CC SR 20260519 01 - 7355 Berry Hill Appeal of PC Decision
PUBLIC HEARING - ADJUDICATIVE
Date: May 19, 2026
Subject:
Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision conditionally approving a Height
Variation and Site Plan Review at 7355 Berry Hill Drive (Case No. PLHV2024-0007).
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2026-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION AND DENYING THE APPEAL
THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW ALLOWING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 720 FT2 SECOND-STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 2,467 FT2 SINGLE-
STORY RESIDENCE FOR A NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF 3,187 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED) ALONG
WITH ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING A 263 FT2 ROOF DECK AT 7355 BERRY HILL
DRIVE (CASE NO. PLHV2024-0007).
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Seo
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Seo
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: Brandy Forbes, AICP Director of Community Development and
Jeffrey Kim, Associate Planner
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Public Testimony:
Principal Parties 10 Minutes Each. The appellant or their representative speaks first and will generally be allowed ten minutes. If the
applicant is different from the appellant, the applicant or their representative will speak following the appellant and will also be
allowed ten minutes to make a presentation. General Public 3 Minutes Each.
Appellant: Brent Meyer & Nancy Parsons
Mayor Seo invites the Appellant to speak. (10 mins.)
Applicant: Hany & Carol Francis
Mayor Seo invites the Applicant to speak. (10 mins.)
7. Rebuttal: Mayor Seo invites brief rebuttals by Appellant and Applicant. (3 mins)
Normally, the applicants and appellants will be limited to a three (3) minute rebuttal, if requested after all other interested persons have
spoken.
8. Council Questions of Applicant (factual and without bias):
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
9. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Seo
10. Council Deliberation:
The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer
questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
11. Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05/19/2026
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA TITLE:
Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision conditionally approving a
Height Variation and Site Plan Review at 7355 Berry Hill Drive (Case No. PLHV2024-
0007).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2026-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION AND DENYING THE APPEAL THEREBY
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 720 FT2 SECOND-STORY
ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 2,467 FT2 SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE FOR A
NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF 3,187 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED) ALONG
WITH ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING A 263 FT2 ROOF DECK
AT 7355 BERRY HILL DRIVE (CASE NO. PLHV2024-0007).
FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellants (Brent Meyer and Nancy Parsons) paid the $3,193
appeal fee. If the City Council grants the appeal, the entire $3,193
appeal fee will be refunded back to the Appellants. If an appeal
results in a modification, other than changes specifically requested
in the appeal, half of the appeal fee shall be refunded to the
Appellants. If the City Council denies the appeal, the Appellants will
not be refunded any of the appeal fee. VR
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Jeffrey Kim, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Brandy Forbes, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Resolution No.__ (Page A-1)
B. Appellant’s Appeal Letter dated February 11, 2026 (Page B-1)
C. P.C Resolution No. 2026-02 (Linked)
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 27, 2026 (Linked)
1
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
E. Community Development Director’s Memorandum of Approval dated October 16,
2025 (Page E-1)
F. Notice of Decision of Director Approval dated October 16, 2025 (Page F-1)
G. Project Plans (Page G-1)
Links to previous staff reports and actions taken by the Planning Commission are
incorporated into the ‘Background’ Section of this report.
BACKGROUND:
The initial project applications were submitted on November 27, 2024, and the timeline
below highlights important application milestones and supporting documents since that
time:
On October 16, 2025, the Director of Community Development conditionally approved the
requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review to construct a 720 ft2 second-story and
263 ft2 roof deck to the existing 2,467 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure
size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included), along with ancillary site improvements at 7355 Berry
Hill Drive (Case No. PLHV2024-0007) (Attachment E). On the same day a Notice of
Decision (Attachment F) was provided to all interested parties providing for a 15-day
project appeal period.
On October 30, 2025, Staff received a timely written appeal letter and appeal fee from the
adjacent property owners at 7361 Berry Hill Drive, Brent Meyer and Nancy Parsons,
appealing the Director’s decision to the Planning Commission.
On January 27, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
regarding the appeal of the Director-approved Height Variation and Site Plan Review .
The January 27, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report includes, but is not limited to,
additional background information, project description, code considerations and
analyses, as well as an assessment of public comments and late correspondence
presented at that time. After consideration of public testimony, the Planning Commission,
on a 5 to 1 vote, adopted P.C Resolution No. 2026-02, denying the appeal and upholding
the Director’s decision thereby conditionally approving the requested Height Variation and
Site Plan Review.
On February 11, 2026, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed
by the adjacent property owners, Brent Meyer and Nancy Parsons (Attachment B), at
7361 Berry Hill Drive. The Appellants thereafter submitted multiple revised letters as an
addendum to the original appeal letter on multiple occasions. The Appellants' request the
City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the project
thereby denying the project.
On April 30, 2026, a public notice of this appeal public hearing was published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius from
2
the project site including the Appellants. As of the completion of this report, Staff received
no public comment in response to the public notice.
De Novo Review
Although the requested applications for the proposed project were vetted, reviewed, and
approved by the Director of Community Development and the Planning Commission,
tonight’s hearing on this matter is a de novo hearing, meaning that the City Council shall
conduct the hearing as if the action had not been previously heard and as if no decision
had been rendered, except that all testimony, evidence and other material from the record
of the previous consideration shall be included in the record of the review. Additionally,
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) § 17.80.070(F) notes that "the City
Council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials presented to the
Planning Commission. Any matter or evidence relating to the action on the application,
regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the City Council at the
appeal hearing." As such, the City Council is not limited to only considering the basis of
the appeal but may expand the consideration of the appeal hearing to include the
feedback relayed by the public and Planning Commission or any additional feedback
given to the City Council as a result of the public hearing.
DISCUSSION:
The following discussion provides an overview of: 1) the site and project description; 2)
the discussion of Height Variation and Site Plan Review Code consideration and analysis;
and 3) the basis of the appeal.
1) Site and Project Description
The project site is a 10,415 ft2 pad lot
located on the north side of Berry Hill
Drive. The site includes transitional
slopes along the side yards and rear
yard between adjacent properties. The
project site is improved with an existing
2,467 ft2 single-story residence
including an attached two-car garage.
The project site’s General Plan land use
and zoning designations are Residential
(2-4 DU/AC) and RS-4 (Single-Family
Residential), respectively. Surrounding
land uses include single-family
residential properties to the north, south,
east, and west of the project site. The
topography in the area both slopes
down from east to west along Berry Hill
Drive and from north to south.
3
Diagram No. 1 identifies the Appellants’ property at 7361 Berry Hill Drive, which is located
to the west of the project site. Based on a review of aerial imagery and topographic
conditions in the area, the building pad of the Appellants’ property is approximately 3 feet
lower in elevation than the building pad of the project site.
Diagram No. 1 – Applicant’s and Appellants’ Properties
The proposed project includes the following improvements:
• Construct a 720 ft2 second-story addition to an existing 2,467 ft2 single-story
residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included).
• Construct ancillary site improvements including a new 263 ft2 roof deck, new
skylights on the first floor, and a new cupola on the roof.
The proposed addition will measure 21.75 feet in height, as measured from the lowest
finished grade covered by structure (elev. 278.51 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline (elev.
300.26 feet); and a height of 21.00 feet as measured from the highest elevation of the
existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 279.26 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline
(elev. 300.26 feet).
1) Code Consideration and Analysis – Staff Recommendation for Approval
RPVMC §17.02.040(B)(1) allows, by-right, any individual or persons desiring to build a
new structure on a pad lot to be permitted to build up to 16 feet in height, as measured
from the point where the highest existing foundation or slab meets the finished grade to
the highest roof ridgeline; and 20 feet in height, as measured from the point where the
lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade to the highest point of the structure.
RPVMC §17.02.040(B)(1) allows these heights to be increased for pad lots to a maximum
height of 26 feet with the approval of a Height Variation permit. Since the proposed project
will exceed the 16 feet/20 feet “by-right” building height envelope of the project site as a
pad lot, a Height Variation permit is required.
4
In the consideration of requested applications, it is important to highlight the Applicant’s
revisions to the initial project design as a result of the feedback received and conditions
incorporated at the January 27, 2026 Planning Commission meeting and from the
correspondence provided by the Appellants. The revisions are an attempt to bring the
project into further compliance with Code requirements and an attempt to address the
feedback expressed from the Appellants. Table No. 1 below compares the initial project
submittal presented to the Planning Commission to the revised project scope presented
to the City Council currently:
Table No. 1 – Project Revisions Proposed Since the January 27, 2026 Planning
Commission Meeting
Project Scope Project Submittal Project
Obscured Glass Window Westerly facing windows
included non-obscured
glass. 2026-
windows are maintained as
facade.
include a 6-foot by 6-foot
the Appellants’
westerly side yard. 2026-
installed along western side
RPVMC § 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) sets forth the findings required in order to approve a Height
Variation. Table No. 2 on the following page further articulates Staff’s analysis of the
Applicant’s requested applications and related permit findings that were deemed
acceptable by the Planning Commission in its approval of the project.
5
Table No. 2: Code Consideration and Analysis
Height Variation Permit Findings
Required Permit Findings Initial
Project Submittal
1. The Applicant has complied with the
early neighborhood consultation
process established by the City.
The Applicant has complied with the early
neighborhood consultation process
guidelines and procedures by notifying the
obtaining 7 signatures (70%) from
500 feet of the project site.
2. The proposed new structure that is
above 16 feet in height or addition to
thoroughfares, bikeways, walkways
or equestrian trails) which has been
or coastal specific plan as a City-
There are no viewing points or viewing
sites that will be significantly impaired or
impacted as a result of the proposed
project. Additionally, the project site is not
located within the City’s Coastal Zone.
3. The proposed structure is not
located on a ridge or promontory.
The proposed project is not located on a
ridge or promontory, nor on a prominent
mass of land that overlooks or projects
onto a lowland or body of water on two
sides. As such, this finding can be made.
4. The area of a proposed new
structure that is above 16 feet in
height or an addition to an existing
17.02.040(B) of the Municipal Code,
significantly impair a view from the
viewing area of another parcel.
Views in the area are primarily oriented to
the south and
Barbara Island. The proposed project over
the 16 foot/20 foot “by-
due to the topographical conditions in the
area and the orientation of homes; where
project site observe views in the opposite
located to the east of the project site have
building pads approximately 2-
6
“by-right” building height of the project
residence currently impairs views from
these properties; residences located to the
south of the project site observe views in
pa
the proposed second story addition.
5. If view impairment exists from the
viewing area of another parcel but it
above 16 feet in height or addition to
16 fe
reasonably minimize the impairment
As noted in the previous Finding No. 4,
there will be no view impairment from the
project and, as such, this finding was
determined not to be applicable.
6. There is no significant cumulative
view impairment caused by granting
impairment shall be determined by:
impairment that would be caused by
above 16 feet in height or addition to
There will be no significant cumulative
view impairment by portions of the
structure which exceed 16 feet in height.
Due to the east to west downward sloping
conditions and transitional slopes between
Drive, simila
neighboring properties will not create view
impairments,
located further east along Berry Hill Drive
are located upslope and do not have any
views which can be impacted by portions
of the structure which are above 16 feet in
height along Berry Hill Drive.
7. The proposed structure complies
with all other code requirements.
he proposed addition will comply with all
other code requirements, including but not
allowable lot coverage, and building height
permit.
7
8. The proposed structure is
compatible with the immediate
neighborhood character.
The surrounding neighborhood consists of
one- and two-
largest in the area
second-story addition back approximately
12.5 feet from the existing front facade,
The addition slightly reduces the westerly
side setback by 1.58 feet to 5.42 feet,
which still exceeds the 5-foot minimum
well below the 50% maximum permitted in
the RS-4 zone, ensuring consistency with
neighborhood development patterns.
b) Architectural Style:
Although the neighborhood is primarily
single-story, there are nearby homes that
are already two-story, including others on
Berry Hill Drive with similar pad elevations
second-
front-to-back configuration seen on nearby
two-story homes and incorporates a front-
facing roof
farther from the street, reducing perceived
added through varied ma
project uses wood shiplap siding, asphalt
shingles, and a hip roof elements found on
residences. The design also complies with
8
spacing that preserves adequate light and
air between structures.
c) Setbacks:
The RS-
minimum setbacks of 20 feet in the front, 5
for structures predating City incorporation.
existing
slightly reduced to 5.42 feet, still above the
7361 Berry Hill Drive
proximity to the property line, the resulting
neighborhood, as other nearby two-story
residences,
7303 Berry Hill Drive, have similar or even
project continues to comply with RS-4
with surrounding development patterns.
9. The proposed new structure that is
above 16 feet in height or addition to
privacy of the occupants of abutting
residences.
The proposed project will not result in an
unreasonable infringement of privacy.
along the north elevation primarily observe
Appellants’
Berry Hill Drive. The updated project plans
submitted since the January 27, 2026
Planning Commission hearing also include
shield to help limit views of the Appellants’
rear yard.
second story addition is designed with two
sets of clerestory windows with a sill height
of 5 feet -
finished floor of the second story addition,
9
roof areas on the Appellants’ adjacent
property at 7361 Berry Hill Drive. The
updated project plans submitted since the
January 27, 2026Planning Commission
hearing
portions of the window which are below 6-
feet in heigh.
second-
where there is no expectation of privacy.
roof deck that maintains views to the south
and east that afford views of the ocean and
of the public right-of-way.
Pursuant RPVMC §17.70.010, the Site Plan Review procedure evaluates the proposed
ancillary site improvements to ensure consistency with the provisions of the Zoning Code
when no other entitlement was required. The ancillary site improvements include three
new first-floor skylights, construction of a 263 ft² roof deck, and a roof-mounted cupola.
Staff confirmed that each of these elements complies with the applicable RS-4
development standards, including required setbacks and height limitations. The skylights
remain below the 16-foot by-right height limit. The proposed cupola has a highest
elevation point of 304.51 feet and, as such, the overall height of the structure from the
lowest finished grade covered by structure (278.51 feet) to the highest point of the cupola
(304.51 feet) is 26 feet and the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the
structure (279.26 feet) to the highest point of the cupola is 25.25 feet, both of which are
under the maximum height allowed via a Height Variation Permit.
Pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.030(D)(4), the proposed roof deck requires evaluation for
Neighborhood Compatibility and potential privacy impacts to adjacent properties due to
its size. As further discussed under the Height Variation analysis and Appeal
considerations, the roof deck satisfies the required findings under RPVMC
§17.02.040(A)(6). Staff concluded that the roof deck would not result in an unreasonable
infringement of privacy, as views from the deck are primarily oriented toward Berry Hill
Drive, the public right-of-way, the ocean, and front yard or roof areas of adjacent
properties where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Additionally, views looking
north toward the neighboring property at 7361 Berry Hill Drive are screened by the
proposed second-story facade of the residence, further limiting potential privacy impacts.
10
2) Bases of Appeal and Staff Response
The appeal seeks to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed
project on multiple grounds. The complete appeal contents with supporting
documentation are available in the Appellants’ February 11, 2026 appeal letter and
subsequent addendum letters (Attachment B). The following is a summary of two main
appeal points which address concerns with Staff’s analysis of the required findings and
development code requirements for the appeal (shown in bold below) along with Staff’s
responses provided below:
1. The project is not consistent with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’
Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines as outlined in the Neighborhood
Compatibility Handbook. The Appellants claim that the incorporation of the
new roof deck and the second-story addition running lengthwise along the
shared property line is inconsistent with the established development
pattern of the neighborhood. They also purport that the project rises
significantly above their single-story home, wedges them between multiple
two story residences, and creates a massing condition that dominates their
side yard and reduces the perceived setback.
Staff Response: Permit Finding No. 8 of Table No. 2 of this report summarizes the
project’s compatibility with the immediate neighborhood and its compliance with
Neighborhood Compatibility pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.030. Additionally, Finding No. 8
of the ‘Height Variation’ section of the January 27, 2026 Planning Commission staff report
also addresses the Appellants’ project comments and feedback that were submitted as
part of the Director and Planning Commission’s consideration of the requested permit.
Staff provide additional analysis pertaining to the project’s compliance with Neighborhood
Compatibility below:
Roof deck size
The Appellants contend that the proposed second-story addition and roof deck are not
compatible with the development pattern in the neighborhood for multiple reasons. The
first reason referenced is that the proposed roof deck, far exceeds any such structure in
the neighborhood, setting a poor precedent. In the Staff Report dated, January 27, 2026,
Staff highlights that there are other two-story residences in the immediate neighborhood,
such as the properties located at 7369 Berry Hill Drive and 7333 Berry Hill Drive, that
have roof decks and front yard facing balconies, as well as other properties outside of the
closest 20 homes that include roof decks and balconies as highlighted in Diagram No. 2.
These properties were highlighted to demonstrate that while the proposed roof deck is
larger than others in the area, it is a design feature that has been established in the
neighborhood. Despite the proposed roof deck being the largest in the immediate
neighborhood, its design and size also help minimize and address the sense of bulk and
mass of the residence as seen from the public right-of-way, as the roof deck helps set the
second-story addition further back from the front of the residence.
11
Diagram No. 2 - Balconies and Roof decks at 7333 and 7369 Berry Hill Drive
Sequencing of Second-story Additions
The Appellants then claim that the proposed project will not be consistent with the
development patterns in the area, as it will result in the Appellants’ property being sited
between properties improved with two-story residences. Based on Staff’s analysis of site
conditions in the area, the property to the west of the Appellants’ property at 7369 Berry
Hill Drive is currently improved with a two-story residence. If the proposed second-story
addition is permitted on the project site, the Appellants’ property will be sited between
properties with two-story residences. Staff believes that this development pattern will
continue to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood because the proposed
second-story addition is designed to maintain existing rhythm of the streetscape by
integrating into the existing roofline height of the project residence structure and providing
articulation between the levels via the proposed roof deck along the front elevation of the
project residence. Additionally, other residences within the immediate neighborhood are
also sited between existing two-story residences such as 7309 Berry Hill Drive. As part
of a review for Neighborhood Compatibility, Staff does not evaluate the specific
sequencing of single-story and two-story residences but rather conducts the analysis on
the broader immediate neighborhood.
Lengthwise Siting of Second-story Addition
The Appellants also contend that the proposed project does not meet neighborhood
compatibility, because it is sited “lengthwise” along the western portion of the existing
project residence. Staff’s analysis of other two-story homes in the immediate
neighborhood (7369 & 7333 Berry Hill Drive) found that this is a common design feature,
in which the two-story portion of the residence is sited over the length of a portion of the
lower level below as further illustrated in Diagram No. 3 below:
12
7333 Berry Hill 7369 Berry Hill
Bale
Diagram No. 3 – “Lengthwise” Siting of Two Story Structures in Immediate Area
Setbacks
In regard to proposed project setbacks with this permit request, all existing setbacks will
be maintained except the westerly side yard setback between the side yard of the project
site and the Appellants’ property. While the proposed addition will be reducing the existing
westerly side yard setback by 1.58 feet, this new setback distance is still greater than the
minimum required setback and is consistent with other two-story properties found in the
immediate neighborhood and properties outside of the closet 20 residences. According
to aerial imagery from the City’s GIS maps, another two-story residence in the immediate
neighborhood at 7333 Berry Hill Drive maintains setbacks that are close to approximately
5 feet on the western property line as shown in Diagram No. 4.
Diagram No. 4 – Side-yard Setback Conditions of Other Two-Story Properties in
Immediate Area
13
According to City permit records, two-story residences located outside of the immediate
neighborhood at 7309 and 7303 Berry Hill Drive maintain setbacks that are approximately
5-feet from the westerly property lines. The westerly side setback conditions of 7309 and
7303 Berry Hill Drive are further illustrated in the aerial imagery in Diagram No. 5:
Diagram No. 5 – Westerly Side Setback Conditions at 7309 and 7303 Berry Hill
Drive
Cantilevering Portion
While the second story addition proposes an approximately 4-foot cantilevering portion
over the western portion of the existing residence, the design maintains a 5 foot- 5 inch
setback to the western property line between the Appellants and the Applicant, and is
further setback approximately 15 feet - 4 inches between the eastern facade of the
Appellants’ residence and proposed second-story addition. Additionally, as further
illustrated in Diagram No. 6 below, this cantilevering portion maintains lines of
development with the existing direct access garage of the project residence, minimizing
views of the second-story cantilevering portion from the front.
Diagram No. 6 - Proposed Second Story Addition Cantilevering Design
14
i:
I
....J
7355 Berry Hill Drive
APP LI CANT
7361 Berry Hill Drive
APP EL LANT
In attempts to address the feedback following the Planning Commission’s determination
and denial of the appeal, the Appellants had proposed alternative designs to the proposed
roof deck in their initial February 11, 2026 correspondence, which includes a reduction in
roof deck square footage and alternative dimensions. Staff had presented these ideas
along with the rest of the Appellant’s comments to the Applicant, to which no alternative
changes were proposed to the dimension or square footage of the roof deck. However,
based on the discussion above, Staff does continue to find that the proposed project
meets the standards for Neighborhood Compatibility and recommends that the City
Council reject the Appellants’ appeal point surrounding Neighborhood Compatibility.
2. The project creates substantial privacy impacts from the proposed roof deck
and second-story windows, which provide direct views into the Appellants’
courtyard, rear yard, and bedroom areas. The Appellants contend that the
deck size, orientation, and second-story window designs fail to mitigate
privacy impacts or the Planning Commission’s privacy conditions, and that
vegetation screening is not a reliable or enforceable mitigation. They further
assert the Planning Commission’s approval of the project relied on incorrect
assumptions that structural elements would block these views.
Staff Response: Permit Finding No. 9 of Table No. 2 of this report notes that the
proposed project above 16 feet in height will not result in an unreasonable infringement
of privacy to the occupants of abutting residences. Permit Finding No. 9 of the ‘Height
Variation’ section of the January 27, 2026 Planning Commission staff report also
addressed the Appellants’ project comments and feedback that were submitted as part
of the Director and Planning Commission’s consideration of the requested permit. Staff
provides additional analysis pertaining to the Appellants’ privacy concerns below:
Views from Newly Proposed Front-yard Roof Deck
The Appellants contend that the proposed roof deck located at the front of the project
residence and second-story windows along the westerly side elevation will result in
significant privacy impacts to interior and exterior spaces on their property. Staff believes
that these improvements will not result in unreasonable infringement of privacy to interior
spaces because, based on Staff’s assessment, views from the proposed roof deck will
primarily consist of roof areas of the Appellants’ residence as well as far views of the
ocean as illustrated in Diagram No. 7 below. Furthermore, privacy of interior spaces like
bedrooms can be mitigated via the use of as curtains or blinds, which is also supported
by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Height Variation Permit Guidelines that state that
“Given the variety and number of options which are available to preserve indoor privacy,
greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor privacy than to protecting
indoor privacy.”
15
Diagram No. 7 – Photograph Taken From Approximate Area and Height of the
Proposed Roof Deck Area
Additionally, views of the Appellants’ western front-facing bedroom area and portions of
the courtyard can be currently observed from the public right-of-way along Berry Hill Drive
as seen in Diagram No. 8:
Diagram No. 8 – Photograph of Bedroom Area Windows and Courtyard of
Appellants’ Residence from Berry Hill Drive
In response to the feedback given by the Appellants at the January 27, 2026 public
hearing, the Planning Commission had conditioned the approval of this project to include
Condition No. 36, which states, “To address privacy from the deck, install foliage along
the western side yard to be approved by the Director”. In the updated plan set provided
by the Applicant, they notate the installation of three (3) 24” “Box Italian Cypress” trees
on the Applicant’s side yard of their property, fulfilling the conditioned requirements from
the Planning Commission. The Appellants state that they maintain concerns regarding
the maintenance of the proposed foliage and its effectiveness to block views. Staff finds
that the installation of these trees would address the privacy concerns as observed from
16
iewof
e l l ant 's
er fro
View f rom roof deck
looking back t owards
Appellant's
the front yard roof deck when looking backwards towards the Appellants’ courtyard as
seen in Diagram No. 9. Additionally, as the installation of the foliage is a condition of
approval for the proposed application, the property owners will be held responsible to
maintain the foliage in perpetuity, along with all other foliage on their property, otherwise
they may be subject to non-compliance with conditions of approval from the Code
Enforcement Division.
Diagram No. 9 - Installation of Box Italian Cypress Trees
The Appellants also provide options regarding alternative designs for the proposed roof
deck to eliminate views towards their property, which includes alternative dimensions and
square footages; however, the Applicant did not incorporate those design elements in
their updated project designs. Staff does find that, along with the Planning Commission’s
condition of foliage, there would be no unreasonable infringement of privacy from the
proposed roof deck.
Westerly Facing Second-Story Windows
The Appellants also contend that the proposed second-story windows and the obscuring
of the portions of the window below 6 feet would not be an effective privacy mitigation
measure. The westerly elevation of the proposed second-story addition is designed with
a series of windows that will maintain a windowsill height of 5 feet – 1 inch, or 61 inches,
as measured from the finished floor of the second-story addition. The location of these
windows will be above standard window height, which in consultation with the City’s
Building Official, is approximately 42-inches. Based on Staff’s assessment, the height of
the proposed second-story windows along the westerly elevation of the addition will afford
limited views of exterior areas of the Appellants’ property, such as existing roof areas
between the Appellants’ residence and detached garage. As highlighted in Diagram No.
17
NE ST ORY GARAGE J O NE STORY HOU SE
.,.
10, which shows a photo taken from staff at the approximate height of the windowsill
along the proposed westerly facade, views from the approximate location and height of
proposed second-story windows in the direction of the Appellants’ property primarily
consist of the roof and partial views of the courtyard. Standing at different points within
the proposed second story addition would yield views that are even less significant than
what is shown in Staff’s photos. However, the Applicant has proposed to obscure the
portions of the window which are below 6 feet from the finished floor to help further limit
views of the Appellants’ property, pursuant to Condition No. 35, which states “Along west
facing windows of second story addition the area of the windows below six feet to be
maintained as opaque, with an option to raise sill heights to six feet.”
Diagram No. 10 – Photograph Taken From Approximate Areas and Height of
Second-Story Windows Along Westerly Elevation
Furthermore, Diagram No. 11 illustrates that limited views of the Appellants’ courtyard
area are currently observed along the westerly side yard of the ground floor of the project
site.
18
View from
Approximat e Area of
West Facing Bac k
Diagram No. 11 – Photograph Taken Along Westerly Side-Yard of Ground Floor of
The Project Site in The Direction of the Appellants’ Courtyard
The design of the proposed second-story addition also includes two windows along the
northerly elevation. One window will be located at a sill height of 5 feet – 1 inch as
measured from the finished floor of the second story addition and will utilize obscured
glass for the portions which are below 6-feet, similar to the westerly facing windows. The
second window will be located at a sill height of 3 feet as measured from the finished floor
of the second story addition in order to comply with egress and ingress requirements
pursuant to California Residential Code Section §CRC310.2, which requires that “all
rooms used for sleeping purposes shall have one complying escape/rescue window”.
However, following the submittal of the Appellants’ letter, the Applicant has also proposed
to install a new obscured glass shield along the northerly façade to limit views of the
Appellants’ rear yard.
The Appellants noted in their February 27, 2026 addendum letter that the installation of
the obscured glass shield and opaque windows below 6 feet are a good compromise for
a portion of their concerns; however, they maintain general concerns about privacy
impacts due to the proposed project. Staff does find that the proposed project and
adjustments made by the Applicant do not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy
and, based on the discussion above, Staff recommend that the City Council reject the
Appellants’ appeal point surrounding privacy impacts.
The remaining miscellaneous feedback and appeal points which are not specifically
referenced to Staff’s interpretation of the required application findings within the
Appellants’ letter are listed in Table No. 3 below along with Staff’s response and
comments:
19
Table No. 3: Additional Appeal Points
Appellants Comments Staff Response
The Appellants contend their public input
was not properly handled during the
review process, stating that a detailed
early comment letter was lost, misfiled, or
disregarded, which they believe resulted in
their feedback
considered throughout the project review.
argue this contributed to a perception that
weight during the proceedings.
27, 2026
Commission, the Appellants informed
Staff that they submitted a public comment
3-
filing
27, 2024. As such, Staff did not have the
ability to file the public comment letter into
been submitted to the City for processing.
While Staff could not locate the Appellants’
Staff received a copy of the letter from the
Appellants
analyzed and included in the Project
Memorandum (Case No. PLHV2024-
0007) dated October 16, 2025. Ultimately,
the initial public comment letter which was
initial project review.
and compatibility concern
their participation in the decision-making
procedures and
speaking limits for both the Applicant and
Appellants
Applicant and Appellants
five (5) minute presentation and three (3)
minute rebuttal each. At the
2026 public hearing, both the Appellants
20
Appellants Comments Staff Response
amount of time for public comment.
Additionally, §2.6(11) states that the
Chairperson, at their discretion, may
allocate a specific amount of time to each
side. The chairman at his
allocated additional speaking time limits to
allow further public comments to assist in
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
City Council Site Visit
Although not required, it is recommended that City Council visit the project site and
neighboring properties. Staff will provide, under separate cover, contact information for
the Applicant and Appellants to schedule a site visit.
Appeal Hearing Participation
Pursuant to City Council Policy, Planning Commission Chairman will be invited to
participate in the City Council appeal hearing.
Environmental Assessment
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 19 §15301(e)(Existing Facilities)
of the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. Specifically, the project includes an
addition to an existing structure that is less than 10,000 ft2; is located where existing
public services and facilities are available and is not in an environmentally sensitive area.
Public Correspondence
On April 30, 2026, a public notice for the Appeal request was issued to the public
(including the Appellants) and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. Staff
received no public comment. If public comments are received after publishing this staff
report, they will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence.
Foliage Analysis
The Director-approved project included Condition of Approval No. 34 requiring the
removal of the following foliage:
21
1. The two Queen Palm Trees located in the south corner of the front yard labeled 24
inches and 16 inches and the two Queen Palm Trees located in the front yard labeled 14
inches on the survey from GDS Land Surveying dated April 8, 2024.
Following the Appeal of this project application, the View Restoration and Preservation
Division included additional analysis regarding Staff’s determination as outlined below:
• The determination of a significant view impairment is based on how private and
public trees collectively impair the overall view within the view frame. There are
four Queen Palm Trees on the project site, which are part of a collective mass of
trees in the center vicinity of the view frame from 7315 Berry Hill Drive (Foliage
Diagram No. 1, 2 & 3).
Foliage Diagram No. 1- Map View of View Frame from 7315 Berry Hill Drive
22
Foliage Diagram No. 2- Photograph taken from the living room viewing area at
7315 Berry Hill Drive
Foliage Diagram No. 3- Close-up photograph taken from the living room viewing
area at 7315 Berry Hill Drive
Based on Staff’s analysis of the view frame, the two Queen Palm Trees located in the
south corner of the front yard labeled 24 inches and 16 inches and the two Queen Palm
Trees located in the front yard labeled 14 inches on the survey from GDS Land Surveying
dated April 8, 2024 significantly impair the ocean view from the living room viewing area
at 7315 Berry Hill Drive. The location of the Palm Trees is further identified in Foliage
Diagram No. 4 below.
23
Four Queen Palm Trees at 7355 Berry Hill Or.
Foliage Diagram No. 4- Survey from GDS Land Surveying dated April 8, 2024
Identifying Location of 4 Palm Trees on Project Site
To eliminate the significant view impairment of the ocean, the trees would typically be
required to be trimmed to the roof ridgeline. However, trimming to such a height level will
both injure the trees and create unsightly appearances visible from public rights-of-way
and private adjoining properties, because all of the trees’ frond leaves will need to be
trimmed. Therefore, the Condition of Approval requires the Palm Trees to be removed.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the Code considerations outlined above along with the analysis of the appeal
feedback, Staff believes the project continues to meet the merits of the Planning
Commission’s approval. Staff therefore recommend the City Council adopt the attached
resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to
uphold the Director of Community Development Department’s conditional approval of a
Height Variation and Site Plan Review at 7355 Berry Hill Drive.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1) Approve the application but impose additional or different conditions as deemed
necessary.
2) Deny the application without prejudice, upon a finding that all applicable findings
have not been correctly made or all provisions have not been complied with but
that, in either case, the application has merit and may possibly be modified.
24
/
/
k
/
/
,'\ .... ,',
' ' \
\
l
1
l
1
l
I .::c
3) Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings cannot be made
or all provisions have not been complied with.
4) Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with direction.
5) Take other action as deemed necessary.
25
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 1 of 13
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION AND DENYING THE APPEAL
THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT
VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW ALLOWING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 720 FT2 SECOND-STORY
ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 2,467 FT2 SINGLE-STORY
RESIDENCE FOR A NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF
3,187 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED) ALONG WITH
ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING A 263 FT2
ROOF DECK AT 7355 BERRY HILL DRIVE (CASE NO.
PLHV2024-0007).
WHEREAS, on November 27, 2024, the Applicant submitted the requested
application for a Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2025, Staff completed an initial review of the application,
at which time the application was deemed incomplete for processing due to missing
information; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2025, Staff deemed the application complete for
processing after the Applicant resubmitted revised plans and additional information on
multiple occasions. On that same day, a public notice announcing the proposed project was
mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site and published in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula News. Staff received 4 public comments in response to the
proposed project and public notice, which were evaluated by the Director of Community
Development in the consideration of the requested applications; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2025, the Director of Community Development
conditionally approved the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review and on the
same day a Notice of Decision was sent out to all interested parties providing for a 15-day
project appeal period; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2025, Staff received a timely written Appeal Letter of the
Director’s Notice of Decision from the adjacent property owner at 7361 Berry Hill Drive, Brent
Meyer and Nancy Parsons (herein the Appellants); and
WHEREAS, October 30, 2025, Staff received confirmation of payment for the Appeal
request; and
WHEREAS, on December 25, 2025, A public notice announcing the Planning
Commission’s consideration of the Appeal request to be held at a hearing on January 27,
2026 was provided to the Appellants, the Applicant, property owners within a 500-foot radius
A-1
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 2 of 13
of the project site, interested parties, and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section
17.80.050(C), an appeal hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set within 90
days of the filing of the appeal, or not later than January 15, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the Appeal request, at which time the Planning Commission voted
to deny the appeal and conditionally approve the requested project on a 5-1 vote; and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2026, Staff received a timely written Appeal Letter and
confirmation of payment of the Planning Commission’s Notice of Decision from the adjacent
property owner at 7361 Berry Hill Drive, Brent Meyer and Nancy Parsons; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.80.070(C), an appeal hearing before the
City Council shall be set within 90 days of the filing of the appeal, or not later than May 12,
2026; and
WHEREAS, in scheduling the public hearing before the City Council the Appellants
were not available for the date considered of May 5, 2026; and
WHEREAS, in order to schedule the public hearing at a date beyond the 90 days of
filing the appeal, the City received written confirmation on March 18, 2026 from the
Appellants extending the appeal hearing date beyond the 90 days for the date of May 19,
2026; and
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2026, a public notice announcing the City Council’s
consideration of the Appeal request to be held at a public hearing on May 19, 2026 was
provided to the Appellants, Applicant, property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project
site, interested parties, and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Sections 21000 et. seq. (“CEQA”), the State’s CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., the City’s Local CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Section
15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA.
Specifically, the project includes an addition to an existing structure that is less than 10,000
ft²; is located where existing public services and facilities are available; is not in an
environmentally sensitive area and none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption set
forth in CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2 apply and specifically this project does not
present any unusual circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 19, 2026, at which time all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
A-2
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 3 of 13
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council finds and determines the proposed project involves
the construction of a 720 ft2 second-story addition to an existing 2,467 ft2 two-story residence
for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included) measuring 21.75 feet in height
along with ancillary site improvements, which include a 263 ft2 roof deck.
Section 2: The City Council finds and determines the project is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 CCR 15301 (Existing
Facilities) as the project includes an addition to an existing structure that is less than 10,000
ft2; is located where existing public services and facilities are available; and is not in an
environmentally sensitive area. Furthermore, none of the exceptions to the use of a
categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2 applies to the project
and specifically the project does not present any unusual circumstances.
Section 3: The City Council finds and determines that the Height Variation and
Site Plan Review for the construction of an 720 ft2 second-story addition to an existing 2,467
ft2 two-story residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included) measuring
21.75 feet in height from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the finished
grade to the highest roof ridgeline, which exceeds the 16 feet/ 20 feet by-right building height
envelope, is warranted based on the following findings:
A. The Applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process
guidelines and procedures by notifying the local Homeowners Association and
obtaining 7 signatures (70%) from properties within 100 feet and 18 signatures
(29.5%) from properties within 500 feet of the project site.
B. There are no viewing points or viewing sites that will be significantly impaired or
impacted as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, the project site is not
located within the City’s Coastal Zone.
C. The proposed project is not located on a ridge or promontory, nor located on a
prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on
two sides. As such, this finding can be made.
D. Views in the area are primarily oriented to the south and west consisting of the ocean,
shoreline bluffs, and Santa Barbara Island. The proposed project over the 16 foot/20
foot “by-right” height limit would not significantly impair any views due to the
topographical conditions in the area and the orientation of homes; where residences
located to the west of the project site observe views in the opposite direction of the
project site; residences located to the east of the project site have building pads
approximately 2-10 feet higher than the project site in which the “by-right” building
height of the project residence currently impairs views from these properties;
A-3
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 4 of 13
residences located to the south of the project site observe views in the opposite
direction of the project site, and properties to the north have building pads
approximately 50 feet higher in elevation than the building pad of the project site and
still maintain views over the proposed second story addition.
E. There will be no significant cumulative view impairment by portions of the structure
which exceed 16 feet in height. Due to the east to west downward sloping conditions
and transitional slopes between side yards of properties along Berry Hill Drive,
similarly constructed additions on neighboring properties will not create view
impairments as properties which are located further east along Berry Hill Drive are
located upslope and do not have any views which can be impacted by portions of the
structure which are above 16 feet in height along Berry Hill Drive.
F. The proposed addition will comply with all other code requirements, including but not
limited to, setbacks, parking, maximum allowable lot coverage, and building height
with the inclusion of a Height Variation.
G. The proposed project is compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood
in terms of the scale, architectural style, and setbacks. The size of the proposed
addition (720 ft2) will result in the project residence being the fourth largest in the
immediate neighborhood. The architectural style of the project will continue to be
compatible with the immediate neighborhood as it includes various architectural
elements and features such as the roof deck and siting of the second story, that are
also observed in the neighborhood. The proposed project will incorporate finished
materials such as stucco and wood siding, as well as a hip shingle roof, which is
consistent with both the existing project residence and other homes in the
neighborhood. Additionally, the minimum setbacks are all being maintained and the
westerly side yard setback will be reduced to 5.42 feet which is a distance found to
be consistent with other two-story residences in the area.
H. The proposed project will not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy. The
proposed second story windows along the north elevation will incorporate obscured
glass screening for the portions of the bathroom window below 6-feet and an
obscured glass shield to limits views of the Appellants’ rear yard. The west elevation
of the proposed second story addition is designed with two high windows with a sill
height of 5 feet - 1 inch and obscured glass for the portions below 6-feet as measured
from the finished floor of the second story addition, which primarily observe views of
existing roof areas on the adjacent property at 7361 Berry Hill Drive. Additionally,
foliage will be planted in the portions of the westerly side yard to limit views of the
Appellants’ property when looking north. The east elevation of the proposed second-
story addition is designed with several windows with views of existing front yard areas
along Berry Hill Drive, where there is no expectation of privacy. The south elevation
of the proposed second story addition includes a 263 ft2 roof deck that maintains
views to the south and east that afford views of the ocean and of the public right-of-
way.
