Public Comment Agenda Item 8B — Torrance City Council, August 19, 2025

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be pulled by a Councilmember from the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
8B. SECOND AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3954
Name
G. Joseph Buck
Comment 08/15/2025 11:36 AM : (No Vote)
Subject: Separate Consideration of Item No. 8B on City Council Agenda for August 19, 2025
Dear Council Chairman George,
Item No. 8B on the Council Agenda for August 19, 2025, is described as:
"8B. SECOND AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3954 Second and Final Reading of ORDINANCE NO. 3954 amending Torrance Municipal Code Chapter 2, Article 2 of Division 9 by amending Section 92.2.10; and amending Chapter 2, Article 2 of Division 9 by deleting Section 92.2.11 regarding junior accessory dwelling units and approval of the Ordinance Summary for publication. This item is for consideration of adoption of the ordinance only. The item was previously discussed, and action was taken at a prior council meeting." However, Item No. 8 on the Council Agenda for August 19, 2025 states:
"8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be pulled by a Council member from the Consent Calendar and considered separately." I am preparing and plan to send to you my statement describing my basis for asking the Council to suspend consideration of the adoption of Ordinance No. 3954. The Ordinance had previously been submitted to the Council by Development Director Ramirez and Staff for consideration and adoption by the Council. Development Director Ramirez and Staff submitted the proposed Ordinance for consideration to the Council based, in part, on the assertion by Development Director Ramirez and Staff that the (four) members of the Planning Commission had considered the matters and issues involved and recommended that the Council enact the Ordinance submitted to the Council.

It is my impression that the presentation to the four members of the Planning Commission by Development Director Ramirez and by Staff failed to provide a proper basis for Development Director Ramirez's and Staff's assertions to the Council. In recognition of the fact that the Planning Commission is now again fully established with 7 members, including the reelected Chairman, I plan to ask that the Council suspend consideration of the adoption of pending Ordinance No. 3954, until the Planning Commission has been given the opportunity to consider and review, not only the lone version of the text of the proposed Ordinance that was previously submitted by Staff to the four members of the Commission, and so that the seven members of the Commission have also had the opportunity to consider the context of the proposed Ordinance, and to consider alternative steps that might be taken by the Council to comply with the pending requirements of recently enacted State Law.

So that the Council may be given the opportunity to review and consider taking this action, I ask that you, as a Member of the City Council, or another Member of the City Council, take whatever steps may be required to "pull Item No. 8B from the "Consent Calendar" and ask that Item No. 8B be considered separately by the Council.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck, Resident of the Hillside for 41 years. 1 PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 8B

Thank you.

Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck, Resident of the Hillside for 41 years. 2 8.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be pulled by a Councilmember from the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
8B.

SECOND AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3954
Name
G Joseph Buck
Comment 08/18/2025 08:36 AM : (No Vote)
Email received on Monday, August 18, 2025 at 7:46 AM from G. Joseph Buck.

Please see attached PDF.

Dear Council Mayor George Chen,
I send to you, for your review and consideration, my "Request to the Council", that the Council temporarily suspend its consideration of Item No. 8B in Council's Agenda for August 19, 2025. I have attached a copy of My Request to this email, identified as: "Request to the Council(1).pdf".

Please note that I am preparing and plan to deliver to each of the Council Members, prior to 4 p.m., local time on Monday, August 18, 2025, a more detailed description of the basis for my request that the Council suspend its consideration of Ordinance O3954.

Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck Resident of the Hillside for 41 years 3 Request to the Council
(8-18-25 - 7 a.m.)
The Community Development Department Staff, of the City of T orrance, recently approved two, different applications for permits to construct residential structures on properties located within the Hillside Overlay Zone, in the City of T orrance. Each of the permits will allow the construction of structures that rise to a height of two-stories, i.e. approximately 25 feet above ground, and that will be constructed on properties located within the Hillside Overlay Zone of the City of T orrance. In neither instance, did the application for the permit comply with the requirements for Approval of a Precise Plan of Development recited in Article 41 of the T orrance Municipal Code, namely Sections 91.41.5 and 91.41.6 of the T orrance Municipal Code. The respective properties are located at 22209 Susana Avenue, and at 139 Via Alameda, both of which properties are located within the Hillside Overlay Zone ("the Hillside").

Based on these approvals, an applicant for a permit to construct a multi- story high dwelling located in the Hillside, need only describe some portion of the proposed structure as comprising an ADU, in order to obtain, pursuant to "ministerial" processing a permit to construct a multi-story high residential structure on property located anywhere within the Hillside area of T orrance. The multi-story structure need not comply with any of the "subjective standards" that may still be recited in the current version of the T orrance Municipal Code.

