562) 799-9459
Height of Dwelling = 25.6
A.D.U. Setbacks
Front:
Sides:
Rear:
15' Minimum ; 20' Provided
4' Minimum ; 5' Provided
4' Minimum ; 66' Provided
355
355
102.48
105.04
104.46
101.21
106.05
107.18
108.15
108.56
104.76 104.82 104.76
104.92
104.80
104.64
103.72
103.67
104.95
105.78
102.57
107.00
110.82
111.84
109.71
100.26
102.12
105.15
107.55
101.46102.81103.84
105.18
106.07
107.29
108.44
108.61
103.56
104.79
105.86106.77107.77
106.63107.73
105.44 104.55 103.56
103.77 102.94 102.68 102.36
102.99
102.73102.92
102.42
102.00
101.35
102.02102.04102.53
103.95
103.55
104.07
104.44
104.40
105.97
102.11
102.76
106.24
104.79
106.89
105.74
104.34
106.60
102.87
102.00102.02102.06
102.29
102.96
102.68
102.93
103.18
102.97
101.85
101.61
101.37
101.33101.82101.70 96.85 95.83
96.33 97.34 96.25
96.78 98.46
101.79
101.39102.74
102.30
100.75102.10
103.00
103.86
105.23
106.41
107.65
108.20
91.35 91.54
92.51 93.31
94.23 94.73
93.36 95.87
97.17 98.67 98.11
WW
FL 97.32TX 97.57EG 97.55
BX 97.49BX 98.75FL 98.95TX 99.44EG 99.06FL 101.13TC 101.59EG 101.30 FL 105.01TC 105.41EG 105.20
FL 106.56TC 107.01EG 106.82FL 107.93TX 108.17EG 108.37
FL 108.07TX 108.51EG 108.41
FL 107.28TX 107.71EG 107.37
FL 105.30TX 106.30EG 105.90
FL 102.13TC 102.60EG 102.28
BX 107.06
BX 106.28
BX 108.12
BX 108.18
TF 107.07
TF 107.40
TF 108.61
TF 108.62TF 108.65
TF 108.58TF 108.54
TF 108.55
TW 97.05
TW 96.70
TW 100.29
TW 98.95
GRASS
TW 105.96
TW 105.97
TW 105.08
TW 105.14
TW 100.41
TW 99.76
TW 98.31
W=13"
W=17"
W=5"
W=6"
DIRT
B.O.B. N 00°07'47" W 1535.94'
N 89°59'05" E 103.12'
N 00°07'34" W 63.10'
N 00°07'47" W 61.00'
126.17'
C1
C2
27.00'
N 65°22'04" E 56.32'
N 84°25'42" E 753.27'
2.86'
C3 750.41'
PLANTER
103.54102.80
102.38
105.65
27'
27'
5 4' 27'
27'
SUSANA AVE.
5 4'
27'
AVENUE A
AVENUE A
101.67
101.61
101.74
101.46
99.49 TW 102.29
TW 102.31
102.00
102.50
104.00105.00
106.00
106.50
107.50
101.50
98.00 100.00
101.00
L1
2306
OF
REVISION
REVISED
PRINTED
OWNER: KIRK AND PAM FELDKAMP JOB ADDRESS: 22209 SUSANA AVE TORRANCE 119 W. TORRANCE BLVD.,
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277
PHONE:
FAX:
SUITE 24
(310) 372-5580
(310) 318-5801
THESE PLANS ARE COPYRIGHTED AND THE DESIGN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS LEACH, ARCHITECTURE, INC.
A1 SITE PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH
LEGEND
Landscaping
Block Wall
Existing Grade
Proposed Grade
Two Story Element
Setback Line
One Story Element
Cellar
F.C.
T.W.
T.R.
F.F.E
T.C.
F.L.
F.S.
T.CO.
T.P.
T.F.
B.P.
