The URL can be used to link to this page

20141216 Late CorrespondenceExamples of Two Story Homes in Rancho Palos Verdes Several of these two story house images were presented by Staff to the Commission on 5/27/14 CEIVED FROM 17 V(�LVJQ_-> D MADE A PART OFHER'ECORD AT TH UNCIL MEETING OF ° N4 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLE CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK ;yam" �. # .:.. �; The "Community" Defined b Letters of 02position and Support CITY OF RANCHO PALO$ VERDES MONERO 136 ao TO 20 119 137 10 Y __.RIDGE_ CT- 116 LU 117 RIDGE O O r GLADE, t, 7•,.> �"- v 100'& 500'; RADIUS MAP - Comments come from 40 households located along five streets. Monero, Rio Linda, Villa Rosa, Alvarez, Centuria - - The "Community" is defined by the 92 homes that are located along these five streets. - Less than half the households within the "Community" oppose the second floor addition. W 6125 6101 0"Danj(�j 0 Relative Lot Grades — Villa Rosa 22.58 ft. 2nd Story "24.58 ft. c mid x arch.°; `09 6321 (Site) Hamilton Fami 0315 Hassan Family Sheh Family Y, +4.5 ft. $ +3.5 ft. 6 0.x@i> Address Relative Grade Roof Height Height. Relative to Proposed Height. 6321 Villa Rosa 0.0 22.5 22.5 (Hassan) 6315 Villa Rosa +3.5 19.5 -3.0 (Sheh) 6309 Villa Rosa +8.0 24.5 +4.5 (Hamilton) 6303 Villa Rosa +12 28.0 +9 (Camacho) WEST SOUTH EAST ♦♦-t . A. ["f see ^.a'- .�. —sem.._ - , ,i° � .� ^ _ •+� _ s 3 fA Jol -AgarAP a Alt —A low I IP j ./' •N'tb i j . �` r Alp .. r iA opow-pt y • tw.r. d +_ t I105 • M1, � �� !I ukI r PIP-' -. ttt�` p► - r Il000 r f.� liiiil"fT� ` .• 'A I NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY (FINDING #8) HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED "The proposed project is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character as it creates bulk and mass impacts to the neighborhood." * SCALE OF SURROUNDIt RESIDENCES ARCHITECTU STYLES BULK OR MA "Due to the overall square footage of the revised project, which is proposed at 3,841 square feet (garage included), the scale of the residence would alter the character of the immediate neighborhood."* *Per 9/9/14 Planning Commission Denial Resolution OTHER REASONS FOR CONCERN WITH THE 6321 VILLA ROSA 2 STORY DESIGN PRIVACY & OPEN Large north side window intrudes upon privacy SPACE • Allows direct viewing into adjacent neighbors homes • Allows viewing into my dining & living rooms & back yard. Limits open space and streetscape SETS • Ends 25 years of neighborhood stability PRECEDENCE • Increases average square footage of homes within 500' notice area • Increases likelihood of future 2 story additions being approved. Cumulative View Inconsistent and incomplete staff report findings Analysis Finding 6 THE STRUCTURE LIMITS THE OPENNESS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE STREETSCAPE ON A NARROW STREET DOMINATES ADJACENT HOMES Street view. Camera: Nikon D5100. Lens: Nikor 18-55, Lens setting: 22mm (35mm camera focal lew„;th 33mm). Lens height: 68 inches, Date: 08-11-14 (#733) PROTRUDES ABOVE THE SKYLINE THE STRUCTURE LIMITS THE OPENNESS FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BLOCKS OUT LIGHT INVADES PRIVACY FROM THE SKY TOP OF FLAGGING 48 X 48 SLIDING WINDOW � r ♦ � � •�, � Wit+ , _ i A. _ y � � ,fl�lH • t "i r yr � '� � It �' 1 'K i•1 j '{' ��' \rix • �. � • T _ � �'� Dinning room %ieN+. Camera: Nikon D5100. Lens: Nikor 18-55, Lens setting: 30mm (35mm camera focal length 511 mm), Lens height: 61 inches. Date: 08-04-I4 (#730) CONCERNS WITH BASIS FOR APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION REPORT REPORT INFORMATION CONCERN 5/27/14 & 1. 6303, 6309, & 6315 Villa Rosa 6329 Rio Linda is not adjacent 7/8/14 & 6329 Rio Linda - 4 adjacent Finding 6 properties Cumulative 2. 6320 Rio Linda at center of View Analysis view frame & would create cumulative view impairment 8/12/14 1. Info from 5/27 & 7/8 still in Does 6320 Rio Linda still Finding 6 report create cumulative view 2. 6320 Rio Linda deleted without impairment? reason 5/27/14 Listed 20 closest properties in 20 closest doesn't include rear Finding 8 immediate neighborhood adjacent properties 6314, 6320 & 6328 Rio Linda 9/9 & 12/16/14 Stated "... second largest home in 6321 Villa Rosa is smallest lot staff reports the neighborhood, and on the of the 20 closest properties per & resolution second smallest lot." 5/27/14 Staff Report, Table 2 Finding 8 PUBLIC STATEMENTS CONCERNED CITIZENS SUPPORT 6321 Villa (Compatibility, Size, Privacy, Rosa 2nd story View Concerns) 72 # SIGNED CC Supporting PC Denial Applicant PETITION Letters Decision 1 person wrote 2 letters 15 separate individual letters 7 # SIGNED PC 2 split households — also signed PETITION 47 petition against 2 story & 1 signer also sent letter with 2 story concerns Total # Letters 68 representing 35 individuals Applicant + 2 3 PC hearings (does not include duplicate copies submitted) PC Meetings: 5/27 & 8/26/14 Applicant + 1 # of Speakers 5/27 & 7/8/14 — 14 each 7/8/14 - Applicant 8/26/14-13 THE RESIDENTS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ARE COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING OUR OPEN ONE STORY RANCH ENVIRONMENT WHILE SUPPORTING COMPATIBLE MODERNIZATION AND IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS OF NEW AND CURRENT RESIDENTS. IF THIS IS APPROVED, MORE 2 STORIES WILL LIKELY FOLLOW. P AVERAGE 25203 SQ. FT. IN 500' AREA < 16 FT. BN7 RIGHT HEIGHT FI 171 111 milli 31841 SQ. FT. 2217"" HIGH CF PAL ;fir i R,49,41 - t F Q MONERO G� PALCIS -- ` C.FDES woU ss 2• � .f � 24 uj a Q 8L RELATIVE PROPERTY LOCATIONS Hamilton Property Peachtree Family Trust Property 6309 Villa Rosa 6321 Villa Rosa 22 Year Resident Monero Dr..1A Mo ro �r o Linda Dr. 4AW ka►yth nawtho REASONS FOR OPPOSING THE HEIGHT VARIATION DISAGREE WITH STAFF FINDING NUMBER 8 THAT "THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER" AND FINDING NUMBER 6 THAT THERE IS NO CUMULATIVE VIEW IMPACT 1. THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE IS STILL GROSSLY TOO LARGE 2. THE STYLE OF THE STRUCTURE IS NOT IN CHARACTER WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD DOMINATED BY SINGLE STORY RANCH HOMES 3. THE STRUCTURE LIMITS THE OPENNESS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETSCAPE AND FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES 4. THE STRUCTURE INVADES THE PRIVACY OF NEIGHBORS 5. THE STRUCTURE PRESENTS A CUMULATIVE VIEW ISSUE 6. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE SETS A PRECEDENT THAT WILL OPEN THE FLOODGATES TO LARGE 2 STORY HOMES 7. THE REDESIGNS DON'T ALLAY THE IMPACT OF PROPERTY DEVALUATION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURE CUMULATIVE VIEW ANALYSIS - 27925 ALVAREZ CORRELATE VIEW PHOTOGRAPHS HORIZON LINE moo"!■ Staff photographs from May 271h Staff PowerPoint View from 2"d living/family room Photograph taken October 25, 2011 Correlate view. Camera: Nikon D5100, Lens: Samyang 18-28, Lens setting: 28mm, Lens height: 61 inches, Date: 10-25-14 (#200) CUMULATIVE VIEW QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS LASER LEVEL USED FOR DIRECT MEASUREMENTS FROM REFERENCE TO LOWEST FINISHED GRADE DIRECT HEIGHT MEASUREMENTS DIRECT HEIGHT MEASUREMENTS FROM ROOF CROWN TO REFERENCE CUMULATIVE VIEW QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS PLACARD CONSTRICTION 14'7'/4 " - 6315 VILLA ROSA 14' 9/2 " - 6309 VILLA ROSA 16' 221711 ow- CUMULATIVE VIEW QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 6315 V I L LA ROSA at 22' 7" LEFT CENTER RIGHT l::rr Correlate view. Camera: Nikon D5100, Lens: Nikor 18-55, Lens setting: 34mm (35mm camera focal length 51 mm), Lens height: 61 inches, Date: 10-25-14 (4212, 211,210) CUMULATIVE VIEW QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 6309 VILLA ROSA at 2217"' LEFT CENTER RIGHT Correlate pie%+. Camera: Nikon Da 100. Lens: Nikor IR -SS, Lens setting: 34mm (35mm camera focal length 51 mm). Lens height: 61 inches, Date: 10-25-I4 (#221, 2211,219) CUMULATIVE VIEW QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 6315 VILLA ROSA 6309 VILLA ROSA COMBINED Correlate view. Camera: Nikon D5100, Lens: Nikor 18-55, Lens setting: 34mm (35mm camera focal length 51mm), Lens height: 61 inches, Date: 10-25-14 CUMULATIVE VIEW QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY 6309 VILLA ROSA 6315 V I LLA ROSA o CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2014 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material E Emails from: Sharon Yarber; Jack Downhill; Sunshine; Letter and Brochure from Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy 1 Support Level Map from Associate Planner Mikhail; Emails from: Jeff Lewis; Mayor Pro Tem Brooks; Alisa Statman Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, December 15, 2014**. W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20141216 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:52 AM To: cc Subject: Burma Trail renaming Dear Mayor Knight and Members of the Council, Please proceed with extreme caution on this agenda item. First, it should not be on the consent calendar. This is not something to be taken lightly and it is not a matter that has been the subject of discussion at a prior meeting as a regular item, and certainly does not fall within the parameters of a ministerial matter that is the proper subject of a consent calender item. I think that naming a trail after one or more persons who have contributed valuable time, effort, service and yes, even money, is warranted and I have no problem with the idea; however, there should be a process for determining the criteria for such an honor, and I do not think the mere payment of money is sufficient. Further, the Burma Trail, which is the main trail of the entire Preserve, has historical significance in and of itself, and should not be renamed without considerable thought given to it, and input from the residents. To do this in December a few days before Christmas as a consent calendar item is not the way to handle this matter. Perhaps another trail could be named for the Hadleys, perhaps a lookout or placard could be placed