Public Comment Report - Agenda Item 9A — Torrance City Council, March 24, 2026

9. HEARINGS
9A.

Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt RESOLUTION to Uphold the Appeal and for the Approval of a Minor Hillside Exemption (MHE2400037) to allow an asbuilt rear yard deck on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the SingleFamily Residential District (R1) Zone at 5608 White Court and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.

Name
Decline To State
Comment 03/21/2026 08:58 AM : (Against)
Dear City Council Members:

This comment is regarding MHE2400037 MIKE BOOSLER (SHUJI AND LORI YAMADA). I am appalled to hear that the owners of 5608 White Court are being allowed to proceed with building their unpermitted oversized deck. As a neighbor to those residents severely impacted by the deck and a longtime resident of this area, I find it distressing that these residentsfor reasons unknown to myself and other concerned neighborsare somehow not subject to the Hillside Overlay regulations that the rest of us have to follow. I don't like the precedent that this sets for future construction projects that might adversely impact people's privacy. Even more important, it concerns me that this deck was constructed without having the city's planning professionals involved in reviewing the drawings. How can residents be sure that there aren't any safety issues with the deck, especially considering the sloping land underneath it? Again, allowing this unpermitted construction could encourage similar actions by others, potentially compounding safety risks in the neighborhood. I strongly advise you to rule against allowing this structure to stand. Thank you for your time and consideration. 1 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT -
AGENDA ITEM 9A

9. HEARINGS
9A.

Name
Scott Prince
Comment 03/22/2026 01:18 PM : (No Vote)
Public comment.

In regards to Mike Boosler (Shuji and Lori Yamada) aforementioned hillside deck being constructed without permit. I reside at 20518 Wayne Ave. Although the front of my house is in line of sight of the hillside deck. I have no issues with privacy.

I merely support their unhappiness with lack of privacy and water pooling in their backyard when it rains, do to poor hillside drainage because of the hillside deck. I believe if proper permitting was sought by the home owner. Adequate environmental concerns would of been addressed and possibly a scaled back version (23 feet) could have resulted. Appeasing all parties involved.

Shortcuts are enticing in construction projects obviously for money savings. But City regulations should prevail to avert any issues like this, that now stand before the City Council.

Thank you for your time.

Scott Prince
2 9.

HEARINGS
9A.

Name
Ellen Chuan
Comment 03/23/2026 07:28 AM : (Against)
Honorable City Council Members,
My name is Ellen. I am a real estate agent, I manage the property at 20527 Wayne Ave.

The renter complaint many times that, if it were not the wife’s serious back problem and two upcoming surgeries, they would have already moved out. That oversized deck looks directly into their home, even into the master bathroom.

Because of her condition, she cannot move quickly, even when she realizes someone is on the deck. She is left feeling constantly exposed and helpless. This has caused her tremendous mental stress.

This home used to offer privacy. Now, that privacy is completely gone. As you may have seen from the beforeandafter pictures.

I don’t know how I could rent this house again if the current tenant decided to move out. No one wants to live in a house without privacy, especially knowing the deck is unpermitted, may pose safety risks, and has already caused flooding.

I have been selling houses in the area for more than 36 years. This oversized unpermitted deck has significantly reduced the home value. It is unfair to the owners on Wayne Street.

Moving the deck backed 2 feet would still leave a 22foot deck for 5608 White Court.

Those "2 feet" mean very little to them, but a great deal to residents on Wayne, they would restore some privacy.

I sincerely hope you can understand and feel the pain, the stress, the loss of privacy and property value for those residents and homeowners on Waynne Street who are suffering due to the oversized deck. They deserve the privacy, basic fairness and values protected by the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.

Thank you!
3 9.

HEARINGS
9A.

Name
Ellen Chuan
Comment 03/23/2026 07:33 AM : (Against)
MHE2400037 MIKE BOOSLER (SHUJI AND LORI YAMADA)
Honorable City Council Members,
My name is Ellen. I am a real estate agent, I manage the property at 20527 Wayne Ave.

Because of her condition, she cannot move quickly, even when she realizes someone is on the deck. She is left feeling constantly exposed and helpless. This has caused her tremendous mental stress.

This home used to offer privacy. Now, that privacy is completely gone. As you may have seen from the beforeandafter pictures.

I have been selling houses in the area for more than 36 years. This oversized unpermitted deck has significantly reduced the home value. It is unfair to the owners on Wayne Street.

Moving the deck backed 2 feet would still leave a 22foot deck for 5608 White Court.

Those "2 feet" mean very little to them, but a great deal to residents on Wayne, they would restore some privacy.

Thank you!
4 9.

HEARINGS
9A.

