9. HEARINGS
9A.Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct a Public Hearing on Land Use Study 2500001 Regarding Proposed Amendments to the Torrance Municipal Code Pertaining to the Regulation of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, Determine a Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code. Expenditure: None.
Name
G. Joseph Buck
Comment 08/04/2025 01:18 PM : (No Vote)
Public Comment to Agenda Item 9A of Council Agenda for August 5, 2025. Please confirm to email address of your receipt and posting of my comment contained in the attached file. Also please add to the comments copy of the documents that I previously filed as “Supplement #1 to Agenda Item No. 5 of the Planning Commission Agenda for July 16, 2025. If you have any questions, please call me at
1 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT
FOR AGENDA ITEM 9A
Public Comment to Item Number 9A of Council Agenda for August 5, 2025
I, G. Joseph Buck, a resident of the Hillside for 41 years, submit the within Public Comment to Item Number 9A of Council Agenda for August 5, 2025.
At the hearing of Item Number 9A on the Council Agenda for August 5, 2025, the Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez, asks the Council to adopt an Ordinance amending the T orrance Municipal Code and attaches a copy of the text of the Amended Ordinance submitted by Staff. Development Director Ramirez cites the Recommendation of the Planning Commission and of the Development Director as the basis for for asking that the Council adopt the proposed Ordinance.
It is my impression that the Development Director is asking the Council, in effect, to "rubber stamp " the Council's approval of the Ordinance submitted by Staff. It is also my impression that the "approval" that Staff obtained from the four members of the Commission on July 2, 2025, was obtained by Staff, in effect, asking the four members of the Commission to "rubber stamp" its approval of Staff's proposed Ordinance. See e.g., Attachment 3 to Staff's "RECOMMENDATION" to the Commission, which stated;
"Provided are two options the Planning Commission may choose to direct staff:
A. Forward the draft Ordinance amending the Torrance
Municipal Code, as presented, to the City Council for consideration; or B. Modify or add to the draft Ordinance amending the Torrance Municipal Code, as directed and forward to the City Council for consideration.
The Community Development Director recommends the Planning Commission choose Option A and direct staff to forward the draft Ordinance to the City Council for consideration."
May I point out that Staff's presentation to the Commission included no discussion of any alternatives, nor any discussion of the risks and benefits of adopting any of the alternatives. In the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Staff simply informed the Commission that:
"Failure to adopt the proposed changes would render the City's ADU ordinance null and void."
It is my impression that the Community Development Director and Staff now ask the Council to "rubber stamp" the amendment proposed by Staff. 1 of
4 2
In recognition of the fact that the Planning Commission has now returned to "full membership', i.e. seven active members, one of which has been re-elected as the Chairman of the Commission, I ask the Council to suspend and to continue its hearing of Item No. 9A to a later date so that the Council may take advantage of the extensive, day-to-day knowledge and experience that the Planning Commission has with regard to matters pertaining to zoning and land use within the City of T orrance. I ask the Council, in accord with the provisions of section
13.1.7 of the T orrance Municipal Code, to ask the Commission to initiate and hold a public hearing for the purpose of investigating changes to the Ordinance that that the Commission may then recommend that the Council make to TMC in response to recent changes in state law.
May I suggest that the Council ask the Commission to include in its recommendations to the Council, the Commission's analysis of any alternative means for addressing these matters that the Commission believe merit consideration, together with the Commission's analysis of risks and benefits of these utilizing one or more of these alternatives.
So that the Commission may receive and consider a broad range of inputs from the public, may I also suggest that the Council ask that the Commission arrange to give members of the public amounts of time to present their views on these matter that equal, or exceed, the amount of time that the Commission grants to the Staff for Staff's presentations on these matters.
It recognition of the State Law requirement that the City use a "ministerial process" to determine whether to allow or deny the application for a building permit, may I also suggest that the Council ask the Commission to consider whether or not to recommend that Council include a provision in the Ordinance for giving notice to owners of neighboring properties of the pending consideration by City employees of each application for such construction permits, thus giving residents of the City, (as well as residents of the Hillside Overlay Zone), notice of such filings, so that the residents might then, if warranted, examine the processing of such applications by City Staff for the purpose of confirming that the issue of any such permit complies with the ministerial provisions of the TMC that are applicable to such construction. (Note that I do not suggest that such residents of the City are thereby given the power to approve, or to disapprove, of the grant of any such permit, but that they might, thereby, obtain information that they could use to confirm that the construction allowed by such permit complies with the applicable ministerial requirements recited in the TMC. 2 of
4 3
The hearing conducted by the Commission might also consider whether or not to require that any such applicant provide massing diagrams for any such proposed construction, copies of which residents could then obtain without risking infringement of any copyright that Applicant might otherwise claim to hold in underlying depiction of the proposed construction. If the City of T orrance omits any requirement of such notice to owners of nearby properties, then such interested parties would be forced, again and again, to file public records' Act requests for of learning whether or not any applications have been filed with the City asking for the issue of such building permits.