Finished Concrete
Top of Wall
Top of Railing
Finished Floor Elevation
Top of Curb
Flowline at Street
Finshed Surface
Top of Coping
Top of Pilaster
Top of Fence
Bottom of Pool
Sprinkler Valve
Electric Meter
Water Meter
Gas Meter
S
E
W
G
POOL
(Under Separate Permit)SPA
(Under
Separate
Permit)
FFE AT FIRST
FLOOR = 103.5
FFE AT SECOND
FLOOR = 114.6
PROPOSED 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE W/ 2 CAR GARAGE
104.5 - FS
105.5 - FS 104.3 - FS 103.1 - FS
Dn
Dn
Dn
103.4 - FS
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
STONE
PATIO
103.4 - FS
COVERED
PORCH
6.5'
20.5'
20.87'
10.63' 10'
5'
21.42'
10.3'
5.37'
Outline of Outdoor
Gas Fireplace
Outline of Existing
Concrete Walkway
3'-0" Wide x 6'-0" High
Wood Gate & Fence
Max. 6'-0" High
Conc. Block Wall
w/ Wood Fence above
Outline of New
Retaining Wall
E
S
G
10'
REQ'D
SB
REQ'D
SB
20'
REQ'D
SB
20'
REQ'D
SB
Existing
Retaining Wall
To Be Demolished
AC
AC
Outline of Deck
at Second Floor
Outline of
Second Floor
Outline of
Second Floor
107.0 - FS
105.7 - FS
110.5 - TP
105.25 - FS 4%
108.0 - TW
107.0 - TW
106.0 - TW
103.4 - FG
105.0 - TW
103.0 - TW
SLOPING WALL
102.5 - TW
102.5 - TW
103.25 - T.CO
102.25 - T.CO
103.25 - FC
104.7 - FC
103.5 - TW
104.5 - FS
106.5 - TW
Built New Driveway
Approach per City
Standards
Outline of Existing
Concrete Walkway
Max. 42" High
Pilaster
Max. 42" High
Block Wall at
Front Yard
3'-0" Wide x 6'-0" High
Wood Gate & Fence
Outline of
AC Units
Built-in Barbecue
with Possible
Under Counter
Refrigerator
Outline of Deck
at Second Floor
Outline of
Second Floor
Outline Back
of Garage and
Level Change
Concrete Trash
Yard
Gas Meter: 36"
Clr. from Electric
Meter
Electric Meter: 30"
Min. Clr. Width, 36"
Min. Clr. in Front
Max. 6'-0" High
Conc. Block Wall
w/ Wood Fence above
RIDGE 128.5
RIDGE
127.7
RIDGE 127.7
RIDGE
126.9
RIDGE
127.5
RIDGE
126.5
COVERED
STONE
PATIO
COVERED
PORCH
6.5'x11.5'=
74.75 sq.ft.
4.41'x23.08 =
101.78 sq.ft.
9.83'x45.91' =
451.29 sq.ft.
15.41'x44.66' =
688 sq.ft.
31.25'x15' =
469 sq.ft.
20.5'x46' =
943 sq.ft.
LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION
1/8" = 1'-0"ALLOWABLE = 6,918 X 0.40 = 2,767.60 sq. ft.
PROVIDED = (74.75+101.78+451.29+688+469+943) =
2,727.82 sq.ft. < 2,767.60 sq.ft. OK
103.4 - FC
65.25' @ Lot Midpoint
104.0 - FG
103.4 - FS
103.4 - FG
RIDGE
117.5
6.24'
9.8'
356
356
2306
OF
REVISION
REVISED
PRINTED
OWNER: KIRK AND PAM FELDKAMP JOB ADDRESS: 22209 SUSANA AVE TORRANCE 119 W. TORRANCE BLVD.,
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277
PHONE:
FAX:
SUITE 24
(310) 372-5580
(310) 318-5801
THESE PLANS ARE COPYRIGHTED AND THE DESIGN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS LEACH, ARCHITECTURE, INC.
A2
1/4" = 1'-0"
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
Main House Living 1,310 sq ft
A.D.U. 355 sq ft
Garage 450 sq ft
61'-2"
20'-9" 4'-9" 20'-6"
56'-8"
14'-6"31'-3"
15'-8"15'-8"
60'-11"
45'-11"
2'-9" 11'-6" 8'-10" 22'-10"
20'-6"15'-6"14'-2"6'-6"
15'-0"
45'-9"
15'-2"
NORTH
Up
Dn
FAUW
KITCHENGREAT ROOM DINING ROOM
COVERED OUTDOOR
LIVING
A.D.U.
LIVING
2 CAR GARAGE
ENTRY
P.R.
A.D.U.
BATH
COVERED PORCH
19'-6"
20'-0"
357
357
A3
2306
OF
REVISION
REVISED
PRINTED
OWNER: KIRK AND PAM FELDKAMP JOB ADDRESS: 22209 SUSANA AVE TORRANCE 119 W. TORRANCE BLVD.,
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277
PHONE:
FAX:
SUITE 24
(310) 372-5580
(310) 318-5801
THESE PLANS ARE COPYRIGHTED AND THE DESIGN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS LEACH, ARCHITECTURE, INC. 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
Living 1,816 sq ft
45'-9"
12'-9"1'-9"
61'-2"
8'-0" 14'-6" 5'-4" 14'-2" 4'-0"
52'-2"
20'-6"15'-6"14'-2"2'-0"
60'-11"
2'-9" 11'-6" 13'-10" 10'-0" 6'-4"16'-6"
15'-2"46'-0"
13'-9"17'-6"
60'-11"
18"
18"
18"
NORTH
BEDROOM #2
BATH
#2
OPEN TO
BELOW
UPPER HALL
LAUNDRY
MASTER CLOSET
MASTER
BATH
BEDROOM #3
BATH #3
MASTER BEDROOM
PLAYROOM
LINEN
DECK
DECK
slope slope
slope
slope
slope slope
slope slope
Dn
214 sq. ft.
256 sq. ft.
177 sq. ft.
