Council upholds hillside protections in one variance; appeal over ADU‑linked two‑unit project remains unresolved

The Torrance City Council on June 17, 2025 adopted a resolution denying a variance request that would have exempted a proposed two‑story single‑family residence at 417 Via Nita from the city’s Hillside Overlay development review process (Resolution No. 2025‑38). The council voted to accept the planning commission and community development director’s recommendation to deny the variance; the clerk recorded the motion as carried with Councilmember Sheikh absent.

Why it matters: The Hillside Overlay (adopted in the 1970s) established discretionary review standards meant to limit impacts on view, light, air and privacy in hillside neighborhoods. The denial preserves the requirement that projects in the overlay undergo discretionary hillside review rather than obtain a blanket exemption.

What the council decided on 9a: Staff presented the planning commission’s unanimous 5–0 recommendation (with one recusal and one abstention at the commission) to deny the variance. Staff indicated the applicant had not demonstrated special circumstances or practical difficulties that would justify exempting the property from the overlay’s discretionary review. After public comment from adjacent residents who said a second story would substantially harm light, view and privacy, the council voted to adopt the resolution denying the variance and to determine a statutory exemption under CEQA for the denial. The motion carried with Councilmember Sheikh absent.

Separate appeal — 22209 Susanna Avenue (agenda item 9b): The council then heard a longer appeal of a planning commission approval for a revised project at 22209 Susanna Avenue: a new two‑story single‑family residence with an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Staff told council that under the state’s Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5) a two‑unit development is a “housing development” subject only to objective standards; consequently, subjective overlay criteria such as individual views, privacy and “compatibility” cannot be applied to deny a project that meets those objective standards. Staff recommended denying the appeal and affirming the planning commission’s approval.

Public comment and positions: The Susanna Avenue hearing drew dozens of speakers. Appellants argued the project would block long‑held views and that the hillside overlay’s discretionary protections should be preserved. The appellant, Matt Minnick, and neighbors showed photographs of existing vistas they said would be lost and urged the council to preserve local control and resist state pressure. The project’s applicants and their architect said they had repeatedly revised the design in response to staff and neighborhood feedback, that the structure complies with all R‑1 objective standards and that adding a small attached ADU was necessary to make the project financially feasible after prolonged delays and carrying costs.

Legal and policy context: Staff and the city attorney advised the council that state housing law places limits on local discretion for developments that qualify as housing developments under the Housing Accountability Act; an attached ADU converted the proposal into a two‑unit development that triggers the act’s protections. Councilmembers expressed frustration with the state framework; several said they opposed the outcome on policy grounds but that state law narrowed the city’s options. Members discussed possible longer‑term responses such as working to update local regulations or pursue state‑level advocacy to protect local review standards.

Outcome for 9b: The meeting transcript records extensive council and public discussion but does not include a final roll‑call vote on the Susanna Avenue appeal in the provided record. Staff had recommended denying the appeal and approving the project; councilmembers repeatedly said they felt constrained by state law but debated the policy implications. One councilmember asked staff to pursue code updates and another suggested refunding the appellant’s appeal fee.

Ending: The council acted to deny the variance at 417 Via Nita and left unresolved the broader policy tensions raised by the Susanna Avenue appeal — a dispute that illustrates the interplay between local hillside protections and state housing rules that limit local discretion for two‑unit developments.