The Council might also direct the Commission to include in its hearing an inquiry into why, in connection with Staff's submission and recommendation to the Council in 2022 of the adoption of ordinance O-3910, Staff, in the person of Development Director Michelle Ramirez, in the recitation of state law SB2221, omitted, with no mention or explanation, subsection (iv), which subsection recited the provision in the State Law, that Staff could have utilized to limit the height of ADUs to 14 feet. (Note: I not aware of any explanation that Development Director has given the omission of subsection (iv) from the recitation of applicable state law. )
The recent hearing
1 by the City Council of the appeal of the Planning
Commission's purported approval of a permit to construct a large, two-story high single-family dwelling in the Hillside Overlay Zone, based on applicant's revision of the proposed two-story high, single-family dwelling, to include an ADU within a portion of the first floor of the dwelling, resulted in the Council's approval of the issue of the building permit. In connection with hearing of the appeal to the Council, I filed as public comment to Item No. 9B , a copy of the document titled:
"The Simple Answer to the Issues Raised by Agenda Item 8C (on appeal to the City Council)." As I pointed out in Supplemental #1 to Agenda Item No. 5 of the Planning Commission Agenda for July 16, 2025 on the page numbered, at the bottom, "Page 5 of 6":
"As far as I am aware, Staff has never offered any basis for not asking the City Council to consider the "Simple Answer". "
2 Unless the Council takes prompt action to address the issues raised in this matter, a Property Developer will be able to obtain a permit to construct a two-story high single family dwelling on any property located within the Hillside Overlay Zone, simply by including, on the first-floor of the structure that the Developer describes as an ADU. Sadly, I must point out that, if the Council fails to address this imminent threat to the Hillside, the special, "open and airy" attributes of the 1 Item No. 9B on Council Agenda for June 17, 2025
2 Note: as footnote numbered 10, I did include a description of one possible exception, namely "The only exception may be the response given to me a few days ago, when I spoke by telephone with Development Department Director Michelle Ramirez. I asked her if Section 91.41.7 of the TMC recites a set of objective standards. I understood her to reply that Section 91.4.17 states when a Precise Plan is used and is not a set of objective standards. 3 of
4 4
Hillside that, until now, have been protected by City of T orrance will be lost, forever! If the Council fails to take prompt action, each and every member of the Council will be responsible for the permanent destruction of the HIllside. (in footnote point out that these special attributes have previously been destroyed forever, in the coastal areas of Manhattan Beach, and most of Hermosa Beach, and much of Redondo Beach.
For ease of reference by Members of the Council, I include, as part of my Public Comment to Item Number 9A of Council Agenda for August 5, 2025, a copy of the document that I previously submitted as Public Comment to Planning Commission which I had titled: "Public Comment to Planning Commission - 7-16-25". For ease of reference by Members of the Council, I also include, as part of my Public Comment to Item Number 9A of Council Agenda for August 5, 2025, a copy of the document that I previously submitted to the Planning Commission titled:
"The Simple Answer to the Issues Raised by Agenda Item 8C (on appeal to the City Council)"
4 of
4 5
9. HEARINGS
9A.Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct a Public Hearing on Land Use Study 2500001 Regarding Proposed Amendments to the Torrance Municipal Code Pertaining to the Regulation of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, Determine a Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending the Torrance Municipal Code. Expenditure: None.
Name
G. Joseph Buck
Comment 08/04/2025 01:33 PM : (No Vote)
I have attached a “pdf” of a file that I previously submitted to the Planning Comission.
Would you please delete page 1 from the file (the cover letter to Garcia), and then accept the remaining 15 pages as public comment to Item 9A on the Council Agenda for Aug. 5, 2025. Please confirm your receipt of this request and the attached document and please confirm, by calling or by sending confirming email to
6 SUPPLEMENTAL #1 TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 5
DATE:
July 16, 2025
TO:
Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:
Planning Division
SUBJECT:
Oral Communications
Please
fi
nd attached correspondence for Agenda Item No. 5 – Oral Communications Respectfully submitted,
Robert Garcia
Planning Manager
Attachments:
1. Correspondence
7 Public Comment to Planning Commission - 7-16-25
On a day to day basis, the City of Torrance Planning Commission devotes most of its time and energy to dealing with matters related to land use and development in the City of Torrance. In marked contrast, on a day to day basis, the City Council for the City of Torrance, devotes a major portion of its time and energy to dealing with a host of other matters having to do with the governing of City of Torrance, its residents, and the City's obligations to the State of California.