A-4
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 5 of 13
Section 4: The proposed ancillary site improvements including the installation of
three new skylights, 263 ft2 roof deck, new cupola on the roof, foliage, and obscured glass
screening, meet all the applicable RPVMC requirements including, but not limited to
setbacks, height, and lot coverage and privacy impacts in the RS-4 zoning district.
Section 5: The City Council has considered the basis for the appeal offered by the
Appellant, and finds and determines the same are without merit for the reasons described
below:
A. While the Appellants allege that the proposed project is inconsistent with the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes’ Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines, the project remains
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of scale, design, massing,
and setbacks. The proposed second-story addition, roof deck, and “lengthwise” siting
along the western facade are consistent with existing development patterns observed
among nearby two-story residences on Berry Hill Drive. Although the proposed roof
deck is larger than others in the immediate area, roof decks and front-facing
balconies are established architectural features within the neighborhood, and the roof
deck design helps reduce the perceived bulk and mass of the second-story addition
from the public right-of-way by stepping the upper story back from the front elevation.
The project maintains the existing streetscape rhythm through integration with the
existing roofline and articulation between levels. While the project would place the
Appellants’ single-story residence between two-story homes, similar neighborhood
conditions already exist nearby and remain compatible within the broader
neighborhood context. Additionally, although the proposed second-story addition
includes a cantilevered portion and reduces the existing westerly side setback, the
project continues to exceed minimum setback requirements, maintains
approximately 15’-4” of separation from the Appellants’ residence, and aligns with
development patterns and setback conditions found on other nearby two-story
properties. Accordingly, the project is consistent with Neighborhood Compatibility
requirements.
B. While the Appellants allege that the project creates significant privacy infringements
from the proposed front-yard roof deck and second-story windows, it was determined
that the proposed project would not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy
on the Appellants’ property. Views from the deck are primarily directed toward roof
areas of the Appellants’ residence and distant ocean views, with only limited visibility
into portions of the courtyard and bedroom areas, portions of which are already
visible from the public right-of-way along Berry Hill Drive. City guidelines place
greater emphasis on protecting outdoor privacy, while indoor privacy can reasonably
be mitigated through window treatments. To further address privacy concerns, the
Planning Commission conditioned the project to require installation and ongoing
maintenance of landscaping, including Italian Cypress trees, along the western side
yard to provide additional screening from the roof deck. The proposed second-story
windows along the westerly elevation are designed with elevated sill heights and
A-5
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 6 of 13
include obscured glazing below six feet, limiting direct views into neighboring
properties and primarily overlooking roof areas and limited portions of the courtyard.
Additionally, while a required egress window on the northerly elevation may afford
partial views toward the Appellants’ rear yard, the Applicant proposed an additional
obscured glass shield to further reduce visibility. Based on these design features,
conditions of approval, and proposed privacy mitigation measures, the project would
not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy.
C. While the Appellants allege that their public input was not properly considered during
the project review process and that they were not afforded a fair opportunity to
respond during the Planning Commission hearing, the public review process was
conducted in accordance with applicable procedures and requirements. Staff noted
that the Appellants’ initial public comment letter was submitted prior to the Applicant’s
formal project application and therefore could not initially be associated with an active
case file. However, upon receipt of a subsequent copy from the Appellants, the letter
was incorporated into the project record, analyzed by Staff, and included in the
Project Memorandum prepared for project review prior to the formal opening of public
comment. Regarding the Planning Commission hearing procedures, the Applicant
and Appellants were provided the allotted speaking and rebuttal times consistent with
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-25, and that the Chairperson
appropriately exercised discretion to allow additional public testimony to assist in the
Commission’s deliberations.
Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts Resolution No. 2026- __, conditionally
approving of a Height Variation and Site Plan Review to allow the construction of a new 720
ft2 second-story addition and 263 ft2 roof deck to an existing 2,467 ft2 single-story residence
for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included), along with ancillary site
improvements subject to conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit ‘A’.
Section 7: Any challenge to a final decision by the City Council on the entitlements
and the findings set forth herein must be filed within the 90-day statute of limitations set forth
in the Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6 and Section §17.86.100(B) of the RPVMC.
Section 8: The City clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this
Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered into the Book
of Resolutions of the City Council.
A-6
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 7 of 13
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 19th day of May 2026.
____________________
Paul Seo, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. ___, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on May 19, 2026.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
A-7
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 8 of 13
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PLHV2024-0007
7355 BERRY HILL DRIVE
(HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW)
General Conditions:
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant
and/or the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they
have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Exhibit “A”. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following
the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any
of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or
annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities
thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the
project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the Applicant
shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. Pursuant to RPVMC §17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is
authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the
conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results
as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial
changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require approval by the
final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate
environmental review and public notification.
A-8
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 9 of 13
6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained
in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the
residential development standards of the RPVMC, including but not limited to height,
setback and lot coverage standards.
7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause
to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained
in RPVMC §17.86.060 or administrative citations as described in RPVMC §1.16.
8. If the Applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved
project or not commenced the approved project as described in
RPVMC §17.86.070 within 180 days of the final effective date of this Notice of
Decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior
to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development
Department and approved by the Director.
9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed
in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the
effective date of this approval.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on
the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal
non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal
non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the
stamped APPROVED plans.
12. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be
kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material
used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but
not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete
asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture,
appliances or other household fixtures.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner,
to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official. All construction waste and debris
resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly
basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms
shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a
location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the
satisfaction of the City’s Building Official.
A-9
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 10 of 13
14. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting
property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30
calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in RPVMC
§17.56.050(C). Unless required to protect against a safety hazard, temporary
construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days prior to
commencement of construction.
15. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity
permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in RPVMC §17.96.920.
During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park,
queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before
7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do
so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject
to approval by the Building Official.
16. Exterior residential lighting shall comply with the standards of RPVMC §17.56.030.
All exterior lighting shall be so arranged and shielded as to prevent direct illumination
of abutting properties and of vehicles passing on the public right-of-way. Luminaries
shall be of a low-level indirect and diffused type. All fluorescent bulbs or other lighting
under canopies or on the building shall be covered with diffusing lenses and shielded.
17. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall employ
effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
18. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT,
whichever occurs first, an earth hauling permit shall be approved by the Public Works
Department.
19. The Applicant shall remove the project silhouette within seven (7) days after a final
decision has been rendered and the City’s appeal process has been exhausted.
Project Specific Conditions:
20. The proposed project consists of the following improvements:
• Construct a 720 ft2 second-story addition to an existing 2,467 ft2 single-story
residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included).
• Construct ancillary site improvements including a new 263 ft2 roof deck, new
skylights on the first floor, and a new cupola on the roof.
A-10
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 11 of 13
BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection.
21. The proposed addition will measure 21.75 feet, as measured from the lowest finished
grade covered by structure (elev. 278.51 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline (elev.
300.26 feet); and a height of 21.00 feet as measured from the highest elevation of
the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 279.26) to the highest roof ridgeline
(elev. 300.26 feet).
BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection, based on the above-
mentioned instructions.
22. The proposed project shall maintain setbacks as follows:
Front (south) 19.83 feet
Interior Side (west) 5.42 feet
Interior Side (east) 12.92 feet
Rear (north) 47.42 feet
BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed
land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
23. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project
shall maintain a maximum of 33% lot coverage.
24. The project site shall maintain a minimum of two enclosed parking spaces at all times.
An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than
9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, with a minimum 7 feet vertical clearance. An
unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than
9 feet in width by 20 feet in depth.
25. Roof eaves shall not project into the required setback more than 6 inches for each
foot of the required setback, provided that there are no vertical supports within the
required setback areas.
26. All colors and materials for the structure and roof shall be as shown on the stamped
APPROVED plans.
27. No more than 50% of any existing interior and exterior walls or existing square
footage may be removed or demolished. Residential buildings that are remodeled or
A-11
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 12 of 13
renovated such that 50% or greater of any existing interior or exterior walls or existing
square footage is demolished or removed within a two-year period shall be
considered a new residence and shall then conform to all current development
standards for that zoning district and the most recently adopted version of the
California Building Code.
28. The height of the proposed skylights shall not exceed the highest ridgeline of the
house.
29. All second-floor windows shall be maintained at the exact height specifications listed
in the approved plan set date stamped October 16, 2025.
30. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on a roof deck shall not
exceed a height of eight feet or the bottom of the roof eave, whichever is lower, as
measured from the finished floor of the deck
31. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on a roof deck which exceed
the height limits established in section 17.02.040 (View preservation and restoration),
shall not significantly impair a view from surrounding properties.
32. The approved mechanical equipment unit shall be screened from view from adjacent
public right-of-way with foliage or other appropriate screening.
33. The maintenance or operation of mechanical equipment, including but not limited to
AC units or pool filters, generating noise levels in excess of 65dBA as measured from
the closest property line shall constitute a public nuisance in accordance to Chapter
8.24 of the RPVMC.
34. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.02.040(B)(4), the following foliage, which has been
determined to significantly impair the ocean view from the viewing area at 7315 Berry
Hill Drive shall be removed PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE in order to
eliminate the significant impairment:
The four Queen Palm Trees located in the south corner of the front yard
labeled 24 inches and 16 inches and the two Queen Palm Trees located in the
front yard labeled 14 inches on the survey from GDS Land Surveying dated
April 8, 2024.
The owner of the property is responsible for maintaining, in perpetuity, all foliage on
the property, which exceeds 16 feet in height, as measured from the base of the tree
or which exceeds the lowest adjacent ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is
lower, so as not to significantly impair the view from surrounding viewing areas.
A-12
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 13 of 13
35. The area of the second story windows along the west facade of the addition that are
below six feet shall be and maintained as opaque, with an option to raise the sill
height to six feet.
36. To address privacy from the roof deck, the applicant shall install and maintain foliage
along the western side yard as deemed acceptable by the Community Development
Director.
PRIOR TO BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE:
37. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, all applicable
soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety Division, shall be
approved by the City’s Geologist.
38. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, a drainage
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
A-13
Brent Meyer & Nancy Parsons
7361 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-4403 USA
+1-310.630.9265 (Brent)
+1-310.303.9600 (Nancy)
E-Mail: nep3@me.com
brentmeyer1@me.com
City of Rancho Palos Verdes February 27, 2026
Attn: Teresa Takaoka – City Clerk
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
Dear Ms. Takaoka:
Subject: “PLHV2024-0007 - Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill”
FINAL AMENDED APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
Applicant: Nevert Guirgis
7355 Homeowner: Hany and Carol Francis
Appeal by: Brent Meyer & Nancy Parsons
Our emailed original appeal was received by Teresa Takaoka at 8:26 am on February 12, 2026.
Payment of INV-37762 was completed at 4:31 pm on February 12, 2026, under Confirmation
Number 3109939374.
We have not included copies of letters, emails, photos, etc. from 8/30/2024 as City Planning stated
on 2/9/26 …”As part of a City Council appeal, staff will prepare a report that includes all information
that was presented to the Planning Commission as part of their review of the appeal. You can submit
additional/new information as part of your appeal request to the City Council”. Some recent support
letter copies, photos, and added support data have been included.
The grounds for our appeal are as follows:
This City Council Appeal Notice reiterates our August 30, 2024, letter and continuing long-
established position that the Planning Commission and Staff Planning decision does not comply
with the City’s existing municipal codes, nor does it meet the Neighborhood Compatibility
Guidelines.
Soon after viewing the preliminary plans on August 17, 2024, we sent a comprehensive 9-page
letter on August 30, 2024 to the City via Priority Mail, which was received on September 3. The
letter was either destroyed, misfiled, or ignored. Staff stated they had no file to put it in yet, but
somehow, they had a file for the original application, the Neighborhood Public Notice & neighbor’s
sign-off sheets (3) from the visit on August 17, 2024. Where were those documents filed? Staff’s
justification defies any logic. No apologies were offered. This blunder created a nine-month bias
between the city planners and the applicants which has been evident throughout these
proceedings.
Continued…
B-1
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - February 27, 2026, continued…Page 2
While the Planning Commission Decision of January 27, 2026, did substantiate our claims of
multiple privacy intrusions by the proposed addition at 7355 Berry Hill, the Resolution still does
not comply with the City’s existing municipal codes regarding privacy and decks, specifically City
Ordinance 355 Section 7 Part D Roof Decks Item 3.a.
“The following standards shall apply to all permitted roof decks:
a. A deck shall not* create an infringement of privacy, as de\ined by the height
variation \indings discussed in Section 17.02.040.C.1.e.ix.
Per this Section the following findings must be met:
b. The proposed new structure that is above 16 feet in height or addition to an existing
structure that is above 16 feet in height does not result in an unreasonable
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences”.
*17.02.040.A.11 clearly states “shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
The proposed entertainment deck has clear, unobstructed views into our protected courtyard and
two ocean view bedrooms as demonstrated in the artist rendering EXHIBIT A. The main purpose
of the deck, as verbally stated by the applicants’ architect on August 17, 2024, is to provide the
applicants with an ocean view that never existed when the home was purchased. This want-to-be
entitlement is at the expense of the neighborhood character and in violation of City Ordinance 355
Section 7 Part D Roof Decks Item 3.a. Allowing this sizeable entertainment deck sets a precedent
for future applications. City Planning seems to have lost the plot that the codes are established to
protect the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes and should not have been ignored.
Staff also stated in the January 27, 2026 report…” A large portion of the views of the property at
7361 Berry Hill Drive from the proposed roof deck area will be blocked by the proposed second-story
façade of the project residence at 7355 Berry Hill Drive.” This, again, is a blatantly false statement
as the deck and second story façade share the same front to rear wall line profile. (Please refer to
EXHIBIT A again)
The proposed oversized 263 square foot deck (12’6” Deep x 21’ Wide) far exceeds any other such
structure in the neighborhood by 163%; thus, creating a bad precedent for the future of the
neighborhood. Planning cited in their January 27, 2026 Staff Report as an example, the estimated
100 square foot (4’ Deep x 25’ Wide) porch at 7369 Berry Hill (our western neighbor). This report
also stated, “it is a design feature established in the neighborhood”. This statement is again false.
There are no 260+ square footage decks on Berry Hill or Via Cambron. The largest is approximately
130-150 square feet; however, the views from this porch do not directly infringe on the neighbor’s
privacy of their yard or private areas.
Continued…
B-2
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - February 27, 2026, continued…Page 3
The project does not comply with Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook guidelines. While these
guidelines are not city codes, they were created to protect all citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes. Our
single-story home would be wedged between an existing two-story home at 7369 Berry Hill and
the applicants’ proposed two-story home. In the neighborhoods of Berry Hill and Via Cambron,
this condition does not exist. This fact is further supported by the Staff Report dated January 27,
2026, Table No. 2: Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis page 9 confirming that this condition does
not exist. Introducing this precedent, would be dangerous for the essence of the community. We
are not Redondo, Hermosa or Manhattan Beach but this addition looks more appropriate for the
beach cities.
The proposed project runs lengthwise along our shared property line and will dominate the
majority of east side of our house (Please refer to EXHIBIT A again), almost 27’~29’ above our
property at the highest, in opposition to the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines set forth in
the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, Page 26:
“A new structure or an addition to an existing structure should be designed in a manner
that does not dominate the side and rear yards of a lot, as well as respects the side and
rear yards setbacks of the neighboring properties.”
The proposed addition cantilevers the second story closer to our property, thus overshadowing
our east property line. The design should run along the east-west axis of their existing structure
to come closer to compliance with the codes and Compatibility Guidelines.
In conditionally approving this application, Planning and the Commission have prioritized the
applicants' “wants” over our rights. We do not and have not, waived these rights. The City of
Rancho Palos Verdes may not dismiss them.
Based on the Planning Commission’s Resolution of January 27, 2026, we took it upon ourselves to
be proactive by offering our understanding of the decision and constructive suggestions to be
considered by the applicants to meet the decision guidelines. As stated in our letter of February 2,
2026 (Copy attached with updated drawings) our opinions have never been solicited beyond the
August 17, 2024, dialogue with the owners and their architect, nor did the Commissioners allow
us to reply when they reopened public hearing for a second time for only the Applicant.
As a result of our February 2, 2026 letter, updated plans were submitted to Planning on February
11, 2026. Planning contacted us by phone and email with the modified plans attached (Combined
Set.pdf). We reviewed and commented via email to Planning with a copy to each Commissioner as
follows:
The Planning Commission Resolution stated the west-facing “clerestory” windows (8) to have
limited opening angle, to move the windows to higher than 5’1” sill height to 6’ and install opaque
(translucent) glass in order not to infringe upon the established courtyard privacy and bedroom
ocean-view windows. The Planning Commission did not address the backyard privacy issues.
Continued…
B-3
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - February 27, 2026, continued…Page 4
We, as did the Commission’s decision, advocated moving the windows higher than the 5’1” sill
height to a 6’ height, installing rain-pattern glass or translucent glass and limiting the opening
angle. Rain-pattern would protect our privacy issues without loss of light, while translucent glass
may inhibit as much as 30% of light. To address the backyard privacy issue, we also suggested
either extending the two vertical walls or installing rain-pattern glass or translucent glass and
limiting the opening angle.
The applicant’s updated plans offer the following redesigns:
1. All west-facing “clerestory” windows (8) have been reoriented to side-open facing
southeast rather than facing the direction at our home. No angle limitations were noted as
in accordance with the Commission’s Resolution. It is unknown if the opening angle will be
adequate to address the privacy concerns. The sill height is still 5’1” and only the lower
panes of the 4-lite windows are marked as obscured with no definition of the obscuration.
The upper panes of glass are still clear in violation of the Resolution.
2. The bathroom window is now marked as obscured with no definition of the obscuration.
3. The rear bedroom window is still clear, but a 6’ wall extension has been added utilizing an
obscured glass shield, again, with no definition of the obscuration.
4. No changes were made to the entertainment deck to meet the Commission’s decision.
Appellants Comments:
A. Item #1 seems to have addressed some of the privacy issue with the reorientation of the
window opening to the southeast, but while the height is unchanged, obscured glass would
be necessary on the top and bottom of the 4-Pane windows to meet the Commission’s
Decision to maintain our established privacy in the protected courtyard and further privacy
into ocean-view bedroom windows.
B. Items #2 and #3 are a good compromise based solely on our February 2, 2026, letter
suggestions.
C. The Planning Commission Decision PLHV2024-0007 - Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill of
January 27, 2026, offered suggested remedies for privacy to the entertainment deck into
our protected private courtyard. The February 11, 2026, amended plans supplied to City
Planning failed to address all the deck concerns by offering no changes. Our RPV Letter
February 2, 2026, could possibly remedy our concerns. The deck issues have not been
addressed by the Applicants in violation of the Commission’s Decision. While we strongly
maintain that this deck is illegal by way of code restrictions and compatibility guidelines,
we have offered potential remedies. They have once again been ignored. In SEC 2 of our
February 2, 2026, letter, we stated the following:
HEDGE/TREE/FOLIAGE USE TO BLOCK VIEW - While this may be a legitimate suggestion
from the Commission, there is already a hedge dividing the property standing about 7’ from
our property level. A site visit before last week’s hearing would have made this fact evident.
This hedge limits a direct view into our protected courtyard from the kitchen area of the
applicant’s home; however, it would do nothing to impair the view from the proposed deck.
Continued…
B-4
----
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - February 27, 2026, continued…Page 5
Yes, adding fully grown non-deciduous trees might be used to hinder the view from the
deck, but this leaves several still unanswered questions:
a. How will the non-deciduous tree be maintained to protect the view-hiding
purpose?
b. What is the process if one or more die & what is the timeline for replacement?
c. What is the process to maintain the minimum height?
d. Who will enforce these conditions for this applicant and any subsequent
owners should the property be sold?
We note the property has not had proper foliage and tree maintenance for years (Please
see EXHIBITS B, C, & D). Nothing demonstrates to us that the new trees would be
maintained according to any, yet unknown, agreement. In some cases, this option may be a
solution; however, it comes with too many unenforceable variables. This option would
require the installation by the applicants of fully grown non-deciduous trees to fully comply
with the privacy screening function. It would place yet another burden on us to enforce
conditional compliance. This option still leaves the code violations in place.
As an alternative to the ambiguous tree option, we suggested in our February 2, 2026,
letter, two possible options for the deck to be more compatible with existing decks in the
neighborhood that are around 100~120 square feet, but more importantly, to resolve the
privacy infringement in our protected courtyard.
OPTION ONE might be to move the deck western boundary in by 6’ and reduce the
overall width/depth of the decks from 12’6” to 8’. It may reduce the door opening
from 21’2” to 16’, side light fixed windows could be added to each side of the open-
door profile to maintain the light. This would not be a centered deck but would yield
the highest square footage at around 188 square feet.
OPTION TWO would be to do the same 6’ reductions on both sides and change the
depth to 8’ from 12’6”, thus yielding a centered design and 113 sq ft., slightly larger
than most of the porches in the neighborhood.
Either of these options may remove any questions noted above regarding the Hedge/Tree/Foliage
option, as it gives us no control over the height, health, or efficacy of the screening.
The Applicants made no effort to address the deck issues, as required by The Planning
Commission. Had the Applicants done so, our appeal to the City Council may not have been
necessary.
The Applicant may resubmit a redesign through Planning to explicitly meet all City Codes and
Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines. Should the deck be redesigned to comply with the existing
codes, this should require a revised a “stake and qlag” with the updated silhouette of the deck for a
neighborhood review to see if the corrections resolve our privacy issues and meet the municipal
codes.
Continued…
B-5
B-6
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL -February 27, 2026, continued ... Page 6
APPEAL REQUEST: -As a result of not addressing the deck at all, the code and the Neighborhood
Compatibility Guidelines violations, we formally request City Council to deny the application at
7355 Berry Hill to avoid necessitating further action.
Thank you!
Nancy Parsons
Enclosures ( 6)
6
l
299.16'
4
2
3
1
ONE STORY HOUSEONE STORY GARAGE
DN
16 R @ 6.75"
4'-8"6'-1"1'-4"10'-11"
23'-8"
3'-6"
12'-3"
41'-7"
3'
-
1
"
13
'
-
1
1
"
17
'
-
0
"
19'-1"
2'-7"2'-7"3'-11"
41'-7"
10
'
-
7
"
10
'
-
7
"
21
'
-
2
"
12'-6"
STUDY/BEDROOM
0201
CLOSET
0203
STAIR
0115
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW DECK OVER
EXISTING GARAGE
263 SQ.FT.
5'
-
0
"
20'-0"
5'-0"
34'-3"
3'-2"
COFFEE
3'
-
3
"
BATH
0202
FAMILY/SITTING ROOM
0204
10'-3"12'-3"
2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-8"
4'-2"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"4'-8"
-EXISTING GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE: 448 SQ.FT.
-SECOND STORY ADDITION THAT WILL BE
LOCATED ABOVE THE EXISTING GARAGE: 184.6 SQ.FT.
-PERCENTAGE OF THE SECOND STORY
THAT WILL BE LOCATED ABOVE THE GARAGE: 41%
1
1
LI
N
E
O
F
G
A
R
A
G
E
B
E
L
O
W
8'-3"
20'-9"
2'
-
1
"
2'
-
1
"
2'-3"
9'-10"9'-4"
3"
6'-0"
NEW OBSCURED
GLASS SHIELD
6'X6'2
15
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
4
"
Proposed Second
Floor Plan
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2026
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/27
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
2 02-09-26 NEIGHBOR REQUESTED REVISIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION
A-1.1
PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING FIRST FLOOR 2022 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 720 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2792 SQ. FT.
2/11/2026 11:14:05 AM B-7
I
I
I -----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ' I
t
I _,..._ --
of; ----
/
I
I
I
I
·-----------
-----------:... 1--;1 __ _
I : -------i -----
--
I --1 -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
' I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ I
I I
I
I ,
-'I---:-cc-~r7~,,L -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( l '
I I
I I
'·--._ I ,,. ,-_/
' •. 1 •
ii -
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I ..
I
I
I
I
\
' -,. ___ /·--, I
I I
I I
I I
I I
' I I
I I
I
I I
I
' I
' I
I I
I I
I I
I , I
' ' I I
I I
I
I .
" I
'
I
I
' I. I
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
------------
' I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
' -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-k
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
-
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---------
I
1----
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
r l ~ r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--------
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--I
_,., __ -----
-----
--
--
l, ,
,
----I, ---, -
-~ -~ -
~ .
. . , ,
11
--
-.,.
'
I
I
I /
I
-~ -.
( I /
I
' ·----,.;./ ,
-·. ____ ,,.. ·---·--
/
.
/, vv I
I
I
I I, . .
I , ,
I • I
' ' I
I I,
I ;
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
' -------,/"
I
0
--
-
---------
---------
---------. -----lo. --. -,_ -
I, , . --; , ; ----------I,
;
.
-
, / / / / / / ---
----
1-
--
~-~-~--
--~ 71
---. -,-v-,
~
;
' --... --.
I ' --
V
----
(
----)
G ~
---
l,
-
, , I,
'-'-I •
'
, , ,
-
, >. .I / ~ ~ /!"--~ ~ '
[ZJ I I\ " '-', I
I V I
-' .
' .:.J --'
I
=::J \__ =::J I
/1
I * *
I
-7
I
=::J
I
I
I
;
I
~ ~ 'Vv ,9' 'v ,9'
I kP J
. •
V
" " I
I
V CJ
I. . .
I
-, .
7 , .. , I. . . r , , , I,
.
, L
. , 7 , ,
I
, CJ , I
I
V I
I J
I CJ i
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
7 I
I I
27
9
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
29
9
.
1
6
'
TO
P
O
F
R
I
D
G
E
27
8
.
6
5
'
GA
R
A
G
E
F
.
F
.
L
27
9
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
30
0
.
2
6
'
TO
P
O
F
R
I
D
G
E
27
8
.
6
5
'
GA
R
A
G
E
F
.
F
.
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
O
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
O
P
T
I
O
N
B
SC
A
L
E
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
01
28
7
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
3.
7
5
12
29
6
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
28
7
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
28
8
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
8'-0"11'-4" EX. ROOF HEIGHT
20'-8" EX. RIDGE TO LOWEST GRADE
8'-0" NEW PLATE 1'-0"8'-0"3'-5"
21'-9" PROPOSED RIDGE TO LOWEST POINT
3'-6"
3
12
8'-6" EX. PLATE
7'-0"
NE
W
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
3
12
LI
N
E
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
RE
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
EX
.
EX
.
EX
.
EX
.
NE
W
NE
W
C
U
P
O
L
A
26'-0" TO LOWEST FOUNDATION POINT
AS
P
H
A
L
T
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
27
8
.
5
9
'
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
27
8
.
4
5
'
27
8
.
7
7
'
27
8
.
7
5
'
27
8
.
9
0
'
LI
N
E
O
F
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
RE
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
27
9
.
2
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
27
9
.
2
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
19'-11" EX. RIDGE TO HIGHEST GRADE
21'-0" PROP. RIDGE TO HIGHEST FOUNDATION POINT
27
9
.
2
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
25'-3" TOP OF PROP. CUPOLA TO HIGHEST POINT
30
4
.
5
1
'
30
4
.
5
1
'
30
2
.
2
6
'
PA
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
GU
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
16
'
-
5
"
2'-0"
8
12
29
9
.
7
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
T
.
O
.
R
.
27
8
.
6
5
'
GA
R
A
G
E
F
.
F
.
L
27
9
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
29
9
.
1
6
'
TO
P
O
F
R
I
D
G
E
27
8
.
6
5
'
GA
R
A
G
E
F
.
F
.
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
SC
A
L
E
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
02
28
7
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
3.
7
5
12
1'-0"8'-0"2'-11"
21'-2"
8'-0"
20'-8" TOP OF EXISTING RIDGE
3'-6"
3
12
8'-0" NEW PLATE
27
9
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
11'-4" EX. ROOF HEIGHT
3
12
29
6
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
28
8
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
28
7
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
NE
W
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
E
12
'
-
6
"
7"
LI
N
E
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
RE
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
F
O
R
CO
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
EX
.
E
X
.
EX
.
EX
.
EX
.
EX
.
NE
W
NE
W
NE
W
C
U
P
O
L
A
26'-0" TOP OF PROP. CUPOLA TO LOWEST POINT
AS
P
H
A
L
T
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
5'-1"
HA
R
D
I
B
O
A
R
D
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
S
I
D
I
N
G
F
I
N
I
S
H
27
8
.
5
9
'
27
8
.
7
1
'
27
8
.
7
9
'
27
9
.
1
7
'
27
8
.
5
3
'
21'-9" PRPP. RIDGE TO LOWEST FOUNDATION POINT
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
27
9
.
2
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
27
9
.
2
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
25'-3" TOP OF PROP. CUPOLA TO HIGHEST POINT
1
30
4
.
5
1
'
29
9
.
7
6
'
30
0
.
2
6
'
30
0
.
2
6
'
2'-0"
30
2
.
2
6
'
29
9
.
7
6
'
LI
N
E
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
RE
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
3"
PA
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
GU
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
PI
L
A
S
T
E
R
M
A
T
C
H
I
N
G
SI
D
I
N
G
T
O
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2'
-
2
"
2'-0"
6'-0"2
6'-0"
NE
W
O
B
S
C
U
R
E
D
GL
A
S
S
S
H
I
E
L
D
6'
X
6
'
15'-7" FROM HIGHEST POINT OF FOUDATION
16'-4" TO LOWEST POINT
7'-0"
5'-1"1
LO
W
E
R
P
A
N
E
S
OB
S
C
U
R
E
D
T
O
6
'
HI
G
H
A
.
F
.
F
.
-
T
Y
P
.
WE
S
T
F
A
C
I
N
G
W
I
N
D
O
W
S
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
N
O
T
E
S
1
A
D
D
A
N
E
W
C
U
P
O
L
A
.
2
G
U
T
T
E
R
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
.
3
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
S
I
D
I
N
G
I
S
H
A
R
D
I
B
O
A
R
D
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
S
I
D
I
N
G
.
4
C
L
A
S
S
A
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
R
O
O
F
I
N
G
:
S
E
E
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
SP
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
5
G
L
A
S
S
O
N
A
L
L
S
W
I
N
G
I
N
G
D
O
O
R
S
:
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
I
N
1
8
"
O
F
TH
E
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
F
L
O
O
R
W
A
L
K
I
N
G
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
F
U
L
L
Y
TE
M
P
E
R
E
D
.
6
D
O
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
S
:
S
E
E
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
FO
R
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
A
L
L
D
O
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
S
T
O
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
N
T
O
SU
B
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
S
Y
S
T
E
M
7
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
:
S
E
E
P
O
W
E
R
&
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
S
.
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
6'
-
6
"
A
F
S
.
L
O
W
E
F
F
I
C
A
C
Y
.
8
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
O
U
S
C
O
R
R
O
S
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
T
W
E
E
P
S
C
R
E
E
D
:
LO
C
A
T
E
W
E
E
P
S
C
R
E
E
D
A
T
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
F
O
O
T
I
N
G
A
N
D
S
I
L
L
P
L
A
T
E
J
U
N
C
T
U
R
E
.
W
E
E
P
SC
R
E
E
D
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
B
E
L
O
W
T
H
E
S
T
U
C
C
O
A
M
I
N
.
O
F
4
"
AB
O
V
E
E
A
R
T
H
O
R
2
"
A
B
O
V
E
P
A
V
E
D
A
R
E
A
.
9
D
O
R
M
E
R
V
E
N
T
S
W
/
1
/
4
"
M
E
S
H
I
N
S
E
C
T
S
C
R
E
E
N
.
10
P
A
N
E
L
E
D
W
O
O
D
P
O
S
T
S
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
H
E
E
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
N
F
O
S
H
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
(
S
)
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
(
S
)
No
.
Da
t
e
Is
s
u
e
/
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
ER
R
O
R
S
&
O
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
:
I
t
i
s
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
p
r
i
o
r
o
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
o
n
o
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
i
n
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
o
f
a
n
y
p
e
r
c
e
i
v
e
d
e
r
r
o
r
s
o
r
om
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
w
h
i
c
h
a
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
,
t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
l
y
kn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
a
n
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
b
e
a
w
a
r
e
.
W
r
i
t
t
e
n
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
s
u
c
h
e
r
r
o
r
s
o
r
o
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
su
b
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
a
l
l
w
o
r
k
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
r
r
o
r
s
a
n
d
om
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
n
y
d
e
f
e
c
t
s
i
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
f
th
e
s
e
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
.
Th
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
f
u
r
n
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
,
bi
d
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
i
t
s
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
a
n
y
ot
h
e
r
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
r
r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
p
r
i
o
r
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
c
o
n
s
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
NR
G
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
&
D
e
s
i
g
n
.
Al
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
(
c
)
2
0
2
6
C
O
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
Sc
a
l
e
Da
t
e
Dr
a
w
n
b
y
1/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
(
U
.
N
.
O
.
)
CG
/
N
R
G
05
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
S
T
A
M
P
(
S
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
#
NR
G
RE
N
.
0
7
/
3
1
/
2
7
C-
3
4
1
1
9
L ICENSED
A
RCHITECT
NEVERT
R
.
GUIRGIS
STATE OF
C
A
L
IFORNIA
Ne
v
e
r
t
R
.
G
u
i
r
g
i
s
E:
n
e
v
e
r
t
@
n
r
g
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
.
c
o
m
T:
(
3
1
0
)
3
7
4
-
2
4
9
9
60
3
4
M
O
S
S
B
A
N
K
D
R
I
V
E
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
C
A
9
0
2
7
5
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
W:
n
r
g
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
.
c
o
m
NO
T
F
O
R
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
Y
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
,
P
E
R
M
I
T
T
I
N
G
,
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
UN
L
E
S
S
S
E
A
L
I
S
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
A
N
D
S
T
A
M
P
E
D
BY
T
H
E
A
G
E
N
C
Y
H
A
V
I
N
G
J
U
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
FR
A
N
C
I
S
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
7
3
5
5
B
E
R
R
Y
H
I
L
L
D
R
.
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
CA
9
0
2
7
5
-
4
4
0
3
12
02
-
0
9
-
2
6
N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
R
E
Q
U
E
S
T
E
D
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
U
B
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
A-
2
.
0
2/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
1
1
:
0
1
:
3
4
A
M
B-
8
.... "' 0 ' ,
, I , ,,
,
, I , 'I ,
I I
I l X •
r ,_
-
I ~
-
I --~ I'
I -
~
I -
~
I ~
J
I
-·lClf< =
I
I • -'-
e
!
~
. . --
I ~ c
( ---.,,,--., -
-":\' I i ~ i
::;
i:\:
I I : -~ It N~ ,. , .
I ~ ) :,;: . \ -. )
-', '❖
I i
' \ i
,,,: )
' '
. h:
:, 11 • i ·/ --.. :<! "i"·.,ae..,• , -~.,.0 ,.--·-.,---~v-,> c:r-,~.L ~ •. , ' ;
~
,
;:: /' -• ,._ __ ......,,_ k. I I . . . ,·. ,·• •·. -·-,.·.__ -..,___ ---··----·--·---··----. -_/•. -I/
rt.4 '1 '
-I~ --
~~ ~ '
I
r--[7
L I ==-:J __JI __ '
'-
I
C---. ' -__ ! ~1
'
I -'
I '---~--··.. /-· _/. I ~
I ·1Ci1[)1 _ I I -
1 ._ -I ,_
-
I ! c::: I
'-
I
'-= I = L
I '-I '-\ '--'
I = I ! ~ i ----· --.----
I , ,. I
-,-
-~---·•-·'·-'·'. I
I '--
-. -----------/------\
·' I
I -'· i • <'
''. -1 •,,_,? ~ ,' .~
-
I / " C: ~ mm~ / " '-
I / " '-
/--
/ " --
L
-1;· \
l I "'~(]N -
I -/-,
' ~ ( I ' 7 -
L \
, I
'-;;; I \ I
'-' L
-L ,\ I
\ ,
L C ~ I --L
,.\_ --------. /, ! ,~--1 )
L ---
L -
= -;fV "I '
--L ~-·, 1 •
~ -. . . . I , . '
L : I I
,_ ,_ ,_ L • ;: I I
-L T I I
--I
'-L I
-
L-• --·-.., I I
L ~
L_L 1 •······----I
' ( ...__ / ..r ~ I I
I --•--I
I
I I I
I
I I I
,,.,. I I
I . I. . I. .
✓ '1 ✓ '1 ✓
• I . , '1
,
• / . ,
~ .); ....._ ,
, ,
[>[>I I I
'
' "
-~
I I
'. .
,,
• -·±=======----7
·, {,( -,/ .
• , I
'---I I I
, . .
,.
•
I I I
I "-\,I J ., . 1 ' ITh ! ·,_
'I -[7:.i l
-= ' l·Lll" } • " I
I '1, F ibd! I
~ :c= =-... I
~ -
-±: ~-r-__ r::: • ! .. I
I-' • )
• I
' ~ '= --++t--; ( ' -1,
: L w §~ ! ': m v-----I -,_ LJ 1-= I ( LY
I " --' -. • ~ ' -;:::: '· ,,_,
I \ ~ - --
• IQ -
- __ --__ l·rJIDt I\ I •~' .__ 7 1 1' -..._ ,----L ::\------
I,
i ' I : • I
-r ~ ,
I / ~ -~ ' I , I I =i1 : • ,. ~ . .
• !-'", ,_ tf-1~,
I= ~ r ~ -1-j ,... -t I ' / 1-, r,~1,
'' / / ' -~ ~ ~ + :~ ,. -¢ t
I ' / / • I-I ·\ , , " ~ 'r I-1--,...
-t -1-I-~ r (:: ~ 'r
-1 -'r~ l--,1-t ( I ' t ' \ ·1-r ~ ) \-_,.
-., i--r,.~1-"',
I ·L, ~ --~ E ~ . ~ ~ : ~ ,~
T I -~ 'r--i.-I-I-
-._ r I-~(:),
C ~ ~ /--(: r -~9 • ', , , t ' i ,.
/ ~ '~ .. "1-·\t• I I / -. I'-' ~ ~ '\-' 'r /-_I-I-1-
, '• ~ \ l-1-~t 'I ' ' l.: C I-( ' t I-~ I ·~ -~ I I ' / I 1 ~ r "I' + ·) -¢ t
'-.../ I 'I,-1--f--¢-
\ t 'r 'r ~ t I t,:,. r~,,
I 'r~ l-1--,t , 't• ~r:~)~-¢ I • _ r ,-·~ :1-_ t ' ' , I ~ ·\-, 1 \ t t ,, ,. r~., I • I-• ,. t
't, t ~)'' ~ ., {-t,_11--~t I -~ ,. .. •1--\,, ~ ~ --• ' ,-• ' i--,. ,.
