C I T Y C O U N C I L A P P E A L H E A R I N G · A U G U S T 1 1 , 2 0 2 6 Opposition to the Appeal of
Minor Hillside Exemption No. MHE25-00051
439 Via Linda Vista, Torrance · APN 7514 -012-028
Uphold Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-002 (denial without prejudice) “The elephant on the roof ” — the two-story structure the City was asked not to see.
Kendra L. Carney Mehr
Carney Mehr , ALC
for Jennifer Adams & Michael Wachtfogel — adjacent neighbors
T H E R E Q U E S T
Deny the appeal. Uphold the
Commission's denial. 7–0
Unanimous Planning
Commission denial
1 133 residents / 77 households opposed the exemption and appealed the Director's approval.
2 Resolution No. 2026-002 denied MHE25-00051 without prejudice — the record you should affirm.
3 Denial without prejudice leaves the applicant free to re-file a complete, honest application.
Opposition to Appeal · MHE25-00051 · 439 Via Linda Vista Carney Mehr, ALC
T H E A P P E A L ' S S I N G L E P R E M I S E
The elephant on the roof
“The City must evaluate this project as though the attached, two-story ADU does not exist.”
— the premise repeated throughout the appeal
There is, quite literally, a second story on the roof of this garage — and the appeal asks you to make your findings as though it isn't there. That premise is wrong.
California law does not permit an agency to make its mandatory findings on an incomplete version of the project.
Opposition to Appeal · MHE25-00051 · 439 Via Linda Vista Carney Mehr, ALC
W H A T I S A C T U A L L Y O N T H E P L A N S
One structure. Two very different numbers.
W H A T T H E C I T Y R E V I E W E D
10½ ft
The garage alone — measured in isolation, one story.
W H A T W I L L A C T U A L L Y B E B U I L T
23½ ft
The integrated structure — two stories, garage + attached ADU above and beside it.
Shared walls with garage · shared roofline with garage · one lot · one set of plans Opposition to Appeal · MHE25-00051 · 439 Via Linda Vista Carney Mehr, ALC
T H E C I T Y ' S O W N C O D E S E T T L E S I T
The ADU counts toward height and stories
TMC § 92.2.10(E)(5)(C)
An attached ADU “shall count towards the overall height and number of stories of the structure it is attached to.”
By the City's own measure, this is a two-story structure exceeding fourteen feet. The City cannot call it two stories for ADU purposes and one story for hillside-exemption purposes at the same time.
Opposition to Appeal · MHE25-00051 · 439 Via Linda Vista Carney Mehr, ALC
W H Y I T I S D I S P O S I T I V E
The findings must rest on the real building and entire project Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community
v. County of Los Angeles (1974)
11 Cal.3d 506
Findings must “bridge the analytic gap between the evidence and the decision.” Analyzing the garage while ignoring the second story that drives height, mass, and view impacts does not bridge that gap.
Orinda Assn. v . Board of Supervisors
(1986)
182 Cal.App.3d 1145
An agency may not grant relief from its own standards
through findings that never confront the facts that make the relief necessary.
The findings turn on physical site conditions — height, mass, views, light, air, privacy. The second story drives each one.
Opposition to Appeal · MHE25-00051 · 439 Via Linda Vista Carney Mehr, ALC
C L E A R I N G T H E C O N F U S I O N
Two different questions — no conflict
WE ARE NOT AS KING YOU TO:
Deny the ADU
THE AC TUAL IS SU E:
Whether the Council, exercising discretion over the
Hillside Exemption, may make its findings while
pretending the second story isn't there.
Carney Mehr, ALCOpposition to Appeal · MHE25-00051 · 439 Via Linda Vista The Council must consider the project as a whole, and
the project must be evaluated with a Precise Plan that
includes the impact of the two-story ADU which does
not share walls with the primary residence.
It may not.
W H E R E T H E A P P E A L ' S P R E M I S E L E A D S The premise proves too much
If labeling an upper floor an “ADU” forced the City to ignore the second story, any applicant could put an elephant on any roof in the Hillside Overlay Zone — evading:
Story-pole silhouettes 500-foot noticing The public hearing View-protection findings …simply by calling the top floor an “ ADU.” That would hollow out the Hillside Overlay Zone — for this coastal hillside neighborhood and every other one in T orrance.
Opposition to Appeal · MHE25-00051 · 439 Via Linda Vista Carney Mehr, ALC
T H E C O R R E C T P R O C E D U R E
This building requires a Precise Plan of Development
A two-story structure over 14 feet in the Hillside Overlay cannot proceed as a Minor Hillside Exemption. A Precise Plan requires:
1 Story poles — silhouettes showing true height, width, and depth (TMC § 92.21.11) 2 A survey — of the actual site conditions
3 Public notice — and a noticed public hearing
4 Real view analysis — of the completed structure's impact on views, light, air, privacy The exemption was obtained only by measuring the 10½ -foot garage in isolation. Strip away that fiction and it cannot stand.
Opposition to Appeal · MHE25-00051 · 439 Via Linda Vista Carney Mehr, ALC
T H E S T A F F R E P O R T
The staff report repeats the error — it does not cure it Same segmentation It concedes the second-story ADU exists, then says it “should not be considered in evaluating the garage proposal” — the very instruction the Commission found unworkable.
Garage-only findings The draft resolution makes each finding about the “proposed garage” alone, never the completed two-story building.
Incomplete calculations The statistical table omits the ADU's floor area — so lot coverage, FAR, and the net-interior threshold for a Precise Plan are unverified.
Procedural irregularity The draft resolution recites that the Council already held a hearing and approved the project on July 14, 2026 — a hearing that never happened.
Opposition to Appeal · MHE25-00051 · 439 Via Linda Vista Carney Mehr, ALC
R E Q U E S T E D A C T I O N
Deny the appeal. Uphold Resolution 2026 -002.
P R I M A R Y
Deny the appeal and affirm the
Commission's 7–0 denial, without
prejudice.
The applicant remains free to re-file a complete application, evaluated as the project it actually is.
A T M I N I M U M
Continue the matter and direct staff to analyze the complete, two-story structure:
• Apply TMC § 92.2.10(E)(5)(C) to height & stories
• Require story poles; determine if a Precise Plan is required • Provide complete coverage / FAR / net-interior figures Thank you. Kendra L. Carney Mehr · Carney Mehr, ALC