If the City Council fails to take prompt, and effective, action to address the issues presented by the approvals described above, the City Council will have assured the imminent, and permanent destruction, forever, of the very special, "open and airy ambiance" that the residents of the Hillside have treasured and that, at least up to now, been able to enjoy.

For these reasons, I ask the Council to take any steps that may be required to give the Council sufficient time to allow its Members to carefully consider whether or not there are steps that the Council might take, and after due consideration, may decide to take, that could allow the Members of the Council to save from imminent and permanent destruction the very special attributes of the Hillside that have been protected and preserved, at least up to now, by the enforcement of the provisions of Article 41 of the T orrance Municipal Code.

Please note that I am preparing and plan to deliver to each of you, prior to 4 p.m., local time on Monday, August 18, 2025, a more detailed description of the basis for my request that the Council suspend its consideration of Ordinance O- 3954. By suspending such consideration, the Council may take full advantage of the fact that the Planning Commission is now, again, fully staffed with 7 Members, including the Chairman of the Commission, who has again been elected as Chairman of the Commission. The Council may consider whether or not, pursuant to Section 13.1.7 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION, to ask Page
1 of
2 4
the seven members of the Planning Commission to take whatever steps may be appropriate to allow the Planning Commission to carefully consider what, in any, steps that the Council could take to address these matters. By this means, the Council will be able to take advantage of the extensive experience that the Planning Commission has accumulated in addressing matters concerning the use and development of land in the City of T orrance.

Section 13.1.7 of the T orrance Municipal Code expressly provides, in subsections (a), (b) and (c) thereof that:
"(a) The Commission shall hold hearings, make recommendations to the City Council and perform all duties required by law. (b) The Commission may investigate, hld 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.
...."
Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck Resident of the Hillside for 41 years

Page
2 of
2 5

SECOND AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3954
Name
G. Joseph Buck
Comment 08/18/2025 02:41 PM : (No Vote)
Please accept as Public Comment, the documents that I have attached hereto: in as file identified as:

Public Comment to Item Number 8B of Council Agenda for August 19, 2025(1).pdf, and as the file identified as:

The Simple Answer to the Issues Raised by Agenda Item 8C (on appeal to the City Council).pdf.

Would you please confirm to me your receipt of these two documents for submission as Public Comment to Item Number 8B on the Council Agenda for August 19, 2025.

Please send your confirmation to me at email
address : “[email protected]”.

Please also confirm to me your receipt and acceptance of these two documents for posting on the internet, and for distribution to the Public at the Council Hearing on August 19, 2025.
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 Item Number 8B of Council Agenda for August 19, 2025(1)
I, G. Joseph Buck, a resident of the Hillside for 41 years, submit the within Public Comment to Item Number 8B of Council Agenda for August 19, 2025.

At the hearing of Item Number 9A on the Council Agenda for August 5, 2025, Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez, asked the Council to adopt an Ordinance amending the T orrance Municipal Code and attached a copy of the text of the Amended Ordinance submitted by Staff. Community Development Director Ramirez cited the Recommendation of the Planning Commission and of the Development Director as the basis for asking that the Council adopt the proposed Ordinance.

It is 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, by asking the four members of the Commission to "rubber stamp" its approval of Staff's proposed Ordinance. See Attachment 3 to Staff's "RECOMMENDATION" to the 4 members of the Planning 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 four members of the Planning Commission that:

"Failure to adopt the proposed changes would render the City's ADU ordinance null and void."
It is also my impression that the Community Development Director and Staff, at the Council hearing of Item No. 9A in the Council Agenda for August 5, 2025, asked the Council to "rubber stamp" the amendment that Staff had proposed to the 4 members of the Planning Commission on July 2, 2025, and that the Council did not examine, in any detail, the circumstances and bases upon 1 of
4 16
which the four members of the Planning Commission had issued its "recommendation".

It is my understanding that, as of January 1, 2026, State Law requires that the City of T orrance may not use "subjective standards" to decide whether to approve or deny an application for permit to construct an ADU or a JADU on property located within the City of T orrance and that the City of T orrance may use only "objective standards" for this purpose. It is also my understanding that Article 91.41.5 PRECISE PLAN and Article 91.41.6 PLANNING AND DESIGN of the T orrance Municipal Code ("TMC") recite, a set of "subjective standards", that as of January 1, 2026, State Law will not allow be used to decide whether to approve or deny an application for a permit for construct of an ADU or JADU within the HILLSIDE and COASTAL ZONE of the City of T orrance. However, it is also my understanding that Article 91.1.7 PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT -RESIDENTIAL, in sections a), b) and c) recites a set of "objective standards" that the State Law would allow to be used to permit or deny such applications. As far as I am aware, neither Staff, nor Community Development Department Director Ramirez, has ever discussed with the City Council nor with the Planning Commission, the risks and benefits of utilizing the provisions of Article 91.41.7 for this purpose. It is my understanding that such use of Article 91.41.7 would require that the Ordinance amending the TMC, also terminate the use of Article 91.41.5 and

91.41.6 for the purpose of regulating development within the Hillside Overlay Zone within the City of T orrance. Please note that, in order to comply with the height requirements stated in Gov Code Section 66321, the limitations stated in section 91.41.7(c) of the T orrance Municipal Code may have to be increased from 14 feet to 16 feet in height above the ground.

