Oral Communications #7 - Public Comment Report — Torrance City Council, September 15, 2026

Name:G. Joseph Buck
Comment - 09/09/2026 06:48 PM: ( No Vote )
Dear Staff,

Please post as a Supplemental to Item #7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS of the Torrance City Council Agenda for September 15, 2026, my following comments, together with the attached ﬁles identiﬁed as
1) email to Betty Lieu.pdf; 2)Torrance-Hillside-Overelay-Council-Memo-v6.pdf; 3)Torrance- Hillside-Overlay-Ordinance-Agusut-2026.pdf, and 4) torrance-ods-guide-2026.pdf.

Please include as part of the Supplemental, my statement that I sent, via email, to Betty Lieu, and to each of the Council Members, copies of each of these documents. I will ask the Council to review these documents, and then to schedule, at the earliest reasonable time, the formal hearing by the City Council of a motion by the Council to adopt the amendment of the Torrance Municipal Code in the manner described in the attached documents. May I express my concern that if the Council fails to take such immediate action, permanent harm will be done to the Hillside Overlay Zone. Adoption of the proposed changes will give the Council and the residents of Torrance, time to carefully consider further changes to the Torrance Municipal Code.

Sincerely, G. Joseph Buck Resident of the Hillside for 43 years

Attachments
email to Betty Lieu.pdf
Torrance-Hillside-Overlay-Council-Memo-v6.pdf
Torrance-Hillside-Overlay-Ordinance-August-2026.pdf
torrance-ods-guide-2026.pdf

1 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT FOR

7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Dear Council Member Betty Lieu,
For your reference, I have attached 3 documents to this email, copies of which I plan to submit to Staff, prior to September 15, 2026, for publication as Supplemental #1, in connection with my participation, and brief appearance, in person, with respect to City Council Agenda Item identified as:

Oral Communications #1, in the Agenda for the City Council Meeting set for September 15, 2026.

With respect to the public's submission of comments, and suggestions to Staff, for later presentation to the Council, Michelle Ramirez informed me that:
"The City was accepting comments through August 31. The comment period has now closed, and staff will begin reviewing and analyzing all comments received.

Staff anticipates bringing the item before the City Council for discussion before the end of the year. Anyone who
submitted comments will be notified of the meeting date once it has been scheduled and as the meeting date approaches.

All comments received will be shared with the City Council, along with staff’s analysis and recommendations."
As you are well aware, the "end of the year" is 4 months into the future! It is my fear that Staff will fail to propose changes that would protect the Hillside (and the interests of its residents and the residents of Torrance). I fear that, at its best, any such future hearing will only postpone any resolution of these matters to some time, if ever, that is far in the future.

In the meantime, building permits will continue to be issued, and construction continue to be undertaken in the Hillside that will permanently degrade, if not destroy, in its entirety, the special attributes of the Hillside. Staff's failure to promptly address these matters, will, instead continue to encourage and facilitate the continued misuse by property developers of Torrance City Zoning Law regulating the development of ADUs on properties located in the 2 Hillside, to the property developer's immediate benefit and to long term detriment to the "Hillside".

At the City Council Meeting on Sept. 15, I will ask the Council to give careful consideration to the material that I submit in the Supplemental to Agenda Item -Oral Communications #1. I ask the Council to take whatever steps may be needed to allow the Council to promptly consider the proposals described in the Supplement. If the Council promptly adopts and enforces changes to the TMC similar to the changes proposed in the Supplement, it will give Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Members of the Council, as well as the residents of Torrance, and of the Hillside, the time and opportunity to carefully consider how to further amend the TMC so as to protect all of these interests, without, in the meantime, allowing the continuing misuse of the TMC and state law governing ADUs and related development to permanently degrade the Hillside.

The attached document identified as "Torrance-Hillside-Overlay- Council-Memo v6.pdf, outlines why the Ordinance attached as "Torrance-Overlay Ordinance-August-2026.pdf" is needed. It also advises the Council to ask the City's Legal Counsel to carefully review the content of the Ordinance to confirm that it will comply with the requirements of State Law and will provide changes to the TMC that will address the present shortcomings of the TMC and give time for the City to carefully examine what changes should, in the future, should be made to the TMC, that would further address these issues in a manner that protects the interests of the City of Torrance, the residents of the City of Torrance, and the residents of the Hillside Zone of Torrance.

The third document attached to this email provides a "Working Guide for the City of Torrance in the evaluation of the adoption of the proposed Ordinance.

Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck Resident of the Hillside for 43 years.

Note: I have corrected one "typo" and one spelling error in the above copy of my communication to the Council Members.
3 City of Torrance | Page 1

CITY OF TORRANCE

MEMORANDUM
TO:

City Council of the City of Torrance
FROM:
[Sponsor Name / Council Member]
DATE:
____________________
RE:

Proposed Amendment to TMC Article 41 — Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone (R-H): Objective Single-Story Height Standard

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This memorandum explains the purpose, legal basis, and specific code changes proposed by the attached ordinance amending Article 41 of the Torrance Municipal Code (TMC), the Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone (R-H).

In plain terms, the ordinance does three things:
•
Raises the height limit for single-story residential construction in the Hillside Overlay from 14 feet to 18 feet, giving homeowners more design flexibility while maintaining single-story character.
•
Replaces a subjective Planning Director finding that currently conditions Precise Plan exemptions on a determination of "no adverse effect" and "no significant public controversy" — language that cannot survive legal challenge under state housing law — with objective, measurable criteria.
•
Preserves the Precise Plan process for any project seeking to exceed 18 feet or build two-story construction, ensuring the Planning Commission retains meaningful review authority over larger or more impactful projects.

PART 1: WHY THIS ORDINANCE IS NEEDED
A. The Problem: The Current Overlay Cannot Be Enforced
The Hillside Overlay was adopted in 1977 and has served Torrance well for nearly five decades. However, state housing law has changed dramatically since then — and the 4 City of Torrance | Page 2
Overlay's current standards are now legally vulnerable in a way that directly undermines the City's ability to protect hillside neighborhoods.

The core problem is that the current Overlay relies on subjective review criteria. TMC Section 91.41.6 conditions all construction on Planning Commission findings that a project will not have an "adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties" and that the design provides "an orderly and attractive development in harmony with other properties in the vicinity." These are inherently subjective judgments — they require personal interpretation by a public official.

SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019) permanently amended the Housing Accountability Act (California Government Code Section 65589.5), which provides that local jurisdictions may only enforce objective, quantifiable, written development standards — standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external benchmark. Subjective standards like “harmony with other properties” cannot be used to deny or condition a housing project. Although certain temporary provisions of SB 330 expired on January 1, 2025, the law’s permanent amendments to Section 65589.5 remain in full force and effect as the operative legal standard.

This is not a theoretical concern. The subjective standards that have protected hillside neighborhoods for decades are now largely unenforceable against a determined developer invoking state housing law.

B. The Solution: Objective Standards That Can Actually Be Enforced The solution is to replace the subjective criteria with a single, objective, measurable standard: an 18-foot maximum ridge height for single-story residential construction. A height limit is a textbook example of an objective standard — it is a number, measurable with a tape measure, requiring no interpretation by any official. Courts and HCD have consistently recognized height limits as valid objective standards under state housing law.

By codifying 18 feet as the objective single-story limit, the City creates an enforceable, legally durable standard that:
•
Can be applied ministerially to single-story projects without discretionary review •
Cannot be challenged under SB 330 or the Housing Accountability Act •
Preserves the Planning Commission's authority over anything exceeding that standard
•
Gives homeowners a clear, predictable rule rather than the current uncertainty 5 City of Torrance | Page 3
PART 2: WHAT THE CURRENT CODE SAYS
A. The Precise Plan Exemption — TMC Section 91.41.7
Under current law, all construction in the Hillside Overlay requires a Precise Plan — a full Planning Commission public hearing with 300-foot neighbor notice and published newspaper notice — unless the project qualifies for the exemption in TMC Section

91.41.7. To qualify for that exemption (and skip the Precise Plan), a residential project currently must meet ALL of the following:
•
Be single-story
•
Not exceed 14 feet in height from finished grade
•
Have net interior area (including garage) no greater than 50% of lot area •
Have the Planning Director determine that the project will not have an "adverse effect on other properties in the vicinity" and that there is "no significant public controversy"
The last condition is the critical vulnerability. The Planning Director's adverse effect determination is a subjective judgment. The "no significant public controversy" trigger means any neighbor objection can escalate a compliant project back into full discretionary Precise Plan review — regardless of whether the project meets every objective standard.

Both conditions are incompatible with state housing law as it stands today.