somewhere in Preserve to honor their donation. And how much was their donation? The staff report does not disclose that. I understand it was around $1 million. What will we do for a $2 million donation, rename the Hadley trail to the higher bidder, and so on? Again, I am not philiosophically opposed to naming a trail for a reason. The Burma trail honors those who served as volunteer lookouts for Japanese subs along our coast during World War II. The Ishibashi trails honor the historical role Japanese farming played in our City's history, the Ailor trail recognizes not only the financial contributions that the Ailors have made, but also their passion for and commitment to preservation of open space, and tireless efforts in achieving what we have today. Please consider this carefully, and I strongly suggest you put this off until after the holidays are over and people can once again focus on what goes on at City Hall. Thank you for your consideration. Sharon Yarber From: JACK DOWNHILL <pdownjac@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:36 AM To: CC To the City Council RPV Ref Agenda Item recomending naming a portion of the Burma Road Trail in honor of any financial contributor would seem to me to be inappropriate .The historic origin and maintaining its current totality would outweigh the PUMP or any other City created entity's opinion. Signed : Jack Downhill , RPV Resident in the Portuguese Bend Area, Owner of a property adjoining the City owned property in question. From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:21 PM To: CC; Carolynn Petru Subject: NO on tonight's Item E. Make an end to the confusion Please do not change the names of any more of the City's landmarks, parks and/or trails until the Council and the public has the opportunity to see how the previous changes look in the RPV Parks Master Plan and the RPV Trails Network Plan. In the mean time, donations to the PVP Land Conservancy should be acknowledged by the PVP Land Conservancy on their own land. SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 December 16, 2014 Joel Rojas City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 Re: Trail Naming Dear Mr. Rojas, Pursuant to our Management Agreement with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy can offer naming opportunities in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve to donors who make monetary contributions to the PVPLC toward the acquisition or management of the Preserve. This Agreement has been in effect, of course, for more many years and forms a foundational basis upon which the City, PVPLC, various public and private donors, and the State and Federal government have participated in the establishment and maintenance of the Preserve. The City has reserved the right to approve the size and location of signs related to these naming opportunities. The Hadley Family has qualified for several different naming opportunities under our Agreement and has selected Burma Road Trail for their naming preference. upon reflection, the Hadley's have modified their name selection from "Hadley Trail" to "Burma Road Trail." Please accept this letter as our request for the City Council to approve the location and size of signage related to this naming right. This letter provides all necessary information for approval. Please see the enclosed map for the locations where we desire to place the trail markers. The trail markers will be stone pilasters, topped with an engraved stone the displaying the trail name of Burma Road Trail and the words "Forever Cherish This Land-- Jeanne and Arthur Hadley". These designs conform to our earlier designs which have already been approved and installed in the Preserve. The size of the trail markers is measure 12" x 12" x 35"/42" (35" at in the front and 42" in the back as the face file is slanted). The PVPLC will pay to place two markers on the trail and maintain the markers as part of our Preserve management obligations. This letter and attachment should provide you with the details required and specified in our management agreement. I look forward to working with you to complete this project. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there are any questions or clarifications needed. Warm regards, Andrea Vona Executive Director Cc: Carolynn Petru enclosure { 916 SILVER SPUR ROAD 1120TROLL'ti G HILLS iSTATES, CA 90274-3826 T .310.5, 11(,-, -, 1: 310.541.7623 WV1/W.PVPI..C.oPG From: Andrea Vona [mailto:avona@pvplc.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:49 PM To: Carolynn Petru Subject: link to brochure Hi Carolynn, here is the link to where the brochure is on our website. http://pvplc.ory/ contribute/docs/PVPLC%20namin °/g o20flyer%208%205.pdf It is also part of exhibit D as an attachment to our management agreement. Andrea Andrea Vona Executive Director Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy 310-541-7613 X204 310-930-0583 (cell) "Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all." PALOS VERDES PENINSULA For more information about these exciting opportunities, please contact the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy 916 Silver Spur Road, Suite 108 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 310-541-7613 • 310-541-7623 (fax) www.pvplc.org LEAVE A LASTING LEGACY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS Donor Recognition Opportunities for the Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve c4 The land belongs to the future. We come and go, but the land is always here. And the people who love it and understand it are the people who own it — for a little while. — ,Villa Cather, 0 Pioneers! Gateway Park ............................ Adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South there will be a Gateway Park for the entire preserve. Additional development within this area may include an equestrian center, educational kiosks, and picnic areas. The Gateway Park will feature the donor's name and be prominently displayed on a sign welcoming visitors to the preserve. The donor's contribution would also be recognized at the Del Cerro Donor Recognition Site. .. $2 million Wilderness Areas ........................... $1 million There are several unique natural areas in the preserve and each area will have the opportunity for a clearly visible sign in a public location. It will be referred to in all materials as the Donor Name wilderness Area. A special recognition for each Wilderness Area will be part of the Del Cerro Donor Recognition Site. Del Cerro Donor Recognition Site A donor recognition site will be created at Del Cerro Park to recognize all contributions of $37,000 or more with permanent markers overlooking the magnificent slopes of Portuguese Bend. An easy pathway from the parking lot will bring the donor to the viewpoint, where a significant and permanent recognition marker, including seating and signage, will be placed. Education Center .......................... $1.5 million Within the Gateway Park an education center will welcome people of all ages to learn about the unique features of the preserve. A large sign with the donor's name will mark the area, and all materials will refer to the facility by the donor's name. You will also be recognized at the Del Cerro Donor Recognition Site. cia Scenic Points ............................... $250,000 These are dramatic overlooks within the preserve. Permanent markers, designed for each site as appropriate, will be placed at the overlook and will recognize donor support. Recognition could be a plaque, bench, or other amenity to be determined. Contributions will also be noted at the Del Cerro Donor Recognition Site. Trails ..................................... $100,000 Approximately twenty miles of trails traverse the preserve, and naming opportunities exist for all of the major trails. The trail names will be shown on all of the maps of the preserve, on trail signs at the trailhead and at trail intersections. Donors will also be recognized at the Del Cerro Donor Recognition Site. From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:14 AM To: CC Subject: Support Level Map for 6321 Villa Rosa Neighborhood Attachments: Support Statistics.pptx Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Staff is providing you with an illustration of the support levels of the neighborhood surrounding the project under appeal at tonight's City Council Meeting (6321 Villa Rosa). in the attached illustration, Staff has provided the following: 1) The subject property under appeal highlighted in a light blue color 2) Neighbors who support the project— illustrated with a green circle 3) Neighbors who are against the project — illustrated with a red circle 4) Households where there are split opinions (for and against) — illustrated with a blue circle This slide will also be available for reference in the Late Correspondence presented to the City Council as well as in Staff's Powerpoint presentation this evening. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (310) 544-5228. Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho (Tatos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.Dalosverdes.com/rDv/DlanninR/Dlanning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam cDrpv.com -w40 0 Support Split Household Against 0 Support Split Household Against From: Jeffrey Lewis <jeff@broedlowlewis.