Council upholds conditional approval for Berryhill Drive house after privacy debate, tweaks foliage condition

The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on May 19 voted to deny an appeal of a planning commission decision and conditionally approve a second-story addition and roof deck at 7355 Berryhill Drive, while amending landscaping conditions intended to mitigate privacy concerns.

Staff urged the council to reject the appeal, with Associate Planner Jeffrey Kim explaining that the project proposes a 720-square-foot second-story addition to an existing 2,467-square-foot single-story home for a new total of 3,187 square feet plus a 263-square-foot roof deck. Kim told the council the requested height variation would raise the structure to about 21 feet at the highest point — roughly 5 to 6 feet above the 16-foot by-right limit for pad lots — and that staff found the project consistent with neighborhood standards and recommended upholding the planning commission's conditional approval.

Appellants Brent Meyer and Nancy Parsons said the deck and second story would intrude on their protected courtyard and bedroom windows. Parsons said the addition would “utterly destroy” the private courtyard the family has developed over 30 years and that planting foliage as a mitigation is unreliable. Meyer told the council the proposed entertainment deck ‘‘provides an unobstructed view into [our] protected courtyard’’ and argued the deck far exceeds neighboring decks in size.

Applicants Carol and Hanni Francis and their architect described several design revisions. Carol Francis said they removed an original west-facing balcony, reoriented bathroom windows, raised window sills and replaced standard west-facing windows with clerestory/clearstory windows and obscured lower panes. Hanni Francis said the deck is intended as a quiet family space, not an entertainment venue, and that the applicants had worked with staff and modified plans after neighbors raised concerns.

Planning staff told the council the planning commission had added two mitigation conditions: (1) obscuring west-facing windows below 6 feet and (2) installing and maintaining foliage along the western property line to screen views. Council discussion centered on whether vegetation is an effective, enforceable privacy solution and on the incremental impact of the variance (about 5 feet above the by-right height). Mayor Pro Tem raised concerns that long-term maintenance of tall trees could create code-enforcement issues.

Councilmember discussion emphasized balancing property rights and neighbor privacy. After deliberation the council adopted the staff-recommended resolution to uphold the planning commission’s conditional approval, with a motion that amended Condition 34 to require the property owner to maintain foliage above 16 feet (measured from the base) except for four Queen palm trees and that removed the planning commission’s Condition 35 as read into the record; council discussion also addressed Condition 36 (the foliage requirement) during the motion and vote. The motion passed on a roll call vote.

The resolution adopted by the council preserves the conditional approval of the height variation and site plan review allowing the second-story addition and roof deck at 7355 Berryhill Drive, while modifying the landscaping-based mitigation. The council did not specify an effective date for the modification; staff indicated enforcement would rely on standard code-enforcement tools. The appellants said they may continue to pursue other remedies consistent with the record.

The council's action follows a multi-stage review: a director’s conditional approval in October, a planning commission hearing on Jan. 27 that added conditions, subsequent plan revisions by the applicants, and a formal appeal filed by the adjacent homeowners that sought to block the project. The council's packet and staff presentation included aerial analysis, site photos and proposed plan sets.

What happens next: the resolution upholding the planning commission’s decision (as amended) is final unless appealed or subject to further legal action; any required permits and final plan checks are to proceed under the city’s normal building permit process.