Agenda Item 9B - Public Comment Report — Torrance City Council, June 17, 2025

9. HEARINGS
9B.

Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval of a Precise Plan of Development (PRE2300013) to Allow the Construction of a New Two story Singlefamily Residence with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), on Property Located within the Hillside Overlay in the Single Family Residential District (R1) Zone at 22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515001025), Deny the Appeal, Adopt RESOLUTION and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Expenditure: None.

Name
Savannah Groath
Comment 06/16/2025 10:59 AM : (Against)
As a resident of 22215 Susana Ave in Torrance I oppose the plans for our Nextdoor neighbor as they do not in good faith increase affordable housing in the neighborhood.

Instead we will have an enormous eyesore that seems to be created solely to be sold and line greedy investors’ pockets. Please allow a true neighbor to return this home to its former glory! There is no reason to allow this blatant violation of the hillside overlay ordinance, many potential buyers would be thrilled to respectfully renovate this home within the scope of city ordinance.

Savannah Groath
1 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT FOR
AGENDA ITEM 9B

9. HEARINGS
9B.

Expenditure: None.

Name
Elizabeth Spatz
Comment 06/16/2025 11:03 AM : (Against)
Dear Mayor Chen and City Council Members,
I would like to address the circumstances that have let us to this agenda item, being the appeal to the approval of the housing development project at 22902 Susana. The owners of this property tried twice before to get plans approved by the Planning Commission, each time retreating when confronted with the reality that the designs were not appropriate for the neighborhood. With their third attempt to push this project forward, the owners added an ADU to circumvent the Hillside Overlay Ordinance and get their project approved, despite objections raised by the Planning Commission and causing irreparable harm to the very community they seek to join.

The Hillside Overlay is intended to provide development standards to prevent adverse impacts upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity. To address the current challenges of housing development projects being managed by the city of Torrance and continue the application of the HOO’s review criteria as intended, it is clear that the HOO needs to be updated to include the objective standards by which these criteria may be applied.

I strongly urge the Council to advise the Planning Commission to update the HOO as needed, so the Commissioners may be empowered to make the best comprehensive and balanced decisions on city projects. Based on the discussions held by the Planning Commission's meeting on March 19, where the project at 22902 Susana was reviewed, the mix of "no" votes and "yes, with regret" were clear indications that the project was not appropriate for the community. Despite their conclusion, the commissioners, who said their “hands were tied”, stated they were not able to make the proper assessments due to the lack of objective language in the current HOO.

Given that the staff has recommended the adoption of a new Religious Institution Housing Overlay Zone, which provides standards for housing developments on qualified properties, I am confident that the standards of the now 45yearold Hillside Overlay Ordinance can be updated to current necessary guidelines. Residents of the Torrance Riviera have reasonable expectations that their views, light, air and privacy would be sustained by the Hillside Overlay and the agencies responsible for the implementation of the HOO guidelines. Providing the objective standards in the HOO will clarify the Planning Commission’s ability to guide and approve building projects, as well as streamline the process for the Council members.

In closing, I urge the Torrance City Council to instruct the Planning Commission to update the Hillside Overlay Ordinance to include the objective criteria necessary to allow for a more balanced, equitable and efficient decisionmaking process for development projects.

Thank you for your time and attention,
Elizabeth Spatz
5401 Paseo de Pablo
2 9. HEARINGS
9B.Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval of a Precise Plan of Development (PRE2300013) to Allow the Construction of a New Two story Singlefamily Residence with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), on Property Located within the Hillside Overlay in the Single Family Residential District (R1) Zone at 22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515001025), Deny the Appeal, Adopt RESOLUTION and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Expenditure: None.

Thank you for your time and attention,
Elizabeth Spatz
Paseo de Pablo
3 9.

HEARINGS
9B.

Expenditure: None.

Name
G. Joseph Buck
Comment 06/16/2025 03:07 PM : (No Vote)
Please accept as public comment to Agenda No. 9B to City Council Agenda on June 17, 2025,
identified as “Excerpt from PLNclipped (revised 61625).pdf Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck
4 Excerpt from PLN - clipped
(revised 6-16-25)
Re: selected portions of transcript of PLN clipped - after comparison with audio recording. I have included references to the time, e.g. [0:13:01] displayed by the software that I used to "play" the .mp3 audio recording, identified as "PLN_03192025-clipped.mps". The references to "transcript" are to the page numbers that I have added, by hand, to my print out of the transcript provided to me by Abrahim, titled: "PLN 03192025-clipped", which transcript is 82 pages in length. [In transcript at page 5]
[0:13:01]
Go ahead. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Abrahim Bagheri...

We're going to have decks facing east towards our backyard, windows facing east towards our backyard. The views from that house are going to go directly into our backyard and into our living room. I think you could deny this and still comply with the HAA. "If the purpose is to increase density, you can get that with a single-story ADU and primary residence right next to it with a 14-foot high ceiling. It's doable. It's in 91.41.7 of the code (TMC). So I think it's doable. This is just a loophole to get around the hillside overlay, and that's obvious. So please deny the project."
[added comment by Joe Buck- ] [The developer can get more room for the one-story SFD, by adding a basement that provides, storage, heating, cooling, and laundry area, etc., and, if needed, additional sleeping and living quarters.]
[In transcript, p. 10,] [speaker 4] - [apparently Community Development Director Ramirez: beginning at 0:29:37]
"If I may, yes, if the Planning Commission denies it, then I suspect that there would be an appeal to (City) Council, if not by, on my own recommendation by the Community Development Department, because I do believe that staff's recommendation is consistent with the law. It doesn't mean that we like the law, it doesn't mean we're a fan of the law, but I think it's absolutely consistent with the Housing Accountability act. We've also had experts in this area, expert counsel look at it. so we're very confident with our interpretation of the Housing Accountability Act and what the definition is of objective standards, and that is not what we have in the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. [Note- Ramirez makes no mention, at all, of the objective standards recited in Section 91.41.7 of the TMC!]. We're also confident with our interpretation of what you can and can't do in terms of considering the ADU.

So, I would not recommend that, like I said, it doesn't mean that we're a fan of it, it just means that our hands are tied, and we don't want the attorney general coming after the city, that would be for the city council to decide."
[0:30:58} - next speaker Jennifer Minich.
5 9.

HEARINGS
9B.

Expenditure: None.

Name
G. Joseph Buck
Comment 06/16/2025 03:25 PM : (No Vote)
Please accept the following items that I again submit as Public Comment to Agenda Item No. 9B to City Council Agenda for June 17, 2025.
1)
6 The Simple Answer to the Issues Raised by Agenda Item 8C (on appeal to the City Council)
Background-
In 1984-1985, if the City Council had not adopted emergency legislation to amend Article 41 of the T orrance Municipal Code ("TMC"), runaway development would have soon destroyed, forever, the very special, open and airy ambiance that has made living in the Hillside so "special" to its residents.

If the City Council now fails to take prompt and definitive action to protect the Hillside from destruction by the uncontrolled development exemplified by the adoption of Resolution No. 24-003 by the Planning Commission, (which is the subject of this appeal to the City Council), the very special attributes of the Hillside will soon be lost,
forever.

In January, 2024, and again in July, 2024, Architect, Douglas Leach asked the Planning Commission to approve his application to construct a two-story high, single-family dwelling at 22209 Susana Avenue in the Hillside. The Planning Commission refused to approve either of these successive applications.

On March 3, 2025, Architect Leach then submitted a revised project for a new two-story single-family residence, in which project he had replaced a portion of the structure located on the ground floor, at a corner of the building, with a portion of the structure that he now identifies as an "accessory dwelling unit (ADU).

Pursuant to the Legal Notice published in the Daily Breeze, the Planning Commission, on March 19, 2025, conducted a public hearing of Agenda Item 8C:

"PRE23-00013: Petition of Douglas Leach (Kirk Feldkamp) for approval 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 ...at 22209 Susana Avenue."