It is my personal impression that the provisions of the Torrance Municipal Code ("TMC"), place upon the Planning Commission the power, as well as the duty, to hold public hearings on matters related to land use and development. The TMC also places upon the Planning Commission the duty to advise the City Council on matters concerning the use and development of land in the City of Torrance.
It is also my personal impression that the provisions of the TMC do not grant to the Planning Commission the power, nor duty, to enact legislation (i.e. to adopt ordinances) governing the use and development of land in the City, and my further impression that the TMC, instead, grants to the City Council the power and the duty to adopt ordinances, and amendments to the provisions of the TMC related to land use and development in the City of Torrance.
The City of Torrance Website1 describes the Planning Commission in the following manner 2:
"Planning Commission
POWERS AND DUTIES
In accordance with Article 1, Chapter 3, Division 1 of the T orrance Municipal Code , the Planning Commission serves as an advisory to the City Council and conducts public hearings on matters related to land use and development." More particularly, section 13.1.7 of the Torrance Municipal Code ("TMC") describes the Planning Commission in the following manner:
"13.1.7 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
a) The Commission
shall hold hearings, make recommendations to the City Council and perform all duties required by law.
b) The Commission
may investigate, hold hearings on and make recommendations to the City Council on any matters concerning the use and development of land in the City . c) The Commission
shall advise the Council on any matters concerning the use and development of land in the City when so requested by the City Council. 1 https://www.torranceca.gov/government/city-clerk/commissions-and-advisory-boards/planning-commission 2 Please note that I have added underlining and printed in bold some of the content presented in the quotations from the TMC.
8 d) The Commission shall make an annual report to the City Council of its activities for the previous year and shall make such other reports as it shall deem necessary or proper ."
The TMC further recites:
"ARTICLE 1 - PLANNING COMMISSION
13.1.1 CREATED, COMPOSITION, COMPENSATION AND QUALIFICATIONS. a) There is hereby created a Planning Commission for the City, consisting of seven (7) members.
.... "
Section 13.1.4 of the TMC further states:
"13.1.4 REMOVAL OF MEMBERS.
The members of the Commission may be removed from office by a vote of the majority of all the members of the City Council."
It is my personal impression that it would be reasonable for the Council to remove a Commission member for an intentional failure to exercise and to fulfill the Planning Commission's power and duty, pursuant to TMC section 13.1.7, to hold hearings and to advise Council.
The City of Torrance Website3 also describes the Planning Division of the City of Torrance Development Department and describes the
support that the Planning Division provides to the City Council and to the Planning Commission . The Website describes the Planning Division in the following manner:
"Planning Division
The Planning Division is committed to urban planning and design to provide an attractive, safe, and enriching environment that assures a high quality of life.
The Planning Division is comprised of two sections:
Development Review is focused on reviewing development plans for conformance with land use policies and standards, and is responsible for processing development applications, conducting environmental review, and responding to inquiries on zoning and land use.
Development Review also provides staff support to the Planning Commission and to the City Council.
Comprehensive Planning is focused on developing plans, policies and programs to guide development in Torrance, and is responsible for maintaining the General Plan, conducting special studies related to land use, and collaborating with regional and state 3 https://www.torranceca.gov/our-city/community-development/planning-division
9 agencies. Comprehensive Planning also provides staff support to ... the Planning Commission and the City Council."
It is my impression that the employees of the Planning Division that provide such support to the City Council and to the Planning Commission, typically, identify themselves as "Staff" in the documents prepared and presented by them (i.e. by the Staff).
Sadly, it is also my impression that, despite the statements on the City of Torrance Website that the Planning Department Staff provides support to the Planning Commission, Staff, instead, often insists that the Planning Commission act, instead, to "support" Staff.
I fully agree with the TMC's allocation of powers and duties between the City Council and the Planning Commission, i.e., i) that the Planning Commission has the power and the duty to hold hearings and to make recommendations to the City Council on matters concerning the use and development of land in the City; and ii) that only the City Council has the power to enact legislation, i.e. adopt ordinances pertaining to land use and development in the City. I base my agreement on the fact that: i) the Planning Commission 's, direct, day-to-day experience with matters concerning the use and development of land in the City of Torrance gives to the Planning Commission the knowledge and experience upon which to base its recommendations to the the City Council on such matters; and ii) on the fact that by granting only to the City Council the power to enact ordinances governing such matters, the TMC, in effect, provides review by an independent body of any such recommendations presented to the City Council by the Planning Commission . Because the City Council must, on a day to day basis, balance these matters and interests with other aspects of the City of Torrance, the TMC grants to the Council, and not to the Commission, the power and duty to adopt ordinances and amendments to the TMC that take all of these matters and interests into consideration.