B. The Height Hierarchy
Understanding the relationship between the R-1 base zone and the Hillside Overlay is essential:

Provision
Single-Story Height
Two-Story Height
R-1 Base Zone (TMC 91.4.2)
18 feet
27 feet
Hillside Overlay Exemption
(TMC 91.41.7) — current
14 feet (more restrictive —
controls)
Not available under exemption;
requires Precise Plan
Hillside Overlay — proposed
18 feet (proposed — objective
standard)
Precise Plan required
(unchanged)
6 City of Torrance | Page 4
Under TMC Section 91.41.2, the Overlay applies whichever standard is more restrictive.

Currently the Overlay's 14-foot limit controls over the R-1 base zone's 18-foot limit. The proposed ordinance raises the Overlay's single-story exemption limit to 18 feet — matching the R-1 base zone — while maintaining the requirement that anything taller goes through the Precise Plan process.

PART 3: SPECIFIC CODE CHANGES
A. TMC Section 91.41.7(b) — Single-Story Requirement
No change. The requirement that the dwelling be one story remains. The ordinance does not authorize two-story construction under the exemption pathway.

B. TMC Section 91.41.7(c) — Height Limit
Current:
14 feet from finished grade.

Proposed:
18 feet maximum ridge height. On flat and upslope lots, measured from the lowest point of finished grade along the entire building perimeter to the absolute highest point of the roof structure. On down-sloping lots, measured from the top of the curb at the center point of the front property line to the absolute highest point of the roof structure.

Why:

Fourteen feet is an unusually restrictive limit that prevents legitimate design choices — including modest vaulted ceilings and standard roof pitches — in single-story homes.

Eighteen feet is the standard established by the R-1 base zone and the state's own ADU height benchmark under California Government Code Section 66321. It is the right number for a functional single-story envelope.

Measurement clarification:

The ordinance codifies two objective measurement
methodologies tied to lot type. Flat and upslope lots use the lowest finished grade point along the building perimeter — preventing gaming through selective grade manipulation.

Down-sloping lots retain the existing curb-point measurement (top of curb at the center of the front property line).

C. TMC Section 91.41.7(d) — Planning Director Finding
Current:

The Planning Director must determine that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on other properties in the vicinity, and there is no significant public controversy.

Proposed:

Eliminated for projects meeting the objective 18-foot height standard. A project that satisfies all objective criteria is approved ministerially — no subjective staff finding required, and no public controversy escalation trigger. 7 City of Torrance | Page 5
Why:

This is the most legally vulnerable provision in the current code. The "adverse effect" finding is a subjective judgment; the "public controversy" trigger allows neighbor opposition to override a legally compliant project. Both are incompatible with SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act. Removing them for compliant single-story projects is legally necessary.

D. The Precise Plan Process — TMC Chapter 6, Article 2
No change. The Precise Plan process is preserved in full for:
•
Any project exceeding 18 feet in height
•
Any two-story construction
•
Any project that does not meet the objective criteria of the amended Section

91.41.7 The Planning Commission retains full discretionary authority over larger and more impactful projects. The ordinance narrows the category of projects subject to that review — it does not eliminate it.

PART 4: STATE LAW COMPLIANCE
A. SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act
The proposed 18-foot objective height standard is fully compliant with the Housing Accountability Act (California Government Code Section 65589.5), as permanently amended by SB 330. A numerical height limit is a paradigmatic objective standard under state law — it requires no personal judgment and is uniformly verifiable. HCD has consistently recognized height limits as valid objective standards in its ordinance review letters. Although certain temporary provisions of SB 330 expired on January 1, 2025, the law’s permanent amendments to Section 65589.5 remain in full force and effect as the operative legal standard.

B. State ADU Law — Government Code Section 66321(b)(4)
State law (Government Code Section 66321(b)(4), enacted by SB 897 (2022), renumbered by SB 477 (2024), and most recently amended by SB 543 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 520), effective January 1, 2026) establishes the height minimums that cities must allow for ADUs — local jurisdictions must follow these minimums and may not impose more restrictive standards. The ordinance is consistent with all four applicable minimums:
8 City of Torrance | Page 6
Standard detached ADU (§66321(b)(4)(A)):

State minimum is 16 feet. The ordinance’s
18-foot cap exceeds this minimum. No conflict.

Transit-adjacent detached ADU (§66321(b)(4)(B)):

State minimum is 18 feet, plus up
to 20 feet to match roof pitch of the primary dwelling. The ordinance’s 18-foot cap matches the base minimum; a specific carve-out in Section 3 of the ordinance permits up to 20 feet for qualifying parcels where the additional height is necessary to match roof pitch. No conflict.

Attached ADU (§66321(b)(4)(D)):

State law requires the city to allow the lesser of 25
feet or the height limit applicable to the primary dwelling. Because the Hillside Overlay’s 18-foot limit applies to primary dwellings and is lower than 25 feet, 18 feet is the operative maximum for attached ADUs in the Hillside Overlay by the express terms of state law. No conflict.

Two-story detached ADU savings clause:

State law (Government Code Section
66323, subdivision (a)(2)) requires ministerial approval of one detached new construction ADU per single-family lot, subject only to conditions expressly authorized by that subdivision — specifically, an 800 square foot floor area limit and a height limitation per Section 66321(b)(4)(A), (B), or (C). A single-story requirement is not an authorized condition under Section 66323(a)(2). Accordingly, the single-story requirement of amended Section 91.41.7(b) cannot be used to deny a detached ADU required to be approved ministerially under Section 66323(a)(2). The ordinance includes an express savings clause to this effect. Critically, the 18-foot height cap and any applicable Section 66321(b)(4) height limit continue to apply to any such ADU — only the single-story restriction is displaced.

C. CEQA
The ordinance is exempt from CEQA under Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Codifying an objective height measurement standard does not permit any new development and cannot have a significant effect on the environment.

PART 5: WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT CHANGE
•
The Precise Plan requirement for two-story construction — unchanged •
The 50% lot coverage limit under TMC Section 91.41.7(a) — unchanged •
The limitation on roof decks, sun-decks, and roof-mounted equipment under TMC Section 91.41.7(b) — unchanged
•
Section 91.41.6 planning and design criteria — these remain applicable to Precise Plan projects
•
Section 91.41.10 limitation on increases in height — unchanged 9 City of Torrance | Page 7
•
Section 91.41.11 limitation on increases in building space/lot coverage — unchanged
•
Section 91.41.13 guidelines for coastal development review — unchanged •
The R-1 base zone height limits in TMC Section 91.4.2 — unchanged PART 6: RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is urged to adopt this ordinance for the following reasons:

1. The current Hillside Overlay is legally vulnerable. The Planning Commission itself has acknowledged that its standards cannot be applied under current state housing law. Without objective standards, the Overlay provides no reliable protection.

2. The proposed 18-foot objective standard is legally durable. It is a number. It requires no interpretation. It will withstand challenge under SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act.

3. The ordinance preserves the Planning Commission's authority. Two-story construction and projects exceeding 18 feet still require a Precise Plan. The Commission is not being stripped of oversight — it is being given a defensible foundation to act from.

4. The change is modest and fair to homeowners. Raising the single-story exemption limit from 14 to 18 feet simply gives homeowners the same ceiling as the R-1 base zone and the state's own ADU standard. It does not authorize anything that the base zone doesn't already allow.

5. Acting now is preferable to acting after a successful legal challenge. A developer who successfully defeats the current Overlay's subjective standards in court could build two-story construction at 27 feet with no Planning Commission review at all.

This ordinance closes that door.

