CC SR 20260721 01 - PLHV2025-0002 28337 Pontevedra Public Hearing
PUBLIC HEARING - ADJUDICATIVE
Date: July 21, 2026
Subject:
Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision conditionally approving a Height
Variation Permit and Site Plan Review at 28337 Pontevedra Drive (Case No. PLHV2025-0002).
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2026-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING THE
APPEAL THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 812 FT2 TWO-STORY ADDITION CONSISTING OF AN
800 FT2 SECOND-STORY ADDITION AND 12 FT2 FIRST-STORY ENTRYWAY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING
2,106 FT2 SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE FOR A NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF 2,918 FT 2 (GARAGE
INCLUDED) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28337 PONTEVEDRA DRIVE (CASE NO. PLHV2025 -0002).
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: Jason Steininger-Holmes & Pamela Holmes
Mayor Seo invites the Appellant to speak. (10 mins.)
Applicant: HJ Architecture & Marianne and Sameh Mansour (Property Owners)
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):
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.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 07/21/2026
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA TITLE:
Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision conditionally approving a
Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review at 28337 Pontevedra Drive (Case No.
PLHV2025-0002).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2026-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING THE APPEAL THEREBY
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT AND SITE
PLAN REVIEW ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 812 FT2 TWO-
STORY ADDITION CONSISTING OF AN 800 FT2 SECOND-STORY ADDITION
AND 12 FT2 FIRST-STORY ENTRYWAY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 2,106
FT2 SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE FOR A NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF
2,918 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28337
PONTEVEDRA DRIVE (CASE NO. PLHV2025-0002).
FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellants (Jason Steininger-Holmes and Pamela Holmes) paid
the $3,193 appeal fee. If the City Council denies the appeal, as
recommended, the Appellants will not be refunded any of the 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.
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. Appellants’ City Council Appeal Letter dated June 11, 2026 (Page B-1)
C. P.C. Resolution No. 2026-08 (Linked)
1
D. Planning Commission Staff Reports
1. Dated April 14, 2026 (Linked)
2. Dated May 12, 2026 (Linked)
3. Dated May 26, 2026 (Linked)
E. Notice of Decision of Planning Commission Approval dated May 27, 2026 (Page
E-1)
F. Community Development Director’s Memorandum of Approval dated February 5,
2026 (Page F-1)
G. Notice of Decision of Director Approval dated February 5, 2026 (Page G-1)
H. Appellants’ Planning Commission Appeal Letter dated February 19, 2026 (Page
H-1)
I. Project Plans (Page I-1)
BACKGROUND:
The initial project applications were submitted on January 30, 2025, and the timeline
below highlights important application milestones and supporting documents since that
time:
On February 5, 2026, the Director of Community Development conditionally approved
(Attachment F) the requested Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review to construct
an 812 ft2 two-story addition consisting of an 800 ft2 second-story addition and 12 ft2
single-story entry addition at the front of the existing residence to an existing 2,106 ft2
first-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,918 ft2 (garage included), on the
property located at 28337 Pontevedra Drive. On the same day, a Notice of Decision
(Attachment G) was provided to all interested parties providing for a 15-day project appeal
period.
On February 19, 2026, Staff received a timely written appeal letter and appeal fee from
the adjacent property owners at 1928 Galerita Drive, Jason Steininger-Holmes and
Pamela Holmes (herein the Appellants), appealing the Director’s decision to the Planning
Commission (Attachment H)
On April 14, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding
the appeal of the Director-approved Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review
application. The April 14, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment D1)
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 voted to continue the public hearing to the May 12 th Planning
Commission meeting to allow the Applicants additional time to consider addressing
feedback provided at the public hearing related to window adjustments, lowering the
height of the project, eliminating the attic access, and general compatibility concerns.
On May 12, 2026, the Planning Commission, due to unforeseen technical difficulties at
the meeting chamber in which Staff’s prepared materials were inaccessible, unanimously
2
moved to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting of May 26, 2026, to be able to see Staff’s presentation and hearing
materials for their consideration. The May 12, 2026 Planning Commission Staff report
(Attachment D2) includes, but is not limited to, additional background information, project
description, code considerations and analyses, an assessment of public comments and
late correspondence presented at that time, and project updates which were made by the
Applicants.
On May 26, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the continued
public hearing item. The May 26, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment
D3) includes, but is not limited to, additional background information, project description,
and code considerations and analyses based on the revised changes from the Applicant,
which generally consists of changes to the windows, attic access, height, and roof slope.
After considering information presented that evening including public testimony, the
Planning Commission, on a 4 to 3 vote, adopted P.C Resolution No. 2026-08 (Attachment
C), denying the appeal and upholding the Director’s decision, thereby conditionally
approving the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review with additional conditions.
A Notice of Decision of the Planning Commission’s decision was issued on May 27, 2026
(Attachment E).
On June 11, 2026, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by
the Appellants (Attachment B). The Appellants request that the City Council overturn the
Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the project , thereby denying the project,
without prejudice.
On July 2, 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
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 re view. 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 o n 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.
3
DISCUSSION:
The following discussion provides an overview of: 1) the site and project description; 2)
the requested Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review along with Staff analysis and
project revisions; and 3) the basis of the appeal.
1) Site and Project Description
The project site is an 8,128 ft2 pad lot located
on the west side of Pontevedra Drive. The site
includes transitional slopes along the side
yards between adjacent properties. The
project site is improved with an existing 2,106
ft2 single-story residence including an
attached two-car garage. The project site’s
General Plan land use and zoning
designations are Residential (4-6 DU/AC) and
RS-5 (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 slopes down from
south to north along Pontevedra Drive.
Diagram No. 1 identifies the Appellants’
property at 1928 Galerita 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 at the
same building pad elevation as the project site at 229 feet above sea level.
Diagram No. 1 – Applicants’ and Appellants’ Properties
4
The proposed project includes the following improvements:
• Construction of an 812 ft2 two-story addition, consisting of an 800 ft2 second-story
addition and a 12 ft2 first-story entryway addition at the front to an existing 2,106
ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,918 ft2 (garage
included).
The proposed addition will measure 22.86 feet, as measured from the lowest finished
grade covered by structure (elev. 50.35 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline (elev. 73.21
feet); and a height of 21.46 feet as measured from the highest elevation of the existing
grade covered by the structure (elev. 51.75) to the highest roof ridgeline (elev. 73.21 feet).
2) Code Consideration and Analysis – Staff Recommendation for Approval
Height Variation Permit
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.
RPVMC § 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) sets forth the findings required, in order to approve a Height
Variation Permit. Table No. 1 below provides a compressed description of 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 (for detailed
information on the findings and Staff’s analysis, see the linked Planning Commission Staff
Reports (Attachments D).
Table No. 1: Code Consideration and Analysis
Required Permit Findings Project Submittal
1. The Applicant has complied
with the early neighborhood
consultation process
established by the City.
The Applicants have complied with the early
neighborhood consultation process guidelines
and procedures by notifying the local
Homeowners Association and obtaining 11
signatures (73.33%) from properties within 100
feet and 23 signatures (25.84%) from properties
within 500 feet of the project site.
5
Required Permit Findings Project Submittal
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.
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 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.
Views in the area are primarily oriented to the east
and north and consist of the ocean, harbor, city
lights, and mountains. The topography along
Pontevedra Drive slopes downward from south to
north, with transitional slopes between
neighboring properties. Based on Staff site visits
and aerial imagery review, the proposed second-
story addition over the 16-foot/20-foot “by-right”
building envelope would not result in a significant
view impairment from another parcel. Properties
located to the west of the project site already
experience view obstruction from the existing “by-
right” building envelopes of residences along
Pontevedra Drive. Properties to the south observe
protected views primarily to the east. The
properties to the east observe views in the
opposite direction of the project site, and
properties to the north observe views primarily to
the east and north, which are also oriented away
from the project site.
5. If view impairment exists
from the viewing area of
another parcel but it is
determined not to be
significant, as described in
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, as such, this finding was
determined not to be applicable.
6
Required Permit Findings Project Submittal
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.
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.
There will be no significant cumulative view
impairment by portions of the structure which
exceed 16 feet in height. Based on Staff’s
assessment of the proposed project properties
along Pontevedra Drive are separated by
transitional slopes approximately 2- feet to 5-feet
in height. This subtle terracing feature between
properties results in conditions whereby the 16-
foot/20-foot “by-right” building height envelope of
existing residential structures result in view
impairments as observed from properties to the
west of the project site. As such, if existing single-
story homes along Pontevedra Drive, particularly
those at 28345 Pontevedra Drive and 28331
Pontevedra Drive were to be improved with
second-story additions, there would be no
significant view impairments that are not already
impacted by the by-right height of other
residences.
7. The proposed structure
complies with all other code
requirements.
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 Permit.
8. The proposed structure is
compatible with the
immediate neighborhood
character.
a) Scale:
The surrounding immediate neighborhood
consists of single-story homes ranging from 1,798
ft2 to 2,691 ft2, with an average size of 2,146 ft2. At
2,918 ft2 (including the garage), the proposed
residence will be the largest in the immediate
neighborhood. However, the design attempts to
minimize perceived bulk as the second-story
addition is located in the rear, incorporates
articulated facades, and includes new dormers in
the front, helping maintain the established
7
Required Permit Findings Project Submittal
streetscape from Pontevedra Drive. Additionally,
the Neighborhood Compatibility handbook states,
“For the purposes of Neighborhood Compatibility,
the immediate neighborhood is normally
considered to be at least the twenty (20) closest
residences within the same zoning district”. When
expanding the scope of residences in the analysis
slightly to the closest 40 residences, Staff finds
that there are two other residences (1808 Velez
and 28408 Pontevedra) which have structure
sizes larger than the subject residence. The
project also maintains the current 40% lot
coverage, well below the 52% maximum permitted
in the RS-5 zone, ensuring consistency with
neighborhood development patterns.
b) Architectural Style:
Although the immediate neighborhood (closest 20
residences) is comprised of single-story
residences, there are three existing two-story
homes located within the general neighborhood
(closest 40 residences) with heights ranging from
approximately 21.4 to 24.8 feet, which are
comparable to the proposed project height of
22.86 feet. The proposed second-story addition
has been designed to minimize perceived bulk
and mass by maintaining a single-story
appearance along the most visible portions of the
residence, particularly the street-facing elevation,
while incorporating roof articulation, dormers, and
architectural projections that break up the building
form and provide visual interest. The project
utilizes stucco finishes and asphalt shingle hip
roofing consistent with the existing residence and
surrounding homes, ensuring compatibility with
the architectural character of the neighborhood.
The design also complies with all RS-5 setback
requirements and maintains existing building
setbacks by locating the second-story addition
over the existing residence, preserving adequate
light, air, and open space between neighboring
structures.
c) Setbacks:
The RS-5 zoning standards require minimum
setbacks of 20 feet in the front, 5 feet on the sides,
and 15 feet in the rear for structures predating City
8
Required Permit Findings Project Submittal
incorporation. The proposed project will not be
altering any existing setbacks. Overall, the project
continues to comply with RS-5 zoning standards
and remains consistent with surrounding
development patterns.
9. The proposed new structure
that is above 16 feet in height
or an 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 proposed project will not result in an
unreasonable infringement of privacy. The east
elevation of the proposed second-story addition
includes two windows that primarily observe views
of Pontevedra Drive, front yard of adjacent
properties, and rooflines of neighboring
residences, where there is a reduced expectation
of privacy.
The south elevation includes two high windows
which serve a bathroom area and are designed
with sill heights of approximately 5 feet 8 inches
above the finished floor, limiting views of adjacent
properties.
The north elevation includes two high windows
which serve a bedroom area and are designed
with sill heights of approximately 5 feet 8 inches
above the finished floor, limiting views of adjacent
properties.
The west elevation includes six windows. Two of
the windows, serving a bathroom and hallway are
designed with elevated sill heights of 5 feet 8
inches above the finished second floor limiting
direct views onto adjacent properties. The
remaining windows which are located in the two
bedroom areas and along the staircase have
windowsill heights of 3 feet above the finished
second floor, which helps satisfy building code
egress requirements while minimizing views of
neighboring rear yard areas as follows: The most
northerly western window will utilize an awning
style design with obscured glass which will help
limit views of adjacent properties. The stairwell
window has a width of 2 feet and is located within
a transient hallway area which is approximately 30
feet from the shared westerly property line. The
remaining two bedroom windows are located over
30 feet from the shared westerly property line and
9
Required Permit Findings Project Submittal
over 60 feet from the adjacent residence located
at 1928 Galerita, to which there would be less
significant impacts on privacy. In addition, a
condition of approval requires all second-story
windows to be maintained in the approved
locations, dimensions, sill heights, configurations,
and glass treatments, ensuring that privacy
protections remain in place.
As such, the project does not create a significant
privacy infringement on the adjacent parcels.