It is my personal impression, however, that some of the personnel, i.e., "Staff" 4 do not support the allocation by the TMC of the powers and duties in the manner described above.
I now describe, below, various examples of actions and positions taken by Staff, which, (it is my impression), demonstrate the failure of Staff to provide such support to the Planning Commission .
These examples suggest to me that Staff, instead, expects the Planning Commission to support the actions and positions taken by Staff.
At a hearing before the Planning Commission, a couple of years ago, when I suggested that the Planning Commission initiate such a hearing on a similar matter, it is my impression that Tatia Strader, in effect, asserted to the Planning Commission that "such steps" must come from the City Council, and not from the Planning Commission. Tatia Strader then asserted that the members of the Planning Commission serve at the Pleasure of the Council (or words to this effect).
However, it is my contrary impression that if the TMC grants to the Planning Commission the "power and the duty" to "investigate, hold hearings on, and make recommendations to the City Council on any matters concerning the use and development of land in the City" 5, then the grant by the TMC to 4 Re: meaning of "Staff". Whenever I use the word "Staff", I also include within the meaning of "Staff", the Development Department Director Michelle Ramirez, Assistant City Attorney Tatia Strader, and .... 5 Per: Section 13.1.7 of the TMC
10 the Planning Commission of this "power and duty", necessarily includes the grant to the Planning Commission of the power to take whatever steps may be necessary to bring such matters for hearing before the Commission, including, but not limited to, the power to initiate and schedule such hearings by Planning Commission.
In the present circumstances, it is my impression that it is of particular importance that the Planning Commission initiate and conduct such hearings, not in the context of a particular, specific request by an entity asking for the issue of a building permit for construction of a specific structure, such as a single-family dwelling to be located on a specific property located within the City of Torrance. I think it is particularly important that the Planning Commission initiate and conduct hearings, not with respect to a specific application for a permit, but, instead for the more general purpose of considering how the City, and the Planning Commission can, and should, respond to requests for building permits in the context of the recent changes in state law.
As a second example of Staff's failure to provide support to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, I refer to Staff's submission to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, of the text of Ordinance O-3910 and to Donald Reinertsen's public comment to Agenda Item 12A 6, in which he points out that the "proposed Ordinance No. 3910 fails to incorporate the single provision in SB2221 which could enable Torrance to both fully comply with SB2221 ADU rules and simultaneously preserve the historic heights of structures in the HOZ " (i.e. in the Hillside Overlay Zone). 7 Reinertsen also points out that Staff's submission to the City Council failed to address the discretionary provisions of Article 41. It is my impression that Reinertsen's reference to discretionary Provisions of Article 41 refer to, what the State Law now describes as "subjective standards". As far as I am aware, Staff has never responded to Reinertsen's criticism.
As a third example of Staff's failure to provide support to the Planning Commission, and to the City Council, I describe Staff's interactions with the Planning Commission in connection with the Planning Commission's hearing of Agenda Item No. 8C. on March 19, 2025. Staff asserted to the members of the Planning Commission that State Law does not allow the Planning Commission to apply "subjective standards" (such as the standards recited in Section 91.41.6 of the Torrance Municipal Code) to approve or deny the pending application for approval of an application for a building permit for construction on property located in the Hillside Overlay Zone. Staff submitted Resolution No. 24- 0038 to the Planning Commission for its approval. The Resolution recited each of the standards provided in Section 91.41.6 of the TMC that previously were used to determine whether to approve or deny the application for a permit. The Resolution then recited for each standard the finding by the Planning Commission that: i) the proposed construction (in effect) violated the requirement; ii) that the proposed construction meets the definition of a "housing development project"; iii) therefore only the objective development standards of the Torrance Municipal Code can be applied for the purposes of evaluating the proposed residence; and whereas the Planning Commission, following its roll call vote, approved PRE23-00013, now therefore, be it resolved that (the application for a building permit) is hereby approved....
It is my impression that Staff then asserted in the Resolution, that the Commission must, therefore, approve the application.
6 Supplemental #1 to Item No. 12A on City Council Agenda for December 20, 2022. 7 See Supplemental # 1, on the page identified at the top of the page by the number "4" and at the bottom of the page by the number "1".
