9A
Date: August 11, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director
By: Austin Lujan, Planning Assistant | [email protected] Subject: Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning Commission’s Denial of Minor Hillside Exemption (MHE25-00051) to Allow a Proposed 694 Square Foot Attached Garage Located on the North Side of an Existing One-Story Single-Family Residence, on Property Located within the Hillside Overlay (R-H) in the Single Family Residential District (R-1) Zone at 439 Via Linda Vista; (APN 7514-012-028), Adopt RESOLUTION and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of the Planning Commission and Community Development Director that City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing; and
2. Determine a Categorical Exemption for the project in accordance with Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Article 19, Section 15301 – Existing Facilities; and
3. Approve a Minor Hillside Exemption (MHE25-00051) for a proposed 694 square foot attached garage located on the north side of an existing one-story single-family residence, on property located within the Hillside Overlay (R-H) in the Single-Family Residential District (R-1) Zone at 439 Via Linda Vista; and
4. Adopt RESOLUTION to approve a Minor Hillside Exemption (MHE25-00051) for a proposed 694 square foot attached garage located on the north side of an existing one- story single-family residence, on property located within the Hillside Overlay (R-H) in the Single-Family Residential District (R-1) Zone at 439 Via Linda Vista.
FUNDING
None required.
DISCUSSION
The project applicant, Binh Wong (Samuel and Maria Gong), requests approval of MHE25-00051 to allow a new 694 square foot attached garage on the north side of the residence on property located within the Hillside Overlay (R-H) in the R-1 Zone. The applicant proposes to demolish their 401’-6” existing attached garage and construct an attached 694 square foot attached garage.
Staff acknowledges that an attached second story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is also 1 City Council
July 14, 2026
proposed, however, it is not subject to discretionary review. The development standards of the R- 1 Zone as well as the Hillside Overlay (R-H) are applicable to the project.
Analysis
The development standards of the R-1 Zone as well as the planning and design provisions of the Hillside Overlay (R-H) are applicable to the project, and therefore require discretionary review and approval of the following entitlements:
Minor Hillside Exemption to allow an addition in the Hillside Overlay (R-H) Background
On January 21, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed residential project. During the hearing, the applicant presented an overview of the project; however, Commissioners expressed concern that the plans appeared incomplete, noting the absence of updated renderings and a standalone roof plan for the garage. Commissioners also highlighted the difficulty of evaluating the project while being instructed not to consider the separately proposed ADU. Following public testimony and deliberation, the Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to deny the project, identifying findings E, F, G, H, I, and J, as not being met and that the project lacked sufficient information and advised the applicant to revise the project.
City Council Appeal
The appellants challenge the Planning Commission’s denial of the proposed 694 square ‑ foot attached garage. They assert that the project includes a sufficient roof plan, is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and does not create adverse view, light, air, or privacy impacts.
These issues were outlined in the appeal submitted to the City Clerk’s Office on March 3, 2026 (Attachment 4).
1. Roof Plan
During the January 21, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners noted that the submitted project plans did not include a roof plan. The appellants clarify that a roof plan was included in the original submittal, specifically on page three of the provided plans and within the general notes. The appellants state that the plan satisfies all applicable R ‑ 1 development standards.
2. Neighborhood Compatibility
The appellants state that the proposed garage meets or exceeds all height and setback requirements. They argue that the structure will not result in adverse view, light, air, or privacy impacts on adjacent properties and cite the staff report and photographic evidence to support their position. Based on staff’s review, the proposed garage remains consistent with standard development patterns in the surrounding Hillside Overlay (R-H) area.
3. Consideration of the ADU
The appellants state that the Planning Commission’s denial was influenced by references to a proposed ADU that was not part of the scope of work before the Commission. They assert that the ADU was not under consideration and therefore should not have factored into the decision.
Staff concurs that the ADU is outside the scope of the Minor Hillside Exemption request. 2 City Council
July 14, 2026
4. Compliance With State Housing Laws
The homeowners also provide context regarding potential alternatives for the ADU should the garage not be approved. While this information is not directly related to the Minor Hillside Exemption, it demonstrates the applicants’ potential plan if the Minor Hillside Exemption were to be denied.
In conclusion, staff finds that the appellants, Samuel and Maria Gong, provide a thorough and defensible justification for the proposed garage. The project meets all R ‑ 1 development standards and does not present identifiable impacts to views, privacy, light, or air. The ADU referenced during Commission deliberations is not part of the current entitlement request and should not be considered in evaluating the garage proposal. Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal and approve the Minor Hillside Exemption for the proposed attached garage at 439 Via Linda Vista.
General Plan Land Use Designation
The site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential (R-LO).
Development in the R-LO land use designation is characterized generally by detached one and two-story single-family residences on individual lots forming a cohesive neighborhood. The proposed one and two-story additions to an existing single-family residence are consistent with the land use designation. The existing residence is consistent with the R-LO designation. The proposed new attached garage is allowed with the approval of an MHE.
Zoning Designation and Adjacent Land Uses
The project site is designated as R-1 Zone. The subject property is surrounded by the following land uses and zoning designations, summarized below.
NORTH: R-1 Hillside Overlay (R-H), One-Story Single-Family Residences EAST: R-1 Hillside Overlay (R-H), One and Two-Story Single-Family Residences SOUTH: R-1 Hillside Overlay (R-H), One -Story Single-Family Residences WEST: R-1 Hillside Overlay (R-H), One-Story Single-Family Residences Project Site
The subject property is situated on a trapezoidal shape lot measuring 6,736 square feet. The property is orientated towards the west, on the northeast side of Via Linda Vista. The property slopes up from the sidewalk with a relatively flat building pad, then continues to slope up in the rear. Via Linda Vista slopes north to south, with the building pad of the adjacent residences situated considerably above and below the subject property. The residences that abut the rear along Via Los Miradores and Calle Cabrillo are situated significantly higher than the subject property.