Site Plan Review
Pursuant RPVMC §17.70.010, the Site Plan Review procedure evaluate s the proposed
ancillary site improvements to ensure consistency with the provisions of the Zoning Code
when no other entitlement was required. The proposed project, which includes the 12 ft2
single-story addition in the entryway, was found by the Planning Commission to meet all
the Zoning Code requirements, including, but not limited to, setbacks, lot coverage, and
height in the RS-5 zoning district.
Project Revisions
As part of the development review process, the Applicants have made multiple project
and plan revisions based on feedback provided initially by Staff and the Director of
Community Development along with input from the public. Subsequently, the Applicants
made additional design modifications to address Planning Commission comments and
concerns before the proposed project was ultimately approved by the Planning
Commission on May 26, 2026. The Applicants’ efforts to design a project that
encompasses all feedback have resulted in different iterations between the Director-
approved and the Planning Commission-approved projects. Table No. 2 on the following
page highlights project revisions between the two approving bodies, which focus on
project height, roof pitch, attic access, and window configurations. Please note that the
project plans attached to this report are consistent with the Planning Commission
approval on May 26, 2026, incorporating the additional conditions imposed by the
Planning Commission, and are presented to the City Council for their consideration
(Attachment I).
[continued on next page]
10
Table No. 2 - Summary of Project Revisions
Director-
Approved Plans
(February 5,
2026)
Planning
Commission-
Approved Plans
(3rd Hearing –
May 26, 2026)
Changes Between
Approved Plan
Sets
Height
(See Diagram No. 2
on page 13 of this
report)
Highest proposed
roof pitch:
75.02 feet
Overall project
height:
24.67 feet (from
the lowest finished
grade)
23.27 feet (from
the highest
existing grade).
Highest proposed
roof pitch:
73.21 feet
Overall project
height:
21.46 feet (from
the lowest
finished grade)
22.86 feet (from
the highest
finished grade).
Highest proposed
roof pitch lowered
by 1.81 feet.
Roof Pitch Slope
(See Diagram No. 3
on page 13 of this
report)
5”/12” Slope. 3”/12” Slope on
rear of roof.
Shallowed roof
slope in rear by 2-
inches per foot of
slope, allowing
overall height to be
reduced.
Attic Access
(See Diagram No. 4
on page 13 of this
report)
Attic access from
second-floor
hallway
No attic access
from second-floor
level.
Removed attic
access from
second floor
Northerly Windows
(See Diagram No. 5
on page 14 of this
report)
Two northerly
facing windows,
standard sill height
of 3-feet 8-inches,
frosted awning-
style windows.
Two northerly
facing windows,
raised sill height
of 5-feet 8-inches,
clear glass
windows.
Raised two
windows along
northern elevation
and made them
clear glass.
Attic Windows /
Louvers
(See Diagram No. 6
on page 14 of this
report)
Two standard
height frosted
windows, one
along each of the
northerly and
southerly
elevations of
existing attic
No
windows/louvers
on the side of the
existing attic
space. Louvers
implemented
under eastern
facing dormers
Pursuant to
Condition #29 in
the approved P.C
Resolution
No.2026-08, the
proposed attic
windows/louvers
have been
11
Director-
Approved Plans
(February 5,
2026)
Planning
Commission-
Approved Plans
(3rd Hearing –
May 26, 2026)
Changes Between
Approved Plan
Sets
space. Two fixed
clear glass high
windows under
eastern facing
dormers.
instead of
windows.
removed, and
louvers were
implemented under
the proposed
dormers along the
eastern elevation
instead of windows.
Westerly Windows
(See Diagram No. 7
on page 14 of this
report)
6 windows along
the westerly
elevation. Three
high windows with
sill heights of 5-
feet 8-inches
located in the
bedroom, hallway,
and bathroom.
One stairwell
window with a sill
height of 3 feet
above the second-
floor level but 7-
feet 4-inches over
the adjacent
stairwell. Two
standard height
obscured glass
windows located in
the master
bedroom with sill
heights of 3-feet 8-
inches.
Northern-most
bedroom window:
standard height
obscured glass
awning style
window with 3-
feet sill height.
Two master
bedroom
windows:
standard height
single-hung clear
windows with 3-
feet sill height.
Lowered and
obscured northern
bedroom window.
Unfrosted two
master bedroom
windows and
lowered windowsill
height by 8-inches.
[continued on next page]
12
Diagram No. 2 – Reduction in Highest Roof Ridgeline
Diagram No. 3 – Revision in Rear Roof Pitch
Diagram No. 4 – Removal of Second-floor Attic Access
13
Diagram No. 5 – Revised Northerly Windows to 5 feet 8 inches.
Diagram No. 6 – Revised Dormer Windows to Louvers
Diagram No. 7 – Revised Westerly Facing Windows
The project revisions have resulted in a project design that further improves upon
neighborhood compatibility standards by lowering the proposed highest roof ridgeline by
1.81-feet and implementing a shallowed roof pitch slope in the rear. Additionally, the
proposed adjustments to the windows located on the western and northern elevations do
not create further unreasonable infringements of privacy on adjacent neighboring
properties. Finally, the proposed adjustments to the attic access help address any
concerns as it relates to additional utilization of floor area as habitable space. Therefore,
14
the Planning Commission found that all of the proposed changes remain consistent with
the required findings for a Height Variation Permit.
3) 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’ June 11, 2026 appeal letter (Attachment
B). The following is a summary of the 3 main appeal points, which also includes Staff’s
response and analysis of the appeal points (shown in bold below):
1. The project was not processed in accordance with the procedural requirements
of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, as the Appellants contend that
Staff relied on estimated rather than actual square footage in their calculations
of the first-floor footprint. The Appellants assert this error resulted in an
incorrect finding that the project did not meet the threshold requiring automatic
referral to the Planning Commission, thereby allowing the Director to approve
the project without the level of review mandated for developments of this scale.
Staff Response: RPVMC §17.02.040(C)(1)(a) outlines the situations in which the
Director of Community Development refers a Height Variation Permit application directly
to the Planning Commission for consideration. Those situations include:
i. Any portion of a structure which exceeds 16 feet in height extends closer than 25
feet from the front or street-side property line;
ii. The area of the structure which exceeds 16 feet in height (the second story
footprint) exceeds 75 percent of the first story footprint area (residence and
attached garage);
iii. 60 percent or more of a garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds
16 feet in height (a second story);
iv. The portion of the structure which exceeds 16 feet in height is being developed as
part of a new single-family residence; or
v. Based on an initial site visit, the Director determines that any portion of a structure
which is proposed to exceed 16 feet in height may significantly impair a view as
defined in this chapter.
The Appellants assert that the proposed project should not have been considered by the
Director of Community Development but rather referred to the Planning Commission
pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.040(C)(1)(a)(ii). The Appellants note that the proposed
project should have been referred to the Planning Commission as the area of the structure
which exceeds 16 feet in height (the second story footprint) and proposed modified attic
space, exceeds 75% of the first story footprint area (residence and attached garage ).
More specifically, the Appellants contend that Staff overstated the first-floor floor area of
the project residence and that the correct size of the first-floor area should be 1,907 ft2 or
1,927 ft2 based on the provided floor plans. The Appellants state that when completing
the calculation with these numbers in addition to including the square footage of the attic
space, the actual percentage of the areas which are over 16 feet in height compared to
15
the first-floor footprint is either 76.1% or 75.2%, both over the 75% threshold for Planning
Commission review.
The submitted project plans include data and information as to the size of the existing
residence and size of the proposed addition over 16 feet. On Sheet ASK C.1 of the plan
set (Attachment I) and as shown in Diagram No. 8 below, it is noted that the size of the
existing residence is 1,746 ft2 and the size of the existing attached garage is 360 ft 2, for
an existing first-floor total area of 2,106 ft2. Within the Appellants’ letter, they also appear
to be including the unfinished attic space in their calculations for this development
standard, however, based on the language under RPVMC §17.02.040(C)(1)(a)(ii), the
areas which should be included in this calculation would consist of only the “second story
footprint” which typically refers to the habitable floor area of the second-story addition,
which is in this case 800 ft2. As such, Staff calculates that based on these square footages
that the percentage of the second story footprint area makes up 38% of the first-story
footprint area, which is below the 75% threshold.
In attempts to provide the Appellants with further clarification, Staff had previously
requested that the Applicants also provide the total square footage of all floor areas which
are above 16 feet to demonstrate that even with the inclusion of these areas, the total
percentage would still fall below the 75% threshold. Based on their calculations of these
areas, which consist of the 800 ft2 second-story addition and portions of the attic space
which are above 16 feet in height, the total square footage would be 1,380 ft2. As such,
even with the inclusion of portions of the attic space which exceeds 16 feet in height, the
total square footage of these areas would equate to 65.5% of the first story footprint area
(1,380 ft2/2,106 ft2). For this reason, Staff finds that the proposed project was
appropriately considered by the Director of Community Development.
[continued on next page]
16
Diagram No. 8 – Square Footages on Cover Sheet of Plan Set
2. The project is not consistent with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’
Neighborhood Compatibility standards as outlined in the Municipal Code and
Neighborhood Compatibility framework. The Appellants argue that the project’s
true massing is substantially larger than represented in the staff analysis due
to the inclusion of a high ceiling “attic” space, resulting in a structure more
comparable to a significantly larger addition than the approximately 800 ft2
evaluated by Staff. The Appellants further contend that Staff arbitrarily
expanded Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis beyond the immediate
neighborhood and included residences that were built prior to the adoption of
Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis. Finally, the Appellants argue that a more
accurate comparison of other properties demonstrates the project is out of
scale with nearby homes, concentrates bulk toward the rear of the property, and
creates a dominant massing condition adjacent to the Appellants’ property.
Staff Response: Permit Finding No. 8 of Table No. 1 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
17
of the ‘Height Variation Permit’ section of the April 14, 2026 Planning Commission Staff
Report (Attachment D1) 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:
Attic Space
The Appellants assert that Staff failed to adequately evaluate the proposed project as the
attic space within the project residence was not included and incorporated into Staff’s
Neighborhood Compatibility analysis. The Appellants contend that Staff characterized the
project as only an 800 ft2 second-story addition while not evaluating an approximately 650
ft2 attic space, resulting in an understated assessment of bulk and mass. The Appellants
state that the attic’s inner ceiling height, door access, and overall size should have the
project scope more closely resemble a 1,450 ft2 second-story addition. The Appellants
also highlight concerns as it relates to conversion of the attic space into habitable floor
area. With these considerations the Appellants recommend that the attic be incorporated
into the analysis and also that the attic be removed or greatly reduced.
It is important to highlight that the attic space in question is an existing attic space which
is currently sited above portions of the existing single-story residence. The attic space as
highlighted in Diagram No. 9 on the next page is unfinished, houses mechanical
equipment, and utilizes structural obstructions such as collar ties and purlin bracing to
support the roof of the project residence. The proposed project does not propose to
increase the total floor area of this unfinished attic space, nor does it propose to utilize
this space as habitable floor space as part of the project residence. However, the
proposed project does propose to increase the ceiling height by 4.04-feet within a portion
of the attic space to help accommodate the new singular gable roof pitch slope and
proposed dormers. This was an intentional design choice by the Applicants to help reduce
perceived bulk and mass as observed from the street of access (Pontevedra Drive) as
the singular roof line will more closely align with the existing residence and eliminate views
of the second-story facade.
Diagram No. 9 – Photos of Current Condition of Existing Attic Space
18
Staff would also like to note that in response to the comments and concerns from the
Planning Commission at the April 14, 2026 public hearing, the Applicant s proposed
project revisions to eliminate the previously proposed attic space access door from the
proposed second-floor hallway and have the only access points to the attic space be from
the attic hatch on the first floor to address concerns that this space could potentially be
utilized as habitable floor area.
Residences Included in Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis
The Appellants state that Staff arbitrarily expanded the sample set of homes incorporated
within the Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis in order for the proposed project to be
deemed compatible. Within the Director-Approved staff report dated February 5, 2026
(Attachment F), Staff included an analysis of Neighborhood Compatibility for the proposed
project. Within the Staff’s analysis of the required findings, it was highlighted that there
are no other two-story residences located within the closest 20 residences. However, the
City’s Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook states that, “If the Neighborhood
Compatibility requirement is triggered, the analysis is based, at a minimum, on the review
of the residences within the immediate neighborhood. For the purposes of Neighborhood
Compatibility, the immediate neighborhood is normally considered to be at least the
twenty (20) closest residences within the same zoning district.” The language in the
handbook allows for an expanded analysis beyond the 20 closest homes to provide a
broader context of the neighborhood conditions. As such, Staff included an exhibit to
highlight the fact that there are three (3) other two-story residences located directly
outside of the closest 20 residences as shown in Diagram No.10 on the next page with
an expanded radius of the closest 40 residences. The 3 additional two-story residences
highlight that a two-story configuration is currently observed with homes located in the
immediate neighborhood. Also, the 3 additional two-story residences are built to a larger
scale and similar architectural style compared to the currently proposed project. The
absence of two-story residences within the nearest 20 properties does not, by itself,
invalidate the proposed project or indicate that it is not compatible with the neighborhood.
