Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the View Equity And Neighbor Impacts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues review of Miramar Street addition after neighbors cite view and privacy impacts
Summary
The Design Review Board continued a proposal for a two-story addition at 934 Miramar Street to July 10 after neighbors raised concerns about massing, loss of light, and obstructed ocean views; board members asked the applicant to pursue additional neighbor outreach and to explore reductions in the upper-level massing.
The Laguna Beach Design Review Board on April 24 continued consideration of a proposed two-story addition at 934 Miramar Street after multiple neighbors raised concerns about mass, scale, and the project’s effect on light, privacy and limited ocean views.
Planner Matthew Kilroy presented the staff report describing a proposal to enclose a 42-square-foot lower-level entry, add a 535-square-foot upper-level addition above the garage, and build a 43-square-foot cantilevered front deck that projects 6 feet, 10 inches over the driveway. Staff recommended adoption of Resolution DR 25-0256 and finding the action exempt from CEQA.
Multiple neighbors addressed the board in opposition. Bill Gable said the addition would replace a “bright and light” kitchen view with a wall and would reduce the privacy of his front deck. Ryan and Pablo McRae and their representative, Steve Kuartani, asked the board to deny the current proposal and urged the applicants to pursue significant revisions or to consider adding behind the house rather than above the garage. Other neighbors, including Gary Olshan and Sherry Anderson, said they had not been included in early neighborhood meetings and described the proposal as “massive” and imposing when stakes were installed on the site.
The applicant and architect said the addition was intended to be compatible with the Arch Beach Heights character and that the new upper-level area includes modest uses (a bedroom, bathroom and small office). The applicant said the roof is being raised about 4 inches in the rear for insulation and that existing eaves would be reduced.
Board discussion focused on three main issues: (1) mass and scale of the upper-level addition over the garage and the effect on the immediate neighbors’ light and air, (2) the location and size of the cantilevered front deck and potential privacy concerns, and (3) the adequacy of early neighbor outreach. Several board members suggested design changes such as pulling the upper level further from the side property lines, shortening eaves, articulating the upper-level massing, or reducing the upper ridge height. One board member suggested the applicant may be able to reduce the highest interior ceiling by about one foot while preserving key design elements; the applicant said small reductions (e.g., nine inches to a foot) might be feasible.
After deliberation the board voted to continue the item to the July 10 meeting and asked the applicant to undertake additional neighbor communications and return with revised plans that address massing, eave size and targeted reductions to improve light and view impacts for adjacent properties.