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:35 AM To: CC Subject: Villa Rosa Project at Tonight's CC Meeting Attachments: Lewis Powerpoint Villa Rosa.pdf, ATT00001.htm Mayor Knight, Tonight you will hear the appeal by the Peachtree Trust of your Planning Commission's 6-1 denial of the proposed two story home at 6321 Villa Rosa. I represent the Hamilton, Corrado, Sheh and other families in the neighborhood who are concerned about this project. I intend on displaying the attached power point presentation this evening on behalf of these neighbors in opposition to the project. I believe I can present this in under three minutes but I wanted to respectfully request an additional two minutes to speak in case I cannot complete my presentation. I also request that the attached presentation be included in the administrative record (as late correspondence) for this matter. Respectfully submitted, / i By Jeffrey Lewis, Esq. on Behalf of Hamilton, Corrado, Sheh and Other Families Opposed to the Peachtree Project By the Numberl Looking at the twenty closest homes: This project would be bigger than 19 of the 20 closest homes (3,,841 sq. ft.) This project is located on the smallest lot out of 20 (7,015 sq. feet) Over 70 neighbors have written in to oppose the project proposed by the Peachtree Family Trust. IMEW through hearings on the Green Hills project. When all seven commissioners were present,, project was voted down 6-1 (August 26, 2014 PC Meeting, vice-chairman Nelson Dissenting). Averap 8,724 2.42 -Smallest 7,048 1f�- Lwgpst W 77T 13, 79A 4�61 6321 Villa Rosa Original 4,452 .6321 Villa Rosa, July7 1015 3,886 21 Vi Ila Rosa AugtW 31841 Appeal MVIL'oss Letter of Argument Staff Report because the Peachtree Trust Reduced its Project I Just because the Peachtree Trust made a series of reductions grasp"does not mean that the PC did not "fully After four hearings, it is likely the PC did "fully grasp" the project. The applicant reduced its original unreasonably big project (4,452 square feet)!_ !unreasonably • Nothingbig project (3,841 square feet). in the code requires the PC to approve based on I- The decreases demonstrate nothing more than that the Moss Letter Appeal v Argument Commission Did Not "Fully Planning Grasp" • • Staff Report because ! Staff Recommended !••d Approval of the Project in August. PC not required to rubber stamp staff recommendation. Just because PC did not agree with staff recommendation does not mean that PC did not "fully grasp" report. Moss Letter of Appeal (Cont'dj • - Videotape of PC meetings available streaming online shortly Peachtree Trust was in attendance at each meeting. What precisely was revealed by written minutes that the Peachtree Trust could not learn by attendance at the hearing or FIM e No due process violation here. Moss Letter of Appeal (Contdi The Peachtree Trust argues that it made every change the PC asked • and, • the PC was required to approve the project. 4) The Commission failed to approve the proiect desi)ite the fact that the final revised glans included and reflected all the revisions the Commission previously wanted regarding bei ht mass, balconies, setbacks and articulation. a) The Commission directed the Appellant to make extensive revisions and despite making those revisions, failed to approve the project. Actually the PC in clear, unequivocal terms told the Peachtree Trust • try a single story • • level design z "felt the neighborhood •single-storypost and beam construction which was common in the 1960s. He noted -this is • _ of the smallesti' _ neighborhood • to construct _ of biggest homes• •i Vii• stated r he calculated o • • • •., story • •. on this lot could be as •0 square••t, which is larger all i : rfewhomes' i; • • He felt • • housedesigned does notbelong in this neighborhood. •i'•• felt that • single story home • • be much more appropriate, if at all possible, or possibly a split-level home with a bit of additional excavation. He noted that this is difficult neighborhood to respect privacy,• the neighbors' privacy should be • •as much aspossible. Way 27,2014, PC Minutes, p. 8T a single -story or • • • ' a more appropriate design for • ! ! !While he understood the applicant's i . his dream home, noted.. •• also stated that their home dream home when they moved in many years ago, and these neighbors homes long intended i' be •' ! • • • i •;single-family homes. neighborsalso concerned with what will happen if this home is approved, and in a few months another one down the street requests an addition that is similar. He felt this was a problem, and one that the correct be concerned . "...the idea of a split-level home was an interesting and appealing iea. He was concerned about the bulk • l mass of I second story that encroaches beyond the envelope of the current • • ! t !• ! t • • Vii° ' neighbors'second story, if designed correctly and addressed most of the prefer to see a split-level design. • Moss etter of Appeal (Cont'd) In sum, in May 2014, the commissioners told the Peachtree Trust to try a single or split-level design but the Peachtree Trust did not want to listen. It should not have been any surprise to the Peachtree Trust that in August, the same seven commissioners voted 6-1 against this project. ""...felt that it will not be the same neighborhood if it is developed to that degree of intensity. He referred to Manhattan Beach • Redondo Beawheredone significantlyexactly that, and it didn't take very long. He appreciated what the applicant has done with the design, as the design is asubmitted. However, still • •notbelieve this design to be compatible with this particular neighborhood, and this design alters the sense ofthis neighborhood. Moss of Appeal teLetr ,f IMMMM• •: "The Applicant is being deprived the right to construct a second floor addition that complies with the spirit and intent of the Municipal Code." There is no such thing as a "right to a second story" in RPV. Municipal•!• does not••, such a right. :* However, neighborhoods do have rights to retain their Neighborhood Compatibility Before its incorporation, many of the City's neighborhoods were developed with single- family residences under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. These houses, because of their size, floor plan and aging condition, have become the subject of significant modification in recent years. With increasing property values and more money being spent on homes today, much of the existing housing stock is not well- suited to meet the needs and accommodate the changing lifestyle of existing residents and those who are relocating to the City. However, when a change is made in an existing neighborhood, it is essential to properly balance residential development with the preservation of the rural and semi -rural character of the City. Modernization of the aging housing stock must be done in a manner that recognizes and respects the unique features and characteristics of neighborhoods, thereby ensuring continued enjoyment of the City's quality of life. This is the concept of Neighborhood Compatibility. Buzz Words Threatening Lawsul"I Letter of Appeal by David Moss includes phrases like: "lack of substantial evidence," abuse of discretion' deprivation of "Due Process" record of capricious and arbitrary consideration" by the planning commission These are buzz words that are code for: "Give us our home or we will file a lawsuit against the City." The determination by the Planning Commission is based on the competent judgment of the seven individuals appointed o by yu. Questions ?. From: Susan Brooks Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:07 PM To: Hi Jeff — Thanks for your email. The City Clerk was copied on your email below, so a hard copy of your PowerPoint will be included as part of tonight's late correspondence. Also, I've forwarded your email to the project planner, Leza Mikhail, so that she can have it available on the laptop at tonight's meeting. Please let us know if staff can be of any further assistance. Carolynn Jeffrey Lewis; PC; CC Cc: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Legal Representation Dear Jeff, Thank you for stepping forward to announce to Council that you are officially representing a specific set of individuals and others opposed to this project. I see in attachment 1-19 of the staff report that the 8/26/14 Minutes reflect you did state your law firm was representing several homeowners. As an attorney and former Planning Commissioner for RPV, you have every right to advocate. Since you reside outside the 500' radius, actually about 3,800' away from the project and in a different neighborhood, you are not personally affected by this particular project. However, the public should be made aware that you are or may even be, a paid advocate. I am concerned that some of these comments from other Commissioners may have been taken out of context, given the dates of the quoted statements and subsequent changes made to the project. I am therefore, forwarding them to the PC for their perusal. Perhaps they might want to opine. We all want what's best for our city, and that should be our number one priority. Regards, Susan (Councilmember, please do not click 'reply' or'reply all.') Susan Brooks Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 541-2971 From: Alisa Statman <alisastatman@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 4:27 PM To: Leza Mikhail; CC Cc: kevin@c2services.com Subject: Fwd: Missing Letters to City Council - 6321 Villa Rosa Height Variation Appeal Dear City Counsel & Ms Mikhail, I have been advised by Kevin Hamilton that my original letter of opposition 6321 Villa Rosa Height Variation Case was not received by your offices. Below is the original letter. This letter is to inform the city counsel that I am in opposition of the 6321 height variation. Our neighborhood has withstood over 45 years of these monstrous types of renovations while maintaining the charm, style and single -story ranch characteristics that was intended for this neighborhood. To allow such a massive home to be built on 6321 Villa Rosa will impede on the neighborhood view to be shared by all as well as impeding on the neighboring home's privacy thereby degrading the value of all the homes around it. On another note, I fear that if you allow this to happen at 6321 Villa Rosa it will have a domino effect of everyone trying to build up and above each new dwelling in order to have the view until our once charming neighborhood is demolished by massive McMansions that have no business on our stamp -size properties. Thank you for your consideration, Alisa Statman 6240 Monero Drive Rancho Palso Verdes, CA 90275 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ray Nuber <ray.nuberAcox.net> Date: Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:35 PM Subject: RE: Missing Letters to City Council - 6321 Villa Rosa Height Variation Appeal To: Kevin <kevin a, c2 services.com>, William Sheh <wsheh cr,tectoweld.com>, Vincent Liu <vince881689gmail.com>, Eddie Yeh <ed ey hoo@Yahoo.com>, dellandsteve <dellandsteve(a,cox.net>, Donald Brogdon <donaldbrogdonkyahoo.com>, Akemichi Yamada <akemichi(a7verizon.net>, a.y.h@me.com, samuel glenn <samuel. glerm2 verizon.net>, JULIE OWENS-RICE <rubyjuliegrnsn.com>, Eva Muchnick <eva.rnuchnickna,gmail.com>, carl.muchnickggmail.com, Evelyn Kohler <iimsact cr,aol.com>, Jeanne Church <jschurch2 ,cox.net>, mrutledgel a aol.com, bgmarinogverizon.net, masarkozy@hotmail.com, yoshilcorpvca ckverizon.net, coolpeach6315ayahoo.lo.ip, dehoenisch2n mg_ ail.com, ci5pud@verizon.net, raeles ,cox.net, setty60gverizon.net, ianjeets(a_)gmail.com, michaellindermaii@yahoo.com, thomas- oha annhotmail.com, MaryBeth <mar bethnc2services.com>, claudine.littlen;r� aminy,com, Alisa Statman <al isastatman@gmail . com> /I My letter was included. From: Kevin [mailto:kevin@c2services.