[continued on next page]
19
Diagram No. 10 – Additional Two-story Residences in the Project Area
The Appellants also state that they conducted their own analysis of the nearest 100
properties and found that there are only four other residences which are two stories within
the nearest 100 properties. At the request of the Planning Commission, Staff included an
additional analysis of the nearest 100 properties within the May 26, 2026 Planning
Commisssion Staff report, which confirmed these numbers (Attachment D3). However,
the expanded analysis of the 100 nearest homes provides broader neighborhood context
that is less representative of the immediate vicinity of the project site.
The Appellants also highlight within their letter that only one of the four residences within
the 100 closest residences (1808 Velez Drive) was built after the Neighborhood
Compatibility review process was established, and that two-story residences developed
before the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility review should not be included in Staff’s
analysis. The Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, which establishes the standards
and procedures to which the City can review development proposals to ensure that
homes respect and complement the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood
through scale, design, and placement, does not state that only homes which are to be
included in Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis are ones that were created after
Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis was established. As such, these other residences
and all residences which were built prior to the adoption of Neighborhood Compatibility
can be included in the analysis.
Second-Story Addition Alignment
As previously stated, the Appellants identify that the residence at 1808 Velez Drive is the
only two-story residence within 100 properties that was built after the adoption of
20
Neighborhood Compatibility requirements. They highlight that this residence would be the
only other residence in which the proposed project can be compared against and claims
that the current project proposal fails to be compatible with the design and styl e of 1808
Velez which centers it’s second-story addition over the middle of the residence, helping
minimize bulk and mass. The Appellants argue that the proposed addition being located
in the rear of the residence goes against the established development patterns of the
neighborhood, resulting in greater visual and privacy impacts on their property. It is also
highlighted within the letter that 1808 Velez is located 8 feet below grade of the rear
neighbor, and that it does not include a large attic space compared to the proposed
project. Within the Appellants’ letter and as also highlighted in the discussion at the
multiple Planning Commission hearings, the Appellants provide project specific
recommendations to have the proposed addition located further over the center of the
residence to better achieve Neighborhood Compatibility and reduce impacts on adjacent
neighbors. The Appellants further argue that the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis
placed too much emphasis on properties along Pontevedra Drive and should instead
evaluate the project's impacts in all directions surrounding the subject property.
During Staff’s analysis of Neighborhood Compatibility many different factors were
considered and analyzed against the proposed project, including the residence located
at 1808 Velez as highlighted in Diagram No. 11. While the Appellants insist that 1808
Velez be the primary focus of Neighborhood Compatibility, Staff evaluated the proposed
project as a whole in previous reports, considering its scale, setbacks, roof design,
architectural articulation, apparent bulk and mass, privacy impacts, and overall
relationship to the surrounding neighborhood including the other two-story residences.
While the Appellants contend that the project should be sited in the middle of the
residence as opposed to the currently proposed location in the rear of the residence, this
is a design feature which Staff did observe with another two-story residences in the area
(28311 Pontevedra Drive), and as highlighted in Diagram No. 12.
Diagram No. 11 – 1808 Velez Drive Second-story Addition
21
Diagram No.12 – 28311 Pontevedra Drive Addition Located in Rear of Residence
While the streetscape along Pontevedra Drive was an important component of the
analysis, Staff did evaluate the project's compatibility from all surrounding perspectives
as the Appellants have noted. In making its determination, Staff considered numerous
factors. The proposed project does maintain all existing setbacks and is located 22 feet
from the nearest point of the structure to the shared westerly property line. The subject
property's pad level was also a major consideration as the building pad of the subject
residence is roughly 6 feet higher than the public right-of-way along Pontevedra, meaning
additions located closer to Pontevedra Drive would be perceived with more intense bulk
and mass due to the lowered elevation of the street. The overall architectural design also
met the surrounding development patterns and design of other two-story residences as
clarified earlier. It is also important to note that based on the Planning Commission’s
comments in the April 14, 2026 hearing, the Applicants revised their proposed project to
also lower the highest roof pitch height by 1.81 feet to help address concerns related to
bulk and mass. Based on this comprehensive evaluation, Staff concluded that the
proposed project is consistent with the City's Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines.
3. The project creates substantial and unmitigated privacy impacts due to the
placement and orientation of second-story windows that provide direct views
into the Appellants’ private outdoor areas, including the backyard and pool. The
Appellants contend that these view corridors effectively expose 100% of their
private yard space and that the proposed design fails to incorporate adequate
mitigation measures such as window repositioning or effective frosting. The
Appellants further assert that Staff did not substantiate why such a level of
visual intrusion is reasonable or consistent with neighborhood privacy
expectations, and that the approval does not adequately address the City’s
stated emphasis on protecting outdoor privacy under applicable guidelines.
Staff Response: The Appellants indicate that the project design and specifically the
westerly facing second-story windows will provide views of 100% of their property, which
includes yard, pool, and interior spaces such as their kitchen and living room areas. The
Appellants contend that the layout and design of the proposed second-story addition, and
22
the existence of the attic space as part of this project proposal, requires the proposed
addition to be located along the rear of the project residence and therefore causes a more
substantial infringement of privacy on their property. The Appellants contend that the
Applicants’ proposed revisions following the initial April 14, 2026 Planning Commission
public hearing further impacted their privacy as a result of modifications to the glass type
of two second-story windows (from frosted glass to clear glass) and the reduction in height
and configuration of one window along the rear of the two-story addition.
Within Staff’s consideration of potential privacy impacts on surrounding adjacent
properties, Staff fully evaluates many aspects of the proposed project which includes but
is not limited to topography, window placement, height, type, glass type, angles, and
separation between properties. When conducting an analysis of potential privacy impacts,
Staff does examine potential impacts on exterior areas of an adjacent property; however,
while the proposed project introduces new opportunities for views toward the Appellants’
property to the west that do not currently exist, the RPVMC defines privacy as providing
"reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation" and does not require the
complete elimination of all views between neighboring properties.
Window Revisions
As previously highlighted under Table No .2 of this report, the Applicants incorporated
numerous revisions to proposed second-story window types and sill heights while still
continuing to incorporate multiple privacy mitigation measures, including high-sill
windows, frosted glazing on certain windows, and an awning-style window that limits
direct outward views. Although the glass type of the two master bedroom windows was
revised from frosted to clear glazing, Staff determined that these windows remain
separated from the Appellants' residence by more than 60 feet and are at least 30 feet
from the shared property line. These windows would not constitute an unreasonable
infringement of privacy due to the substantial distance between the two residences.
Additionally, the pool in which the Appellants highlight privacy concerns is located in the
side yard of the residence, which is roughly 50 feet from these bedroom windows. The
westerly facade also utilizes high windows in the bathroom and hallway areas in which
no views can be observed of the Appellants’ property. One of the standard height windows
is located from within the proposed stairway and can be seen from the hallway, which is
a transit space, and has a narrow width of 2 feet where significant visual intrusion is not
observed. Finally, although the sill height of the most northern window from the proposed
corner bedroom has been lowered, it is proposed as frosted glass to eliminate views when
closed and an awning style design to help orient views downwards and limit views of the
Appellants’ property. Collectively, Staff and the Planning Commission found that the
revised window configurations do not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy and
continue to provide reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation.
Separation Between Properties
Although the design of this project has the proposed addition located in the rear of the
existing residence, Staff believes that with the window design choices, the context of the
neighborhood, and existing site conditions between the Applicant s and Appellants, the
23
project does not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy on the Appellants’
property. The Applicants’ property at 28337 Pontevedra Drive has an extended rear yard
along the southern corner of the property, whereas other properties along Pontevedra
Drive have narrower rear yards, meaning that the rear yard spaces between the
Appellants and Applicants are slightly larger than most other properties in the area.
Additionally, the Appellants’ residence is developed at an offset angle which allows for
portions of the southern part of their residence to be separated even further from the
subject windows. Finally, the Appellants’ reference that their pool will be impacted by
significant privacy intrusion; however, Staff finds that the proposed pool and exterior
areas referenced are located within the side yard of the Appellants’ property which is
roughly 60 feet or more away from the windows with potential views and not considered
significant. When considered collectively, these site conditions and design features
reduce opportunities for directly overlooking the Appellants’ property and support Staff's
determination that the project does not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
City Council Site Visit
Although not required, it is recommended that City Council visit the project site and
neighboring properties in advance of the July 21 public hearing . Staff will provide, under
separate cover, contact information for the Applicants and Appellants to schedule a site
visit.
Appeal Hearing Participation
Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24, which states that the Planning Commission
Chairperson be made available for the hearing item at the request of the City Council,
Planning Commission Chair Eric Nulman was invited to participate in the City Council
appeal hearing for the proposed project.
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 July 2, 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.
24
Foliage Analysis
A foliage analysis conducted by Staff on February 20, 2025, revealed no existing foliage
that significantly impairs the view from the surrounding viewing areas
CONCLUSION:
Based on the Code considerations outlined above , along with the analysis of the appeal
feedback, Staff recommend that City Council adopt the attached resolution affirming the
decision of the Planning Commission and denying the Appeal, thereby conditionally
approving a Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review of the project located at 28337
Pontevedra 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) Identify design revisions and continue the public hearing.
3) 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.
4) Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings cannot be made
or all provisions have not been complied with.
5) Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with direction.
6) Take other action as deemed necessary.
25
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 1 of 12
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING THE
APPEAL THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A
HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 812 FT2 TWO-
STORY ADDITION CONSISTING OF AN 800 FT2 SECOND-
STORY ADDITION AND 12 FT2 FIRST-STORY ENTRYWAY
ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 2,106 FT2 SINGLE-STORY
RESIDENCE FOR A NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF
2,918 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED) ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 28337 PONTEVEDRA DRIVE (CASE NO.
PLHV2025-0002).
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, HJ Architecture (the Applicant) submitted the
requested applications, on behalf of the property owners Marianne and Sameh Mansour,
for a Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 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 October 16, 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 consideration of the requested applications; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2025, the Applicant provided several extensions to the
Community Development Department in the processing and consideration of the proposed
project until February 10, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2026, 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 February 19, 2026, Staff received a timely written Appeal Letter of
the Director’s Notice of Decision from the adjacent property owner at 1928 Galerita Drive,
Jason Steininger-Holmes and Pamela Holmes (herein the Appellants); and
A-1
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 2 of 12
WHEREAS, February 20, 2026, Staff received confirmation of payment for the
Appeal request; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2026, a public notice announcing the Planning
Commission’s consideration of the Appeal request to be held at a hearing on April 14, 2026
was provided to Jason-Steininger Holmes and Pamela Holmes (the Appellants), the
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 Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) §
17.80.050(C), an appeal hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set within 90
days of the filing of the appeal, or no later than May 20, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the Appeal request, at which time the Planning Commission voted to
continue the public hearing item to the next regularly scheduled hearing date of May 12,
2026; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the
continued public hearing item. Due to unforeseen technical difficulties at the meeting
chamber in which Staff’s prepared materials were inaccessible, the Planning Commission
voted to continue this public hearing item to the next regularly scheduled Planning
Commission date of May 26, 2026, to be able to see Staff’s presentation and hearing
materials for their consideration; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2026, the Planning Commission heard the continued public
hearing item and after considering information presented and public testimony voted 4 to 3
to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2026-08, denying the appeal and affirming the Director’s
decision thereby conditionally approving the requested Height Variation Permit and Site
Plan Review; and
WHEREAS, on June 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 1928 Galerita Drive, Jason Steininger-Holmes and Pamela Holmes; 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 no later than September
9, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2026, a public notice announcing the City Council’s
consideration of the Appeal request to be held at a public hearing on July 21, 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
A-2
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 3 of 12
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Sections 21000 et. seq. (“CEQA”), the CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines, the
proposed project involving the 812 ft2 two-story addition consisting of an 800 ft2 second-
story addition and 12 ft2 first-story addition, 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 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on July 21,
2026, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence.
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 an 812 ft2 two-story addition consisting of an 800 ft2 second-story addition
and 12 ft2 first-story addition to an existing 2,106 ft2 single-story residence for a new total
structure size of 2,918 ft2 (garage included) measuring 22.86 feet in height (the “Project”).
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 appl ies 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 812 ft2 two-story addition consisting of an 800 ft2
second-story addition and 12 ft2 first-story entry addition to an existing 2,106 ft2 single-story
residence for a new total structure size of 2,918 ft2 (garage included) measuring 22.86 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 approved based on the following findings:
A. The Applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation Process by
notifying the local Homeowners Association and obtaining 11 signatures (73.33%)
from properties within 100 feet and 23 signatures (25.84%) from properties within
500 feet of the project site.