This memorandum was prepared to assist City Council members and City staff in understanding the proposed ordinance. It is intended to be read together with the ordinance text. Questions regarding the legal analysis should be directed to the City Attorney.
10 City of Torrance | Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 91.41.7 OF DIVISION 9 OF

THE TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH AN OBJECTIVE

MAXIMUM HEIGHT STANDARD FOR SINGLE-STORY RESIDENTIAL

CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE HILLSIDE AND LOCAL COASTAL

OVERLAY ZONE (R-H), AND REPLACING SUBJECTIVE REVIEW

CRITERIA WITH OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

RECITALS
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. O-2747 the City Council of the City of Torrance adopted the Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone (the "Hillside Overlay"), codified at Article 41 (Sections 91.41.1 through 91.41.14) of Division 9 of the Torrance Municipal Code ("TMC"), to provide development standards, design review criteria, and limitations for hillside and coastal development; and
WHEREAS, TMC Section 91.41.7 currently provides an exemption from the Precise Plan requirement for single-story residential construction in the Hillside Overlay, subject to conditions including a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet and a finding by the Planning Director that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on other properties and that there is no significant public controversy; and WHEREAS, SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019) permanently amended the Housing Accountability Act (California Government Code Section 65589.5), which requires that local jurisdictions apply only objective, quantifiable, written development standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by any city employee or officer and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark; and WHEREAS, SB 8 (Stats. 2021, Ch. 161) extended the operative provisions of SB 330 through January 1, 2030, and the law’s permanent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) remain in full force and effect as the operative legal standard; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code Section 66300), as extended by SB 8 through January 1, 2030, restricts affected cities from reducing the intensity of residential land use; and because this ordinance raises the maximum height for single-story residential construction in the Hillside Overlay from fourteen (14) feet to 11 City of Torrance | Page 2
eighteen (18) feet, it increases rather than reduces development intensity and is consistent with the Housing Crisis Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the subjective findings currently required under TMC Section 91.41.7(d) — including the adverse effect determination and the public controversy trigger — are incompatible with the objective standards requirements of SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, and cannot reliably be enforced against projects invoking those laws; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the fourteen (14) foot height limit in TMC Section

91.41.7(c) is below the R-1 base zone standard established in TMC Section 91.4.2(a) and below the state’s single-story height benchmark under California Government Code Section 66321, and that an eighteen (18) foot maximum ridge height is the appropriate objective standard for single-story construction in the Hillside Overlay, consistent with both; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that replacing the subjective findings in TMC Section

91.41.7(d) with the objective eighteen (18) foot height standard will allow the City to enforce single-story requirements in the Hillside Overlay against all development — including projects invoking SB 330 or the Housing Accountability Act — in a manner that is legally durable and consistent with state law; and
WHEREAS, the Precise Plan requirement under TMC Section 91.41.5 is preserved in full for any project exceeding eighteen (18) feet in height or seeking two-story construction, ensuring the Planning Commission retains meaningful discretionary review authority over larger and more impactful projects; and
WHEREAS, state law (California Government Code Section 66321, subdivisions (b)(4) (A) through (b)(4)(D), as enacted by SB 897 (2022), renumbered by SB 477 (2024), and most recently amended by SB 543 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 520), effective January 1, 2026) establishes the height minimums that cities must allow for ADUs and may not undercut:
sixteen (16) feet for a standard detached ADU; eighteen (18) feet for a detached ADU on a transit-adjacent lot, plus up to twenty (20) feet to match roof pitch; eighteen (18) feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling; and for an attached ADU, the lesser of twenty-five (25) feet or the height limitation that applies to the primary dwelling under local zoning; and because the Hillside Overlay’s eighteen (18) foot height limit applies to primary dwellings on these parcels and eighteen (18) feet is lower than twenty-five (25) feet, eighteen (18) feet is the operative maximum for attached ADUs in the Hillside Overlay by the express terms of state law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds this ordinance to be consistent with applicable state law, including California Government Code Sections 65800, 65589.5, 66310 through 12 City of Torrance | Page 3
66342, and with the California Coastal Act where applicable to properties within the Coastal Zone; and
WHEREAS, in October 2025 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. O-3954, amending TMC Section 92.2.10 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) to establish objective local development and design standards for ADUs and JADUs and to provide that state law governs in any instance of conflict, and this ordinance is intended to operate in harmony with TMC Section 92.2.10, with the height standards of this ordinance applying within the Hillside Overlay Area as the more restrictive standard pursuant to TMC Section 91.41.2, subject in all cases to the minimum standards mandated by state law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as there is no possibility that codifying an objective height measurement standard for single- story residential construction could have a significant effect on the environment, and, with respect to the provisions of this ordinance implementing state Accessory Dwelling Unit law, additionally exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
The City Council hereby finds and declares:

The subjective findings currently required under TMC Section 91.41.7(d) — the adverse effect determination and the public controversy trigger — are incompatible with the objective standards requirements of SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, and must be replaced with objective, measurable criteria.

An eighteen (18) foot maximum ridge height is the appropriate objective standard for single-story residential construction in the Hillside Overlay, consistent with the R-1 base zone standard in TMC Section 91.4.2(a) and the state's single-story height benchmark under California Government Code Section 66321.

The Precise Plan requirement under TMC Section 91.41.5 is preserved in full for all projects exceeding eighteen (18) feet or seeking two-story construction. This ordinance narrows the category of projects exempt from Precise Plan review — it does not eliminate Precise Plan review.

State law (California Government Code Section 66321, subdivisions (b)(4)(A) through (b)(4)(D)) establishes the height minimums that cities must allow for ADUs.

The eighteen (18) foot Maximum Ridge Height established by this ordinance meets or exceeds the state minimums for standard, transit-adjacent, and multifamily-lot 13 City of Torrance | Page 4
detached ADUs. For attached ADUs, state law requires the city to allow the lesser of twenty-five (25) feet or the height limit applicable to the primary dwelling; because the Hillside Overlay’s eighteen (18) foot limit applies to primary dwellings and is lower than twenty-five (25) feet, eighteen (18) feet governs attached ADUs in the Hillside Overlay by operation of state law. Where a detached ADU qualifies for the transit-adjacency roof pitch allowance under Government Code Section 66321, subdivision (b)(4)(B), up to twenty (20) feet is permitted for that ADU only and only to the extent necessary to match the roof pitch of the primary dwelling.

This ordinance does not reduce the number of units permitted by right on any parcel. Where state law mandates a minimum density or floor area that cannot physically be accommodated within an eighteen (18) foot single-story envelope given applicable setbacks, the administrative variance procedure set forth in Section 4 of this ordinance shall apply.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO TMC SECTION 91.41.7
TMC Section 91.41.7 (Permitted Development - Residential) of Article 41 of Division 9 of the Torrance Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
"91.41.7 PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, no Precise Plan shall be required if the proposed development within the Hillside and Coastal Overlay Zone is for the purpose of constructing, remodeling, or enlarging a dwelling, provided the following objective requirements are met:
a) Lot Coverage.

The net interior area of the completed dwelling, whether it is new construction or remodeled or enlarged, including the area of the garage, whether attached or detached, will not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the area of the lot or parcel on which the dwelling is located.
b) Single-Story Configuration.

The dwelling — or in the case of remodeling or enlargement, the portion remodeled or enlarged — will be one (1) story. No portion of the roof of the dwelling shall be used as a deck, sun-deck or patio, nor shall any equipment or appurtenances be mounted on the roof or protrude through the roof, except for ordinary plumbing or heater vents. A chimney is permitted if the portion extending above the roof eave line is no larger than the minimum dimensions required by the Torrance Building Code.
14 City of Torrance | Page 5
c) Maximum Ridge Height.

No portion of the dwelling shall exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. Except as provided below, height shall be measured from the lowest point of finished grade along the building perimeter, but not including any berm or raised planter.

In the case of a down-sloping lot, no portion of the dwelling shall exceed eighteen (18) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb at the center point of the front property line. Vents and a chimney, as provided in subsection b) of this section, shall not be considered in the height measurements. In the case of remodeling or enlargement, the portion remodeled or enlarged shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height as measured by the applicable methodology, and shall not exceed the height of the lowest portion of the remainder of the dwelling, whichever is less.

A project that satisfies subsections a), b), and c) of this section shall be approved ministerially, without discretionary review, without a Precise Plan, and without any finding regarding adverse effects on neighboring properties or public controversy.

Nothing in this Section shall exempt any project from the objective requirements of TMC Sections 91.41.9 a), 91.41.9 b)1), and 91.41.9 b)3) (Development Standards), 91.41.11 (Limitation on Increases in Building Space Lot Coverage), 91.41.13 (Guidelines for Review of Coastal Development), or any other objective provision of this Article not expressly superseded herein. The provisions of TMC Sections 91.41.9 b)2) and 91.41.9 b)4) shall not be applied to any project approved ministerially under this Section." SECTION 3. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE ADU LAW
State law (California Government Code Section 66321, subdivision (b)(4)) establishes the height limits that apply to ADUs — local jurisdictions must follow these minimums and may not impose more restrictive standards. For an ADU attached to a primary dwelling, state law requires the city to allow whichever is lower: twenty-five (25) feet, or the height limit that applies to the primary dwelling under local zoning. Because the Hillside Overlay’s eighteen (18) foot height limit applies to primary dwellings on these parcels — and eighteen (18) feet is lower than twenty-five (25) feet — eighteen (18) feet is the operative maximum for attached ADUs in the Hillside Overlay by the express terms of state law.

