Torrance City Council
October 6, 2026

7.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS #1 (Limited up to a 30­minute period) This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items under the Consent Calendar or items that are not on the agenda. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed; request clarification; or refer the item to staff. Speakers under Orals are limited to either Oral Communications #1 or Oral Communications #2 and no longer than 1 minute per speaker. If presenting handout material to Council, please provide 11 copies to the City Clerk before speaking.

Name
Stop BCHD
Comment ­ 09/30/2026 03:01 PM : (No Vote)
BCHD Spends Taxpayer Funds to PACK MEETINGS with Executives, Employees, Consultants, and Contractors
1 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS #7
2 7.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS #1 (Limited up to a 30­minute period) This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items under the Consent Calendar or items that are not on the agenda. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed; request clarification; or refer the item to staff. Speakers under Orals are limited to either Oral Communications #1 or Oral Communications #2 and no longer than 1 minute per speaker. If presenting handout material to Council, please provide 11 copies to the City Clerk before speaking.

Name
Clara Gerlach
Comment ­ 09/30/2026 03:04 PM : (No Vote)
Good afternoon,
My name is Clara Gerlach. Mia Mueck and I are South High School students working to complete a Civic Seal Project in the Torrance community. For our project, we hope to address the issue of pet waste at local parks by working to install bag dispensers.

To assess public support for our project, we created a Google Form where we asked respondents if they think dispensers would benefit the parks, and we also obtained additional comments. We have received over 85 responses from community members from 14 local parks, demonstrating that pet waste dispensers should be considered by the City. Not only would bag dispensers encourage compliance of pet owners, but they would also maintain the aesthetic appeal of local parks and protect the health of park guests. We understand that the budget is a concern, but purchasing ten pet waste bag dispensers for Torrance's ten largest parks would cost roughly $3,000, and a supply of 8,000 bags would cost $360, for a total of $3,360. These figures were obtained from a website that specializes in pet services.

To address the concern of manpower, the park staff visit our local parks every morning to replace the bags for the trash cans and ensure the parks are clean. If there were bag dispensers in our parks, the staff could simply replace the pet waste bags when they visit in the morning. It would require very little additional time and would help keep our parks safe and clean for those who use them.

While the initial purchase might be costly, the benefits to the Torrance community greatly outweigh the costs. We hope you consider our project and the ways in which it improves our city parks. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Clara Gerlach & Mia Mueck
South High School Seniors
3 7.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS #1 (Limited up to a 30­minute period) This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items under the Consent Calendar or items that are not on the agenda. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed; request clarification; or refer the item to staff. Speakers under Orals are limited to either Oral Communications #1 or Oral Communications #2 and no longer than 1 minute per speaker. If presenting handout material to Council, please provide 11 copies to the City Clerk before speaking.

Name
Mark Nelson
Comment ­ 09/30/2026 03:05 PM : (No Vote)
Mayors and Councils of all listed cities:

At BCHD's recent half day offsite public meeting (that is generally attended by 80%+ BCHD board, executives ($3M/yr payroll), management, employees, contractors, consultants, grant recipients, etc. and generally 10% or less members of the public) BCHD continued its FALSE narrative of community agreement with its HLC project.

In the EIR process, of the 300 comments over 90% of comments were negative.

Surrounding residents filed a 1200+ signature petition against the projects, and social media is running 4­to­1 against BCHD's plan.  BCHD had a lot of meetings, but the FACTS are that the response to their plan was overwhelmingly negative.

Recall that Measure BC for $30M was the only bond measure to go down in defeat.

District residents have had enough with BCHD lies.
4 5

7.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS #1 (Limited up to a 30­minute period) This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items under the Consent Calendar or items that are not on the agenda. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed; request clarification; or refer the item to staff. Speakers under Orals are limited to either Oral Communications #1 or Oral Communications #2 and no longer than 1 minute per speaker. If presenting handout material to Council, please provide 11 copies to the City Clerk before speaking.

Name
Teri Taylor
Comment ­ 09/30/2026 03:15 PM : (No Vote)
Hello,my name is Teri Taylor.    I am a resident of Torrance for 16 years.  I live on Date Ave, between the post office and the fire department.  The post office has been a point of contention on my street, unfortunately!
Points of discussion: post office workers, parking and PA system.