A-3
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 4 of 12
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 neither 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 east and north, consisting of the ocean,
harbor, city lights, and mountains. Due to the topography of the neighborhood and
the orientation of surrounding residences, the proposed second -story addition above
the 16-foot/20-foot "by-right" height limit will not significantly impair protected views.
Properties to the west already experience view obstruction from existing "by -right"
building envelopes along Pontevedra Drive; properties to the south primarily observe
protected views to the east and already experience view obstruction when looking
north; properties to the east observe views in the opposite direction of the project
site; and properties to the north primarily observe views to the east and north, away
from the project site.
E. There will be no significant cumulative view impairment from portions of the structure
exceeding 16 feet in height. Due to the similar building pad elevations of adjacent
properties, similarly constructed additions on neighboring properties would not create
cumulative view impacts as if single-story homes along Pontevedra Drive, particularly
those at 28345 Pontevedra Drive and 28331 Pontevedra Drive were to be improved
with second-story additions, there would be no significant view impairments that are
not already impacted by the by-right height of other residences.
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 scale, architectural style, and setbacks. Although the proposed residence,
at 2,918 ft2 (including the garage), will be the largest within the immediate
neighborhood, the second-story addition is located toward the rear of the residence
and incorporates articulated facades, dormers, and varied roof forms to reduce
perceived bulk and maintain the existing streetscape. The project utilizes stucco
finishes and asphalt shingle hip roofing consistent with the existing residence and
surrounding neighborhood, maintains all existing setbacks, and retains a 40% lot
coverage, which is well below the 52% maximum permitted in the RS-5 zoning
district.
H. The proposed project will not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy. The
east-facing windows primarily observe Pontevedra Drive, adjacent front yards, and
neighboring rooflines, where there is a reduced expectation of privacy. High windows
A-4
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 5 of 12
on the north and south elevations serving bathroom and bedroom areas are designed
with sill heights of approximately 5-feet 8-inches, limiting direct views onto adjacent
properties. On the west elevation, bathroom and hallway windows also incorporate
5-foot 8-inch sill heights, while bedroom and stairwell windows are located more than
30 feet from the shared westerly property line, with the nearest adjacent residence
located over 60 feet away. The northernmost west-facing window will utilize obscured
glass and an awning-style design to further reduce potential overlooking. Additionally,
a condition of approval requires all second-story windows to remain in their approved
locations, dimensions, sill heights, configurations, and glass treatments, ensuring
privacy protections are maintained.
Section 4: The Project, which includes the 12-foot single-story addition to the
entryway, was found to meet all the Municipal Code requirements, including, but not limited
to, setbacks and height in the RS-5 zoning district.
Section 5: The City Council has considered the grounds for appeal proffered by the
Appellants, and finds and determines the same are without merit for the reasons described
below:
A. While the Appellants assert the Project should have been referred directly to the
Planning Commission pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.040(C)(1)(a)(ii), Staff determined
that the project was appropriately reviewed by the Director of Community
Development. The Appellants assert the first-story footprint was overstated, resulting
in a second-story footprint exceeding the 75% threshold requiring Planning
Commission review. However, Staff verified the project plans and survey, confirming
the first-story footprint consists of a 1,746 ft2 residence and a 360 ft2 attached garage,
for a total of 2,106 ft2. The areas included in this calculation typically refer to the
habitable floor area of the second story addition, which is 800 ft2. As such, the area
of the structure which exceeds 16 feet in height equates to 38% of the first story
footprint area. Accordingly, Staff concluded the project did not meet the threshold for
mandatory Planning Commission review and was properly reviewed by the Director
of Community Development.
B. While the Appellants assert that Staff's Neighborhood Compatibility analysis was
incomplete and inconsistent with the City's guidelines, Staff determined that the
proposed project remains compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The
existing attic was not included as additional second-story floor area because it
remains an existing, unfinished, and non -habitable space, despite proposed roof
modifications that increase interior ceiling height. Staff also found that the
Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook permits consideration of residences beyond
the nearest 20 homes to provide broader neighborhood context, including nearby
two-story residences that demonstrate similar development patterns. Although the
Appellants contend that the second-story addition should be centered over the
residence and that the project is incompatible with nearby homes, Staff evaluated the
project's overall scale, architectural design, roof form, setbacks, bulk and mass,
A-5
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 6 of 12
privacy impacts, and relationship to surrounding development. The proposed addition
maintains all required setbacks, incorporates design revisions that reduce perceived
bulk and mass, and is consistent with other two -story residences in the vicinity.
Accordingly, Staff concluded that the project complies with the City's Neighborhood
Compatibility Guidelines
C. While the Appellants assert that the proposed second-story addition, attic
configuration, and revised westerly-facing windows create significant privacy impacts
by providing views into their rear yard, pool, and interior living spaces, Staff
determined that the project would not result in an unreasonable infringement of
privacy. Staff evaluated the project based on topography, window placement, sill
heights, glazing, window type, separation distances, and the relationship between
the two properties. Although revisions to several second -story windows were made
following the April 14, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, the project continues to
incorporate numerous privacy mitigation measures, including high -sill windows,
obscured glazing, and an awning-style window that limits outward views. The clear-
glazed bedroom windows remain more than 60 feet from the Appellants' residence
and at least 30 feet from the shared property line, while the Appellants' pool and
primary outdoor activity areas are approximately 50 to 60 feet from the windows with
potential views. Additionally, the offset orienta tion of the two residences and the
larger separation between rear yard areas further reduce opportunities for direct
overlooking. Based on these site conditions and project design features, Staff
concluded that the proposed project provides reasonable protection from intrusive
visual observation and does not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy.
Section 6: For each of 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 finds there is substantial evidence from the
record as a whole to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, overrule the appeal of
Appellants and, hereby adopt this Resolution No. 2026-__, conditionally approving of a
Height Variation and Site Plan Review to allow the construction of an 812 ft2 two-story
addition consisting of an 800 ft2 second-story addition measuring 22.86 feet tall and a 12
ft2 single-story entryway addition to an existing 2,106 ft2 single-story residence for a new
total structure size of 2,918 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 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 12
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 21st day of July 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 o n July 21, 2026.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
A-7
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 8 of 12
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PLHV2025-0002
28337 PONTEVEDRA 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 ap proval 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 12
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 one year 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 12
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 an 812 ft2 two-story addition consisting of an 800 ft2 second-story addition
and a 12 ft2 first-story entryway addition to an existing 2,106 ft2 single-story residence
for a new total structure size of 2,918 ft2 (garage included).
BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection.
A-10
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 11 of 12
21. The proposed addition will measure 22.86 feet, as measured from the lowest finished
grade covered by structure (elev. 50.35 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline (elev. 73.21
feet); and a height of 21.46 feet as measured from the highest elevation of the
existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 51.75) to the highest roof ridgeline
(elev. 73.21 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:
Front (east) 20 feet
Interior Side (south) 7.17 feet
Interior Side (north) 8.67 feet
Rear (west) 22 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 52% 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 be
A-11
Resolution No. 2026-__
Page 12 of 12
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. All second-floor windows shall be maintained at the exact height, location,
configuration and glass specifications listed in the City Council-approved project
plans.
29. The Applicant shall remove from the project plans the louvers on both sides of
proposed addition and make dormer windows louvers.
PRIOR TO BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE:
30. 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.
31. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, a drainage
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department
A-12
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to appeal against the Community Director’s decision to approve the
Height Variation Permit for the proposed second-story addition to the residence at 28337
Pontevedra Drive and protest how this process was executed.
What I seek with my appeal:
• I am asking that the City Council deny the height variation permit for the proposed
addition at 28337 Pontevedra Drive (without prejudice, which will allow them to
apply again in the future with a compliant design) and uphold the tenets of
neighborhood compatibility that the voters in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
established.
• Alternatively, if you do not vote in favor of the appeal, I ask for frosting of all
windows facing west towards my property, to include the window in the stairwell, as
part of the conditions of approval.
Why vote in favor of my appeal?
• Vote in favor of my appeal if you agree that large additions (such as this one) should
be required to follow the process in the RPV MC and go before the Planning
Commission vs. the Director. The mishandling in this case forced me to appeal to
ensure the error was corrected while also changing the nature by which the Planning
Commission voted as this became a ‘going against staff’ vote as opposed to making
a 7-body decision working with staff before the application was approved or denied.
• Vote in favor of my appeal if you agree ‘bootleg additions’ which add bulk and mass
while avoiding taxes should not be permitted. This ‘attic space’ with 11ft ceilings is
the reason the windows giving visibility into 100% of my backyard and pool cannot
be moved to the front side of the house.
How did we get to this point?
Staff utilized estimates in their evaluations required by the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code instead of the actual square footage of the existing structure which
resulted in them errantly recommending the project to the Director for approval instead of
referring the project to the Planning Commission for review (as required in RPVMC
§17.02.040(C)(1)(a)(ii)). This error prevented the project from receiving a fair and thorough
review.
At the outset of the neighborhood compatibility process Staff is required to
compute the ratio of the second-story footprint to the first-floor footprint to see if it
exceeds 75% (per RPVMC §17.02.040(C)(1)(a)(ii)). If the second-story footprint exceeds
75% of the first-floor footprint the Director is required to refer the project to the Planning
Commission without rendering a decision. After learning that the actual square footage of
the addition is far larger than the staff report portrayed it to be, a member of the Planning
Commission asked why this project was only just now coming to the Planning
Commission, to which the Director replied, “We have the window of what we can review,”
with no mention of this calculation.
I performed the required calculation based on the floor plans presented in the
original staff report and calculated a 76% ratio. When I asked for details regarding how Staff
B-1
calculated this ratio Staff stated, “It is Staff’s understanding that the Planner that had taken
in this project request conducted the calculation based on the numbers provided on the
initial plan set.” Staff went on to state that the first-floor square footage used was 2,106
square feet. This is an estimated square footage that is arrived at using the 1,746 square
feet of living space and adding 360 square feet to account for the attached garage (as
stated in Table No. 1- Site Description of the staff report). This overstates the first-floor
square footage and should not be used when actual floor plans representing the
existing structure are available.
I calculated the ratio in two different ways. For the first approach I used the first-
floor square footage identified by the applicant (Please see Appendix Item 1) which totals
1,907 square feet (including the garage). With this approach the ratio comes to 76.1%. For
the second approach, I calculated the first-floor footprint using measurements from the
applicants’ floor plan (including the garage), (Please see Appendix Item 2). When
calculated with this approach the first-floor square footage is 1,927 square feet for a
resulting ratio of 75.2%.
If staff had calculated the actual first-floor footprint instead of using an
estimate they would have referred this project to the Planning Commission without
the Director rendering a decision and without me having to pay $3,200 to appeal. After
this issue was raised, Staff stated, “Staff has received an updated plan set from the
Applicants which clarify the total square footage of the structure which is above 16 feet
and included in this calculation. Based on these plans, they indicate that this area would
total 1,380 square feet, which would be less than 75% of the total square footage of the
first story footprint area.” With this “updated plan set” the ratio is 72.7%. I’ve been advised
that a “Public Records Request” is not compatible with the appeal timeline so I can
only speculate on what I may find, but given how close these numbers are to the
requirement I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Staff has coached the applicant on
how to avoid the review process required for a project of this scale.
Forcing projects of this magnitude to be reviewed by the Planning Commission is a
process that exists for a reason. The Planning Commission is composed of seven members
who all live in Rancho Palos Verdes and know what makes this community special. Having
a project of this scale decided by a single Director who does not live in our community,
based on recommendations from staff that do not live in our community, risks establishing
precedents that will destroy the very elements that make our community different and
special. The vote on this appeal was close, 4 to 3, with multiple Planning
Commissioners expressing that they do not like to vote against the Director. I believe
that if the Planning Commissioners where voting on approving the project, instead of
voting to overturn the Director’s approval, the vote would have gone the other way,
especially given the concern raised about the “attic.”
From the start, Staff has ignored the ~650 square foot, full height “attic” that was
proposed complete with door access and four exterior windows in the neighborhood
compatibility assessment. The staff report references an 800 square foot addition and
performs the neighborhood compatibility assessment without considering the true bulk
and mass of the project (~1,450 sqft). When Staff performed their neighborhood
compatibility assessment and found no two-story homes in the immediate
neighborhood (defined as 20 nearest homes). They arbitrarily expanded the sample
set and asserted that there are other two-story homes in the neighborhood, so the
B-2
project is compatible. They did not discuss the treatment of bulk and mass or privacy
by these other properties (evaluation criteria defined in the RPV MC).
During the appeal process I performed a neighborhood compatibility assessment as
defined in the RPV MC using a sample set of the 100 nearest properties (five times the
required sample set) and showed that there are four properties in the nearest 100 that are
two-story and only one of those four properties was built after neighborhood
compatibility assessments were added into the RPV MC by voter ballot. Staff validated
my data when compelled to do so by direct Planning Commissioner questions. The
Planning Commission pointed out that “existence does not equal compliance” and said
that the analysis should be focused on the one property, in the nearest 100, that was
approved and built compliant to the neighborhood compatibility rules in the RPV MC. That
property is 1808 Velez Drive.