For detached ADUs, state law sets the height minimums that cities must allow. The base minimum is sixteen (16) feet for a detached ADU on any single-family or multifamily lot (Government Code Section 66321, subdivision (b)(4)(A)). Where a parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor, state law requires the city to allow up to eighteen (18) feet, and up to twenty (20) feet where the additional two feet are necessary to match the roof pitch of the detached ADU to that of the primary dwelling (Government Code Section 66321, subdivision (b)(4)(B)). The eighteen (18) foot Maximum Ridge Height established by this ordinance satisfies the base 15 City of Torrance | Page 6
and transit-adjacency minimums. State law also requires eighteen (18) feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling (Government Code Section 66321, subdivision (b)(4)(C)); to the extent any parcel within the Hillside Overlay Area contains such a dwelling, the eighteen (18) foot Maximum Ridge Height satisfies that minimum as well. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, where a detached ADU qualifies for the transit-adjacency roof pitch allowance under Government Code Section 66321, subdivision (b)(4)(B), a Maximum Ridge Height of up to twenty (20) feet shall be permitted for that detached ADU only, and only to the minimum extent necessary to match the roof pitch of the primary dwelling.

This ordinance therefore satisfies and does not conflict with state ADU law. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to permit an attached ADU to exceed eighteen (18) feet in Maximum Ridge Height within the Hillside Overlay Area, nor to permit a detached ADU to exceed twenty (20) feet except as provided above. Nothing in the single-story requirement of amended Section 91.41.7(b) shall be applied to limit the number of stories of any Accessory Dwelling Unit, whether attached or detached. State law makes height, not story count, the operative limitation on Accessory Dwelling Units (Government Code Section 66321, subdivision (b)(4)), and the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook (March 2026) provides that a local agency must allow at least two stories where they can be accommodated within the applicable height limit in compliance with applicable building standards. Accordingly, the story configuration of an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be governed solely by the applicable Maximum Ridge Height: eighteen (18) feet, or up to twenty (20) feet for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit qualifying for the transit-adjacency roof pitch allowance under Government Code Section 66321, subdivision (b)(4)(B). This waiver includes, without limitation, a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit required to be approved ministerially under California Government Code Section 66323, subdivision (a)(2).

SECTION 4. ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR STATE-MANDATED DENSITY Notwithstanding TMC Section 91.41.12, where an applicant demonstrates through objective evidence that the state-mandated density or required floor area for a parcel within the Hillside Overlay Area cannot physically be accommodated within an eighteen (18) foot single-story envelope given applicable setbacks, the applicant may request an administrative variance from the Planning Director.

The Planning Director shall grant a variance only upon finding each of the following:

The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the state-mandated density or floor area requirement.
16 City of Torrance | Page 7
B.

The proposed development otherwise complies with all objective standards of TMC Article 41 and this ordinance to the maximum extent feasible.

The variance does not permit development inconsistent with the Housing Accountability Act (California Government Code Section 65589.5) or SB 330.

Any decision of the Planning Director under this Section may be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to TMC Section 92.30.11, and thereafter to the City Council pursuant to Article 5, Chapter 1, Division 1 of the Torrance Municipal Code, commencing at Section 11.5.1.

SECTION 5. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING HILLSIDE OVERLAY STANDARDS Except as expressly amended by Section 2 of this ordinance, all other provisions of TMC Article 41 (Sections 91.41.1 through 91.41.6 and 91.41.8 through 91.41.14) remain in full force and effect and are not modified by this ordinance. The Precise Plan requirement under TMC Section 91.41.5 continues to apply to all projects that do not qualify for the ministerial exemption under amended Section 91.41.7. Where any provision of this ordinance conflicts with existing TMC Article 41 provisions, the more restrictive standard shall apply, except where state law mandates otherwise. This ordinance is further intended to operate in harmony with TMC Section 92.2.10 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units), as amended by Ordinance No. O-3954 (October 2025); within the Hillside Overlay Area, the height standards of this ordinance apply as the more restrictive standard pursuant to TMC Section 91.41.2, subject in all cases to the minimum standards mandated by state law.

SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any individual portion.

SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption, pursuant to California Government Code Section 36937.
17 City of Torrance | Page 8
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Torrance, California, at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of ______________, 20___, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor, City of Torrance
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk, City of Torrance
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney, City of Torrance
18 Objective Design Standards for ADUs and SB 9 Projects A Working Guide for the City of Torrance
Current as of August 2026

1. The Core Legal Landscape
Three distinct bodies of state law constrain how Torrance may regulate residential design.

They are often blurred together, but each operates differently.

Law Citation Primary Focus The "Objective" Requirement
Housing
Accountability Act
(HAA)
Gov. Code §
65589.5
Protects all "housing
development projects"
from arbitrary denial
Cities may only apply
standards that are objective,
quanti ﬁ able, and written at the
time an application is deemed
complete
SB 9 (2021), as
amended by SB 450
(2024) and AB 1061
(2025)
Gov. Code
§§ 65852.21,
66411.7
Two-unit developments
("duplexes") and urban
lot splits in single-family
zones
Standards must apply
uniformly to development
within the underlying zone
(more-permissive standards
excepted)
State ADU Law Gov. Code
§§ 66310–
66342
Accessory dwelling
units and junior ADUs
on residential and
mixed-use lots
Objective standards are
allowed but may not
"physically preclude" a
statewide-exemption ADU (see
§ 4 below)
Citation note: Older materials cite ADU law as Gov. Code § 65852.2. SB 477 (2024) relocated state ADU law to a new chapter at Gov. Code §§ 66310–66342. Torrance's own ordinance (TMC § 92.2.10) already references the new numbering. Do not cite § 65852.2 in any new drafting.

2. Torrance's Unique Posture: The SB 9 Charter-City Litigation This is essential context that generic ODS guides omit. Torrance is one of ﬁ ve petitioner charter cities (with Redondo Beach, Carson, Whittier, and Del Mar) in City of Redondo Beach v. Bonta (L.A. Super. Ct. No. 22STCP01143).

April 22, 2024: The trial court (Judge Curtis Kin) granted the cities' writ petition, holding SB 9 unconstitutional as applied to charter cities. The ruling turned on SB 9's 19 own ﬁ ndings, which identi ﬁ ed "ensuring access to affordable housing" as the statewide concern; the court found no evidence that SB 9's upzoning would increase below-market-rate housing supply, so the law failed the home-rule test under Cal.

Const. art. XI, § 5(a).

Legislative response: SB 450 (signed Sept. 19, 2024, effective Jan. 1, 2025) rewrote the ﬁ ndings to declare a statewide "housing crisis of availability and affordability," to frame the purpose as increasing the overall supply of housing at all income levels, and to declare expressly that the shortage is "a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair," applicable to "all cities, including charter cities." November 12, 2025: The Court of Appeal (City of Redondo Beach v. Attorney General, B338990) reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to reconsider its rulings in light of the amended statutory language. The writ is vacated; no charter-city exemption is currently in effect for Torrance.

Drafting implication: Torrance should draft its ODS assuming SB 9/SB 450 fully applies.

That is the current legal reality, the Legislature has demonstrated it will amend around adverse rulings, and appellate trends run against home-rule challenges to housing laws (the HAA was upheld as applicable to charter cities in the Anderson v. City of San Jose line of authority; the Second District held in City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. State of California (2025) that general law cities cannot resist SB 9). Standards drafted to the state-law ﬂ oor remain valid regardless of the litigation outcome.

3. SB 450: The Uniformity Rule
SB 450 amended Gov. Code §§ 65852.21 and 66411.7, effective January 1, 2025. Its core changes:

1. Uniformity. A local agency may not impose objective zoning, subdivision, or design standards on an SB 9 two-unit project that do not apply uniformly to development within the underlying zone. The only exception is standards that are more permissive than the base zoning. "Poison pill" SB 9-speci ﬁ c standards (e.g., special roof pitch or material rules only for SB 9 projects) are prohibited.

2. Urban lot splits. Standards imposed on lot splits are limited to those "related to the design or to improvements of a parcel" (e.g., lot size, access, grading).

3. 60-day shot clock. The agency must approve or deny a complete SB 9 or lot-split application within 60 days of receipt, or it is deemed approved. On denial, the agency must provide a full written set of comments listing de ﬁ cient items and how to remedy them.

4. Narrowed denial basis. SB 450 removed "adverse impact upon the physical environment" as a denial ground. Denial now requires a written ﬁ nding, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, of a speci ﬁ c, adverse impact upon public health and 20 safety with no feasible, satisfactory mitigation. Aesthetics and "neighborhood character" are not valid denial grounds.

5. HCD oversight. The Department of Housing and Community Development has enforcement authority over SB 9 implementation.