Building Setbacks
The proposed addition is located along the north side of the residence and will have a front yard setback of 20’, a side yard setback of 5’-8”, and a rear yard setback of 15’, all which meet or exceed the minimum code required setbacks of the R-1 Zone. 3 City Council
July 14, 2026
Building Height
The proposed attached garage measures 10’-½” feet in height and is well below the allowable height to qualify for the MHE. No changes are proposed to the overall roof height of the existing residence. Staff notes for properties located within the Hillside Overlay (R-H); new construction is allowed up to 14’ in height with the approval of the Community Development Director.
Building Floor Plan
The proposed attached garage will measure at 694 square feet. The garage will be attached to north side of the main residence with the garage door facing west. The remainder of the single- family residence will remain as existing.
Statistical Information
Lot Area 6,719 square feet
Existing Residence 1,891 square feet
Proposed Lot Coverage 40%
Proposed Floor Area Ratio 41%
Proposed Garage 694 square feet 694 square feet
Hillside Overlay
On August 29th, 2025, staff send out notification letters to the immediate surrounding neighbors of 439 Via Linda Vista. Staff received four individual letters of correspondence.
In the Hillside Overlay (R-H), residential development is permitted with the approval of the Community Development Director provided the requirements listed in Section 91.41.7 of the Torrance Municipal Code are met. To determine the proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact on the view, light, air, and privacy of properties in the vicinity, and there is no significant public controversy thereon, notices were mailed on August 29, 2025, to the registered address of the adjacent property owners at 435, 436, 440, and 441 Via Linda Vista, 126 Calle Cabrillo, and 130 Via Los Miradores. (Attachment 2). The notices provide a brief project description, contact information, and availability to review the project plans and comment period.
In response to the notice, four comment letters were received from the adjacent properties to the north and east, that expressed concerns regarding potential view and privacy impacts from the proposed attached garage (Attachment 3). The neighbors described the potential build creating a domino effect within the area and diminish the charm and character of the neighborhood. The letters of correspondence mention the creation of an ADU; however, staff notes that Minor Hillside Exemption process does not pertain to ADU’s as they are exempt from discretionary review per State law.
In the judgement of staff, the proposed attached garage will not have an adverse view impact as the adjacent neighbors to the east sit significantly higher than the subject property. Additionally, the neighbor to the north will also not have adverse privacy impacts as the proposed attached garage has vegetation along the property line, which provides privacy for the two properties. 4 City Council
July 14, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
Environmental Determination
In residential zones, additions to a one-story single-family residence is Categorically Exempt by the Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA; Article 19, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Minor Hillside Exemption Letters
3. Correspondence & Appeal from Neighbors
4. January 21st, 2026, Minutes
5. Appeal from Homeowners
6. Location & Zoning Map
7. Plans
8. Proof of Publication
5 RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026- ###
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR HILLSIDE
EXEMPTION AS PROVIDED FOR IN DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 1,
ARTICLE 41 OF THE TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A
PROPOSED 694 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING ONE-
STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, ON PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY IN THE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-1) ZONE AT 439 VIA LINDA VISTA.
MHE25-00051: BINH WONG (SAMUEL & MARIA GONG)
WHEREAS, an application was filed on August 18, 2025, by Binh Wong (Samuel and Maria Gong) for consideration by the Community Development Director of a Minor Hillside Exemption permit (MHE25-00051) for a proposed 694 square foot attached garage located on the north side of an existing one-story single-family residence, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the Single Family Residential District (R-1) Zone at 439 Via Linda Vista; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director approved MHE25-00051 on November 3, 2025; and
WHEREAS, an appeal to the Planning Commission was filed on November 13, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 8, 2026, to consider an appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval of MHE25-00051; and
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 2026, a motion to uphold the appeal and denying without prejudice of MHE25-00051, passed by a call vote of 7 to 0; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission meeting of February 18 th, 2026, a motion to deny the project without prejudice by a roll call to vote of 7 to 0; and:
WHEREAS, an appeal to the City Council was filed on March 3rd, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Torrance conducted a public hearing on July 14, 2026, to consider an application filed by Binh Wong (Samuel and Maria Gong) for consideration by the Community Development Director of MHE25-00051 for a proposed 694 square foot attached garage located on the north side of an existing one-story single-family residence; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2026, the City Council of the City of Torrance by roll call vote upheld the appeal and approved the subject request; and
WHEREAS, due and legal publication of notice was given to owners of property in the vicinity thereof and due and legal hearings have been held, all in accordance with provisions of Division 9 Chapter 1, Article 41 of the Torrance Municipal Code (TMC); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the Torrance does hereby find and determine as follows:
a) That the property is located at 439 Via Linda Vista (APN 7514-012-028); 6 ATTACHMENT 1
b) That the property is described as Lot 28 of Tract 10302 as per map recorded in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, State of California;
c) That in residential zones, additions to a single-family residence are Categorically Exemption by the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Article 19, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
d) That the proposed garage as conditioned, complies with the objective development standards of the R-1 Zone and is consistent with the Low Density Residential (R-LO) designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Torrance; e) That the proposed garage, as conditioned, will not have a substantial adverse impact upon the view, light, air, and privacy of other properties in the vicinity; f) That the proposed garage, as presented, 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; g) That the architectural design of the proposed garage will provide an orderly and attractive development in harmony with other properties in the vicinity; h) That the design of the proposed garage will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investments of other properties in the vicinity because the proposed residence will be constructed of high-quality materials that will enhance the existing property; i) That granting such application as conditioned, would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity because the existing single-family residence is an appropriate use for this property and the proposed attached garage, as conditioned, has been designed so a s to limit potential adverse impacts to view, light, air, and privacy; j) That the proposed garage would not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity;
INTRODUCED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Torrance held on the 11th day of August 2026.
