Rancho Palos Verdes planning commission upholds director approval for Ponttovita Drive second-story addition, adds louver conditions

The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission on May 26 voted 4–3 to uphold the director’s conditional approval of a height-variation permit and site plan review for a second-story addition at 28337 Ponttovita Drive, adding conditions to replace side attic glazing and front dormer windows with louvers or equivalent non-glazed vents.

Associate Planner Jeffrey Kim told the commission that the revised plan would add about 800 square feet of second-floor area and a 12-foot first-story addition, bringing the structure to roughly 2,918 square feet; staff found the project consistent with neighborhood-compatibility standards after the applicant lowered the highest roof ridge by about 1.81 feet, revised window types and removed direct attic access. “Staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the PC resolution, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the director’s conditional approval,” Kim said.

Appellant Jason Steininger Holmes argued the project concentrated bulk and mass at the rear of his property, asserted the second-story footprint approached the municipal-code threshold for escalation to a commission-level decision, and warned approval would create a precedent for similar additions. “If you vote against the appeal and allow this project to proceed, you’re opening the door to bootleg additions,” he told commissioners, stressing privacy impacts on his backyard and nearby pools.

Applicant owner Maryanne Lansour said topography and an existing rear pool constrained options for a first-floor expansion and described the attic as non-habitable storage. The applicant’s team said they had reduced the roof height, modified window types (including frosted and awning windows), and removed attic access to address earlier concerns.

Deliberations focused on neighborhood compatibility and outdoor privacy. Commissioners questioned whether square footage or bulk-and-mass measures best capture neighborhood character, whether the revised windows adequately protect outdoor privacy, and whether hedges or other screening would be practical or enforceable. One commissioner said moving the addition back over the existing attic could have avoided the height-variation requirement; others said the applicant had substantially responded to staff and commission feedback.

After discussion, the commission approved a motion to uphold the director’s decision with added conditions requiring the removal or conversion of glazed side attic windows and front dormer windows to suitably sized louvers (or non-glazed alternatives) located at ridge/upper locations to provide ventilation but limit views into neighboring yards. The roll call was: Commissioner Christen — yes; Commissioner Chur — no; Commissioner George — no; Commissioner Okconor — yes; Commissioner Santa Rosa — yes; Vice Chair Brock — no; Chair Nolman — yes. The motion passed, 4–3. A 15-day appeal period was announced.

Next steps: The approval is subject to the standard conditions contained in the staff report and the added louver/window requirements; the project may be appealed within 15 days of the decision.