4. State ADU Law: The Protected-Unit Floor
Under Gov. Code §§ 66310–66342, local objective standards are permitted but bounded:

The "800 sq ft" protected unit. No combination of local standards (lot coverage, FAR, open space, minimum lot size, porch/façade requirements, etc.) may physically preclude an ADU of at least 800 square feet with 4-foot side and rear setbacks and the applicable height limit. If a local design standard pushes the buildable envelope below 800 sq ft for a given lot, that standard is unenforceable as to that project.

Height limits. Under state law:

Detached ADU: at least 16 feet as a baseline.
18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor, or on a lot with an existing or proposed multistory multifamily dwelling — plus 2 additional feet where needed to match the roof pitch of the primary dwelling.

Attached ADU: up to 25 feet or the height limit of the underlying zone, whichever is lower.

Hillside Overlay exception: see § 8 below. Within the R-H zone, the operative attached-ADU cap is 18 feet (not 25 feet), because the overlay's primary- dwelling limit is 18 feet and § 66321(b)(4)(D) takes whichever is lower.

Size caps. A city imposing maximum unit sizes may not set them below 850 sq ft (studio/one-bedroom) or 1,000 sq ft (more than one bedroom).

Conversions. ADUs converted from existing space (garage conversions, etc.) are broadly exempt from setback and height standards.

No owner-occupancy requirement for standard ADUs (AB 976, made permanent).

5. The HAA "Objective" Test
Under the HAA, a standard is "objective" only if it involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly veri ﬁ able by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion, knowable to both applicant and official before submittal. (SB 450 embeds the same de ﬁ nition in the SB 9 statutes.) Subjective (unenforceable): "The ADU must be compatible with the character of the neighborhood."
Objective (enforceable): "The exterior shall use one of the three siding materials listed in Table A: smooth- ﬁ nish stucco, horizontal lap siding, or shingle." 21 The pre-submittal test: Could a stranger, looking only at the code and the plans, determine whether the project complies without talking to a planner? If yes, the standard is objective.

6. Drafting Principles: Standards That Do Not Con ﬂ ict A. Avoid the differentiation trap
Do not create a design manual that applies only to ADUs or only to SB 9 projects. Update the underlying zone standards (R-1) to be objective, so the same rules govern a primary home, an SB 9 second unit, and an ADU alike. This automatically satis ﬁ es SB 450's uniformity mandate.

Safe: "All residential structures in the R-1 zone shall have a roof pitch between 4:12 and 6:12."
Risky: "Primary homes have no roof pitch requirement, but ADUs must have a 4:12 pitch."
B. Respect the 800-sq-ft safe harbor
Model every proposed standard against constrained lots. If a porch-depth or articulation requirement pushes the buildable footprint below 800 sq ft on any realistic lot, it is void as applied and invites an HCD ﬁ nding of noncompliance.

C. Eliminate discretion words
Use "shall" and "must" exclusively. Strike "should," "encourage," "harmonious," "well- balanced," "attractive," "compatible," and "aesthetically pleasing." De ﬁ ne every requirement in feet, inches, percentages, ratios, or enumerated menu choices.

D. Include a con ﬂ ict clause
Torrance already does this well. TMC § 92.2.10 provides that in any instance of con ﬂ ict, state law governs. Retain and extend this clause to the SB 9 standards — it is the city's best insulation against "bad faith" HAA challenges and HCD enforcement.

E. Mind the shot clocks
SB 9 / lot splits: 60 days to approve or deny a complete application (deemed approved otherwise).

ADUs: 60 days ministerial review, and — new under SB 543 (2025) — the agency must review the application for completeness and deliver a written list of any incomplete items within 15 business days of submission.

7. What's New: 2025–2026 State Law Changes
These postdate most existing ODS guides and should be re ﬂ ected in any Torrance update:
22 SB 9 (2025, Arreguín) — a new bill confusingly sharing the 2021 bill's number.

Requires local ADU ordinances to be consistent with state law; ordinances must be submitted to HCD within 60 days of adoption for review, and HCD may issue written ﬁ ndings of noncompliance. Any Torrance ODS amendment touching ADUs will get state review.

SB 543 (2025) — 15-business-day completeness review (above); de ﬁ nes unit size by "interior livable space"; exempts ADUs/JADUs of 500 sq ft or less from school impact fees (units of 750 sq ft or less remain exempt from development impact fees).

AB 1154, AB 462, AB 130 (2025) — assorted ADU-law changes effective June 30, 2025, October 10, 2025, and January 1, 2026, re ﬂ ected in HCD's updated ADU Handbook (2026 edition). Notably, the changes remove former Gov. Code § 66323(g), which had allowed objective standards on ADUs in multifamily structures where a local ordinance predated July 1, 2018.

AB 1061 (2025, effective 2026) — narrows the SB 9 historic-protection exemption from broad districts to speci ﬁ c structures, sites, and landmarks, and expressly authorizes cities to adopt objective historic-protection standards. Directly relevant to Torrance's Historic Resources Survey / Torrance Tract Overlay approach:
protections must be tied to identi ﬁ ed contributing structures, not blanket district geography.

SB 79 (2025, operative July 1, 2026) — overrides local ordinances for qualifying transit-oriented development near major transit stations and lets transit agencies set standards for agency-owned land. Limited applicability in Torrance, but worth a footnote in any SB 9 ordinance update.

HCD ADU Handbook (2026 edition) — the authoritative reference document; HCD's ADU Portal offers technical assistance.

8. Torrance's Current Framework
Torrance operates on two regulatory tiers depending on whether a parcel is within the Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone (R-H). Check the Article 41 maps (Exhibits A, B, and C to TMC § 91.41.1) before applying any checklist.

Tier 1 — Base Torrance (R-1 and other non-overlay zones) ADUs/JADUs: TMC § 92.2.10, most recently amended by Ordinance O-3954 (adopted October 2025). Establishes objective local development and design standards where allowed by state law; state law governs in any con ﬂ ict. Key standards:
4-ft side/rear setbacks for detached ADUs, 6-ft building separation, compliance with underlying FAR/lot coverage (subject to the 800-sq-ft safe harbor).

SB 9 two-unit projects and urban lot splits: TMC § 92.29.34, adopted via Ordinance No. 3896 (2021). This section predates SB 450 and is a priority candidate for review — 23 any SB 9-speci ﬁ c standard that is stricter than the base R-1 standard is now unenforceable under the uniformity rule.

Design-matching requirements are conditional, not blanket. A detached ADU must match the primary dwelling only where the lot contains a contributing or altered- contributing structure identi ﬁ ed in the Torrance Historic Resources Survey (Torrance Tract Overlay context). Per AB 1061, historic standards must be objective and structure-speci ﬁ c.

Review process: ministerial Site Plan Review consistent with state law.

Tier 2 — Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone (R-H, TMC Article 41) The R-H overlay imposes additional requirements on top of the R-1 base zone (TMC §

91.41.2: the more restrictive standard controls). It creates a two-lane system:

Lane A — Ministerial exemption (amended TMC § 91.41.7, proposed Ordinance v13):

Projects that satisfy all three objective criteria are approved ministerially, without a Precise Plan and without any subjective staff ﬁ nding:

Standard Requirement Code
basis
Lot coverage Net interior area (including garage) ≤ 50% of lot area §

91.41.7 a)
Con ﬁ guration Single-story; no roof decks, roof-mounted equipment; chimney per Torrance Building Code only
§

91.41.7 b)
Maximum Ridge
Height
≤ 18 feet, measured from lowest point of ﬁ nished grade along the building perimeter, excluding any berm or raised planter; down- sloping lots measured from top of curb at center of front property line §

91.41.7 c)
Ministerial projects remain subject to the objective subsections of § 91.41.9: subsections a), b)1), and b)3) (drainage, grading/building code compliance, stilt-structure screening, and the 5-ft level setback adjacent to slopes >15%). Subsections b)2) ("encouraged" language for driveways) and b)4) (subjective "substantial change in physical conditions" ﬁ nding) do not apply to ministerial approvals.

Lane B — Precise Plan (TMC § 91.41.5/91.41.6): Required for any project that does not qualify for Lane A: any project exceeding 18 feet, any two-story construction, or any project not meeting all of § 91.41.7's objective criteria. The Planning Commission retains full discretionary authority over these projects. Note: § 91.41.6's ﬁ ndings ("harmony with other properties," "adverse impact upon view, light, air and privacy") are subjective and currently 24 unenforceable against a housing development project invoking the HAA — objectifying §

91.41.6 is identi ﬁ ed as a phase-two drafting task.