_______________________________
Mayor Sharon Kalani
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patrick Q. Sullivan, City Attorney ATTEST:
________________________________ ______________________________ Tatia Y. Strader, Assistant City Attorney Rebecca Poirier, MMC, City Clerk
7 8
ATTACHMENT 2
9 10
11 12
13 14
ATTACHMENT 3
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
INDEX
TORRANCE PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 21, 2026
SUBJECT PAGE
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. Call to Order/ Roll Call 1
2. Flag Salute 1
3. Posting of the Agenda 1
4. Withdrawn, Deferred, and/ or Supplemental Items 1
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
6. CONSENT CALENDAR 1
6A. Minutes: December 3, 2025 1
7. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2
7A. None 2
8. HEARINGS 2
8A. CUP25- 00022: Topway Archi Design Construction Inc. ( Great T101 LLC) 2-4 8B. MHE25- 00051: Binh Wong ( Samuel and Maria Gong) 4-13
9. RESOLUTIONS 13
None 13
10. COMMISSION AND STAFF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 13-14
11. ADJOURNMENT 14
Adjourned at 9:50 PM to Wednesday, February 4, at 6:30 PM in the LeRoy J.
Jackson Council Chamber 3031 Torrance Boulevard.
January 21, 2026
54 ATTACHMENT 4
1 Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
TORRANCE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Torrance Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:30 PM on Wednesday, January 21, 2026 in the LeRoy J. Jackson Council Chamber 3031 Torrance Boulevard
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Anunson, Borgialli, Obejas, Riggs, Turner, Yeh, and Chair Kartsonis
Absent: None
Also Present: Planning Manager Robert Garcia, Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez, Planning Associate Yolanda
Gomez, Planning Assistant Austin Lujan, Senior Planner Leo Oorts, Senior Fire Prevention Specialist Christoper Rhodes, Building and Safety, Engineering Division Rigo Torres, and City Attorney Patrick Sullivan.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Obejas
3. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ON THE POSTING
OF THE AGENDA
Planning Manager Garcia stated that the agenda was posted on the Public Notice Board at 3031 Torrance Boulevard and on the City’s Website on Thursday, January 15, 2026.
4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF WITHDRAWN, DEFERRED, AND/ OR SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS
Planning Manager Garcia reported the following Supplemental Items:
Correspondence received after the posting of the agenda and a copy of the appeal that was submitted on November 3rd, 2025.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Member of the public – did not state name.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 3, 2025
MOTION: Commissioner Turner motioned to approve the minutes of December 3, 2025. Commissioner Yeh seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected a 7 -0 approval.
55 2
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
7. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
None
8. HEARINGS
8A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CUP25- 00022: TOPWAY ARCHI DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION INC. ( GREAT T101 LLC)
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit CUP25- 00022) to allow the operation of an arcade on property located in the General Commercial District ( C-2) Zone at 17405 Crenshaw Boulevard. This project is Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. ( Res. No. 2026- 001) Recommendation: Approval
Planning Associate Gomez introduced and presented item 8A.
Andrew Kuo, applicant representative, gave a brief presentation regarding the project.
No members of the public spoke.
Commissioner Riggs –
Requested clarification on the “ Claw game” concept. Applicant’s representative stated it’s similar to a traditional claw game but commonly used for snacks/ items and is intended to be skill based. Games of this nature are common in Taiwan.
Questioned setbacks/ distance of the business to residential area; staff stated if they had to approximate, it would be about 60 ft from the property line of the residential area and noted the space is as far east in the center as it can be.
Asked if the space would be rented for private parties; applicant stated no , they would not be renting out the venue.
Concerned for residents in the area; that the business could add possible noise factors and this would impact the neighbors. Community Development Director Ramirez acknowledged the concerns and reiterated Planning Associate Gomez’s statements that conditions exist to protect residents; Code Enforcement typically works until 9:00 PM, Monday through Sunday, but if issues occur between 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM, she can arrange extended enforcement and escalate ( discuss conditions with applicant, potentially issue citations for violations of conditions or municipal code).
Chair Kartsonis – stated he visited the location and will base his decision on evidence presented
56 3
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
Chair noted the narrative referenced 11:00 AM to 11:00 PM as operational hours, but didn’t notice a condition. Staff confirmed no hour’s condition was included because they didn’t anticipate unusual impacts; staff said the Commission could add one if desired.
Chair made applicant aware and asked applicant to confirm they understood Condition # 14 requiring coordination with Planning Department approximately 4 weeks ahead for promotional events that could raise occupancy and might require a temporary parking lot event permit.
Asked the applicant if they would object to placing a condition on the approval that the business would not operate outside the hours of 11:00AM to 11:00 PM; applicant stated no.
Commissioner Borgialli –
Questioned if tokens were purchased on site; applicant explained there is a token exchange machine and one can also purchase tokens at the counter and token purchases can made with cash or card.
Explained he had a concern that visible cash can invite crime and asked how cash would be dropped to the bank ( self vs armored car), referencing the business plan’s daily revenue assumption. City Attorney Sullivan explained that security and cash- drop procedures aren’t within Planning Commission’ s purview for CUP ( Conditional Use Permit) conditions and would be handled through police/ security channels.
Commissioner Yeh – disclosed he grew up in the area and his parents still live in the area.
Stated he had a concern with the 11:00 PM closing time in an area that is in close proximity to a residential area; stating 11:00 PM is later than most businesses close in this area. Planning Associate Gomez stated staff did not have any initial concerns and 11:00 PM is a normal business hour to close, and stated there is a condition of approval that requires the doors to remain closed at all times. It was also mentioned the Environmental Division has asked for a noise review prior to their Building Permit issuance.
Questioned what the parking requirements for this business are; Planning Associate Gomez stated 14 spaces are required for the arcade, the center is required to have 34 spaces, however, the center is overparked, because there are actually 40 spaces in the center overall.
Questioned if the business was allowed to host birthday parties inside the venue; Planning Associate Gomez stated a condition of approval was added that states if events exceed a normal operating business for an arcade that the business would need to apply for a temporary parking lot event permit and also stated birthday parties weren’t in the applicant’s described scope and therefore weren’t analyzed; if they did private events, the City would need details like scope/ size and whether it would be closed to the public, to assess parking impacts.
In response to question about capacity, Building and Safety, Engineering division staff stated the building cover sheet included occupant load 57 4
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
calculations up to 100 people and staff responded some patrons would arrive by walking/ bike/ scooter/ bus or being dropped off, so staff didn’t expect it to be a parking issue on a normal basis.