At the hearing, employees of the City of T orrance Development Department (identified therein by the name: "Staff"), in their written submission represented to the Planning Commission that:

"pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code Section 65589.5, staff has determined the revised project meets the definition of a "housing development project" and therefor only the objective development standards of the Torrance Municipal Code can be applied for purposes of evaluating the revised project. Objective standards are measurable, clear, and do not rely on personal 1 of
9 7
judgment or discretion. In contrast, the planning and design provisions of the Hillside Overlay involve subjective criteria that require interpretation, such as considerations of neighborhood compatibility and view impacts. To that end, the provisions of the Hillside Overlay cannot be applied to evaluate the revised project.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project as revised. "

In its statement, Staff apparently does not distinguish between Section

91.41.6 PLANNING AND DESIGN, subjective requirements that must be complied with by a "Precise Plan of Development", and the specification in Section 91.41.1 HILLSIDE AND COASTAL ZONE of the area of land that is located within the Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone.

I understand Staff to contend that, because the provisions of T orrance Municipal Code ("TMC") recited in Section 91.41.6, PLANNING AND DESIGN, involve subjective criteria that require interpretation, the provisions recited in Section 91.41.6 may not be used by the Planning Commission to determine whether or not to approve the project submitted by Architect Douglas Leach as a "Precise Plan of Development".

However, Article 41 of the T orrance Municipal Code opens with the statement:

S
ection

91.41.1 HILLSIDE AND COASTAL ZONE
a) The Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone shall consist of the area designated in the maps...
b)
The provisions of this Article shall apply to all properties within the Overlay Zone in addition to the requirements of the underlying zone, except as provided in this Article.

No permits shall be issued for
development in the Hillside and Coastal Zone unless the requirements of this Article have been met. [
emphasis added by me],
Section 91.41.1 is followed immediately by:

Section 91.41.2 APPLICATION OF PREEXISTING ZONE.

Nothing contained in this Article shall be deemed to repeal any provision of this Code, and the requirements of all preexisting zones in existence in the area encompassed by this Overlay Zone shall be and remain in full force and effect in addition to the requirements of the Overlay Zone, except that the requirements of the Overlay Zone shall be applied where the requirements and standards contained therein are more restrictive than those of the preexisting underlying zones.
and then followed by:
2 of
9 8
Section 91.41.3 LOT DIMENSIONS, (which specifies the minimum size allowed for the lot, and then followed by:

91.41.4 PUBLIC HEARING (which recites some procedural
requirements for the public hearing).

May I point out that: part (a) of Section 91.41.5 PRECISE PLAN expressly states:
"(a) Any development on a lot within the Hillside and Coastal Zone shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission of a Precise Plan in accordance with Chapter 6 of this Division 9,
except as
provided in Sections 91.41.7
... of this Article. [emphasis added by
me]
Section 91.41.7 PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL states:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, no Precise Plan shall be required if the proposed development within the Hillside and Coastal Overlay Zone is for the purpose of constructing, remodeling or enlarging a dwelling, provided the following requirements are met:
a) The net interior area of the completed dwelling, whether it is new construction or remodeled or enlarged, including the area of the garage, whether attached or detached, will not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the area of the lot or parcel on which the dwelling is located; b) The dwelling (or in the case of remodeling or enlargement, the portion remodeled or enlarged) will be one (1) story; and provided further that no portion of the roof of the dwelling (or in the case of remodeling or enlargement, no portion of the remodeled or enlarged roof) will be used as a deck, sun-deck or patio, nor will any equipment or appurtenances be mounted on the roof or protrude through the roof (except for ordinary plumbing or heater vents) nor extend above the roof eave line; provided further that a chimney will be permitted if the portion extending above the roof eave line is no larger than the minimum dimensions required by the Torrance Building Code. c) Except as provided in this subsection, no portion of the dwelling, in the case of new construction, will exceed fourteen (14) feet in height, measured from the ground at finished grade, but not including any berm. In the case of remodeling or enlargement, the portion remodeled or enlarged shall not exceed the height of the lowest portion of the remainder of the dwelling, or fourteen (14) feet measured from the ground at finished grade, but not including any berm, whichever is less. In the case of a down-sloping lot, no portion of the dwelling shall exceed fourteen (14) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb at the center point of the front property line. 3 of
9 9
Vents and a chimney, as provided in subsection b) of this section, shall not be considered in the height measurements.
d) The Planning Director has determined that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on other properties in the vicinity, and there is no significant public controversy thereon." I submit that Section 91.41.7 (a)-(c) recites a set of "Objective standards that are measurable, clear, and do not rely on personal judgment or discretion."

On this basis, I submit that, because the new, two-story single-family residence proposed by Architect Leach, does not comply with the requirements stated in (b) and (c), i.e., that the dwelling be one-story and not exceed fourteen feet in height, measured from the ground at finished grade, but not including any berm, the Planning Commission may reject the application based on the failure of project proposed by Architect Leach to comply with the height limit stated in b) and c) of Section 91.41.7. May I also suggest that the Planning Commission, as part of its rejection, may also inform Architect Leach, that in order for the Planning Commission to approve the application, the residence proposed by the Applicant, must not exceed one-story (and 14 feet in height), i.e. the residence must comply with the "ministerial" standards recited in Section 91.41.7 PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL of the T orrance Municipal Code.

Staff also submitted a proposed Resolution for consideration and use by the Planning Commission:

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-003
A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance, California, approving a Precise Plan of Development as provided for in Division 9, Chapter 1, Article 41 of the Torrance Municipal Code 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).

PRE23-00013: DOUGLAS LEACH (KIRK FELDKAMP)
...

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance conducted a public hearing on March 19, 2025, to consider an application for a Precise Plan of Development filed by Douglas Leach (Kirk Feldkamp) 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...
...
4 of
9 10
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance does hereby find and determine as follows:
...

d) That the proposed residence, as revised, complies with the objective development standards of the Single Family Residential District (R-1 Zone) and is consistent with the Low Density Residential (R-LO) land use designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Torrance;
e) That the proposed residence, as revised, meets the definition of a "housing development project" as provided in the Housing Accountability Acte (HAA), Government Code Section 65589.5, and therefore only the objective development standards of the Torrance Municipal Code can be applied for purposes of evaluating the proposed residence."
May I suggest that the City Council ask that Staff prepare and submit to the Council for its consideration and adoption
Resolution similar to the
following:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED....

1. That because GOV Code Section 65589.5 requires that "only objective development standards of the Torrance Municipal Code can be applied for purposes of evaluating the proposed residence, and because the standards recited in Section 91.41.6 of the TMC do not constitute objective standards, the standards stated in Section

91.41.6 may not applied for the purposes of evaluating the proposed residence.

2. That because the standards recited in Section 91.41.7 constitute objective standards, these standards may be used by the City, or by the Planning Commission, pursuant to a "ministerial" process, to determine whether or not to approve Applicant's request.

3. Therefore, based on the failure of the proposed residence to comply with the objective standards recited in Section 91.41.7 of the Torrance Municipal Code, the City Council (or the Planning Commission) does hereby reject the Application and, by express reference to the provisions stated in Section 91.41.7 of the Torrance Municipal Code, hereby informs Applicant of the specific standards with which the proposed structure must comply in order to obtain approval of a revised project. "
5 of
9 11

I ask that, if anyone disagrees and contends that the recently enacted state law allows the provisions of Section 91.41.5 to be used to process and evaluate such applications, that the Council enact emergency legislation that makes clear that the recently enacted state law invalidates the use of the requirements recited in Section 91.41.6 Precise Plans to decide whether or not to issue a building permit, and that the provisions of Section 91.31.7, should be utilized for this purpose.

Submitted by:

G. Joseph Buck - Resident of the Hillside for 41 years
6 of
9 12

Excerpts from T orrance Municipal Code - Hillside Overlay ARTICLE 41 - R-H HILLSIDE AND LOCAL COASTAL OVERLAY
ZONE
(Added by O-2747; Amended by O-2760; O-2961; O-2982; O-3027; O-3110, O-3126, O-3144)

91.41.1 HILLSIDE AND COASTAL ZONE.
a)

The Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone shall consist of the area designated in the maps attached following this Article, marked Exhibits A, B and C to this section, which are incorporated in this Code by this reference.
b)

The provisions of this Article shall apply to all properties within the Overlay Zone in addition to the requirements of the underlying zone, except as provided in this Article. No permits shall be issued for development in the Hillside and Coastal Zone unless the requirements of this Article have been met.