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 8:18 PM To: 'William Sheh'; 'Vincent Liu'; 'Eddie Yeh'; 'dellandsteve'; 'Donald Brogdon'; 'Akemichi Yamada'; a.y.h@me.com; 'samuel glenn'; 'JULIE OWENS-RICE'; 'Eva Muchnick'; carl.muchnick@gmail.com; 'Ray Nuber'; 'Evelyn Kohler'; 'Jeanne Church'; mrutledgel@aol.com; bgmarino@verizon.net; masarkozy@hotmail.com; yoshikorpvca@verizon.net; cool peach6315@yahoo.lo.ip; dehoenisch2@gmail.com; c95pud@verizon.net; raeles@cox.net; setty60@verizon.net; ianieets@gmail.com; michaellinderman@yahoo.com; thomas-ohagan@hotmail.com; 'MaryBeth'; claudine.little@grammy.com;'Alisa Statman' Subject: Missing Letters to City Council - 6321 Villa Rosa Height Variation Appeal Importance: High To all, After looking at the correspondence associated with the Staff Report, it was discovered that the letters from a number of people were not included. Please check the names below to make sure that your letter and the letter of anyone you know that sent one is included. All correspondence letters to City Council in order: Sherry Erickson (Dec. 1, 2014) Kevin Hamilton & Mary Beth Corrado Sherry Erickson (Sep. 11, 2014) Jeanne Church Mike & Mary Rutledge Beatrice & Joe Marino Jim & Evelyn Kohler Akemichi Yamada Marian & Zoltan Sarkozy Yoshiko Ohno Betty & Donald Brogdon Kevin Hamilton (Petition submittal) Sam & Carol Glenn Raymond Nuber Andrew Hsu & Gayley Louie Anyone who sent an email letter before Tuesday December 9th at 5:30 pm and is missing from the above Correspondence letters should immediately send an email to Leza Mikhail lezam@rpv.com and the City Council cegrpv.com complaining about the exclusion of their letter and include the original letter. A link to the December 16, 2014 City Council Agenda is provided below. Agenda Item #1 contains links to the Staff Report and the Correspondence Letters (separate items). http://www.palosverdes.comhpv/citycouncil/agendas/2014 Agendas/MeetinDate-2014-12-16 NOTE: We are first up as Item #1 on Tuesday and should be on by 7:30. Speakers need to fill out a speaker form by 7:00. Please plan to attend and get your neighbors to attend even if you / they don't speak. We will ask everyone opposed to stand up and that will send a message to the Council as it did the Commission. This is a one-shot folks. WE WIN OR LOSE TUESDAY NIGHT! If you have any questions, please contact me. Kevin Hamilton 6309 Villa Rosa RPV, CA 90275 101560-6383 4iCITY OF I RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2014 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, December 16, 2014 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Materials E Emails from: Troy Braswell; Kathy Snell; Don Christy Emails from: Joan and Samuel Kraus; James and Nelly Bertolina; Donald Brogdon; William Sheh; Sayed Hassan; Raymond Nuber; Akemichi Yamada; Matthew Golding; Vincent Liu; Arlen Osborne; Rael and Lesley Tanchum; Kevin Hamilton and Mary Beth Corrado; Letters from: Sherry Erickson; Jack Ellis 3 Page 3-4 (delivered under separate cover) 4 Contract with the new City Manager; Email exchange between Ken DeLong and City Attorney Lynch; Emails from: Bob and Sandie Nelson; Ken DeLong Respectfully submitted, U L Carla Morreale W:WGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas120141202 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc From: Troy <troy@eworld-media.com> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:27 PM To: cc Subject: Burma Road Honorable Mayor and City Council, I oppose renaming Burma Road to Hadley Trail. There are many community members who don't have large sums of money to donate but have contributed endless hours of their time to create and sustain our trails. Contributions to the conservancy are always appreciated but buying a trail name is simply wrong. It sets a bad precedent and disrespects those who give something more valuable than money, time. Troy Braswell 0 From: ksneII0001@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 1:21 AM To: CC Cc: CityManager; CityClerk; Planning; ara.mihranian@rpv.com; joel.rojas@rpv.com; Dennis Mclean Subject: Burma Road near WWII Japanese sub spotting site Consent Calendar 12-16-2014 Consent Calendar December 16, 2014 E. Palos Verdes Nature Preserve — Renaming Burma Road Trail to Hadley Trail BURMA ROAD means so much to the history of the Peninsula. Retaining the name of the trail as BURMA ROAD TRAIL is important to preservation of history of the Peninsula. On Dec. 24, 1941, an American lumber freighter, the Absoroka, was torpedoed off San Pedro by one of nine Japanese submarines stalking the West Coast shipping lanes. On Christmas day hundreds of residents spent time on the shoreline scanning the ocean for enemy subs. The 1,500 people who lived on the Peninsula prepared for an invasion. During the next year, dozens of defense installations were placed on the Peninsula. One sub spotting site, now in ruin, was placed above Indian Well Spring across from the main dirt road from Crenshaw to the ocean. This dirt road was named BURMA ROAD in honor of what the Flying Tigers had accomplished in Asia. It was symbolic for those living on the Peninsula that their BURMA ROAD was near the defense installation. The Peninsula was considered the most strategic spot in L.A. County during WWII. Burma Road is on GPS maps in vehicles, including fire engines, and recorded in the assessors maps with L.A. County. During one of the many fires, Malibu firefighters were sent to "Burma Road" on their GPS to see if there was access for fire equipment. Please honor the history of the Peninsula and retain the name of "Burma Road Trail". The WWII site is just west of the edge of Burma Road Trail, both noted with arrows near Rattlesnake Trail crossing Indian Well Spring (Kelvin Canyon), below. 4-w f &I y From: Don Christy <doncmusic@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 2:36 PM To: CC Subject: burma road Iam opposed to changing the name of burma road.It has historical significance and those of who grew uo here respect that. Please reconsider.Author/historian Don Christy. ZS From: Joan and Sam Kraus <jnskraus@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:27 PM To: CC Subject: Villa Rosa house decision We live about 2 blocks from the Villa Rosa house that wants to put on a second story. We oppose the remodel and hope you will support your planning commission's decision to deny it. While we are not directly affected, we want our community to continue to have the atmosphere originally planned for it. That's why we bought where we did. Creeping mansonization can destroy the atmosphere of our community. Yours truly, Joan and Samuel Kraus 6108 Monero Drive, RPV From: jnbertolina@cox.net Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 7:06 PM To: CC Subject: 6321 Villa Rosa Uphold the denial of height variation for this property . James & Nelly Bertolina 3713 Hightide Dr. RPV CA 90275 310 265 0446 il From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:19 AM To: Donald Brogdon Cc: CC Subject: RE: Comments on RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Hello Mr. Brogdon, In the attachment link below, on pages 1-46 through 1-51 is a comment letter from you and Betty Brogdon. Was there another letter that you submitted that was different from the information under the attachments link? http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2014_Agendas/MeetingDate-2014-12-16/Villa-Rosa-attachment- 3.pdf Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com -----Original Message ----- From: Donald Brogdon [mailto:donaldbrogdon@yahoo.comj Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 8:53 PM To: Leza Mikhail Cc: CC Subject: RE: Comments on RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear Ms. Mikhail; Enclosed please find your correspondence to me, Donald Brogdon, regarding your receipt of my comments to the RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064: "On Mon, 12/8/14, Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpv.com> wrote:" Subject: RE: Comments on RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 To: "Donald Brogdon" <donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, December 8, 2014, 2:56 PM "Thank you for your comments. I will be sure to include them with the Staff Report to the City Council." Leza Mikhail Associate Planner Looking ahead to the upcoming meeting with the City Council regarding Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064, I do not find my comments letter as part of the Staff Report. In addition to emailing my comments to the City Council, that you have acknowledged receiving, I stopped by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes office 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 on December 8, 2014 around 2:50 PM and handed color copies of my comments and also for Betty Brogdon to Mercenia Lugo, Planning Technician. Ms. Lugo date stamped my comments as well as Betty's as being received, made photo copies of our comments for our records and thanked me for stopping by the office. I certainly hope this was just some clerical oversight and look forward to receiving a response from you before the hearing next week that both my comments and Betty's comments will be included as part of the Staff Report. Sincerely, Donald Brogdon 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275 -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 12/8/14, Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpv.com> wrote: Subject: RE: Comments on RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 To: "Donald Brogdon" <donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, December 8, 2014, 2:56 PM Thank you for your comments. I will be sure to include them with the Staff Report to the City Council, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com -----Original Message---- From: Donald Brogdon [mailto:donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 2:46 PM To: CC Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Comments on RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 To: City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cc.: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: Donald Brogdon, 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-377-5783, donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com Date: December 8, 2014 Subject: Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, R.P.V. CA. Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZO N 2014-00064 Dear Honorable Members of City Council, My wife and I moved to Rancho Palos Verdes over 12 years ago. After looking at many homes in this area we decided to make our permanent residence at 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. We chose this property primarily because of the backyard. It is beautifully landscaped and has a very secluded tranquil feeling that we really cherish when we go back to sit, relax, and enjoy our beautiful, private surroundings; especially, our Japanese Cherry Trees and Avocado Tree. In the spring the Cherry trees show a beautiful blossom that we really enjoy. We drive long distances daily and after the long commute we enjoy the private quiet calm and peaceful surroundings of our home. In our back yard directly to the west there is a huge two story house that impedes our privacy and blocks some of our view of the Pacific Ocean. The majority of the time we hear his alarm clock, radio, music, television, and loud conversations that wake us up at night or early in the morning because it blares directly into our bedroom. We do not hear any noises from our other surrounding neighbors. This house was remodeled prior to our purchase of our home. If the house located at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, is remodeled to a two story structure it will invade our privacy and tranquility of our Rio Linda Home from the South East. So now, we will have invasion from the South East and West. Our Home and backyard will be like living in a fishbowl. We do not want to face the potential loss of our beloved trees, bushes and privacy in our back yard due to this remodel. No more privacy or quiet tranquility. We will have lost all of the peace, privacy and tranquility our Home has brought to us over the years. It will all be lost forever because of the wishes of someone new to our neighborhood. Our new neighbor should comply with the style, scope and appearance of our neighborhood and our surrounding area and not be permitted to build such a large two story, 4000 square foot structure. He should build a single story that fits in with the area and not change all of our lives forever! Thank you in advance for reviewing our letter and the attached Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa. Drive, R.P.V. CA. Sincerely, Donald and Betty Brogdon From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:33 AM To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Comments on RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Attachments: Letter to CC on Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa_2014_12_08_DB_c.pdf Hello, Please include the email below and the attachment in the late correspondence. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com -----Original Message ----- From: Donald Brogdon [mailto:donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 2:46 PM To: CC Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Comments on RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 To: City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cc.: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: Donald Brogdon, 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-377-5783, donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com Date: December 8, 2014 Subject: Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, R.P.V. CA. Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear Honorable Members of City Council, My wife and I moved to Rancho Palos Verdes over 12 years ago. After looking at many homes in this area we decided to make our permanent residence at 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. We chose this property primarily because of the backyard. It is beautifully landscaped and has a very secluded tranquil feeling that we really cherish when we go back to sit, relax, and enjoy our beautiful, private surroundings; especially, our Japanese Cherry Trees and Avocado Tree. In the spring the Cherry trees show a beautiful blossom that we really enjoy. We drive long distances daily and after the long commute we enjoy the private quiet calm and peaceful surroundings of our home. In our back yard directly to the west there is a huge two story house that impedes our privacy and blocks some of our view of the Pacific Ocean. The majority of the time we hear his alarm clock, radio, music, television, and loud conversations that wake us up at night or early in the morning because it blares directly into our bedroom. We do not hear any noises from our other surrounding neighbors. This house was remodeled prior to our purchase of our home. If the house located at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, is remodeled to a two story structure it will invade our privacy and tranquility of our Rio Linda Home from the South East. So now, we will have invasion from the South East and West. Our Home and backyard will be like living in a fishbowl. We do not want to face the potential loss of our beloved trees, bushes and privacy in our back yard due to this remodel. No more privacy or quiet tranquility. We will have lost all of the peace, privacy and tranquility our Home has brought to us over the years. It will all be lost forever because of the wishes of someone new to our neighborhood. Our new neighbor should comply with the style, scope and appearance of our neighborhood and our surrounding area and not be permitted to build such a large two story, 4000 square foot structure. He should build a single story that fits in with the area and not change all of our lives forever! Thank you in advance for reviewing our letter and the attached Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa. Drive, R.P.V. CA. Sincerely, Donald and Betty Brogdon 2 To: City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cc.: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: Donald and Betty Brogdon, 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-377-5783, donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com Date: December 8, 2014 Subject: Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa. Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear Honorable Members of City Council, We respectfully request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa. The proposed two-story remodel will not be compatible with the neighborhood because it degrades the streetscape, blocks views and infringes on privacy. We would like to see a single -story design that would be more compatible with the neighborhood. As much as 2,700 sq -ft (excluding garage) can be obtained with a single -story design. Therefore the two-story design can be avoided. Photo 1, Massive 2 -story remodel at 6321 Vila Rosa Page 1 of 4 (1) Two-story design not compatible with neighborhood As shown in Photo 1 above, the proposed two-story remodel appears more like a two -and -a -half -story high structure on the sloped Villa Rosa street. The proposed two- story structure is not compatible with the neighborhood that consists mostly of one-story houses where the average square footage is around 1,900 sq -ft. The two-story design will disturb the rhyme of the streetscape of the narrow Villa Rosa Street (about 2811 from curb to curb). The two-story design will result in a substantial loss of "air and light" for many neighbors. If this proposed two-story remodel becomes a precedent for the future development in this neighborhood, the propagation of this type of two-story home will change the character of the neighborhood forever, depriving open "air and light" that is the hallmark of Rancho Palos Verdes. Before the passage of Measure M, the pop-up over the garage and a two-story house were approved on Villa Rosa resulting in detrimental effects on the streetscape of Villa Rosa, blocking ocean views, and infringing on privacy of neighbors. The same mistake should not be allowed to occur again. (2) Severe Impact on Our Property The proposed two-story remodel is abutting the South East corner of our property at 6328 Rio Linda Drive. We are already encumbered by the two-story house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive that was approved before Measure M was passed (see Photo 2 below). Now if the proposed two story structure at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is built, we will have obstruction to our home from both the South East and West directions. We will be living in a fish bowl. Serenity in our back yard and privacy in our living quarters will be gone and our house will be changed forever. If the proposed two-story remodel is approved, the situation could get even worse for us because the neighbor immediately behind us on the South side at 6329 Villa Rosa is thinking about telling