The postal workers park their personal cars on our street.  Our street is full of multiple dwelling per lot, and the street parking is very limited.  I live in the front house and only have street parking as the back house uses the driveway for parking. There is not enough parking for ourselves, let alone our visitors, the post office workers and post office patrons, as well as over flow of Wilson park visitors.  The workers show up early in the morning blaring music, talking on phone, yelling to other employees on the street during what would be considered quiet hours. They then come and go all day from their postal vehicles blocking the street to get into their personal vehicle, multiple time throughout the day.

The post office just recently installed or with renovation reinstalled a PA system.   The people speaking into the PA system are extremely loud and they are yelling into it at 4am though till dinner time, Monday through Sunday! If city work or construction can not start till 7am how is it okay for the post office to use a PA system at 4am. They are surrounded by housing. It is not amazing to be woken up before the sun to a person reprimanding other employees over the PA system at 4am.

What I would like to propose: the next street over (Elm Ave) Has a 2 hour parking limit posted except for residents.   It would be extremely helpful to the residents of my street. We could run the same system as Elm Ave, with a residential permit system.

Second:  if we can have the post office limit the hours of the PA system to the same as city works.  Construction Work Hours
If you are asking about permitted construction or noise hours in residential areas:
•    Monday – Friday: 7:30 AM – 6:00 PM
•    Saturdays: 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
•    Sundays & Holidays: Prohibited (with minor exceptions for resident homeowners).

Having 1 day off a week to not have to hear the people yelling over the PA system would be appreciated.

Thank you,
Teri Taylor
6 7.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS #1 (Limited up to a 30­minute period) This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items under the Consent Calendar or items that are not on the agenda. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed; request clarification; or refer the item to staff. Speakers under Orals are limited to either Oral Communications #1 or Oral Communications #2 and no longer than 1 minute per speaker. If presenting handout material to Council, please provide 11 copies to the City Clerk before speaking.

Name
Fernand
Chouinard
Comment ­ 10/05/2026 10:07 AM : (For)
I have recently learned that the Torrance library has been without printing services for over a year, and has had to resort to directing those in need of these services to much more distant libaries.

This service is absolutely an essential part of the community. Not only is it broadly useful, it further supports promoting and fostering education as a place of study.

I humbly request that the city council addresses this deficiency left by the previous administration to ztrengthen our community.

Thank you for your consideration.
7 7.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS #1 (Limited up to a 30­minute period) This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items under the Consent Calendar or items that are not on the agenda. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed; request clarification; or refer the item to staff. Speakers under Orals are limited to either Oral Communications #1 or Oral Communications #2 and no longer than 1 minute per speaker. If presenting handout material to Council, please provide 11 copies to the City Clerk before speaking.

Name
Dan Smith
Comment ­ 10/05/2026 05:07 PM : (No Vote)
Here is the October 2026 edition of Frequently Asked Questions, sent on behalf of Beach Cities Health District CEO Tom Bakaly. We send these messages each month to provide accurate information about BCHD.  Please let Tom or me know if you have questions regarding this information. Thank You!  ­ Dan Smith, BCHD Q: The Beach Cities were certified as a Blue Zones Community in 2016. What impact has this had on our community over the last 10 years?
A: The Beach Cities – Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach – working with the cities, school districts and businesses, were named a nationally certified Blue Zones Community® in 2016. At that time, the Beach Cities were the largest community to achieve Blue Zones certification through the successful implementation of Blue Zones Project, launched in 2010 to make the healthy choice the easy choice for residents and employees of our community.

The certification came on the heels of Gallup National Health & Well­being Index data.

Since 2010, exercise has increased, obesity levels have been less than half the U.S. average, people who are “thriving” have increased, and smoking has dropped compared to the U.S. Collectively, the Beach Cities earned a 2020 Well­Being Index score of 68.3
The Beach Cities’ score on the 2025 Gallup Well­Being Index was 69.5, outpacing the national score of 60.1. Notably, Manhattan Beach’s 2025 score of 71.6 is the highest community measurement ever recorded by Gallup since WBI measurement began in 2008. The highest score previous to that was Manhattan Beach’s score of 70.6 in 2024.

To learn more, visit https://bchd.org/blue­zones­project/.