Commissioner Obejas -
Questioned if the CUP ( Conditional Use Permit) stays with the business e.g., if another bank opened there, no new CUP would be needed); Planning Associate Gomez stated that’s correct.
Questioned if the business would be classified entertainment or retail; staff stated it’s considered indoor entertainment ( though the parking rate is handled under retail/ service category) and requires a CUP ( Conditional Use Permit) due to the machine count/ arcade characteristics.
MOTION: Commissioner Turner moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Obejas seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 7-0 approval.
Commission discussed further; Chair Kartsonis initially wanted to add an hour’s condition ( 11:00 AM to 11:00 PM). Planning Associate Gomez added that if complaints arise later ( e.g., patrons there until midnight), the City could address it further by bringing it back to the Commission, modifying conditions and/ or other remedies. Commissioner Obejas ultimately said he would not favor adding an hour’s condition; stating he doesn’t see evidence of a problem.
MOTION: Commissioner Obejas moved to approve CUP25- 00022. Commissioner Turner seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 7-0 approval.
Planning Associate Gomez read by title only Resolution No. 2026 -001; A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance, California, approving a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 1 of the Torrance Municipal Code to allow the operation of an arcade on property located in the General Commercial C-2) Zone at 17405 Crenshaw Boulevard.
MOTION: Commissioner Obejas move to adopt Resolution No. 2026- 001.
Commissioner Turner seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 7-0 adoption. 8B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MHE25- 00051: BINH WONG ( SAMUEL AND
MARIA GONG)
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider denial of the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director’s approval of MHE25- 00051, for approval to allow a new attached 694 square foot garage on the north side of the residence on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the Single Family Residential ( R-1) Zone at 439 Via Linda Vista. This project is Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. ( Res. No. 2026- 002) Recommendation: Approval
Planning Assistant Lujan introduced and presented item 8B. 58 5
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
Recessed at 7:09 PM to clarify the time and order for presenting the item.
Reconvened at 7:18 PM
Roll Call vote reflected 7-0, all Commissioners present.
Chair Kartsonis stated the guidelines for presenting from the appellants and applicant; appellants 10 minutes, applicants 10 minutes and a final 5 minutes rebuttal from the appellants.
Appellants; Michael Wachtfogel and Jennifer Adams gave a brief presentation stating the reasons for the appeal on behalf of 5 appellants.
Applicant Sam Gong and project architect Binh Wong gave a brief presentation.
Chair Kartsonis stated he had met the applicant, Sam Gong, approximately 15 years ago and asked City Attorney Sullivan if this would be a conflict of interest. City Attorney indicated recusal was not required if the Chair could be fair. Chair Kartsonis stated he would remain impartial.
Members of the public spoke;
John Sabel
Brian Urquhart
Patty La Grelius
Steve Olson
Brad Baker
Unknown speaker ( did not state his name)
Elizabeth Spatz
Deborah Geering
Kathryn Dunican
Theresa Rankin
Appellants Michael Wachtfogel, Jennifer Adams and Diane Risillo gave final remarks on behalf of the appellants.
Commissioners asked the questions below of the applicant and staff; Commissioner Borgialli
Requested clarification from staff; that the hearing is solely for a garage, an ADU is not up for discussion this evening; staff confirmed the Commissioner is correct, garage only, not an ADU. Staff acknowledged there is a proposed ADU being discussed by the public, but states the ADU is not subject to discretionary review ( i.e., not something this body votes on in this appeal).
Staff further explained why the garage is the appealed item; the garage qualifies for the Minor Hillside Exemption ( MHE), and the appeal is tied to the garage/ MHE approval, this is what’s before the Commission. procedurally, the Commission is hearing an appeal of the garage approval MHE), not an ADU entitlement.
In response to Chair Kartsonis, staff stated if the applicant wants to build an ADU, it would be approved ministerial through plan check. Senior Planner Oorts stated “state law allows for decision- making bodies such as Planning Commission or City Council to review projects for residential additions, new 59 6
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
single- family residences that may include within the scope of work, an accessory dwelling unit. However, as part of that discretionary review the decision- making body, in this case, Planning Commission is not allowed to weigh in on the ADU. State law does allow the local agency of permitting agency to hold on the plan check process for the ADU until the discretionary approvals are completed for the primary dwelling, in this case the garage addition to the primary dwelling. So that the agency is protected by State law under normal timelines, as Commissioner Borgialli raised, if the project were to enter into plan check, the Building Safety Division would have 60 calendar days to complete the review and issue the permit for that accessory building, unless there were some sort of corrections identified with the plan check process. But in this case, there is no timeline for the ADU because it is pending review of garage addition to the primary dwelling and not subject to discretion review by this body, planning commission, nor the City Council for the appeal.”
Questioned the architect if it’s customary on drawings that the portion that is going to remain be “whitewashed”; Mr. Wong stated the plans aren’t fully developed, the drawings are in the preliminary stage and the design of the structure, the interior design and exterior finishes aren’t fully detailed at this point.
Questioned if the exemption of the minor hillside exemption is for additional sq. footage of the garage; architect assured the commissioner the additional sq. footage is for the garage in order to house all the cars the applicant owns.
Chair Kartsonis
Requested staff to elaborate on why the garage requires an exemption to the Hillside Overlay; Planning Assistant Lujan explained the garage qualifies for a minor hillside exemption because this is an addition to an existing single- family residence and further stated the project falls within the category of projects eligible for this kind of minor hillside/ site extension review.
Questioned precise plans and thresholds; staff clarified the difference between a minor hillside/ site extension and a precise plan. Staff stated minor hillside/ site extension is a process for certain residential projects in the Hillside Overlay that meet a lower- intensity threshold, such as; below 14 ft. in height, less than two stories, and interior under a 50 % threshold and this process does not involve a public hearing. Neighbors are still notified and those notified have 10 business days to contact staff with questions/ correspondence, or come to the permit center to view plans in person. The precise plan process, like the entitlement in this case, applies to a single- family residential project that exceeds the minor thresholds, such as; over 14 ft. in height, over one story and/ or an interior over 50% and this process does involve a public hearing and includes formal noticing. Staff further clarified the ADU is attached, but staff stated it’s not to be treated as 60 7
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
part of the single- family residence for purposes of review in the appeal context.