91.41.2 APPLICATION OF PREEXISTING ZONE.

91.41.3 LOT DIMENSIONS. ---
(91.41.4 PUBLIC HEARING.
a)

Upon receipt of the complete application, the Planning Director shall set a date, time and place for a public hearing thereon as soon as practicable and shall send notice thereof to the owners of land included within a three hundred (300) foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the land for which the permit is sought as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. The Planning Commission may conduct said hearing in an informal manner. The rules of evidence shall not apply. The hearing may be adjourned to a future time at the discretion of the Planning Commission without the giving of further notice, other than announcement by the Commission of the date, time and place of such adjourned meeting at the time of said adjournment.
b)

The applicant shall have the burden of proving that all the requirements of this Article have been met.
7 of
9 13
c)

The Planning Commission may consider all measures which are proposed by the project proponents to be included in the project and other measures that are not included but could reasonably be expected to reduce the adverse impacts of the project, if required as conditions.

91.41.5 PRECISE PLAN.
a)

Any development on a lot within the Hillside and Coastal Zone shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission of a Precise Plan in accordance with Chapter 6 of this Division
9 , except as
provided in Sections

91.41.7 ,

91.41.8 , and

91.41.14 of this Article.
b)

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit the restrictions which are less restrictive than established in the this Code, or in the California Coastal Act as to those properties lying westerly of Palos Verdes Boulevard in the Coastal Zone as defined by the California Coastal Act. c)

Nothing in this Article shall be construed to authorize the Planning Commission to impose conditions more restrictive than the express provisions of this Code or the California Coastal Act as to those properties lying westerly of Palos Verdes Boulevard in the Coastal Zone as defined in the California Coastal Act when so doing would render construction on any lot impossible where such construction would be possible in accordance with the Code as written.d)

The requirements,
restrictions and conditions of the California Coastal Act, commencing at Section 30000
of the Public
Resources Code of the State of California and any implementing regulations authorized by law, are incorporated by this reference as to the properties lying westerly of Palos Verdes Boulevard in the Coastal Zone as defined in the California Coastal Act.

91.41.6 PLANNING AND DESIGN.
(Amended by O-3477)
No construction and no remodeling or enlargement of a building or structure shall be permitted unless the Planning Commission (or the City Council on appeal) shall find that the location and size of the building or structure, or the location and size of the remodeled or enlarged portions of the building or structure, have been planned and designed in such a manner as to comply with the following provisions:
a)

The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity;
b)

The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity; c)

The design provides an orderly and attractive development in harmony with other properties in the vicinity;
d)

The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity;
8 of
9 14
e)

Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity;
f)

The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.

91.41.7 PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, no Precise Plan shall be required if the proposed development within the Hillside and Coastal Overlay Zone is for the purpose of constructing, remodeling or enlarging a dwelling, provided the following requirements are met:
a)

The net interior area of the completed dwelling, whether it is new construction or remodeled or enlarged, including the area of the garage, whether attached or detached, will not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the area of the lot or parcel on which the dwelling is located; b)

The dwelling (or in the case of remodeling or enlargement, the portion remodeled or enlarged) will be one (1) story; and provided further that no portion of the roof of the dwelling (or in the case of remodeling or enlargement, no portion of the remodeled or enlarged roof) will be used as a deck, sun- deck or patio, nor will any equipment or appurtenances be mounted on the roof or protrude through the roof (except for ordinary plumbing or heater vents) nor extend above the roof eave line; provided further that a chimney will be permitted if the portion extending above the roof eave line is no larger than the minimum dimensions required by the Torrance Building Code. c)

Except as provided in this subsection, no portion of the dwelling, in the case of new construction, will exceed fourteen (14) feet in height, measured from the ground at finished grade, but not including any berm. In the case of remodeling or enlargement, the portion remodeled or enlarged shall not exceed the height of the lowest portion of the remainder of the dwelling, or fourteen (14) feet measured from the ground at finished grade, but not including any berm, whichever is less. In the case of a down- sloping lot, no portion of the dwelling shall exceed fourteen (14) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb at the center point of the front property line. Vents and a chimney, as provided in subsection b) of this section, shall not be considered in the height measurements. d)

The Planning Director has determined that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on other properties in the vicinity, and there is no significant public controversy thereon. 9 of
9 15
Public Comment to Agenda Item 9B – Precise Plan of Development (PRE23-00013)(6-12)
Please accept my submission of my Public Comment at this late date 1 regarding the hearing by the Council on June 17, 2025, which hearing is described by Staff in the following manner:
“9B. Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval of a Precise Plan of Development (PRE232-00013) 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 Single Family Residential District (R-1) Zone at 22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-025), Deny the Appeal, Adopt

RESOLUTION
….
and the:

Recommendation of the
Planning Commission and
2 Community
Development
Director that City Council:

1. Conduct public hearing; and

2. Deny the appeal; and

3. Adopt a

RESOLUTION
denying the appeal and upholding the Planning
Commission approval of PRE23-00013 as provided for in Division 9, Chapter 1, Article 41 of the T orrance Municipal Code 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….
3 The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 19, 2025, of Agenda Item No. 8C, identified as:

Subject: 22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-025), Precise Plan of Development (PRE23-00013), Consideration of a Precise Plan of Development to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence with accessory dwelling 1 Only after I received notice, via email, on Wednesday, June 11, 2025, of the City Council Meeting on June 17, 2025, which notice provided a link to the “City Council 06-17-25 Agenda, was I able to determine that Item No 9B had been assigned to the Council’s scheduled hearing of the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Ruling re: PRE23-00013.

Also, only then, was I able to download a copy of the material submitted by Staff to the City Council with respect to Item No. 9B.
2 I have removed, by
lining through
the words: "
Planning Commission and
", because RESOLUTION NO 24-003, that
was presented by Staff to the Planning Commission, does not include any "Recommendation by the Planning Commission" that the City Council: 1, Conduct public hearing; or 2. Deny the appeal; or 3. Adopt a

RESOLUTION

denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission approval of PRE23-00013..., or any words to that effect. 3 For some, unknown reason, the Staff's description of the subject of the hearing by the City Council of Agenda Item No. 9B omits any mention of the Accessory Dwelling Unit ("ADU") , which ADU was recited in the statement of the "Subject" of the public hearing by the Planning Commission of Agenda Item No. 8C .

Page
1 of
5 16
unit (ADU), on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the R-1 Zone at 22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-025).

I have listened carefully to the audio recording of the Planning Commission hearing of Agenda Item No. 8C. I heard Staff assert to the Planning Commission that recent State Legislation did not allow the Planning Commission to use any of the requirements recited in Article 41 of the T orrance Municipal Code (“TMC”) with respect to Precise Plans as a basis for deciding whether to allow or to deny an application for a building permit to construct a two-story dwelling in the Hillside Overlay Zone. Staff asserted that the Commission would violate recently enacted state law if the Commission's approval or denial of the application for the building permit, was based on the requirements stated in Section 91.41.6 of the TMC because these requirements were “subjective”. Staff informed the Commission that it could base its decision to approve or deny, only upon “objective” standards. Staff asserted that the provisions in the TMC that must be satisfied by the proposed construction were all “subjective” and that the Commission could not use these provisions to decide whether to permit or to deny the application.

Staff also submitted to the Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 24-003 4 4
Susana Avenue (APN 7515-001-025).

PRE23-00013: DOUGLAS LEACH (KIRK FELDKAMP)
...

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance does hereby find and determine as follows:
...
d) That the proposed residence, as revised, complies with the objective development standards of the Single Family Residential District (R-1 Zone) and is consistent with the Low Density Residential (R-LO) land use designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Torrance; e) That the proposed residence, as revised, meets the definition of a "housing development project" as provided in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code Section 65589.5, and therefore only the objective development standards of the Torrance Municipal Code can be applied for purposes of evaluating the proposed residence."
RESOLUTION NO. 24-003, also includes the recitation of a series of findings and determinations by the Planning Commission stating, for example,

Page
2 of
5 17
Some members of the Planning Commission expressed puzzlement as to why the Commission was being asked to issue a ruling, if the Commission was not allowed to base its decision upon the provisions of the T orrance Municipal Code? Commission members also asked what would happen if they decided not to issue a ruling in this circumstance? Staff stated that Staff would file an appeal to the City Council if the Commission refused to adopt the resolution presented to it by Staff, (or words to this effect). It is my impression that, faced with Staff’s assertion that such a refusal by the Commission would violate state law, the Commission (grudgingly) issued its “approval” of the application.