' ,. r I-• I ,--r--·1--~ ; 'r -1,.--I-t .I-~ ' \--t ' ~ I , t '
c r I 1-{. ") I-t I ' ') ,. r ·\ ' ' '1-1-'r I-l--1---~ ,:~ 1-~,, I ~:-~ ;/-~1t•-~ ,_ - -~ • l -~ -~ + . ,. ·¢ t
I ,: )~,~).~t,
r ' I-I-r, ,_ r ~ .... . . ,.
l ~F7 ,, 1-·t ,. ~)'' I ■ I / ' -C: I-L__.:)'...__c'-',~~-'--',.._.,_, _,_. / f'-I ,._
I I [' V ~ C ~ .; I ' ·~ .
I I ~ ' /' C t ., I
I -~ ~ ~ I II , .._ r--c, I-
I I
, • I
/ I I ,r ,,
•
)'
i □ □ C 7 □□□□
~
~,11 I I ~ '_J ..
~~
m :::c en----1 Glm
>:} __./ I I I I zn -I
C ::c .....
279.86'
F.F.L
299.76'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION OPTION B
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"03
3.75
12
3.75
12
287.86'
T.O.P.
288.86'
F.F.L
287.86'
T.O.P.
3
12
8'
-
0
"
N
E
W
P
L
A
T
E
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
20
'
-
6
"
8'
-
0
"
11
'
-
4
"
E
X
.
R
O
O
F
H
E
I
G
H
T
19
'
-
1
1
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
F
R
O
M
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
296.86'
T.O.P.
EXISTING RESIDENCE
NEW ADDITION
7"
LINE OF EXISTING
RESIDENCE
EX.EX.EX.EX. EX.
NEW NEW
5'
-
1
"
25
'
-
3
"
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
NEW CUPOLA
279.17'279.26' HIGHEST POINT279.23'279.24'279.22'279.17'
279.05'
21
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
26
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
21
'
-
9
"
P
R
O
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
279.26' EXIST.HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
20
'
-
8
"
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
1
1
304.51'
2'
-
0
"
300.26'
302.26'
2'-9"
297.24'
NEW
300.26'
TOP OF RIDGE
6'
-
0
"
2
OBSCURED
GLASS
3'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
16
'
-
4
"
NEW
NEW OBSCURED
GLASS SHIELD
6'X6'
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
8
12
299.76'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"04
287.86'
T.O.P.
3.75
12
287.86'
T.O.P.
288.86'
F.F.L
3
12
8'
-
0
"
11
'
-
4
"
E
X
.
R
O
O
F
H
E
I
G
H
T
20
'
-
8
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
I
D
G
E
9'
-
3
"
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
2'
-
1
0
"
3'
-
6
"
8'
-
6
"
E
X
.
P
L
A
T
E
296.86'
T.O.P.
12'-3"
7"
LINE OF
EXISTING
RESIDENCE EX.
EX.EX.
NEW NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
5'
-
1
"
2'
-
0
"
1
NEW CUPOLA
ASPHALT SHINGLE
HARDIBOARD SHINGLE SIDING 279.17'278.90'
278.51'278.60'20'-3" EX. GARAGE
21
'
-
2
"
26
'
-
0
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
21
'
-
9
"
P
R
P
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
O
I
N
T
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
19
'
-
1
1
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
F
R
O
M
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
25
'
-
3
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
2'
-
0
"
304.51'
302.26'
299.76'
3"
300.26'
TOP OF RIDGE
2'-2"
2'
-
0
"
PAINTED WOOD
GUARDRAIL
NEW ADDITION
EXISTING RESIDENCE
41'-7"
ELEVATION NOTES
1 ADD A NEW CUPOLA.
2 GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING PROFILE.
3 EXTERIOR SIDING IS HARDIBOARD SHINGLE SIDING.
4 CLASS A ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING: SEE ROOF PLAN FOR
SPECIFICATIONS.
5 GLASS ON ALL SWINGING DOORS: GLAZING WITHIN 18" OF
THE ADJACENT FLOOR WALKING SURFACE SHALL BE FULLY
TEMPERED.
6 DOWN SPOUTS: SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN
FOR LOCATIONS. ALL DOWN SPOUTS TO CONNECT INTO
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
7 EXTERIOR LIGHTING: SEE POWER & LIGHTING PLANS. INSTALL
6'-6" AFS. LOW EFFICACY.
8 CONTINUOUS CORROSION RESISTANT WEEP SCREED:
LOCATE WEEP SCREED AT LOWEST POSSIBLE POINT OF
CONCRETE FOOTING AND SILL PLATE JUNCTURE . WEEP
SCREED IS REQUIRED BELOW THE STUCCO A MIN. OF 4"
ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREA.
9 DORMER VENTS W/ 1/4" MESH INSECT SCREEN.
10 PANELED WOOD POSTS.
Proposed Elevations
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2026
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/27
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
2 02-09-26 NEIGHBOR REQUESTED REVISIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION
A-2.1
2/11/2026 11:00:50 AM B-9
,i,
' I'
/ ' I'
• • • ~ - - - -
' I' ' .
~ ,
',~ I 1~1111" 11 1 11 ~III M 11 1 I I' 1u I 1 I I 11 " 11 I ~ 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
-I
~ :":'(
I I
4
Pi ~ ~
~I '' ',d
~ -
IEID I
• -~ I I _j 1-~~ ~" J --_J
''-,';YI-"''~
I __
'I II JL :p::;i';:y ~ I II II ' ' I ! I I I PI I
-' ----
/
I,
'
,i-
I,
; :,,
' ' ~
' I'
),
---------I~ r ! ;
I
• i
' ', ' '-·-·-· -·-. I I
( ~
' ' ~ l -(--~i)-" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " --·,.--•.-·-v-·-,' I'
-B m / , -,c, '--
'
, -
---/•,,·•--,•·, ,•·---( I'
' '--,, -/ -I ; ' ', /
!
' )' ; :, , ' -✓ ----- -_,_, ,•· __ .,_., __ . --'·---~-. '
. -" -' I '--
'
-
~
~ ~ ... -: ------- ---' P-= ' --., ---------------I I I I I I I 11 I II I
I I I
I I I I I II I I I I I ,1 w 11
' I 8_ I I II I II I II I II 0
7 I I II I II I II I II ~
~ ''
I I
" -
I -
7
-~
I I I ' µ.....l I I I
' . . ... ... ' ' ' ' ' '\... ," ,i-
,"
/ /
---
A (
I l~I ---(
• ~-,'v•, •• A
' ___,_..
~
''
~, ~
--' --i--
/_1 '/~
"·,t / \ . •
( 1:--lh I' / \
' ' ( -'
\ ✓ '
I
\ / I '
_,--~v ,, ' '
~
____ {! ----.::: -.
' --' --"/.
\_,...,.. .. ' i--( ' ' --~ I ~ I 11 " I r II I 11 '.1 I~ I I I I~
J i ---r, ' -➔~-I I \ 'rt ] ' ' ~ ' I \ ' ' -I \
I \ 7 ' I \ \ -' ,,.. \
\ I I
\ I I
\ I I
\--I--_j / -'i--
I II II ' -. •=
' '-
/
/
, ,
I r
I -
'-
" " " " " " " " " " "
m m
/
- - - - - - - - - - -
'I I I '"" " I ' I p I ~ II P I I YI I -
dB~
I
I
I I I
II I I " I I I I "" ' ' .. . " .
• • ' '
'v-,~ "./ V •,
' I
)
' ' ---.._ I' I'
• ' • . ' . • ,,
'
j_
- - - - - - -
I'
~
~
u I u I l"I 11 YI I I 11 11 "I I 11 u I
IL____j l
I I
I
" ' I ' I ' I " " ~
~
I,
'
- - - -
y -~
I
"
I
" -
LJ
n
LJ
n
i
□
LJ
LJ
C
C
' -
'
--'--
•
T
' ' I'
-'~
'
*
I'
,.
ARC HITE CTU RI
&!J ESIGN
*
B-10
•• ■■,~ •• ■■ ----------
I I L I I I
B-11
B-12
B-13
Brent Meyer & Nancy Parsons
7361 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-4403 USA
+1-310.630.9265 (Brent)
+1-310.303.9600 (Nancy)
E-Mail: nep3@me.com
brentmeyer1@me.com
February 12, 2026
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Attn: Teri Takaoka – City Clerk
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
SUBJECT: “PLHV2024-0007 - Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill” – AMENEDED APPEAL TO
CITY COUNCIL - FILING NOTICE 02-12-2026
This updated letter and the updated email confirmation PDF file attached are a formal notice to
the city clerk, as instructed in the RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE Title 17 CHAPTER
17.80. - HEARING NOTICE AND APPEAL PROCEDURES SEC. 17.80.070, we are filing an appeal to
the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on the subject matter Planning Commission Decision
PLHV2024-0007 – Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill of January 27, 2026. We are the Appellants
in this case. We will mail a hard copy of this email, the PDF files, and payment receipt on or before
Thursday, February 12, 2026, at 5:30 pm.
The grounds for the appeal are as follows:
A. While the Decision of January 27, 2026, did substantiate our claims of multiple privacy
intrusions by the proposed addition at 7355 Berry Hill, the Planning Commission Decision
still does not comply with the City’s existing municipal codes regarding privacy and decks,
specibically City Ordinance 355 Section 7 Part D Roof Decks Item 3.a.
“The following standards shall apply to all permitted roof decks:
a. A deck shall not create an infringement of privacy, as de<ined by the height
variation <indings discussed in Section 17.02.040.C.1.e.ix.
Per this Section the following findings use be met:
b. The proposed new structure that is above 16 feet in height or addition to an
existing structure that is above 16 feet in height does not result in an
unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting
residences”.
B. The decision to plant foliage on the Applicants’ property to screen our bedrooms and
courtyard from visual intrusion from the deck is not a satisfactory solution, as it gives us no
control over the height, health, or efbicacy of the screening.
Continued…
B-14
Brent eyer & Nancy Parsons
PLHV2024-0007 - Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill” – AMENDED APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FILING NOTICE 02-12-2026 - Page 2
The Applicants have a poor track record of maintaining existing foliage on their property.
Furthermore, the conditions that violate the Code will still exist.
While the Applicants were given the opportunity to accept or reject this condition during the
hearing, we, the Appellants, were given no further chance to speak.
C. The Planning Commission decision PLHV2024-0007 - Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill of
January 27, 2026, does not meet Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines set forth in the
Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, Page 26:
“A new structure or an addition to an existing structure should be designed in a
manner that does not dominate the side and rear yards of a lot, as well as respects the
side and rear yards setbacks of the neighboring properties.”
The current design of the proposed addition actually maximizes imposition on our home and
property.
D. The proposed deck is oversized, far exceeding any other such structure in the
neighborhood by 163%, setting a bad precedent for the future.
E. Our backyard privacy concerns have been addressed in the applicant’s updated plans
supplied to the Planning Staff and, subsequently, to us on the afternoon of February 11,
2026. We bind the 10 window solutions somewhat comply, in spirit, with the Commission’s
and our suggestions letter dated 02-02-2026; however, the 8 “clerestory” windows do not
designate the limiting opening angle required by the Commission, nor do they describe the
debinition of “obscured”. They also state only the bottom half the window is obscured which
seems contrary to the Commission’s directive. This needs to be clearly debined
F. The Planning Commission decision PLHV2024-0007 - Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill of
January 27, 2026, offered suggested remedies for privacy to the entertainment deck into
our protected private courtyard. The February 11, 2026, amended plans supplied to City
Planning completely failed to address the municipal code non-compliance and
Neighborhood Compatibility Guideline infractions offering no changes. Our RPV Letter 02-
02-2026 would most likely remedy our concerns.
We will provide our detailed written appeal to City Council and specify the action being requested
on or before February 27, 2026.
All previous communications between ourselves, the Appellants, and Planning regarding our
concerns about this project should be provided to the City Council and be part of this appeal. In
Jeffrey Kim’s 2/9/2026 @ 4:41pm email, point 6, he states that staff will prepare a report that
includes all information that was presented to the Planning Commission.
Continued…
B-15
B-16
PLHV2024-0007 -Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill" -AMENDED APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL. FILING NOTICE 02-12-2026 -Page 3
We ask the City Council to deny the application at 7355 Berry Hill until redesigns are made that
meet the City Codes and Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines.
Should detailed revised entertainment deck design plans be available for review before February
27, we reserve the right to rescind this appeal notice with a full refund of $3193.00. Any costs
incurred by the city beyond a full refund must be paid by the applicant as part agreement to
rescind this appeal.
If there are any questions or comments, please let us know. Please confirm your receipt of this
email.
Nancy Parsons
Cc: Enyssa Sisson, Nathan Zweizig-City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Enclosure (1)
'
Brent Meyer & Nancy Parsons
7361 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-4403 USA
+1-310.630.9265 (Brent)
+1-310.303.9600 (Nancy)
E-Mail: nep3@me.com
brentmeyer1@me.com
February 11, 2026
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Attn: Teri Takaoka – City Clerk
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
SUBJECT: “PLHV2024-0007 - Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill” - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
- FILING NOTICE 02-11-2026
This letter and the email confirmation PDF file attached are a formal notice to the city clerk, as
instructed in the RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE Title 17 CHAPTER 17.80. - HEARING
NOTICE AND APPEAL PROCEDURES SEC. 17.80.070, we are filing an appeal to the Rancho Palos
Verdes City Council on the subject matter Planning Commission Decision PLHV2024-0007 – Notice
of Decision 7355 Berry Hill of January 27, 2026. We are the Appellants in this case. We will hand-
deliver a copy of this email, the PDF file, and a check on or before Thursday, February 12, 2026, at
5:30 pm. If you, or those copied, are not the correct person(s) to file our appeal, please let us know
today.
The grounds for the appeal are as follows:
1. While the Decision of January 27, 2026, did substantiate our claims of multiple privacy
intrusions by the proposed addition at 7355 Berry Hill, the Planning Commission Decision
still does not comply with the City’s existing municipal codes regarding privacy and decks,
specidically City Ordinance 355 Section 7 Part D Roof Decks Item 3.a.
“The following standards shall apply to all permitted roof decks:
a. A deck shall not create an infringement of privacy, as defined by the height variation
findings discussed in Section 17.02.040.C.1.e.ix.
Per this Section the following findings use be met:
The proposed new structure that is above 16 feet in height or addition to an existing
structure that is above 16 feet in height does not result in an unreasonable
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences”.
The decision to plant foliage on the Applicants’ property to screen our bedrooms and
courtyard from visual intrusion from the deck is not a satisfactory solution, as it gives us
no control over the height, health, or efficacy of the screening.
Continued…
B-17
Brent eyer & Nancy Parsons
PLHV2024-0007 - Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill” - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FILING NOTICE 02-11-2026
Page 2
The Applicants have a poor track record of maintaining existing foliage on their property.
Furthermore, the conditions that violate the Code will still exist.
While the Applicants were given the opportunity to accept or reject this condition during
the hearing, we, the Appellants, were given no further chance to speak.
2. The Planning Commission decision PLHV2024-0007 - Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill of
January 27, 2026, does not meet Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines set forth in the
Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, Page 26:
“A new structure or an addition to an existing structure should be designed in a manner that
does not dominate the side and rear yards of a lot, as well as respects the side and rear yards
setbacks of the neighboring properties.”
The current design of the proposed addition actually maximizes imposition on our home
and property.
The proposed deck is oversized, far exceeding any other such structure in the
neighborhood by 163%, setting a bad precedent for the future.
3. Our backyard privacy concerns were ignored by Planning and the Commission, even
though design remedies could be achieved.
4. The Planning Commission decision PLHV2024-0007 - Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill of
January 27, 2026, offered suggested remedies for privacy to the west-facing windows & the
deck into our protected private courtyard. No amended plans have been diled with City
Planning so we have way of knowing if the applicants will comply or not. We have
subsequently, through city planning, sent our unheard suggestions (copy attached – “RPV
Letter 02-02-2025.pdf)” that would remedy some of our concerns. Had this updated design
been resubmitted prior to the February 12, 2026, appeal deadline, we may not have had to
dile this appeal.
We will provide our detailed written appeal and specify the requested action being requested on
or before February 27, 2026.
All previous communications between ourselves, the Appellants, and Planning regarding our
concerns about this project should be provided to the City Council and be part of this appeal. In
Jeffrey Kim’s 2/9/2026 @ 4:41pm email, point 6, he states that staff will prepare a report that
includes all information that was presented to the Planning Commission.
We ask the City Council to deny the application at 7355 Berry Hill until redesigns are made that
meet the City Codes and Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines.
Continued…
B-18
B-19
PLHV2024-0007-Notice of Decision 7355 Berry Hill" -APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL. FILING NOTICE 02-11 -2026
Page3
Should detailed revised design plans be available for review before February 27, we reserve the
right to rescind this appeal notice with a full refund.
If there are any questions or comments, please let us know. Please confirm your receipt of this
email.
Sincerely,
Nancy Parsons
Cc: Enyssa Sisson, Nathan Zweizig-City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Enclosure (1) + Check
I
Brent Meyer & Nancy Parsons
7361 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-4403 USA
+1-310.630.9265 (Brent)
+1-310.303.9600 (Nancy)
E-Mail: nep3@me.com
brentmeyer1@me.com
February 2, 2026
Dear Planning Staff and Commissioners:
Thank you for your input into our paid appeal on Tuesday, January 27th. While we do not agree with
the city not adhering to the existing deck and privacy codes noted in Nancy’s 3-minute dissertation, we
are open to compromise. One thing that perplexed us at the hearing was the second reopening of the
public portion of our appeal hearing to ask only the applicant what they thought of the suggested
remedies. This was our appeal, so we expected to be offered the courtesy of a brief rebuttal by the
Commissioners; we were not. For the record, since we met with the applicant & their architect on
August 17, 2024, we have never been approached to ask us what we thought. Seems very unneighborly
from parties looking to placate objections to the original design.
We cordially offer the Planning Staff & the Commissioners our unheard, reasonable and
constructive remedies so the applicant can move forward on this project without us having to
elevate the appeal level to City Council.
1) WEST-FACING CLERESTORY WINDOWS (8) – We are amenable to Commissions suggestion
to modify the window design to accommodate either translucent white or clear rain-pattern
glass (see attached photo) with a tilt opening limitation for privacy at an approximate 6’ sill
height. We have insulated double-pane clear rain-pattern glass in both of our home’s
bathrooms with no light loss.
B-20
2) HEDGE/TREE/FOLIAGE USE TO BLOCK VIEW - While this is a legitimate suggestion from the
Commission, there is already a hedge dividing the property standing about 7’ from our
property level. A site visit before last week’s hearing would have made this fact evident. This
hedge inhibits a direct view into our protected courtyard from the kitchen area of the
applicant’s home; however, it would do nothing to impair the view from the proposed deck.
Yes, adding fully grown trees might be used to hinder the view from the deck, but this leaves
several questions:
a) How will the tree be maintained to protect the view-hiding purpose?
b) What is the process if one or more die & what is the timeline for replacement?
c) What is the process to maintain the minimum height?
d) Who will enforce these conditions for this applicant and any subsequent owners should
the property be sold?
We note the property has not had proper foliage and tree maintenance for years, so nothing
demonstrates to us that the new trees would be maintained according to any agreement. While
this option may be a solution, it comes with too many variables.
As an alternative to the ambiguous tree option, we are suggesting two options for the deck to be
more compatible with existing decks in the neighborhood that are around 100 square feet, more
importantly, to resolve the privacy infringement in our protected courtyard.
OPTION ONE might be to move the deck western boundary in by 6’ and reduce the overall
width/depth of the decks from 12’6” to 8’. It may reduce the door opening from 21’2” to
16’, side light fixed windows could be added to each side of the open-door profile to
maintain the light. This would not be a centered deck but would yield the highest square
footage at around 188 square feet.
OPTION TWO would be to do the same 6’ reductions on both sides and change the depth
to 8’ from 12’6”, thus yielding a centered design and 113 sq ft., slightly larger than most of
the porches in the neighborhood.
Either of these options would remove any questions noted above regarding the
Hedge/Tree/Foliage option.
The Commission’s ruling did not address or rectify our privacy concerns into our open backyard,
so we offer the following for consideration:
A. We are assuming the north bathroom might already be translucent or rain effect glass for
bathroom privacy. If not, we ask the glass to be translucent or clear rain-pattern glass like
the clerestory windows, or one might also consider an extension of the wall (See Attached)
to be added via a wall or some sort of view-blocking lattice to protect the privacy of our rear
yard.
B. For the large window in the bedroom, we are asking the applicants to consider translucent
or clear rain-pattern glass or to extend the west wall as noted above.
B-21
B-22
The Planning Staff and all members of the Planning Commission have been copied on this email.
We have NOT copied the applicants, as any direct dialog currently is unwanted. We ask that Staff
to co-ordinate this email with the applicants for immediate advisement and consideration.
Should we not hear from back that these very reasonable considerations are being serious
contemplated, we will appeal to the City Council by 5:30PM on Thursday,
February 12, 2026, including the appeal fee.
A copy of this email has been mailed today, but we ask for a confirmation of receipt by email as
before, please.
Your earliest reply would be appreciated.
Thank you!
Nancy Parsons
Enclosures (1)
Copy mailed 2/1/2026
I
PARTIALLY
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
B-23
,, --I✓ -41' 7" ------, -" 19'-1" 10'-3" 12'-3" .. -,, ,, I✓ I✓ --, , , , --,, 9'-1 O" ,, 9'-4" ,, 3'-2" 1✓ 2'-7" 1✓ 2'-7" 3'-11" --I✓ ,, I✓ --, , , , , , , y ---8'-3" ,, I-' , J -- --- - - - - - --
/71 " --Ex&eREt Pri,,ao¥ '.OJa.11 or 1 2 :, 4 5 ---
~ --Lattice Feat1:1re I .,..
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
or jRain or Transluscent Glass K ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ..... ) ~ Ga / ■ ■ T'""
I
r..1
¥-8"
~ ~ 1/ ... 1✓ 2'-7" I✓ 2 -, II ,, 2' 7" 1✓ 2'-7" 4'-2" ' , -j ,, i, ' / J , , , , , J ~ / -->-71 ~ ~ ---,-5 I ., a \
BATH/ ~ ■ ■
/ ......_(
j I ■
~ Clerestory V findows (8) at Aproximate 6' J ~ " .. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -
/1 -~ Sill Heig With Rain or Translucent - - - -■
--11 0202 I /
/ nd Opening Limitation -/ ■ Gia ~ c / "" I
I ~ Extend Privap{ Wall ~ g / ' ('I') -' or / .. ~~ / / ~ I " I ---■ - -., --.&■ ■--I
I
.....
I
I'
or Rain ~~ .. T~~,~~~~~t lGlass w ('I')
~ / / I
" ON ('I') I
I / I
'" 0::: ... 16 R@6 .75" / <( ~ ' C) -
I
/ ' LL FA ~LY/SITTINGROO M I/ -COFFJz'E -II■ STUDY/BEDROO M
I I 0 ---< w ~ I
z 10204 1 I"-I / 10201 1
.....J / /
I I ' ~/ 0
I
/ - - - ----- - - - - - --I ... /
I
I"--
I ST ~IR = T'""
/ T'""
I
I
10 1 15 1
I
~
I
.. / T'"" CLOSET
/ 10203 1
I I ---
~ -/
I I
' I ) / I
~
---,-/ ,
" / I I _/ ~
/
I I - - -■ ■ ■ ■ -■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ' ' - - -■ -■ -- --- - -/ I
I I' I'
/ _J NEW
I -- -------- --1----- - - -->---I - ----->---I---- - - - - - -
SKY LIGHT
L 4'-8" 1✓ 2'-7" i, 2'-7" ~ 2'-7" 1✓ 2'-7" ,, 2'-8" 6'-1" 3'-6" 1✓ 2'-3' I ~ •_411 10'-11" ,, ,, I ✓ ,, I✓ , , , , , , , r , , , , 7 23'-8" 12'-3" ,, ,, I✓ I✓ , , ,
.. ~ I -■■ I
299.16'
2
3
ONE STORY HOUSEONE STORY GARAGE
DN
16 R @ 6.75"
4'-8"6'-1"1'-4"10'-11"
23'-8"
3'-6"
12'-3"
41'-7"
3'
-
1
"
13
'
-
1
1
"
17
'
-
0
"
19'-1"
2'-7"2'-7"3'-11"
41'-7"
10
'
-
7
"
10
'
-
7
"
21
'
-
2
"
12'-6"
STUDY/BEDROOM
0201
CLOSET
0203
STAIR
0115
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW DECK OVER
EXISTING GARAGE
263 SQ.FT.
5'
-
0
"
20'-0"
5'-0"
3'-2"
COFFEE
3'
-
3
"
BATH
0202
FAMILY/SITTING ROOM
0204
10'-3"12'-3"
2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-8"
4'-2"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"4'-8"
1
LI
N
E
O
F
G
A
R
A
G
E
B
E
L
O
W
8'-3"
20'-9"
2'
-
1
"
2'
-
1
"
2'-3"
9'-10"9'-4"
3"6'-0"
NEW OBSCURED
GLASS SHIELD
6'X6'2
15
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
4
"
DECK REDESIGN NOT ADDRESSED
ADOPTED ADOPTED
B-24
:
I
, , I
I;
'
l
I
I
\
, I
" I /
L
I;
"
t., ,
J
[/
/
C □ /
/
/
L ,, .
I; I; ,
j
L
~
'1
~
'1
I;
1 .__ -------
- - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I , ,
I I ' I'
_J
-
I
I
1 I;
1
Ji'
I;
•
,, 1,
' . L .
IL
L
7
I 0
I
8
12
299.76'
EXIST. T.O.R.
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
TOP OF RIDGE
PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"02
3.75 12
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
2'
-
1
1
"
21
'
-
2
"
3'
-
6
"
3
12
8'
-
0
"
N
E
W
P
L
A
T
E
279.86'
F.F.L
3
12
296.86'
T.O.P.
288.86'
F.F.L287.86'
T.O.P.
NEW ADDITION
EXISTING GARAGE
12'-6"
7"
LINE OF EXISTING
RESIDENCE FOR
COMPARISON
EX. EX.EX.
EX.
EX.EX.
NEW NEW
NEW CUPOLA
26
'
-
0
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
ASPHALT SHINGLE
5'
-
1
"
HARDIBOARD SHINGLE SIDING FINISH 278.59'278.71'278.79'279.17'
278.53'
21
'
-
9
"
P
R
P
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
O
I
N
T
278.51' LOWEST POINT
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
25
'
-
3
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
1
304.51'
299.76'
300.26'300.26'
2'
-
0
"
302.26'
299.76'
LINE OF EXISTING
RESIDENCE
3"
PAINTED WOOD
GUARDRAIL
PILASTER MATCHING
SIDING TO BUILDING
2'-2"
2'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
2
6'
-
0
"
NEW OBSCURED
GLASS SHIELD
6'X6'
15
'
-
7
"
F
R
O
M
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
F
O
U
D
A
T
I
O
N
16
'
-
4
"
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
7'
-
0
"
5'
-
1
"
1
LOWER PANES
OBSCURED TO 6'
HIGH A.F.F.- TYP.
WEST FACING
WINDOWS
Text
NO OPENING ANGLES SPECIFIED
ONLY BOTTOM HAVE OF GLASS OBSCURED
B-25
L, L, L; I , I
~
' ' A I' I'
' 1' \ ~I r r ... 1 ~
.. I' ~-<
' ·•, ~-'·/' ... ,--.. , '
--- --+--17" I.;-~1--.. ______.., I'
-
-- ---' -
' ~
,/ ,
c::::===: ---•·._!,-_ -~~ uuu
~ . i--
"'u u ., u u -~ -U ---u -U -w -U --U w ----U ----·-•M -- - - - - - - -~' -. ''-. -- - -1'"
-I-I---- - - - --- -p ,•···• ,·•••,·-•, V • .. ,-,... • ,·. 0 I•~ =--,:--:: ·---.,.,-.. ,,-•. ,. ,·····,,•··-, ... , ---"",,---~, / . ' -
,1,. • • J> v-rT I 7-rT1 rn I'
>V N1 ~ f .){_ l' 1---- - ----'
/1-
y J--,., -----• •• ·· .. , ... ___ ,,,.,-·,, I 'i--t--k I l ,. -~ J-.,,1 L..-'.'.'. j ' ~~
( ' ) J
. "
~
(
\ "" I ../
' ,
< "'t I -' ·~i \ i I'\ / ... -( --·
·.: "' -
i---1111 II
,( • • • • Ill • ,~ -~ ""'
~ > : ; ..
)
..... ill
; •• •• -·· ~ \ < L----L.. ....
.. ; , ---:: .......... •• lllii,,..__ \ . • \
-;;;:;;,-'·,. ··•'•-·'····"-.. /•. /--·•. ""·--'· .,. ___ ,. ______ ..,.. __ --· _r,-t_,.11') ~ :--....... . <
···-.,, __ / ····"·-·~-/ -_ _)~; ___.. ._ I' I - - -~1'"
I
I'\ (
"""Fr I UI I 77TTI l I IU I I I U 11 UI 7 7 I I I U I I lll UI I IU 11 LI I n::r IUI I • I 11 II I
~ . .-·•-•''---·/
~ I I Tl 11 Tl I Tl I L 11·rl,. ~ L ·r L nl·r ~ -~1'"
II I 71 II JJv' ~17 -). > .k ·r ... J. ~ < n 7 --· -
II I I 11 I I II 11 I I I I 11 I 11 I I ~
:¢¢I ~ ' I I I I I I II
•
I I l l I I I I i!:.
~ -h
~I
I I I I I l I 7 y ', I ·1
I< YI -I I I I -r-r, 71 I I I I I I: 111 I l I I I
I '-I I II I II l I I I I
~ I I I I I I I I I I 11 11 I I I I I I 111 I I 11 l l I I
:¢¢I I I) I I I I I I I
L I -I -I
~
I'-I ·1 I I I .
l I ~l I ' \i ( " l I I I I l I I I ( I I I I I .I I I I II I I 11 " I l I 11 I I I 11 I I I I I 1·i1 I I 11 I I I 11 I " 11 I :¢¢:i: l I I 11 I 11 I I I I I I I I 11 I I l I l I II 11 I I I I 11 " ) I J I I I I I -'-r-1-r'-I 11 l I I I I ' I > I, I II I I I I I
11 I l I I I I
) I I I l I I I I I l I I I I ~"" ' t ' ,, I ,, '· " I I
L ~
I 1 • II 7 II I I -II I I 7 17 7 I I l I 7 II I I
I'_,· IJ l 11 I
• ... __ .,,~---·'---',. __ .,,. '-.. . '-\_ 1, I'
I; L, , I
27
9
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
29
9
.
1
6
'
TO
P
O
F
R
I
D
G
E
27
8
.
6
5
'
GA
R
A
G
E
F
.
F
.
L
27
9
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
30
0
.
2
6
'
TO
P
O
F
R
I
D
G
E
27
8
.
6
5
'
GA
R
A
G
E
F
.
F
.
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
O
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
O
P
T
I
O
N
B
SC
A
L
E
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
01
28
7
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
3.
7
5
12
29
6
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
28
7
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
28
8
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
8'-0"11'-4" EX. ROOF HEIGHT
20'-8" EX. RIDGE TO LOWEST GRADE
8'-0" NEW PLATE 1'-0"8'-0"3'-5"
21'-9" PROPOSED RIDGE TO LOWEST POINT
3'-6"
3
12
8'-6" EX. PLATE
7'-0"
NE
W
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
3
12
LI
N
E
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
RE
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
EX
.
EX
.
EX
.
EX
.
NE
W
NE
W
C
U
P
O
L
A
AS
P
H
A
L
T
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
27
8
.
5
9
'
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
27
8
.
4
5
'
27
8
.
7
7
'
27
8
.
7
5
'
27
8
.
9
0
'
LI
N
E
O
F
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
RE
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
19'-11" EX. RIDGE TO HIGHEST GRADE
21'-0" PROP. RIDGE TO HIGHEST FOUNDATION POINT
27
9
.
2
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
30
4
.
5
1
'
30
4
.
5
1
'
30
2
.
2
6
'
PA
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
GU
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
16
'
-
5
"
2'-0"
Text
DE
C
K
R
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
N
O
T
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
E
D
B-
2
6
•n=t=H---tF~R=F~R=rl II ! ! ,/ 11 \11 11
11111 I
'r
'r
'r
'r
'r
'r
'r
'
'
'r
'
'r
..
I-
I-
'r
' I-
'r
I-
I-'r I-
I-
'r
'r
'r
'
'r
'
'r
'r
'r
r r , I 'r
~ I,-' ..
I-... It-.,. ,_
L r," I-,.
I" .. ... ... ...
I-' I-
I-I-I-• I-I-I
/-L /-...
I-
f-t . . ... I .. . ' ,
I-• I 11-,.. L 1-~ -p • ~
I-I . I-,,.
'r
I-'
: ) 1~ : ; : ~ : I : I
I
~ I I I
I
I
I
279.86'
F.F.L
299.76'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION OPTION B
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"03
3.75
12
3.75
12
287.86'
T.O.P.
288.86'
F.F.L287.86'
T.O.P.
3
12
8'
-
0
"
N
E
W
P
L
A
T
E
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
20
'
-
6
"
8'
-
0
"
11
'
-
4
"
E
X
.
R
O
O
F
H
E
I
G
H
T
19
'
-
1
1
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
F
R
O
M
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
296.86'
T.O.P.
EXISTING RESIDENCE
NEW ADDITION
7"
LINE OF EXISTING
RESIDENCE
EX.EX.EX.EX. EX.
NEW NEW
5'
-
1
"
25
'
-
3
"
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
NEW CUPOLA
279.17'279.26' HIGHEST POINT279.23'279.24'279.22'279.17'
279.05'
21
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
26
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
21
'
-
9
"
P
R
O
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
279.26' EXIST.HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION278.51' LOWEST POINT
20
'
-
8
"
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
1
1
304.51'
2'
-
0
"
300.26'
302.26'
2'-9"
297.24'
NEW
300.26'
TOP OF RIDGE
6'
-
0
"
2
OBSCURED
GLASS
3'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
16
'
-
4
"
NEW
NEW OBSCURED
GLASS SHIELD
6'X6'
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
8
12
299.76'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"04
287.86'
T.O.P.
3.75
12
287.86'
T.O.P.
288.86'
F.F.L
3
12
8'
-
0
"
11
'
-
4
"
E
X
.
R
O
O
F
H
E
I
G
H
T
20
'
-
8
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
I
D
G
E
9'
-
3
"
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
2'
-
1
0
"
3'
-
6
"
8'
-
6
"
E
X
.
P
L
A
T
E
296.86'
T.O.P.
12'-3"
7"
LINE OF
EXISTING
RESIDENCE EX.
EX.EX.
NEW NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
5'
-
1
"
2'
-
0
"
1
NEW CUPOLA
ASPHALT SHINGLE
HARDIBOARD SHINGLE SIDING 279.17'278.90'278.51'278.60'20'-3" EX. GARAGE
21
'
-
2
"
26
'
-
0
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
21
'
-
9
"
P
R
P
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
O
I
N
T
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
19
'
-
1
1
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
F
R
O
M
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
25
'
-
3
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
2'
-
0
"
304.51'
302.26'
299.76'
3"
300.26'
TOP OF RIDGE
2'-2"
2'
-
0
"
PAINTED WOOD
GUARDRAIL
NEW ADDITION
EXISTING RESIDENCE
41'-7"
ELEVATION NOTES
1 ADD A NEW CUPOLA.
2 GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING PROFILE.
3 EXTERIOR SIDING IS HARDIBOARD SHINGLE SIDING.
4 CLASS A ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING: SEE ROOF PLAN FOR
SPECIFICATIONS.
5 GLASS ON ALL SWINGING DOORS: GLAZING WITHIN 18" OF
THE ADJACENT FLOOR WALKING SURFACE SHALL BE FULLY
TEMPERED.
6 DOWN SPOUTS: SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN
FOR LOCATIONS. ALL DOWN SPOUTS TO CONNECT INTO
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
7 EXTERIOR LIGHTING: SEE POWER & LIGHTING PLANS. INSTALL
6'-6" AFS. LOW EFFICACY.
8 CONTINUOUS CORROSION RESISTANT WEEP SCREED:
LOCATE WEEP SCREED AT LOWEST POSSIBLE POINT OF
CONCRETE FOOTING AND SILL PLATE JUNCTURE . WEEP
SCREED IS REQUIRED BELOW THE STUCCO A MIN. OF 4"
ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREA.
9 DORMER VENTS W/ 1/4" MESH INSECT SCREEN.
10 PANELED WOOD POSTS.
Proposed Elevations
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2026
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/27
C-34119
LICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
2 02-09-26 NEIGHBOR REQUESTED REVISIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION
A-2.1
2/11/2026 11:00:50 AM
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
B-27
I-'
□ □ I
I
V
y
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
DEVELOPMENT
PLHV2024-0007)
PROJECT LOCATION: 7355 BERRY HILL DRIVE
APPLICANT: NEVERT GUIRGIS
LANDOWNER: HANY & CAROL FRANCIS
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Height Variation Permit to construct a new 720 ft2 second-story addition and
263 ft2 roof deck to an existing 2,467 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure
size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included), along with ancillary site improvements subject to the
Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit “A”.
BACKGROUND
Below is a list of application milestones:
• November 27, 2024 - The Applicant submitted the requested application for the
proposed project.
• January 8, 2025 - Staff completed an initial review of the application, at which time
the application was deemed incomplete for processing due to missing information
on the project plans.
• August 14, 2025 - Staff deemed the application complete for processing after the
Applicant resubmitted revised plans and additional information on multiple
occasions. On that same day, a public notice announcing the proposed project
was mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site and
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. Staff received 4 public comments
in response to the proposed project and public notice, which are further evaluated
throughout the sections of this report.
E-1
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 2
SITE DESCRIPTION
The following Table No. 1 provides key characteristics of the project site:
Table No. 1- Site Description
7355 Berry Hill Drive
Lot Size & Type 10,415 ft² pad lot
Existing Improvements 2,019 ft² single-story residence and a 448 ft² attached
garage (total structure size 2,467 ft²)
Zoning Designation RS-4 (Single-Family Residential)
General Plan
Designation
Residential 2-4 D.U./AC
Special Districts N/A
Surrounding Land-Use Single-family to the north, south, east, and west.
Miscellaneous N/A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
E-2
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 3
The proposed project consists of the following improvements:
• Construct a 720 ft2 second-story addition to an existing 2,467 ft2 single-story
residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included).
• Construct ancillary site improvements including a new 263 ft2 roof deck, new
skylights on the first floor, and a new cupola on the roof.
The proposed addition will measure 21.75 feet, as measured from the lowest finished
grade covered by structure (elev. 278.51 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline (elev. 300.26
feet); and a height of 21.00 feet as measured from the highest elevation of the existing
grade covered by the structure (elev. 279.26 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline (elev.
300.26 feet).
The table below highlights statistics of the proposed project:
Table No. 2. Project Statistics
CRITERIA
CODE
REQUIREMENT
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
Lot Size 10,000 ft2 10,415 ft2 No change
Structure Size
(with garage) included) (Garage
Point where the highest
existing foundation or slab
meets finished grade to the
16 feet 19.9 feet 21.00 feet
foundation or slab meets
finished grade to the highest 20 feet 19.65 feet 21.75 feet
CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS
E-3
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 4
The following is analysis of the requested Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review
application.
HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) §17.02.040(B)(1) allows any individual
or persons desiring to build a new structure to be permitted to build up to 16 feet in height,
as measured the point where the highest existing foundation or lab meets the finished
grade to the highest roof ridgeline; and 20 feet in height, as measured from the point
where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade to the highest point of the
structure. RPVMC §17.02.040(B)(1) allows these heights to be increased for pad lots to
a maximum height of 26 feet with the approval of a Height Variation Permit. Since the
proposed project will exceed the 16 feet/20 feet “by-right” building height envelope of the
project site as a pad lot, a Height Variation Permit is required. RPVMC §
17.02.040(C)(1)(e) sets forth the findings required in order for the Director to approve a
Height Variation Permit application (in boldface, followed by Staff’s analysis in normal
type):
1. The Applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process
established by the City.
Early neighborhood consultation may be deemed adequate by the Director if the
signatures of at least 60% of landowners within 500 feet, or 70% of landowners within
100 feet and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500 feet (including those within
100 feet) are obtained; and proof of the notification of the Homeowner’s Association is
provided if one exists. The Applicant has complied with the required early neighborhood
consultation by notifying the local homeowner’s association and by obtaining 7 signatures
(70%) from properties within 100 feet of the project site and 18 signatures (29.5%) from
properties within 500 feet of the project site. Therefore, this finding can be made.
2. The proposed new structure that is above 16 feet in height or addition to an
existing structure that is above 16 feet in height does not significantly impair a view
from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bikeways, walkways or
equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city’s general plan or coastal
specific plan as a City-designated viewing area.
The City’s General Plan identifies viewing points (turnouts along vehicular corridors for
the purposes of viewing) and viewing sites (public site areas, which due to their physical
locations on the Peninsula, provide a significant viewing vantage) within the City. There
are no viewing points or viewing sites that will be significantly impaired or impacted as a
result of the proposed project. Additionally, the project site is not located within the City’s
Coastal Zone. Therefore, this finding can be made.
3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory.
E-4
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 5
The proposed project is located on an existing building pad, similar to other lots within the
vicinity, and is not located either on a ridge nor a prominent mass of land that overlooks
projects onto lowland or body of water on two sides. Therefore, this finding can be made.
4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above 16 feet in height or an addition
to an existing structure that is above 16 feet in height, as defined in Section
17.02.040(B) of the Municipal Code, when considered exclusive of existing foliage,
does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.
The topography in the area both slopes down from east to west along Berry Hill Drive and
from north to south, with transitional slopes existing between the side and rear yards of
neighboring properties. Based on multiple Staff site visits to the area and reviews of aerial
imagery, views in the area are primarily oriented to the west consisting of the ocean,
coastal bluffs, and Santa Barbara Island. Based on Staff’s assessment of the proposed
project, including an evaluation of multiple public comments from the adjacent property
owners at 7361 Berry Hill Drive, who expressed concerns regarding blockage of views of
the peninsula ridgeline and sky from their living room area; the proposed second-story
addition will not result in a significant view impairment from the viewing areas of another
parcel as follows:
• The views observed from the properties located to the west of the project site,
including the property at 7361 Berry Hill Drive, will not be impacted, as these
properties primarily observe protected views to the west consisting of the ocean
and bluffs, which are in the opposite direction of the proposed project. The
public comment submitted by the property owners at 7361 Berry Hill Drive
expressed view impairment concerns related to views of the sky and peninsula
ridgeline, which are seen to the east in the direction of the project site. Pursuant
to RPVMC §17.02.040(A)(14), such view elements are not protected by the
code provisions. Furthermore, as the building pad of the project site sits at an
elevation approximately 3 feet higher than the building pad of the property at
7361 Berry Hill Drive, views of these elements are currently impaired by the 16
foot/20 foot ‘by-right’ building height of the existing project residence as shown
in photo Diagram No. 1 on the next page.
E-5
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 6
Diagram No.1- Photo taken from the living room of 7361 Berry Hill Drive
• The properties located to the north of the project site along Via Lorado observe
views to the south and west. As the building pads of these properties are
located approximately 50 feet higher in elevation than the building pad of the
project site, views over the proposed second-story addition are maintained.
• The properties located to the east of the project site along Berry Hill Drive do
not maintain any views that are not already impacted by the 16 foot/20 foot “by-
right” building height envelope of the existing single-story residences along the
north side of Berry Hill Drive, towards the west.
• The properties located to the south of the project site along Via Cambron
observe views to the west and south, which are in the opposite direction of the
proposed project.
Therefore, this finding can be made.
5. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is
determined not to be significant, as described in Finding No. 4, the proposed new
structure that is above 16 feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is
above 16 feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably
minimize the impairment of a view.
As noted in the previous Finding No. 4, there will be no view impairment from the viewing
areas of the neighboring properties as a result of the proposed project and therefore, this
finding is not applicable.
E-6
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 7
6. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) considering
the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new
structure that is above 16 feet in height or addition to a structure that is above 16
feet in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be
caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions
that exceed 16 feet in height.
As previously stated, there is no potential for significant view impairment by portions of
the proposed structure which exceed 16 feet in height, as seen from the viewing areas of
another parcel, based on the discussion in Finding No. 4. Properties along Berry Hill Drive
are separated by transitional slopes approximately 3-feet in height. This subtle terracing
feature between properties results in view impairment conditions caused by the 16 foot/20
foot “by-right” building height envelope of existing residential structures. As such, if
existing single-story homes along Berry Hill Drive, particularly those at 7361 Berry Hill
Drive and 7347 Berry Hill Drive were to be improved with second-story additions, there
would be no significant cumulative view impairment, as views observed in the area are
currently impaired by existing development patterns in the area. Therefore, this finding
can be made.
7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements.
The proposed project will comply with all other code requirements, including but not
limited to, setbacks, parking, and maximum allowable lot coverage as evidenced in Table
No. 2 above. Therefore, this finding can be made.
8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood
character.
Pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.040(A)(6), “Neighborhood Character” means the existing
characteristics in terms of the following (in bold type):
1) Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot
coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures.
Compatibility with neighborhood character is based on a comparison of the proposed
project to other existing structures located within the immediate neighborhood, which is
comprised of the 20 closest properties located within the same zoning district. Table No.
3 below compares the lot size, structure size, number of stories of the residences found
within the immediate neighborhood.
E-7
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 8
Table No. 3. Neighborhood Compatibility Table
ADDRESS LOT
SIZE
STRUCTURE
SIZE NO. OF
STORIES
ROOF
DECK
7416 Via Lorado 17,318 2,694 1 No
7412 Via Lorado 10,854 2,917 1 No
7404 Va Lorado 10,529 2,808 1 No
7392 Via Lorado 13,892 2,790 1 No
7386 Via Lorado 13,360 2,224 1 No
7378 Via Lorado 14,079 2,989 1 No
3333 Palos Verdes Drive W 35,372 4,005 1 No
7369 Berry Hill Drive 10,691 4,495 2 Yes
7361 Berry Hill Drive 10,463 2,450 1 No
7347 Berry Hill Drive 10,383 2,294 1 No
7341 Berry Hill Drive 9,782 2,967 1 No
7333 Berry Hill Drive 10,239 2,294 2 No
7327 Berry Hill Drive 9,955 2,369 1 No
7346 Berry Hill Drive 10,055 2,460 1 No
7336 Berry Hill Drive 10,497 2,436 1 No
7328 Berry Hill Drive 10,057 3,570 1 No
30303 Via Cambron 10,061 2,406 1 No
30311 Via Cambron 10,205 2,922 1 No
30317 Via Cambron 9,883 2,436 1 No
7313 Via Collado 10,218 2,640 2 No
No
7355 Berry Hill
Drive 10,415
*Note: The above calculations for structure size are based on building permits on file with the
City and include the garage area, which, if garage area was not documented on the building
permit, was calculated based on the Development Code’s requirement for two (2) parking
spaces with minimum dimensions for each individual parking stall being 9 feet x 20 feet (180
ft2). If the garage is a three-car garage, then an addition 180 ft2 space was added.
Staff received multiple public comments from the adjacent property owners (Nancy
Parsons and Brent Meyers) located to the west of the project site at 7361 Berry Hill Drive
E-8
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 9
expressing concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility for the project residence
based on the scale and size of the proposed second-story addition. Based on Staff’s
analysis of the proposed project and plans, Staff believes that the proposed project is
compatible with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood as outlined below:
• As reflected in Table No. 3 above, the immediate neighborhood is comprised of
single-story residences and two-story residence ranging in size between 2,224 ft²
and 4,495 ft², with an average structure size of 2,808 ft². The project residence will
result in a total structure size of 3,187 ft² (garage included), which will be the 4th
largest in the immediate neighborhood thus being a compatible size among the
surrounding residences.
• The proposed project has also been designed in a manner that will help minimize
the sense of scale for the residence by setting back the proposed second-story
addition approximately 12.5 feet from the existing front façade of the lower-level of
the project residence. As such, this helps reduce any feel of bulk and mass from
the public street, while also maintaining the existing streetscape as this is a design
feature which is consistent with other residences in the immediate neighborhood.
• The proposed second-story addition will be maintaining all existing setbacks, and
will only be reducing the westerly side yard setback by 1.58 feet. The addition area
will primarily be constructed over existing portions of the residence. While the
second story addition will have an approximately 4-foot cantilevering portion over
the western portion of the site, it maintains the scale of the residence as it
continues lines of development with the existing direct access garage and
enhances façade articulation along the west elevation of the project residence.
• The immediate neighborhood includes properties of similar lot sizes and lot
coverage whereas the proposed project will not be increasing the existing lot
coverage percentage of 33%, which is less than the maximum allowed lot
coverage in the RS-4 zoning district (50%).
2) Architectural styles, including facade treatments, structure height, open
space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the
structure, number of stories, and building materials.
The public comments received from the property owners at 7361 Berry Hill Drive and area
resident (Gina Whittlesey), expressed concerns regarding compatibility of the project as
it relates to architectural style, number of stories, and compatibility of the roof deck with
the immediate neighborhood. Staff believes that the proposed project is compatible with
other homes in the area as follows:
• While the immediate neighborhood primarily consists of single-story residences,
there are three existing two-story residences in the area as noted in Table No. 3
above. Although the building pad of the project site is located at an elevation
approximately two feet higher than the building pad elevation of the property at
7361 Berry Hill Drive, this is a consistent existing condition of other two-story
residences along Berry Hill Drive particularly at 7333 Berry Hill Drive.
E-9
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 10
• The proposed second-story addition is designed over the existing single-story
portion of the project residence lengthwise from the front to the back of the project
residence. This design feature is consistent with the design of other two-story
residences (7333 Berry Hill Drive, 7369 Berry Hill Drive and 7313 Via Collado)
located in the immediate area.
• Another expressed concern is that the approval of this proposed addition would
result in the resident at 7361 Berry Hill Drive to be surrounded by two separate
two-story residences. While this may be the case, Staff does not evaluate the
sequencing of single- and two-story residence along a street when evaluating
architectural style compatibility standards. Additionally, the proposed project will
incorporate a front yard facing roof deck, which will help set the proposed second
story addition further back from the public right-of-way, thus minimizing the feelings
of bulk and mass. This design feature will help maintain the existing streetscape
patterns as the second-story addition portion will not be as prominent of a feature
along the neighborhood. The proposed addition will help minimize the sense of
bulk and mass from the public right-of-way with the utilization of different finished
materials between the 1st and 2nd stories, creating architectural interest.
• The proposed roof deck, which will be located along the front elevation of the
project residence is consistent with others in the surrounding neighborhood,
including the property at 7369 Berry Hill Drive, which is improved with a front yard
facing roof deck that is approximately 100 ft2 in area. Additional homes outside of
the immediate 20 closest homes are also improved with front yard facing
balconies.
• Residences in the immediate area of the project site are designed with a variety of
building materials that include stucco and wood shiplap siding. Roof designs in the
neighborhood range from gable and hip elements consisting of shingle and tile
materials. The proposed project will incorporate wood shiplap siding finishes with
asphalt shingle roofing, which is consistent with the existing project residence and
other residences in the immediate neighborhood.
• The project design will utilize a hip roof style, which is a design feature that is found
on the existing residence as well as being represented in the immediate
neighborhood.
• The proposed project complies with the minimum setbacks required for the RS-4
Zoning designation as well as maintains similar setbacks to other properties within
the immediate neighborhood, which will provide for adequate light and air between
structures. Additionally, the proposed second-story addition is further setback from
the public right-of-way with the incorporation of the proposed roof deck.
3) Front, side, and rear yard setbacks.
According to the RPVMC, structures on lots zoned RS-4 created prior to City
incorporation shall maintain at minimum a 20-foot front, 5-foot side, and 15-foot rear yard
setbacks. As noted in Table No. 2 above, the north, east, and south setbacks will be
maintained while the westerly side yard setback will be reduced to 5.42 feet.
E-10
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 11
The public comments submitted by the property owners at 7361 Berry Hill Drive
expressed concerns as it relates to the setbacks along the westerly side yard of the
proposed project and shifting of the proposed addition closer to this side property line.
While the proposed addition will be reducing the westerly side yard setback by 1.58 feet,
Staff believes the proposed west side yard setback is compatible with the neighborhood
because other residences, and more specifically other two-story residences, maintain
similar setback dimensions. For example, according to City permit records, two story
residences such as the one at 7309 Berry Hill Drive and 7303 Berry Hill Drive, maintain
setbacks that are 5-feet and less from the westerly property line. Lastly, the proposed
project setbacks meet the minimum setback requirement standards for the RS-4 zoning
district.
Based upon the discussion above, the proposed project will be compatible with the
character of the immediate neighborhood in terms of scale, architectural style, and
setbacks. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that neighborhood compatibility has been
achieved by the proposed project and this finding can be made.
9. The proposed new structure that is above 16 feet in height or addition to an
existing structure that is above 16 feet does not result in an unreasonable
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.
The RPVMC defines privacy as, “reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation.”
The Height Variation Guidelines states, “given the variety and number of options which
are available to preserve indoor privacy, greater weight generally will be given to
protecting outdoor privacy than to protecting indoor privacy.” The design of the proposed
project includes the placement of windows along the west, north, and east facades of the
proposed second-story addition while the south façade includes a proposed 263 ft2 roof
deck area.
Staff received multiple public comments expressing concerns about privacy impacts from
the property owners located at 7361 Berry Hill Drive, which is located to the west of the
project site, and one from an area resident. Based on a review of the topographical
conditions in the area and various site visits to the neighborhood by Staff, the proposed
project will not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy as follows:
• The east or side façade of the proposed second-story addition is designed with
several windows. One window is sited closer to the front of the project residence
and is oriented towards the east, which maintains views of the public right-of-way
as well as the entry driveway at 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West, where there is no
expectation of privacy. The remaining three windows are designed as clerestory
windows that are sited 5 feet-1 inch in height for light and ventilation purposes with
limited viewing areas.
• The north or rear façade of the proposed second-story addition is designed with 2
windows. One window is located in a bedroom and will be utilized for safety ingress
E-11
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 12
and egress, while the second window is designed as a clerestory window at 5 feet-
1 inch in height and will not present viewing angles of adjacent properties and will
primarily function to allow light in and have views of the sky.
• The public comments submitted by property owners at 7361 Berry Hill Drive, which
are located to the west of the project site, note concerns of privacy impacts with
respect to their bedroom, bathroom, and living room areas and of the private
courtyard behind their detached garage from the proposed second-story windows.
This facade is designed with clerestory windows that are sited 5 feet-1 inch in
height for light and ventilation purposes which will also not have significant views
of the adjacent property and primarily function to allow light in and maintain views
of the sky. Views from the proposed clerestory windows may observe existing roof
areas on the west portion of the adjacent property at 7361 Berry Hill Drive, which
is not considered an unreasonable infringement of privacy because it does include
any significant views of the areas in which occupants of the residence may be.
Finally, given the variety and number of options which are available to preserve
indoor privacy, greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor privacy
than to protecting indoor privacy. Furthermore, there will be no unreasonable
infringement of privacy as observed from the private courtyard area behind the
detached garage, as partial views of this area can already be maintained from the
pad level of the project residence.
• The south or front façade of the proposed second-story addition will be improved
with a patio sliding door that exits to the proposed roof deck. A discussion and
assessment of privacy impacts associated with this area of the proposed project
are outlined in the “Site Plan Review” section of this report.
Therefore, this finding can be made.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Pursuant to RPVMC §17.70.010, the Site Plan Review procedure enables the Director to
check development proposals for conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Code (Title
17) and for the manner in which they are applied, when no other application is required.
The proposed ancillary site improvements include the installation of three new skylights
on the first floor, the construction of a 263 ft2 roof deck, and new cupola on the roof, meet
all the Municipal Code requirements, including, but not limited to, setbacks and height in
the RS-4 zoning district. The proposed skylights will not exceed the 16 foot by-right height
limit for the RS-4 zoning district. The proposed cupola has a highest elevation point of
304.51 feet and, as such, the overall height of the structure from the lowest finished grade
covered by structure (278.51 feet) to the highest point of the cupola (304.51 feet) is 26
feet and the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (279.26 feet)
to the highest point of the cupola is 25.25 feet, both of which are under the maximum
height allowed via a Height Variation Permit.
Pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.030(D)(4), the proposed 263 ft2 roof deck located along the
front or south elevation of the project residence, which is designed with panel wood railing
E-12
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 13
materials and a 35.57 ft2 decorative trellis, requires an assessment of unreasonable
infringement of privacy of adjacent property owners. As part of this assessment, Staff also
evaluated public comments received from the property owners at 7316 Berry Hill Drive
and an area resident regarding the construction of the proposed roof deck, which
expressed privacy concerns. Based on Staff’s analysis, which included site visits to the
area and a review of aerial imagery, the proposed roof deck will not result in an
unreasonable infringement of privacy. More specifically, the roof deck area will observe
views to the west, south, and east of the project site, which primarily focus on the street
of access (Berryhill Drive) and the public right-of-way as well as front yards of adjacent
properties, where there is no expectation of privacy. Views from the roof deck to the west
of the project site will primarily consist of the ocean and of the front yard and existing roof
areas of the adjacent property at 7361 Berry Hill Drive. A large portion of the views of the
property at 7361 Berry Hill Drive from the proposed roof deck area will be blocked by the
proposed second story façade of the project residence at 7355 Berry Hill Drive.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Environmental Assessment
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 19 §15301(e)(Existing Facilities)
of the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. Specifically, the project includes an
addition to an existing structure that is less than 10,000 ft2; is located where existing public
services and facilities are available and is not in an environmentally sensitive area.
Public Correspondence
On August 14, 2025, a public notice was issued to the public and published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News, providing notification of the proposed project, and requested
applications. Staff received three total (3) public comments (attached) from the property
owners at 7361 Berry Hill Drive, two of which were submitted during the public comment
period and one of which was submitted prior to the submittal of the project application to
the City’s Planning Division for review and processing. Additionally, Staff received one (1)
public comment from an area resident. The public comments expressed concerns
regarding obstruction of views, impacts on privacy, project incompatibility with the
neighborhood, negative impacts on property values, mishandling of previous public
comments, noise impacts on surrounding neighbors, visual clutter from the proposed
deck, and light pollution from the proposed deck. Staff’s analysis of view impacts, privacy
impacts, neighborhood compatibility and roof deck area have been discussed in the
“Code Consideration” section of this report, the remaining components of these
comments are addressed below:
Property Value
The property owners at 7361 Berry Hill Drive expressed a concern that the proposed
E-13
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 14
project would have potential negative impact on the property value of their residence
should the proposed second-story addition be approved. The RPVMC does not include
any provisions that evaluate a project’s potential impact to property values on surrounding
neighbors.
Mishandling of Previous Public Comments
The property owners at 7361 Berry Hill Drive expressed concerns that a previously
submitted public comment letter which was submitted to the City’s Planning Division via
USPS Priority Mail on August 30, 2024 was not considered as part of the project review.
This public comment was submitted 3 months prior to a formal filing of the project
application, which was filed by the Project Applicant on November 27, 2024.
Unfortunately, as this public comment was filed prior to an official submittal of the
requested project applications, Staff did not have the ability to file the public comment
letter as the project, at that time, was not being processed. While Staff was not able to
locate the original public comment letter, Staff received a copy of the letter and has
included it in the project case file as well as assessed the public comments outlined in the
letter.
Noise
The public comment submitted from an area resident expressed concerns that noise from
the proposed roof deck would not be contained and would be heard by residents
surrounding the project site. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not have a noise
ordinance, but Planning Division Staff has added Conditions of Approval regarding
allowable noise levels for mechanical equipment. Additionally, after-hour noise
complaints can be filed with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should
excessive noise be heard.
Light Pollution
The public comment submitted from an area resident expressed concerns regarding
potential light pollution from the proposed roof deck area at night time. Pursuant to
RPVMC §17.56.030, “No outdoor lighting shall hereafter be installed or used in the single-
family residential (RS) or multiple-family residential (RM) zones, except in accordance
with the provisions of this section.” Should there be any violations of outdoor lighting
standards under this code section, a complaint can be filed with the City’s Code
Enforcement Division who will then conduct an investigation of potential code violations.
Furniture on the Proposed Second-Story Addition
The public comment from an area resident expressed concerns as it relates to furniture
and miscellaneous items on the roof deck having the potential to impair views. Pursuant
to RPVMC §17.02.030(D)(4), a roof deck and associated furnishings shall not create a
significant view impairment for surrounding properties. Staff has added Conditions of
E-14
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 15
Approval as part of this project approval to address these concerns and any violations of
these provisions can be reported to the City’s Code Enforcement Division.
Foliage Analysis
Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.02.040(B)(4), the following foliage, which has been
determined to significantly impair the ocean view from the viewing areas at 7315 and
7303 Berry Hill Drive shall be removed PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE in
order to eliminate the significant impairment:
1. The two Queen Palm Trees located in the south corner of the front yard labeled 24
inches and 16 inches and the two Queen Palm Trees located in the front yard labeled 14
inches on the survey from GDS Land Surveying dated April 8, 2024.
The owner of the property is responsible for maintaining, in perpetuity, all foliage on the
property, which exceeds 16 feet in height, as measured from the base of the tree or which
exceeds the lowest adjacent ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, so as
not to significantly impair the view from surrounding viewing areas.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion, Staff recommends that the Director of Community
Development approve a Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review to construct a new
720 ft2 second-story addition and 263 ft2 roof deck to an existing 2,467 ft2 single-story
residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included), along with ancillary
site improvements subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit
“A”.
Approved pursuant to Staff’s recommendation:
________________________ Date:__ _10/16/2025______________
Brandy Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Attachments:
•Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval
•Project Plans
•Public Comment dated 8/30/2024
•Public Comment dated 5/20/2025
•Public Comment dated 9/3/2025
•Public Comment dated 9/12/2025
E-15
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 16
E-16
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 17
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PLHV2024-0007
7355 BERRY HILL DRIVE
(HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW)
General Conditions:
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant
and/or the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they
have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Exhibit “A”. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days
following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void,
or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. Pursuant to RPVMC §17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is
authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the
conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same
results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions.
Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require
approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require
new and separate environmental review and public notification.
E-17
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 18
6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform
to the residential development standards of the RPVMC, including but not limited
to height, setback and lot coverage standards.
7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures
contained in RPVMC §17.86.060 or administrative citations as described in
RPVMC §1.16.
8. If the Applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the
approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in
RPVMC §17.86.070 within 180 days of the final effective date of this Notice of
Decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless,
prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community
Development Department and approved by the Director.
9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the
City with the effective date of this approval.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified
on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or
legal non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal
or legal non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions
or on the stamped APPROVED plans.
12. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed
on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary
portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms
shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding
property owners, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official.
E-18
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 19
14. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting
property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over
30 calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in
RPVMC §17.56.050(C). Unless required to protect against a safety hazard,
temporary construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days prior to
commencement of construction.
15. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity
permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in RPVMC §17.96.920.
During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park,
queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before
7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to
do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize
off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be
located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring
properties, subject to approval by the Building Official.
16. Exterior residential lighting shall comply with the standards of RPVMC §17.56.030.
All exterior lighting shall be so arranged and shielded as to prevent direct
illumination of abutting properties and of vehicles passing on the public right-of-
way. Luminaries shall be of a low-level indirect and diffused type. All fluorescent
bulbs or other lighting under canopies or on the building shall be covered with
diffusing lenses and shielded.
17. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall employ
effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
18. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT,
whichever occurs first, an earth hauling permit shall be approved by the Public
Works Department.
19. The Applicant shall remove the project silhouette within seven (7) days after a final
decision has been rendered and the City’s appeal process has been exhausted.
Project Specific Conditions:
20. The proposed project consists of the following improvements:
• Construct a 720 ft2 second-story addition to an existing 2,467 ft2 single-story
residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included).
• Construct ancillary site improvements including a new 263 ft2 roof deck, new
skylights on the first floor, and a new cupola on the roof.
E-19
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 20
BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection.
21. The proposed addition will measure 21.75 feet, as measured from the lowest
finished grade covered by structure (elev. 278.51 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline
(elev. 300.26 feet); and a height of 21.00 feet as measured from the highest
elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 279.26) to the
highest roof ridgeline (elev. 300.26 feet).
BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed
land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection, based on the
above-mentioned instructions.
22. The proposed residence shall maintain setbacks as follows:
BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed
land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
23. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a maximum of 33% lot coverage.
24. The project site shall maintain a minimum of two enclosed parking spaces at all
times. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no
less than 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, with a minimum 7 feet vertical
clearance. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space
of no less than 9 feet in width by 20 feet in depth.
25. Roof eaves shall not project into the required setback more than 6 inches for
each foot of the required setback, provided that there are no vertical supports
within the required setback areas.
26. All colors and materials for the structure and roof shall be as shown in the stamped
APPROVED plans.
27. No more than 50% of any existing interior and exterior walls or existing square
footage may be removed or demolished. Residential buildings that are remodeled
or renovated such that 50% or greater of any existing interior or exterior walls or
existing square footage is demolished or removed within a two-year period shall
E-20
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 21
be considered a new residence and shall then conform to all current development
standards for that zoning district and the most recently adopted version of the
California Building Code.
28. The height of the proposed skylights shall not exceed the highest ridgeline of the
house.
29. All second-floor windows shall be maintained at the exact height specifications
listed in the approved plan set date stamped October 16, 2025.
30. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on a roof deck shall not
exceed a height of eight feet or the bottom of the roof eave, whichever is lower, as
measured from the finished floor of the deck
31. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on a roof deck which
exceed the height limits established in section 17.02.040 (View preservation and
restoration), shall not significantly impair a view from surrounding properties.
32. The approved mechanical equipment unit shall be screened from view from
adjacent public right-of-way with foliage or other appropriate screening.
33. The maintenance or operation of mechanical equipment, including but not limited
to AC units or pool filters, generating noise levels in excess of 65dBA as measured
from the closest property line shall constitute a public nuisance in accordance to
Chapter 8.24 of the RPVMC.
34. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.02.040(B)(4), the following foliage, which has
been determined to significantly impair the ocean view from the viewing areas at
7315 and 7303 Berry Hill Drive shall be removed PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT
ISSUANCE in order to eliminate the significant impairment:
The two Queen Palm Trees located in the south corner of the front yard labeled 24
inches and 16 inches and the two Queen Palm Trees located in the front yard
labeled 14 inches on the survey from GDS Land Surveying dated April 8, 2024.
The owner of the property is responsible for maintaining, in perpetuity, all foliage
on the property, which exceeds 16 feet in height, as measured from the base of
the tree or which exceeds the lowest adjacent ridgeline of the primary structure,
whichever is lower, so as not to significantly impair the view from surrounding
viewing areas.
PRIOR TO BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE:
35. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, all
applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety
E-21
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 22
Division, shall be approved by the City’s Geologist.
36. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, a drainage
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
E-22
A-0.0 COVER SHEET
AB-1.0 AS BUILT- DEMO FLOOR PLAN
AB-2.2 EXISTING ELEVATIONS
A-0.5 SITE PLAN/ EXISTING & PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
A-1.0 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A-1.1 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A-2.0 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
A-2.1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
JOB ADDRESS
APN:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OCCUPANCY GROUP
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
NUMBER OF STORIES
JOB DESCRIPTION
APPLICABLE CODES
ARCHITECTURAL
Contents
2022 CBC, CMC, CPC, CEC,
2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC),
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE,
AND ALL CURRENT ZONING CODES, AND CITY ORDINANCES
REMODEL AND ADDITION TO EXISTING 2,019 SQ.FT.
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING W/ ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE.
EXISTING ONE STORY
TRACT NO 26908 LOT 3
R-1 SINGLE FAMILY
TYPE V-B
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-4403
7582-014-003
Sequence of InspectionVicinity Map Site Data Abbreviations
Project Contacts
NEVERT R. GUIRGIS
6034 Mossbank Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 951-1834
STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER:
MR. HANY FRANCIS & DR. CAROL PICCIRILLO
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-4403
ARCHITECT:
CLIENT:
Legend
PLOT PLAN
Scope of Work
GENERAL CITY NOTES
1. ALL CONTRACTORS, ARCHITECTS, DESIGNERS, & ENGINEERS SHALL MAINTAIN A
CURRENT CITY BUSINESS LICENSE.
2. DUST CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE
PROJECT.
3. ALL CONSTRUCTION WASTE AND DEBRIS MUST BE CONTAINERIZED AT ALL TIMES.
PROJECT INFORMATION
-INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REMODEL.
-ADDING A NEW SECOND STORY BEDROOM, BATH, CLOSET AND
SITTING ROOM, AND INTERIOR STAIRS.
-ROOF REMODEL and NEW TRELLIS AT THE UPPER DECK.
-KITCHEN REMODEL AND ADDING PANTRY.
-ADD THREE SKYLIGHTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OVER THE EXISTING
LIVING ROOM.
4.504.2.1 Adhesives, sealants and caulks
Adhesives, sealants and caulks used on the project shall meet the requirements of the following
standards unless more stringent local or regional air pollution or air quality management district rules
apply:
1. Adhesives, adhesive bonding primers, adhesive primers, sealants, sealant primers,
and caulks shall comply with local or regional air pollution control or air quality
management district rules where applicable, or SCAQMD Rule 1168 VOC limits, as
shown in Tables 4.504.1 or 4.504.2, as applicable. Such products shall also
comply with Rule 1168 prohibition on the use of certain toxic compounds
(chloroform, ethylene dichloride, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene and
trichloroentylene), except for aerosol products as specified in Subsection 2 below.
2. Aerosol adhesives, and smaller unit sizes of adhesives, and sealant or caulking compounds
(in units of product, less packaging, which do not weigh more than 1 pound and do not consist
of more than 16 fluid ounces) shall comply with statewide VOC standards and other requirements,
including prohibitions on use of certain toxic compounds, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR),
Title 17, commencing with Section 94507.
4.504.2.2 Paints and coatings
Architectural paints and coatings shall comply with VOC limits in Table 1 of the Air Resources Board
Architectural Suggested Control Measure, as shown in Table 4.504.3, unless more stringent local limits
apply. The VOC content limit for coatings that do not meet the definitions for the specialty
coatings categories listed in Table 4.504.3 shall be determined by classifying the coating as Flat, Nonflat,
or Nonflat-High Gloss coating, based on its gloss, as defined in subsections 4.21, 4.36, and 4.37, of the
2007 California Air Resources Board, Suggested Control Measure, and the corresponding Flat, Nonflat,
or Nonflat-High Gloss VOC limit in Table 4.504.3 shall apply.
4.504.5 Composite wood products
• Hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium density fiberboard composite wood products used on the
interior or exterior of the building shall meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in the Air
Resources Board’s Air Toxics Control Measure for Composite Wood (17 CCR 93120 et. seq.),
as shown in Table 4.504.5. Documentation is required per Section 4.504.5.1.
• Definition of Composite Wood Products: Composite wood products include hardwood plywood,
particleboard, and medium density fiberboard. “Composite wood products” do not include hardboard,
structural plywood, structural panels, structural composite lumber, oriented strand board, glued laminated
timber, prefabricated wood I-joists, or finger-joined lumber, all as specified in CCR, Title 17, Section
93120.1(a). 4.504.5.1
4.506.1 Bathroom exhaust fans
Each bathroom shall be mechanically ventilated and shall comply with the following:
1. Fans shall be ENERGY STAR compliant and be ducted to terminate outside the building.
2. Unless functioning as a component of a whole house ventilation system, fans must be controlled by a
humidity control.
a) Humidity controls shall be capable of manual or automatic adjustment between a relative
humidity range of less than 50% to a maximum of 80%.
b) A humidity control may be a separate component to the exhaust fan and is not required to
be integral or built-in.
Note: For CALGreen a “bathroom” is a room which contains a bathtub, shower, or
tub/shower combination. Fans or mechanical ventilation is required in each bathroom.
PROVIDE VERIFICATION CERTIFICATION THAT LOW VOC EMITTING MATERIALS WERE
INSTALLED WITHIN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION
GREEN BUILDING CODE
ARCH. Architectural
BLDG. Building
BLK. Block
BM. Beam
CLR. Clear
CL'G. Ceiling
C.J. Ceiling Joist
COL. Column
CONC. Concrete
CONT. Continuous
DIA. Diameter
DIM. Dimension(s)
D.W. Dishwasher
DWGS. Drawings
ELEV. Elevation
EQ. Equal
(E) Existing
F.A.U. Forced Air Unit
FIN. Finish, Finished
FLR. Floor
F.J. Floor Joist
FTG. Footing
FRZ. Freezer
GA. Gauge
GALV. Galvanized
G.D. Garbage Disposal
GRD. Grade
GYP. BD. Gypsum Board
HDR. Header
HGT. Height
INT. Interior
MAX. Maximum
RIS. Risers
R.O. Rough Opening
R.R. Roof Rafters
REV. Revision
REFR. Refrigerator
REQD. Required
SHT. Sheet
SL. Slider
SIM. Similar
STL. Steel
STRUCT. Structural
TEMP. Tempered
TR. Treads
T.&G. Tongue&Groove
T.O. Top of
TYP. Typical
U.N.O. Unless Noted Otherwise
V.I.F. Verify In Field
WASH. Washer
W.H. Water Heater
WD. Wood
MIN. Minimum
MECH. Mechanical
MFGR. Manufacturer
MICRO. Microwave
MTL. Metal
NAT. Natural
(N) New
NO. Number
O.C. On Center
PLYWD. Plywood
EXISTING ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE
(2,019 SF per COUNTY ASSESSOR)
68.88'
14
2
.
4
3
'
75.95'
14
6
.
3
5
'
All fire hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2", brass or bronze,
conforming to American Water Works Association Standard C503, or
approved equal.
A-0.0
Cover Sheet
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/25
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
LOCATION
3/25/2025 12:25:47 PM E-23
Concrete
Masonry Wall
(j)Door
Detail #
Sheet #
New Wall
(j) Window
Detail
~ Room # Interior Elevations
~Sheet#
~ Sect. # Section
~Sheet#
/
1
1
-LOT SIZE: __ I_C:~.4_1_:.·,_ square feet
-ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA:
equals the smaller of 30% (lot size)+1750 or 50% (lot size)
• A-EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
I ' ; 1. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LOT
2. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR ,AREA:
FIRST STORY __ c.:,.01 'l__ SECOND STORY I ·"'· GARAGE __ 44'.':..._
OTHER I • .L.
3. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT (INCLUDING ANY
ACCESSORY, STRUCTURES, ATTACHED OR DETACHED).
4. Square footage of driveways, parking areas and impervious surfaces
impervious surfaces less than 5 feet in width and/or one patio areas less
than 500 square feet in areas)
5.Square footage of existing lot coverage [line A3 + line A4]
6.Percentage of existing lot coverage [line A5 line A1 x 100]
x'-x"
X
7.Height of existing structure, as measured from highest point of exist. grade
covered by structure to thehighest ridgeline (for structures on sloping lots,
please refer to the Height Variation guidelines handout for height require.)
B-PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
'2C: 1. SQUARE FOOTAGE
FIRST STORY )01 q
OTHER
OF PROPOSED NEW FLOOR AREA:
SECOND STORY '.: GARAGE 441
2. TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF STIRUCTURE FOOTPRINT (EXISTING + NEW)
)1'
3. TOTAL square
(existing + new)
(EXEMPT:
footage of driveways, parking areas and impervious surfaces
less than
4. TOTAL
impervious surfaces less than 5 feet in width and/or one patio areas
500 square feet in areas)
square footage of proposed lot coverage [line 82 + line 83]
5.Percentage of new lot coverage [line 84 line A1 x 100]
6.Height of proposed structure, as measured from highest point af exist. grade
covered by structure to the highest ridge line (for structures on sloping lots,
please refer to the Height Variation guidelines handout for height restrictions)
-TOTAL FLOOR AREA: (sum of existing and
__ :.._: ,_C_l _J_.sq. ft. FIRST FLOOR
proposed)
I H
sq. ft. BASEMENT
sq.ft. SECOND FLOOR __ 4_4_8 __ sq. ft. GARAGE
sq. ft. TOTAL
LIN EAR FEET OF:
EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS: 260.9 L. FT.
EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS: 226.6 L. FT.
TOTAL EXISTING WALLS: 487.5 L. FT.
PROPOSED DEMO. WALLS: 18.3 L. FT.
TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DEMO. WALLS: 3.75 %
Dimension to
center line
Dimension to face
of framing/masonry
(unless notea otherwise)
Slope
Elevation Heights
C ity of Ran cho Pa los V erdes Communit y De ve l opm ent
Bu ilding and Safe ty Depait ment
High Fire Hazard/ Fir e Hazard S ev e rity Zone Requirem e nts
Based o n th e 201 0 Chap ter 7 A and the 2010 Cal iforn ia Bu ild i ng Code
.'\;:";, ... =--r=., (ij
(!) _., _::;;:;'. (,~-A~ / Cl)
_L _ ~:_;::>--;>·--' ~ "/::.:.,'. -./-~-
c"l,) t /b .'';,.~-<~~~~,(~Xi )
'').., f '!I
= / ir~,111F~~-•"'""' ml'~c'f~~-=,,-,
§rr/JH"~ -_, •-_jil]~!\\,.;'e) , ~lu
1. R oof"Co l·e ri n a, VC BC 705A .l ,2 and R 9{)2 . Apl)rove d 1 1;:;::;LJ~-..,_ ~
ma t erial s: II 11---fn
a, Fire retunfo nt Cbss ··A", mofing i~ requirs:d . --, 1 =I.[~-, -=-=_7_=
Ve nt il at io n Onc nin gs VC HC 706 A
ri. Vents shall not be install ed on tl1e unders ide ot'eave~ or
cornices , un le ss special eave vents that re~ist the intruskm
uJ fl ame~ ilnd burning embers are a~cep ted by Lh<'
H,1i lding Offi ci al.
b. Attic or foundation ventilation openings or louvers sl wll
not be located at or within 18 inches , measured vertica ll y,
ofrakes, soffits, balconies , decks, or sim ilar exterior
uvcrhang:; whido may b,.; dir.;;d l_y ~~po ~c<l lu lir.;;.