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. 8B on Council Agenda for August 19, 2025, 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 Hillside Overlay Zone of the City of T orrance. May I also suggest that the Council, in accord with the provisions of section 13.1.7 of the T orrance Municipal Code, ask the Commission to initiate and hold a public hearing for the purpose of investigating changes to the Ordinance that the Commission may then recommend that the Council make to TMC, prior to the end of the year.

May I also suggest that the Council ask the Commission to include in its recommendations to the Council, the Commission's analysis of any other alternative means for addressing these matters that the Commission believes merit consideration, together with the Commission's analysis of the risks and benefits of such alternatives.
2 of
4 17
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 matters that equal, or exceed, the amount of time that the Commission grants to the Staff for Staff's presentations on these matters.

In 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 such application for a construction permit, thus giving residents of the City, (as well as residents of the Hillside Overlay Zone), notice of such filings. Following receipt of such notice, an interested resident might then, if warranted, utilize the California Public Records Act to examine the processing of such applications by City Staff. The residents may then have the opportunity to confirm that the pending issue of any such permit complies with the ministerial provisions of the TMC applicable to such construction. (Please note that I do not suggest that such residents of the City be given any power to approve, or to disapprove, of the grant of any such permit, but that they might, by these means, 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. For this purpose, may I also suggest that the hearing conducted by the Planning Commission might also consider whether or not to require that any such applicant for a building permit must submit to Staff massing diagrams for any such proposed construction, copies of which massing diagrams residents could then obtain without risking infringement of any copyright that the applicant might otherwise claim to hold in underlying depictions of the proposed construction. If the City of T orrance omits any requirement of such notice to owners of nearby properties, then any such interested parties would be forced, again and again, to file public records' Act requests for the purpose of learning whether or not any such applications have been filed with the City asking for the issue of building permits on nearby properties.

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":
1 Item No. 9B on Council Agenda for June 17, 2025
3 of
4 18
"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 City Council takes prompt action to address the issues raised in this matter, i.e. 8B, 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, a portion thereof, that the Developer has decided to describe as comprising 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 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.

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

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. 4 of
4 19

SECOND AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3954
Name
G. Joseph Buck
Comment 08/18/2025 03:51 PM : (No Vote)
Please confirm receipt and posting of the attached file identified as “Request to the Council(1).pdf”
Please confirm via email addressed to: [email protected] 20 Request to the Council
(8-18-25 - 7 a.m.)
The Community Development Department Staff, of the City of T orrance, recently approved two, different applications for permits to construct residential structures on properties located within the Hillside Overlay Zone, in the City of T orrance. Each of the permits will allow the construction of structures that rise to a height of two-stories, i.e. approximately 25 feet above ground, and that will be constructed on properties located within the Hillside Overlay Zone of the City of T orrance. In neither instance, did the application for the permit comply with the requirements for Approval of a Precise Plan of Development recited in Article 41 of the T orrance Municipal Code, namely Sections 91.41.5 and 91.41.6 of the T orrance Municipal Code. The respective properties are located at 22209 Susana Avenue, and at 139 Via Alameda, both of which properties are located within the Hillside Overlay Zone ("the Hillside").

Please note that I am preparing and plan to deliver to each of you, prior to 4 p.m., local time on Monday, August 18, 2025, a more detailed description of the basis for my request that the Council suspend its consideration of Ordinance O- 3954. By suspending such consideration, the Council may take full advantage of the fact that the Planning Commission is now, again, fully staffed with 7 Members, including the Chairman of the Commission, who has again been elected as Chairman of the Commission. The Council may consider whether or not, pursuant to Section 13.1.7 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION, to ask Page
1 of
2 21
the seven members of the Planning Commission to take whatever steps may be appropriate to allow the Planning Commission to carefully consider what, in any, steps that the Council could take to address these matters. By this means, the Council will be able to take advantage of the extensive experience that the Planning Commission has accumulated in addressing matters concerning the use and development of land in the City of T orrance.

Page
2 of
2 22

Torrance City CouncilAugust 19, 2025

Torrance City Council
August 19, 2025