Q: How is BCHD involved with renovations at the 510 N. Prospect building? A: The 510 Prospect Avenue building is NOT owned or operated by Beach Cities Health District. Two separate tenant improvement projects are being done at the same time.
•    Main Floor: Work is being done by a contractor hired by the new Program of AllInclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), a tenant of the 510 building owner. •    Top Floor: BCHD’s Center for Health & Fitness is in the middle of construction and is scheduled to open in March/April 2027
Q: What’s the process for the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Campus?
AAClifiEitlQlitAt(CEQA)dddtEIR(CEQA
8 Q: What’s the process for the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Campus?
A: A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) addendum to an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164) is an environmental review document used when changes in a previously approved project are proposed, but only minor technical changes or additions to the previously certified EIR are needed to evaluate those changes, and none of the conditions requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have been met.

An EIR addendum is used when proposed changes to the project, changes in circumstances, or new information are minor and do not create new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. Any updates to the previously certified EIR do not require new or different mitigation measures, and the revised project remains consistent and within the scope of the previously certified EIR as updated. A certified EIR has already undergone the notice, circulation, comment, response, and certification procedures required by CEQA. Unlike an EIR, circulation for public review is not required. The EIR Addendum for the Healthy Living Campus is expected to be considered by the BCHD Board of Directors at their public meeting October 28.

An addendum does not replace that EIR. It supplements the certified analysis for a later project decision and must be read together with the original document.

Key steps in the process involve the lead agency – in this case, BCHD – preparing the addendum, including an explanation of why a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not needed, with supporting evidence [attaching the Addendum to the EIR is not required but is permitted]. The local decision­making body – the BCHD Board of Directors – must formally consider the addendum alongside the original certified EIR.

Q: What are the next steps for Sunrise with the Campus project? The due diligence period for Sunrise Senior Living was extended to Oct. 29, giving Sunrise additional time to finalize details pertaining to a ground lease agreement. Next steps will be applying for entitlements with the City of Redondo Beach, then beginning the process for a Conditional Use Permit for the project.

Q: Is it true that 91 percent of comments on the Healthy Living Campus Environmental Impact Report were negative?
A: Yes, which is typical for EIR comments. According to ChatGPT, “public comments submitted during California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of Draft Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), the tone is often more adversarial and technically focused than ordinary public feedback.” The percentage is somewhat inflated in the case of the Healthy Living Campus EIR, which saw one individual submit 425 comments, nearly four times as many as were submitted by all public agencies combined (111). He even submitted 54 comments in a single day. Together with two other associates and form letters, this person had a hand in 734 comments, or 55% of the public comments submitted.

Q: How has BCHD responded to public comments and input about its Healthy Living Campus project?
A: BCHD has taken many steps in response to comments it has received from residents, including:
•    Reducing the number of Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) units 9 Q: How has BCHD responded to public comments and input about its Healthy Living Campus project?
A: BCHD has taken many steps in response to comments it has received from residents, including:
•    Reducing the number of Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) units (assisted living, memory care) from more than 400 to 217; •    Changing the placement of campus buildings away from the eastern border of the campus in response to Torrance neighbors;
•    Reducing the number of stories in the RCFE building from six levels to four; The height of the buildings was approved to be 82 feet tall in the certified EIR; current plans call for a maximum height of 60 feet;
•    Reducing the length of construction from nine years to four; •    Keeping the 510 Prospect Avenue building after concerns raised by neighbors on Diamond St. The 510 building is the future home of the CHF and a new PACE center. •    Open space is part of the campus plan, a feature we heard about from residents during study circles conducted early on in the planning process; •    An aquatics facility is also being planned, again in response to residents’ input.

Q: Have the Beach Cities seen an uptick in mosquitoes this year? A: Yes. New statistics show that mosquito service requests in the Beach Cities have doubled from last year. Residents of the Beach Cities should remain “mosquito aware.” This means taking a few minutes to inspect your property for any standing water – no matter how small – and take steps to remove this water, which can be a prime breeding ground for mosquitoes.

If necessary, Vector Services are free to residents to help control mosquitoes. A service call can be scheduled by calling (310) 915­7370 or visiting the website at www.lawestvector.org.

One More Thing:

Don’t wait for the shaking to start. An earthquake can happen without warning, but you can be ready. Take a few minutes today to make an emergency plan, talk with your family about what to do, and put together an emergency kit.

A little preparation now can make a big difference when it matters most.

Beach cities residents can learn more about earthquake and emergency preparedness at: BCHD Emergency Preparedness Resources
Again, please reach out to BCHD CEO Tom Bakaly or me if you have any questions. 10 7.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS #1 (Limited up to a 30­minute period) This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items under the Consent Calendar or items that are not on the agenda. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed; request clarification; or refer the item to staff. Speakers under Orals are limited to either Oral Communications #1 or Oral Communications #2 and no longer than 1 minute per speaker. If presenting handout material to Council, please provide 11 copies to the City Clerk before speaking.

