Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission upholds director approval for 7355 Berry Hill Drive with privacy conditions
Summary
After a contested appeal over a second‑story addition and 263 sq ft roof deck at 7355 Berry Hill Drive, the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission approved the director’s permit but required opaque or raised clerestory windows and foliage screening to reduce privacy impacts; the motion passed 5–1 with a 15‑day appeal period.
The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission on Jan. 27 voted 5–1 to uphold a director-approved height‑variation permit for 7355 Berry Hill Drive while imposing conditions aimed at protecting a neighboring property’s privacy.
Staff presented the project as a director‑approved proposal to add a 720‑square‑foot second‑story addition and a 263‑square‑foot front‑facing roof deck to an existing 2,467‑square‑foot single‑story home, producing a 3,187‑square‑foot residence. Associate Planner Jeffrey Kim told commissioners that staff’s review concluded the addition met the lot coverage and setback standards for the RS‑4 zoning and that, based on visual analyses and site visits, staff did not find an unreasonable privacy or protected‑view impairment under the municipal code. "Based on our evaluation, neighborhood compatibility will be met," Kim said during his presentation.
Appellants Brent Meyer and Nancy Parsons, whose home sits west and about 3 feet lower than the applicant’s site, argued the final plan differed from earlier neighborhood‑consultation drawings and that the addition and deck would dominate the east side of their house and intrude on two bedrooms and a private courtyard. "This application was grossly understated and was mishandled," Meyer said, describing a public comment letter he said the city received in September 2024 but that was not reflected in the file until months later. Nancy Parsons cited the city’s roof‑deck and neighborhood compatibility provisions and said the proposed deck and window placements would "create an infringement of privacy."
Applicants Haney and Carol Francis, joined by their architect (introduced in the hearing), said they had revised plans before filing, removed low‑sill windows and a west‑facing balcony, raised several west‑facing sills, and agreed to remove four queen palms on their site as a condition. "We revised our plans before submitting them to the city," Haney Francis said, adding they had sought to balance neighbor concerns with their project goals.
Commission discussion focused on the privacy concern. Some commissioners said the building’s mass and the lengthwise second story were out of scale with the neighborhood and expressed particular concern for the courtyard directly opposite the proposed clerestory windows. Others noted the architectural articulation and prior revisions. Counsel reviewed the commission’s options under city code for deciding an appeal, including approving with additional or different conditions.
As a compromise, the commission approved the director’s decision but required two conditions: any portion of west‑facing windows below 6 feet must be opaque (the applicant may alternatively raise the sill to 6 feet), and the roof‑deck privacy impacts must be mitigated by foliage along the western side yard to be specified and approved by the Director. A commissioner characterized the options as a balance between preserving neighbors’ privacy and allowing the homeowners a reasonable use of their property.
The motion passed on a 5–1 roll‑call vote (Commissioner Kristen: Yes; Commissioner Chura: No; Commissioner George: Yes; Commissioner O’Connor: Yes; Commissioner Santa Rosa: Yes; Vice Chair Brock: Absent; Chair Norman: Yes). The commission announced a 15‑day appeal period following the action.
The commission also briefly reopened the public hearing to allow the applicant to respond to suggested remedies and to confirm trade‑offs; the applicant said they would consider the options and work with staff on the details. The foliage screening will be submitted to staff for species and placement approval, and the window treatment will be encoded in the approval as a condition enforceable through the project permit.
The decision preserves the director’s conditional approval while adding specific, director‑enforceable measures intended to reduce overlooking of the appellants’ courtyard and bedrooms. The matter may be appealed to the City Council during the announced appeal window.