Hillside ADU heights — how they interact with state law:

ADU type State minimum
(§ 66321(b)(4))
R-H overlay cap Result
Detached, standard lot 16 ft 18 ft 18 ft allowed — state minimum satis ﬁ ed
Detached, transit-adjacent
(≤ ½ mi)
18 ft + 2 ft roof
pitch
18 ft base; up to 20 ft
for roof pitch
allowance only
20 ft for qualifying units
only — state minimum
satis ﬁ ed
Detached,
multifamily/multistory lot
18 ft 18 ft 18 ft — state minimum
satis ﬁ ed
Attached Lesser of 25 ft or
primary dwelling
limit
Primary dwelling
limit = 18 ft < 25 ft
18 ft — overlay cap
governs by operation of
§ 66321(b)(4)(D)
ADU story count is not limited by the single-story requirement of § 91.41.7 b) — height is the operative control. Two stories are rarely feasible within an 18-foot envelope, but the ordinance's savings clause waives the story restriction for all ADUs (per HCD ADU Handbook, March 2026).

Con ﬂ ict clauses: Torrance has two complementary con ﬂ ict clauses covering R-H parcels.

TMC § 92.2.10 (O-3954) provides that state law governs ADU standards in any con ﬂ ict citywide. Proposed Ordinance v13, Section 5, provides that within the Hillside Overlay the v13 height standards apply as the more restrictive standard pursuant to § 91.41.2, subject in all cases to state-law minimums. Together they create a complete state-law savings net for hillside ADU projects.

Waivers: TMC § 91.41.12 provides that height requirements in Article 41 may be changed only pursuant to a Precise Plan. Proposed Ordinance v13, Section 4, creates a single narrow exception — expressly stated as "Notwithstanding TMC Section 91.41.12" — for an administrative variance where state-mandated density or ﬂ oor area cannot be physically accommodated within the 18-foot single-story envelope. The Planning Director makes this determination; appeals go to the Planning Commission under § 92.30.11 and thereafter to the City Council under Article 5, Chapter 1, Division 1, commencing at § 11.5.1. 25 9. Compliance Checklist for Evaluating or Drafting Torrance Standards First step: Determine which tier applies. Check the Article 41 maps. If the parcel is in the R-H overlay, use both the base checklist (A–D) and the hillside supplement (E).

A. Site & Massing (quanti ﬁ able — all zones)
Setbacks: 4-ft minimum side and rear for ADUs (state ﬂ oor); front setback per underlying zone, provided it does not preclude an 800-sq-ft unit.

Height: Detached ADU allowed to at least 16 ft baseline (18 ft + 2 ft roof-pitch allowance near transit or on multistory multifamily lots); attached ADU to 25 ft or the zone height limit, whichever is lower.

Building separation: 6 ft between detached ADU and primary dwelling (per TMC §

92.2.10).

Coverage/FAR: Apply underlying-zone standards uniformly; verify the 800-sq-ft unit remains buildable on the smallest conforming R-1 lot (6,000 sq ft standard; SB 9 lots may be as small as 1,200 sq ft).

B. Architectural & Materials (objective menus — all zones) Enumerate permitted siding/roo ﬁ ng materials in tables rather than requiring a "match" — reserve matching requirements for individually identi ﬁ ed historic contributing structures per AB 1061.

Express all articulation rules numerically (e.g., wall-plane offsets in feet per linear feet of wall; window recess depths in inches).

No "shoulds," no compatibility language, no staff or commission discretion.

C. Process (all zones)
15-business-day completeness review for ADU/JADU applications (SB 543). 60-day approve/deny clock for ADUs and SB 9 applications; deemed-approved consequence documented in staff work ﬂ ow.

Written full-comment requirement on any denial (SB 450).

Denial ﬁ ndings limited to speci ﬁ c, adverse public-health-and-safety impacts supported by a preponderance of evidence.

Ordinance submitted to HCD within 60 days of adoption (SB 9 (2025)).

Con ﬂ ict clause retained: state law governs in any con ﬂ ict.

D. Uniformity audit (SB 450 — all zones)
For every standard in § 92.29.34, con ﬁ rm an identical or stricter standard applies to ordinary R-1 construction; delete or generalize any SB 9-only standard.

For SB 9 + ADU combinations: on urban-lot-split parcels, the city may cap total units at two per parcel (including ADUs) — con ﬁ rm the cap is drafted per current § 66411.7 26 language.

E. Hillside Overlay supplement (R-H parcels only)
Lane determination: Does the project meet all three criteria of amended § 91.41.7 (≤50% lot coverage, single-story, ≤18-ft ridge height)? If yes → ministerial Lane A. If no → Precise Plan Lane B.

Height: Con ﬁ rm the 18-ft Maximum Ridge Height applies to the primary dwelling.

Con ﬁ rm attached ADU cap is 18 ft (not 25 ft) per § 66321(b)(4)(D). Con ﬁ rm detached ADU gets state minimums (16/18/20 ft per transit proximity) — all satis ﬁ ed by the 18-ft cap except the roof-pitch allowance, which gets up to 20 ft per Ordinance v13, Section 3.

Measurement method: Flat/upslope lots — from lowest point of ﬁ nished grade along building perimeter, excluding berm or raised planter. Down-sloping lots — from top of curb at center of front property line. (Conformed to TMC § 91.4.2.)

91.41.9 objective subsections apply: drainage (a)), grading/building code (b)1)), stilt- structure screening (b)3)), 5-ft setback on slopes >15% (b)3)). Subsections b)2) and b)4) do not apply to Lane A approvals.

Con ﬂ ict clauses: Both O-3954/§ 92.2.10 and Ordinance v13, Section 5 con ﬂ ict clauses are operative — state law governs, with the 18-ft overlay cap as the more restrictive local standard per § 91.41.2.

91.41.12 waiver: Any height variance requires a Precise Plan, except the narrow Ordinance v13 Section 4 administrative variance for state-mandated density (Planning Director determination, appealable under § 92.30.11).

Phase-two ﬂ ag: § 91.41.6 Precise Plan ﬁ ndings remain subjective. Two-story Precise Plan review is partially unenforceable against HAA-protected projects. Objectifying § 91.41.6 is the recommended next drafting step.

10. Peer-City Models (verify against primary documents before citing) The following approaches are commonly cited as compliant models. The speci ﬁ c checklist details attributed to these cities in secondary summaries should be veri ﬁ ed against each city's published documents before citing — item-level details in AI-generated summaries are exactly where errors creep in.

San Jose — universal zone updates. Rather than an SB 9-speci ﬁ c ordinance, San Jose amended base single-family standards so identical rules govern all new units, automatically satisfying uniformity. San Jose was also the ﬁ rst major city to adopt AB 1033 ADU-condominium conversions (effective July 2024).

La Cañada Flintridge — architectural style menu. Applicants select a de ﬁ ned style and satisfy that style's measurable checklist (materials, eave dimensions, enumerated features), converting "character" into objective criteria. 27 Concord — visual ODS toolkit. Diagram-based standards for articulation and massing, with applicants citing the plan sheet where each standard is met; pre- approved ADU plans streamline ministerial approval.

Santa Monica — point/menu system. Applicants choose a required number of features from an objective menu (recessed windows, porch depths, landscaping speci ﬁ cations).

Hillside-speci ﬁ c model: No widely-cited Gold Standard city has published a veri ﬁ ed compliant hillside ODS that has survived HCD review. Torrance's proposed two-lane structure (ministerial exemption with objective 18-ft cap + preserved Precise Plan for larger projects) is a pragmatic approach consistent with the HAA and SB 450, but it is novel enough that HCD review of the ﬁ nal ordinance is advisable before adoption.

11. Recommended Submittal Practice
For any project (or for the city's own application materials), require or encourage a one- page Statement of Compliance: a table listing each objective standard alongside the plan sheet and dimension demonstrating compliance. This operationalizes the pre-submittal test, accelerates the 60-day review, and builds the administrative record that protects the city if a denial is ever challenged under the HAA.

For hillside projects speci ﬁ cally, the Statement of Compliance should identify which lane (A or B) applies and, for Lane A projects, con ﬁ rm all three § 91.41.7 objective criteria with speci ﬁ c measurements.