358
358
2306
OF
REVISION
REVISED
PRINTED
OWNER: KIRK AND PAM FELDKAMP JOB ADDRESS: 22209 SUSANA AVE TORRANCE 119 W. TORRANCE BLVD.,
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277
PHONE:
FAX:
SUITE 24
(310) 372-5580
(310) 318-5801
THESE PLANS ARE COPYRIGHTED AND THE DESIGN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS LEACH, ARCHITECTURE, INC.
A5
10'-0" 9'-0"
1/4" = 1'-0"
FRONT WEST ELEVATION
9'-0"10'-0"
1/4" = 1'-0"
LEFT SIDE SOUTH ELEVATION
9'-0"10'-0"
1/4" = 1'-0"
RIGHT SIDE NORTH ELEVATION
9'-0"10'-0"
1/4" = 1'-0"
REAR EAST ELEVATION
19 20
21 22
17 18
24 23
Finished grade
See for trim between siding & batts
Sliding french doors w/ muntin bars as
shown - See Floor Plans
Typ. 4x fascia board w/ cut tails @ 31
2:12 as
shown - See rake detail
VERY IMPORTANT NOTES
Framer and general contractor shall verify
exact elevation of highest beam and shall
notify architect of this elevation prior to any
roof framing. Adjustments may be required
with respect to height limit.
See for furr down @ outdoor
covered living
See detail for typ. head @ window
See detail for typ. sill @ window
See detail for head @ door
25Painted wood outlooker beam cut from 6 x 8
2642" high pony wall per
27 See detail for garage door head &
jamb details
28See detail for post between windows
292"x3" batts @ 15" oc. over "Hardie Planking"
ELEVATION NOTES:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
4x rafter tail typ. @ eave per detail
Lightweight concrete singles or class 'B' rated
heavy duty asphalt shingles over 30# felt
Outline of pitch break @ roof
5" Ø half round copper gutter
Wood clad window assembly w/ muntins as
shown at top
2x6 trim/painted around windows unless
noted otherwise - See
Wood clad french door assembly w/ muntins
as shown @ top
6" wide knee bracing - See detail
9 10
11 12
14 15
16 Wood guardrail/painted per
Dutch entry door w/ glass and muntin bars
@ top as shown
17'-0" x 8'-0" sectional roll-up door w/
remote opener and glass in top panels as
shown/painted or stained
13 Exterior stone veneer - See detail &
See detail & for column details
Hardie "Artisan" beveled siding over 15" felt
w/ 7" exposure
Line of existing natural grade at property line
Exterior metal fireplace
14 18
23 28
22 5
25 3
2 8
25 21
7 11
27 10
12 8
2521
4 269
17 12
13 23
28 6
5 2422
25 2
14 18
28 1
4 24 22
6 23
23 23
14 14
17 25
21 14
9 19
8 5
5 16
12 13
6 18
14 21
25 2 2
22 8
7 2020
285
9 9
13 6
18 128.5- RIDGE
25.6 Ft. HEIGHT OF HOUSE
29 29
29 29
22 359
359
2306
OF
REVISION
REVISED
PRINTED
OWNER: KIRK AND PAM FELDKAMP JOB ADDRESS: 22209 SUSANA AVE TORRANCE 119 W. TORRANCE BLVD.,
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277
PHONE:
FAX:
SUITE 24
(310) 372-5580
(310) 318-5801
THESE PLANS ARE COPYRIGHTED AND THE DESIGN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS LEACH, ARCHITECTURE, INC.
A7
ROOF PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"
Minimum class "A" roof material: Lightweight shingles. Over minimum 2 layers of ASTM D226 Type 1 (#15) asphalt-saturated organic felt, or 1 layer of ASTM D226 Type II (#30) asphalt-saturated organic felt.
Roof Pitch = See Plans
Skylights to be "Bristol Fiberlite" ESR-3177 or approved equal by the Architect and Building Department. Provide flat anodized skylights.
All fireplaces to be provided with approved spark arrestor.
Attic Vent Calculations:
All gutters shall be copper half round w/ 5" Ø
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
ROOF PLAN NOTES
NORTH
DECK
DECK
3 12:123 12:12
3 12:12
3 12:12
3 12:12
3 12:12
3 12:12
3 12:12
3 12:12
3 12:12
3 12:12
3 12:12 3 12:12
PITCH BREAK
2:123 12:12
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
V.
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
RIDGE
128.5
RIDGE
127.7
RIDGE
127.7
RIDGE
126.9
RIDGE
127.5
RIDGE
126.5
3 12:123 12:12
RIDGE
117.5
360
360
2306
OF
REVISION
REVISED
PRINTED
OWNER: KIRK AND PAM FELDKAMP JOB ADDRESS: 22209 SUSANA AVE TORRANCE 119 W. TORRANCE BLVD.,
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277
PHONE:
FAX:
SUITE 24
(310) 372-5580
(310) 318-5801
THESE PLANS ARE COPYRIGHTED AND THE DESIGN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS LEACH, ARCHITECTURE, INC.
TS
361
361