3. Ex ter ior W all Cove rin g C BC 70 7A.3 :
a. -"Juncombus Li blc material
b. Ignition-rcsistam material
<:. H.:;,vy tirnb.:r cxkriur wa ll a,;~rnb ly
d. Log wall assembly
c. Wall assemblies th at nwct SFM Std . 12 -7A -l.
f. One luyo..'T 5/8" Type X gypsum sbealhing: app lied bchimJ
the exterior covering or cladding on the exterior side of
the Imm ing
g. The exterior portion of ,1 1-hour fir<:l resistive exterior wall
assembly dcsi1,,rncd for exterior fire exposu re
4 Op e n Roof J:,a \·e.~ C BC 707 A.4
The c xp{l:.cd roof deck on th e w1dcr~i dc ofunc nclo~c<l mnf
eaves miill C(.m,;ist of one of the followittg·
a. S,T items listed in 11
b. The exterior p url in n nf a !-hour lire re~isti1-e ex.lerinr wall
assemb ly appl itxl Ill lhe und ersi de of the rool dec k
designed fo r exterim fire exposure
c . S,,l id ,n,ud r~ Lle r l~ib on lhe exposed unders id e of up=
roof caves having a minimum nominal dimc11sion of 2"
d. So li d wotid b locking insrn lled between nrfter ta il s on t he
exposed m1d1..T5id" of open roof caves h t1ving a minim um
nominal dimens ion o f2"
c. U;iblc l..'Tld overhan gs and roor ass emb ly projection~
beyond an ~xtcrior v,,all other than at the lower end of the
r,lfte r ui ls
.~. Encl o,ed Ro of F.ne, and Ro of F.ave Srtffit , C BC
707A.5
The enclosed roof eaves that arc either boxed-in ,vith a
sul'li 1 wilh a hmi znnlal unJer side , m sloping r..1 i'l<'r laib
"i lh ;111 exterior i.:overing appli.:11 llJ t b.: under:;id.: llf lhe
rafte r tail,, ,hall he:
a. See itdlls LisleJ in 11
b. rhe exterior portion of a !-hour fire resistive exterior wall
a,sl1 nbly appl ieJ lu the 1m de rsiJ e ol lhs:: rnfln l,1il, or
ou ITiL
c. Boxed -in ro0f eave softit a,;,;embl ies with a h0ri?.<1ntaJ
undehi de tlrnt meet SJ:-,Vl Std. 12-1 A-3
.EXC.El'U01~s : Th e fo ll owing materials do not require
prnlcctior r.
d. Solid woed Il()lllinal 2" rallet' tails an d blod..iug.
e. Fascia and architecmral ll'im.
[. Gable end ove r hangs beyond an exter ior wall olher than
at the lower end of the rafte r tails
6. Exte rior Porch Cc ilin ns/ Fl oo r Projection s/
Und e rsi de o r 1\11nen th1!;'t'S C IW 70 7A .6 7 ll 7A.7
and 707A ,8
The exposed underside of exterior porch ceili ngs'
lloL>r pwieclioo:;/ uml<'f~i J e o[ Appembg;e:; ~b;i ll be
prmecled by one o r tbe follow ing :
a . See items li~ti:d i.t1 11
b. file exterior p011ion ofu I -hour fire resistive exterior
wall assembly appl ied to the underside of 1he ceiling
"~~1.,,nbl_y
c . Assemb li e ~ that meet SFM Std . 12 -7A -3.
, . Exterio r Glue d \\'ind ows and Gla zed Doors
708A.2.1
Comply with one of the following:
a. R.;; nm:;\rnct<:d of" mul1 ipan<; gla~.ing wi l.h a miT1 im11m
of one temper ed pane meeting section 2406
b. Be constructed of glass block units
e. A firc -rcs is lanrc raling tifno l less than 20 ntinu Les
when tes ted according to :-Jf PA 257
d. Meet SF M Sl<i. I '.:'-7A-2.
8. Exterior Doo n C DC 708A.3
E-xtc ri o r door5 shall comp ly with one ohhc
Colk,wing:
a. The exterior surfoc-e orcl adJ.i ng slwll b e of
noncomhuqihlc or ignilion -rcsi~trn1t material
b. Sol id <.we wood, 1-3/8'' thick
c. A Jlrc-rcsistancc rati ng o r 1101 kss than 20 rnimncs
wht:H lesled acconJ ing Ill '\!F P 252
d. Me d SFM Sid . l 2-7A -l
9. Decking S url't1c es C BC 709:\.3
The wa lki ng ~urface makri al of decks, pon::hes,
ba lconies. and slain,. when any porli,)n of su.ch
surface is with in l O feet of the build ing, the e nt ire
surface shall be constructe d ,1-ith one of the fo llo \\'ing
rnmcrials:
a lgnition -rc~is timt materin l that c.omplics ""ith the
performance re quirements of bot h SFM Standard 12-
7:\-4 amt SR,,.f Std . 12-?i\-5, wu r P mdun~ 6/6/ I I
b. [x L,Tiur Iii"\: rcL.:tr<l,ml lrculcd wood
c . Nonc()mlmsti blc matc r·i:11
d. :\ny ma terial lhal meet, S Fr\:1 S ld. 12-1A -4A when
att ached exterior wall covering is also eit her
mmw mhus Libk m i~'Tlilion -res is~ml mate ri ,11
10. Dc t,.~ll cd l'11ti o Co ~crs , Cu rport s, A rlJ1J rs , O pcD
r .attice ,,iork, and Sun S ha de,. O lC 71 OA.4
Sball be i.:onslruc ted ofnonrnmbus lihle or igoi lion
res istant materials,
11 . Apurn~ed Ma tni a l De ueml an t m r Lo~ali n n a.~
Nut r d A IJ uyc ,
a . No ne0111l1ustib le material
b. lgni lion-resistant mat0c rial
c. One lny er of 5/~" 'l'ype X gypsum shentlting applied
b ehi nd an ~,.\tcrio r corcr iHg on lhc u1rdcrs idc .
d. Archi1eclurnl trim.
12. Exempt Buildin o.~. CBC 701A.3
a. BuiJdings o[ au accessory drnrncler classified as
Group C occup:mc:y located at lens t 50 fee t frmn nn
app lica bl e buildin g.
1 .
1 .
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
FOUNDATION/GROUNDING ELECTRICAL/GROUND PLUMBING
2ND FLOOR DECK (CLEAR)
ROOF SHEATHING/EXTERIOR SHEAR; EXTERIOR HARDWARE
LATH
ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL (ROUGH)
FRAMING/PLUMBING, ROUGH (ALL)
INSULATION, GENERAL
DRYWALL
OTHER
FINAL
*
ARCHITECTURE
&_pESIGN
*
E-
2
4
10
I
TC
Fl
1W
FF
PA
FS
FG
MIN.
w.v.
8W
LEGEND
X 76.52
TOP OF CURB
FLOWLINE
TOP OF WALL
FINISH FLOOR
PlANTNG AREA
FINISH SURFACE
FINISH GRADE
MINIMUM
WATER VALVE
BACK OF WALK
SPOT ELEVATION
BLOCK OR RETAINING WALL
CENTERLINE
PROPERlY LINE
--------( 130) -------CONTOUR LINE
- s ---s --SEWER LINE
--0 0---WOODEN FENCE
--X X ---CHAIN LINK FENCE
0
c•:::J --I
GRAPHIC SCALE
• 10
I I
( IN FEET )
1 Inch = 10
LOT AREA:
10,415 Sq. Ft.
0.24Ac.
20
I
ft.
.,.
I
r I Trash Enclosure
I
\
I
I
i\
I
X
I
\ 0JI 11 1;
I
I
I\ I I 111 ~
I
I
~
COUNTY
QUAD/YEAR ELEVATION
PALOS VERDES 260.49 FT. (2013)
A.C. Driveway
I
I
OF LOS ANGELES BENCHMARK
DESCRIPTION BM No.
L&BN IN E CB @ SE C.B. 340 FT S/0 C/L BERRY HILL DR & 17 FT E/O C/L GY-11025 PALOS VERDES DR W (E BBL)@ Ml MKR 0.42
.1----
179.84
v~.ll> ~"' "'''
"' ~
-i-----,,
\~ = , .
/
/;'I ~
285.62 I
-'" Iii!
8
l;
1,,:111 I/
,g,
211 ~)\
I X 28J19 \
~ ~
X 28/.78
~ is
im,rt,
IJ
,.,.
iii
I I I II 11
I / II 11
I I II 11
./. ,(l'bs, I " JLJJ78fil_]f I $>-/ II 1177, ~ I -1-;;,
i ! ~di ii ◊~1 -lio
I
tt
-~" ).m "'"-• a ...,;;. -~.,., I II II Approach ~ [ ,., •• -,.( _ _ , y-• l~I 1 U_tility ionhole 11"1 lree ' ' .. +~:. , ... / _,f/ l5"! Tree -f-\Sil' l ~ Tree . (e_) ,0
!.,. -¥\~~''.SD' ~ n_;_ (~
@,I' ~1B2.o3
-.l..:£,\1
I ~ ;,_'I'
= ;Z -------~ · ,> -+~~Jl .f_l\ Ud Elev.c177.38 _..,/ --~ . -----··f -1Y I I "" II I -~-27.':IJ' __ _
11818 = = X 278.26 -f-'[\l~' I I
n
18
----------+-------Ii ¥ II II / OJ '°'?& --Jl;"" I Tl 11
<l) ------------'---_,,/ ~
211s,
/ I I 11 11
-4 l!J I I II [L \ v ""
1
71' 11 I i'°"'· Driveway ~ I Approach
X 279-38 ,-W
0 & ""
ii
I
1---c -
.l-.-..._ ◊
-·~"' ·o/ / <' \ =cf,, --
,?; ( ~---
t'o \ X/8/)Jg I
,~
'l /:r .,,
I cs f; "'~
0""WW "''""'"' \ ""// ~ ~;<:_~~l C
Lnwn ,;ii,11'
1
/ 0 > ., I I I~~; _; / a:; ll'l li I 11 11
7
'
lJJ;, \ // X I I "" 11 11
1
; ;c I I j 11 11
1,i, ';; I I I II
/ )< 278.48 -1.:2'· I 11 11 Sewer ionhole
,' ---> h •' I II II ' "-"""'
s rr ----% I%', , _ I II 11 -0 :C
cc
X ,,-1,,. / / \"!#:__~ / I ~Droin
-::;._/ --~
, /1K ~
I I I 't' f.f. [\e,.0 11I8u
0\-J--uv ,1, \ \ ,(I">°"' ~'0,\1, ,,,,____.,,~ 11'-ll
851 \ 11 =t!,,1, I I \ < ;,, II
,(I"><;,
;;;
ioi1 one story \'louse
Roal 1:.\ll'I, = 299 .16 I ' I " 11 Garnge fL (lev.c118.o\ \ I 24'¢ Palm 1. ,,,,'P"l''f t tl I I 1 \ 141 Tree I I I I
I~ I @
,,,. 1C1 c, I 111
1
•)-,.., ,. ',, .. < I I )LI, .. ,
<p<b \ \1, ( Chimney~
I -l,:, ,c-l--. ./J Co = ~"" I ~11>)i ~ I 219.34 1"" I • -·"'W; I .,../ 11 i /
74
,itFL I ·-•• , ,,;• I
\ -~ I ,\;-
I
I
;,,~
+"' Swimming Pool
"'
-ornif\ r,.ttached Garage
11 7
I I~ !'-Edison Voult
II ,L J
'if 11 11 ~ II II
.,.,. ~ 1 ~tility Box ".?q
II
I • II '¼ I • ,, ' I ,., -
,.,_ r"'---ll1J1 /¢,c • " / • •
,e;\ -.... . ./ I -$ '-4, ~ , ,$' "' "· 1 ~==============::J 't:c:.i,;:c:.i,;:c:.i,;::;.:,:::.:,:c:.i,;::;.:,:c:.i,;:c:.i,;""4"' I •
_,,, j' I > 4 0 0 ' <, ', >·
--,.a\::_~*• ' ffe --" ,S_,., • C' • '""•>Cm ' ,, \ ••
:l: .·-?-M\'~
1
.c-.-·c:',-,-f\l~~.'.' -•.\' _,, ,-Jc.,·,···,:"i-'-,'"'·+· • • ";/i· ••.. • ••• ,11,s. " -t._"'
~;:;)::tt;;~~=-~·t'''--'J ,--"' ,¥~""""' <s".\ -,_, _, i•W'"-F ,'-;h" ,.-,>' •' S'i),-· ;'.,'\534"23'19'[ '"7 ;:-:, , _,.__ ~ , ,:;;;_;'-' _ I _ •• __ ----I-\ms~ Ef\c\osure
, , ,_ ee' , ,,.' ;,_ ''•v'" , ,_,, ,, " ' --,<, > ,,.-1-,,,1"" - -~, - -
, -11,92
, , 1f1ee I I~
177.81
+"'' I r-;:r 11 II
I u t;oler Meles 27.ff}_ _
I ----
,y ffl"[ -7 --r tilily Box
I' ,. • I 73.79 TC
I u '1rll!13.09 fl
v''f) I // I 11
½,--1 II
l;,,& I '& 11
lj
I
,1 (_o,\'11\)1011 ~ \ i, ---------------
<lJ
> ·-
-'-
c::::::::.:.
·-.:::c:
>--
-'-
-'-
<l..J
co
~ % ~ . ' "''~ "..-~ n---------/
11,;I, ii.• .. ·.·,'•· ;1 _,, _ ----\/ ,i---T -
· one S\O!'/ \'louse
0 'iii '()' <'),I&/
I I II 11
I '%,I \1----1--\1_7259 i-11,'l>
One Storv \'louse
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 3 OF TRACT No. 26908, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 684, PAGE(s) 57-59 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
NOTE:
"' /0' "' .\-
\ Cone. Drive,oy \ t~,,, t I I I ~one. Onve,o
I I 7T7l !pprooch 0.
I I 11 11 I
HATCH PATTERNS AND TREE DRIP LINES
ARE NOT TO SCALE
1'l
~I
I
\i ~~
I
I
\~ \.
,._,._ -------_ _')
---------\
a.. '
<(
::ii: I
,n ,-_
N >-0
C)
LU
<l'. > u
a: w •
> [3 l"J => C>: Cl O en Cl 0:: 0
_J ~ I
....J ....
(_) :::r:: V1 a
>-g1 -:::r:: c,: <l'. N
0::: 0.... fg a.. ~ 0 r---<( :r:
a: ,n u :z
(!)
0
a..
0
I-
C,
LC)
(0
C,
a, E
<C 0
(.) c..,
,n :z '
I"") <C D-:
,__ 0:: <l'.
cii r.n w
c,:
Cl
Cl
<l'.
w
f-----
r.n
• a::;; =i a o
<C _J ~ c..:, s: ~ >, Cl) er: C) @) a,
ON aW
z co .!: s:
~LO >-c:.,j
I-lI) Cl) :z
"'u-,C:
UJ r--:::::J en
-' "' Cl <C C\JOO C!)
Cl c.o Cl • ~ !8.-~ §
~ :::! s:
□ ~ ~
(0 '
@
~ w
t---
~
~
@3
~ =
(!!ji)
Cf)
w
0
a:
w
' >
Cf)
0
_J .... <C N
0
N a..
oci'
....J
0:: 0 o__
<l'. :::r::
>-' (_) w > :z: 0:: ::::, r.n <C
L,_ a: 0
w
~
Cl LL
0
-~ I >-
I-
~I (_)
u r.n
8
<"'I
~11.0 £:::'_ 00 =o
N
<')
,.._
Q)
Q)
c::
CJ)
c::
LU
Cl
C: -
~
Q)
Q)
C: -
Cl
C:
LU
> -c..::,
~
Cl
C: -->,
Q)
>
~
:::,
en
-a
C:
ctl
_J
LU
c..,
a:
z
~
LU ::::,
0
<C
a:
LU
I
LU a..
(..)
z
■-
en
LU
(..) -> a:
LU
en
I-
z
LU
~
c...
0
_J
LU
>
LU
Cl
CD
0
_J
NOTES:
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS RELATIVE TO EXISTING
CONDITIONS IS GIVEN AS THE BEST PRESENT KNOWLEDGE, BUT
WITHOUT GUARANTEE OF ACCURACY. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES
BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANS, OR OTHER UNUSUAL
FIELD CONDITIONS.
DEMOLITION NOTES
A. ALL DEMOLITION WORK SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE UNDER THE
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION OF A PERSON WITH THE PROPER
EXPERIENCE, TRAINING AND AUTHORITY.
B. ALL REMOVED BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES MAY BE
SALVAGED AT THE OWNER'S DISCRETION.VERIFY WITH OWNER
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION WHAT IS TO BE REMOVED WITH CARE,
SALVAGED, AND STORED AT A LOCATION DESCRIBED BY OWNER.
C. REMOVE AND HAUL OFF SITE ALL MATERIALS TO BE DISPOSED.
D. DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR TO REDIRECT/ RECONNECT ANY
ACTIVE EXISTING UTILITY, DRAINAGE, AND SPRINKLER LINES
WHICH ARE DISTURBED BY DEMOLITION. CAP ALL ABANDONED
LINES.
E. CONTRACTOR IS TO BE FAMILIAR WITH DEMOLITION AND FIELD
VERIFY ALL DEMOLITION PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. REPORT
ANY DISCREPANCIES TO ARCHITECT.
F. OWNER AND ARCHITECT TO WALK JOB WITH CONTRACTOR
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF DEMOLITION.
G. ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITIONS AND
PLANS, OR OTHER UNUSUAL FIELD CONDITIONS, SHALL BE
REPORTED TO PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY
BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH FURTHER WORK.
H. EXISTING STRUCTURE SHALL NOT BE REMOVED, REPLACED OR
TAMPERED WITH, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON THE PLANS.
I. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SHORING AS REQUIRED BEFORE
REMOVING ANY STRUCTURE AS APPLICABLE.
KITCHEN DINING
LIVING
LAUNDRY/LINEN
POWDER
BEDROOM #2
BEDROOM #3 PRIMARY
BEDROOM
BATH
BATH
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
GARAGE
EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN
EXISTING WALLS TO BE REMOVED
LEGEND
4
2
31
LINEAR FEET OF:
EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS:260.9 L. FT.
EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS:226.6 L. FT.
TOTAL EXISTING WALLS: 487.5 L. FT.
PROPOSED DEMO. WALLS: 18.3 L. FT.
TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DEMO. WALLS: 3.75 %
1
As Built- Demo
Floor Plan
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/25
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
AB-1.0
AS BUILT- DEMO FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3/25/2025 12:21:57 PM E-25
,l
...
~ -
-
fl
'
a ' ~ ~
'
C)
........
- - - -
- - - -I
I
~
-
0
I ~)..
D
,----- -7
I I
I I
I I
\_ - -____ _J -
-
,,---I I '" _____ -
I I I II I I 11
/-1~~==-~~-!
/ II -11 -
:::i
f II I I I
'1 1 I ~ ;:: :::r'.... " I '-I\ /'
'¾s V
\
' I
I
-
I ~
~
L
0
~
-
u
u
-
-
,/ I I
'
( -
'
~ 0 -
*
ARCHITECTURE
&_DESIGN
*
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
20
'
-
6
"
19
'
-
4
"
6'
-
8
"
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"01
8'
-
0
"
287.86'
T.O.P.
3.75
12 3.75
12
286.65'
T.O.P.
3.75
12
278.59'278.51'
LOWEST
POINT
278.45'
278.77'278.75'278.90'
8
12
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
20
'
-
6
"
6'
-
8
"
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"02
287.86'
T.O.P.
286.65'
T.O.P.
20
'
-
6
"
8'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
3.75
12
3.75
12
278.59'278.71'279.17'279.17'278.53'
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"03
3.75
12
3.75
12
279.17'279.26'
HIGHEST POINT
279.23'279.24'279.22'279.17'279.05'
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
8
12
7'
-
0
"
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
20
'
-
6
"
19
'
-
4
"
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"04
8'
-
0
"
287.86'
T.O.P.
3.75
12 3.75
12
286.65'
T.O.P.
20
'
-
6
"
8'
-
0
"
279.17'278.90'
278.51'278.60'
279.36'
Existing Elevations
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/25
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
AB-2.0
3/25/2025 12:23:38 PM E-26
-
I 1'---'1 -----
tjLJ
D -~ -+----------',H -
•
'--
' -----------------------------------------------* * /"-....
~
II Ill II II I _ _JI 1111 11111 I ~Ill ~
--r1f J_ 11 11 11 -1J u J 11 11 I uJiJ L J LJll I 11 11 11 -_lJ C----J--LJ-_J II 1111 ~ l 11 JUU lJ I lJUll_ lJ II J lJ 11 Lil I lJl _lj Ju ~ J Ull_ ~
1 11 11 I I I 7 I I I 7 I 11 I I 717 I I I 7 I I I 71 11 I I I I ",.. 11 I LJ I LJ I I _JLJ-L+l ~I I
u u ,u u u u_..d-' ILJ I LJ II l I IIU LJ II 1111[ ri-:-
~~~-~n-"-~-~;;;;:;.~-""'-~u~-~-~""-~-~-
u u u u u u u u u u u u
'
.
I I
I I
\... '--
---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ___.,..___,,__
-
~ -JULr 11 11 --_
_ III_ IIIU IIIIJ 1111_ IIIU - - --~~~~~~""i'i""'~~"E'~~i'r""""'~
11 11 I l ___ lJ u _ __-_ 11 11 11 J__Jj u _ __-J Ull_ UllJ u_:_~
V i a C a m b r o n
B
e
r
r
y
H
i
l
l
D
r
i
v
e
KITCHEN DINING
LIVING
LAUNDRY/LINEN
POWDER
BEDROOM #2
BEDROOM #3 PRIMARY
BEDROOM
BATH
BATH
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
GARAGE
7'
-
1
"
E
X
.
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
7'
-
0
"
E
X
.
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
LA
N
D
I
N
G
CONCRETE PATIO
736 SQ.FT.
SWIMMING POOL
JACUZZI
ONE STORY HOUSEONE STORY HOUSE
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
986 SQ.FT.
68
.
8
8
'
75
.
9
5
'
142.43'
146.35'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
APN#: 7582-014-003
LOT: 3
LOT AREA: 10,512 SF
TRACT NO: 26908
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
WOOD LANDING
BE
R
R
Y
H
I
L
L
D
R
I
V
E
POOL EQUIPMENT
UTILITY BOX
WATER METERS
UTILITY BOX
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
EDISON VAULT
SEWER MANHOLE
LID ELEV.=275.82
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
CONC. DRIVE
W
A
Y
APPROACH
UTILITY MANHOLE
LID ELEV.=277.38
CONC. DRIVE
W
A
Y
APPROACH
A.C. DRIVEWAY
IR
O
N
G
A
T
E
A.C. DRIVEWAY
14"Ø PALM
LAWN
14"Ø PALM
DRAIN
CHIMNEY
UP
STONE
WALKWAY
111 SQ.FT.
12"Ø PALMS
24"Ø PALM
LAWN
5' H. CHAIN LIN
K
F
E
N
C
E
5' H. CHAIN LIN
K
F
E
N
C
E
16"Ø PALM
12"Ø TREE
8"Ø TREE
8"Ø TREE
8"Ø TREE
8"Ø TREE
14"Ø TREE
14"Ø TREE
14"Ø TREE
10"Ø TREE
18"Ø TREE
18"Ø TREE
TRASH ENCLOSURE
WOOD DECK
UP
UP
UP
PROPERTY LINE
40
'
-
3
"
EXISTING ONE-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
(2,019 SF)
F.F. 279.86
38'-2" VIF
32
'
-
2
"
36'-4"
17
'
-
6
"
49
'
-
2
"
E
X
.
V
I
F
DRAIN
21
'
-
2
"
21'-11" EX. FRO
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
50'-11" E. VIF
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
12
'
-
1
1
"
E
X
.
7'
-
2
"
19
'
-
6
"
E
X
.
15
'
-
4
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
15
'
-
5
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
18'-1"
PROPOSED
UPPER SETBACK
12'-3"
1 19'-10" EX. FRONT S
E
T
B
A
C
K
1
1
1
1
50'-6" EX. REAR SETBACK
1
5'
-
5
"
PR
O
P
.
15
'
-
1
0
"
E
X
.
8'
-
8
"
E
X
.
68'-6" PROPOSED SETBAC
K
67'-5" PROPOSED SETBAC
K
32'-4" PROPOSED
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
34'-5" PROPOSE
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
47'-5" EXISTING REAR SETBACK
21'-3" E. VIF
279.17
279.05
278.59
278.51
LOWEST POINT
279.67
278.90
278.71
GARAGE
F.F. 278.68
1
279.26'
HIGHEST
POINT
299.16'
SLOPE
8:12
SLOPE
8:12
SLOPE
3.75:12
SLOPE
3.75:12
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SLOPE
3.75:12
SLOPE
3.75:12
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
4
2
31
DEMOLISH
EXISTING ROOF
EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
EXISTING WALL
EXISTING ROOF TO DEMOLISH
LEGEND
2'
-
0
"
2'-0"
2'-0"
2'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
2'-0"
2'
-
0
"
BUILDING FOOT PRINT
AND ROOF BELOW
LINE OF ROOF OVERHANG
NEW ROOF AREA
LEGEND
1'-6"
NEW DECK OVER
EXISTING GARAGE
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
4
3
1
SLOPE
8:12
SLOPE
8:12
SLOPE
3.75:12
SLOPE
3.75:12
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
I
D
G
E
299.16'
SLOPE
8:12
SL
O
P
E
3:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3:
1
2
NEW RIDGE
SL
O
P
E
3:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3:
1
2
SLOPE
3:12
NEW
CUPOLA
SITE PLAN NOTES:
1.GENERAL GRADING REQUIREMENTS PER LOCAL
GOVERNING JURISDICTIONS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH
STRICTLY.
2.ALL FOOTINGS TO BE FOUNDED INTO NATURAL
UNDISTURBED SOIL OR FOUNDED INTO CERTIFIED
RECOMPACTED FILL. CITY INSPECTION APPROVALS
AND CITY CERTIFICATION REQUIRED. LICENSED SOILS
ENGINEER TO INSPECT AND CERTIFY RECOMPACTION.
3.ALL REQUIRED APPROVAL PROCEDURES APPLYING
TO GRADING APPROVAL ARE TO BE PART OF THIS
PLAN.
4.ALL CONCENTRATED DRAINAGE INCLUDING ROOF
SHALL BE CONDUCTED TO STREET IN AN APPROVED
MANNER AT 2% MIN. SLOPE.
5.NO TRENCHES OR EXCAVATIONS 5' OR MORE IN
DEPTH INTO WHICH A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO
DESCEND, OTHERWISE, OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMIT
FROM LOCAL OR STATE AUTHORITIES.
6.CONTRACTOR TO INFORM ARCHITECT OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ARCHITECTURAL AND ANY
RELATED DRAWINGS.
7.ALL GRADES SHALL SLOPE 2% MINIMUM AWAY FROM
BUILDING AND BE A MINIMUM OF 6" BELOW WOOD SILL
PLATE AT PERIMETER OF BUILDING. SEE GRADING
PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
8.FOR GRADES SPECIFIED TO BE LESS THAN 8" FROM
WOOD SILL PLATES AND FOR AREAS WHERE
CONCRETE PAVING IS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS, SILL
PLATES SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH A CONTINUOUS
STRIP OF W.R. GRACE 4000 BITUTHENE
WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE COVERED WITH
GALVANIZED SHEET METAL FLASHING, BOTH
PROJECTING 6" BELOW WOOD SILL PLATE AND 6"
ABOVE GRADE. WIDTH OF WATERPROOFING WILL
VARY ACCORDING TO GRADE ELEVATION.
9. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF
36" LANDING IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL, ON EACH
SIDE OF DOOR.
10.THIS PERMIT APPLICATION DOES NOT INCLUDE
MECHANICAL PLUMBING, OR ELECTRICAL PERMITS.
11.THE ARCHITECT WILL PROCESS PLANS THROUGH
PLAN CHECK REVIEW FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT ONLY.
12.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL
OTHER PERMITS.
13.SURVEY MAP MUST BE SIGNED BY A LICENSED
SURVEYOR OR CIVIL ENGINEER.
14. ALL CONTRACTORS, ARCHITECTS, DESIGNERS, &
ENGINEERS SHALL MAINTAIN A CURRENT CITY
BUSINESS LICENSE.
15.DUST CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED
THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.
16. THE YARD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE
INSPECTED AND CERTIFIED BY THE ENGINEER OF
RECORD PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL.
17. APPROVAL IS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS, CURB
CORES, CURBS/ GUTTERS, ETC.
18. SEPARATE PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT IS REQUIRED
FOR DRIVEWAYS, APPROACH TO DRIVEWAY, SEWER
LATERALS AND WORK TO BE PERFORMED OR LOCATED
IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
ROOF SLOPE:
1. ROOF SLOPES ARE SHOWN DIRECTLY ON ROOF PLAN DRAWING
2. ALL FLAT ROOFS AND DECKS SHALL SLOPE A MINIMUM OF 1/4:12 TOWARD
DRAINS OR GUTTERS
3. IN THE ABSENCE OF SLOPES SHOWN ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS OR
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, ROUGH CARPENTER SHALL PROVIDE
REQUIRED SHIMMING BELOW ROOF SHEATHING TO ALLOW FOR PROPER
SLOPE TO DRAIN
4. NO OBSTACLE SHALL PREVENT WATER FLOW TOWARD DRAINS
5. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY CONFORMANCE TO REQUIRED BUILDING
HEIGHTS AND BULDING ENVELOPES. PROVIDE CERTIFIED SURVEY OF
REQUIRED BUILDING HEIGHT. INFORM ARCHITECT OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO START OF ROOF FRAMING
ROOF MATERIAL:
1. ALL FLAT ROOFS TO BE BUILT-UP CLASS "A" WITH TORCH DOWN
MODIFIED BITUMEN OR APPROVED EQUAL
2. PITCHED ROOF TO BE NEW GAF ASPHALT SHINGLES. OVER 40# OVER
30# ROOFING FELT OVER PLYWOOD DIAPHRAGM (PER STRUCTURAL
PLANS) INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER' S RECOMMENDATION
3. MOCK-UP OF PITCHED ROOF INSTALLATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH WORK
4. THE ROOFING TILES ARE TO BE MANUFACTURED, IDENTIFIED, AND
INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FILED APPROVAL REPORT AND
THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS.
GUTTERS AND ROOF DRAINS:
1. PROVIDE ROOF GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS
2. 5" "OGEE" GUTTERS WITH 5/8" EXPANSION JOINTS EVERY 30 FEET
MAXIMUM
3. GUTTERS SHALL SLOPE 1/16" PER FOOT TOWARD RAIN WATER
LEADERS
4. UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE, RAIN WATER LEADERS ARE EXPOSED
AND LOCATION IS SHOWN ON ROOF PLAN
5. DOWNSPOUTS AT FLAT ROOFS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4" DIAMETER
WITH OVERFLOW DRAINS
6. PROVIDE DOME WIRE BASKET AT EACH RAIN WATER LEADER AND
ROOF DRAIN
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST ALL CONCEALED DOWNSPOUTS FOR
WATER LEAKAGE PRIOR TO CLOSING UP BUILDING AND SHALL PROVIE
A 10 YEAR WARRANTY AGAINST LEAKAGE
8. ROOF DRAINAGE TO BE CONNECTED TO EXISTING CITY APPROVED
DRAINAGE DEVICE. ALL RAIN WATER TO BE DIRECTED TO STREET OR
APPROVED OUTLET.
ROOF PENETRATION:
1. VENTS AT FLAT ROOF AND ROOF STACKS SHALL PROJECT ABOVE ROOF BY
THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE CODES AND SHALL BE
LOCATED IN AREAS NOT VISIBLE FROM STREET. EXACT LOCATION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH DESIGNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
2. ALL VENTS AND ROOF STACKS TO HAVE RAIN PROTECTION CAPS
3. CONTINUOUS WATERPROOFING AT ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS SHALL BE
PROVIDED WITH WR GRACE 4000 BITUTHENE WRAPPING AND 24 GA.
GALVANIZED METAL AND COUNTERFLASHING. ALL JOINTS AT SHEET METAL
SHALL BE CAULKED
4. COLOR OF ALL EXPOSED VENTS AND ROOF STACKS TO MATCH ADJACENT
ROOF MATERIAL, UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE BY DESIGNER
OPENINGS PROTECTION:
SITE PLAN /
EXISTING ROOF PLAN/
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
A-0.5
EXISTING ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/25
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
3/25/2025 12:14:10 PM E-27
-
I
I
J
I
f
I
I.
-,,x:-
'' ''
' '
' '
I
' '
/ ,I
i;
'' : '
'' '' '' ''
'' ''
'
' '
I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I
11 1T
I I I ' J
____ -_-..;.,1,1'-4 "--_-~i~ ~f --
' I
----,':.,'--'-':..' _ _;_' ' I I cJ
/ /
I I
11
'' 'I
I''
'''
111 -- a
! I
I I
'' '' '' '' '' I I
':
I I
''
''
''
I I
'' '' ':
"
II
Ii
" " " " ':
II
" '' "
'I
I I
I I
I , I
Ii
I
!-I~
'' '' ~rf. ' '
I
" "
'' '' " " '' ''
"
"
i ,'
0
___J
-'
' ' I
' (
,,
'
.,
'
I '1
' '
0
' ' 'I
I
'
' ' -' ' ,,
,:,: ,{'/\
-,i-· '+::) -''-
'
-------------------------~----~
I
L
(>
r
1
J
I
I
I
I
0
,1
I ,~
I
0--
1
0
!
' ___ 1------1..!
i
L
i
1
(>
' ' ' ' '
+-
' X
I
I
I
I
I
-___]1
-t--
CJ
CJ
LJ
I
I
I
L
~
I
Cit
*
ARCHITECTURE
&_oESIGN
*
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
279.86'
278.65'
DW
REF.
FRZ.
4
2
3
1
EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN
DEMOLISH EXISTING WALLS
NEW WALLS
ROOF OVERHANG
LEGEND
ONE STORY HOUSEONE STORY HOUSE
UP
UP
16R @ 6.75"CLOSET
DINING
0107
LIVING
0108
BEDROOM #2
0113
BEDROOM #3
0111
MASTER BEDROOM
0109
MASTER BATH
0110
BATH
0112
KITCHEN
0106
PANTRY
0105
POWDER
0103
LAUNDRY/LINEN
0104
GARAGE
0100
ENTRY
0101
FOYER
0102
HALL
0114
STAIR
0115
LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE
278.51
LOWEST
POINT
279.26'
HIGHEST POINT
279.86'
279.86'
LA
N
D
I
N
G
279.86'
5'
-
0
"
5'-0"
20'-0"
Proposed First
Floor Plan
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/25
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
A-1.0
PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING 2022 SQ. FT.
3/25/2025 12:16:55 PM E-28
I , __ --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
--:-' --: -----
/
I
I
----------------------------------
---'!------! __ /
--------------------0
I
I
' ' '
' ' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1----
' ' '
,
' '
--' -:-'--
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' I ' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
'
' ' ' ' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--1----
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
7
: • ••• • • •• • • • ••................
I
-
I
L
• •
: DI I I
I I
I I
I I
'-----'-----'~ I
I
__J
~-n-I
I
CJ -
--------
I : I
~-~~~====cc=~~./~~E1 ~~~~d.Jb==c::===E::::J1L~:JJ;~:):::3::;::::i::: ;_ /_~: --,=1 -a ~~=::
I
I
I ' 7
i ~ I /\ ',,,\/1/
I
I
I
,-7
L _ _J
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CJ
◊ --
I
I
-
II
-
0
I
-•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
L
i
I
I
_J
7
I
I
L_ J L..::::I ============:!I
~1
L_
1rr==~
~==::.I
(
,-
-
-
------------------------
---
0
ARCHITECTURE
&J)ESIGN
299.16'
4
2
3
1
ONE STORY HOUSEONE STORY HOUSE
DN
16 R @ 6.75"
4'-8"6'-1"1'-4"10'-11"
23'-8"
3'-6"
12'-3"
41'-7"
3'
-
0
"
14
'
-
1
"
17
'
-
0
"
19'-1"
2'-7"2'-7"3'-11"
41'-7"
10
'
-
7
"
10
'
-
7
"
21
'
-
2
"
12'-6"
STUDY/BEDROOM
0201
CLOSET
0203
STAIR
0115
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW DECK OVER
EXISTING GARAGE
263 SQ.FT.
5'
-
0
"
20'-0"
5'-0"
34'-3"
3'-2"
COFFEE
3'
-
3
"
BATH
0202
FAMILY/SITTING ROOM
0204
10'-3"12'-3"
2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-8"
4'-2"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"4'-8"
-EXISTING GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE: 448 SQ.FT.
-SECOND STORY ADDITION THAT WILL BE
LOCATED ABOVE THE EXISTING GARAGE: 184.6 SQ.FT.
-PERCENTAGE OF THE SECOND STORY
THAT WILL BE LOCATED ABOVE THE GARAGE: 41%
1
1
LI
N
E
O
F
G
A
R
A
G
E
B
E
L
O
W
8'-3"
20'-9"
2'
-
1
"
2'
-
1
"
2'-3"
9'-10"9'-4"
3"
Proposed Second
Floor Plan
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/25
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
A-1.1
PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING FIRST FLOOR 2022 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 720 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2792 SQ. FT.
7/18/2025 12:11:49 PM E-29
r
I
I----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
t
f-----
I
I
I
I
I
·---
- -----------
------__ ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' r---
' '
-,__,
' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' '
' ' I
' ' '
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
--
' I
I
I
I
I
' ' ' '
' ' ' '
/ ___ , ___ _
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
- -,1 ___ _ -----------------------
- -I--- -
I
I
I
I
I '~~-/
I
I
I
I
• I
I ~--------,,,
1
7r~r--,::---,i'-.---7,L'-t--7,L·---7.'f-·---,,L • _____ J_,k-1
I
' I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
'
,.
I
I
I
I
I
i / 1-/
i ': 1-
/
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'--~'
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I -1---_L__ I
I /--~ )---=::-+-:7· ~' -
/ -1 I\
I i '·--· -+----·/
r=~' =======d.
,
•
I
I
I
I
' I
I I,
rl
c::::J '
c::=
•
L
,. ,
/
0
I
• ,
---
' -
.
L
"
c::=
I, .
I
I
I
i'' , ~ 1_., ., ., 1 .. 11, ' , , , , I,•
I • • I ' ,
I L, 1~ l.1
!,f .---------------------------------~--~:_ ______ -t"~==================:·t::
: I •
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' '
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--------------
' I
' '
' ' ' '
I
' I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
' I
' '
----------
------
-----
------
--
I : I
I
I
I
I
I
---------~
-----
-----
0
----------
I
I
~
I
V
I
I
I
I
I
' . "
' '
---------------------
---------~==------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
7
I
I
,J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
---
*
ARCHITECTURE
&_DESIGN
*
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
279.86'
F.F.L
300.26'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION OPTION B
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"01
287.86'
T.O.P.
3.75
12
296.86'
T.O.P.