Neighborhood Compatibility Histogram
In the follow-up appeal hearing I presented an analysis that compared the approach
to bulk and mass and privacy between the property at 1808 Velez Drive and the applicant’s
property at 28337 Pontevedra Drive.
B-3
Bulk, Mass, and Privacy Treatment
The comparison showed that the approved second-story addition at 1808 Velez
Drive was considerate of the neighbor’s privacy. On the sides of the property, they utilized
narrow and high windows or positioned the windows below the first-floor ridge peak to
avoid views into their neighbor’s properties. They utilized a large window on the front
looking into the public right-of-way and on the rear of the property they positioned their
addition such that there is more than 70 feet between their window and the rear neighbor’s
property. The property at 1808 Velez Drive is also located ~8 feet below grade of the rear
neighbor and has a high wall and greenery at the top of the slope to further reduce privacy
concerns. The property has been on the market for the last 6 months and I was able to see
the views from the second-story windows, they truly have no visibility into their neighbor’s
yards. Regarding bulk and mass the second-story addition at 1808 Velez Drive is ~860
square feet and does not include a large “attic” space. The addition is aligned to the
front of the house which centers the bulk and mass of the project on the property and
keeps the second-story from looming over the neighboring houses.
In contrast to the treatment of bulk and mass and privacy at 1808 Velez Drive the
applicant’s project at 28337 Pontevedra Drive concentrates the bulk and mass of the
project at the rear of their structure presenting a towering silhouette that is only 22
feet from my property. The second-story addition includes ~800 square feet of living
space as well as ~650 square feet of “attic” space that has ~11 foot ceilings, which
drives the roof peak to be significantly higher than it would be if only the ~800 square
feet addition were added.
B-4
Scale of Project Exceeds ~800 sqft Addition Assessed in Staff Report
The proposed addition also includes four windows that provide views into 100%
of the backyard of my property, including my pool, patio, dining room, and kitchen.
Three of these windows are clear and have no privacy mitigation of any kind. One of the
windows is frosted and was added after I appealed.
View Lines from Windows into 1928 Galerita Drive
Based on the analysis performed, the treatment of bulk and mass and privacy are
clearly not consistent between the two properties and there is no basis to point to the
structure at 1808 Velez Drive as proof of neighborhood compatibility for the proposed
addition at 28337 Pontevedra Drive.
B-5
I believe a compromise is possible that is in alignment with the precedence of
neighborhood compatibility established by the property at 1808 Velez Drive. I offered this
compromise in response to a request from a Planning Commissioner at the end of the
appeal hearing on April 14th (Please see Appendix Item 3). The suggested compromise is
meant as an example of how the proposed addition could be made compatible with the
neighborhood and not an edict on how the applicant must build their addition. The intent of
the example floor plan is to show that the applicant can retain 100% of the living space
they have proposed with a configuration that is compatible with the neighborhood.
The compromise would require the applicant to remove or greatly reduce the “attic”
as it drives more than half of the mass of the project. Attic space is typically defined as
non-habitable space for which permit fees and property taxes are not paid. During the
appeal discussion at the Planning Commission more than one Planning
Commissioner referred to the applicant’s “attic” as “the bootleg addition.” The
Planning Commission clearly identified that they believe the applicant intends to convert
this space to useable space in the future. The Planning Commission stated that “they are
not code enforcement” and opined that there is nothing any of them can do to keep the
applicant from converting the space in the future. Regardless of whether the applicant
converts this space into an illegal addition, the bulk and mass of it will exist. As I
stated previously, this drives the bulk and mass of the proposed addition to be closer to
that of a 1,450 square foot addition than the 800 square foot addition staff assessed and is
visually equivalent to putting the entire living space of my house on top of the applicant’s
existing structure.
True Bulk and Mass of Proposed Project
As stated in the RPV MC, and referenced by the Planning Commission, the
tenets of neighborhood compatibility are supposed to apply to a 360-degree
assessment. The proposed project puts the bulk and mass at the back of the structure
and targets the impact of the addition on me and my family. The applicants own architect
said, “If we aligned the project to the front, this room would be packed with people from
Pontevedra fighting it” (@ 2hr, 16min 4/14/26 RPV PC hearing). True to that statement, the
B-6
applicant circulated a petition amongst the neighbors on Pontevedra Drive to ask if they
supported moving the project forward on the structure. Not surprisingly, no one on
Pontevedra Drive supports moving the project forward to be more centered on the property.
In fact, the applicant included a letter of support written from a neighbor on Pontevedra
Drive that said, “If the project were pushed forward to the street it would create
unnecessary bulk and mass that would look out of place. I do not want to be looking at a
large, boxy structure in front of my home.” I agree with the letter’s author, in part, the bulk
and mass are unnecessary (as it is an “attic”) and likely no one wants to look at it. However,
I also find the author to be hypocritical as she states she does not want to look at it
from her front yard, which is more than 140 feet from the proposed addition but
believes that I should be okay with looking at it 22 feet from my property.
Pontevedra Drive Residents Don’t Want Mass Visible On Their Street
The petition and the letter both show that this project is not compatible with the
neighborhood as it indicates the residents of Pontevedra Drive don’t want to look at the
bulk and mass and are only okay with the project because it puts all of the impact on the
residents of Galerita Drive and most specifically me and my family, this is not in
alignment with the 360-degree assessment of neighborhood compatibility.
At the end of the appeal hearing on April 14th the Planning Commission asked me, as
the appellant, to give the applicant time to make adjustments to the proposed project
before a vote was held. I agreed to the Planning Commission’s request with the hope that
the applicant would move towards a compromise. The result of the changes the applicant
made did not move towards a compromise and in fact made the privacy impacts worse as
they added a new window (even closer to my pool) and unfrosted the windows they had
originally frosted to help mitigate privacy concerns and gain the Director’s approval. They
cited “safety” as the reason for this change, but the Planning Commissioners pointed out
that they did not indicate there was a safety concern. Despite the Planning
Commissioner’s rebuff of their logic for the change, the unfrosted windows remain and my
property is subjected to even more unreasonable infringement of privacy.
B-7
The discussion of privacy at the Planning Commission hearing was spirited and it is
clear that the Planning Commissioners have different opinions regarding privacy. The most
concerning statement about privacy came from one of the commissioners who stated,
“When you are outside your home you do not have a right to privacy.” (@ 1hr, 15min
5/26/26 RPV PC hearing). I respect that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but this
opinion is not in alignment with either the RPV MC which states that “Greater weight
will be given to protecting outdoor privacy than indoor privacy” or the California
Constitution (Article I, Section 1) which establishes privacy as an inalienable right and
forms the basis of the “reasonable expectation of privacy” legal standard that has
been used in numerous cases over the last 30 years to protect the privacy of
Californians in their backyards.
The key issue in the privacy discussion which was not discussed is, “What
constitutes an unreasonable infringement of privacy?” My backyard is currently private,
with no views from the public right-of-way or any other structure in the neighborhood. I
contend that having windows with views into 100% of my property is an unreasonable
infringement of my privacy. I performed view box calculations based on the proposed
addition floor plan and showed that the views from the windows cover 100% of my
property.
Red shadowing shows visibility from windows into 100% of 1928 Galerita Drive’s
backyard, to include private pool space at ~30 feet
No one disputed these views. Staff just asserted they do not present an
unreasonable infringement of privacy, with no backup data to support why it is reasonable
(i.e. no examples of other properties in the neighborhood with similar infringements of
privacy to say that I am being treated equally and that my expectation to maintain my
existing privacy is unreasonable).
In summary, this project presents more mass on the second-story than any
other property in the neighborhood, concentrates the impact of that mass on one
neighbor, and does nothing to mitigate the privacy impacts on the rear neighbor. All
aspects that go against the tenets of neighborhood compatibility. The approval of this
project sets a precedence for the neighborhood. There is only one property in the
nearest 100 that was built after the neighborhood compatibility assessment became law.
The decision on this project will either uphold the tenets added into the RPV MC by voter
ballot or it will show that the city is ignoring those tenets and the will of the voters. I am
asking that the City Council deny the height variation permit for the proposed addition at
28337 Pontevedra Drive (without prejudice, which will allow them to apply again in the
future with a compliant design) and uphold the tenets of neighborhood compatibility that
the voters in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes established.
B-8
Appendix:
Item 1: Applicant Stated 1st-floor SQFT
Item 2: Applicant Submitted 1st-Floor, Floor Plan
B-9
Item 3: Appellant Proposed Compromise
B-10
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
May 27, 2026
NOTICE OF DECISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
has adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2026-08, thereby denying an appeal and affirming the decision
of the Community Development Director’s conditional approval of a Height Variation Permit and
Site Plan Review to allow the construction of a new 800 ft2 second-story addition and a 12 ft2
single-story addition to an existing 2,106 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of
2,918 ft2 (garage included), subject to conditions of approval contained in the attached exhibit ‘A’
(Case No. PLHV2025-0002).
LOCATION: 28337 PONTEVEDRA DRIVE
APPLICANT: HJ ARCHITECTURE
LANDOWNER: MARIANNE & SAMEH MANSOUR
Said decision is subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in the attached P.C. Resolution
No. 2026-08.
This decision may be appealed, in writing, to the City Council. 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 approval date, or by 5:30PM on Thursday,
June 11, 2026. A $3,193.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed
timely, the Planning Commission’s decision will be final at 5:30PM on Thursday, June 11, 2026.
If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact the Planning Division at (310)
544-5390 or via email at jkim@rpvca.gov.
Brandy Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-11
E-12
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
DEVELOPMENT
PLHV2025-0002)
PROJECT LOCATION: 28337 PONTEVEDRA DRIVE
APPLICANT: HJ ARCHITECTURE
LANDOWNER: MARIANNE & SAMEH MANSOUR
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Height Variation Permit to construct a new 800 ft2 second-story addition and a
12 ft2 single-story addition to an existing 2,106 ft2 single-story residence for a new total
structure size of 2,918 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:
• January 30, 2025 - The Applicant submitted the requested application for the
proposed project.
• March 5, 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.
• October 16, 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 9 public comments
in response to the proposed project and public notice, which are further evaluated
throughout the sections of this report.
F-1
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 2
• December 16, 2025 – The Applicant provided several extensions to the
Community Development Department in the processing and consideration of the
proposed project until February 10, 2026.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The following Table No. 1 provides key characteristics of the project site:
Table No. 1- Site Description
28337 Pontevedra Drive
Lot Size & Type 8,128 ft² pad-lot
Existing Improvements 1,746 ft² single-story residence and a 360 ft²
attached garage (total structure size 2,106 ft²)
Zoning Designation RS-5 (Single-Family Residential)
General Plan Designation Residential 4-6 D.U./AC
Special Districts N/A
Surrounding Land-Use Single-family to the north, south, east, and west.
Miscellaneous N/A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of the following improvements:
F-2
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 3
• Construct an 800 ft2 second-story addition and a 12 ft2 single-story addition to an
existing 2,106 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,918 ft2
(garage included).
The proposed addition will measure 24.67 feet, as measured from the lowest finished
grade covered by structure (elev. 50.35 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline (elev. 75.02
feet); and a height of 23.27 feet as measured from the highest elevation of the existing
grade covered by the structure (elev. 51.75) to the highest roof ridgeline (elev. 75.02
feet).
The table below highlights statistics of the proposed project:
Table No. 2. Project Statistics
CRITERIA
CODE
REQUIREMENT
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
Lot Size 8,000 ft2 8,128 ft2 No change
Structure Size
(with garage) included) (Garage
Point where the highest
existing foundation or slab
meets finished grade to the
16 feet 17.42 feet 23.27 feet
foundation or slab meets
finished grade to the highest 20 feet 18.82 feet 24.67 feet
F-3
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 4
CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS
The following is the 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 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. 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 11
signatures (73.33%) from properties within 100 feet of the project site and 23 signatures
(25.84%) 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
F-4
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 5
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.
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 or 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 consists of sloping conditions from south to north along
Pontevedra Drive, 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 east and north. Views to the east
consist of the ocean and harbor and views to the north consist of city lights and mountains.
Based on Staff’s assessment of the proposed project, the second-story addition will not
result in a significant view impairment from the viewing areas of another parcel. This
assessment includes the evaluation of multiple public comments submitted by the
property owners at 1928 and 1922 Galerita Drive, which expressed concerns with the
project related to view impairments. Staff’s assessment along with responses to the
submitted public comments are further detailed below:
• The views observed from the properties located to the west of the project site,
including the properties at 1928 and 1922 Galerita Drive are currently impacted by
the 16-foot/20-foot ‘by-right’ building envelope of residences located to the east
along Pontevedra Drive as well as the ancillary site improvements found on these
properties such as perimeter walls. The public comments from the property owners
at 1928 and 1922 Galerita Drive expressed concerns that the proposed project
would impair their views of the sky, surrounding nature, and trees. With respect to
view impacts of the sky, pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.040(A)(14), views of the sky
are not protected views. Regarding view impacts to surrounding nature and trees,
pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.040(A)(14)(a), near views on the peninsula including
a valley, ravine, equestrian trail, pastoral environment or any natural setting are
protected by the City’s View Ordinance. Based on Staff’s assessment of land use
development in the area of the project site, conditions primarily consist of
developed residential lots, commercial buildings and related site improvements
along Western Avenue as well as public streets without the presence of view
elements outlined in RPVMC §17.02.040(A)(14)(a).
