Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Torrance council denies appeal, allows two‑story addition at 2622 Delmy Street
Summary
The Torrance City Council on Jan. 28 denied an appeal and approved a precise plan of development allowing first- and second‑story additions to a single‑family house in the hillside overlay at 2622 Delmy Street; council determined the project exempt from CEQA and voted unanimously.
The Torrance City Council unanimously denied an appeal and approved a precise plan of development for a two‑story addition at 2622 Delmy Street, a property in the city’s hillside overlay, during its Jan. 28 meeting.
The vote followed a staff presentation, testimony from the project applicant and an appellant who lives uphill, and questions from council members. Michelle Ramirez, community development director, and Lee Ortz of the Community Development Department summarized the project’s dimensions and findings from planning review. Ramirez told the council the project complies with objective development standards for the R‑1 zone and recommended denying the appeal and approving the project.
Appellant testimony stressed potential loss of views and privacy. An unnamed resident identified in the record as the appellant (neighbor at 2609 Bridal Avenue) told the council that photos submitted by the neighbors show the second‑story addition would block city lights and mountain views from the deck and reduce property values. Freddie Gondo, the homeowner and applicant, said the family revised the design in response to neighbors’ concerns, lowered the structure and reduced second‑floor openings, and said a one‑story addition would not meet the family’s needs.
Staff outlined technical details showing the proposal meets Torrance development rules for the R‑1 zone. Lee Ortz said the additions are 761 square feet on the first floor and 839 square feet on the second floor, for a total floor area of 2,891 square feet (including a detached two‑car garage). The revised roofline measures about 23 feet 2 inches, under the 27‑foot height limit for two‑story residences in the zone. Staff reported a resulting floor‑area ratio of 0.5 (within the 0.6 maximum), lot coverage of 36% (within the 40% limit), and usable open space of about 3,390 square feet (58% of the lot, above the 33% minimum).
Council members asked site‑specific questions and described visiting the location to review sight lines. Councilmember Kalani disclosed several site visits; other members reported similar inspections. Staff said the topographic difference between Delmy Street and Bridal Avenue reduces the likelihood of significant adverse impacts to view and privacy because the uphill properties are at higher elevation. The proposed second‑story balcony was revised to include a 5‑foot‑tall privacy screen along the east elevation.
After public comment and discussion, Councilmember Matucci moved to deny the appeal, approve the precise plan of development and find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. A councilmember seconded the motion and the council voted unanimously to approve the project.
The council’s action allows the applicant to proceed under the approved precise plan. Staff told the council that earlier Planning Commission review resulted in a 5–2 approval and that the appeal was filed by the neighboring property owner at 2609 Bridal Avenue.