a future buyer of their house that a two-story structure can be built based on a precedent set by this case. The imaginary view of the two-story structure at 6329 Villa Rosa is shown in Photo 3 below, demonstrating how our privacy would be impacted. Please note that trees along the property borders are not an effective means to mitigate privacy infringement because trees are porous and leaves will fall seasonally. Page 2 of 4 Photo 2, our neighbor at 6343 Villa Rosa looks right into our bathroom Photo 3, Demonstrating how our privacy would be impacted by another two-story the situation Page 3 of 4 (3) Taking away precious views from neighbors Many of us enjoy the setting sun hovering over the horizon. The height above 16 feet will take away views being enjoyed by neighbors. If this type of two-story structure propagates in the neighborhood, more precious views will be taken away, and the neighborhood character will be changed forever. (4) Not complying with RPV guidelines We believe that the proposed remodel does not fully adhere to key guidelines described in the "Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook" (NCH) and the "Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits" (PHV). Some of these guidelines are listed below. A) The height of a structure should be compatible with established building heights in the neighborhood (NCH page 21, B.1). B) The bulk and mass of the new residence or an addition to an existing residence should be similar to neighboring structures, not overwhelming or disproportionate in size. A design that is out of character with the neighborhood is strongly discouraged (NCH page 28). C) The proposed structure should be compatible with immediate neighborhood character. "Neighborhood character" is defined to consider the existing characteristics of an area, including: (a) Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures. (b) 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 (PHV page 15). D) The structure should enhance the rhyme of the streetscape (NCH page 27) E) The height of a structure that is above 16 feet in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences (PHV page 15) F) The height of a structure should be carefully designed to respect views from the viewing area of neighboring properties (NCH page 21 B.5, PHV page 13). Page 4 of 4 From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:54 AM To: William Sheh Cc: CC; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Dan Landon Subject: FW: Missing correspondence in the staff report, 6321 Villa Rosa Remodel Attachments: Appeal for 6321 Villa Rosa Drive.pdf; Appeal for 6321 Villa Rosa Drive.pdf; Appeal for 6321 Villa Rosa Drive.pdf; Appeal for 6321 Villa Rosa Drive.pdf; Appeal for 6321 Villa Rosa Drive.pdf; ATT00001.txt Hello Mr. Sheh, Thank you for the attached emails. As each email states the same, I will include the email to the Mayor as part of the Late Correspondence. I will also ask that our IT staff look into our system to see why I did not receive the original email that you sent, as that is a concern of ours. Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com -----Original Message ----- From: William Sheh [mailto:wsheh@tectoweld.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:47 AM To: Leza Mikhail Cc: CC; Joel Rojas;.Carolynn Petru; Dan Landon Subject: Re: Missing correspondence in the staff report, 6321 Villa Rosa Remodel Ms. Mikhail, Thank you for getting back to me quickly this morning. Attached are copies of the emails I sent. Please pick the one you see most appropriate. Sincerely, William Sheh FromWilliam Shehh,i ,,' te-(;tovveld,com Subject: Appeal for 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Datw December 8, 2014 at 2:25 PM To: ,'i ri.l<;iislr3 =;r zv.coii, Leza Mikhail ,r�rr t,u.ocrn Dear Councilman Knight, The RPV Planning commission did an outstanding job of reviewing the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. They carefully listened, considered and upheld the core spirit of the city's Measure M legislation and neighborhood compatibility requirements. In doing so they correctly denied the applicant the variation he sought to put a massive 4600+ sq. ft. home on one of the smallest lots on this narrow and curved street. However the upcoming appeal of this denial has once again cause much concern among the long time residents of this neighborhood. I understand the right of the applicant to appeal the denial, but I hope the city council will do the correct thing and uphold the denial of the original planning commission decision. There is a petition of well over 60 long time residents of this community in support of the planning commissions decision. I hope this underscores the seriousness of the concerns we all have about changes to the basic character of the city we all live in and love. Lastly I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to my house and personally experience the tremendous detrimental visual impact this proposed remodel presents to the immediate, adjacent homes and the neighborhood in general. Sincerely, William Sheh 6315 Vllia Rosa Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:24 AM To: William Sheh Cc: CC; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Dan Landon Subject: RE: Missing correspondence in the staff report, 6321 Villa Rosa Remodel Hello Mr. Sheh, Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I do not see a comment letter in my emails from your email address. It sounds as though you sent multiple emails. Similar to you, I am concerned that I did not receive any of your past emails. Would you be able to forward them to me and I will be sure to include them in the late correspondence to the City Council. In the meantime, I will also ask that our IT staff look to see if any of your previous emails were received. It would be best if you could forward your email with the date stamp of Monday, Dec. 8, 2014 at 2:25pm so that I can include it in the late correspondence. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes,com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com -----Original Message ----- From: William Sheh [mailto:wsheh@tectoweld.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 11:52 AM To: Leza Mikhail Cc: CC Subject: Missing correspondence in the staff report, 6321 Villa Rosa Remodel Importance: High Dear Ms. Mikhail, I just had a chance to review staff report to the upcoming city council hearing regarding the remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. I am troubled that none of my emails to each city council member and yourself were included in this report, yet letters from the only supporter of this project, Mrs. Erickson, was in there twice. As an immediate neighbor of this ill conceived project, I believe my opinions are just as important as any neighbor of this project. To not see it included in the staff report is very unsettling and raises some serious questions whether there were any other correspondence that may have not been disclosed. The last of my six emails was time stamped on Monday, Dec. 8, 2014 at 2:25pm; it was before the cut off time for correspondences relating to this agenda item. I certainly hope this was just some clerical oversight and look forward to receiving a response from you before the hearing next week. Sincerely, William Sheh 6315 Villa Rosa Drive From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:38 AM To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: 6321 Villa Rosa Dr..pdf Attachments: 6321 Villa Rosa Dr..pdf; ATT00001.txt Hello, Please include the attachment in the late correspondence. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com -----Original Message ----- From: Sayed Hassan [mailto:sh2800@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:40 AM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: 6321 Villa Rosa Dr..pdf December,"-" 2014 Leta Mikhail, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Pe: Support for Single Family House Project — 6321 Villa Rose — Even Better than in September! Dear Le a, I have reviewed the silhouette as well as the plans for the proposed two-story addition. Since the project was first proposed in on February the architect has significantly reduced the height, mass and made the house completely compatible with the single and two story houses in the community. I would be proud to walk and drive past it every day. Concerns expressed by other neighbors about rebuilding houses in this neighborhood with second stories is way overblown and exaggerated, I never have understood this — the homes that do have two stories are attractive and have increased the property values of all houses in the community — whether one- or two-stM. I urge the City Council to approve the addition to this home. Yours truiv, 121212014 6321 Villa Rosa DrNe Addition From: oz026 <oz026@aol.com> To: cc <cc�cr}',rpv,corn> Subject: 6321 Ulla Rosa Drive Addition Date, Fri, Dec 12, 2014 8:23 prn Alien Osborne 6343 Villa Rosa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Support -- 6321 Villa Rosa Drive -- As Revised Dear City Council Members, As a 30+ year resident and member of the community, I ana writing to express my interest in and support of the project at 5321 Villa Rosa Drive. I reside two houses west of the; Hassan Family. I am not and have never been in favor of the idea that Hamburger Hill, or more recently, East Los Verdes, should remain a tract of single story homes. The fact is that properly permitted, building & safety compliant structures improve the value of the neighborhood and city. The original structures of the 1960's era were and are substandard in construction and should not be hailed as status quo nor a required configuration. Atter numerous revisions and earnest efforts to appease those Nome Owner Association minded neighbors, the Hassans have arrived at a proposal that takes into consideration and meets with the city's protocol regarding privacy, view obstruction, character and aesthetics. Any land owner should have the freedom to improve their property as they see fit, provided they are in compliance with the rules and regulations set forth by the city, second story additions included. The Hassans are a family of seven and should have the comfort and space this addition will provide. I am embarrassed and frustrated by the sentiments and actions of those opposed to the addition. Especially those who reside in homes that have a second story addition and those who are in no way affected by the Hassan's proposed addition. Talose in immediate proximity have been heard and revisions have been made. No one ever gets exactly what they want. A compromise must be reached. It is, after all, The Hassan's home. Please approve this project, as revised, It is a positive addition to our neighborhood, community and great city. pecif , y, 7 Arlen -Osborne htlps:i!n aii,aui,ccxrV3 66 41�i1a-Giemus±rtaR/PrintMessage.asinx 1!1 Name Address, signatur�— Ino, V-1 tj2- Ilk YO 63+3 L e�Nl Moe4"�t--' a"d 20 From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:19 AM To: Raymond Nuber Cc: CC Subject: RE: 16 Dec RPV CC Agenda Item: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a height variation at 6321 Villa Rosa Thank you for your comments, I will be sure to include them in the late correspondence to the City Council. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho (Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.Dalosverdes.com/rDv/DlanninR/Dlannina-zoninv/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam�rpv.com From: Raymond Nuber [mailto:raymond.nuber@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 1:33 PM To: Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: 16 Dec RPV CC Agenda Item: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a height variation at 6321 Villa Rosa Dear Members of the RPV City Council: I'm contacting you on behalf of the largest group of concerned citizens regarding an RPV City Council Agenda Item scheduled for 16 December. Specially, the Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a height variation at 6321 Villa Rosa. We've collected more than 70 signatures on our petition supporting your Planning Commission's decision to deny this application. We're confident we represent the majority of our city's voters on this issue, and we expect you are aware of the high visibility that the concern for McMansionization has obtained in during the last couple of years. We want to meet with you to discuss our concerns before the 16 December meeting. We suggest meeting in our neighborhood, which is off Hawthorne Boulevard near Granvia Altamira, at a time that works best for you. This location would allow you to see our concerns for yourself. Please reply as to what day/time works best for you, and whether you prefer a meeting location outside of our neighborhood, by contacting me via phone at 310-344-6615. We look forward to your reply. With Respect, Raymond Nuber From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:19 AM To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Invitation for on-site inspection of 6321 Villa Rosa Remodel from our property Hello, Please include this email in the Late Correspondence to the City Council. The concerned residence sent an individual email to each Council member. The information in each email is the same. As such, I am only including the email to the Mayor as part of the Late Correspondence. Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho 4'afos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.Dalosverdes.com/rav/DlanninR/DlanninR-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezamCcD.rpv.com From: Akemichi Yamada [mailto:akemichi@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 1:16 PM To: Jim Knight Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Invitation for on-site inspection of 6321 Villa Rosa Remodel from our property Reference: Case #ZON2014-00064, Height Variance at 6321 Villa Rosa Subject: Invitation for inspecting the proposed remodel from our backyard Dear Honorable Mayor Knight; Our property is abutting the proposed remodel. This will infringe on our privacy in our backyard and living quarters as shown below. We would appreciate if you can inspect the proposed 2 -story remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa from our backyard. Please feel free to come and inspect any time at your convenience. Akemichi Yamada 6320 Rio Linda Dr., RPV 310-544-4525 VIT � it N��t i'{ i! 7171► '+i4b TeelTro6 1#=_. e. t li n-*, aw Locations and sizes of windows shown are N From: Matthew Golding <MATTDAWN@COX.NET> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:14 AM To: CC Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: 6321 Villa Rosa City Council: I was hopeful that I could attend tomorrow night's City Council Meeting and voice/show my continued support of my neighborhs against the planned 2 story addition at 6321 Villa Rosa. Unfortunately, due to a last minute change in my schedule I will be unable to make the meeting. In short, as you have heard a few times now -from my past emails, although I am completely supportive of home improvements/expansions and the long term upgrade of my neighborhood, I continue to feel that this project is still too massive an undertaking. I am VERY concerned that a precedent will be set and this could pave the way for other large, 2 story projects in our area- and on my street Monero Dr. Thank you, Matthew Golding 6263 Monero Dr From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:28 AM To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Supporting the denial decision of the Planning Commission on Case# ZON2014-00064 Attachments: Impacts of Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa_2014_12_05_AY_c.pdf Hello... please include in the late correspondence to the City Council. Thank you. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Tacos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.Dalosverdes.com/rDv/r)lanninR/DlanninR-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com From: Vincent Liu [mailto:vince88168@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 4:21 PM To: CC Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Supporting the denial decision of the Planning Commission on Case# ZON2014-00064 Dear Members of City Council, I am the owner of the house at 6320 Villa Rosa Dr., and I am writing this to support the denial decision of the Planning Commission on Case# ZON2014-00064. Mark Zuckerburg, the founder of Face Book, purchased 4 homes surrounding his current home last year. The houses cost him more than $30 million, including one 2,600 square -foot home that cost $14 million. (His own home is twice as large at 5,000 square -feet and cost half as much, that's 7 million dollars.) Zuckerberg reportedly took action after he learned that a developer wanted to purchase one of his neighbor's homes and use the fact that Zuckerberg lived close by as a marketing tactic. He ended up leasing the four homes he just bought back to its current residents. He doesn't want to live in excess, he just wants a little privacy. That little privacy is worthy of 30 million dollars. There is on old saying and I quote "Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you", with that I urge each and every member of the City Council, before you make the decision not to uphold the denial decision of the Planning Commission, please look at the Photo 2 as attached and assume your are the owner at 6320 Rio Linda and ask yourself: " How much privacy & money it would take away from you if the City Council decided not to uphold the denial decision of the Planning Commission ? " Your kind support to uphold the denial decision of the Planning Commission is very much appreciated. Best Regards, Vincent Liu Owner/Resident at 6320 Villa Rosa Dr. To: City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cc.: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: Akemichi Yamada, 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-544-4525, akemiehiu'verizon.net Date: December 5, 2014 Subject: Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa. Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear Honorable Members of City Council, I respectfully request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa. The proposed two-story remodel will not be compatible with the neighborhood because it degrades the street scape, blocks views and infringes on privacy. I like to see a single -story design that would be more compatible with the neighborhood. As much as 2,700 sq -ft (excluding garage), which is twice as much as the current structure, can be obtained with a single -story design. Therefore the two-story design can be avoided. (1) Excessive height, incompatible with neighborhood As shown in Photo 1 below, the proposed two-story remodel appears more like a two -and -a -half -story high on the sloped Villa Rosa street. The proposed two-story structure is not compatible with the neighborhood that consists mostly of one-story houses where the average square footage is around 1,900 sq -ft. The two-story design will disturb the rhyme of the streetscape of the narrow Villa Rosa Street (about 28ft from curb to curb). The two-story design will result in a substantial loss of "air and light" for many neighbors. If this proposed two-story remodel becomes a precedent for the future development in this neighborhood, developers will build more two-story structures. The propagation of two-story houses will change the character of the neighborhood forever, depriving open "air and light" that is the hallmark of Rancho Palos Verdes. Before the passage of Measure M, the pop-up over the garage and the two-story house were built on Villa Rosa resulting in detrimental effect on the streetscape of Villa Rosa, blocking ocean views, and infringing on privacy of neighbors. The same mistake should not be allowed to occur again. (2) Infringement of Privacy The proposed two-story remodel is abutting our property at 6320 Rio Linda Drive. As shown in Photo 2 below, there are three proposed windows (48"x48", 48"x24", and 36"x24") having direct view into our property (the back yard, sun room, dining room, master bed room and master bath room). We will be subjected to intrusive visual observation. We are retired, and are spending tremendous amount of time in Page 1 of 4 our sun room and back yard. We like to preserve our privacy that we have enjoyed last 21 years. Please note that planting trees along the property border is not an effective means to mitigate privacy infringement because it takes a long time to grow tall trees and trees are too porous. (3) Taking away precious views from neighbors Many of us enjoy the setting sun hovering over the horizon. The height above 16 feet will take away views being enjoyed by neighbors. If two-story structures of this type propagate in the neighborhood, more precious views will be taken away and the neighborhood character will be changed forever. (4) Creating parking problems on Villa Rosa Villa Rosa is a narrow dead-end street (only 28 feet from curb to curb) and already has parking problems. People have difficulties finding adequate spaces for placing trash bins on a collection day. An emergency vehicle can hardly maneuver on the street. If larger homes are built, the street will be filled with additional parked cars creating serious problems. Photo 1, Massive 2 -story remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Page 2 of 4 Photo 2, View from 6320 Rio Linda Drive Direct view from 3 windows: 4$"x48", 36"x24" & 48"x24" Photo taken at approx. 