Torrance council upholds planning commission, approves second‑story addition with privacy conditions

The Torrance City Council on March 25 denied an appeal and adopted a resolution approving a precise plan of development for additions to a single‑family home at 671 Kaira Miramar, with amended conditions requiring additional screening on the new second‑story balcony.

Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project, which proposes one‑ and two‑story additions to an existing 1952 house. The council vote followed more than an hour of testimony from the adjoining homeowner who filed the appeal, the project applicants and their attorney, multiple neighbors and several council members who pressed for design changes to reduce direct sight lines into adjoining yards.

The Planning Division told the council the site measures 6,996 square feet and that the proposed additions would create 3,368 square feet of total floor area (0.48 floor‑area ratio, below the 0.60 limit for the R‑1 zone). Staff said proposed lot coverage (2,376 square feet) and usable open space (4,253 square feet) meet code. Because of the existing garage and house configuration, staff said a waiver of front, side and rear setback requirements was necessary to permit the second‑story addition; that waiver is commonly used in hillside lots with irregular geometry.

Neighbor Cameron Roberts, who filed the appeal, told council the second‑story balcony and adjacent windows would “eliminate[] that privacy” in his backyard and presented photos and line‑of‑sight diagrams. He said the planning commission and staff had not afforded the public adequate time to comment and argued for changes including relocation or screening of the balcony and opaque or relocated windows.

The applicants, Adi and Brenda (owners), through their attorney Christine Friese, said the house has been vacant for years, that the proposed balcony faces northwest toward the ocean rather than directly across the downslope, and that many of the alternate designs suggested by the appellant are not structurally feasible. Architect Matthew (designer) noted the balcony bottom sits approximately 8 feet 3 inches above the west elevation and that the second‑story setback from the property line meets the minimum required distance shown on the plans.

Council members pressed both sides for compromise. Council members said they were persuaded that the project otherwise complies with the hillside overlay and municipal code but that reasonable design adjustments should be required to reduce privacy impacts. The council added a condition — to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director — requiring a solid or translucent guard wall/rail on the north elevation of the second‑story balcony (in lieu of the proposed full‑height glass guardrail), and made clear the director will review materials and final details. Staff also discussed enhanced landscape screening as a mitigation measure, but the council did not adopt specific planting plans (those details are to be coordinated during final plan review).

After deliberations, a council member moved to deny the appeal and adopt the precise plan approval as amended; the motion carried unanimously with Council Member Kaji absent.

The approvals include two resolutions referenced in the record: the resolution approving the precise plan of development and the companion resolution granting the setback waivers. The Community Development Department will work with the applicants to incorporate the guard wall and related details into the final building permit submittal and will post any supplemental materials received during the public comment period to the administrative record.

Votes at a glance: Deny appeal and approve precise plan (as amended) — motion carried unanimously; Council Member Kaji absent.

The council’s action allows the applicants to proceed with building permit submittal subject to the added condition; neighbors retain the record of the hearing and the city’s public record of comments.