Staff characterized each of the requirements stated in Section 91.41.6, as “subjective”, and stated that the Commission could not use “subjective” requirements as a basis for allowing or denying the application. However, as far as I have been able to determine, nowhere in any of the material contained in the “agenda” that Staff presented to the Commission, and nowhere in the verbal statements made by Staff to the Commission, did Staff ever assert, or even mention, to the Commission that Section 91.41.7 of the TMC, titled: “PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT -RESIDENTIAL ” recites a set of “objective standards” that could be used by Staff, and by the Commission to determine whether to allow or to deny an application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling on property located within the Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone, and subject to the requirements imposed by the TMC upon construction within the Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone.
5 (f) That the proposed residence, as revised, may result in an substantial adverse impact upon the view, light, air, and privacy of other properties in the vicinity because the proposed second story may impact views of the Palos Verdes hills that are observed from the property at 5803 Avenue A. However, the proposed residence, as revised, meets the definition of a "housing development project" as provided in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code Section 65589.5, and therefore only the objective development standards of the Torrance Municipal Code can be applied for purposes of evaluating the proposed residence;
Similar findings and determinations appear in sub-paragraphs g), h), i), j) and k).

I am not aware of any explanation provided by Staff as to why Staff included sub-paragraphs f) through k) in RESOLUTION 24-003.
5 Section 91.41.7 PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, no Precise Plan shall be required if the proposed development within the Hillside and Coastal Overlay Zone is for the purpose of constructing, remodeling or enlarging a dwelling, provided the following requirements are met:
a) The net interior area of the completed dwelling, whether it is new construction or remodeled or enlarged, including the area of the garage, whether attached or detached, will not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the area of the lot or parcel on which the dwelling is located;

Page
3 of
5 18

In light of Staff’s descriptions of examples of provisions that constitute “objective” provisions that may be used to decide to allow or to deny an application for a building permit, I submit that Staff would consider the provisions stated in 91.41.7 to be “objective” standards, which provisions Staff and the Commission could use to decide to allow or deny the application before them, all in compliance with State Law.

May I suggest that the City Council consider addressing the issues presented in Agenda Item No. 9B in the following manner:

1. Staff may not wish to recommend that the Council consider various alternative means that it might use to protect the special attributes of the Hillside from complete, and permanent destruction. Nevertheless, I suggest that the Council ask that Staff disclose and present to the Council alternative steps that the Council could take that would comply with state law and that could protect the special attributes of the Hillside from immediate and permanent destruction.

2. The Planning Commission has extensive experience in addressing such "zoning" issues. Pursuant to section 13.1.7 of the T orrance Municipal Code the Planning Commission has the power to initiate and hold public hearings for the purpose of considering and determining what recommendations to make to the City Council as to how best address these matters. I suggest that the City Council exercise its power pursuant to section 13.1.7 of the Code and direct the Planning Commission to schedule and hold public hearings, at which hearings the Commission can consider and examine steps that can be taken, in accord with state law, that will best protect the interests of the City of T orrance and the interests of the residents of the Hillside. The Commission can then recommend b) The dwelling (or in the case of remodeling or enlargement, the portion remodeled or enlarged) will be one (1) story; and provided further that no portion of the roof of the dwelling (or in the case of remodeling or enlargement, no portion of the remodeled or enlarged roof) will be used as a deck, sun-deck or patio, nor will any equipment or appurtenances be mounted on the roof or protrude through the roof (except for ordinary plumbing or heater vents) nor extend above the roof eave line; provided further that a chimney will be permitted if the portion extending above the roof eave line is no larger than the minimum dimensions required by the Torrance Building Code. c) Except as provided in this subsection, no portion of the dwelling, in the case of new construction, will exceed fourteen (14) feet in height, measured from the ground at finished grade, but not including any berm. In the case of remodeling or enlargement, the portion remodeled or enlarged shall not exceed the height of the lowest portion of the remainder of the dwelling, or fourteen (14) feet measured from the ground at finished grade, but not including any berm, whichever is less. In the case of a down-sloping lot, no portion of the dwelling shall exceed fourteen (14) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb at the center point of the front property line. Vents and a chimney, as provided in subsection b) of this section, shall not be considered in the height measurements. d) The Planning Director has determined that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on other properties in the vicinity, and there is no significant public controversy thereon."

Page
4 of
5 19
to the Council appropriate steps that the Council may take to protect these interests.

3. I also ask the Council Members to consider steps that it may be able to take that could facilitate the "Simple Answer" that I describe in the document that I have submitted herewith, titled:
"The Simple Answer to the Issues Raised by Agenda Item 8C (on appeal to the City Council".

Sadly, if the Members of the Council fail to take these steps, each member of the Council will bear direct responsibility for the permanent destruction of the special attributes of the Hillside Overlay Zone FOREVER! The residents of the Hillside will no longer enjoy the “open and airy ambiance of the Hillside, as it now exists, and, instead, will see only the walls of the multi-story houses “next door”. The residents will be forced to live at the bottom of canyons, created by the walls of the multi-story houses on the properties next door and on the opposite side of the street.

Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck - Resident of the Hillside for 41 years

Page
5 of
5 20
Saving the Hillside and the Ordinance-(Revised 11-30-23) (updated 6-15-25)

Table of Contents

1. Summary - Look to the Past to Benefit the Future (p.1-p.3)

2. Save the Hillside Overlay Ordinance (details and citation of sources) (p.3-p.11)

3. Encourage and Facilitate the Construction and Remodeling of Single-Story Homes in the Hillside. (p.12)
Appendices
A: Hillside Committee Recommendations (p.13-p.14)
B: The Damaging Consequences of Uncertainty (p.15-p.16) C: Freedom On The Hillside (p.17)
D: Letter from Phillip Sweet-damages arising from issue of building permit based upon "personal hardship" (p.18-p.19)
Summary

1. Look to the Past to Benefit the Future
In 1977, in their initial attempt to protect the Hillside, the Torrance City Council enacted a set of development guidelines. (O- 2747) Over the following seven years, because the guidelines were neither specific, nor mandatory, the Ordinance:
1) was unable to control development;
2) generated substantial and widespread animosity between neighbors; 3) generated contentious hearings before the Planning Commission; 4) caused virtually every application to be appealed to the City Council;
5) made it impossible for landowners to determine with any certainty what they and/or their neighbors could build on their properties; 6) resulted in a pending legal challenge to the enforcement of the guidelines as being vague and thus invalid. (See the citation of the sources of these statements in Part 2: Save the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.)
To address these problems, in 1984, the Council adopted an emergency Ordinance listing mandatory requirements for construction in the Hillside. The Council named three Council Members and three Planning Department Commissioners to a committee (the "Hillside Page
1 of
17 21
Committee") to examine and fine-tune the emergency ordinance. After many hearings and extensive consultations with the Riviera Homeowners Association, the Hillside Committee recommended specific changes to the Ordinance that reduced ambiguity and the Hillside Committee also added a definition for "hardship".
1 The Hillside Committee
recommended that construction higher than one-story and 14-feet be allowed
only
for those very few, exceptional properties that suffered from such an "unreasonable hardship". The hardship requirement pertained specifically to the property and not to a personal hardship of the owner.

The wording of the definition of “hardship” that was recommended by the Hillside Committee, and that was adopted by the Council tracked, almost word for word, California Government Code Section 65906, which Section provides that:
“Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall 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.... [Calif. Gov. Code Section 65906].”
The improvement in clarity and the addition of the specific requirements into the Hillside Ordinance effectively addressed the problems numbered 1-6 above.

Unfortunately, on January 11, 2000, without giving the Riviera Homeowners Association an opportunity to review and comment, the City Council-Members, who, at that time, comprised the City Council, deleted from the section of the Hillside Ordinance the definition of "hardship" and removed proof of such “hardship” as a prerequisite for construction of new, two-story buildings in the Hillside.

