From: Jennifer Adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 2:30 PM
To: CDD Info <[email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer Adams <[email protected]>
Subject: MHE25-00051: Binh Wong (Samuel and Maria)
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Good afternoon,
I am submitting this written correspondence with the expectation that this will become part of the record per the notice I received regarding this appeal. I have been an active participant in the Torrance Hillside Overlay neighborhood and have been teaming with my neighbors to bring forward the serious concern about the failure to implement the Hillside Overlay Zone codes to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. I have stood before both bodies a few times now advocating for protections and urging the city to enforce the Torrance Municipal Codes as it relates to the Hillside Overlay. Those in attendance have been told over and over by appointed and elected officials that it matters who we vote for and to vote for people that can effect change. So I and so many of my neighbors did just that; we campaigned for and voted for Betty Lieu. We voted for Mrs. Lieu because she stood beside us in those same hearings and meetings and advocated for the enforcement of the Hillside Overlay Ordinance and strongly expressed her views against ADUs that infringe on our properties. Her position is no secret. This was her platform and this is why her district elected Mrs. Lieu over her opponent. Many of us care deeply about our neighborhood as most of you are now well aware. Many of us do not trust the city’s planning department, at all.
We are incredibly disappointed to hear that Mrs. Lieu is being asked by the city attorney to recuse herself from this appeal because of her bias. Again, she’s been before the Planning Commissioners, the Mayor and City Council members expressing her views before she was elected. How now is she biased? This has been her position all along. Does that mean that she will be forced to be excused for every ADU or 2 story construction appeal that infringes on air, light, view, and privacy in the Hillside Overlay? This is very alarming to me and my neighbors. We are aware that Council Member David Kartsonis must also recuse himself because he’s already voted on this matter as a commissioner and now this.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Jennifer Adams
1 LATE PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT
FOR AGENDA ITEM 9A
From: Tina Schnittger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 1:53 PM
To: CDD Info <[email protected]>
Cc: Jen Adams <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: MHE25-00051: BINH WONG (SAMUEL AND MARIA) You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my serious concern regarding the recent decision to allow residents to construct ADUs on top of existing garages within the Hillside Overlay area. I am unable to attend tonight‘s meeting, but I would like my opinions to be on record.
One of the primary reasons I chose to purchase and live in this community was the understanding that the Hillside Overlay provided protections against construction that would significantly obstruct neighboring properties’ views. These protections are important not only to the character of our neighborhood, but also to the value and enjoyment of the homes of those who have invested in living here.
I fully support the need for ADUs and understand the intent behind California’s ADU laws.
In fact, I recently constructed an ADU at the rear of my own property so that my mother could live there. However, I made sure that the location and design of my ADU did not obstruct my neighbors’ views or negatively impact their enjoyment of their homes.
Allowing an ADU to be constructed on top of a garage in a hillside community is very different. It can substantially alter sightlines and permanently take away views that homeowners reasonably believed were protected when they purchased their properties.
Applying ADU laws in a way that disregards the purpose of the Hillside Overlay is irresponsible and unfair to existing homeowners. There must be a reasonable way to accommodate additional housing while also respecting long-standing protections and the rights of neighboring property owners. Simply allowing upward construction without adequately considering its impact on surrounding homes undermines those protections and may negatively affect property values.
I strongly urge the City to reconsider how these applications are being reviewed and to ensure that the intent of the Hillside Overlay is not disregarded when approving ADUs.
Residents who purchased homes with an expectation of these protections deserve to have their concerns taken seriously.
Thank you for your consideration. I respectfully ask that this issue be reviewed before additional projects are approved that could permanently and unnecessarily impact the views, character, and property values of our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Tina Schnittger
2 From: Alma Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2026 21:23:16
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Hillside Overlay Protection Against ADU's
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear Torrance City Council Members,
I am writing to ask you to protect our Hillside and Oceanside Overlays. Most of us who live on the Hillside Overlays paid extra for the view of our home. On the Neighborhood posts, the main complaint has been that the people who have added ADU’s do not rent them out.
Parking would become a huge stressful issue for everyone. Please protect our city from becoming like Santa Monica. I have come across people who moved to Torrance to get away from seriously congested streets and parking issues.
I was informed that Governor Newsom signed into law SB543 (in October 2025) which states that cities can approve/deny the height based on the underlying zone ordinance. The Hillside and Coastal Overlay Zones R1 have very strict height allowances. The Planning Department is not following either state law or city code.