8 Attachment #1 to Agenda Item 8CStaff's filing of Staff's filing of Meeting Agenda for March 19, 2025.
11 At the hearing on March 19, Members of the Planning Commission expressed their puzzlement as to why the Commission was being asked to approve the application in this circumstance where the standards that they would apply were declared to be invalid. It is my impression that Members of the Commission asked what would happen if, in this circumstance, they did not "vote". It is my impression that Staff responded by asserting that if the Commission did not vote, then Staff would appeal the decision (or lack thereof) to the City Council. It is my impression that, faced with this threat, the Members of the Planning Commission, reluctantly, voted to adopt the resolution.
The owner of a neighboring property filed an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's approval of the application for a building permit for construction at 22209 Susana, which property is located in the Hillside Overlay Zone. As Agenda Item No. 9B, for June 17, 2025, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the appeal. As public comment to Item No. 9B, I submitted the document titled: "The Simple Answer to the Issues Raised by Agenda Item 8C (on appeal to the City Council).pdf". 9 In the Simple Answer, I proposed that the City Council ask that Staff prepare and submit to the Council for its consideration and adoption (a) Resolution similar to the following:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED....
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. " The Council did not overturn the Planning Commission's "approval" of Application for a building permit for construction at 22209 Susana. It is my impression that the Appellant has 90 days from the date upon which the Councils decision becomes final, to take action in the State Court to contest the Council's determination.
As far as I am aware, 10 Staff has never offered any basis for not asking the City Council to consider the "Simple Answer" .
9 for your ease of reference, I also file, herewith, a copy of the document titled: The Simple Answer to the Issues Raised by Agenda Item 8C (on appeal to the City Council).
10 The only exception may be the response given to me a few days ago, when I spoke by telephone with Development Department Director Michelle Ramirez. I asked her if Section 91.41.7 of the TMC recites a set of objective standards. I understood her to reply that Section 91.41.7 states when a Precise Plan is used and is not a set of objective standards.
12 With respect to the limitations on private contact with members of commission, I suggest that each member of the Commission utilize a copy of this email to disclose, in detail, to the public and to the Staff, the communication from me to the member. I suggest that the Commission Member also consider utilizing a copy of this document to assist the Commission Member in conveying the Member's view thereof, as well as any steps that the member feels the commission should take in connection therewith.
It is my understanding that, pursuant to the Rules of Order adopted by the Commission, any Member who so wishes, may, on the Member's own initiative, announce the Member's motion that the Planning Commission initiate and conduct a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council on any such matters concerning the use and development of land in the City of Torrance. If a second Member of the Commission announces a second to the motion, then the Chairman of the Commission must conduct a vote on the motion. If the motion is adopted, the Commission may proceed in accord with the motion.
By initiating, and holding such hearings, pursuant to section 13.1. 7 of the TMC, the Planning Commission would then be able to make recommendations to the City Council as to actions that the Council may take to address, and remedy, these matters.
Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck Resident of the Hillside for 41 years
13 The Simple Answer to the Issues Raised by 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."
"
"
"pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code Section 65589.5, sta
has determined the revised project meets the
de
nition of a "housing development project" and therefor only the objective development standards of the T orrance 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
14 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. T o that end, the provisions of the Hillside Overlay cannot be applied to evaluate the revised project.
Therefore, sta
recommends approval of the project as revised. "
"
"
"
"
"
"
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 91.41.2 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 e
ect 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.
2 of 9
15 Section 91.41.3 LOT DIMENSIONS, (which speci es 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).
"(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]
"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
fty 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 T orrance 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
nished 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
nished 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
16 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 e
ect on other properties in
the vicinity, and there is no signi
cant public controversy thereon."
"
"
"
"
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-003
A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of T orrance, California, approving a Precise Plan of Development 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 (APN 7515-001-025).
PRE23-00013: DOUGLAS LEACH (KIRK FELDKAMP)
...
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of T orrance conducted a public hearing on March 19, 2025, to consider an application for a Precise Plan of Development
led 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
17 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of T orrance does hereby
nd 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 T orrance;
e) That the proposed residence, as revised, meets the de
nition 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 T orrance Municipal Code can be applied for purposes of evaluating the proposed residence."
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED....
1. That because GOV Code Section 65589.5 requires that "only objective development standards of the T orrance 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 T orrance 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 T orrance Municipal Code, hereby informs Applicant of the speci
c standards
with which the proposed structure must comply in order to obtain approval of a revised project. "
5 of 9
18
6 of 9
19
(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.
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.
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
20 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 V erdes 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 V erdes 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 V erdes 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
21 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. V ents 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
22