However,
despite the removal of the section of the Hillside Ordinance that 1 The Ordinance defined “hardship” and required a showing of such hardship in order to exceed the limit of 14 feet or one-story in height’ The Ordinance defined “hardship” in the following manner:
"Denial of such an application would constitute an unreasonable hardship to the applicant. As used in this section, and hereafter in this Article, the term 'hardship' shall mean that because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, soil conditions, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such
property
, (emphasis added) of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications."
Page
2 of
17 22
contained the definition of “hardship”, the Hillside Ordinance, nevertheless, continues to require that, as a prerequisite to requesting a permit to construct a residence having an F.A.R. in excess of 0.5, or to request a permit to increase the height of the building, the Applicant must prove that denial of the permit would result in an “unreasonable hardship”.

Because, in 2000, the City Council failed to adopt a new, or different, definition for the meaning of “hardship”, but continued to require that the Applicant for such permits “prove that denial of the permit would result in an unreasonable hardship”, the Council’s action in 2000, has reintroduced and exacerbated the problems numbered 1-6, listed above, and has raised again the danger that the Hillside Ordinance will be challenged in court as vague and that the Court will declare invalid the Hillside Ordinance, as it presently is (not) enforced.

The history, recited above, strongly supports re-adoption of the definition of “hardship” and the requirement houses exceeding one-story and 14-feet may be constructed
only
on those few
properties that suffer from such hardship to the property.

2. Save the Hillside Overlay Ordinance
A recent posting by a real estate company on the internet, quoted below, describes the special benefits of living in the Hillside.
2 "A few of the many benefits of living near the beach are the wonderful ocean views and ocean breezes that make life here so unique. These ocean views have immeasurable value from both a quality of life aspect as well as a significant monetary impact. In many of the South Bay cities these
views are unprotected and it’s not rare for a home’s
stunning ocean views to disappear when the one story
home next door gets torn down and new and much larger home replaces it.(emphasis added).

Certain areas of Torrance are the exception. Primarily
found in the Hollywood Riviera and Seaside Ranchos
neighborhoods the city has incorporated much stricter
building guidelines known as the “Hillside Overlay” area." 2 https://torrancerealestatehomes.com/torrance-real-estate- explained-hillside-
overlay
Page
3 of
17 23
A different recent posting on the internet illustrates the threats to the special benefits that, up to now, have been provided in the Hillside and that are threatened by the deletion of the "hardship" requirement.
3 "This cozy updated home in the Hollywood Riviera sits on a large 7300 sq. foot lot. There is a peek a boo view from the living area and bedroom. Beautiful tree lined street within walking distance to Riviera Elementary. Live in now and build later. Second story home would have incredible views of the coastline. Please check with city of Torrance regarding Hillside Overlay Ordinance."
Although the second posting mentions the Hillside Overlay Ordinance, it does not point out that constructing a second story and the likely increase in value of the house would be obtained at the neighbors' expense, particularly in terms of the loss in value of the neighbors' properties and the long term damage to the special benefits described above that accrue to other residents in the Hillside.

It is not simply by chance that the special benefits of the Hillside, that are described above, have been preserved, at least until now, for the residents of the Hillside. The special benefits attached to the properties in the Hillside exist and have been preserved only because of the special effort and diligence, over the previous years, by the City of Torrance and its residents. These special benefits will soon be lost if the residents and the City of Torrance do not again reawaken such effort and diligence.

Short History of the Hillside
As was briefly described in the "Summary", faced with the prospect of runaway development in the Hillside, in 1977 the Torrance City Council enacted an ordinance (O-2747) that listed guidelines for development. These guidelines were "directory", not "mandatory" and the owners did not have to comply with these "guidelines". Subsequent ordinances (O-2760 in 1977, O-2961 in 1980, O-2982 in 1980 and O-3027 in 1981) made minor changes, but the ordinances applicable to the hillside continued to be merely guidelines and not mandatory. 4 3
. https://www.trulia.com/homes/California/Redondo_Beach/sold/4761360- 225-Calle-De-Madrid-Redondo-Beach-CA-90277
4 Copies of these ordinances, as well as the minutes of the City Council and related Staff Reports that are cited herein can be searched and browsed for, and downloaded at
https://publicdocs.torranceca.gov/WebLink/
under the categories:

Agenda Packets, Minutes and Ordinances under the category “City Council”.

Page
4 of
17 24
The non-mandatory guidelines failed to control development in the Hillside.

In 1984, faced with imminent destruction of the attractive characteristics of the hillside, and in particular faced with at least four pending applications for development in the hillside, which proposed construction threatened loss of property value to adjacent landowners, the Council, in emergency legislation, adopted O-3110, which ordinance made compliance with the ordinance mandatory and specified limits on construction in the hillside, including not more than one-story (above ground) and 14 feet in height. [See Section 2, on page 7 of Ordinance O-3110 for a description of the circumstances addressed by the emergency legislation.
] The Ordinance
allowed construction to exceed one story and 14 feet only in a limited set of circumstances, and only if the owner could prove that compliance with the limits would cause "unreasonable hardship".

In his letter to the City Council, dated June 21, 1984, City Attorney Remelmeyer described the circumstances that required an immediate legislative response.
5 The City attorney recognized the
fact that:
"(w)here once the right of a landowner to develop almost anything was a 'God-given right,' the greater concerns of the overall community have gained in importance. Where once a landowner could develop almost anything without regard to the impedance of views, light, air and privacy of
neighbors, it is not so today."6
Attorney Remelmeyer pointed out that the guidelines and suggestions (in the Hillside Ordinance as it existed in 1984) left much room for subjective judgment. As a consequence, "virtually every application for construction is appealed to the Council and the degree and intensity of partisanship over these applications is increasing
."
7 Remelmeyer also cited a pending legal challenge in
the courts to the constitutionality and fairness of the Hillside Ordinance that, among other things claimed that the ordinance was void because it was vague.

As an immediate, first step toward addressing these problems, Remelmeyer recommended the emergency adoption of Ordinance O-3110. 5 See Agenda Packet_1984-06-26_12C_City Council pertaining to the adoption of Ordinance O-3110. 6 See Appendix C: “Freedom on the Hillside”. In 1926, the U. S. Supreme Court held to be constitutional zoning that limited the height of buildings and the types of buildings, e.g. single family residences. Village of Euclid, Ohio v.

Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926).
7 See Agenda Packets_1984_1984-06-26_12C_City Council pertaining to adoption of Ordinance O-3110.

Page
5 of
17 25
In his letter to the Council [See Agenda Packets_1984-06-26_12C-City Council] City Attorney Remelmeyer highlighted an essential provision of the Ordinance, namely:
"All development are limited to 14 feet in height (unless certain findings of hardship can be made)."8
Because the imminent threats to the hillside had forced the Council to adopt emergency legislation and did not allow the Council sufficient time to "fine-tune" the emergency legislation before its adoption, the Council appointed a committee (the "Hillside Committee") consisting of three council members (Chairwoman Katy Geissert, Councilman Walker and Councilman Mock), together with three Planning Commissioners (Brewster, Uerkwitz and Messerlian,) to review the Emergency Ordinance language and to recommend changes to smooth out the process for evaluaaton of applications for construction in the Hillside.

The Hillside Committee held multiple hearings
9 , received and
considered comments from the Riviera Homeowners Association and conducted a detailed and careful examination of the emergency legislation before presenting its recommendations
10 to the Council.

The Hillside Committee recommended specific changes to the Ordinance, including adding the definition of the meaning of "hardship" and the requirement that construction could exceed one-story only if the applicant proved that
the property
would suffer "unreasonable
hardship" as therein defined. The Hillside Committee recommended these changes to strengthen the Ordinance, negate challenges for vagueness and to reduce or avoid the problems that the ordinance addressed, including putting an end to the appeals of each application to the City Council and the continuing incitement of widespread conflict between neighbors. In 1985, the City Council accepted the Hillside Committee's recommendations and adopted Ordinance O-3144 to protect the Hillside and to avoid the problems 11 addressed by the Hillside Committee's recommendations.

Each Provision of Hillside Ordinance Should Be Interpreted in the Context of Entire Ordinance.