287.86'
T.O.P.
288.86'
F.F.L
8'
-
0
"
11
'
-
4
"
E
X
.
R
O
O
F
H
E
I
G
H
T
20
'
-
8
"
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
8'
-
0
"
N
E
W
P
L
A
T
E
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
3'
-
5
"
21
'
-
9
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
3'
-
6
"
3 12
8'
-
6
"
E
X
.
P
L
A
T
E
7'
-
0
"
NEW ADDITION
312
LINE OF EXISTING
RESIDENCE
EX.EX.EX.EX.
NEW
NEW CUPOLA
26
'
-
0
"
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
O
I
N
T
ASPHALT SHINGLE
278.59'278.51' LOWEST POINT
278.45'
278.77'278.75'278.90'
LINE OF
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
278.51' LOWEST POINT
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
19
'
-
1
1
"
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
21
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
O
I
N
T
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
25
'
-
3
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
304.51'
5
43
12
304.51'13
14302.26'
PAINTED WOOD
GUARDRAIL
16'-5"
2'
-
0
"
8
12
299.76'
EXIST. T.O.R.
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION OPTION B
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"02
287.86'
T.O.P.
3.75
12
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
2'
-
1
1
"
21
'
-
2
"
8'
-
0
"
20
'
-
8
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
I
D
G
E
3'
-
6
"
3
12
8'
-
0
"
N
E
W
P
L
A
T
E
279.86'
F.F.L
11
'
-
4
"
E
X
.
R
O
O
F
H
E
I
G
H
T
3
12
296.86'
T.O.P.
288.86'
F.F.L
287.86'
T.O.P.
NEW ADDITION
EXISTING GARAGE
12'-6"
7"
LINE OF EXISTING
RESIDENCE FOR
COMPARISON
EX. EX.EX.EX.EX.EX.
NEW
5'
-
1
"
NEW
NEW CUPOLA
26
'
-
0
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
ASPHALT SHINGLE
5'
-
1
"
HARDIBOARD SHINGLE SIDING FINISH 278.59'278.71'278.79'279.17'
278.53'
21
'
-
9
"
P
R
P
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
O
I
N
T
278.51' LOWEST POINT
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
25
'
-
3
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
11
304.51'
299.76'
300.26'
6
300.26'
5
13
2'
-
0
"
14302.26'
299.76'
11
LINE OF EXISTING
RESIDENCE
2
39
10
3"
PAINTED WOOD
GUARDRAIL
PILASTER MATCHING
SIDING TO BUILDING
2'-2"
2'
-
0
"
ELEVATION NOTES
1 ADD A NEW CUPOLA.
2 GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING PROFILE.
3 EXTERIOR SIDING IS HARDIBOARD SHINGLE SIDING.
4 CLASS A ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING: SEE ROOF PLAN FOR
SPECIFICATIONS.
5 GLASS ON ALL SWINGING DOORS: GLAZING WITHIN 18" OF
THE ADJACENT FLOOR WALKING SURFACE SHALL BE FULLY
TEMPERED.
6 DOWN SPOUTS: SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN
FOR LOCATIONS. ALL DOWN SPOUTS TO CONNECT INTO
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
7 EXTERIOR LIGHTING: SEE POWER & LIGHTING PLANS. INSTALL
6'-6" AFS. LOW EFFICACY.
8 CONTINUOUS CORROSION RESISTANT WEEP SCREED:
LOCATE WEEP SCREED AT LOWEST POSSIBLE POINT OF
CONCRETE FOOTING AND SILL PLATE JUNCTURE . WEEP
SCREED IS REQUIRED BELOW THE STUCCO A MIN. OF 4"
ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREA.
9 DORMER VENTS W/ 1/4" MESH INSECT SCREEN.
10 PANELED WOOD POSTS.
Proposed Elevations
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/27
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
A-2.0
E-30
, ·, ·,
. . - - ----- - -" " "
o ~/ c
'I'-- - -
6 ";·-v )---.
--,_,--•v--.---✓----•. --
• .. ~~□ )
A_ •,A,• ---
-'
~
'i---' " . -'is-- -
I I II I ,..-:;:-
11 /
"
_L I
, I ~
' I
11
• I I
" ' • '-' ' '
"
I'<
I I 11 11 I 1U I 1 111 II 11 Il l "' " " " '" ' I I I I I I II I I I I I I 11 11 11 11 II 11 II I
I I
-
11 I I
111
~,~~ ' II I
I -~
'--
,._
,
A u ,
0
I~ I
--1 / ( 1--
--' v··• • y·• -
:;::;,:::::] " 0 . ~ L L J J L L~
-----.! ,Y--=-------. . . ', L • • J.,L J. ,L
~ -, C . C .,.. .... .__,_ ,L -1,J-_,.__,_._-1,J--C
' □~-": " ., . ' .. . ' .. . . . ' . . ~
. LI-~ • J -~ -~
Sf n .. . . .. ', .. . . ,._ • J-• -. J J C .,.. _,.__,_..._-1,.J-.... .__,_ ._ -1,.J-J-...__J. ._
L, .. L. ~-L .. . . ' -. L w
~
~ . ..
.. . -. ' -. ,L . ~ L c. . -..__ --,.., . -, .... --... J .... ,.1-; .... -i.. . -.
11 11 II 11 I II 11 I 11 7 11 I 1 11 11 II IU I LJ LJ u
II I I 11 II I 11 II
BJ '. _J I/ ',I I ~
.J '. ~ _/ '.
I 11 ' ' "'ii I '. ~ .
" '.
'. /
/ '. /
I I I /
I I /
/
/ --
" " " " " '
'--'-
-
L L~ L J L • J-LJL-u-
,_,I_ I ,I_ . L~L
J._._J._.._-l;-1-_,.__,_._-1,J-,_, C .. .. .J L .. . . . .
LI-' J ~ • J ' -~ . . ' . .. . .. • •
_J. .__,. .._ .... .__,_ ._ -1,.J-, L, C .. L L. ~ . . -. . .
. -.. . . . .J C.
' -. _, L ••
I LJ 1u ILJ I
I
--
u
0
' -
I
L L~ L
,_.,_ J. ,L -
--. . ~ L
-~ '
' • J-• .
J-...__J. ..._
-. L w L.
.. C . -
. -.. ' -
I LJ I
T
-
L
•LL
.... ._ J-._
. .
.
' .
.... .__,. ._
..
.. .
. -.,_ ~ ..... J -
u u LJ
I ; '
/ '.
/ '.
/ ) I'-
'. /
\ /
~
-
- - -
-~~
--,-L ~
LJ I u -
C---
' I
.
,
• •
'
"'--
-
.
' '
'
, ,
' .
~
------------....-
~,; I ~=B Ii b81l l1 8 ll 3N []I:
'"'-------
' ( "" I , .
''-" I _ _.,. __ >. _/
' I 11 I II ' 'I l ,v/ ""--I 11 " " '
IT II 11 I II 11 11 II 11 11 II I I
I I
I
I I
I
' '
:s:= ',
' ' ....__
' " ; -, , "
II --------",.-
I I I
----
--
I I I I I I
1111 11 I I I I I
-
~ [
[ 11
-e
/ ~
''
/
/
/
I \
' " \
\
I \
'I 1 I , I r I I I I 7
"I'""
'C
I I I II I I ' I I
J \...
,
II I II I II I I
\_
' '
'
7
7
=:J
7
L
_J
C
7 *
ARCHITECTURE
&_DESIGN
279.86'
F.F.L
299.76'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION OPTION B
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"03
3.75
12
3.75
12
287.86'
T.O.P.
288.86'
F.F.L
287.86'
T.O.P.
3
12
8'
-
0
"
N
E
W
P
L
A
T
E
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
20
'
-
6
"
8'
-
0
"
11
'
-
4
"
E
X
.
R
O
O
F
H
E
I
G
H
T
19
'
-
1
1
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
F
R
O
M
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
3'
-
0
"
296.86'
T.O.P.
EXISTING RESIDENCE
NEW ADDITION
7"
LINE OF EXISTING
RESIDENCE
EX.EX.EX.EX. EX.
NEW NEW NEW
5'
-
1
"
25
'
-
3
"
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
NEW CUPOLA
279.17'279.26' HIGHEST POINT279.23'279.24'279.22'279.17'
279.05'
21
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
26
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
21
'
-
9
"
P
R
O
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
279.26' EXIST.HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
20
'
-
8
"
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
1
1
304.51'
98
11
13
2'
-
0
"
6300.26'
14302.26'
2'-9"
10
297.24'
NEW
300.26'
TOP OF RIDGE
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
8
12
299.76'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"04
287.86'
T.O.P.
3.75
12
287.86'
T.O.P.
288.86'
F.F.L
3
12
8'
-
0
"
11
'
-
4
"
E
X
.
R
O
O
F
H
E
I
G
H
T
20
'
-
8
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
I
D
G
E
9'
-
3
"
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
2'
-
1
0
"
3'
-
6
"
8'
-
6
"
E
X
.
P
L
A
T
E
296.86'
T.O.P.
NEW ADDITION
EXISTING RESIDENCE
12'-3"
7"
LINE OF
EXISTING
RESIDENCE EX.
EX.EX.
NEW NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
5'
-
1
"
2'
-
0
"
1
NEW CUPOLA
ASPHALT SHINGLE
HARDIBOARD SHINGLE SIDING 279.17'278.90'
278.51'278.60'20'-3" EX. GARAGE
21
'
-
2
"
26
'
-
0
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
21
'
-
9
"
P
R
P
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
O
I
N
T
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
19
'
-
1
1
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
F
R
O
M
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
25
'
-
3
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
2'
-
0
"
304.51'
4
76
13
5
1
14302.26'
299.76'
11
3"
300.26'
TOP OF RIDGE
2'-2"
2'
-
0
"
PAINTED WOOD
GUARDRAIL
ELEVATION NOTES
1 ADD A NEW CUPOLA.
2 GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING PROFILE.
3 EXTERIOR SIDING IS HARDIBOARD SHINGLE SIDING.
4 CLASS A ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING: SEE ROOF PLAN FOR
SPECIFICATIONS.
5 GLASS ON ALL SWINGING DOORS: GLAZING WITHIN 18" OF
THE ADJACENT FLOOR WALKING SURFACE SHALL BE FULLY
TEMPERED.
6 DOWN SPOUTS: SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN
FOR LOCATIONS. ALL DOWN SPOUTS TO CONNECT INTO
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
7 EXTERIOR LIGHTING: SEE POWER & LIGHTING PLANS. INSTALL
6'-6" AFS. LOW EFFICACY.
8 CONTINUOUS CORROSION RESISTANT WEEP SCREED:
LOCATE WEEP SCREED AT LOWEST POSSIBLE POINT OF
CONCRETE FOOTING AND SILL PLATE JUNCTURE . WEEP
SCREED IS REQUIRED BELOW THE STUCCO A MIN. OF 4"
ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREA.
9 DORMER VENTS W/ 1/4" MESH INSECT SCREEN.
10 PANELED WOOD POSTS.
Proposed Elevations
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/27
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R .GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
A-2.1
E-31
i, .
' ~ " ' ' ' " '' - ---
I'
□ □
~ ' " " I 1 "11 11"1111" 11 1 11 1"111 ~ 11 1 ~I '" I" '" I ~ I ' I I 11 " 11 I P 11 11 I I 11 11
J l I
•. ~ ~ I I I I
t'
9 baa
'" ~ \'=', -cd cd
' u'----
IB l~I I
' I I I I I I 1,
~'ll'll 'lh'II II I II II ' ' I I· I I I I ·1 I I In I· --~ -
/
/
) 0
_o
I
_o o
--------------
E] m v v • ' . + ·, • c-.
/
v .
I' .
I
-
~ i
" / ' -r--. ' ----' i,.--' •._ ' ---'I' --...... -I 111 11 I I I 11 I 11 I I I I I I I 111 I
11 11 I I I 11 11 I I I I 11 I I I I
I I II I II I II I II I I II I II I II I II
:~-II I II II I II II II II I L -~.
0 II I II II I II II I II II I II ' ' '7 7 -
rn y
I
I I
I
-
n
-
I I II fl..'
'\_ ,,
•
' I'
' I'
11 I I 11
-
-----
7
I
;
•
/ /
,,,,-()
A 0
l~I 0 ( j
' ----~-
_ _, ' - - - - -~ r
V
~l~O/ _,
/ v1
/ '-l /
/
'-' '-. ' '
' ' -._::,::::::::] \
i ._ -
' ----') -
11 111 "1 11"111 1 111 1 111 ", r
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
I
I
-----
m
./
1 I I
I
I 11 11 I 11
I
--
'
/ .
~ [ '" ~
-
r 1111
II -
.u I
I
I
-
"
II
-
I I
,.
\
'
\
I
I
I
/
-
'
-~
' ,,
)
)
'
I
' ( I
,_ -.: ' I' I'
I -----\.
~
.., 'I'
' -
/
,
h
"
-
I ~ I ", II 'I 11 I I I
~ lli=
11
I
I
' ' ,, '
~
i I
'
' ' ' '
' I'
'
' ,
~
u 1"111 1 111 I I 11 "1 l lfii
ILJIL_I
I I
'
/
I ~
I I
LJ
n
LJ
n
n
□
LJ
LJ
n
□
-'
',
'
* *
E-32
Brent Mey~r & Nancy Parsons
7361 Berry Hill Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-4403 USA +1-310.630.9265 (Brent)
+1-310.303.9600 (Nancy)
E-Mail: nep3@me.com
brentmever1@me.com
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Attn: Planning Commission
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
August 30, 2024
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Compatibility Pre-Application Meeting Notice July 15, 2024 Piccirillo-Francis, 7355 Berry Hill Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
After a brief informal conversation with Mr. Francis of 7355 Berry Hill Drive & Nancy Parsons of 7361 Berry Hill Drive on August 9 and after attending the pre-application meeting on August 17 at 7355 Berry Hill Drive with the owners of the subject property and their architect, we offer this letter to serve as a preliminary notice of our objections to this project as follows:
1. The project description states, "A second floor addition over the garage area". This description is a significant understatement. According to the blueprints, this project involves adding a second story to approximately 70~80% of the west side, not to mention a front/side wrap-around deck over the forward section of the existing garage. This description misrepresents the project's scope.
2. In the brief August 9 talk, Nancy was informed that this project was to add living quarters for Mr. Francis's mother. According to the architect's drawings, the front proposed area is a living room/entertainment area/gathering place deck. There is a powder room with no shower or bath and one bedroom. On the other hand, the architect clearly stated the project was designed to provide an ocean view. An ocean view is not an entitlement permitted at the expense of their neighbors. This information from Mr. Francis should have been more open about the scope and purpose of this project.
3. The project design significantly invades our privacy by incorporating west-facing windows, affording clear, unobstructed views into two front bedrooms and the living room of our home. This invasion of our personal space is a serious breach of our privacy. This is not acceptable.
Continued ... RECEIVED
MAY O 7 2025
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department
E-33
Neighborhood Compatibf/lty Pre-Application MeecfTlfJ Notfteju/y 15, 2024 Piccfrllio-Francis, 7355 Berry Hill Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, DI 9027S ... conctnued Page 2
4. The project design significantly invades our privacy by incorporating a wrap-around deck (RPVMC 17.02.030 Sec D.4.b) that provides clear, unobstructed views into the two front bedrooms of our home. This invasion of our privacy is not acceptable.
5. The project design invades our privacy by allowing a direct view from the elevated second floor into our courtyard between our garage and the main home. This courtyard is a private sitting garden with a fountain and a memorial tree for my wife's father: This invasion of our personal space is not acceptable.
6. A sign-in sheet was provided at the August 17th meeting. Our objections were noted in the minimal space provided on the form.
The project is not neighborhood-compatible for the following reasons:
A. Of the homes we considered for neighborhood compatibility, over 70% are original onestory homes. No single-story homes are boxed between two-story dwellings on both sides, as this proposed project would render our property. This project would sandwich our home between 7369 Berry Hill Drive & the proposed designed 7355 Berry Hill Drive. Please refer to the attached PDF file, "Berry Hi1l Home Heights.PDF," with reference photos. B. Our property value would likely be impacted. Our home, wedged between two multi-story properties with privacy and non-neighbor compatibility issues, would be less desirable to prospective home buyers.
We challenge this project because it fails to meet neighborhood compatibility standards provided in the RPV municipal codes and personal privacy issues.
Nancy Parsons
Enclosures (8)
E-34
/
/
AUGUSJ2024
✓ / .,
,I
~ SPLl1'LEVEL
@!) SINGLE STORY
~ lWOSTORY
"
E-35
E-36
E-37
E-38
E-39
E-40
E-41
R
:D c., "O (."') ►05:-co z'.€z~ .I:>, (."')ozo 0
UI I I--,, UI c:: 0)>Z w en "O~G):D 0 ,, )> (."'))> .... en r:1:oZ 0 -I Oas:~ co
JJ (/)::os:o w
UI > <Z-UI (') mmU>-u 0 " :D OJ(/))> w z OrQ ' 0
m<zO C) .I:>, (/)Q (/) .... ..., ._, (."') < 0) ► m CD co :D N 0 0
I\) m ...... (/)
01
I R 01 c., co
~
Cut on dotted line.
Instructions
1. Please use a laaer or laaer-i!uality printer.
2. Adhere shipping label lo package with tape or glue -DO
NOT TAPE OVER BARCODE. Be sure all edgea are secure.
Self-adhesive label is recommended.
3. Place label ao that It does not wrap around the edge of
the package.
4. Each shipping label number la unique and can be used
only once -DO NOT PHOTOCOPY.
5. Please use this shipping label on the "ship date"
selected when you requeated the label.
6. If a malling receipt is required, present the article and
Onllne e-Label Record at a Poat Office for postmark.
:D-.JID I ► f;l :D "ti z ... m
~ID~
o ~;:
i:; -.:,:i,m ::r>-<-<
ij r;cm
0 -:D
(l)F
0 5; ~~ <o .,, I gj:D ~ ~~ 0 lJ ~ "' 8 m ~ :3 (I) -N
0 ,. " (") "' )> lJ ~ -1 .•. 1 ,rtr11 NI -I 21 .... "f~ i 0 -< u,
*Sh !!l s:: i ,.f -o ~
l1q.·~ ~ 0 )> "' 0. ...... '" a u, --,J> ~ -· r-3 I C) n ® "' ffl l ,.
t§ ::;j ~ '"0 I I O>
0,
~!:
O> I "' 0 IC ~ z :!! ~ '" I
00
:IJ ~
0, u 11' 0 i ~ en • o ~§ 0,
8 :,■ 0 "' !il ("):,~ ~ -· o i~ ~ 1§ ,, c,.,·L. '" @)
9405 5301 0935 5030 4178 82
Print Date: 2024-08-30
Ship Date: 2024-08-30
PRIORITY MAIL®
Extra Services:
Fees :
Total :
From: BRENT MEYER
To:
7361 BERRY HILL DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275-4403
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275-5391
•c onun•n:..,.Pddnt PRiOAl'T'f lWU'..,..."Pf1IY,tta.r.lllnoS..fOt'"USPST~ ~on PRJORm M.AJI.S N"l'\lb with u .. ~ nil• •hdnJ,,,lc tat. d1Jpptn, tabll. RatlMIIM ICM' um,Md po11'-Pp-,c, l&brt:1• can bl Niq\Hl•tM M'lan,. Ud.ilrt lrom t1W11 ..........
$8.50
$0.00
$0.00
$8.50
iif!I JINJfF~. Thank you for shipping with the United States Postal Service! Check the status of your shipment on the USPS Tracking® page at usps.com
E-42
' .
USPS Trackingrt!)
FAQs)
Get the free Informed Delive yrt!) feature to receive automated notifications on ·,our packages Learn Mon, (httpa://reg,1111pa.com/xeell?
111pp=Uapa Toolll&ref=homepe J9811nner&l!lppURL=httpa%3A%2f%2Finformeddelivery.usps.,u;,rn/
b
o
x
/
p
1
1
1
g
e
:
Your item wes delivered to lhe Iron! desk, reception IIRl4, or mell room at 1 :01 pm on September 3, 2024 in RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
September 3, 2024, 1 :01 pm
See Al Tracking Hiatory
Get More Out of USPS Tracking:
USPS Thlcklng Plue®
Text & Email Updates
USPS Tracking Plus®
Product Information
Track Another Package
What Do USPS Tracking statuses Mean?
(httpe://feq.uapa.com/a/erticle/Where-ia-my-pecklllge)
See Leu A
Need More Help?
Contact USPS Tracking support for further assistance.
FAQs
V
V
V
X
i
<T a,
0
E-43
Brent Meyer & Nancy Parsons
7361 Berry Hill Drive RECEIVED Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-4403 USA
+1-310.630.9265 [Brent)
+1-310.303.9600 (Nancy)
E-Mail: nep3@me.com
brentmeverl@me.com
MAY 2, 1 2025
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes May 20, 2025
Attn: Jeffrey Kim -Associate Planner
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
SUBJECT: 7355 Berry Hill Drive -Neighborhood Compatibility Pre-Application Meeting Notice
July 15, 2024
Piccirillo-Francis, two meeting discussions the week of May OS, 2025
Addendum Response 05-20-2025
Visit May 19, 2024
We offer the following as an Addendum Response to our August 30, 2024 document which was
sent Priority Mail USPS ref# 9405 5301 0935 5030 4178 82 and delivered & signed for by your
front desk, reception area, or mail room at 1:01 pm PDT on September 3, 2024 in RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CA 90275. Our document was subsequently lost, misfiled, or wrongly discarded, and not
placed in the 7355 Berry Hill Drive Neighborhood Compatibility file. Following the unexpected
post & flagging of 7355 Berry Hill Drive without any notice, Nancy Parsons and you had two
discussions the week of May 05, 2025 revealing our document was not in your files. This full
document was hand-delivered by Nancy Parsons to Jeffery Kim the week of May 05, 2025, after
your discussions at the planning desk. You confirmed on May 19th, the 8/30/24 document is now
"on-file" with the application record and is being considered in retrospect If there is now an
application number, please provide it so there are no future errors.
We offer the following facts by this addendum:
1. The improper handling of the August 30th document by the city has provided the
applicants and the planning commission with the "idea" that there were no compliance
complaints. This is untrue, and the city should, in retrospect, offer proper updated
guidance previously given to the applicants or their architect. During the intervening
nine months since you received our documents, having heard nothing from RPV
Planning, we thought the project was either dead or in redesign. We hope the City,
having allowed the applicants to move forward on this project without our comments,
will not prejudice the City in seeing the project to completion.
2. As documented in our August 30, 2024, the project design significantly invades our
privacy by incorporating west-facing windows, affording clear, unobstructed views into
two front bedrooms, two baths, the living room, private courtyard, and backyard of our
home. This acceptable invasion of our personal space is a serious breach of our privacy.
Continued ...
E-44
Neighborhood Compatibilit;y Pre-Application Meeting Notice July 15, 2024
Piccirillo-Francis, 7355 Berry Hill Dn·ve, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Addendum Response 05-20-2025 ... continued Page 2
We previously suggested at the applicant's pre-application meeting on August 17, 2024 at 7355
Berry Hill Drive, a redesign to the east side of the property, which borders a driveway only. This
change could possibly comply with the City codes and compatibility regulations.
We again challenge this project because it fails to meet neighborhood compatibility standards
provided in the RPV municipal codes and personal privacy issues. A project such as this is exactly
what the neighborhood compatibility guidelines were designed to prevent.
The original wrap-around deck in the plans we saw at the applicant's pre-application meeting on
August 17 at 7355 Berry Hill Drive, has been modified; however, the entire side of the proposed
addition has now been moved closer to our home, further encroaching on our privacy.
To summarize, the facts stated in our August 30th document states:
1. This proposed project is an invasion of our privacy in multiple areas of the inside &
outside of our home.
2. This proposed project does not meet neighborhood compatibility standards.
3. This proposed project would negatively impact our property value by its imposition
on privacy, encroachment closer to our home, and the vast height difference with
views of their walls/windows only to the east. This proposed project creates an
undesirable "sandwiching" of a typical single-story home between two two-story
buildings. This situation is unprecedented in our neighborhood.
4. It is the responsibility of the City to protect the property of .all residents. We
purchase our homes based on the style, attributes, and views that are afforded by
that specific property. To permit any resident to build a second-story addition to
obtain an ocean view at the expense of and with substantial negative impacts on an
adjacent neighbor would be a great disservice to us and the neighborhood.
5. The second-story addition at 7369 Berry Hill demonstrates a previous failure to
protect privacy and neighborhood compatibility. While 1990 standards may have
differed, this is still an excellent example of what not to do. We hope this mistake will
not be repeated at 7355 Berry Hill Drive; thus compounding the impacts to our
privacy.
Nancy Parsons
Cc: Brandy Forbes -City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent: Email to Jeffery Kim Okim@rpvca.gov), Brandy Forbes (bforbes@rpvca.gov), and planning@rpvca.gov, and a copy hand
delivered.
E-
4
5
USPS Tracking® FAQs)
Get the free Informed Delive y® feature to receive
automated notifications on • 1our packages Learn More (https://reg.usps.com/xsell?
app=UspsTools&ref=homepa3eBanner&appURL=https%3A%2F%2Flnformeddelivery.usps.com/box/page:
Your item was delivered to the front desk, reception area, or
mail room at 1 :01 pm on September 3, 2024 in RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, CA 90275.
.~~Out of USPS Tracking:
USPS Tracking Plus
Text & Email Updates
USPS Tracking Plus®
Product Information
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
September 3, 2024, 1 :01 pm
See All Tracking History
What Do USPS Tracking Statuses Mean?
(https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Where-is-my-package)
X
V
V
V
Brent Meyer & Nancy Parsons
7361 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-4403 USA
+1-310.630.9265 (Brent)
+1-310.303.9600 (Nancy)
E-Mail: nep3@me.com
brentmeyer1@me.com
RE: Height Variation Permit Case No. PLHV2024-0007 - 7355 Berry Hill Drive
Dear Mr. Kim: September 3, 2025
In our last communication subsequent to your site visit to our property, you stated that planning
“Staff is currently working with the applicants regarding our concerns for the project and potential
remedies” as it pertains to our privacy concerns and imposition of excessive mass in close
proximity to our property. We cannot imagine that any acceptable remedies have been achieved
with minor redesigns, and we must now reiterate our strong opposition to this application due to
the permanent negative impacts it will have on our home and property.
As stated in our previous communications we do not consider this second story addition at 7355
Berry Hill Drive to be compatible with our house, property, and neighborhood for the following
reasons.
1. Scale of surrounding residences.
We are a primarily one-story neighborhood, which was a criterion we chose deliberately
when purchasing our home in this neighborhood in order to experience the more open-sky
quality of our indoor and exterior spaces. Our property has an existing 2-story house on the
other side of our property at 7369 Berry Hill which has already imposed walls, balconies,
and windows on our property from that side. The second-story addition to this house was
completed in the 1990s, we believe before the current compatibility guidelines were
established.
Our house is approximately 2100 square feet. The proposed addition at 7355 would
surround our house with two houses of 3100+ square feet. We would be entombed by high
structures on both sides, especially since the applicant’s pad sits several feet higher than
ours. The additional height will actually be much higher from our perspective than is stated
in the variance.
Additionally, since the original plan reviewed by us in August of 2024, the applicants have
altered the plans to shift the bulk of the proposed second floor even closer to our property
so that the second story is larger than the first-floor footprint beneath and imposes on our
bedrooms and bathrooms.
2. Views.
We enjoy ridgeline and sky views from the living room, bedrooms, and backyard which will
be significantly blocked by the second story addition. (See attached photos - Backyard View
Looking East #1 & #2 on Page 5)
Continued…
E-46
Brent eyer anc Par on
Height Variation Permit Case No. PLHV2024-0007 - 7355 Berry Hill Drive – 09-03-2025
Page 2
3. Architectural style.
The addition runs lengthwise from the front to the back of the property creating a long
forward extension of the structure not seen in our neighborhood. It is more compatible
with “Redondo Condo” R2 beach city style homes that sit stacked close together, not RPV
suburban style.
4. Setbacks.
Our property has a fully detached garage that sits as a separate structure in front of our
house. Therefore, the setback of our house must be considered to be where the house (not
the garage) sits. The applicant’s house has an attached garage and therefore has a setback
far forward of ours. The proposed addition will extend 39 feet forward of our front
bedroom windows.
At 39 ft x 21.75 ft height = 848.25 square feet of wall that would extend forward of our
house blocking out ridgeline, sky, and sun from our front bedrooms and living room.
Additionally, with the difference in our pad elevations the structure will sit approximately
25.75 ft above us, and the “cupola” will add another 4 feet to 29.75 feet above us.
All other 2 story residences higher up the street have approximately the same setbacks
relative to each other. Not one faces our situation where the difference in setback and pad
height will create a massive wall with a tunnel-like effect extending far in front of the house.
5. Privacy.
As stated in our August 2024 letter and subsequent communications, this proposed project
imposes on our privacy in many aspects – our bedrooms, bathrooms, living room, and
backyard are all impacted. In a 2000 sq. ft. home with a 2-story already one on side, where
will we be safe from visual intrusion in our own home? The applicant’s side of our home is
where our bedrooms and bathrooms are located and should be especially protected. This
proposed addition would place a severe burden on how we must live, move, and exist in
our own home.
Of grave concern is the proposed deck which will sit close to and above what are children’s
bedrooms. The architect expressed that the applicants are trying to gain an ocean view
(which is not the property designation that the applicants purchased). Any deck which
provides this view will necessarily provide views into our front (children’s) bedrooms by
anyone standing at the edge of the deck looking toward the ocean. The deck is also designed
as a gathering place where many guests of the house would likely be standing and able to
look directly into our bedrooms. It could also potentially cause a noise nuisance so close to
our bedrooms as well as the privacy intrusion.
Continued…
E-47
Height Variation Permit Case No. PLHV2024-0007 - 7355 Berry Hill Drive – 09-03-2025
Page 3
6. Potential negative impacts on our property value
When we purchased our property in 1995 we can state categorically that we would not
have purchased the house if the applicant’s project had been completed as proposed. Our
son occupied one of the front bedrooms which would be impacted by the addition, and the
idea of a neighbor’s house being able to look into a child’s bedroom is, frankly, creepy. We
imagine future buyers with young children would feel the same. We therefore believe that
this proposed project will make our property less desirable on the market in the future.
We have already over the years made many improvements and invested a substantial
amount of money on our own home and property. But we have had to put off future
improvements due to concerns over the potential detrimental effects of the applicant’s
proposed project, which will not yield a return on investment if our property is forced into
an undesirable situation.
7. Additional Negative Impacts
It is not acceptable to us to expect us to mitigate privacy intrusions (which did not exist
when we bought the property) by covering the windows. Our house is not equipped with
A/C. The nearest child bedroom window and the bathroom window must be opened to
provide cross-ventilation throughout the house. The availability of natural light is crucial
to our working and artistic endeavors in the forward bedrooms, which would be negatively
impacted. The availability of natural light in our courtyard memorial garden (that we
created with our own hands from overgrown weeds and bushes when we purchased the
property) would be negatively impacted.
In summary, it is our position that the approval of this application would constitute an injustice to
us and violate the letter and spirit of the City’s compatibility guidelines. We are 30-year residents
and have invested not just money, but our own time and back-breaking labor to create a beautiful,
serene, and private environment that we wish to be able to enjoy and continue to improve upon.
The advantages that the applicants are attempting to gain would be at our expense, to our
detriment, and therefore unfair to us. The attributes for which we chose our property such as
open-sky and natural light will be gone for us forever, and we believe violates our rights to
enjoyment of our property. It also goes against the Rancho Palos Verdes mission statement to
preserve its semi-rural character.
Continued…
E-48
E-49
Height Variation Permit Case No. PLHV2024-0007 -7355 Berry Hill Drive -09-03-2025
Page4
All other previous communications starting in August 2024 from us to the RPV planning desk
regarding this application will be legally part of this letter. This includes our concerns over the
mishandling by the City of our original communication and how it could sway the outcome of the
application due to the misconception over 9 months that there had been no objections to the
application. Due to file size, physical copies of this letter and previous communications will be
hand-delivered, with a signature receipt requirement, to the planning desk.
Thank you!
Nancy Parsons
I
Height Variation Permit Case No. PLHV2024-0007 - 7355 Berry Hill Drive – 09-03-2025
Page 5
E-50
From:Gina Whittlesey
To:Jeffrey Kim
Subject:Case No. PLHV2024-0007
Date:Friday, September 12, 2025 11:42:02 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe!!!.
To: Jeffrey Kim
Re: Site Plan Review - Case PLHV2024-0007
Location: 7355 Berry Hill Dr.
I am writing with the concerns over the proposed construction located at 7355 Berry Hill
Dr. I am concerned that the construction includes a "roof deck". I do not live within the
500 feet of the proposed property, but we have had similar interaction with a property
located on our street that was proposing and still pursuing to add a "roof top deck".
There aren't any roof top decks located within the neighborhoods of Rancho Palos
Verdes. We have quiet residential neighborhoods and are not compatible for "roof
decks" similar to the beach cities (Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, etc.).
Please consider some of the following:
1. Noise and Privacy - The noise cannot be contained on a roof top and it will be
heard from all the surrounding homes. The homes beside it and the homes across
the street from it. The privacy of the immediate neighbors would be decreased.
This will affect the quality of life to the adjacent residents.
2. Infringement of Views and Visual Clutter - Patio umbrellas, furniture, plants, etc.
that will be placed on top of the roof deck will all add to the visual clutter that is
within the neighbor's sightline and street views.
3. Light Pollution - The lights used on the exterior for night use of the roof deck will
create light pollution for the neighboring homes.
My concern is that this would be setting the precedent of permitting roof decks within
the city neighborhoods.
Thank You,
Gina Whittlesey
Rancho Palos Verdes
E-51
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
October 16, 2025
NOTICE OF DECISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Director of Community Development of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes has approved a Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review to
construct a new 720 ft2 second-story addition and 263 ft2 roof deck to an existing 2,467
ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included), along
with ancillary site improvements subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the
attached Exhibit “A”.
LOCATION: 7355 BERRY HILL DRIVE
APPLICANT: NEVERT GUIRGIS
LANDOWNER: HANY & CAROL FRANCIS
This decision may be appealed, in writing, to the Planning Commission. The appeal shall
set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant.
Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this notice,
or by 4:30 PM on Friday, October 31, 2025. A $3,193.00 appeal fee must accompany any
appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Director’s decision will be final at 4:30PM on
Friday, October 31, 2025.
If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Associate Planner,
Jeffrey Kim at (310) 544-5390 or via email at jkim@rpvca.gov for further information.
_____________________________
Brandy Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Cc: Applicant
Property Owner
Interested Parties
Encl: Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval
F-1
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 17
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PLHV2024-0007
7355 BERRY HILL DRIVE
(HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW)
General Conditions:
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant
and/or the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they
have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Exhibit “A”. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days
following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void,
or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. Pursuant to RPVMC §17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is
authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the
conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same
results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions.
Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require
approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require
new and separate environmental review and public notification.
F-2
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 18
6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform
to the residential development standards of the RPVMC, including but not limited
to height, setback and lot coverage standards.
7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures
contained in RPVMC §17.86.060 or administrative citations as described in
RPVMC §1.16.
8. If the Applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the
approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in
RPVMC §17.86.070 within 180 days of the final effective date of this Notice of
Decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless,
prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community
Development Department and approved by the Director.
9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the
City with the effective date of this approval.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified
on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or
legal non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal
or legal non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions
or on the stamped APPROVED plans.
12. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed
on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary
portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms
shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding
property owners, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official.
F-3
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 19
14. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting
property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over
30 calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in
RPVMC §17.56.050(C). Unless required to protect against a safety hazard,
temporary construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days prior to
commencement of construction.
15. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity
permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in RPVMC §17.96.920.
During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park,
queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before
7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to
do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize
off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be
located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring
properties, subject to approval by the Building Official.
16. Exterior residential lighting shall comply with the standards of RPVMC §17.56.030.
All exterior lighting shall be so arranged and shielded as to prevent direct
illumination of abutting properties and of vehicles passing on the public right-of-
way. Luminaries shall be of a low-level indirect and diffused type. All fluorescent
bulbs or other lighting under canopies or on the building shall be covered with
diffusing lenses and shielded.
17. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall employ
effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
18. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT,
whichever occurs first, an earth hauling permit shall be approved by the Public
Works Department.
19. The Applicant shall remove the project silhouette within seven (7) days after a final
decision has been rendered and the City’s appeal process has been exhausted.
Project Specific Conditions:
20. The proposed project consists of the following improvements:
• Construct a 720 ft2 second-story addition to an existing 2,467 ft2 single-story
residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included).
• Construct ancillary site improvements including a new 263 ft2 roof deck, new
skylights on the first floor, and a new cupola on the roof.
F-4
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 20
BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection.
21. The proposed addition will measure 21.75 feet, as measured from the lowest
finished grade covered by structure (elev. 278.51 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline
(elev. 300.26 feet); and a height of 21.00 feet as measured from the highest
elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 279.26) to the
highest roof ridgeline (elev. 300.26 feet).
BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed
land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection, based on the
above-mentioned instructions.
22. The proposed residence shall maintain setbacks as follows:
BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed
land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
23. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a maximum of 33% lot coverage.
24. The project site shall maintain a minimum of two enclosed parking spaces at all
times. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no
less than 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, with a minimum 7 feet vertical
clearance. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space
of no less than 9 feet in width by 20 feet in depth.
25. Roof eaves shall not project into the required setback more than 6 inches for
each foot of the required setback, provided that there are no vertical supports
within the required setback areas.
26. All colors and materials for the structure and roof shall be as shown in the stamped
APPROVED plans.
27. No more than 50% of any existing interior and exterior walls or existing square
footage may be removed or demolished. Residential buildings that are remodeled
or renovated such that 50% or greater of any existing interior or exterior walls or
existing square footage is demolished or removed within a two-year period shall
F-5
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 21
be considered a new residence and shall then conform to all current development
standards for that zoning district and the most recently adopted version of the
California Building Code.
28. The height of the proposed skylights shall not exceed the highest ridgeline of the
house.
29. All second-floor windows shall be maintained at the exact height specifications
listed in the approved plan set date stamped October 16, 2025.
30. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on a roof deck shall not
exceed a height of eight feet or the bottom of the roof eave, whichever is lower, as
measured from the finished floor of the deck
31. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on a roof deck which
exceed the height limits established in section 17.02.040 (View preservation and
restoration), shall not significantly impair a view from surrounding properties.
32. The approved mechanical equipment unit shall be screened from view from
adjacent public right-of-way with foliage or other appropriate screening.
33. The maintenance or operation of mechanical equipment, including but not limited
to AC units or pool filters, generating noise levels in excess of 65dBA as measured
from the closest property line shall constitute a public nuisance in accordance to
Chapter 8.24 of the RPVMC.
34. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.02.040(B)(4), the following foliage, which has
been determined to significantly impair the ocean view from the viewing areas at
7315 and 7303 Berry Hill Drive shall be removed PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT
ISSUANCE in order to eliminate the significant impairment:
The two Queen Palm Trees located in the south corner of the front yard labeled 24
inches and 16 inches and the two Queen Palm Trees located in the front yard
labeled 14 inches on the survey from GDS Land Surveying dated April 8, 2024.