12. Proposed Torrance Ordinances — Status
Document Scope Status
Ordinance O-3954 /
TMC § 92.2.10
ADU/JADU standards citywide Adopted October 2025
Ordinance No. 3896 /
TMC § 92.29.34
SB 9 two-unit projects and lot splits Adopted 2021; needs SB 450 uniformity audit
Proposed Ordinance
v13 / TMC § 91.41.7
Hillside Overlay — 18-ft objective standard,
ministerial exemption, ADU savings clauses
Proposed — pending City
Council adoption
Primary Sources to Pull

1. Gov. Code §§ 65852.21, 66411.7 (SB 9 as amended by SB 450, AB 1061)

2. Gov. Code §§ 66310–66342 (state ADU law)

3. Gov. Code § 65589.5 (HAA)
28 4. HCD ADU Handbook, 2026 edition (HCD ADU Portal)

5. Torrance Ordinance O-3954 and TMC § 92.2.10 (ADU/JADU)

6. Torrance Ordinance No. 3896 and TMC § 92.29.34 (SB 9)

7. Torrance TMC Article 41 (§§ 91.41.1–91.41.14, Hillside and Local Coastal Overlay Zone)

8. Torrance TMC § 91.4.2 (R-1 building height)

9. Torrance TMC § 92.30.11 (right of appeal)

10. City of Redondo Beach v. Attorney General (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Nov. 12, 2025, B338990); trial court proceedings on remand, L.A. Super. Ct. No. 22STCP01143

11. City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. State of California (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 13 Prepared August 2026. This guide summarizes law for planning purposes and is not legal advice; the City Attorney should review any ordinance text before adoption. 29 Name:Mark Nelson
Comment - 09/14/2026 05:25 PM: ( No Vote )
The following message from BCHD CEO Bakaly was circulated by Tara Stabile of Hermosa Beach, CA, to parties interested in a swimming pool for Hermosa Beach. CEO Bakaly implied to the HPI (Hermosa Pool Group) that the FAR 1.25 was required for a swimming pool. THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.

HERE'S WHAT'S HAPPENING: Through Hermosa Pool Initiative's conversations with the Beach Cities Health District, the proposed Sunrise Senior Living Center has agreed to make their originally planned seniors-only pool into a much larger, much more community accessible swimming pool on the BCHD campus. BCHD CEO Tom Bakalay has alerted HPI that they need community support on a vote being taken tonight to move the project forward, and therefore, more forward the plans for a swimming pool in the South Bay — a pool accessible to residents in all three of the Beach Cities who already pay an annual tax to support BCHD.

Getting this pool is important to the three cities because there is the land available and Sunrise will pay to build it. It is a pool that appears to be built at no additional cost to us, and therefore, it's essential that we support it. If you live in Redondo, please submit an E-COMMENT SHOWING YOU SUPPORT IT
AND WHY . The detractors are very vocal.

Below is the message from BCHD explaining the vote tonight as well as addressing other concerns:

"We need your support as the Redondo Beach City Council considers the City’s proposed General Plan Update, a critical document that governs how development is managed throughout the city, including standards that apply to public institutions like Beach Cities Health District (BCHD).

BCHD’s current zoning does not include a deﬁned FAR cap, and the proposed General Plan would introduce one for the ﬁrst time.

An important element of the General Plan is a proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) cap for Public/Institutional properties, including BCHD. FAR governs how much density can be built on a given site. In January, following months of public input, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt a 1.25 FAR for the BCHD Campus.

30 Tomorrow night, at its July 7 meeting, the City Council is expected to discuss the adoption of the Land Use Element and other proposed zoning ordinances, which include the FAR for Public/Institutional properties. A ﬁnal vote is expected in late July or early August.

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!

Please contact the City Council to have them maintain the 1.25 FAR for BCHD’s campus that was approved in January. A 1.25 FAR will provide important ﬂexibility for our campus and our partners to meet the health needs of our community into the future.

After Council approval, FAR changes in the General Plan will need to be approved by voters in November. The Council will discuss election details at the July meetings, including whether to have all FAR changes in the General Plan in one ballot measure or whether to separate issues into multiple ballot questions. BCHD believes that including all FAR updates in one ballot question will ensure the community can consider the full set of proposed changes together rather than in separate, potentially complex measures. ”

31 Name:Mark Nelson
Comment - 09/14/2026 05:26 PM: ( No Vote )
Tell the truth. Stop wasting $1M a year on PR. Taxpayers don't want to pay to fund 8 people in a propaganda department at BCHD. That's more than 10% of the full time employees IN THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION!

32 Name:Mark Nelson
Comment - 09/14/2026 05:27 PM: ( No Vote )
Public Comment - All Agencies

Subject: LTE: BCHD's Privatization of 5 Acres of Public Land is Likely the Most Opposed Agency Action Ever in Redondo Beach

It's no secret that BCHD has been largely ignoring public comments and opposition to its proposed private development on public land. The size of the proposal has varied from 800,000-sf to the current 540,000-sf (FAR 1.25). The proposed height has been from 60-feet to 133.5-feet as stated in the BCHD Environmental Impact Report.

Using a commercially licensed instance of ChatGPT in a Medium thinking mode, data was collected from public documents and the internet to determine the levels of public support and opposition to the BCHD proposed privately developed, owned, and operated Healthy Living Campus. The results are nothing short of appalling.

Using multiple public documents and meetings, ChatGPT found that 91.1% of all public input was negative regarding BCHD's proposal. That includes both the project itself and the characteristics of the project. Only 0.3% of public input was positive. Overall, ChatGPT found:

The largest and most complete comment repository—the 2021 Final EIR record—shows a strongly negative public-comment pattern regarding the Healthy Living Campus (HLC) and/or its environmental impacts. BCHD records 303 written submissions and 17 oral comments during the Draft EIR review period, for 320 submissions total. A screening classiﬁcation of those 320 records produced 297 negative, 22 neutral/mixed or procedural, and 1 clearly positive submission: 92.8% negative, 6.9% neutral/mixed, and 0.3% positive.

Comments from the Easy Reader News, Beach Reporter, and BCHD meeting transcripts were also primarily negative. In short, this project was rejected by the public and yet BCHD continues to allow a 100% private developer a 99-year lease for a 100% private development.

Obviously the current Board and Executive team at BCHD is tone deaf to public opinion. As a 4-year volunteer at BCHD, I can assure residents that BCHD uses its roughly $1M per marketing/communications to spin a 99.7% negative or neutral comment base into a 33 public mandate to destroy 5 acres of public land for 5 generations with a private development.

Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
Attachments
BCHD_HLC_Public_Comment_Sentiment_Summary_2026-09-04.docx

34 BCHD HLC Public-Comment Sentiment Summary | September 4, 2026 BCHD Healthy Living Campus
Public-Comment Sentiment Summary
Easy Reader News, The Beach Reporter, BCHD meeting transcripts, and Final EIR public comments Prepared September 4, 2026
Executive Summary
Bottom line. The largest and most complete comment repository—the 2021 Final EIR record—shows a strongly negative public-comment pattern regarding the Healthy Living Campus (HLC) and/or its environmental impacts. BCHD records 303 written submissions and 17 oral comments during the Draft EIR review period, for 320 submissions total. A screening classification of those 320 records produced 297 negative, 22 neutral/mixed or procedural, and 1 clearly positive submission: 92.8% negative, 6.9% neutral/mixed, and 0.3% positive.

Important limitation. These percentages describe the comments that were submitted; they are not a public-opinion poll. Commenters are self-selected, some individuals submitted multiple comments, organized groups participated, and CEQA comment periods naturally attract impact-focused criticism. Newspaper letters/comments and meeting testimony have the same self-selection issue.

Sentiment Table
Comment
source Corpus used Positive Neutral /
mixed Negative Interpretation
BCHD Final EIR /
Appendix N
320 Draft EIR submissions:
303 written + 17 oral
1 (0.3%) 22 (6.9%) 297 (92.8%) Exhaustive for the formal 2021 DEIR comment period; strongest
quantitative source.

Easy Reader News 16 HLC-specific
letters/comments located
in the retrieved web corpus
6 (37.5%) 1 (6.3%) 9 (56.3%) Non-exhaustive media sample; shows both organized support and
opposition.

The Beach
Reporter
HLC coverage and
quoted/summarized public
feedback located in
accessible archive copies
Not reliably
countable
Not reliably
countable
Negative concerns
repeatedly
reported
Archive copies summarize public
themes but do not expose a
complete, stable denominator of
individual comments.

BCHD meeting
transcripts
Consolidated BCHD
transcript file; HLC appears
hundreds of times across
meeting records
Not yet
exhaustively
speaker-
coded
Not yet
exhaustively
speaker-
coded
Opposition/impact
concerns are
frequent
Useful corroboration, but a defensible
percentage requires meeting-by-
meeting speaker de-duplication and
coding.

Quantifiable
combined corpus
FEIR + retrieved Easy
Reader sample (n=336)
7 (2.1%) 23 (6.8%) 306 (91.1%) Dominated by the FEIR because it supplies 320 of 336 coded records; do
not present as a resident poll.