• The properties which are located to the south of the project site along Pontevedra
Drive do not observe any protected views in the direction of the project site as
views are primarily observed to the east.
F-5
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 6
• The properties located to the east of the project site along the east side of
Pontevedra Drive observe views to the east, which is in the opposite direction of
the project site.
• The properties located to the north of the project site along Pontevedra Drive
observe views oriented to the east and north, which are in the opposite direction
of the project site.
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.
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. Based on Staff’s assessment
of the proposed project properties along Pontevedra Drive are separated by transitional
slopes approximately 2-feet to 5-feet in height. This subtle terracing feature between
properties results in conditions whereby the 16-foot/20-foot “by-right” building height
envelope of existing residential structures result in view impairments as observed from
properties to the west of the project site. As such, if existing single-story homes along
Pontevedra Drive, particularly those at 28345 Pontevedra Drive and 28331 Pontevedra
Drive were to be improved with second-story additions, the portions above 16 feet in
height would impair views of the sky, which is not a view element protected by the City’s
View Ordinance. 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.
F-6
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 7
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.
Table No. 3. Neighborhood Compatibility Table
ADDRESS LOT
SIZE
STRUCTURE
SIZE NO. OF
STORIES
28356 Pontevedra Dr 8,060 2,066 1
28350 Pontevedra Dr 8,070 1,798 1
28344 Pontevedra Dr 8,769 2,360 1
28338 Pontevedra Dr 8,805 2,367 1
28330 Pontevedra Dr 8,627 2,536 1
28324 Pontevedra Dr 8,979 2,134 1
28318 Pontevedra Dr 9,008 2,006 1
28351 Pontevedra Dr 7,087 2,006 1
28345 Pontevedra Dr 7,634 2,387 1
28331 Pontevedra Dr 6,782 2,691 1
28325 Pontevedra Dr 6,812 2,165 1
28319 Pontevedra Dr 7,838 2,139 1
1813 Velez Dr 7,084 1,798 1
1819 Velez Dr 8,366 2,006 1
1825 Velez Dr 7,781 2,259 1
1940 Galerita Dr 7,738 2,006 1
1934 Galerita Dr 9,029 1,892 1
1928 Galerita Dr 9,958 1,798 1
1922 Galerita Dr 6,623 2,134 1
F-7
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 8
ADDRESS LOT
SIZE
STRUCTURE
SIZE NO. OF
STORIES
1916 Galerita Dr 6,386 2,373 1
28337
Pontevedra 8,128 Proposed 2
*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 public comments from property owners at 1916, 1922, and 1928 Galerita
Drive expressing concerns about the proposed project’s compatibility with the immediate
neighborhood with respect to 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 ranging in size between 1,798 ft² and 2,691 ft², with an
average structure size of 2,146 ft². The project residence will result in a total
structure size of 2,918 ft² (garage included), which will be the largest in the
immediate neighborhood by 227 ft2.
• Although the proposed residence will be the largest in the immediate
neighborhood, the proposed project has also been designed in a manner that will
help minimize the sense of scale as observed from the public right-of-way. More
specifically, the proposed design of the second-story addition will maintain the
existing streetscape by incorporating a singular gable roofline with a set of accent
dormers along the front elevation of the project residence to reduce perception of
bulk and mass while maintaining a compatible scale with surrounding properties.
• The west or rear elevation of the project residence has been designed with an
architectural roof feature to delineate between the upper and lower levels of the
project residence as identified in Diagram No. 1 below.
Diagram No. 1 - View of Rear Project Elevation
F-8
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 9
• The proposed second-story addition will be maintaining all existing setbacks and
will be constructed over existing portions of the residence with an overhang over
an existing covered patio in the rear.
• 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 40%, which is less than the maximum allowed lot
coverage in the RS-5 zoning district (52%).
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 1916 and 1928 Galerita Drive,
expressed concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility of the project as it relates to
architectural style, structure height and bulk and mass. In addition, Staff received a public
comment from the property owner at 1922 Galerita that expressed concerns related to
the project’s impact on open space, light and air between structures. Staff believes that
the proposed project is compatible with other homes in the area as follows:
• In terms of the project’s compatibility with the architectural design and façade
treatments in the immediate area, the proposed project will be architecturally
consistent the other residences in the neighborhood as it will utilize stucco finishes
and asphalt shingle hip roofing, which also matches the existing residence and
others in the area.
• With respect to the project’s compatibility with the number of stories and height in
the immediate area, while an evaluation of the closest 20 residences did not
identify another two-story residence; a review of aerial imagery identified the
presence of three existing two-story residences (1808 Velez Drive, 28408
Pontevedra Drive and 28311 Pontevedra Drive) in the general area of the
F-9
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 10
neighborhood as noted in Diagram No. 2. Based on a review of property records,
the height of two of these residences range between 21.42 (28311 Pontevedra
Drive) to 24.75 (1808 Velez Drive), which are similar in height with the proposed
height of the project residence at 24.67 feet.
Diagram No. 2 – Existing Two-story Residences in the General Neighborhood
• With respect to apparent bulk and mass of the proposed project, the second-story
addition has been designed so as to not appear overwhelming or disproportionate
in size or scale with other homes in the area. More specifically, the proposed
design maintains its single-story configuration and horizontal orientation on the
visually prominent portions of the structure, particularly the street facing elevation.
Furthermore, the proposed design will also incorporate smaller hip roofs and
architectural bump outs on the sides of the second-story addition along with two
roof dormers facing Pontevedra Drive that create additional façade and roof
articulation throughout the project residence.
• The proposed project complies with the minimum setbacks required for the RS-5
Zoning designation as well as maintaining similar setbacks to other properties
within the immediate neighborhood, which will provide for adequate light and air
between structures. Furthermore, the proposed project will not reduce established
setbacks, as the second-story addition will be sited over the existing single-story
project residence. Such design ensures that the project site provides for sufficient
spaces for exterior functions, like a driveway and entry approaches, parking, patio
and garden areas for the subject and adjacent properties.
F-10
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 11
3) Front, side, and rear yard setbacks.
According to the RPVMC, structures on lots zoned RS-5 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, all existing setbacks will be maintained with this
project request.
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 east, south, north, and west facades
of the proposed second-story addition.
Staff received public comments from the property owners at 1916,1921, and 1928
Galerita Drive expressing privacy concerns with the proposed project. Based on a review
of the topographical conditions in the area and various site visits to the neighborhood,
Staff believes the proposed project will not result in an unreasonable infringement of
privacy on the adjacent properties as follows:
• The east or front façade of the proposed second-story addition is designed with
four windows that observe views of the public street (Pontevedra Drive), roof areas
and front yards of adjacent properties. The two windows located under the
proposed dormers are fixed with no ventilation and located approximately 7-feet 4-
inches in height.
• The south or side façade of the proposed second-story addition is designed with 3
windows. Two windows are located in the proposed primary bathroom on the
second-floor and will have a sill height of 5-feet 8-inches from the finished second
floor. Based on the height of these windows, views of adjacent properties will be
limited. The third window is located in the existing unfinished attic space of the
project residence and will be designed with frosted glass, so as to minimize view
to and from the unfinished attic area. Recommended Condition of Approval No. 28
requires that all second-floor windows shall be maintained at the exact height,
location, configuration and glass specifications listed in the approved plan set.
• The north or side façade of the proposed second-story addition is designed with 3
windows. Two windows are located in a bedroom area on the proposed second-
F-11
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 12
floor. These windows have a proposed sill height of 3-feet 9-inches and will be
utilized as safety ingress/egress windows pursuant to California Residential
Building Code. The design of these windows incorporates a fixed upper glass
panel over a ventilating awning panel all with frosted glass so as to focus views on
the project site and minimize views of neighboring properties. The third window on
this facade of the project residence will be located in the area of the existing
unfinished attic space of the project residence. The third window is located in the
existing unfinished attic space of the project residence and will be designed with
frosted glass, so as to minimize view to and from the unfinished attic area.
Recommended Condition of Approval No. 28 requires that all second-floor
windows shall be maintained at the exact height, location, configuration and glass
specifications listed in the approved plan set.
• The west or rear façade of the proposed second-story addition is designed with 6
windows. The public comments received by Staff predominantly note concerns
related to privacy impacts based on these windows on the adjacent neighbor at
1928 Galerita Drive, which is located to the west of the project site. These
comments list specific concerns that these windows will provide viewing angles
into their rear yard, kitchen, living room, and dining room areas. As proposed, 3 of
the proposed windows that will be located in the bathroom of the primary bedroom,
and office/bedroom areas are all designed with sill heights of 5-feet 8-inches to
minimize views of adjacent properties. Based on the proposed staircase
configuration, the window located over the hallway staircase will have a sill height
of approximately 7-foot 9-inches feet above the finished floor of the staircase,
which limits views of adjacent properties. The two windows located in the area of
the proposed primary bedroom have a proposed sill height of 3-feet 8-inches. One
window is designed with frosted glass and incorporates a fixed upper glass panel
over a ventilating awning panel all to focus views on the project site and minimize
views of neighboring properties. The second window is designed as a single-hung
configuration in order to comply with fire safety ingress/egress pursuant to the
California Residential Code. This window is also designed with frosted glass.
Recommended Condition of Approval No. 28 requires that all second-floor
windows shall be maintained at the exact height, location, configuration and glass
specifications listed in the approved plan set.
Staff believes that the proposed changes and designs along with the ability to utilize
curtains or blinds to protect indoor areas of adjacent properties such as the kitchen and
living room, do not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy on adjacent neighbors.
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.
F-12
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 13
The proposed project, which includes the 12-foot single-story addition in the entryway,
meets all the Municipal Code requirements, including, but not limited to, setbacks and
height in the RS-5 zoning district.
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.
Permit Streamline Act
The State Permit Streamlining Act sets time limits on processing development permit
applications. The maximum number of days allowed by State law for processing
categorically exempt project applications is 60 days. The project was deemed complete
on October 16, 2025, establishing a decision deadline of December 15, 2025. In
coordination with the Applicant, extensions in the processing of the application were
provided through February 10, 2026.
Public Correspondence
Staff received a total (9) public comments (Attached) from five (5) different property
owners at 1928, 1916, 1922, 1921 and 1916 Galerita Drive from the public notice which
was issued on October 16, 2025. The public comments expressed concerns regarding
view impacts, neighborhood compatibility, open space, privacy impacts, and property
values. Staff’s analysis of view impacts, privacy impacts, neighborhood compatibility,
open space 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 1916 and 1922 Galerita Drive expressed concerns that the
proposed project would have potential negative impact on the property value of their
properties and the general neighborhood should the proposed second-story addition be
approved. The RPVMC does not include provisions that evaluate a project’s potential
impact to property values on surrounding neighbors.
Cumulative Development
The property owners at 1910 Galerita Drive expressed concerns that the proposed project
F-13
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 14
would encourage other property owners to also seek to add second stories onto their
homes with the approval of this request, thus leading to overbuilding. As noted in the
analysis above, in the immediate neighborhood adjacent to the closest 20 residences,
there are three residences with two stories, therefore this is not the first two story
residence in the neighborhood. As well, should neighboring property owners seek to
develop second-story additions, they would be required to obtain Planning Division
approval and Building Permits for such requests. As part of this process, Staff would
evaluate each request within the context of their proposal based on the findings outlined
in RPVMC §17.02.040(C)(1)(e).
Foliage Analysis
A foliage analysis conducted by Staff on February 20, 2025, revealed no existing foliage
that significantly impairs the view from the surrounding viewing areas
CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion, Staff recommends that the Director of Community
Development approve a Height Variation Permit to construct a new 800 ft2 second-story
addition and a 12 ft2 single-story addition to an existing 2,106 ft2 single-story residence
for a new total structure size of 2,918 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:
February 4, 2026
________________________ Date:__ _______________
Brandy Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Attachments:
• Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval
• Project Plans
• Public Comments
F-14
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 15
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PLHV2025-0002
28337 PONTEVEDRA 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-15
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 16
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-16
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 17
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 an 800 ft2 second-story addition and a 12 ft2 single-story addition to an
existing 2,106 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,918 ft2
(garage included).
F-17
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 18
• Accommodate ancillary site improvements such as an existing play structure in the
rear yard.