The owner of the property is responsible for maintaining, in perpetuity, all foliage
on the property, which exceeds 16 feet in height, as measured from the base of
the tree or which exceeds the lowest adjacent ridgeline of the primary structure,
whichever is lower, so as not to significantly impair the view from surrounding
viewing areas.
PRIOR TO BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE:
35. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, all
applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety
F-6
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2024-0007
October 16, 2025
Page 22
Division, shall be approved by the City’s Geologist.
36. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, a drainage
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
F-7
A-0.0 COVER SHEET
AB-1.0 AS BUILT- DEMO FLOOR PLAN
AB-2.2 EXISTING ELEVATIONS
A-0.5 SITE PLAN/ EXISTING & PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
A-1.0 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A-1.1 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A-2.0 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
A-2.1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
JOB ADDRESS
APN:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OCCUPANCY GROUP
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
NUMBER OF STORIES
JOB DESCRIPTION
APPLICABLE CODES
ARCHITECTURAL
Contents
2022 CBC, CMC, CPC, CEC,
2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC),
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE,
AND ALL CURRENT ZONING CODES, AND CITY ORDINANCES
REMODEL AND ADDITION TO EXISTING 2,019 SQ.FT.
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING W/ ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE.
EXISTING ONE STORY
TRACT NO 26908 LOT 3
R-1 SINGLE FAMILY
TYPE V-B
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-4403
7582-014-003
Sequence of InspectionVicinity Map Site Data Abbreviations
Project Contacts
NEVERT R. GUIRGIS
6034 Mossbank Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 951-1834
STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER:
MR. HANY FRANCIS & DR. CAROL PICCIRILLO
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-4403
ARCHITECT:
CLIENT:
Legend
PLOT PLAN
Scope of Work
GENERAL CITY NOTES
1. ALL CONTRACTORS, ARCHITECTS, DESIGNERS, & ENGINEERS SHALL MAINTAIN A
CURRENT CITY BUSINESS LICENSE.
2. DUST CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE
PROJECT.
3. ALL CONSTRUCTION WASTE AND DEBRIS MUST BE CONTAINERIZED AT ALL TIMES.
PROJECT INFORMATION
-INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REMODEL.
-ADDING A NEW SECOND STORY BEDROOM, BATH, CLOSET AND
SITTING ROOM, AND INTERIOR STAIRS.
-ROOF REMODEL and NEW TRELLIS AT THE UPPER DECK.
-KITCHEN REMODEL AND ADDING PANTRY.
-ADD THREE SKYLIGHTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OVER THE EXISTING
LIVING ROOM.
4.504.2.1 Adhesives, sealants and caulks
Adhesives, sealants and caulks used on the project shall meet the requirements of the following
standards unless more stringent local or regional air pollution or air quality management district rules
apply:
1. Adhesives, adhesive bonding primers, adhesive primers, sealants, sealant primers,
and caulks shall comply with local or regional air pollution control or air quality
management district rules where applicable, or SCAQMD Rule 1168 VOC limits, as
shown in Tables 4.504.1 or 4.504.2, as applicable. Such products shall also
comply with Rule 1168 prohibition on the use of certain toxic compounds
(chloroform, ethylene dichloride, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene and
trichloroentylene), except for aerosol products as specified in Subsection 2 below.
2. Aerosol adhesives, and smaller unit sizes of adhesives, and sealant or caulking compounds
(in units of product, less packaging, which do not weigh more than 1 pound and do not consist
of more than 16 fluid ounces) shall comply with statewide VOC standards and other requirements,
including prohibitions on use of certain toxic compounds, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR),
Title 17, commencing with Section 94507.
4.504.2.2 Paints and coatings
Architectural paints and coatings shall comply with VOC limits in Table 1 of the Air Resources Board
Architectural Suggested Control Measure, as shown in Table 4.504.3, unless more stringent local limits
apply. The VOC content limit for coatings that do not meet the definitions for the specialty
coatings categories listed in Table 4.504.3 shall be determined by classifying the coating as Flat, Nonflat,
or Nonflat-High Gloss coating, based on its gloss, as defined in subsections 4.21, 4.36, and 4.37, of the
2007 California Air Resources Board, Suggested Control Measure, and the corresponding Flat, Nonflat,
or Nonflat-High Gloss VOC limit in Table 4.504.3 shall apply.
4.504.5 Composite wood products
• Hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium density fiberboard composite wood products used on the
interior or exterior of the building shall meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in the Air
Resources Board’s Air Toxics Control Measure for Composite Wood (17 CCR 93120 et. seq.),
as shown in Table 4.504.5. Documentation is required per Section 4.504.5.1.
• Definition of Composite Wood Products: Composite wood products include hardwood plywood,
particleboard, and medium density fiberboard. “Composite wood products” do not include hardboard,
structural plywood, structural panels, structural composite lumber, oriented strand board, glued laminated
timber, prefabricated wood I-joists, or finger-joined lumber, all as specified in CCR, Title 17, Section
93120.1(a). 4.504.5.1
4.506.1 Bathroom exhaust fans
Each bathroom shall be mechanically ventilated and shall comply with the following:
1. Fans shall be ENERGY STAR compliant and be ducted to terminate outside the building.
2. Unless functioning as a component of a whole house ventilation system, fans must be controlled by a
humidity control.
a) Humidity controls shall be capable of manual or automatic adjustment between a relative
humidity range of less than 50% to a maximum of 80%.
b) A humidity control may be a separate component to the exhaust fan and is not required to
be integral or built-in.
Note: For CALGreen a “bathroom” is a room which contains a bathtub, shower, or
tub/shower combination. Fans or mechanical ventilation is required in each bathroom.
PROVIDE VERIFICATION CERTIFICATION THAT LOW VOC EMITTING MATERIALS WERE
INSTALLED WITHIN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION
GREEN BUILDING CODE
ARCH. Architectural
BLDG. Building
BLK. Block
BM. Beam
CLR. Clear
CL'G. Ceiling
C.J. Ceiling Joist
COL. Column
CONC. Concrete
CONT. Continuous
DIA. Diameter
DIM. Dimension(s)
D.W. Dishwasher
DWGS. Drawings
ELEV. Elevation
EQ. Equal
(E) Existing
F.A.U. Forced Air Unit
FIN. Finish, Finished
FLR. Floor
F.J. Floor Joist
FTG. Footing
FRZ. Freezer
GA. Gauge
GALV. Galvanized
G.D. Garbage Disposal
GRD. Grade
GYP. BD. Gypsum Board
HDR. Header
HGT. Height
INT. Interior
MAX. Maximum
RIS. Risers
R.O. Rough Opening
R.R. Roof Rafters
REV. Revision
REFR. Refrigerator
REQD. Required
SHT. Sheet
SL. Slider
SIM. Similar
STL. Steel
STRUCT. Structural
TEMP. Tempered
TR. Treads
T.&G. Tongue&Groove
T.O. Top of
TYP. Typical
U.N.O. Unless Noted Otherwise
V.I.F. Verify In Field
WASH. Washer
W.H. Water Heater
WD. Wood
MIN. Minimum
MECH. Mechanical
MFGR. Manufacturer
MICRO. Microwave
MTL. Metal
NAT. Natural
(N) New
NO. Number
O.C. On Center
PLYWD. Plywood
EXISTING ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE
(2,019 SF per COUNTY ASSESSOR)
68.88'
14
2
.
4
3
'
75.95'
14
6
.
3
5
'
All fire hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2", brass or bronze,
conforming to American Water Works Association Standard C503, or
approved equal.
A-0.0
Cover Sheet
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/25
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
LOCATION
3/25/2025 12:25:47 PM G-1
Concrete
Masonry Wall
(j)Door
Detail #
Sheet #
New Wall
(j) Window
Detail
~ Room # Interior Elevations
~Sheet#
~ Sect. # Section
~Sheet#
/
1
1
-LOT SIZE: __ I_C:~.4_1_:.·,_ square feet
-ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA:
equals the smaller of 30% (lot size)+1750 or 50% (lot size)
• A-EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
I ' ; 1. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LOT
2. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR ,AREA:
FIRST STORY __ c.:,.01 'l__ SECOND STORY I ·"'· GARAGE __ 44'.':..._
OTHER I • .L.
3. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT (INCLUDING ANY
ACCESSORY, STRUCTURES, ATTACHED OR DETACHED).
4. Square footage of driveways, parking areas and impervious surfaces
impervious surfaces less than 5 feet in width and/or one patio areas less
than 500 square feet in areas)
5.Square footage of existing lot coverage [line A3 + line A4]
6.Percentage of existing lot coverage [line A5 line A1 x 100]
x'-x"
X
7.Height of existing structure, as measured from highest point of exist. grade
covered by structure to thehighest ridgeline (for structures on sloping lots,
please refer to the Height Variation guidelines handout for height require.)
B-PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
'2C: 1. SQUARE FOOTAGE
FIRST STORY )01 q
OTHER
OF PROPOSED NEW FLOOR AREA:
SECOND STORY '.: GARAGE 441
2. TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF STIRUCTURE FOOTPRINT (EXISTING + NEW)
)1'
3. TOTAL square
(existing + new)
(EXEMPT:
footage of driveways, parking areas and impervious surfaces
less than
4. TOTAL
impervious surfaces less than 5 feet in width and/or one patio areas
500 square feet in areas)
square footage of proposed lot coverage [line 82 + line 83]
5.Percentage of new lot coverage [line 84 line A1 x 100]
6.Height of proposed structure, as measured from highest point af exist. grade
covered by structure to the highest ridge line (for structures on sloping lots,
please refer to the Height Variation guidelines handout for height restrictions)
-TOTAL FLOOR AREA: (sum of existing and
__ :.._: ,_C_l _J_.sq. ft. FIRST FLOOR
proposed)
I H
sq. ft. BASEMENT
sq.ft. SECOND FLOOR __ 4_4_8 __ sq. ft. GARAGE
sq. ft. TOTAL
LIN EAR FEET OF:
EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS: 260.9 L. FT.
EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS: 226.6 L. FT.
TOTAL EXISTING WALLS: 487.5 L. FT.
PROPOSED DEMO. WALLS: 18.3 L. FT.
TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DEMO. WALLS: 3.75 %
Dimension to
center line
Dimension to face
of framing/masonry
(unless notea otherwise)
Slope
Elevation Heights
C ity of Ran cho Pa los V erdes Communit y De ve l opm ent
Bu ilding and Safe ty Depait ment
High Fire Hazard/ Fir e Hazard S ev e rity Zone Requirem e nts
Based o n th e 201 0 Chap ter 7 A and the 2010 Cal iforn ia Bu ild i ng Code
.'\;:";, ... =--r=., (ij
(!) _., _::;;:;'. (,~-A~ / Cl)
_L _ ~:_;::>--;>·--' ~ "/::.:.,'. -./-~-
c"l,) t /b .'';,.~-<~~~~,(~Xi )
'').., f '!I
= / ir~,111F~~-•"'""' ml'~c'f~~-=,,-,
§rr/JH"~ -_, •-_jil]~!\\,.;'e) , ~lu
1. R oof"Co l·e ri n a, VC BC 705A .l ,2 and R 9{)2 . Apl)rove d 1 1;:;::;LJ~-..,_ ~
ma t erial s: II 11---fn
a, Fire retunfo nt Cbss ··A", mofing i~ requirs:d . --, 1 =I.[~-, -=-=_7_=
Ve nt il at io n Onc nin gs VC HC 706 A
ri. Vents shall not be install ed on tl1e unders ide ot'eave~ or
cornices , un le ss special eave vents that re~ist the intruskm
uJ fl ame~ ilnd burning embers are a~cep ted by Lh<'
H,1i lding Offi ci al.
b. Attic or foundation ventilation openings or louvers sl wll
not be located at or within 18 inches , measured vertica ll y,
ofrakes, soffits, balconies , decks, or sim ilar exterior
uvcrhang:; whido may b,.; dir.;;d l_y ~~po ~c<l lu lir.;;.
3. Ex ter ior W all Cove rin g C BC 70 7A.3 :
a. -"Juncombus Li blc material
b. Ignition-rcsistam material
<:. H.:;,vy tirnb.:r cxkriur wa ll a,;~rnb ly
d. Log wall assembly
c. Wall assemblies th at nwct SFM Std . 12 -7A -l.
f. One luyo..'T 5/8" Type X gypsum sbealhing: app lied bchimJ
the exterior covering or cladding on the exterior side of
the Imm ing
g. The exterior portion of ,1 1-hour fir<:l resistive exterior wall
assembly dcsi1,,rncd for exterior fire exposu re
4 Op e n Roof J:,a \·e.~ C BC 707 A.4
The c xp{l:.cd roof deck on th e w1dcr~i dc ofunc nclo~c<l mnf
eaves miill C(.m,;ist of one of the followittg·
a. S,T items listed in 11
b. The exterior p url in n nf a !-hour lire re~isti1-e ex.lerinr wall
assemb ly appl itxl Ill lhe und ersi de of the rool dec k
designed fo r exterim fire exposure
c . S,,l id ,n,ud r~ Lle r l~ib on lhe exposed unders id e of up=
roof caves having a minimum nominal dimc11sion of 2"
d. So li d wotid b locking insrn lled between nrfter ta il s on t he
exposed m1d1..T5id" of open roof caves h t1ving a minim um
nominal dimens ion o f2"
c. U;iblc l..'Tld overhan gs and roor ass emb ly projection~
beyond an ~xtcrior v,,all other than at the lower end of the
r,lfte r ui ls
.~. Encl o,ed Ro of F.ne, and Ro of F.ave Srtffit , C BC
707A.5
The enclosed roof eaves that arc either boxed-in ,vith a
sul'li 1 wilh a hmi znnlal unJer side , m sloping r..1 i'l<'r laib
"i lh ;111 exterior i.:overing appli.:11 llJ t b.: under:;id.: llf lhe
rafte r tail,, ,hall he:
a. See itdlls LisleJ in 11
b. rhe exterior portion of a !-hour fire resistive exterior wall
a,sl1 nbly appl ieJ lu the 1m de rsiJ e ol lhs:: rnfln l,1il, or
ou ITiL
c. Boxed -in ro0f eave softit a,;,;embl ies with a h0ri?.<1ntaJ
undehi de tlrnt meet SJ:-,Vl Std. 12-1 A-3
.EXC.El'U01~s : Th e fo ll owing materials do not require
prnlcctior r.
d. Solid woed Il()lllinal 2" rallet' tails an d blod..iug.
e. Fascia and architecmral ll'im.
[. Gable end ove r hangs beyond an exter ior wall olher than
at the lower end of the rafte r tails
6. Exte rior Porch Cc ilin ns/ Fl oo r Projection s/
Und e rsi de o r 1\11nen th1!;'t'S C IW 70 7A .6 7 ll 7A.7
and 707A ,8
The exposed underside of exterior porch ceili ngs'
lloL>r pwieclioo:;/ uml<'f~i J e o[ Appembg;e:; ~b;i ll be
prmecled by one o r tbe follow ing :
a . See items li~ti:d i.t1 11
b. file exterior p011ion ofu I -hour fire resistive exterior
wall assembly appl ied to the underside of 1he ceiling
"~~1.,,nbl_y
c . Assemb li e ~ that meet SFM Std . 12 -7A -3.
, . Exterio r Glue d \\'ind ows and Gla zed Doors
708A.2.1
Comply with one of the following:
a. R.;; nm:;\rnct<:d of" mul1 ipan<; gla~.ing wi l.h a miT1 im11m
of one temper ed pane meeting section 2406
b. Be constructed of glass block units
e. A firc -rcs is lanrc raling tifno l less than 20 ntinu Les
when tes ted according to :-Jf PA 257
d. Meet SF M Sl<i. I '.:'-7A-2.
8. Exterior Doo n C DC 708A.3
E-xtc ri o r door5 shall comp ly with one ohhc
Colk,wing:
a. The exterior surfoc-e orcl adJ.i ng slwll b e of
noncomhuqihlc or ignilion -rcsi~trn1t material
b. Sol id <.we wood, 1-3/8'' thick
c. A Jlrc-rcsistancc rati ng o r 1101 kss than 20 rnimncs
wht:H lesled acconJ ing Ill '\!F P 252
d. Me d SFM Sid . l 2-7A -l
9. Decking S url't1c es C BC 709:\.3
The wa lki ng ~urface makri al of decks, pon::hes,
ba lconies. and slain,. when any porli,)n of su.ch
surface is with in l O feet of the build ing, the e nt ire
surface shall be constructe d ,1-ith one of the fo llo \\'ing
rnmcrials:
a lgnition -rc~is timt materin l that c.omplics ""ith the
performance re quirements of bot h SFM Standard 12-
7:\-4 amt SR,,.f Std . 12-?i\-5, wu r P mdun~ 6/6/ I I
b. [x L,Tiur Iii"\: rcL.:tr<l,ml lrculcd wood
c . Nonc()mlmsti blc matc r·i:11
d. :\ny ma terial lhal meet, S Fr\:1 S ld. 12-1A -4A when
att ached exterior wall covering is also eit her
mmw mhus Libk m i~'Tlilion -res is~ml mate ri ,11
10. Dc t,.~ll cd l'11ti o Co ~crs , Cu rport s, A rlJ1J rs , O pcD
r .attice ,,iork, and Sun S ha de,. O lC 71 OA.4
Sball be i.:onslruc ted ofnonrnmbus lihle or igoi lion
res istant materials,
11 . Apurn~ed Ma tni a l De ueml an t m r Lo~ali n n a.~
Nut r d A IJ uyc ,
a . No ne0111l1ustib le material
b. lgni lion-resistant mat0c rial
c. One lny er of 5/~" 'l'ype X gypsum shentlting applied
b ehi nd an ~,.\tcrio r corcr iHg on lhc u1rdcrs idc .
d. Archi1eclurnl trim.
12. Exempt Buildin o.~. CBC 701A.3
a. BuiJdings o[ au accessory drnrncler classified as
Group C occup:mc:y located at lens t 50 fee t frmn nn
app lica bl e buildin g.
1 .
1 .
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
FOUNDATION/GROUNDING ELECTRICAL/GROUND PLUMBING
2ND FLOOR DECK (CLEAR)
ROOF SHEATHING/EXTERIOR SHEAR; EXTERIOR HARDWARE
LATH
ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL (ROUGH)
FRAMING/PLUMBING, ROUGH (ALL)
INSULATION, GENERAL
DRYWALL
OTHER
FINAL
*
ARCHITECTURE
&_pESIGN
*
G-
2
10
I
TC
Fl
1W
FF
PA
FS
FG
MIN.
w.v.
8W
LEGEND
X 76.52
TOP OF CURB
FLOWLINE
TOP OF WALL
FINISH FLOOR
PlANTNG AREA
FINISH SURFACE
FINISH GRADE
MINIMUM
WATER VALVE
BACK OF WALK
SPOT ELEVATION
BLOCK OR RETAINING WALL
CENTERLINE
PROPERlY LINE
--------( 130) -------CONTOUR LINE
- s ---s --SEWER LINE
--0 0---WOODEN FENCE
--X X ---CHAIN LINK FENCE
0
c•:::J --I
GRAPHIC SCALE
• 10
I I
( IN FEET )
1 Inch = 10
LOT AREA:
10,415 Sq. Ft.
0.24Ac.
20
I
ft.
.,.
I
r I Trash Enclosure
I
\
I
I
i\
I
X
I
\ 0JI 11 1;
I
I
I\ I I 111 ~
I
I
~
COUNTY
QUAD/YEAR ELEVATION
PALOS VERDES 260.49 FT. (2013)
A.C. Driveway
I
I
OF LOS ANGELES BENCHMARK
DESCRIPTION BM No.
L&BN IN E CB @ SE C.B. 340 FT S/0 C/L BERRY HILL DR & 17 FT E/O C/L GY-11025 PALOS VERDES DR W (E BBL)@ Ml MKR 0.42
.1----
179.84
v~.ll> ~"' "'''
"' ~
-i-----,,
\~ = , .
/
/;'I ~
285.62 I
-'" Iii!
8
l;
1,,:111 I/
,g,
211 ~)\
I X 28J19 \
~ ~
X 28/.78
~ is
im,rt,
IJ
,.,.
iii
I I I II 11
I / II 11
I I II 11
./. ,(l'bs, I " JLJJ78fil_]f I $>-/ II 1177, ~ I -1-;;,
i ! ~di ii ◊~1 -lio
I
tt
-~" ).m "'"-• a ...,;;. -~.,., I II II Approach ~ [ ,., •• -,.( _ _ , y-• l~I 1 U_tility ionhole 11"1 lree ' ' .. +~:. , ... / _,f/ l5"! Tree -f-\Sil' l ~ Tree . (e_) ,0
!.,. -¥\~~''.SD' ~ n_;_ (~
@,I' ~1B2.o3
-.l..:£,\1
I ~ ;,_'I'
= ;Z -------~ · ,> -+~~Jl .f_l\ Ud Elev.c177.38 _..,/ --~ . -----··f -1Y I I "" II I -~-27.':IJ' __ _
11818 = = X 278.26 -f-'[\l~' I I
n
18
----------+-------Ii ¥ II II / OJ '°'?& --Jl;"" I Tl 11
<l) ------------'---_,,/ ~
211s,
/ I I 11 11
-4 l!J I I II [L \ v ""
1
71' 11 I i'°"'· Driveway ~ I Approach
X 279-38 ,-W
0 & ""
ii
I
1---c -
.l-.-..._ ◊
-·~"' ·o/ / <' \ =cf,, --
,?; ( ~---
t'o \ X/8/)Jg I
,~
'l /:r .,,
I cs f; "'~
0""WW "''""'"' \ ""// ~ ~;<:_~~l C
Lnwn ,;ii,11'
1
/ 0 > ., I I I~~; _; / a:; ll'l li I 11 11
7
'
lJJ;, \ // X I I "" 11 11
1
; ;c I I j 11 11
1,i, ';; I I I II
/ )< 278.48 -1.:2'· I 11 11 Sewer ionhole
,' ---> h •' I II II ' "-"""'
s rr ----% I%', , _ I II 11 -0 :C
cc
X ,,-1,,. / / \"!#:__~ / I ~Droin
-::;._/ --~
, /1K ~
I I I 't' f.f. [\e,.0 11I8u
0\-J--uv ,1, \ \ ,(I">°"' ~'0,\1, ,,,,____.,,~ 11'-ll
851 \ 11 =t!,,1, I I \ < ;,, II
,(I"><;,
;;;
ioi1 one story \'louse
Roal 1:.\ll'I, = 299 .16 I ' I " 11 Garnge fL (lev.c118.o\ \ I 24'¢ Palm 1. ,,,,'P"l''f t tl I I 1 \ 141 Tree I I I I
I~ I @
,,,. 1C1 c, I 111
1
•)-,.., ,. ',, .. < I I )LI, .. ,
<p<b \ \1, ( Chimney~
I -l,:, ,c-l--. ./J Co = ~"" I ~11>)i ~ I 219.34 1"" I • -·"'W; I .,../ 11 i /
74
,itFL I ·-•• , ,,;• I
\ -~ I ,\;-
I
I
;,,~
+"' Swimming Pool
"'
-ornif\ r,.ttached Garage
11 7
I I~ !'-Edison Voult
II ,L J
'if 11 11 ~ II II
.,.,. ~ 1 ~tility Box ".?q
II
I • II '¼ I • ,, ' I ,., -
,.,_ r"'---ll1J1 /¢,c • " / • •
,e;\ -.... . ./ I -$ '-4, ~ , ,$' "' "· 1 ~==============::J 't:c:.i,;:c:.i,;:c:.i,;::;.:,:::.:,:c:.i,;::;.:,:c:.i,;:c:.i,;""4"' I •
_,,, j' I > 4 0 0 ' <, ', >·
--,.a\::_~*• ' ffe --" ,S_,., • C' • '""•>Cm ' ,, \ ••
:l: .·-?-M\'~
1
.c-.-·c:',-,-f\l~~.'.' -•.\' _,, ,-Jc.,·,···,:"i-'-,'"'·+· • • ";/i· ••.. • ••• ,11,s. " -t._"'
~;:;)::tt;;~~=-~·t'''--'J ,--"' ,¥~""""' <s".\ -,_, _, i•W'"-F ,'-;h" ,.-,>' •' S'i),-· ;'.,'\534"23'19'[ '"7 ;:-:, , _,.__ ~ , ,:;;;_;'-' _ I _ •• __ ----I-\ms~ Ef\c\osure
, , ,_ ee' , ,,.' ;,_ ''•v'" , ,_,, ,, " ' --,<, > ,,.-1-,,,1"" - -~, - -
, -11,92
, , 1f1ee I I~
177.81
+"'' I r-;:r 11 II
I u t;oler Meles 27.ff}_ _
I ----
,y ffl"[ -7 --r tilily Box
I' ,. • I 73.79 TC
I u '1rll!13.09 fl
v''f) I // I 11
½,--1 II
l;,,& I '& 11
lj
I
,1 (_o,\'11\)1011 ~ \ i, ---------------
<lJ
> ·-
-'-
c::::::::.:.
·-.:::c:
>--
-'-
-'-
<l..J
co
~ % ~ . ' "''~ "..-~ n---------/
11,;I, ii.• .. ·.·,'•· ;1 _,, _ ----\/ ,i---T -
· one S\O!'/ \'louse
0 'iii '()' <'),I&/
I I II 11
I '%,I \1----1--\1_7259 i-11,'l>
One Storv \'louse
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 3 OF TRACT No. 26908, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 684, PAGE(s) 57-59 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
NOTE:
"' /0' "' .\-
\ Cone. Drive,oy \ t~,,, t I I I ~one. Onve,o
I I 7T7l !pprooch 0.
I I 11 11 I
HATCH PATTERNS AND TREE DRIP LINES
ARE NOT TO SCALE
1'l
~I
I
\i ~~
I
I
\~ \.
,._,._ -------_ _')
---------\
a.. '
<(
::ii: I
,n ,-_
N >-0
C)
LU
<l'. > u
a: w •
> [3 l"J => C>: Cl O en Cl 0:: 0
_J ~ I
....J ....
(_) :::r:: V1 a
>-g1 -:::r:: c,: <l'. N
0::: 0.... fg a.. ~ 0 r---<( :r:
a: ,n u :z
(!)
0
a..
0
I-
C,
LC)
(0
C,
a, E
<C 0
(.) c..,
,n :z '
I"") <C D-:
,__ 0:: <l'.
cii r.n w
c,:
Cl
Cl
<l'.
w
f-----
r.n
• a::;; =i a o
<C _J ~ c..:, s: ~ >, Cl) er: C) @) a,
ON aW
z co .!: s:
~LO >-c:.,j
I-lI) Cl) :z
"'u-,C:
UJ r--:::::J en
-' "' Cl <C C\JOO C!)
Cl c.o Cl • ~ !8.-~ §
~ :::! s:
□ ~ ~
(0 '
@
~ w
t---
~
~
@3
~ =
(!!ji)
Cf)
w
0
a:
w
' >
Cf)
0
_J .... <C N
0
N a..
oci'
....J
0:: 0 o__
<l'. :::r::
>-' (_) w > :z: 0:: ::::, r.n <C
L,_ a: 0
w
~
Cl LL
0
-~ I >-
I-
~I (_)
u r.n
8
<"'I
~11.0 £:::'_ 00 =o
N
<')
,.._
Q)
Q)
c::
CJ)
c::
LU
Cl
C: -
~
Q)
Q)
C: -
Cl
C:
LU
> -c..::,
~
Cl
C: -->,
Q)
>
~
:::,
en
-a
C:
ctl
_J
LU
c..,
a:
z
~
LU ::::,
0
<C
a:
LU
I
LU a..
(..)
z
■-
en
LU
(..) -> a:
LU
en
I-
z
LU
~
c...
0
_J
LU
>
LU
Cl
CD
0
_J
NOTES:
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS RELATIVE TO EXISTING
CONDITIONS IS GIVEN AS THE BEST PRESENT KNOWLEDGE, BUT
WITHOUT GUARANTEE OF ACCURACY. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES
BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANS, OR OTHER UNUSUAL
FIELD CONDITIONS.
DEMOLITION NOTES
A. ALL DEMOLITION WORK SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE UNDER THE
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION OF A PERSON WITH THE PROPER
EXPERIENCE, TRAINING AND AUTHORITY.
B. ALL REMOVED BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES MAY BE
SALVAGED AT THE OWNER'S DISCRETION.VERIFY WITH OWNER
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION WHAT IS TO BE REMOVED WITH CARE,
SALVAGED, AND STORED AT A LOCATION DESCRIBED BY OWNER.
C. REMOVE AND HAUL OFF SITE ALL MATERIALS TO BE DISPOSED.
D. DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR TO REDIRECT/ RECONNECT ANY
ACTIVE EXISTING UTILITY, DRAINAGE, AND SPRINKLER LINES
WHICH ARE DISTURBED BY DEMOLITION. CAP ALL ABANDONED
LINES.
E. CONTRACTOR IS TO BE FAMILIAR WITH DEMOLITION AND FIELD
VERIFY ALL DEMOLITION PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. REPORT
ANY DISCREPANCIES TO ARCHITECT.
F. OWNER AND ARCHITECT TO WALK JOB WITH CONTRACTOR
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF DEMOLITION.
G. ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITIONS AND
PLANS, OR OTHER UNUSUAL FIELD CONDITIONS, SHALL BE
REPORTED TO PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY
BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH FURTHER WORK.
H. EXISTING STRUCTURE SHALL NOT BE REMOVED, REPLACED OR
TAMPERED WITH, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON THE PLANS.
I. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SHORING AS REQUIRED BEFORE
REMOVING ANY STRUCTURE AS APPLICABLE.
KITCHEN DINING
LIVING
LAUNDRY/LINEN
POWDER
BEDROOM #2
BEDROOM #3 PRIMARY
BEDROOM
BATH
BATH
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
GARAGE
EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN
EXISTING WALLS TO BE REMOVED
LEGEND
4
2
31
LINEAR FEET OF:
EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS:260.9 L. FT.
EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS:226.6 L. FT.
TOTAL EXISTING WALLS: 487.5 L. FT.
PROPOSED DEMO. WALLS: 18.3 L. FT.
TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DEMO. WALLS: 3.75 %
1
As Built- Demo
Floor Plan
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/25
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
AB-1.0
AS BUILT- DEMO FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3/25/2025 12:21:57 PM G-3
,l
...
~ -
-
fl
'
a ' ~ ~
'
C)
........
- - - -
- - - -I
I
~
-
0
I ~)..
D
,----- -7
I I
I I
I I
\_ - -____ _J -
-
,,---I I '" _____ -
I I I II I I 11
/-1~~==-~~-!
/ II -11 -
:::i
f II I I I
'1 1 I ~ ;:: :::r'.... " I '-I\ /'
'¾s V
\
' I
I
-
I ~
~
L
0
~
-
u
u
-
-
,/ I I
'
( -
'
~ 0 -
*
ARCHITECTURE
&_DESIGN
*
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
20
'
-
6
"
19
'
-
4
"
6'
-
8
"
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"01
8'
-
0
"
287.86'
T.O.P.
3.75
12 3.75
12
286.65'
T.O.P.
3.75
12
278.59'278.51'
LOWEST
POINT
278.45'
278.77'278.75'278.90'
8
12
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
20
'
-
6
"
6'
-
8
"
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"02
287.86'
T.O.P.
286.65'
T.O.P.
20
'
-
6
"
8'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
3.75
12
3.75
12
278.59'278.71'279.17'279.17'278.53'
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"03
3.75
12
3.75
12
279.17'279.26'
HIGHEST POINT
279.23'279.24'279.22'279.17'279.05'
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
8
12
7'
-
0
"
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
20
'
-
6
"
19
'
-
4
"
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"04
8'
-
0
"
287.86'
T.O.P.
3.75
12 3.75
12
286.65'
T.O.P.
20
'
-
6
"
8'
-
0
"
279.17'278.90'
278.51'278.60'
279.36'
Existing Elevations
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/25
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
AB-2.0
3/25/2025 12:23:38 PM G-4
-
I 1'---'1 -----
tjLJ
D -~ -+----------',H -
•
'--
' -----------------------------------------------* * /"-....
~
II Ill II II I _ _JI 1111 11111 I ~Ill ~
--r1f J_ 11 11 11 -1J u J 11 11 I uJiJ L J LJll I 11 11 11 -_lJ C----J--LJ-_J II 1111 ~ l 11 JUU lJ I lJUll_ lJ II J lJ 11 Lil I lJl _lj Ju ~ J Ull_ ~
1 11 11 I I I 7 I I I 7 I 11 I I 717 I I I 7 I I I 71 11 I I I I ",.. 11 I LJ I LJ I I _JLJ-L+l ~I I
u u ,u u u u_..d-' ILJ I LJ II l I IIU LJ II 1111[ ri-:-
~~~-~n-"-~-~;;;;:;.~-""'-~u~-~-~""-~-~-
u u u u u u u u u u u u
'
.
I I
I I
\... '--
---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ___.,..___,,__
-
~ -JULr 11 11 --_
_ III_ IIIU IIIIJ 1111_ IIIU - - --~~~~~~""i'i""'~~"E'~~i'r""""'~
11 11 I l ___ lJ u _ __-_ 11 11 11 J__Jj u _ __-J Ull_ UllJ u_:_~
V i a C a m b r o n
B
e
r
r
y
H
i
l
l
D
r
i
v
e
KITCHEN DINING
LIVING
LAUNDRY/LINEN
POWDER
BEDROOM #2
BEDROOM #3 PRIMARY
BEDROOM
BATH
BATH
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
GARAGE
7'
-
1
"
E
X
.
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
7'
-
0
"
E
X
.
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
LA
N
D
I
N
G
CONCRETE PATIO
736 SQ.FT.
SWIMMING POOL
JACUZZI
ONE STORY HOUSEONE STORY HOUSE
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
986 SQ.FT.
68
.
8
8
'
75
.
9
5
'
142.43'
146.35'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
APN#: 7582-014-003
LOT: 3
LOT AREA: 10,512 SF
TRACT NO: 26908
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
WOOD LANDING
BE
R
R
Y
H
I
L
L
D
R
I
V
E
POOL EQUIPMENT
UTILITY BOX
WATER METERS
UTILITY BOX
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
EDISON VAULT
SEWER MANHOLE
LID ELEV.=275.82
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
CONC. DRIVE
W
A
Y
APPROACH
UTILITY MANHOLE
LID ELEV.=277.38
CONC. DRIVE
W
A
Y
APPROACH
A.C. DRIVEWAY
IR
O
N
G
A
T
E
A.C. DRIVEWAY
14"Ø PALM
LAWN
14"Ø PALM
DRAIN
CHIMNEY
UP
STONE
WALKWAY
111 SQ.FT.
12"Ø PALMS
24"Ø PALM
LAWN
5' H. CHAIN LIN
K
F
E
N
C
E
5' H. CHAIN LIN
K
F
E
N
C
E
16"Ø PALM
12"Ø TREE
8"Ø TREE
8"Ø TREE
8"Ø TREE
8"Ø TREE
14"Ø TREE
14"Ø TREE
14"Ø TREE
10"Ø TREE
18"Ø TREE
18"Ø TREE
TRASH ENCLOSURE
WOOD DECK
UP
UP
UP
PROPERTY LINE
40
'
-
3
"
EXISTING ONE-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
(2,019 SF)
F.F. 279.86
38'-2" VIF
32
'
-
2
"
36'-4"
17
'
-
6
"
49
'
-
2
"
E
X
.
V
I
F
DRAIN
21
'
-
2
"
21'-11" EX. FRO
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
50'-11" E. VIF
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
12
'
-
1
1
"
E
X
.
7'
-
2
"
19
'
-
6
"
E
X
.
15
'
-
4
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
15
'
-
5
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
18'-1"
PROPOSED
UPPER SETBACK
12'-3"
1 19'-10" EX. FRONT S
E
T
B
A
C
K
1
1
1
1
50'-6" EX. REAR SETBACK
1
5'
-
5
"
PR
O
P
.
15
'
-
1
0
"
E
X
.
8'
-
8
"
E
X
.
68'-6" PROPOSED SETBAC
K
67'-5" PROPOSED SETBAC
K
32'-4" PROPOSED
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
34'-5" PROPOSE
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
47'-5" EXISTING REAR SETBACK
21'-3" E. VIF
279.17
279.05
278.59
278.51
LOWEST POINT
279.67
278.90
278.71
GARAGE
F.F. 278.68
1
279.26'
HIGHEST
POINT
299.16'
SLOPE
8:12
SLOPE
8:12
SLOPE
3.75:12
SLOPE
3.75:12
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SLOPE
3.75:12
SLOPE
3.75:12
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
4
2
31
DEMOLISH
EXISTING ROOF
EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
EXISTING WALL
EXISTING ROOF TO DEMOLISH
LEGEND
2'
-
0
"
2'-0"
2'-0"
2'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
2'-0"
2'
-
0
"
BUILDING FOOT PRINT
AND ROOF BELOW
LINE OF ROOF OVERHANG
NEW ROOF AREA
LEGEND
1'-6"
NEW DECK OVER
EXISTING GARAGE
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
4
3
1
SLOPE
8:12
SLOPE
8:12
SLOPE
3.75:12
SLOPE
3.75:12
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3.
7
5
:
1
2
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
I
D
G
E
299.16'
SLOPE
8:12
SL
O
P
E
3:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3:
1
2
NEW RIDGE
SL
O
P
E
3:
1
2
SL
O
P
E
3:
1
2
SLOPE
3:12
NEW
CUPOLA
SITE PLAN NOTES:
1.GENERAL GRADING REQUIREMENTS PER LOCAL
GOVERNING JURISDICTIONS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH
STRICTLY.
2.ALL FOOTINGS TO BE FOUNDED INTO NATURAL
UNDISTURBED SOIL OR FOUNDED INTO CERTIFIED
RECOMPACTED FILL. CITY INSPECTION APPROVALS
AND CITY CERTIFICATION REQUIRED. LICENSED SOILS
ENGINEER TO INSPECT AND CERTIFY RECOMPACTION.
3.ALL REQUIRED APPROVAL PROCEDURES APPLYING
TO GRADING APPROVAL ARE TO BE PART OF THIS
PLAN.
4.ALL CONCENTRATED DRAINAGE INCLUDING ROOF
SHALL BE CONDUCTED TO STREET IN AN APPROVED
MANNER AT 2% MIN. SLOPE.
5.NO TRENCHES OR EXCAVATIONS 5' OR MORE IN
DEPTH INTO WHICH A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO
DESCEND, OTHERWISE, OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMIT
FROM LOCAL OR STATE AUTHORITIES.
6.CONTRACTOR TO INFORM ARCHITECT OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ARCHITECTURAL AND ANY
RELATED DRAWINGS.
