Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning commission approves revised Mount Hood Court home after neighbor privacy concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission approved a revision to a previously authorized height-variation permit at 28621 Mount Hood Court that reduces an addition to 71 square feet, keeps the approved 26-foot height and modifies roof and window design; the decision passed 6-1 and carries a 15-day appeal period.
The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission on March 10 approved a revision to a previously authorized height-variation and site plan permit for a residence at 28621 Mount Hood Court, voting 6-1 to grant the change.
Associate planner Jeffrey Kim told commissioners the applicant submitted revised plans on Feb. 28 that shrink a proposed second-story addition to 71 square feet (for a new total structure size of 2,988 square feet, garage included), keep the previously approved maximum height at 26 feet and alter roof design and second-story window placements. Kim said staff's analysis found the revision continued to meet neighborhood-compatibility criteria under Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 17.02030 and recommended adoption of a Planning Commission resolution approving the change and finding it exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
The applicant, Mark Zakey, said an earlier measurement for a consolidated window had been miscalculated as 5 feet and corrected to 4 feet by his architect, and he showed site photos to argue sightlines would not permit direct views into the neighbor's home. "We're not standing to the end of it," Zakey said, describing the angles and setbacks and urging approval so his family could finish the work on their long-term home.
An adjacent neighbor, John Park, told the commission he had used laser measurements and estimated the window-to-window distance at about 90 feet and described a direct line of sight into his bedroom and backyard. Park requested a modest mitigation—lowering the new window by roughly 1 foot—so the project could proceed with less impact on privacy.
Commission discussion focused on whether photos and site visits provided sufficient evidence that the revised window locations and the three-foot additional setback from the southern facade addressed privacy and bulk concerns. Several commissioners said the staff photos and the topographic relationship between the properties reduced the likelihood of unreasonable privacy impacts; one commissioner expressed lingering concern about a changed roof pitch but ultimately voted to support the project.
Commissioner votes were recorded as: Commissioner Kristen, yes; Commissioner Chura, no; Commissioner George, yes; Commissioner O'Connor, yes; Commissioner Santa Rosa, yes; Vice Chair Brock, yes; Chair Noemann, yes. The motion passed, and staff announced a 15-day appeal period.
The commission's approval modifies the previously approved permit (originally heard Jan. 23, 2024) to allow the smaller addition, the new roof design and consolidated second-story windows as presented. The applicant and staff may proceed subject to the resolution's conditions and the statutory appeal window.