The Ordinance, as adopted and amended in 1985, set clear 8 See page 2, item 4 of Agenda Packets_1984-06-26_12C_City Council 9 See page 1 of letter to the City Council from City Attorney Remelmeyer, included in Agenda Packets_1985-06- 18_12A_City Council pertaining to adoption of Ordinance O-3144. 10 Appendix A: “Hillside Committee Recommendations” describes in more detail the Hillside Committee Deliberations and Recommendations.
11 See Appendix B titled; “The Damaging Consequences of Uncertainty”.

Page
6 of
17 26
limitations on construction, i.e. construction limited to one-story, 14-feet in height and no more than 50% of the size of the lot. An exception was allowed
only
if the applicant could prove that such
limits imposed an "unreasonable hardship"
upon the property
. The
Ordinance included a definition of "hardship" that could be met only by a property that suffered from special circumstances applicable to that lot and not to the other lots in the neighborhood. 12 As a
consequence, construction in nearly all of the lots in the Hillside was limited to one-story and 14 feet. The Ordinance also included provisions protecting other properties from any adverse cumulative impact from any construction that exceeded these limits.

Accordingly, when viewed in its entirety, I think it reasonable to describe the Hillside Ordinance in broad terms as follows:
“In order to protect the open and airy ambiance of the
Hillside as embodied by the views, light, air and privacy enjoyed by the residents, the Ordinance limits construction in the Hillside to one-story homes that do not exceed 14 feet in height and area that do not exceed 50% of lot size and allows an exception to these limits only in those few instances where an owner is able to prove that imposing such limits on the particular property deprives that
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.”
In accord with well established principles of law, I suggest that the Hillside Ordinance should be interpreted and applied in this context.

I also recommend that the City Council amend the Hillside Ordinance to include a statement of this purpose of the Ordinance and to direct that the Ordinance be interpreted and applied in accord with this stated purpose.
13 Unfortunately, in the recent past, persons with other interests have preferred to ignore these broad goals of Hillside Ordinance and, instead, have attempted to measure the views, light, air and privacy only with respect to each individual property in the Hillside. They have attempted to use metrics that are, almost, impossible to define, e.g. how do you objectively and quantitatively measure "light", "view", "air" and "privacy"?. The clarity and specificity of "one- 12 The definition of “hardship” requirement describes harm suffered by the property. The “hardship” does not include any personal hardship of the Applicant. The Hillside Committee recommended the addition into the Ordinance of this definition of “hardship” and Assistant City Attorney Quale stated: “This is a tried and true definition accepted by the courts.

Generally, hardship does not include family or economic considerations (emphasis added).”
13 Prior to the adoption of O-3110 and O-3114, it was proposed, for the purpose of interpreting and applying the ordinance, that the Ordinance recite as Policy the similar Purpose. Unfortunately, the statement of Purpose and Policy was not included as part of the Ordinance.

Page
7 of
17 27
story" and 14-feet in height stand in sharp contrast to such ill- defined metrics.

Without warning, near the end of December, 1999, (during the Christmas Holidays,) the Planning Director sent a letter, dated Dec. 29, 1999, to the Hillside Associations, which letter stated that the Council in its next meeting on January 11, 2000, would consider "a change to the Hillside Ordinance." The letter said that the change would delete one of seven findings that must be satisfied before approval may be granted, but omitted explanatory detail. This letter was not received by the President of the Riviera Homeowners Association until January 5, 2000, less than one week before the hearing set for January 11, 2000. Morgan Tookey, President of the the Riviera Homeowners Association, informed the Council, by facsimile and by letter on January 10, 2000, that he did not receive the notice until January 5, 2000, that he did not have enough information to comment, and that he would not be able to do so until the Association had reviewed the proposed change at the Association's next board meeting set for later in January. Despite the fact that, at the hearing on January 11, the Council was asked to postpone action until after the residents of the Hillside had been properly informed of the proposed change and given a reasonable opportunity to comment, the City Council refused to postpone its consideration and, instead, immediately approved the deletion! The Council's deletion of the "hardship requirement" reintroduced the repetitious appeals and widespread conflict between neighbors that the Committee, in 1985, had worked so hard to avoid,
14 and now threatens the
destruction of the special benefits of living in the Hillside.

At the "midnight" hearing on January 11, 2000, the City Attorney, John Fellows, presented a written analysis in support of deletion. Contrary to Fellows' contention, his written "analysis" did not support the deletion of the hardship clause. When examined critically, the analysis, instead, supports the deletion of the hardship exception and the retention of the specific limitation, in all instances, of construction to one-story and 14 feet.

In simplest terms, Fellows argued that:
i) because, 91.4.16(e) forbids construction exceeding one story or 14 feet unless denial caused "unreasonable
hardship"; and
14 See Appendix B titled: “The Damaging Consequences of Uncertainty”.

Page
8 of
17 28
ii) because the waiver provisions in 94.2.1. and 94.2.4 allowed an exception to the rules if it caused
"unreasonable difficulties";
the exception for "unreasonable hardship" in 91.41.6(e) was redundant and could be removed.

To be consistent with Fellows' argument, the subsection 91.41.6(e) would be replaced by the simple statement that:
"No construction and no remodeling or enlargement of a
building or structure shall be permitted (except that
expressly permitted by Section 91.41.7.)"
15 However, contrary to the logical consequence of Fellows' "argument", Fellows, instead, recommended that the Council not only delete the hardship requirement, but that the Council also, in effect, remove from section 91.41.6. As a consequence, Article 91.41.6 now allows construction of a two-story house WITHOUT a showing of hardship! Fortunately, some other sections of the Ordinance still require a showing of hardship.

Fellows' argument also assumes that the undefined term
"unreasonable difficulties" that appears in the waiver provisions in

94.2.4 is equivalent to the carefully defined term "hardship", as it appeared in 91.41.6(e). This assumption by Attorney Fellows also does not withstand examination. In my opinion, Mr. Fellows was neither candid nor logical in his attempt to justify the deletion enacted by the Council.

At the same hearing on January 11, 2000, Deputy City Attorney Whitham stated that the (proposed) revision of the hardship finding is:
"not viewed as a weakening of the Hillside Ordinance but as a clean up of its organization...."
and Attorney Witham stated:
"that it ultimately strengthens the ordinance and allow(s) the City to be better able to defend it should it be
15 In effect Fellows “reasoned” that: if a rule stated that I was not allowed to go through a door unless keeping the door closed imposed a hardship, and there was an exception that allowed me to go through the door, if keeping the door closed caused a hardship, then we could simply leave the door open and achieve the same result. I submit that to achieve the same result, the rule would be to keep the door closed at all times, and to rely upon the “hardship” exception to provide access when appropriate.

Page
9 of
17 29
challenged in the future." [City Council Minutes - January 11, 2000].

To the contrary, I submit that it is readily apparent to any objective observer, that the deletion of the hardship requirement substantially weakened the Ordinance and increased the exposure of the Hillside Ordinance to a legal challenge for being vague. 16 Even
more importantly, the deletion of this requirement raised again and exacerbated the many problems that Mayor Geissert and the Hillside Committee members had carefully considered and addressed by the changes they proposed and adopted in 1985 to protect the Ordinance from legal challenge. I can only describe Attorney Whitham's claim that the deletion "strengthens the ordinance" as either naive or intentionally misleading.

One of but many examples of the continuing harmful effects arising from the deletion of the "hardship" clause is the harm, waste and neighborhood conflict arising from the continuing and repeated applications for approval of a precise plan for construction of a massive, multi-story, structure at 417 Via Anita in 2007 and again in 2016. Following denial by the Planning Commission, each application was then appealed to the City Council. The repeated applications for approvals of a precise plan for 310 Calle de Arboles, and the repeated appeals of this matter to the City Council represents the mos recent example of the problem.

As described above, on January 11, 2000, the City Council removed a critical element from the Hillside Ordinance that the Hillside Committee, in 1985, had recommended and that the City Council had adopted in order to strengthen and protect the Hillside and the Hillside Ordinance. The very public and careful consideration of these matters by the Hillside Committee in 1985 stands in stark contrast to the Council's deletion on January 11, 2000, of the "hardship requirement" from the Ordinance. The Council deleted the “hardship requirement” without proper notice to the public and, in effect, in the dead of the night.