Name
Joseph Buck
Comment ­ 10/05/2026 05:09 PM : (No Vote)
Please receive, accept, and file as public comment to Agenda Item #7, Oral Comment, City Council Meeting set for October 6, 2026, my comment, as G. Joseph Buck, resident of the Hillside for 43 years, that I have attached hereto: identified as:

Public Comment to Item 7 on Agenda for October 6.pdf
and the documents that I have attached hereto, identified as:

Torrance­Hillside­Overlay­Council­Memo­v6.pdf
Torrance­Hillside­Overlay­Ordinance­August­2026.pdf
torrance­ods­guide­2026.pdf
Please confirm to me, by email addressed to [email protected], your receipt and acceptance as public comment to Agenda Item #7, Oral Comment, City Council Meeting set for October 6, 2026, of the documents that I have attached to this email, and identified above.

Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck ­   Resident of the Hillside for 43 years 11 Public Comment: To Agenda Item #7 on Council Meeting on October 6, 2026, Oral Communications On September 9, 2026, I submitted 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-August-2026.pdf, and 4) torrance-ods-guide-2026.pdf.

As part of my submittal, I asked that 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.

As part of my submittal, I also asked Staff to:

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. and my statement that:
"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."
On September 15, I was informed by Staff, that, due to technical problems, the material that I had submitted to Staff, via the internet, would not be posted as a Supplemental. However, Staff asked that I send a copy, via email, to the City Clerk, and informed me that they would deliver copies to the Council Members.

It is my understanding that the material that I then submitted, via email to the City Clerk, was made available to the Council at the Meeting on September 15, 2026. However, as far as I have been able to determine, as part of Item #7 of the Council Agenda for September 15, 2026, the Council Members did not consider any of the material that I had submitted, nor did the Council take any steps, to direct Staff to schedule the matter for hearing by the Council as an Agenda Item on the Council Agenda for October 6, 2026.

I now, again, submit this material to the Council, for consideration by the Council, and ask Council to direct Staff to take all steps necessary to include on the Council Agenda for hearing as an "action item" on the Council Agenda at the next Council Meeting scheduled for October 20, 2026.

It is my understanding that if Council Member Betty Lieu, whose district includes the "Hillside Overlay", on her own initiative, states that:
12 "I make a motion that the Council direct Staff to take all steps necessary to include on the Council Agenda for hearing as an "action item" on the Council Agenda for the Meeting of the Council scheduled for October 20, 2026." Then, if another member of the Council "second's the motion", the Council may then vote on the motion. If approved, the Council may then direct Staff to act accordingly. Council will then have the opportunity to solicit, receive and consider input from the public regarding this item. At the hearing of this Action Item, the Council may then determine what action, if any, the Council should, and shall take with respect to this item.

It is my fear that, if Council fails to consider this matter in a timely manner, Staff, and unidentified parties that, apparently instead, want to postpone any such consideration, for as long as they can, will have, again, succeeded.

Note: It is my impression that comments posted as Oral Comment are subject to the following:
"This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items under the Consent Calendar or items that are not on the agenda. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed; request clarification; or refer the item to staff. " May I point out that, as part of the present communication, I do not ask the Council, as part of Item 7, to: Act on the proposed changes to Ordinances governing construction in the Hillside. I, instead, ask the Council to ask staff to schedule for hearing by the Council at a later date, the changes that I have proposed in my public comment. Following consideration by the Council, of the Action Item scheduled by Staff, Council would then have the power to adopt, alter, or deny the changes proposed in the material that I have submitted.

Sincerely,
G. Joseph Buck Resident of the Hillside for 43 years
13 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 14 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 15 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)
16 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. 17 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:
18 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 19 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.
20 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 21 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 22 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 singlestory 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:

A. 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.

B. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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 23 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.

E. 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.
24 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 25 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:

A. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the state-mandated density or floor area requirement.
26 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.