7.ALL GRADES SHALL SLOPE 2% MINIMUM AWAY FROM
BUILDING AND BE A MINIMUM OF 6" BELOW WOOD SILL
PLATE AT PERIMETER OF BUILDING. SEE GRADING
PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
8.FOR GRADES SPECIFIED TO BE LESS THAN 8" FROM
WOOD SILL PLATES AND FOR AREAS WHERE
CONCRETE PAVING IS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS, SILL
PLATES SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH A CONTINUOUS
STRIP OF W.R. GRACE 4000 BITUTHENE
WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE COVERED WITH
GALVANIZED SHEET METAL FLASHING, BOTH
PROJECTING 6" BELOW WOOD SILL PLATE AND 6"
ABOVE GRADE. WIDTH OF WATERPROOFING WILL
VARY ACCORDING TO GRADE ELEVATION.
9. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF
36" LANDING IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL, ON EACH
SIDE OF DOOR.
10.THIS PERMIT APPLICATION DOES NOT INCLUDE
MECHANICAL PLUMBING, OR ELECTRICAL PERMITS.
11.THE ARCHITECT WILL PROCESS PLANS THROUGH
PLAN CHECK REVIEW FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT ONLY.
12.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL
OTHER PERMITS.
13.SURVEY MAP MUST BE SIGNED BY A LICENSED
SURVEYOR OR CIVIL ENGINEER.
14. ALL CONTRACTORS, ARCHITECTS, DESIGNERS, &
ENGINEERS SHALL MAINTAIN A CURRENT CITY
BUSINESS LICENSE.
15.DUST CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED
THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.
16. THE YARD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE
INSPECTED AND CERTIFIED BY THE ENGINEER OF
RECORD PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL.
17. APPROVAL IS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS, CURB
CORES, CURBS/ GUTTERS, ETC.
18. SEPARATE PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT IS REQUIRED
FOR DRIVEWAYS, APPROACH TO DRIVEWAY, SEWER
LATERALS AND WORK TO BE PERFORMED OR LOCATED
IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
ROOF SLOPE:
1. ROOF SLOPES ARE SHOWN DIRECTLY ON ROOF PLAN DRAWING
2. ALL FLAT ROOFS AND DECKS SHALL SLOPE A MINIMUM OF 1/4:12 TOWARD
DRAINS OR GUTTERS
3. IN THE ABSENCE OF SLOPES SHOWN ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS OR
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, ROUGH CARPENTER SHALL PROVIDE
REQUIRED SHIMMING BELOW ROOF SHEATHING TO ALLOW FOR PROPER
SLOPE TO DRAIN
4. NO OBSTACLE SHALL PREVENT WATER FLOW TOWARD DRAINS
5. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY CONFORMANCE TO REQUIRED BUILDING
HEIGHTS AND BULDING ENVELOPES. PROVIDE CERTIFIED SURVEY OF
REQUIRED BUILDING HEIGHT. INFORM ARCHITECT OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO START OF ROOF FRAMING
ROOF MATERIAL:
1. ALL FLAT ROOFS TO BE BUILT-UP CLASS "A" WITH TORCH DOWN
MODIFIED BITUMEN OR APPROVED EQUAL
2. PITCHED ROOF TO BE NEW GAF ASPHALT SHINGLES. OVER 40# OVER
30# ROOFING FELT OVER PLYWOOD DIAPHRAGM (PER STRUCTURAL
PLANS) INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER' S RECOMMENDATION
3. MOCK-UP OF PITCHED ROOF INSTALLATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH WORK
4. THE ROOFING TILES ARE TO BE MANUFACTURED, IDENTIFIED, AND
INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FILED APPROVAL REPORT AND
THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS.
GUTTERS AND ROOF DRAINS:
1. PROVIDE ROOF GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS
2. 5" "OGEE" GUTTERS WITH 5/8" EXPANSION JOINTS EVERY 30 FEET
MAXIMUM
3. GUTTERS SHALL SLOPE 1/16" PER FOOT TOWARD RAIN WATER
LEADERS
4. UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE, RAIN WATER LEADERS ARE EXPOSED
AND LOCATION IS SHOWN ON ROOF PLAN
5. DOWNSPOUTS AT FLAT ROOFS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4" DIAMETER
WITH OVERFLOW DRAINS
6. PROVIDE DOME WIRE BASKET AT EACH RAIN WATER LEADER AND
ROOF DRAIN
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST ALL CONCEALED DOWNSPOUTS FOR
WATER LEAKAGE PRIOR TO CLOSING UP BUILDING AND SHALL PROVIE
A 10 YEAR WARRANTY AGAINST LEAKAGE
8. ROOF DRAINAGE TO BE CONNECTED TO EXISTING CITY APPROVED
DRAINAGE DEVICE. ALL RAIN WATER TO BE DIRECTED TO STREET OR
APPROVED OUTLET.
ROOF PENETRATION:
1. VENTS AT FLAT ROOF AND ROOF STACKS SHALL PROJECT ABOVE ROOF BY
THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE CODES AND SHALL BE
LOCATED IN AREAS NOT VISIBLE FROM STREET. EXACT LOCATION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH DESIGNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
2. ALL VENTS AND ROOF STACKS TO HAVE RAIN PROTECTION CAPS
3. CONTINUOUS WATERPROOFING AT ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS SHALL BE
PROVIDED WITH WR GRACE 4000 BITUTHENE WRAPPING AND 24 GA.
GALVANIZED METAL AND COUNTERFLASHING. ALL JOINTS AT SHEET METAL
SHALL BE CAULKED
4. COLOR OF ALL EXPOSED VENTS AND ROOF STACKS TO MATCH ADJACENT
ROOF MATERIAL, UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE BY DESIGNER
OPENINGS PROTECTION:
SITE PLAN /
EXISTING ROOF PLAN/
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
A-0.5
EXISTING ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2025
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/25
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
3/25/2025 12:14:10 PM G-5
-
I
I
J
I
f
I
I.
-,,x:-
'' ''
' '
' '
I
' '
/ ,I
i;
'' : '
'' '' '' ''
'' ''
'
' '
I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I
11 1T
I I I ' J
____ -_-..;.,1,1'-4 "--_-~i~ ~f --
' I
----,':.,'--'-':..' _ _;_' ' I I cJ
/ /
I I
11
'' 'I
I''
'''
111 -- a
! I
I I
'' '' '' '' '' I I
':
I I
''
''
''
I I
'' '' ':
"
II
Ii
" " " " ':
II
" '' "
'I
I I
I I
I , I
Ii
I
!-I~
'' '' ~rf. ' '
I
" "
'' '' " " '' ''
"
"
i ,'
0
___J
-'
' ' I
' (
,,
'
.,
'
I '1
' '
0
' ' 'I
I
'
' ' -' ' ,,
,:,: ,{'/\
-,i-· '+::) -''-
'
-------------------------~----~
I
L
(>
r
1
J
I
I
I
I
0
,1
I ,~
I
0--
1
0
!
' ___ 1------1..!
i
L
i
1
(>
' ' ' ' '
+-
' X
I
I
I
I
I
-___]1
-t--
CJ
CJ
LJ
I
I
I
L
~
I
Cit
*
ARCHITECTURE
&_oESIGN
*
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
279.86'
278.65'
DW
REF.
FRZ.
4
2
3
1
EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN
DEMOLISH EXISTING WALLS
NEW WALLS
ROOF OVERHANG
LEGEND
ONE STORY HOUSE
UP
UP
16R @ 6.75"CLOSET
DINING
0107
LIVING
0108
BEDROOM #2
0113
BEDROOM #3
0111
MASTER BEDROOM
0109
MASTER BATH
0110
BATH
0112
KITCHEN
0106
PANTRY
0105
POWDER
0103
LAUNDRY/LINEN
0104
GARAGE
0100
ENTRY
0101
FOYER
0102
HALL
0114
STAIR
0115
LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE
278.51
LOWEST
POINT
279.26'
HIGHEST POINT
279.86'
279.86'
LA
N
D
I
N
G
279.86'
5'
-
0
"
5'-0"
20'-0"
ONE STORY GARAGE
TRASH
ENCLOSURE15
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
4
"
19
'
-
4
"
THREE 24" BOX
ITALIAN CYPRESS
Proposed First
Floor Plan
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2026
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/27
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
2 02-09-26 NEIGHBOR REQUESTED REVISIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION
A-1.0
PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING 2022 SQ. FT.
5/4/2026 12:07:24 PM G-6
I
/
-----4~------------------7 "'/
/
/
r ------____ ,,., ___ _
------I - --4 --I ----,r-__ I I
,, ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t----,
--------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
------ ---{-___ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
' I
' ' '
I
' ' ' ' I
' '
-
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
' ' --- I
' ' ' ' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
' I
' I
' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' '
r---
' ' ' ' '
'
I
I
' ' '
' I
I
I
I
I
I
(
I
I
/
v'
'
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' '
'
I
I
I
' ' I
I
I
A
~ '
/ ' / ' I
I
I
' ,,
1 ,
1'
'1
/ I
'
' ' I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
T
1---
' I
' I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
' ' I
-- - - -
--
--,. __ -------
,, ,, ,, ,, .,---
-----------
.I
,, ,,
~
" , ., , I ,,
I ,, ~ ,, ,, ,, I I
I ...
I
I ~ I -
I -
c::::J I
I -
-
I
I /
I
I
I
-
~ I
....L-~~~ ' L
0
-
------------------
,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,,
---: ---------
0 --,,, ---
------------
-----.
' l ---------------------------
I
----------
-
I l ~ . I
IL
* *
I / I D I
11 I I
I
1:/\
-T
I
I I :/:-·:, '
=-I
, ... I
_J I
I
I (( I
I ....
I 7 I
I I II II
I
I
c::= --
I
- - - - - -I
I
: D I
I --r I I --' I, V / \
' JI • ~ \ ~.
c::=
-
c::::J
--
--- -
L_ -0
--
- - -
I
- - -
--
(
'
I I
-
I I /
I
"
I I
"'-~
c::::J ~ -I
L_ __J
-c::::J (
299.16'
4
2
3
1
ONE STORY HOUSEONE STORY GARAGE
DN
16 R @ 6.75"
4'-8"6'-1"1'-4"10'-11"
23'-8"
3'-6"
12'-3"
41'-7"
3'
-
1
"
13
'
-
1
1
"
17
'
-
0
"
19'-1"
2'-7"2'-7"3'-11"
41'-7"
10
'
-
7
"
10
'
-
7
"
21
'
-
2
"
12'-6"
STUDY/BEDROOM
0201
CLOSET
0203
STAIR
0115
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW DECK OVER
EXISTING GARAGE
263 SQ.FT.
5'
-
0
"
20'-0"
5'-0"
34'-3"
3'-2"
COFFEE
3'
-
3
"
BATH
0202
FAMILY/SITTING ROOM
0204
10'-3"12'-3"
2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-8"
4'-2"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"4'-8"
-EXISTING GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE: 448 SQ.FT.
-SECOND STORY ADDITION THAT WILL BE
LOCATED ABOVE THE EXISTING GARAGE: 184.6 SQ.FT.
-PERCENTAGE OF THE SECOND STORY
THAT WILL BE LOCATED ABOVE THE GARAGE: 41%
1
1
LI
N
E
O
F
G
A
R
A
G
E
B
E
L
O
W
8'-3"
20'-9"
2'
-
1
"
2'
-
1
"
2'-3"
9'-10"9'-4"
3"
15
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
4
"
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
19
'
-
4
"
12'-3"
18'-2"
7'
-
1
"
12
'
-
3
"
19
'
-
5
"
THREE 24" BOX
ITALIAN CYPRESS
Proposed Second
Floor Plan
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2026
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/27
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
2 02-09-26 NEIGHBOR REQUESTED REVISIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION
A-1.1
PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING FIRST FLOOR 2022 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 720 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2792 SQ. FT.
5/4/2026 12:08:08 PM G-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
.(----
!
I
I
I
I
-----
-
-' I
' '
' ' ' I
' ' "-
' ' ' ' ' '
' -' '
' I
I
' I
'
I
I
' ' I
-
I
' I
I
I
'
I
I
I
'
-I
' I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' ' ' '
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
' I
' '
I
I
I
I
I
-
' ' ' '
---
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
'
-
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
-
-
'
-,----
/
I
I /
1 .,,
) .
' .,
I /
//
=
I lf
I II _, II
"
'---l,.
,r '-------W11 C---
/I
/ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i -
'
C--
.
I
-
L..-,,'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I • --,
I : .
---------I -----I -----I - -,I'-
---------------------------
-------
' "
-
0
/ / / / • V
~...:::::...:::::..::::::::-====i==:::'....::::J( -
rl
I
==i
II
I
.
7
vV
. , . . '. , , , , ,
/
0
I/
------------------------
---
.
•
--------- -
.
•
II
•
'
_,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I ;> ----L-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l -
I
I •
~ ......
.
--------
1' ' -
.
I) '
•
CJ
CJ
---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ____ _,,L/
,I,
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
--
299.16'
4
2
3
1
ONE STORY HOUSEONE STORY GARAGE
DN
16 R @ 6.75"
4'-8"6'-1"1'-4"10'-11"
23'-8"
3'-6"
12'-3"
41'-7"
3'
-
1
"
13
'
-
1
1
"
17
'
-
0
"
19'-1"
2'-7"2'-7"3'-11"
41'-7"
10
'
-
7
"
10
'
-
7
"
21
'
-
2
"
12'-6"
STUDY/BEDROOM
0201
CLOSET
0203
STAIR
0115
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW
SKYLIGHT
NEW DECK OVER
EXISTING GARAGE
263 SQ.FT.
5'
-
0
"
20'-0"
5'-0"
34'-3"
3'-2"
COFFEE
3'
-
3
"
BATH
0202
FAMILY/SITTING ROOM
0204
10'-3"12'-3"
2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-8"
4'-2"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"2'-7"4'-8"
-EXISTING GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE: 448 SQ.FT.
-SECOND STORY ADDITION THAT WILL BE
LOCATED ABOVE THE EXISTING GARAGE: 184.6 SQ.FT.
-PERCENTAGE OF THE SECOND STORY
THAT WILL BE LOCATED ABOVE THE GARAGE: 41%
1
1
LI
N
E
O
F
G
A
R
A
G
E
B
E
L
O
W
8'-3"
20'-9"
2'
-
1
"
2'
-
1
"
2'-3"
9'-10"9'-4"
3"
6'-0"
NEW OBSCURED
GLASS SHIELD
6'X6'2
15
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
4
"
Proposed Second
Floor Plan
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2026
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/27
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
2 02-09-26 NEIGHBOR REQUESTED REVISIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION
A-1.1
PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING FIRST FLOOR 2022 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 720 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2792 SQ. FT.
2/11/2026 11:14:05 AM G-8
I
I
I -----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ' I
t
I _,..._ --
of; ----
/
I
I
I
I
·-----------
-----------:... 1--;1 __ _
I : -------i -----
--
I --1 -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
' I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ I
I I
I
I ,
-'I---:-cc-~r7~,,L -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( l '
I I
I I
'·--._ I ,,. ,-_/
' •. 1 •
ii -
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I ..
I
I
I
I
\
' -,. ___ /·--, I
I I
I I
I I
I I
' I I
I I
I
I I
I
' I
' I
I I
I I
I I
I , I
' ' I I
I I
I
I .
" I
'
I
I
' I. I
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
------------
' I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
' -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-k
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
-
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---------
I
1----
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
r l ~ r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--------
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--I
_,., __ -----
-----
--
--
l, ,
,
----I, ---, -
-~ -~ -
~ .
. . , ,
11
--
-.,.
'
I
I
I /
I
-~ -.
( I /
I
' ·----,.;./ ,
-·. ____ ,,.. ·---·--
/
.
/, vv I
I
I
I I, . .
I , ,
I • I
' ' I
I I,
I ;
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
' -------,/"
I
0
--
-
---------
---------
---------. -----lo. --. -,_ -
I, , . --; , ; ----------I,
;
.
-
, / / / / / / ---
----
1-
--
~-~-~--
--~ 71
---. -,-v-,
~
;
' --... --.
I ' --
V
----
(
----)
G ~
---
l,
-
, , I,
'-'-I •
'
, , ,
-
, >. .I / ~ ~ /!"--~ ~ '
[ZJ I I\ " '-', I
I V I
-' .
' .:.J --'
I
=::J \__ =::J I
/1
I * *
I
-7
I
=::J
I
I
I
;
I
~ ~ 'Vv ,9' 'v ,9'
I kP J
. •
V
" " I
I
V CJ
I. . .
I
-, .
7 , .. , I. . . r , , , I,
.
, L
. , 7 , ,
I
, CJ , I
I
V I
I J
I CJ i
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
7 I
I I
27
9
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
29
9
.
1
6
'
TO
P
O
F
R
I
D
G
E
27
8
.
6
5
'
GA
R
A
G
E
F
.
F
.
L
27
9
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
30
0
.
2
6
'
TO
P
O
F
R
I
D
G
E
27
8
.
6
5
'
GA
R
A
G
E
F
.
F
.
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
O
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
O
P
T
I
O
N
B
SC
A
L
E
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
01
28
7
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
3.
7
5
12
29
6
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
28
7
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
28
8
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
8'-0"11'-4" EX. ROOF HEIGHT
20'-8" EX. RIDGE TO LOWEST GRADE
8'-0" NEW PLATE 1'-0"8'-0"3'-5"
21'-9" PROPOSED RIDGE TO LOWEST POINT
3'-6"
3
12
8'-6" EX. PLATE
7'-0"
NE
W
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
3
12
LI
N
E
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
RE
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
EX
.
EX
.
EX
.
EX
.
NE
W
NE
W
C
U
P
O
L
A
26'-0" TO LOWEST FOUNDATION POINT
AS
P
H
A
L
T
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
27
8
.
5
9
'
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
27
8
.
4
5
'
27
8
.
7
7
'
27
8
.
7
5
'
27
8
.
9
0
'
LI
N
E
O
F
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
RE
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
27
9
.
2
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
27
9
.
2
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
19'-11" EX. RIDGE TO HIGHEST GRADE
21'-0" PROP. RIDGE TO HIGHEST FOUNDATION POINT
27
9
.
2
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
25'-3" TOP OF PROP. CUPOLA TO HIGHEST POINT
30
4
.
5
1
'
30
4
.
5
1
'
30
2
.
2
6
'
PA
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
GU
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
16
'
-
5
"
2'-0"
8
12
29
9
.
7
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
T
.
O
.
R
.
27
8
.
6
5
'
GA
R
A
G
E
F
.
F
.
L
27
9
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
29
9
.
1
6
'
TO
P
O
F
R
I
D
G
E
27
8
.
6
5
'
GA
R
A
G
E
F
.
F
.
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
SC
A
L
E
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
02
28
7
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
3.
7
5
12
1'-0"8'-0"2'-11"
21'-2"
8'-0"
20'-8" TOP OF EXISTING RIDGE
3'-6"
3
12
8'-0" NEW PLATE
27
9
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
11'-4" EX. ROOF HEIGHT
3
12
29
6
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
28
8
.
8
6
'
F.
F
.
L
28
7
.
8
6
'
T.
O
.
P
.
NE
W
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
E
12
'
-
6
"
7"
LI
N
E
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
RE
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
F
O
R
CO
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
EX
.
E
X
.
EX
.
EX
.
EX
.
EX
.
NE
W
NE
W
NE
W
C
U
P
O
L
A
26'-0" TOP OF PROP. CUPOLA TO LOWEST POINT
AS
P
H
A
L
T
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
5'-1"
HA
R
D
I
B
O
A
R
D
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
S
I
D
I
N
G
F
I
N
I
S
H
27
8
.
5
9
'
27
8
.
7
1
'
27
8
.
7
9
'
27
9
.
1
7
'
27
8
.
5
3
'
21'-9" PRPP. RIDGE TO LOWEST FOUNDATION POINT
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
27
9
.
2
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
27
9
.
2
6
'
EX
I
S
T
.
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
AT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
27
8
.
5
1
'
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
25'-3" TOP OF PROP. CUPOLA TO HIGHEST POINT
1
30
4
.
5
1
'
29
9
.
7
6
'
30
0
.
2
6
'
30
0
.
2
6
'
2'-0"
30
2
.
2
6
'
29
9
.
7
6
'
LI
N
E
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
RE
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
3"
PA
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
GU
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
PI
L
A
S
T
E
R
M
A
T
C
H
I
N
G
SI
D
I
N
G
T
O
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2'
-
2
"
2'-0"
6'-0"2
6'-0"
NE
W
O
B
S
C
U
R
E
D
GL
A
S
S
S
H
I
E
L
D
6'
X
6
'
15'-7" FROM HIGHEST POINT OF FOUDATION
16'-4" TO LOWEST POINT
7'-0"
5'-1"1
LO
W
E
R
P
A
N
E
S
OB
S
C
U
R
E
D
T
O
6
'
HI
G
H
A
.
F
.
F
.
-
T
Y
P
.
WE
S
T
F
A
C
I
N
G
W
I
N
D
O
W
S
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
N
O
T
E
S
1
A
D
D
A
N
E
W
C
U
P
O
L
A
.
2
G
U
T
T
E
R
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
.
3
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
S
I
D
I
N
G
I
S
H
A
R
D
I
B
O
A
R
D
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
S
I
D
I
N
G
.
4
C
L
A
S
S
A
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
R
O
O
F
I
N
G
:
S
E
E
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
SP
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
5
G
L
A
S
S
O
N
A
L
L
S
W
I
N
G
I
N
G
D
O
O
R
S
:
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
I
N
1
8
"
O
F
TH
E
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
F
L
O
O
R
W
A
L
K
I
N
G
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
F
U
L
L
Y
TE
M
P
E
R
E
D
.
6
D
O
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
S
:
S
E
E
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
FO
R
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
A
L
L
D
O
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
S
T
O
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
N
T
O
SU
B
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
S
Y
S
T
E
M
7
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
:
S
E
E
P
O
W
E
R
&
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
S
.
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
6'
-
6
"
A
F
S
.
L
O
W
E
F
F
I
C
A
C
Y
.
8
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
O
U
S
C
O
R
R
O
S
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
T
W
E
E
P
S
C
R
E
E
D
:
LO
C
A
T
E
W
E
E
P
S
C
R
E
E
D
A
T
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
F
O
O
T
I
N
G
A
N
D
S
I
L
L
P
L
A
T
E
J
U
N
C
T
U
R
E
.
W
E
E
P
SC
R
E
E
D
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
B
E
L
O
W
T
H
E
S
T
U
C
C
O
A
M
I
N
.
O
F
4
"
AB
O
V
E
E
A
R
T
H
O
R
2
"
A
B
O
V
E
P
A
V
E
D
A
R
E
A
.
9
D
O
R
M
E
R
V
E
N
T
S
W
/
1
/
4
"
M
E
S
H
I
N
S
E
C
T
S
C
R
E
E
N
.
10
P
A
N
E
L
E
D
W
O
O
D
P
O
S
T
S
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
H
E
E
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
N
F
O
S
H
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
(
S
)
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
(
S
)
No
.
Da
t
e
Is
s
u
e
/
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
ER
R
O
R
S
&
O
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
:
I
t
i
s
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
p
r
i
o
r
o
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
o
n
o
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
i
n
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
o
f
a
n
y
p
e
r
c
e
i
v
e
d
e
r
r
o
r
s
o
r
om
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
w
h
i
c
h
a
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
,
t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
l
y
kn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
a
n
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
b
e
a
w
a
r
e
.
W
r
i
t
t
e
n
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
s
u
c
h
e
r
r
o
r
s
o
r
o
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
su
b
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
a
l
l
w
o
r
k
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
r
r
o
r
s
a
n
d
om
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
n
y
d
e
f
e
c
t
s
i
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
f
th
e
s
e
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
.
Th
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
f
u
r
n
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
,
bi
d
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
i
t
s
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
a
n
y
ot
h
e
r
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
r
r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
p
r
i
o
r
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
c
o
n
s
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
NR
G
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
&
D
e
s
i
g
n
.
Al
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
(
c
)
2
0
2
6
C
O
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
Sc
a
l
e
Da
t
e
Dr
a
w
n
b
y
1/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
(
U
.
N
.
O
.
)
CG
/
N
R
G
05
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
S
T
A
M
P
(
S
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
#
NR
G
RE
N
.
0
7
/
3
1
/
2
7
C-
3
4
1
1
9
L ICENSED
A
RCHITECT
NEVERT
R
.
GUIRGIS
STATE OF
C
A
L
IFORNIA
Ne
v
e
r
t
R
.
G
u
i
r
g
i
s
E:
n
e
v
e
r
t
@
n
r
g
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
.
c
o
m
T:
(
3
1
0
)
3
7
4
-
2
4
9
9
60
3
4
M
O
S
S
B
A
N
K
D
R
I
V
E
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
C
A
9
0
2
7
5
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
W:
n
r
g
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
.
c
o
m
NO
T
F
O
R
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
Y
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
,
P
E
R
M
I
T
T
I
N
G
,
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
UN
L
E
S
S
S
E
A
L
I
S
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
A
N
D
S
T
A
M
P
E
D
BY
T
H
E
A
G
E
N
C
Y
H
A
V
I
N
G
J
U
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
FR
A
N
C
I
S
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
7
3
5
5
B
E
R
R
Y
H
I
L
L
D
R
.
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
CA
9
0
2
7
5
-
4
4
0
3
12
02
-
0
9
-
2
6
N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
R
E
Q
U
E
S
T
E
D
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
U
B
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
A-
2
.
0
2/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
1
1
:
0
1
:
3
4
A
M
G-
9
.... "' 0 ' ,
, I , ,,
,
, I , 'I ,
I I
I l X •
r ,_
-
I ~
-
I --~ I'
I -
~
I -
~
I ~
J
I
-·lClf< =
I
I • -'-
e
!
~
. . --
I ~ c
( ---.,,,--., -
-":\' I i ~ i
::;
i:\:
I I : -~ It N~ ,. , .
I ~ ) :,;: . \ -. )
-', '❖
I i
' \ i
,,,: )
' '
. h:
:, 11 • i ·/ --.. :<! "i"·.,ae..,• , -~.,.0 ,.--·-.,---~v-,> c:r-,~.L ~ •. , ' ;
~
,
;:: /' -• ,._ __ ......,,_ k. I I . . . ,·. ,·• •·. -·-,.·.__ -..,___ ---··----·--·---··----. -_/•. -I/
rt.4 '1 '
-I~ --
~~ ~ '
I
r--[7
L I ==-:J __JI __ '
'-
I
C---. ' -__ ! ~1
'
I -'
I '---~--··.. /-· _/. I ~
I ·1Ci1[)1 _ I I -
1 ._ -I ,_
-
I ! c::: I
'-
I
'-= I = L
I '-I '-\ '--'
I = I ! ~ i ----· --.----
I , ,. I
-,-
-~---·•-·'·-'·'. I
I '--
-. -----------/------\
·' I
I -'· i • <'
''. -1 •,,_,? ~ ,' .~
-
I / " C: ~ mm~ / " '-
I / " '-
/--
/ " --
L
-1;· \
l I "'~(]N -
I -/-,
' ~ ( I ' 7 -
L \
, I
'-;;; I \ I
'-' L
-L ,\ I
\ ,
L C ~ I --L
,.\_ --------. /, ! ,~--1 )
L ---
L -
= -;fV "I '
--L ~-·, 1 •
~ -. . . . I , . '
L : I I
,_ ,_ ,_ L • ;: I I
-L T I I
--I
'-L I
-
L-• --·-.., I I
L ~
L_L 1 •······----I
' ( ...__ / ..r ~ I I
I --•--I
I
I I I
I
I I I
,,.,. I I
I . I. . I. .
✓ '1 ✓ '1 ✓
• I . , '1
,
• / . ,
~ .); ....._ ,
, ,
[>[>I I I
'
' "
-~
I I
'. .
,,
• -·±=======----7
·, {,( -,/ .
• , I
'---I I I
, . .
,.
•
I I I
I "-\,I J ., . 1 ' ITh ! ·,_
'I -[7:.i l
-= ' l·Lll" } • " I
I '1, F ibd! I
~ :c= =-... I
~ -
-±: ~-r-__ r::: • ! .. I
I-' • )
• I
' ~ '= --++t--; ( ' -1,
: L w §~ ! ': m v-----I -,_ LJ 1-= I ( LY
I " --' -. • ~ ' -;:::: '· ,,_,
I \ ~ - --
• IQ -
- __ --__ l·rJIDt I\ I •~' .__ 7 1 1' -..._ ,----L ::\------
I,
i ' I : • I
-r ~ ,
I / ~ -~ ' I , I I =i1 : • ,. ~ . .
• !-'", ,_ tf-1~,
I= ~ r ~ -1-j ,... -t I ' / 1-, r,~1,
'' / / ' -~ ~ ~ + :~ ,. -¢ t
I ' / / • I-I ·\ , , " ~ 'r I-1--,...
-t -1-I-~ r (:: ~ 'r
-1 -'r~ l--,1-t ( I ' t ' \ ·1-r ~ ) \-_,.
-., i--r,.~1-"',
I ·L, ~ --~ E ~ . ~ ~ : ~ ,~
T I -~ 'r--i.-I-I-
-._ r I-~(:),
C ~ ~ /--(: r -~9 • ', , , t ' i ,.
/ ~ '~ .. "1-·\t• I I / -. I'-' ~ ~ '\-' 'r /-_I-I-1-
, '• ~ \ l-1-~t 'I ' ' l.: C I-( ' t I-~ I ·~ -~ I I ' / I 1 ~ r "I' + ·) -¢ t
'-.../ I 'I,-1--f--¢-
\ t 'r 'r ~ t I t,:,. r~,,
I 'r~ l-1--,t , 't• ~r:~)~-¢ I • _ r ,-·~ :1-_ t ' ' , I ~ ·\-, 1 \ t t ,, ,. r~., I • I-• ,. t
't, t ~)'' ~ ., {-t,_11--~t I -~ ,. .. •1--\,, ~ ~ --• ' ,-• ' i--,. ,.
' ,. r I-• I ,--r--·1--~ ; 'r -1,.--I-t .I-~ ' \--t ' ~ I , t '
c r I 1-{. ") I-t I ' ') ,. r ·\ ' ' '1-1-'r I-l--1---~ ,:~ 1-~,, I ~:-~ ;/-~1t•-~ ,_ - -~ • l -~ -~ + . ,. ·¢ t
I ,: )~,~).~t,
r ' I-I-r, ,_ r ~ .... . . ,.
l ~F7 ,, 1-·t ,. ~)'' I ■ I / ' -C: I-L__.:)'...__c'-',~~-'--',.._.,_, _,_. / f'-I ,._
I I [' V ~ C ~ .; I ' ·~ .
I I ~ ' /' C t ., I
I -~ ~ ~ I II , .._ r--c, I-
I I
, • I
/ I I ,r ,,
•
)'
i □ □ C 7 □□□□
~
~,11 I I ~ '_J ..
~~
m :::c en----1 Glm
>:} __./ I I I I zn -I
C ::c .....
279.86'
F.F.L
299.76'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION OPTION B
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"03
3.75
12
3.75
12
287.86'
T.O.P.
288.86'
F.F.L
287.86'
T.O.P.
3
12
8'
-
0
"
N
E
W
P
L
A
T
E
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
20
'
-
6
"
8'
-
0
"
11
'
-
4
"
E
X
.
R
O
O
F
H
E
I
G
H
T
19
'
-
1
1
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
F
R
O
M
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
296.86'
T.O.P.
EXISTING RESIDENCE
NEW ADDITION
7"
LINE OF EXISTING
RESIDENCE
EX.EX.EX.EX. EX.
NEW NEW
5'
-
1
"
25
'
-
3
"
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
NEW CUPOLA
279.17'279.26' HIGHEST POINT279.23'279.24'279.22'279.17'
279.05'
21
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
26
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
21
'
-
9
"
P
R
O
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
279.26' EXIST.HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
20
'
-
8
"
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
1
1
304.51'
2'
-
0
"
300.26'
302.26'
2'-9"
297.24'
NEW
300.26'
TOP OF RIDGE
6'
-
0
"
2
OBSCURED
GLASS
3'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
16
'
-
4
"
NEW
NEW OBSCURED
GLASS SHIELD
6'X6'
279.86'
F.F.L
299.16'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
8
12
299.76'
TOP OF RIDGE
278.65'
GARAGE F.F.L
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"04
287.86'
T.O.P.
3.75
12
287.86'
T.O.P.
288.86'
F.F.L
3
12
8'
-
0
"
11
'
-
4
"
E
X
.
R
O
O
F
H
E
I
G
H
T
20
'
-
8
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
I
D
G
E
9'
-
3
"
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
2'
-
1
0
"
3'
-
6
"
8'
-
6
"
E
X
.
P
L
A
T
E
296.86'
T.O.P.
12'-3"
7"
LINE OF
EXISTING
RESIDENCE EX.
EX.EX.
NEW NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
5'
-
1
"
2'
-
0
"
1
NEW CUPOLA
ASPHALT SHINGLE
HARDIBOARD SHINGLE SIDING 279.17'278.90'
278.51'278.60'20'-3" EX. GARAGE
21
'
-
2
"
26
'
-
0
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
21
'
-
9
"
P
R
P
P
.
R
I
D
G
E
T
O
L
O
W
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
O
I
N
T
279.26'
EXIST.
HIGHEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
278.51' LOWEST POINT
AT FOUNDATION
19
'
-
1
1
"
T
O
P
O
F
E
X
.
R
I
D
G
E
F
R
O
M
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
T
.
25
'
-
3
"
T
O
P
O
F
P
R
O
P
.
C
U
P
O
L
A
T
O
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
2'
-
0
"
304.51'
302.26'
299.76'
3"
300.26'
TOP OF RIDGE
2'-2"
2'
-
0
"
PAINTED WOOD
GUARDRAIL
NEW ADDITION
EXISTING RESIDENCE
41'-7"
ELEVATION NOTES
1 ADD A NEW CUPOLA.
2 GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING PROFILE.
3 EXTERIOR SIDING IS HARDIBOARD SHINGLE SIDING.
4 CLASS A ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING: SEE ROOF PLAN FOR
SPECIFICATIONS.
5 GLASS ON ALL SWINGING DOORS: GLAZING WITHIN 18" OF
THE ADJACENT FLOOR WALKING SURFACE SHALL BE FULLY
TEMPERED.
6 DOWN SPOUTS: SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN
FOR LOCATIONS. ALL DOWN SPOUTS TO CONNECT INTO
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
7 EXTERIOR LIGHTING: SEE POWER & LIGHTING PLANS. INSTALL
6'-6" AFS. LOW EFFICACY.
8 CONTINUOUS CORROSION RESISTANT WEEP SCREED:
LOCATE WEEP SCREED AT LOWEST POSSIBLE POINT OF
CONCRETE FOOTING AND SILL PLATE JUNCTURE . WEEP
SCREED IS REQUIRED BELOW THE STUCCO A MIN. OF 4"
ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREA.
9 DORMER VENTS W/ 1/4" MESH INSECT SCREEN.
10 PANELED WOOD POSTS.
Proposed Elevations
S H E E T N U M B E R
P R O J E C T I N F O
S H E E T T I T L E
P R O J E C T
R E V I S I O N ( S )
C O N S U L T A N T ( S )
No.Date Issue / Description
ERRORS & OMISSIONS: It is the contractor's responsibility, prior or during
construction, to notify the designer in writing of any perceived errors or
omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor, thoroughly
knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction, should
reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such errors or omissions
shall be received from the designer prior to the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors proceeding with the work and all work related to the errors and
omissions. The contractor will be responsible for any defects in construction if
these procedures are not followed.
This document is furnished in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluation,
bidding and/or review. This document and its contents may not be used for any
other purpose or reproduced without prior written consent from
NRG Architecture & Design.
All rights reserved. (c) 2026
C O P Y R I G H T
Scale
Date
Drawn by
1/4" = 1'-0" (U.N.O.)
CG / NRG
05/15/2024
Project Name
S T A M P ( S )
Project #NRG
REN. 07/31/27
C-34119
L
ICENSED A RCHITECT
NEVERT R . GUIRGI
S
STATE OF C A L IFORNIA
Nevert R. Guirgis
E: nevert@nrgarchitecture.com
T: (310) 374-2499
6034 MOSSBANK DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
ARCHITECT
W: nrgarchitecture.com
NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND STAMPED
BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION
FRANCIS RESIDENCE
7355 BERRY HILL DR.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CA 90275-4403
1
2 02-09-26 NEIGHBOR REQUESTED REVISIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION
A-2.1
2/11/2026 11:00:50 AM G-10
,i,
' I'
/ ' I'
• • • ~ - - - -
' I' ' .
~ ,
',~ I 1~1111" 11 1 11 ~III M 11 1 I I' 1u I 1 I I 11 " 11 I ~ 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
-I
~ :":'(
I I
4
Pi ~ ~
~I '' ',d
~ -
IEID I
• -~ I I _j 1-~~ ~" J --_J
''-,';YI-"''~
I __
'I II JL :p::;i';:y ~ I II II ' ' I ! I I I PI I
-' ----
/
I,
'
,i-
I,
; :,,
' ' ~
' I'
),
---------I~ r ! ;
I
• i
' ', ' '-·-·-· -·-. I I
( ~
' ' ~ l -(--~i)-" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " --·,.--•.-·-v-·-,' I'
-B m / , -,c, '--
'
, -
---/•,,·•--,•·, ,•·---( I'
' '--,, -/ -I ; ' ', /
!
' )' ; :, , ' -✓ ----- -_,_, ,•· __ .,_., __ . --'·---~-. '
. -" -' I '--
'
-
~
~ ~ ... -: ------- ---' P-= ' --., ---------------I I I I I I I 11 I II I
I I I
I I I I I II I I I I I ,1 w 11
' I 8_ I I II I II I II I II 0
7 I I II I II I II I II ~
~ ''
I I
" -
I -
7
-~
I I I ' µ.....l I I I
' . . ... ... ' ' ' ' ' '\... ," ,i-
,"
/ /
---
A (
I l~I ---(
• ~-,'v•, •• A
' ___,_..
~
''
~, ~
--' --i--
/_1 '/~
"·,t / \ . •
( 1:--lh I' / \
' ' ( -'
\ ✓ '
I
\ / I '
_,--~v ,, ' '
~
____ {! ----.::: -.
' --' --"/.
\_,...,.. .. ' i--( ' ' --~ I ~ I 11 " I r II I 11 '.1 I~ I I I I~
J i ---r, ' -➔~-I I \ 'rt ] ' ' ~ ' I \ ' ' -I \
I \ 7 ' I \ \ -' ,,.. \
\ I I
\ I I
\ I I
\--I--_j / -'i--
I II II ' -. •=
' '-
/
/
, ,
I r
I -
'-
" " " " " " " " " " "
m m
/
- - - - - - - - - - -
'I I I '"" " I ' I p I ~ II P I I YI I -
dB~
I
I
I I I
II I I " I I I I "" ' ' .. . " .
• • ' '
'v-,~ "./ V •,
' I
)
' ' ---.._ I' I'
• ' • . ' . • ,,
'
j_
- - - - - - -
I'
~
~
u I u I l"I 11 YI I I 11 11 "I I 11 u I
IL____j l
I I
I
" ' I ' I ' I " " ~
~
I,
'
- - - -
y -~
I
"
I
" -
LJ
n
LJ
n
i
□
LJ
LJ
C
C
' -
'
--'--
•
T
' ' I'
-'~
'
*
I'
,.
ARC HITE CTU RI
&!J ESIGN
*