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 24.67 feet, as measured from the lowest
finished grade covered by structure (elev. 50.35 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline
(elev. 75.02 feet); and a height of 23.27 feet as measured from the highest
elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 51.75) to the highest
roof ridgeline (elev. 75.02 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 40% 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
F-18
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 19
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
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. All second-floor windows shall be maintained at the exact height, location,
configuration and glass specifications listed in the approved plan set date stamped
______.
PRIOR TO BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE:
29. 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.
30. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, a drainage
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
F-19
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
February 5, 2026
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 to construct a new 800 ft2 second-story
addition and a 12 ft2 single-story addition to an existing 2,106 ft2 single-story residence for a new
total structure size of 2,918 ft2 (garage included), along with ancillary site improvements subject
to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit “A”.
LOCATION: 28337 PONTEVEDRA DRIVE
APPLICANT: HJ ARCHITECTURE
LANDOWNER: MARIANNE & SAMEH MANSOUR
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 5:30 PM on Friday,
February 20, 2026. 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 5:30PM on Friday, February 20, 2026.
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
G-1
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 15
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PLHV2025-0002
28337 PONTEVEDRA 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.
G-2
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 16
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.
G-3
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 17
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 an 800 ft2 second-story addition and a 12 ft2 single-story addition to an
existing 2,106 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,918 ft2
(garage included).
G-4
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 18
• Accommodate ancillary site improvements such as an existing play structure in the
rear yard.
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 24.67 feet, as measured from the lowest
finished grade covered by structure (elev. 50.35 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline
(elev. 75.02 feet); and a height of 23.27 feet as measured from the highest
elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 51.75) to the highest
roof ridgeline (elev. 75.02 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 40% 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
G-5
Memorandum: Case No. PLHV2025-0002
February 5, 2026
Page 19
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
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. All second-floor windows shall be maintained at the exact height, location,
configuration and glass specifications listed in the approved plan set date stamped
______.
PRIOR TO BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE:
29. 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.
30. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, a drainage
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
G-6
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to appeal against the Community Director’s decision to approve the
Height Variation Permit for the proposed second-story addition to the residence at 28337
Pontevedra Drive. Below are comments from my review of the staff recommendation report
and the director’s Notice of Decision regarding the proposed second-story addition that
motivate my desire to appeal.
I found the recommendation in the staff report to be incongruous. The report states,
“greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor privacy” and then fails to
mention, even once, the privacy impact to my family’s pool and the pools of my neighbors
(all of which are outdoors). The report also fails to mention that the proposed windows will
provide visibility into 100% of my family’s backyard, depriving my family of ALL our outdoor
privacy.
As part of the application review process, my wife and I have taken time off work
multiple times to make ourselves available to meet with RPV CD PD staff and drive to city
hall to review the applicant’s proposals. Privacy is a high concern for me and my family, and
it is clearly important to the applicant as they have a privacy hedge between their property
and their higher-grade neighbors to ensure that they have privacy in their pool. A privacy
hedge is not possible between the applicant’s property and my own due to the presence of
power lines and the fact that the height and location of the windows would require the
hedge to grow into the power lines to obstruct the view from the applicant’s second-story
windows. Other accommodations to limit the privacy impact were proposed and reviewed
including increasing the height of the wall between the properties (via a vinyl cap). The
crude digital rendering of this approach that was included in the last version of the
application that was made available for review at city hall grossly overstated the positive
impact of this approach to protect our privacy. I appreciate that RPV CD PD performed a
site visit and took pictures, including height measurement poles, to show that this
proposed approach does not obstruct the views from the second-story windows and does
nothing to limit the applicant’s infringement of my family’s privacy. I am disappointed that
the findings from evaluation of these multiple approaches were not included in the report
as they support the fact that, no matter what mitigations are employed, the existence of
windows facing my property on the second story of the residence at 28337 Pontevedra will
infringe upon my family’s privacy.
I found the report’s recommendation regarding the neighborhood compatibility to
be disingenuous. The report correctly points out that the subject property will be the
largest, and only two-story residence in the sample set of the 20 closest residences. But
rather than use those facts to back the correct finding that the subject property is not
compatible with the neighborhood the author of the report arbitrarily (and narrowly)
expanded the sample set to include other two-story residences. Residences which do not
have visibility into pools on adjacent properties, and which were largely built before the
neighborhood was annexed into RPV and subject to the RPVMC. Had the author further
expanded the sample set to include the nearest ~150 homes they would see, as I pointed
H-1
out in my correspondence on 11/17/2025, that our neighborhood is comprised of greater
than 98% single-story, single-family residences. Review of the submitted public comment
letters indicates support from the community to maintain the current character of the
neighborhood and keep it a community of single-story family homes.
The report correctly identifies that the “bulk and mass of the proposed project” is
not in alignment with the other existing structures in the immediate neighborhood and then
points out that in an effort to, “not appear overwhelming or disproportionate in size or scale
with other homes in the area” the addition has been aligned to the rear of the structure.
This attempts to disguise the fact that the proposed project is not compatible with the
neighborhood by minimizing the visual impacts from the street while maximizing the
impacts to the residents in the adjacent properties. Orienting the addition to the front of
the structure and placing all the windows on the street side of the second-story addition
would present a solution that does not infringe upon my family’s privacy. Per the report, this
approach would draw attention to the “bulk and mass of the proposed project” and present
a project that would appear overwhelming and disproportionate in size or scale with other
homes in the area.
In summary, I am requesting that the Planning Commission reject the required
height variation permit that is required to allow the second-story addition at 28337
Pontevedra Drive to proceed or make amendments to the proposed project to remove the
second-story windows that face my property. The project, as proposed, will deprive my
family of its outdoor privacy and result in a property that does not comply with the
“Neighborhood Character.”
Regards,
Jason Steininger-Holmes
1928 Galerita Dr.
H-2
FRONT VIEW | ASK C
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 I-1
OWNER
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
MARIANNE AND SAMEH MANSOUR
TEL: (310) 420 7705
E MAIL: Marianne_ma@outlook.com
ARCHITECT
2190 OREGON AVE,
LONG BEACH, CA 90806
HJ ARCHITECTURE
ATTN: HALEH JOHNSON, AIA
TEL: (562) 383 0244
E MAIL: HALEH@HJARC.COM
DIRECTORY
ASSESSOR ID NO. (APN) 7550 003 012
TRACT NO 18968
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ADDITION OF 812 SF, SECOND LEVEL TO THE REAR PORTION OF THE EXISTING
SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE FOR MASTER BEDROOM, MASTER BATH AND OFFICE.
RENOVATION OF FIRST LEVEL, REPLACE ONE BEDROOM FOR THE STAIRCASE AND
EXPAND FRONT FOYER.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
COVER SHEET | ASK C.1
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
PROJECT SUMMARY
MAIN RESIDENCE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OVERALL SITE AREA
1,746 SF
8,128 SF
OCCUPANCY
2
R-3
NUMBER OF STORIES ONE
FIRE SPRINKLERED NOT FIRE SPRINKLERED
TITLE 24 CONSULTANT
22914 DRY CREEK RD
DIAMON BAR, CA 91765
ANPE
ATTN: ALI NEHME, P.E.
TEL: (818) 612 9316
E MAIL: ALI8863@GMAIL.COM
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
900 N, SANTA ANITA AVE. #8,
ARCADIA, CA 91006
JKL ENGINEERING
ATTN: JASON K. LIN
TEL: 626 524 2210
E MAIL: JKLSTRUCTURAL@GMAIL.COM
3,306/8,128=40%
ADDITION 812 SF
TOTAL 2,558 SF
EXISTING PROPOSED
3,306/8,128=40%LOT COVERAGE (footprint + Impervious areas)
(E) GARAGE 360 SF
17'-5"21'-6"BUILDING HEIGHT
R-3
TWO
NOT FIRE SPRINKLERED
PARKING PROVIDED 2
22'-0"
FRONT SETBACK
REAR SETBACK
SIDE SETBACK
SIDE SETBACK
20'-0"20'-0"
8'-8"
7'-2"
22'-0"
8'-8"
7'-2"
IMPERVIOUS AREAS 1,200 SF
360 SF
1,200 SF
I-2
EXISTING PHOTOS | ASK C.2
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 I-3
EXISTING PHOTOS % ATTIC | ASK C.3
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
NON-HABITABLE ATTIC SPACE:THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED ATTIC IS NOT
DESIGNED OR INTENDED FOR HABITABLE USE
• INSUFFICIENT HEIGHT:MAXIMUM CLEAR HEIGHT IS APPROXIMATELY 5'-0" TO
THE UNDERSIDE OF THE COLLAR TIES, WHICH IS BELOW CODE REQUIREMENTS
FOR HABITABLE SPACE
• STRUCTURAL OBSTRUCTIONS: COLLAR TIES AND PURLIN BRACING EXTEND
THROUGHOUT THE ATTIC, SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITING USABLE VOLUME AND
HEADROOM. THE MAXIMUM CLEAR HEIGHT IS APPROXIMATELY 5'-0", WHICH
DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM 7'-0" CEILING HEIGHT REQUIRED FOR HABITABLE
SPACES PER CRC SECTION R305.
• MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT:EXISTING DUCTWORK AND AN HVAC UNIT OCCUPY
SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE ATTIC SPACE
• NO FLOOR ASSEMBLY:NO FLAT OR FINISHED FLOOR IS PROPOSED,
PREVENTING FUNCTIONAL OCCUPANCY
• UNFINISHED CONDITION:NO INSULATION OR INTERIOR FINISHES ARE
PROPOSED WITHIN THE ATTIC
• LIMITED NATURAL LIGHT:ONLY TWO SMALL DORMER WINDOWS ARE
PROVIDED, INSUFFICIENT FOR HABITABLE USE
• NO CODE-COMPLIANT ACCESS:ACCESS IS LIMITED TO A CEILING HATCH FROM
THE FIRST FLOOR, WITH NO STAIRWAY OR DIRECT ACCESS PROVIDED
I-4
RE
F
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
LA
W
N
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
(5
0
'
)
(4
9
'
)
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
T
E
R
(5
0
'
)
(4
9
'
)
(4
8
'
)
(4
7
'
)
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
LAWN
PUMP
ROOF EAVE
ROOF EAVE
N 47°22'56" E
LAWN
S
1
3
°
4
3
'
9
9
"
W
PO
N
T
E
V
E
D
R
A
(E) GARAGE
(E) ONE STORY
RESIDENCE
1,746 SQ. FT.
1
ASK 4.2
______
1
ASK 4.1
______
(E) COVERED
PATIO
(N) 2ND
STORY
ADDITION
800 SQ. FT.
2
ASK 4.2
______
2
ASK 4.1
______
8'
8
"
7'
2
"
22' 0"
39' 5"
5' 6"18' 0"
5'
0
"
3'
2
"
(E) PLAY STRUCTURE 132" TALL
PROPOSED HEDGES
ALONG THE FENCE
12 SF
SITE PLAN | ASK%0
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
3/32" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN_N
I-5
SITE SURVEY | ASK%0.1
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
HIGHEST ELEVATION OF
EXISTING BUILDING PAD
COVERED BY THE STRUCTURE
POINT WHERE THE LOWEST
FOUNDATION OR SLAB MEETS
THE FINISHED GRADE
I-6
REF DN
NEW ENTRY,
EXPAND THE
ENTRY BY 12 SF
STORAGE CLOSET
UNDER STAIRS
NEW DORMERS IN EXISTING
ATTIC =
30 S.F. (x2)
NEW WINDOW
SHORTEN
WALL
SECOND STORY ADDITION
= 800 S.F.
48'$1"
468 SF
(E) GARAGE
211 SF
KITCHEN
184 SF
BED 1
85 SF
BED 2
153 SF
BED 3
67 SF
(N) BATH 2
489 SF
DINING | LIVING
250 SF
HALL
NEW
FENCE/SCREEN
CAB.
NEW WINDOW
NEW WINDOW
12
'
$
8
"
6'$1"
1'$6"
2'
$
9
"
(E) ATTIC ACCESS
192 SF
OFFICE/BED 4
(E) ATTIC
CAL KING BED
15'$2"8'$0"4'$2"8'$1"10'$10"
239 SF
BED 5 / MASTER
31 SF
WC
15
'
$
1
1
"
8'
$
1
0
"
7'
$
0
"
92 SF
MASTER BATH
HALL 15
'
$
1
0
"
ASK$3.8 1ASK$3.8 2
MECH UNIT
MECH. DUCTWORK
W3
W1
W1
W1
W4W1W3
W2
W1
VENTED ATTIC LOUVER
W5
W3
37'$0"
17
'
$
7
"
ATTIC HATCH
ROOF RIDGE
5'$0" TO BOTTOM
OF COLLAR TIES,
TYP.
W1
TOTAL STRUCTURE ABOVE
16' = 1,380 SF < 75% FIRST
STORY FOOTPRINT INCL.
GARAGE
FLOOR PLANS | ASK 2.1
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
1/8" = 1'-0"1 LEVEL 1 F.F.