Stated the reason a minor hillside exemption could be denied would be air, light and privacy; staff concurred.
Questioned the difference between the current garage and the proposed garage; architect stated the current garage is deteriorating and smaller than garages built today vs. the 1960’s, when the current garage was built.
Therefore, they are enhancing the size of the garage in order to accommodate larger vehicles. The garage height would remain the same.
Commissioner Obejas – stated he has visited the site and will base his decision on observations, public testimony and the evidence presented .
Questioned the drawings and changes made; looking at renderings and drawings he states the front door is facing the street, however, when looking at the renderings again, the front door is missing . The architect stated the front door is to remain facing the street. The purpose of the rendering without the front door was to enhance and enlarge the parking space and stated there will be no renovation to the existing residence.
Questioned staff if parking on lawns is allowed in the Torrance Municipal Code; Community Development Director Ramirez stated no, parking isn’t allowed on lawns and will have code enforcement out tomorrow to begin investigating.
In response to his question, staff responded the garage is considered attached because it is attached by the rooftop.
Questioned if the breezeway is considered part of the ADU or the garage; architect stated yes, the breezeway is to accommodate the future ADU.
Commissioner Riggs -
Questioned if flags are required; staff stated flags are not needed because this is for a minor hillside exemption project, not a precise plan project.
Commissioners asked questions below of the appellants and staff; 61 8
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
Commissioner Borgialli -
Questioned Michael Wachtfogel if he feels that if the garage were to be approved for additional sq. footage, an ADU would be forthcoming in the future; appellant Wachtfogel stated yes.
Commissioner Obejas –
Community Development Director Ramirez responded if we were here to discuss the ADU and you were to deny an ADU, then yes, you can only deny for objective standards, not subjective standards and a view is a subjective standard. But we are here tonight to discuss the garage and not the ADU.
Stated he can’t vote against this because of a possible ADU blocking views, the commission must vote on the scope and that’s the garage.
In response to a question on the width of the garage space, staff stated it meets the current standards of 18’ x 20’ and meets the integral dimensions of setbacks.
Chair Kartsonis –
In response to a question, Community Director Ramirez stated if the minor hillside exemption could be denied because of subjective reasons ; she stated the garage itself can be denied for legal reasons that could be brought back for the Council or Commission’ s future approval.
Clarified the reason the commission is hearing this tonight is because someone appealed the staff- level decision to the Commission and could continue to City Council, depending on the Commission’ s decision. The Commission is an appellate body, not the original approving authority.
As for the ADU, it’s totally separate from this discussion and actually something the Commission has no say in due to state law.
Questioned if the garage is it taller or bigger; staff stated yes, it’s slightly bigger and taller, however it meets all standard requirements of the minor exemptions, and meets all standards and setbacks of the City.
Staff stated the garage does not impede air, light and privacy.
Questioned subjectivity in regards to view, look and feel, style and/ or materials, could this be applied to this case; City Attorney Sullivan and staff stated only as it applies to the garage.
Wanted to clarify for the public that staff hands are tied by state law as much as the Commission’ s are.
Concerned with the procedural loopholes, stated the Commission is being asked not to acknowledge or consider an ADU, however, we are also being asked to give special consideration to our applicant due to the possibility of an ADU, because the garage is functionally tied to enabling an ADU. If the garage project were presented only as a garage under a minor hillside exemption appeal, the Commission would normally reject or heavily question elements that don’t make sense as a standalone garage design .
He also suggested contacting City Council to let them know you would like to see the Hillside Overlay reevaluated.
62 9
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
Questioned the appellants if they have evidence that the garage would impede their view, privacy and/ or the cohesive nature of the neighborhood; appellants stated yes.
Commissioner Turner –
Questioned how many cars will be able to park in this trapezoid shape; staff stated it will fit at least 2 vehicles and as for the size of the garage door, it appears to be 15’ x 6’.
Staff responded to Commissioner Turner’s question, the width for the breezeway isn’t called out at this time, but will be verified during plan check.
Questioned if the Commission can condition that the garage match the existing conditions of the home; staff stated yes.
Proposed the Commission add conditions to the aesthetic design of the garage, similar materials, door access points in kind with existing home, same materials as the house, rendered glass and garage door would be in accordance with existing dwelling. Community Development Director Ramirez explained there is a difference between aesthetics and redesigning the garage and it would be best to state a general statement stating the aesthetics of the garage must meet the same aesthetics as the house. This will be enforced during the final approval process. Senior Planner Oorts suggested adding the words “ to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director”, this would allow staff to continue working with the applicant to verify and ensure the design is compatible with the primary dwelling without having to return to a decision- making body.
Questioned the roof plans, staff stated the minor hillside exemption process is to approve a ~690 sq ft. garage and it allows the surrounding residents to take a look at the preliminary plans, but the actual final plans will go through the plan check process.
Questioned how to approve a project without an actual roof plan; staff stated because the scope of work shows a garage on the first- floor level and a two- story ADU on top, a roof plan isn’t required, because again the ADU is not subject to discretionary review. This will be asked for and reviewed at the time of final plan check. The roof plan is not required for the scope of work being considered this evening.
How is it handled once this is done; matching the existing conditions of the house that’s to remain; staff stated this would be verified through plan check, ensuring that the condition approvals proposed this evening and if adopted with a resolution are being met. For example, if staff sees windows that aren’t consistent with the original residence, staff will mark it to be corrected on the plans and have a conversation with the architect.
Requested the articles of a state law referred to by a public speaker; Chair Kartsonis identified the code section as 66331B4 ( permit segmenting). Staff clarified the referenced code is about building- type limitation/ height limitation, explicitly stating the code isn’t about “ sequencing” or “separate signaling/ segmenting” in the way the commenter was suggesting. 63 10
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
Requested staff add a requirement/ condition that the permit segmentation apply to the planning review; City Attorney Sullivan stated it can’t be addressed because it is separate, the ADU can’t be considered as part of the garage MHE ( minor hillside exemption). Commissioner then asked how does the Commission approve height, air, quality and view without a roof on the building; City Attorney Sullivan suggested the Commission can impose a height limitation for the garage component .