The Council could substantially reduce the likelihood of the Council, the Planning Commission and the neighbors having to endure the many burdens described herein
17 and exemplified by the repeated
and continuing applications for construction at 417 Via Anita, and more recently at 310 Calle de Arboles. The Council would need only 16 The proponents of multi-story construction also often accepted claims of “personnel hardship: to satisfy this requirement. Appendix D contains a letter from Phil Sweet describing the consequences of accepting “personnel hardship” as sufficient justification for allowing construction of a two-story building. 17 Appendix B titled: The Damaging Consequences of Uncertainty Page
10 of
17 30
to restore the “hardship” provision to the Hillside Ordinance and to direct the Planning Commission to consider applications for multi- story structures only if the applicant can prove that the subject property differs from other properties in the neighborhood in a manner that deprives that property of benefits enjoyed by its neighboring properties. Reinstating, and enforcing the “unreasonable hardship” requirement would save the Commission, the Council and the residents of the Hillside a while lot of grief!

3. Encourage and Facilitate the Construction and Remodeling of Single-Story Homes in the Hillside.

Due to the present uncertainties in the enforcement of the Hillside Ordinance, few owners of property in the Hillside dare risk building or remodeling a single-story home for fear that within a few years their investment will be destroyed by the construction of massive, multi-story buildings on nearby lots. Only if the Council acts to protect such investments, will the owners be confident that their investment in new construction and remodeling will be protected. Not only can the owner then build a new or remodeled one- story house, if the owner desires additional space for heating, laundry, storage, spare room, etc., the owner can easily add a basement that provides such space without jeopardizing the investments by the neighbors in the nearby, one-story homes.

Not only would the Council protect such investments by
strengthening the Hillside Ordinance, the Council also would protect one of the few remaining areas near the shore, where the residents still enjoy the open and airy ambiance provided by single-story homes. If the Council does not act, these benefits will be lost forever, as they have been, for example, in Manhattan Beach, which has become nothing but walls of massive, multi-story buildings, that, at best, can charitably be called residences.

Page
11 of
17 31

Appendix A: Hillside Committee Recommendations
In 1985, the Hillside Committee reviewed the emergency
legislation and recommended some changes and additions that it believed would facilitate the long term application of the ordinance.

For example, the Hillside Committee recommended that in two places the word "significant", be changed to "adverse", thus avoiding disagreements over how much was "significant" (i.e. not have a significant adverse effect" to "not have an adverse effect on other properties in the vicinity,)
18 and adding a requirement that "the
proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.
19 Exemplifying
the Hillside Committee's perspective, they also recommended that the title of the section dealing with construction and remodeling be changed from "Minimum Intrusion" to "Planning and Design". The Hillside Committee's intent on "Planning" contrasts sharply with the more recent attitude of the City Council that replaced the name of the "Planning Department" with the name "Community Development"! Most importantly, in order to clarify the meaning of "hardship", the Hillside Committee recommended the addition of the definition of hardship as:
"Denial of such an application would constitute an
unreasonable hardship to the applicant. As used in this section, and hereafter in this Article, the term
'hardship' shall mean that because of special
circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, soil conditions, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the zoning
ordinance deprives such property, (emphasis added) of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications."
In the recommendation by the Hillside Committee, Assistant City Attorney Quale stated:
"This is a tried and true definition accepted by the
courts. Generally, hardship does not include family or
18 See p. 1 of Agenda Packets_1985-06-18_12A_City Council and see page 16 of the “Comparison Ordinance” included in the same Agenda Packet. Recent litigation, Youngern v. City of Torrance, questioned the interpretation of the meaning of “adverse impact” and the Court allowed the City Council to interpret the meaning of “adverse impact” and the Court allowed the City Council to interpret the meaning as “substantial impact”. I do not know whether the attorneys for the City of Torrance pointed out to the Court that, in 1985, the City Council had intentionally changed the word “significant” to the word “adverse”, in connection with the Council’s enactment of Ordinance O-3144. 19 See Hillside Committee recommendations in response to Public Records W2226_05281985_12A_(R)(1).pdf Page
12 of
17 32
economic considerations." 20

I point this out because, at times in the past, the Council has accepted a claim of "personal hardship" as sufficient to issue a permit for construction of a two-story building. Unfortunately the multi-story structures continue to damage the neighbors long after the person who claimed the "personal hardship" has sold the property and moved elsewhere. For an example of the long-term damage caused by the Council's interpretation of "hardship" to include "personal hardship, see the attached letter
21 from Phillip Sweet in which he
describes the long term damage that continues long after the person who claimed the "personal hardship" has sold the property and left.

I submit that it makes sense to interpret "hardship" to apply to the property because houses remain for 60 to perhaps 100 years, while the owner likely changes in perhaps 7-10 years. As a consequence, any decision as to "hardship" not only affects the present owner and the present owners of nearby properties, but all of the subsequent owners of the subject property and the nearby properties for many, many years.
20 See “pdf” pages 4 and 5, identified therein as attachement 5, pages 30 and 31 in response to Public Redords Request W2226_05281985-12A_(R)(2),pdf and in 06181985_12A_O-3144. 21 To improve the legibility of this document, I have substituted a reproduction of the letter written by Phillip Sweet.

Page
13 of
17 33

Appendix B: The Damaging Consequences of Uncertainty
Uncertainty in the interpretation and application of the Hillside Ordinance causes the many problems described below. In 2000, the City Council deleted the "unreasonable hardship" requirement and exacerbated each of the problems.

The uncertainty in interpretation and application of the Hillside Ordinance:
1) makes it much more difficult for a buyer of property to determine whether or not he/she could build a two-story house on the property; 2) makes it almost impossible for a buyer of a property to determine with any certainty whether the neighbors, would be allowed to build two-story houses that would damage the existing value and desirability of the property;
3) imposes great uncertainty and risk upon an owner of a one-story house who wishes to remodel and improve the one-story house, because he/she can not have confidence that shortly after he/she completed remodeling the house, the investment in such remodeling would not be destroyed by the construction of one or more two-story buildings on nearby or adjacent lots;
4) generates widespread animosity between neighbors brought into conflict over proposals to build two-story houses, the approval or denial of which is significantly influenced by the neighbors expression of objections thereto;
5) significantly increases the workload of the Planning Department and of the City Council arising from the consideration of and appeal to the City Council of building applications because the deletion of the hardship requirement increased the uncertainty as to whether or not a two-story building would be permitted;
6) substantially increases the incentives for a person wanting to build a two-story structure to attempt to influence the Planning Commission and members of the City Council by improper means.

Although I don't point to any specific example of an applicant attempting to influence members of the Planning Commission and/or the City Council through improper means, I find it difficult to justify a refusal by a Member of the Council to clarify and make more certain the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, the absence of which clarity invites such unlawful activity.

Page
14 of
17 34

Appendix C: Freedom On The Hillside
Many, and perhaps most, people want the freedom to do as they wish. In the "Wild West", at a time when many miles separated each person from his nearest neighbor, each person was able to do as he or she wished because his/her actions did not affect others. However, in modern cities, where people live side by side, one person's acts necessarily affects his neighbors. If everyone could do as they wish, chaos would result causing bad results for everyone. A major obligation of good government is to strike a balance between granting individuals the freedom to do as they wish and, at the same time, protecting their neighbors from harmful consequences of such acts.

Finding and enacting such balance is neither simple nor easy and requires thought and effort from those chosen to govern. I submit that if a governmental representative simply recites and recognizes only the individual's desire for unlimited freedom and does not also understand the burdens and obligations of governing bodies to strike a balance between an individual's desire and need for "freedom" and the need to protect the neighbors from the damages that may arise from the unlimited exercise of individual choice, that governmental representative is unfit for office and should be replaced by someone who understands the obligations of government.

In 1926, the United States Supreme Court considered the governmental exercise of these obligations and upheld as constitutional the local government's creation, application and enforcement of zoning regulations that limited the individual's freedom to build. [Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)] In Euclid, the Court considered zoning regulations that limited the type of buildings that could be constructed, e.g. single family homes, as well as the restriction of the height and size of buildings that could be constructed in each zone and found the imposition of such zoning regulations to be constitutional.

Although the Court has since overturned zoning laws enacted to exclude from ownership and residence persons of specified races or religion and overturned zoning laws enacted for other improper purposes, the Court continues to recognize as constitutional zoning laws that restrict the type and size of buildings that may be constructed on land within such zones.