Name
xuan ling zhang
Comment 03/23/2026 08:30 AM : (Against)
MHE2400037 MIKE BOOSLER (SHUJI AND LORI YAMADA)
Planning department changes the prior conclusion
without any transparency or factual basis.

Nothing about the topography or circumstance has
changed—only the conclusion, which makes no sense.

The new conclusion is deeply unfair for downslope
residents. We call for broader, independent and a
thorough investigation of the facts.
5 9.

HEARINGS
9A.

Name
Gongqin Shen
Comment 03/23/2026 08:43 AM : (Against)
Regarding: MHE2400037 MIKE BOOSLER (SHUJI AND LORI YAMADA)” I respectfully but strongly request that the appeal be denied. Our family is planning to move to Torrance from Acadia because
all the great things Torrance has.

But we’re feeling uncertain now. Last week, while touring a house, we saw a city hearing notice and learned the story. The owner of the massive deck refused to comply with the previous hearing’s ruling to reduce its size for the neighbors’ privacy and instead escalated to a full City hearing. Shockingly, planning department reversed their own prior decision to side with the deck owner.

We can’t understand how things have gone so wrong: This deck doesn’t even meet basic requirements—no permit, no safety guarantee, and it violates the Hillside Overlay. Yet the owner is so determined to keep it as is.

Our real estate agent, who has long farmed in this area, was visibly shaken and told us all local agents are watching this
case—they’ve nicknamed it “Decked Out.” If the deck stays as is, the Hillside Overlay rules in Torrance will be effectively meaningless, and many homes could lose value.

We don’t want to accidentally buy a home in Torrance facing the same issues as Wayne residents, so we read the “Decked Out” agenda carefully, and found the planning department’s new conclusion is, with all due respect: biased.

Arguing that reducing the deck is an “unreasonable hardship” completely violates our sense of fairness. Can rules really be
followed selectively?
Besides, the new conclusion relies heavily on assumptions, but for Wayne residents, it’s their real, daily life. My wife is a medical physicist and I work in hightech with PhD degrees; we deeply respect and follow the rules. We hope to live in a city that enforces its laws consistently, protecting the values we hold most: lawfulness and fairness.

Thank you!
6 9.

HEARINGS
9A.

Name
Laney Wang
Comment 03/23/2026 09:05 AM : (Against)
MHE2400037 MIKE BOOSLER (SHUJI AND LORI

YAMADA)
Planning department changes the prior conclusion without any transparency or factual basis.

Nothing about the topography or circumstance has changed—only the conclusion, which makes no sense.

The new conclusion is deeply unfair for downslope residents. We call for broader, independent and a thorough investigation of the facts. 7 9.

HEARINGS
9A.

Name
Tony Chuan
Comment 03/23/2026 10:18 AM : (Against)
It is wrong for: MHE2400037 MIKE BOOSLER (SHUJI AND LORI YAMADA), and staff to deceptively depict an unpermitted obtrusive addition and not an invasion of privacy. Uneighborly.
8 9. HEARINGS
9A.Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt RESOLUTION to Uphold the Appeal and for the Approval of a Minor Hillside Exemption (MHE2400037) to allow an asbuilt rear yard deck on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the SingleFamily Residential District (R1) Zone at 5608 White Court and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.

Name
Michael Hedden
Comment 03/23/2026 10:19 AM : (No Vote)
REF: MHE2400037 Mike Boosler (Shuji and Lori Yamada)
To the Honorable Mayor Chen and Members of the City Council, The neighbors at 5608 White Court are good, likeable people and have made a great effort seeking a resolution to this issue. It is unfortunate they received substandard guidance from the hired contractor.

I also have great respect for the Torrance Planning Staffers. As I understand it, the current planning staff has reversed a previous planning staffers earlier decision. Additionally, it requests a reversal of the Planning Commission's original, unanimous decision. If the Torrance City Council agrees, then owners in the hillside overlay should have valid claim to ignore the Hillside Overlay Ordinance, build, then request exemption approval based upon the facts of this case.

All of this predicated upon a second, post Planning Commission decision field visit that made the following conclusion:

From Agenda Item 9a, under conclusion:

Although the properties along Wayne Avenue can be viewed downward from the rear edge of the deck, those properties are located at the bottom of the hillside area and not observed directly on the horizon within the natural field of view.

This unique conclusion becomes the core justification the planning staff is using to overturn both the previous planning staff opinions and the Planning Commission unanimous decision. However, it ignores vision science. The human eye's natural central vision angular field of view is not limited to 5 or 10 degrees within the horizon. It has a natural 60 degree cone (30 degrees upwards and 30 degrees downward), with the lower peripheral extending an additional 45 degrees downward. Conservatively, it is only a 20degree downward angle from the horizons "natural field of view" which allows a direct view into Wayne Ave homes bedrooms, bathrooms and living rooms and resides well within the natural central vision field of view. Additionally, the conclusion remains in conflict with the cornerstone tenet of the Hillside Overlay Ordinance and "causes a substantial adverse impact on the view, light, air, privacy of properties in the vicinity".