Questioned if the garage needs to completed since the Commission put a condition on the roof line matching the existing residence ; City Attorney Sullivan stated this becomes a problem with the ADU to which Commissioner Turner states there is no “ADU”, City Attorney Sullivan stated he understands the frustration, but reiterates the fight is not with staff, it’s with Sacramento and if the ADU is dealt with tonight, it will get appealed to City Council and it will get overturned, and if the Council were to do that, we’d get sued and lose. Everyone is frustrated, but the bottom line is, this is two different projects. The Commission can condition what is discretionary ( garage), but cannot condition what is ministerial ( ADU).
Staff addressed the Commissioner’ s previous proposed condition related to architectural features, exterior features, and a request that the roof line should match the current dwelling; staff advised that the proposed condition on architectural features and exterior finishes should not require the garage roofline to match the existing dwelling, because the “garage” portion does not have a true roof in the conventional sense — there is an ADU proposed above it, and the ADU is not within the Planning Commission’ s scope to consider. Staff further explained that the elevations clearly show the Commission’ s review limit at the 10- foot markers identifying the garage ceiling joists; anything above that line is part of the accessory dwelling unit and for that reason, staff urged the Commissioner to remove the specific roofline- matching language from the condition, since it would be difficult for staff and the applicant to comply with it. Commissioner Turner then recommended narrowing the requirement to the visible roof/ brow element that continues from the main house and sits above the garage door so that the street- facing interface matches the primary residence.
Commissioner Riggs –
Clarified the current garage is ~ 360 sq. ft.; staff stated yes.
Does the Commission or city have architectural purview overt the Hillside Overlay area; staff stated no.
Prior to closing the public hearing; Commissioner Borgialli questioned if there was a need to close the public hearing, to then determine whether there is enough information in the record to approve the garage as presented, and if not, consider sending it back so the applicant returns with fuller garage plans for Commission ’s review, while still recognizing that the Commission is formally here tonight to either uphold or overturn the appealed staff decision. Chair Kartsonis responded that this kind of “more information needed” path would be handled as a continuance that the Commission could discuss after closing the hearing and Chair Kartsonis asked staff whether there was a deadline 64 11
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
constraining action on minor hillside exemptions, staff confirmed there is no timing requirement.
MOTION: Commissioner Turner moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Yeh seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 7-0 approval.
Recess at 9:04 PM
Reconvened at 9:14 PM
Roll call vote reflected 7-0; all commissioners present.
Commissioners’ final comments:
Commissioner Riggs acknowledged the difficult position facing the Commission.
He stated that, although the Planning Commission’ s role differs from City Council’s, its decisions significantly impact residents. Commissioner Riggs emphasized the Commission must focus on the required considerations — visuals, compatibility, view, air/light, and impacts to surrounding neighbors— and reiterated that state law has already set many of the governing parameters. He expressed concern that the project, as presented, is not sufficiently complete to support a sound decision and stated he did not favor continuing the matter, preferring that the Commission make a decision this evening.
He stated he could not support approving an open -ended or unresolved project, concluding that he would vote based on the record.
Commissioner Borgialli stated that, although the item is framed as a garage, the submitted drawings appear to show a second- story element, which he did not understand.
He noted that the Commission is being asked to evaluate the garage only, but the plans did not depict a complete garage with a roofline and therefore did not provide sufficient information for the Commission to make a decision. Commissioner Borgialli outlined two potential paths forward: ( 1) continue the item and direct the architect to return with corrected, garage- focused plans so the Commission can approve or deny based on a clear proposal; or ( 2) proceed to a vote in favor of the appellant to require the applicant to revise the plans. He concluded that the information presented makes it difficult for the Commission to render a sound judgment.
Commissioner Obejas asked the City Attorney Sullivan for guidance, stating that the Commission would be reviewing a complete, standalone plan for the garage that includes a roofline and could later accommodate an ADU, that the materials provided did not appear to present a complete garage- only project for review. City Attorney Sullivan responded that he was not the appropriate person to opine on plan completeness because he is not the planner, but he cautioned that if the Commission imposed roof design conditions— such as requiring a peaked roof or specifying roof height— those conditions could conflict with a future ADU and potentially be violated when the ADU is constructed. Commissioner Obejas clarified that he was not advocating for a peaked roof.
City Attorney Sullivan acknowledged that other commissioners had discussed matching the existing roofline, which could create the conflict. Commissioner Obejas concluded that it would be cleaner to receive a clear garage proposal— flat roof included if appropriate— stating that if the Commission is asked to evaluate a garage, the submittal should show a garage.
65 12
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
Chair Kartsonis questioned Building & Safety when a second story is constructed and the level below must be structurally reinforced, the city determines the adequacy of that reinforcement during plan check. Building and Safety, Engineering Division Rigo Torres responded that Building & Safety reviews structural framing plans and calculations at plan check, along with other fire and life safety requirements. Chair Kartsonis then reiterated his overall concern that the matter is likely to be appealed to City Coun cil and expressed agreement with public comments suggesting the project appears to circumvent the intent of the Hillside Overlay and municipal code. He stated that the Commission is being placed in a contradictory posture— asked not to consider the ADU even though the materials and narrative reference it, while also being asked to provide special consideration and depart from the Commission’ s normal minor hillside exemption review practices because an ADU is outside the Commission’ s scope, which makes it difficult to move forward with approving the project as presented.
Commissioner Riggs added to his previous final comments stating that the Commission should move away from discussing the ADU, emphasizing that, in his view, the matter before the Commission is not about the ADU. He asserted that the Commission does not have sufficient information to proceed with a decision on the project as presented and concluded that the Commission owes the residents of the city a decision based on a complete and reliable record.
Chair Kartsonis agreed with Commissioner Riggs and stated that the Commission’ s decision must be based on whether the project impacts neighboring properties with respect to view and privacy, noting that residents ha ve raised specific complaints regarding privacy and view impacts. He explained that the Commission is expected to make a subjective determination regarding those claimed impacts; however, he indicated that doing so is difficult because the Commission does no t have updated or complete information and lacks a full set of materials necessary to evaluate the concerns and make the required findings.