1/8" = 1'-0"2 LEVEL 2 F.F.
TYPE TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT SILL HEIGHT COUNT GLASS
W1 SLIDING 3'$0" 1'$4" 5'$8"5 CLEAR
W2 SINGLE HUNG 3'$0" 4'$0" 3'$0"1 FROSTED
W3 SINGLE HUNG 3'$0" 4'$0" 3'$0"3 CLEAR
W4 FIXED OVER AWNING 3'$0" 4'$0" 3'$0"1 FROSTED
W5 FIXED $ LANDING 1'$9" 4'$0" 3'$0"1 CLEAR
NON$HABITABLE ATTIC: THE ATTIC IS NOT DESIGNED OR
INTENDED FOR HABITABLE USE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT HEIGHT
(MAX. 5'$0" VS. REQUIRED 80"), STRUCTURAL OBSTRUCTIONS
(COLLAR TIES AND PURLINS), AND THE PRESENCE OF
DUCTWORK AND AN HVAC UNIT. THE SPACE HAS NO FLOOR
ASSEMBLY, NO INSULATION OR FINISHES, LIMITED NATURAL
LIGHT, AND NO CODE$COMPLIANT ACCESS, MAKING IT
UNUSABLE AS HABITABLE SPACE.
I-7
REF DN
22
'
9
"
20' 7"
9'
0
"
13' 4"15' 10"
10' 2"4' 4"
10
'
8
"
(E) LINEAR FEET OF EXTERIOR WALLS
DEMOLITION PLAN CALCULATIONS
189 LF
42.6 SF
PERCENTAGE 10%
(E) LINEAR FEET OF INTERIOR WALLS
(E) LINEAR FEET TOTAL
LINEAR FEET OF PROPOSED DEMOLISHED WALLS
227 LF
416 LF
1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
EXISTING AND DEMO PLAN | ASK%2.2
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 I-8
5"
/
1
2
"
5"
/
1
2
"
5" / 12"5" / 12"
5" / 12"
(E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12"5" / 12"
5" / 12"
(E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
(N) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
(N) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
3"
/
1
2
"
3"
/
1
2
"
3"
/
1
2
"
3"
/
1
2
"
3"
/
1
2
"
5" / 12"
5"
/
1
2
"
5" / 12"
5" / 12"
ROOF PLAN | ASK%2.3
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING ROOF PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
I-9
LEVEL 1 F.F.
52.39'
LEVEL 2 F.F.
60.89'
ROOF PEAK
73.21'
(E) GARAGE
50.24'
ORIGINAL HEIGHT= 17'5"
66.25'
(2) NEW WALL SCONCES
NEW SECOND
STORY AND
WINDOW
NEW ROOFING THROUGHOUT, NEW
FRAMING TO MATCH EXISTING SLOPE
PITCH OF EXISTING ROOF
NEW HEIGHT 21'"6"
NEW DORMER
WITH LOUVERS
PROPOSED SCREEN
FENCE ON WALKWAY
NEW ENTRY
(E) ROOF 1 HT
66.25'
(E) ROOF 2 HT
69.17'
4'
"
1
"
TO
T
A
L
H
E
I
G
H
T
I
N
C
R
E
A
S
E
(E) ROOF LINE
H.P.
51.75'
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
H
E
I
G
H
T
17
'
"
5
"
5"
12"
5"
12"
5"
12"
5"
12"
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING TO
MATCH EXISTING
STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING
67'"4"
71'"6"
70'"3"
W2 W3
EXISTING HEIGHT= 17'"5"
HEIGHEST EXISTING
RIDGE = 69.17'
66.25'
HIGHEST ELEVATION
OF EXISTING
BUILDING PAD
COVERED BY THE
STRUCTURE
= 51.75"
ENLARGE INTERIOR ENTRY
(E) ROOF 1 HT
66.25'
(E) ROOF 2 HT
69.17'
POINT WHERE THE LOWEST
FOUNDATION OR SLAB MEETS
THE FINISHED GRADE
= 50.35"
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
STUCCO "OFF WHITE
LEVEL 1 F.F.
52.39'
2ND FLR T.P.
67.89'
LEVEL 2 F.F.
60.89'
ROOF PEAK
73.21'
(E) ROOF LINE
OPEN TO PATIO OPEN TO PATIO
(N) WINDOW TO
MATCH
EXISTING
(N) SECOND STORY
AND ROOFING
(N) ROOF EAVES TO MATCH
EXISTING ROOF
(E) ROOF 3 HT
66.56'
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING TO MATCH
EXISTING
STUCCO TO MATCH
EXISTING
5'
"
8
"
1'
"
4
"
3'"0"
4'
"
0
"
70'"3"70'"3"
5'
"
8
"
W4
W1
W3 W3
W1
3'
"
0
"
EG
R
E
S
S
3'
"
0
"
7'
"
4
"
OPEN TO PATIO OPEN TO PATIO
(E) ROOF 2 HT
69.17'
(E) ROOF 3 HT
66.56'
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS | ASK3.6
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
1/8" = 1'-0"1 (N) ELEVATION- FRONT
1/8" = 1'-0"2 (E) ELEVATION- FRONT
1/8" = 1'-0"3 (N) ELEVATION- REAR
1/8" = 1'-0"4 (E) ELEVATION- REAR
TYPE TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT SILL HEIGHT COUNT GLASS
W1 SLIDING 3'"0" 1'"4" 5'"8"5 CLEAR
W2 SINGLE HUNG 3'"0" 4'"0" 3'"0"1 FROSTED
W3 SINGLE HUNG 3'"0" 4'"0" 3'"0"3 CLEAR
W4 FIXED OVER AWNING 3'"0" 4'"0" 3'"0"1 FROSTED
W5 FIXED " LANDING 1'"9" 4'"0" 3'"0"1 CLEAR7'"0"
I-10
LEVEL 1 F.F.
52.39'
2ND FLR T.P.
67.89'
LEVEL 2 F.F.
60.89'
ROOF PEAK
73.21'
(E) GARAGE
50.24'
(N) DORMER WINDOW
(N) ROOF ADDITION TO
MATCH EXISTING PITCH
ROOFING, FRAMING FOR ANGLED
EAVES/ "PEAKS" REMOVED
(E) ROOF 2 HT
69.17'
(E) ROOF 3 HT
66.56'
(E) ROOF LINE
TO
T
A
L
H
E
I
G
H
T
I
N
C
R
E
A
S
E
4'
$
1
"
H.P.
51.75'
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
17
'
$
5
"
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
H
E
I
G
H
T
21
'
$
6
"
5"
12"
3"
12"
3"
12"
3"
12"
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING TO
MATCH EXISTING
STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING
W1
5'
$
8
"
W1
LEVEL 1 F.F.
52.39'
LEVEL 2 F.F.
60.89'
(E) GARAGE
50.24'
REPLACE WINDOW
EXISTING EAVES/ PEAKS REMOVE CHIMNEY
(E) ROOF 2 HT
69.17'
(E) ROOF 3 HT
66.56'
EXISTING EAVES/
PEAKS
H.P.
51.75'
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
17
'
$
5
"
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
STUCCO $OFF WHITE
HIGHEST ELEVATION OF
EXISTING BUILDING PAD
COVERED BY THE
STRUCTURE
= 51.75"
POINT WHERE THE LOWEST
FOUNDATION OR SLAB
MEETS THE FINISHED
GRADE
= 50.35"
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS | ASK 3.7
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
1/8" = 1'$0"
1(N) ELEVATION$ NORTH
1/8" = 1'$0"
2(E) ELEVATION$ NORTH
TYPE TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT SILL HEIGHT COUNT GLASS
W1 SLIDING 3'$0" 1'$4" 5'$8"5 CLEAR
W2 SINGLE HUNG 3'$0" 4'$0" 3'$0"1 FROSTED
W3 SINGLE HUNG 3'$0" 4'$0" 3'$0"3 CLEAR
W4 FIXED OVER AWNING 3'$0" 4'$0" 3'$0"1 FROSTED
W5 FIXED $ LANDING 1'$9" 4'$0" 3'$0"1 CLEAR7'$0"
I-11
LEVEL 1 F.F.
52.39'
LEVEL 2 F.F.
60.89'
ROOF PEAK
73.21'
(E) GARAGE
50.24'
(N) DORMER WINDOW
(N) ROOF ADDITION TO
MATCH EXISTING PITCH
(N) SECOND STORY
(N) ROOFING, FRAMING FOR
ANGLED EAVES/ "PEAKS"
REMOVED
(E) ROOF 1 HT
66.25'
(E) ROOF 2 HT
69.17'
(E) ROOF LINE
H.P.
51.75'
TO
T
A
L
H
E
I
G
H
T
I
N
C
R
E
A
S
E
4'
$
1
"
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
H
E
I
G
H
T
21
'
$
6
"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
17
'
$
5
"
3"
12"
5"
12"
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING TO
MATCH EXISTING
STUCCO TO MATCH
EXISTING
W1 W1
5'
$
8
"
LOUVER
LEVEL 1 F.F.
52.39'
LEVEL 2 F.F.
60.89'
(E) GARAGE
50.24'
REMOVE CHIMNEYEXISTING ROOF
HEIGHT= 16'0"
REMOVE ANGLED EAVES/
"PEAKS" REMOVED
REMOVE WINDOW AND
DOOR
(E) ROOF 1 HT
66.25'
(E) ROOF 2 HT
69.17'
H.P.
51.75'
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
17
'
$
5
"
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
STUCCO $OFF WHITE
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS | ASK 3.8
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
1/8" = 1'$0"
1(N) ELEVATION$ SOUTH
1/8" = 1'$0"
2(E) ELEVATION$ SOUTH
TYPE TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT SILL HEIGHT COUNT GLASS
W1 SLIDING 3'$0" 1'$4" 5'$8"5 CLEAR
W2 SINGLE HUNG 3'$0" 4'$0" 3'$0"1 FROSTED
W3 SINGLE HUNG 3'$0" 4'$0" 3'$0"3 CLEAR
W4 FIXED OVER AWNING 3'$0" 4'$0" 3'$0"1 FROSTED
W5 FIXED $ LANDING 1'$9" 4'$0" 3'$0"1 CLEAR7'$0"
I-12
LEVEL 1 F.F.
52.39'
LEVEL 2 F.F.
60.89'
ROOF PEAK
73.21'
(E) GARAGE
50.24'
NO SCOPE
(E) ROOF 2 HT
69.17'
(E) ROOF 3 HT
66.56'
H.P.
51.75'
17
'
5
"
21
'
6
"
4'
1
"
LEVEL 1 F.F.
52.39'
LEVEL 2 F.F.
60.89'
(E) GARAGE
50.24'
(E) ROOF 2 HT
69.17'
(E) ROOF 3 HT
66.56'
H.P.
51.75'
17
'
5
"
CROSS SECTION | ASK%4.1
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
1/8" = 1' 0"
1PROPOSED CROSS SECTION
1/8" = 1' 0"
2EXISTING CROSS SECTION
I-13
LEVEL 1 F.F.
52.39'
ROOF PEAK
73.21'
(E) GARAGE
50.24'
POINT WHERE THE LOWEST
FOUNDATION OR SLAB MEETS
THE FINISHED GRADE
50.35'
66.25'
NO SCOPE
HIGHEST ELEVATION OF
EXISTING BUILDING PAD
COVERED BY THE
STRUCTURE51.75'
(E) ROOF 1 HT
66.25'
(E) ROOF 2 HT
69.17'
H.P.
51.75'
TO
T
A
L
H
E
I
G
H
T
I
N
C
R
E
A
S
E
4'
"
1
"
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
H
E
I
G
H
T
21
'
"
6
"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
17
'
"
5
"
1'
"
4
"
5'
"
8
"
LEVEL 1 F.F.
52.39'
(E) GARAGE
50.24'
50.35'
66.25'
51.75'
(E) ROOF 1 HT
66.25'
(E) ROOF 2 HT
69.17'
H.P.
51.75'
LONGITUDINAL SECTION | ASK4.2
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
1/8" = 1'"0"
1PROPOSED LONGITUDINAL SECTION
1/8" = 1'"0"
2EXISTING LONGITUDINAL SECTION
(E) COLLAR TIES
(E) STRONGBACK
(E) PURLIN BRACING
(E) RAFTERS
(E) DUCTWORK THROUGHOUT
(E) HVAC UNIT
(E) COLLAR TIES
(E) STRONGBACK
(E) PURLIN BRACING
(E) RAFTERS
(E) DUCTWORK THROUGHOUT
(E) HVAC UNIT
(E) HVAC UNIT
(E) RAFTERS
(E) COLLAR TIES
(E) PURLIN BRACING
(E) STRONGBACK
I-14
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE % BACK | ASK%5.2
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 I-15
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE % FRONT | ASK%5.3
MANSOUR RESIDENCE ADDITION
28337 PONTEVEDRA DR., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 I-16