Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Hillside Deck topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Torrance council upholds approval for as‑built White Court deck amid neighbor privacy and drainage complaints
Summary
The council approved a minor hillside exemption for a 1,755‑sq‑ft as‑built rear deck at 5608 White Court after extensive public comment alleging unpermitted construction, flooding and privacy loss; staff and the applicant said building permits and safety plan checks remain required.
The Torrance City Council on March 17 approved a minor hillside exemption and CEQA categorical exemption for an as‑built rear deck at 5608 White Court, ending a months‑long local dispute that drew scores of neighbors to the council chamber.
Staff presented the project as an approximately 1,755‑square‑foot deck with a finished floor between 16 and 24 inches above grade. Community Development staff said two field assessments—one from downslope properties in July 2024 and a second on the subject property in August 2025—led them to conclude the structure did not cause a "substantial adverse impact to privacy" and therefore did not meet the threshold for denial. The community development director and planning materials recommended approval of MHE24‑00037 with conditions to secure permits and inspections.
Neighbors who live on or near Wayne Avenue told the council the deck was constructed without permits, has altered drainage and repeatedly exposes private living areas to views from the uphill property. "Since the oversized deck was built, their backyard floods during heavy rain, something that never happened before," said Senice Moniz, who said she represents a Wayne Avenue homeowner and urged that "the appeal be denied." Kelly Wang, a downslope resident, added the structure "fundamentally alter[s] the nature topology and visual relationships" and described ongoing stress and loss of privacy.
The property owner, Shuji Yamada, provided photo exhibits and told the council the finished deck mirrors the pre‑construction edge of the yard and that he and his team have submitted documentation to planning staff. A proponent's representative told the council that the owners had been working with the planning division and that Condition 4 of the approval requires the applicant to obtain all building permits and complete safety inspections.
Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez told the council that the hearing focused on zoning and privacy impacts; building and safety reviews—including geotechnical, grading and drainage checks—will occur later during the plan check and permit process. Ramirez said those reviews can require design changes to remedy drainage or safety concerns and that enforcement tools (notices, citations, and public nuisance proceedings) remain available for uncorrected violations.
After a round of questions exploring site visits, shrub mitigation, potential encroachment and enforcement options, Councilmember Metucci moved to uphold the appeal and adopt Resolution 2026‑27 approving MHE24‑00037 with conditions to address encroachment, drainage, applicable city code and required permits and inspections, and to assess fines if warranted. The motion carried unanimously.
Next steps outlined by staff include final plan check and building‑and‑safety review; if plan check identifies deficiencies, the owner must remedy them before final permits are issued. The council's action resolved the land‑use appeal but left open separate safety, grading and enforcement processes that are handled administratively and through building inspections.
The decision closes a localized planning dispute while underscoring broader resident concerns about how the city's Hillside Overlay interacts with state ADU law and with enforcement of unpermitted construction. The council also directed attention to ensuring the plan check and permitting processes address drainage and engineering concerns before permits are finalized.