Respectfully submitted,
Owner
20521 Wayne Ave
Torrance, CA 90503
9 9. HEARINGS
9A.Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt RESOLUTION to Uphold the Appeal and for the Approval of a Minor Hillside Exemption (MHE2400037) to allow an asbuilt rear yard deck on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the SingleFamily Residential District (R1) Zone at 5608 White Court and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.

All of this predicated upon a second, post Planning Commission decision field visit that made the following conclusion:

From Agenda Item 9a, under conclusion:

Respectfully submitted,
Owner
20521 Wayne Ave
Torrance, CA 90503
10 1
Oorts, Leo
From: Michael Hedden
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2026 8:05 PM
To: CDD Info
Subject: Public Comment
REF: MHE24-00037 Mike Boosler (Shuji and Lori Yamada)

To the Honorable Mayor Chen and Members of the City Council,

The neighbors at 5608 White Court are good, likeable people and have made a great effort seeking a resolution to this issue. It is unfortunate they received substandard guidance from the hired contractor.

All of this predicated upon a second, post Planning Commission decision field visit that made the following conclusion:

From Agenda Item 9a, under conclusion:

This unique conclusion becomes the core justification the planning staff is using to overturn both the previous planning staff opinions and the Planning Commission unanimous decision. However, it ignores vision science. The human eye's natural central vision angular field of view is not limited to 5 or 10 degrees within the horizon. It has a natural 60 degree cone (30 degrees upwards and 30 degrees downward), with the lower peripheral extending an additional 45 degrees downward. Conservatively, it is only a 20-degree downward angle from the horizons "natural field of view" which allows a direct view into Wayne Ave homes bedrooms, bathrooms and living rooms and resides well within the natural central vision field of view. Additionally, the conclusion remains in conflict with the cornerstone tenet of the Hillside Overlay Ordinance and "causes a substantial adverse impact on the view, light, air, privacy of properties in the vicinity".

Respectfully submitted,

Owner

Torrance, CA 90503
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 11 9. HEARINGS
9A.Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt RESOLUTION to Uphold the Appeal and for the Approval of a Minor Hillside Exemption (MHE2400037) to allow an asbuilt rear yard deck on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the SingleFamily Residential District (R1) Zone at 5608 White Court and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.

Name
Kirsty Lyu
Comment 03/23/2026 10:43 AM : (Against)
MHE2400037 MIKE BOOSLER (SHUJI AND LORI

YAMADA)
Honorable City Council Members,
We live just a few steps from Wayne Ave.

I respectfully but strongly request that the
appeal be denied .

This deck hearing has become a highly visible
issue across the community, everyone is
watching the outcome.

At first, we wanted to stay out of this. But we
learned from a neighbor that another home was
remodeled without a permit. When we talked
what would happen if Community Development
found out, he said, ‘I’m sure he’ll get away with it
—look at that oversized deck. No permit, no fine,
and now the owner asks the City to keep it as is. ’
We realized neighbors are now using this
unpermitted oversized deck as a precedent to
challenge city rules.

The last Planning Committee hearing already
ruled that the deck owner could keep most of
the deck, but had to remove a small portion
because it clearly violates the Hillside Overlay.

Instead of fixing this, the owner now demands to
keep it as is because the required correction is
an “hardship.”
We are astonished. Essentially saying: I broke
the rules, I’ll keep breaking them because I don’t
want to pay, let downslope neighbors suffer, and
make taxpayers bear the cost of using public
resources for another hearing.

Unfairly, rule followers are suffered, while the
rule breaker acts freely.

We feel deeply for the Wayne neighbors. It
pains us to see them being bullied by the rule
breaker.

This hearing is a turning point. Letting this
oversized deck stay as is would render Hillside
Overlay powerless and invite more rule
breakers.

As mentioned: everyone is watching the
outcome.

We understand Torrance faces pressure from
the state to add more housing, the city may
need to compromise the Hillside Overlay in
some cases. But here, the deck is for leisure,
not housing—while Wayne neighbors’ housing is
being violated.

Who matters more: leisure or daily life?
Another claim in the new report ‘no substantial
adverse impact to privacy.’ Anyone living
downslope knows that is simply not true.

We respectfully ask the City to act with integrity
—and may God bless us all.
12 9. HEARINGS
9A.Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt RESOLUTION to Uphold the Appeal and for the Approval of a Minor Hillside Exemption (MHE2400037) to allow an asbuilt rear yard deck on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the SingleFamily Residential District (R1) Zone at 5608 White Court and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.