Sources for the table
 Beach Cities Health District, Environmental Impact Report page: https://bchd.org/healthy-living- campus/environmental-impact-report/
 California CEQAnet, SCH No. 2019060258, Final EIR record and Appendix N:
https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2019060258/5
 BCHD Final EIR, Chapter 8/9 and Table 8-1; Library source: “BCHD_FEIR_For Print_090221-high compressed (1).pdf.”
 BCHD Appendix N; Library source: “Appendix N-Comments on Draft EIR-compressed.pdf.”  BCHD consolidated meeting transcript source: “BCHD Transcripts (plain text).txt.”  Easy Reader News representative HLC letter/comment pages: 2/22/2018; 12/5/2019; 12/19/2019; 10/15/2020; 9/8/2021; 6/2/2022; 7/14/2022; 8/18/2022; 9/26/2024; 12/12/2024. 35 BCHD HLC Public-Comment Sentiment Summary | September 4, 2026  Beach Reporter archive copies indexed through BCHD’s HLC/news archive, including January 2019 and June 2020 HLC coverage.

Coding Method
 Unit of analysis: one FEIR submission listed in Table 8-1 (not each sentence and not each agency response). This preserves BCHD’s own count of 303 written and 17 oral submissions.  Negative: opposes the HLC, urges rejection/reduction, or asserts adverse HLC impacts, deficiencies, risks, hazards, incompatibility, traffic/noise/air-quality effects, health effects, or inadequate mitigation.  Positive: clearly endorses proceeding with the HLC or the HLC/EIR without a material adverse-condition caveat.  Neutral/mixed: procedural or informational submissions, questions without a clear HLC/impact position, technical comments without a sufficiently clear overall stance, or conditional support that materially limits the project.  The FEIR percentages are a screening classification based on the complete Table 8-1 submission list and Chapter 9 response text. Ambiguous items were placed in neutral/mixed rather than forced into positive or negative.

What the Result Supports—and What It Does Not
Supported statement: “Among comments formally submitted during the 2021 Draft EIR review period, negative comments concerning the Healthy Living Campus and/or its impacts overwhelmingly predominated in this screening, at approximately 93% of submissions.”
Avoid: “93% of Beach Cities residents opposed the HLC.” The comment record is not a random or representative sample and cannot establish that proposition.

Media context: Easy Reader letters/comments show a much more mixed public-facing debate than the CEQA record.

The accessible Beach Reporter archive similarly reports repeated community concerns—traffic, height, neighborhood integration, community benefit and green space—while also reporting project revisions intended to answer those concerns. This difference is expected because CEQA comments are specifically solicited to identify deficiencies and impacts.

Recommended Next Step for a Publication-Grade Percentage For a fully reproducible appendix suitable for public distribution, the next version should include one row for every FEIR submission and every identified newspaper/transcript comment, with: date, commenter, source, comment ID/link, short stance rationale, positive/neutral/negative code, and a duplicate-commenter flag. That would allow both (1) submission-weighted percentages and (2) unique-commenter percentages, which is the better safeguard against prolific repeat commenters.
36 Name: Mark Nelson
Comment - 09/14/2026 05:27 PM: ( No Vote )
Public Comment: How can a public agency have a FINANCE 101 level error in its annual report and audited ﬁnancials for 7 years, and have NO ONE at BCHD, or the AUDITORS, or the paid "award" granting taxpayer funded Trade Association even notice? Because that's how the Public Sector wastes TAXPAYER FUNDING?

37 Name: Mary Ewell
Comment - 09/14/2026 05:29 PM: ( No Vote )
Before we present the info for "surprise" BCHD 8-noon meeting on Friday, here's an update on the Sunrise 99-yr private development.

We've used all the information that BCHD and Sunrise have provided about the planned development height, size and location on the site to develop our best animation of how leasing 5 acres to Sunrise for 99 years will change the South Bay Hospital site and damage the neighborhood. We'll update more if BCHD steps out of the SHADOWS and shares information.

This black building is our best guess at the 217 unit independent living, assisted living, and memory care facility. The hospital and the heating/cooling plant behind it will demo'ed. Then the 60-foot tall, 5-story building will be put up.

As you can see from the top most of the hospital foot print and then a few more acres are used by the 217 unit complex. You can also see that it is MUCH CLOSER to the residential neighborhoods.Not that the 4-story, 50-foot tall hospital wing will be demolished as shown in the short video you saw ﬁrst.
38 Last, this is the diagram from BCHD and Sunrise. We've modeled the building without the center courtyard, since it will be resident of Sunrise space only.

39 Per usual, BCHD is providing short notice for any members of the public that need to arrange transportation, childcare or time off of work to attend a 4 hour, Friday morning meeting in Manhattan Beach.

There's no agenda, so BCHD continues to operate in the shadows. If you can attend in person or by zoom, here's a link to sign
up: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/019fc9e42dbe76a58815d4e3a05258fd

BCHD has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted, so attendance will help counter the usual 90% attendance at these meetings by the Board, $3M per year in BCHD Executives, BCHD staff, BCHD consultants, BCHD vendors, Agencies that get money from BCHD, BCHD committee members, and BCHD affiliated volunteers. No agency packs a room with paid help like BCHD!

Strategic Development Half-Day – September 18, 2026
Friday, September 18, 2026
8:00am – 12:00pm
AdventurePlex
1701 Marine Ave., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Please join Beach Cities Health District’s (BCHD) Board of Directors, Strategic Planning Committee and staff for our Strategic Planning Half-Day.

The Half-Day brings together BCHD’s Board, committees, staff, volunteers, community partners and members of the public to improve decision making, enhance organizational responsiveness, improve performance and strengthen the organization.

Please RSVP by Monday, September 14th, to help us organize and plan for breakout groups during the session. Those that will be in attendance will receive a calendar invite.

Note: This is an in-person event that will be streamed for those unable to attend.

Viewers streaming the meeting can view the breakout activities and submit their feedback via email at [email protected] .

RSVP Here
LINK: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/019fc9e42dbe76a58815d4e3a05258fd --
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inﬂict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the beneﬁt of the voter-approved 40 acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.

41 Name:Mark Nelson
Comment - 09/14/2026 05:30 PM: ( No Vote )
BCHD's $2M, 400-foot bike lane at $500 PER FOOT is a clear example of wasted funding and lack of Measure M controls. Torrance should not even consider narrowing any of its main streets for bike paths. Bikes must be rerouted OFF OF MAIN STREETS and onto 25mph side streets.

42 Name: Stop BCHD
Comment - 09/14/2026 05:33 PM: ( No Vote )
Note: These messages are emailed to all jurisdictions in SPA8 that BCHD is required to service for ALLCOVE, along with all funding agencies.

BCHD's CEO has repeatedly LIED to the Media

CEO Bakaly told the Easy Reader News that the current 4-story hospital was 60-feet tall. It is NOT. It is 51.5-feet tall according to the BCHD Drawings that were part of the nearly $13M pre-development taxpayer spend.

CEO Bakaly's response was "I DON'T KNOW" in a later Easy Reader News interview when he was explicitly asked from the BCHD Drawings if the 4-story hospital was 51.5- feet tall.

CEO BAKALY WAS THE SIGNATORY AND NAMED SUBMITTER OF THE PLANS TO THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH. "I DON'T KNOW" WAS A LIE --OR-- one of the biggest admissions of INCOMPETENCE of any CEO ever!

BCHD and CEO Bakaly must be held accountable for their PUBLIC LIES!

43 44
Name:Stop BCHD
Comment - 09/14/2026 05:33 PM: ( No Vote )
Note: These messages are emailed to all jurisdictions in SPA8 that BCHD is required to service for ALLCOVE, along with all funding agencies.

BCHD Bikepath - $2,069,963 for 400-FEET (over $400 PER INCH!)

More than crossing rivers!
More than the $7M per mile downtown Seattle bikeway!

BCHD wasted enough taxpayer funding to build OVER 1 MILE of HIGH END Protected Bikeway using LA COUNTY METRICS!

This BCHD SCAM Project WAS BUILT IN AN ALREADY FULLY PROTECTED, NON-MOTOR VEHICLE ACCESS ALLEY WAY!

Beach Cities Health District, one of 2 LA County Health Districts, spent $2,069,963 of taxpayer funding on the 400-foot bike path at Diamond and Prospect - commonly called Flagler Alley. It is the highest unit cost ever spent on a bike path in the United States according to thorough records search. BCHD has not presented a higher cost itself! OUTRAGEOUS MISMANAGEMENT!
45 46

Torrance City CouncilSeptember 15, 2026

Torrance City Council
September 15, 2026