Page
15 of
17 35
Appendix D: Reproduction of Letter from Phillip Sweet
To: Torrance Planning Department
From: Phillip Sweet, 127 Via Alameda, Redondo Beach (Torrance) Date: May 7, 2017
Re: Application for Construction of Massive, Multi-story Building at 417 Via Anita

1. I write to express my strong objection to the Planning Commission's consideration of the above-referenced
application because I believe that construction of such a multi-story building would substantially degrade this
neighborhood by destroying both the feeling and fact of light and air that makes the present neighborhood
so attractive to its residents.

2. I further write to ask the Planning Commission to
reform, their current practice, namely that they refuse to consider such applications in the future. Both my property and I and my wife have been harmed, and will continue to be harmed for many years into the future, by the Planning
Department's consideration of a similar application in the recent past. I describe, below, the circumstances and the consequences in order that the Planning Commission may know the continuing harm caused by their past practice.

3. In 2007, my immediate neighbor at 121 Via Alameda, filed an application for construction of a multi-story building adjacent to my one-story residence. Mrs. Kono, the
grandmother of my neighbor's children, appeared at the
hearing of the application and my neighbor asked for
permission to build the multi-story building in order to provide room for themselves, their children and their
children's grandmother. Because I did not want to harm the friendly relationship that I had with my neighbor for over 25 years, I did not object. At the time I had no real
appreciation of the extent to which the multi-story
building would interfere with, and degrade, the
light, air and privacy of my home. I now have permanent mold and mildew on my south-side patio and patio cover due to the lack of sun light. My roof adjacent to the multi- story property cannot be properly fitted with solar panels because of the shadow cast by their home on my roof. Their windows allow my neighbor to look directly down on our
kitchen and family room, violating our privacy. I now
Page
16 of
17 36
strongly regret not voicing my objection to their
application in 2007 (emphasis in the original).

4. As so often happens, my neighbors, their children and the grandparent, have since moved away due to a divorce and sale of their multi-story home. Although my previous
neighbors left, the multi-story building remains, and will remain for many, many years, continuing to degrade our
light, air and privacy for as long as I, and my wife, live here. So I ask, most strongly, please do not be swayed by any appeals based upon the immediate needs of the owner (who in any case is likely to change within a few years), but,instead, consider the damaging effects of such
construction upon the many, many persons who will reside nearby for the many, many years that such out-sized
buildings would remain in place if you permit their
construction.
/s/ Phillip R. Sweet
Phillip R. Sweet.

The following note to Appendix D was added later by Joe Buck to update status of the property owned by Phillip Sweet and his wife, and the status of the ownership of the adjacent property.

Phillip Sweet wrote the above-letter in 2017. Since that time, both Phillip Sweet and his wife have died, and their property has been sold. The adjacent property, which Phillip Sweet describes as having been subsequently sold to a new owner, has, since 2017, again been resold to still another new owner.

Page
17 of
17 37

9. HEARINGS
9B.Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval of a Precise Plan of Development (PRE2300013) to Allow the Construction of a New Two story Singlefamily Residence with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), on Property Located within the Hillside Overlay in the Single Family Residential District (R1) Zone at 22209 Susana Avenue (APN 7515001025), Deny the Appeal, Adopt RESOLUTION and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Expenditure: None.

Name
Bernard Kersulis
Comment 06/17/2025 08:43 AM : (Against)
To all concerned,
Please note that I support Save Seaside in their efforts under PRE2300013 concerning 22209 Susana Ave, Torrance. All of my neighbors do as well.

Also we strongly oppose the building of a two story ADU at 230 Paseo de Granada, Redondo Beach. The city council needs to step up and take back control of our city. If a city the size of Torrance steps up, all other cities who oppose this ridiculous ADU law will follow.

Bernard Kersulis
Calle de Madrid
Redondo beach,90277
38 9.

HEARINGS
9B.

Expenditure: None.

Name
Tracey
Nakadate
Comment 06/17/2025 08:44 AM : (Against)
City Council, Planning Commission, and Neighbors;
I am writing to you today to voice my concern and need for the Hillside Overlay to be strengthened.

The words in

91.41.6a
state that:

The proposed development will not have
an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity
But, who defines “adverse”? It has not been with respect to the neighbors’ point of view in many of the applications in the past several years and this needs to change! The neighbors are the ones who are affected by projects that infringe on the criteria of The Hillside Overlay and the neighbors who should not have to see their views, their light, their air, and their privacy be diminished by each application that is approved because the intrusion is small to someone who does not have to look at the change every day.

If any small intrusion to my view by one property is allowed, then each time a “small” intrusion is allowed, I lose more and more of my view. Losing my view, bit by bit, is still losing the views that we understood to be protected. The views are part of the healthy living that I want to enjoy in my retirement. In addition, for my health, losing the air and light little by little is just as bad and maybe worse because these losses are not nearly as visible an issue. Worse also because as light and air are diminished, moisture can become an issue and lead to unrealized mold.

I want the hillside Overlay to be strengthened to support the existing resident’s right to not lose our views, light, air, nor privacy. This means that if there is an impingement on someone’s view, light, air and/or privacy, the permit shall not be approved unless agreement from all neighbors who may be impacted is obtained.

Designs can be made to not impact the neighbors and this needs to start to be enforced.

Please stop allowing subjective interpretation of what is an intrusion to my views, air, light, and/or privacy. If any neighbor is affected and disputes the design, however small, the application shall not be approved.

Please come up with a way to strengthen the Hillside Overlay. There are a bunch of folks, including myself, that would be will ing to help get this done.

Thank You,
Tracey Nakadate
39 9.

HEARINGS
9B.

Expenditure: None.

Name
CAL HDF
Comment 06/17/2025 09:07 AM : (Against)
Dear Torrance City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 9B for the 6/17/25 Council meeting, the proposed 2 unit housing development project at 22209 Susana Avenue.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
40 Jun 16, 2025

City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Blvd.

Torrance, CA 90503

Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 22209 Susana Avenue

By email:

[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]

Cc:

[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]

Dear Torrance City Council,

The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 2-unit housing development project at 22209 Susana Avenue. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), SB 9, and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) or render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)) unless, again, such written findings are made. As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. The City must therefore approve the project unless it makes written findings regarding health and safety as mentioned above – which it cannot do since the preponderance of the evidence in the record does not support such findings. (Ibid.) Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)

2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org

41 Additionally, SB 9 obliges the City to process the application ministerially without a public hearing: “A proposed housing development containing no more than two residential units within a single-family residential zone shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing,” provided it meets the criteria provided in this section of law. (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (a).) The State Department of Housing and Community Development has issued a

fact sheet

(see page 4) that confirms the plain language of the
statute in this regard.

CEQA does not apply to the project at all because the City is required to process it ministerially pursuant to SB 9. Even assuming CEQA applies to the project, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.

And recent caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (

Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego
(2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.).

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will bring new customers to local businesses; it will enhance the city’s tax base; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at

www.calhdf.org

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations

2 of 2

42 9.

HEARINGS
9B.

Expenditure: None.

Name
Tracey
Nakadate
Comment 06/17/2025 09:08 AM : (No Vote)
Hello;
I apologize for not doing my homework thoroughly, but If the changes at the locale on Susanna do not meet the criteria of the Hillside ordinance, then the permit should not allowed.

The wording of the statement for 9B had several double negatives interspersed in the text, so I was a tad confused as to what the issue is. My first interpretation is that the permit was approved and an appeal is being made to overturn that approval.

But, I am not confused on the fact that if view, air, light, and/or privacy are impacted for any of the neighbors, the project should not be permitted to proceed.

If someone wants to move to this neighborhood, and can afford to build bigger, then they can afford to do it right where no impacts are made to the neighbors, however small.

Some say that the overlay is subjective, but if the project infringes on any of the overlay items of view, air, light, and privacy, the project is adverse, no matter how small.

Please work with the people who live around proposed changes to strengthen the hillside overlay to keep us from losing our views, air, light, and/or privacy bit by bit.

Do not approve projects, including 9B, if views are impacted, light is diminished, air is impinged, and/or privacy is being reduced.

Thank You,
Tracey Nakadate
43

Torrance City CouncilJune 17, 2025

Torrance City Council
June 17, 2025