Please note that when we submitted plans to remodel our house in 2016, the Planning Department did not allow us to grandfather our 16 foot high roofline. We were told that there was a Federal law for Hillside Overlays that dictated that rooflines could not exceed 14 feet in height. Apparently, the Federal government became involved in protecting Hillside Overlays and it probably also applies to Coastal Overlays as well. Our architect had to redraw our roof on our house plans and add a ‘cricket’ to comply with Federal Law.
We understand that the state is pressuring cities to build more housing. There have been very large apartment complexes built recently with two more major luxury apartments to be built (Sears and Black Angus locations). Those apartments have not been fully occupied. I read that the population in Torrance had gone down. Please very that.
Thank you for your time and patience. Really appreciate it.
Alma Gutierrez
3 From: James Lloyd
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 5:54 PM
To: Kalani, Sharon ; Kartsonis, David ; Lewis, Bridgett ; Sheikh, Asam ; Lieu, Betty ; Gerson, Jeremy
Cc: CDD Info ; Poirier, Rebecca ; Sullivan, Patrick ; Chaparyan, Aram Subject: public comment re Item 9A for the August 11, 2026 Council meeting Dear Torrance City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits the attached public comment concerning Public Hearing Item 9A on the agenda for the August 11, 2026 Council meeting, the Minor Hillside Exemption (MHE25-00051) to allow a proposed 694 square foot attached garage, which will facilitate the development of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
4 Aug 10, 2026
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Blvd
Torrance, CA 90503
By Email:
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
CC:
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
;
[email protected]
Re: Project at 439 Via Linda Vista
Dear Torrance City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits this letter as a public comment concerning Public Hearing Item 9A on the agenda for the August 11, 2026 Council meeting, the Minor Hillside Exemption (MHE25-00051) to allow a proposed 694 square foot attached garage, which will facilitate the development of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
As the staff report notes, the City is prohibited from exercising discretionary review of the ADU and instead must approve it ministerially. However, it seems as though the Planning Commission denied the project based on the ADU component.
We urge the City to approve this very reasonable project as proposed. State law forbids the City from conducting discretionary review of the ADU; the ADU component is what led to the Planning Commission denial; and the applicant has other ADU development options that may be less appealing to the City.
The City Must Approve the ADU on a Ministerial Basis
The Planning Commission’s denial of the project was transparently due to the presence of an ADU. As the staff report states on page 2:
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
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
5 ATTACHMENT 1
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.
The roof is on the ADU portion of the project, which the Commission was forbidden from considering. In fact, the Commission even complained about not being allowed to evaluate the ADU. Because the Commission could not review the ADU portion of the project, it denied the application. This was illegal, as it amounted to discretionary review of the ADU itself..
Government Code sections 66316 and 66317 both forbid a local agency from conducting discretionary review or a hearing on an ADU. Rather, these code sections require a local agency to process an ADU ministerially. In contrast, the Planning Commission clearly focused on the ADU portion of the project and denied the project because of the presence of an ADU, despite its compliance with City code and the statutory prohibitions on discretionary review and hearings.
Regarding privacy concerns, such concerns are only applicable if the City were to be conducting an impermissible discretionary review of the ADU portion of the project. There is no reasonable privacy concern from the development of a single-story garage that is replacing an existing garage.
The Applicant Has Other Options that May Be Less Preferable to the City
The City cannot prevent the applicant from developing an ADU on the property. In many ways, the proposal of a 2nd
fl
oor ADU above a new garage is the best outcome for the
neighborhood, as it will result in minimal change to the property and preserved off street parking.
If the City chooses to deny the project, the applicant could fall back on any of the following options for ADU development, which the City may find less appealing:
1. Convert the garage into an ADU. This is protected by Government Code section 66323, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b). The applicant will not have to replace the removed parking pursuant to Government Code section 66314, subdivision (d)(11).
2. Build a detached ADU in the front yard or driveway. This is protected by Government Code section 66323, subdivisions (a)(2) and (b). Again, the applicant will not have to replace any removed parking pursuant to Government Code section 66314, subdivision (d)(11). Additionally, the new detached ADU could be up to 16 feet in height.
2 of 3
6 3.
Do both a garage conversion (option 1) and a new detached ADU (option 2), as SB 543 amended Government Code section 66323 to allow a combination of one detached 66323 ADU and one conversion 66323 ADU on every single family parcel.
Instead, the applicant is preserving the offstreet parking and developing a second story ADU above the garage, which is a very reasonable approach.
◄►
We urge the City to approve this very reasonable development application.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at
www.calhdf.org
.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
7