Commissioner Obejas asked staff whether the project would still qualify for a minor hillside exemption if the applicant elected to proceed in two phases — constructing the garage first and addressing the other component later — provided the garage remained under the applicable height threshold ( noting 14 feet). Staff confirmed that, as long as the project stayed under the threshold, it would likely continue to qualify. Commissioner Obejas then stated that he favored a solution consistent with that approach, inc luding avoiding design requirements such as peaked roofs, and suggested it would be cleaner for the Commission if the applicant returned with two distinct projects, allowing the Commission to focus on the portion within its discretion and evaluate that com ponent as a complete, standalone proposal.
Commissioner Turner stated that the Commission should be evaluating a complete project that complies with the existing dwelling and includes a peaked roof, questioning why the proposal is being designed around other considerations. Chair Kartsonis interjected that this framing did not resolve the residents stated concerns that the project, as presented, impacts privacy, views, and the surrounding area, and Commissioner Riggs added that while many of the signatories to the neighborhood opposition letter were not present, their concerns were effectively represented. Commissioner Obejas noted that it was difficult to accept that a modest one -story garage expansion would cause the level 66 13
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
of impacts being asserted, to which Chair Kartsonis clarified he was not asking Commissioner Obejas to accept the impacts as true; rather, the problem is that the Commission lacks a complete, garage- only project presentation and therefore has no reliable basis to determine yes or no on the alleged impacts. Chair Kartsonis further stated that when the Commission does not have enough information the appropriate default is not approval in the absence of evidence.
The Commission clarified the appeal voting procedure and agreed to simplify it as a decision to either approve or deny the project. Commissioners stated they lacked sufficient information to make findings on the garage and discussed two options: continue the item to obtain complete garage plans or deny the project ( without prejudice) to require the applicant to revise and return. Staff confirmed that if denied without prejudice, the applicant may either appeal to City Council or resubmit a revised proposal.
Commissioner Anunson stated that the Commission heard arguments regarding how to separate a project that includes an ADU, and noted that such an approach might work better under the current constraints; however, it was not presented in a complete form for Commission consideration because staff had not evaluated it through their normal process, which he indicated was not staff’s fault.
MOTION: Commissioner Borgialli moved to deny MHE25- 00051 without prejudice.
Commissioner Yeh seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 7-0 approval.
Prior to the vote, Chair Kartsonis requested that the Commission state the findings supporting denial so staff could prepare a Resolution of Denial. The Commission referenced the findings in the staff report and stated that the project does not satisfy the required findings, particularly those related to impacts on view, light/ air, and privacy, and compatibility/ harmony with surrounding properties. The Commission identified findings E, F, G, H, I, and J as not being met, and additionally cited finding K as not satisfied due to the absence of evidence of an unreasonable hardship. Staff indicated this direction would be sufficient to draft a Resolution of Denial for Commission consideration at a subsequent meeting.
City Attorney Sullivan clarified the final decision doesn’t occur until adoption of the resolution by the Planning Commission, and that’s when the appeal process would begin.
Chair Kartsonis clarified the 15 days begins when the Commission approves or denies the resolution, not from tonight.
9. RESOLUTIONS
None
10. COMMISSION AND STAFF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Kartsonis commented that the Commission has seen a significant increase in Hillside Overlay related issues and expressed concern that the Hillside Overlay framework is being weakened. He requested concurrence from fellow commissioners to speak to the City Council on behalf of the Commission and ask that Council direct staff to bring back a Hillside Overlay workshop and discussion. Community Development Director Ramirez advised that an update to the Hillside Overlay is already being planned in 67 14
Tracy Weaver, CMC Planning Commission
Recording Secretary January 21, 2026
response to recent legislation, though there is no firm deadline and a timeframe of up to six months may be necessary. Several commissioners concurred, emphasizing the Commission’ s duty to advise Council and noting that the underlying constraints stem from state law rather than local discretion.
Commissioner Borgialli recalled an April 2025 briefing on recent state housing legislation and noted that Senate Bill 543 was enacted in October 2025, establishing standards affecting ADUs and JADUs. He recommended that commissioners and the public familiarize themselves with SB 543, emphasizing that it will shape what the city faces when garage/ ADU- related projects proceed, and he added a broader comment urging attention to state- level “checks and balances” in how such laws are adopted.
Commissioner Yeh requested a summary for 2025; staff stated the summary is forth coming.
Commissioner Obejas, referencing comments also raised by Commissioner Borgialli, urged commissioners and residents to contact their state representatives regarding recent state housing legislation, noting that simply reaching out to one’s own representative is insufficient. He stated that, based on the prior workshop and input from the City’s lobbyists, these bills are advancing due to bipartisan majorities, and therefore outreach should be directed broadly— including to officials outside one’s usual political alignment— because their votes are driving the impacts on local authority and residents.
Commissioner Turner echoed Chair Kartsonis.
11. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: At 9:50 PM. Commissioner Turner moved to adjourn the meeting to February 4, 2026 at 6:30 PM in the LeRoy J. Jackson Council Chamber. Commissioner Borgialli seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 7-0 approval.