C. 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.
27 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
28 Objective Design Standards forADUs and SB 9 Projects A Working Guide for the City of Torrance
Current as ofAugust 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
AccountabilityAct
(HAA)
Gov. Code §
65589.5
Protects all "housing
development projects"
from arbitrary denial
Cities may only apply
standards that are objective,
quantifiable, 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 juniorADUs
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 five 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 29 own findings, which identified "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 findings 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 ofAppeal (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 floor 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-specific 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 deficient 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 finding, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, of a specific, adverse impact upon public health and 30 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 additionalfeet 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 primarydwelling 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 verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion, knowable to both applicant and official before submittal. (SB 450 embeds the same definition 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-finish stucco, horizontal lap siding, or shingle." 31 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 Conflict
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 satisfies 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 finding of noncompliance.

C. Eliminate discretion words
Use "shall" and "must" exclusively. Strike "should," "encourage," "harmonious," "wellbalanced," "attractive," "compatible," and "aesthetically pleasing." Define every requirement in feet, inches, percentages, ratios, or enumerated menu choices.

D.Include a conflict clause
Torrance already does this well. TMC § 92.2.10 provides that in any instance of conflict, 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 reflected in any Torrance update:
32 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 findings of noncompliance. Any Torrance ODS amendment touching ADUs will get state review.

SB 543 (2025) — 15-business-day completeness review (above); defines 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, reflected 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 specific 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 identified 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 conflict. 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 — 33 any SB 9-specific 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 alteredcontributing structure identified in the Torrance Historic Resources Survey (Torrance Tract Overlay context). PerAB 1061, historic standards must be objective and structure-specific.

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 finding:

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

91.41.7 a)
Configuration 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 finished grade along the building perimeter, excluding any berm or raised planter; downsloping 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" finding) 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 findings ("harmony with other properties," "adverse impact upon view, light, air and privacy") are subjective and currently 34 unenforceable against a housing development project invoking the HAA — objectifying §

91.41.6 is identified 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 satisfied
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
satisfied
Detached,
multifamily/multistory lot
18 ft 18 ft 18 ft — state minimum
satisfied
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).

Conflict clauses: Torrance has two complementary conflict clauses covering R-H parcels.

TMC § 92.2.10 (O-3954) provides that state law governs ADU standards in any conflict 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 floor 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 underArticle 5, Chapter 1, Division 1, commencing at § 11.5.1. 35 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 (quantifiable — all zones)
Setbacks: 4-ft minimum side and rear forADUs (state floor); 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/roofing materials in tables rather than requiring a "match" — reserve matching requirements for individually identified historic contributing structures perAB 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 forADU/JADU applications (SB 543). 60-day approve/deny clock forADUs and SB 9 applications; deemed-approved consequence documented in staff workflow.

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

Denial findings limited to specific, adverse public-health-and-safety impacts supported by a preponderance of evidence.

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

Conflict clause retained: state law governs in any conflict.

D. Uniformity audit (SB 450 — all zones)
For every standard in § 92.29.34, confirm 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) — confirm the cap is drafted per current § 66411.7 36 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: Confirm the 18-ft Maximum Ridge Height applies to the primary dwelling.

Confirm attached ADU cap is 18 ft (not 25 ft) per § 66321(b)(4)(D). Confirm detached ADU gets state minimums (16/18/20 ft per transit proximity) — all satisfied 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 finished 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)), stiltstructure screening (b)3)), 5-ft setback on slopes >15% (b)3)). Subsections b)2) and b)4) do not apply to Lane A approvals.

Conflict clauses: Both O-3954/§ 92.2.10 and Ordinance v13, Section 5 conflict 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 flag: § 91.41.6 Precise Plan findings 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 specific checklist details attributed to these cities in secondary summaries should be verified 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-specific ordinance, San Jose amended base single-family standards so identical rules govern all new units, automatically satisfying uniformity. San Jose was also the first major city to adopt AB 1033 ADU-condominium conversions (effective July 2024).

La Cañada Flintridge — architectural style menu. Applicants select a defined style and satisfy that style's measurable checklist (materials, eave dimensions, enumerated features), converting "character" into objective criteria. 37 Concord — visual ODS toolkit. Diagram-based standards for articulation and massing, with applicants citing the plan sheet where each standard is met; preapproved 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 specifications).

Hillside-specific model: No widely-cited Gold Standard city has published a verified 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 final ordinance is advisable before adoption.

11. Recommended Submittal Practice
For any project (or for the city's own application materials), require or encourage a onepage 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 specifically, the Statement of Compliance should identify which lane (A or B) applies and, for Lane A projects, confirm all three § 91.41.7 objective criteria with specific 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)
38 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 CityAttorney should review any ordinance text before adoption. 39