Approved as submitted
April 1, 2026
s/Rebecca Poirier, City Clerk
ty)
68 69
ATTACHMENT 5
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
VIA LOS ALTOS
VIA SEGO
PASEO DE GRACIA
VIALINDAVISTA
VIA
LOS
MIRADORES
VISTA DEL PARQUE
VIALACIRCULA
CALLECABRILLO
VIA
BUENAVENTURA
VIA EL CHICO
441
R1
128
R1
200
R1
319
R1
109
R1
341
R1
127
R1
327
R1
137
R1
110
R1
139
R1
148
R1
355
R1
135
R1
152
R1
140
R1
409
R1
132
R1
163
R1
116
R1
136
R1
155
R1
159
R1
235
R1
151
R1
239
R1
144
R1
170
R1
143
R1
120
R1
336
R1328
R1
332
R1324
R1
112
R1
359
R1
423
R1
427
R1
345
R1
124
R1
301
R1
435
R1
239
R1
401
R1
415
R1
147
R1
431
R1
231
R1
255
R1
249
R1
128
R1
245
R1
300
R1
419
R1
120
R1
251
R1
235
R1
241
R1
172
R1
440
R1
428
R1
420
R1
416
R1
436
R1
432
R1
424
R1
412
R1
408
R1
404
R1400
R1
285
R1
222
R1
351
R1
309
R1
124
R1
340
R1
228
R1
144
R1
152
R1
411
R1
140
R1
148
R1
162
R1
156
R1
232
R1
106
R1
348
R1
344
R1
356
R1
352
R1
169
R1
349
R1
131
R1
166
R1
360
R1
131
R1
340
R1
167
R1
154
R1
439
R1
127
R1
236
R1
216
R1
305
R1
361
R1
233
R1
130
R1
101
R1
165
R1
320
R1
210
R1
126
R1
316
R1
221
R1
217
R1
229
R1
121
R1
225
R1
312
R1
213
R1
206
R1
209
R1
240
R1
241
R1
136
R1
110
R1
105
R1
205
R1
108
R1
116
R1
115
R1
405
R1
264
R1
156
R1
133
R1
308
R1
308
R1
139
R1
133
R1
123
R1
145
R1
127
R1
114
R1
116
R1
151
R1
304
R1
364
R1
121
R1
304
R1
157
R1
224
R1
161
R1
115
R1
229
R1
163
R1
221
R1
217
R1
169
R1
109
R1
212
R1
208
R1
109
R1
336
R1
216
R1
201
R1
204
R1
205
R1
209
R1
213
R1
176
R1
171
R1
200
R1
220
R1
224
R1
105
R1
168
R1
547
R1
225
R1
281
R1
543
R1
335
R1
232
R1
164
R1
119
R1
101
R1
260
R1
112
R1
245
R1
160
R1157
R1
539
R1
VIA LOS ALTOS
VIA SEGO
PASEO DE GRACIA
VIALINDAVISTA
VIA
LOS
MIRADORES
VISTA DEL PARQUE
VIALACIRCULA
CALLECABRILLO
VIA
BUENAVENTURA
VIA EL CHICO
441
R1
128
R1
200
R1
319
R1
109
R1
341
R1
127
R1
327
R1
137
R1
110
R1
139
R1
148
R1
355
R1
135
R1
152
R1
140
R1
409
R1
132
R1
163
R1
116
R1
136
R1
155
R1
159
R1
235
R1
151
R1
239
R1
144
R1
170
R1
143
R1
120
R1
336
R1328
R1
332
R1324
R1
112
R1
359
R1
423
R1
427
R1
345
R1
124
R1
301
R1
435
R1
239
R1
401
R1
415
R1
147
R1
431
R1
231
R1
255
R1
249
R1
128
R1
245
R1
300
R1
419
R1
120
R1
251
R1
235
R1
241
R1
172
R1
440
R1
428
R1
420
R1
416
R1
436
R1
432
R1
424
R1
412
R1
408
R1
404
R1400
R1
285
R1
222
R1
351
R1
309
R1
124
R1
340
R1
228
R1
144
R1
152
R1
411
R1
140
R1
148
R1
162
R1
156
R1
232
R1
106
R1
348
R1
344
R1
356
R1
352
R1
169
R1
349
R1
131
R1
166
R1
360
R1
131
R1
340
R1
167
R1
154
R1
439
R1
127
R1
236
R1
216
R1
305
R1
361
R1
233
R1
130
R1
101
R1
165
R1
320
R1
210
R1
126
R1
316
R1
221
R1
217
R1
229
R1
121
R1
225
R1
312
R1
213
R1
206
R1
209
R1
240
R1
241
R1
136
R1
110
R1
105
R1
205
R1
108
R1
116
R1
115
R1
405
R1
264
R1
156
R1
133
R1
308
R1
308
R1
139
R1
133
R1
123
R1
145
R1
127
R1
114
R1
116
R1
151
R1
304
R1
364
R1
121
R1
304
R1
157
R1
224
R1
161
R1
115
R1
229
R1
163
R1
221
R1
217
R1
169
R1
109
R1
212
R1
208
R1
109
R1
336
R1
216
R1
201
R1
204
R1
205
R1
209
R1
213
R1
176
R1
171
R1
200
R1
220
R1
224
R1
105
R1
168
R1
547
R1
225
R1
281
R1
543
R1
335
R1
232
R1
164
R1
119
R1
101
R1
260
R1
112
R1
245
R1
160
R1157
R1
539
R1
Prepared using City of Torrance Community Development Geographic Information System Michelle G. Ramirez, Community Development Director
.
MHE25-00051
439 Via Linda Vista
LEGEND
Notification Area
439 Via Linda Vista
LOCATION AND ZONING MAP
0 140 28070
Feet
116
ATTACHMENT 6
117
ATTACHMENT 7
118
119
120
121
Daily Breeze
2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
(310) 543-6635
0011805152
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Blvd
Torrance, California 90503
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles
I am a citizen of the United States and
a resident of the County aforesaid; I
am over the age of eighteen years,
and not party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the
principal clerk of the printer of Daily
Breeze, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in
the City of Torrance*, County of Los
Angeles, and which newspaper has
been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior
Court of County of Los Angeles, State
of California, under the date of June
15, 1945, Decree No. Pomo C-606.
The notice, of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller
than nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement
thereof on the following dates, to wit:
07/31/2026
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated at Hermosa Beach, California
On this 31st day of July, 2026.
______________________________
Signature
*Daily Breeze circulation includes the following
cities: Carson, Compton, Culver City, El
Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne,
Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale,
Lomita, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Manhattan
Beach, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Palos Verdes,
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes
Estates, Redondo Beach, San Pedro, Santa
Monica, Torrance and Wilmington
08-11-26 MHE25-00051 Binh Wong (D. Aoki) - Page 1 of 2
122
ATTACHMENT 8
08-11-26 MHE25-00051 Binh Wong (D. Aoki) - Page 2 of 2
123