45 feet from the windows Locations and sizes of windows shown are approximate. (5) Not complying with guidelines set by RPV I believe that the proposed remodel does not adhere to key guidelines described in the "Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook" (NCH) and the "Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits" (PHV). Some of these guidelines are listed below. A) The height of a structure should be compatible with established building heights in the neighborhood (NCH page 21, B.1). B) The bulk and mass of the new residence or an addition to an existing residence should be similar to neighboring structures, not overwhelming or disproportionate in size. A design that is out of character with the neighborhood is strongly discouraged (NCH page 28). C) The proposed structure should be compatible with immediate neighborhood character. "Neighborhood character" is defined to consider the existing characteristics of an area, including: Page 3 of 4 (a) Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures. (b) 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 (PHV page 15). D) The structure should enhance the rhyme of the streetscape (NCH page 27) E) The height of a structure that is above 16 feet in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences (PHV page 15) F) The height of a structure should be carefully designed to respect views from the viewing area of neighboring properties (NCH page 21 B.5, PHV page 13). Page 4 of 4 From: Sent: To: Subject: City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 oz026@aol.com Friday, December 12, 2014 8:23 PM cc 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Addition Arlen Osborne 6343 Villa Rosa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Re: Support -- 6321 Villa Rosa Drive -- As Revised Dear City Council Members, As a 30+ year resident and member of the community, I am writing to express my interest in and support of the project at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. I reside two houses west of the Hassan Family. I am not and have never been in favor of the idea that Hamburger Hill, or more recently, East Los Verdes, should remain a tract of single story homes. The fact is that properly permitted, building & safety compliant structures improve the value of the neighborhood and city. The original structures of the 1960's era were and are substandard in construction and should not be hailed as status quo nor a required configuration. After numerous revisions and earnest efforts to appease those Home Owner Association minded neighbors, the Hassans have arrived at a proposal that takes into consideration and meets with the city's protocol regarding privacy, view obstruction, character and aesthetics. Any land owner should have the freedom to improve their property as they see fit, provided they are in compliance with the rules and regulations set forth by the city, second story additions included. The Hassans are a family of seven and should have the comfort and space this addition will provide. I am embarrassed and frustrated by the sentiments and actions of those opposed to the addition. Especially those who reside in homes that have a second story addition and those who are in no way affected by the Hassan's proposed addition. Those in immediate proximity have been heard and revisions have been made. No one ever gets exactly what they want. A compromise must be reached. It is, after all, The Hassan's home. Please approve this project, as revised. It is a positive addition to our neighborhood, community and great city. Respectfully, Arlen Osborne From: raeles <raeles@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 11:51 PM To: Leza Mikhail Cc: CC Subject: Copy of letter sent regarding 6321 Villa Rosa Dr Attachments: Tanchum Family.doc WE are unable to attend the meeting. Kindly see that our letter (copy attached) is presented along with others from our neighborhood. Thankyou ****************************** Rael & Lesley Tanchum 6427 Monero Drive R.P.V. CA. 90275 raelesicox.net ******************************* Tanchum Family 6427 Monero Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 12/5/2014 Dear Ms Mikhail, We are writing in support of the Planning Commission's decision for the property 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, and hope that common sense within our City Council will prevail and that this decision will be upheld. We love our neighborhood just the way it is! Thank you, R. Tanchum Family a From: Kevin <kevin@c2services.com> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 9:03 AM To: CC Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Dec 16th appeal hearing invitation Dear Council Members, A reminder that we would like to extend an invitation to you to come visit us, discuss the proposed project at 6321 Villa Rosa and see the neighborhood first hand. We would be happy to meet with you at your convenience. Just let us know in advance so we can accommodate your schedule. Thank you and look forward to meeting you. Kevin Hamilton & Mary Beth Corrado 6309 Villa Rosa Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 560-6383 (cell) City of Rancho polos Verdes December /1, 2014 DEC 16 2014 City Manager°s Office City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Support — 6321 Villa Rosa – Completely Downsized Dear City Council Members, Given our frequent experience of walking and driving in our neighborhood and viewing the revised project – we are happy that the proposed two-story addition will not have an impact on privacy, views or bulk and mass. They have really stepped up to the plate to redesign a homerun project that the community should embrace in regards to compatibility and privacy. I find the amount of opposition to this project to be unreasonable to the community at large, and to the Hassan Family. The house size has been dramatically reduced, presents well from all sides, and should be supported. And_ what is most frustrating is the untrue argument that Los Verdes is a single story neighborhood - nothing could be more distant from the truth. The She family to the east should acknowledge the sincere effort and result of the architect and applicant to eliminate all the privacy impacts from the balcony on the south side or any other sections of the home that were an issue, reduce the amount of the expansion to have less of the mass and bulk, and provide a ranch style home to be as compatible with the neighborhood as possible and provide a new and beautiful home to increase property values of all our homes. It is noticed by all these changes the client has made that the applicant really respects the She family and whoever else lives in this neighborhood. This project appears to be of high quality, and is not out of character or scale with other two-story homes in our neighborhood. Please approve this project. It is a very positive addition to our community. Yours truly, i v4 %�� . �- �-e-� ✓6 t�.��-.-� ��-e.:� � � �� ;2-.e-.�- �u .-ems`-, To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council As a 42 year resident, I am writing to ask the Council to uphold the Planning Commission denial of the Height Variation at 6321 Villa Rosa. 91s, 6358 Villa Rosa City of Rancho Palos Verdes DEC 15 2014 City Manager's Office ORGANIZATION Calif. Joint Powers Ins. Authority (CJPIA) Chambers of Commerce City Selection Committee (LA Co. Brd. of Supervisors) Contract Cities DELEGATE/ALTERNATE Misetich/Campbell Entire Council Knight/Brooks Campbell/Misetich *L. A. County West Vector Control District Sala, Elizabeth (Term ends: 12/31/14) League of Calif. Cities L.A. County Division Campbell/Knight League of Calif. Cities Annual Conf. Voting Delegates Knight/Campbell *Palos Verdes Transit Authority Campbell & Misetich Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Brooks & Misetich *San. Districts (Dist. No. 5 & So. Bay San. District) Knight/Brooks Santa Monica Bay Watershed Advisory Council Knight/Campbell *So. Bay Cities Council of Govts. (SBCCOG) Knight/Duhovic West Basin Water Association Misetich/Campbell AD HOC COMMITTEES DELEGATES 2015 Employee Compensation Subcommittee Duhovic & Brooks Organizational Performance Assessment Subcommittee Brooks & Duhovic Legal Services RFP Subcommittee Duhovic & Campbell Upper Pt. Vicente/Civic Center Master Plan Subcommittee Knight & Duhovic Wall of Honor Subcommittee Brooks & Campbell STANDING COMMITTEES 2014-15 Audit Subcommittee Solid Waste Subcommittee LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS DELEGATES Campbell & Misetich Campbell & Duhovic STAFF LIAISON LAX Community Noise Roundtable Petra Schneider; Staff (So Kim) Pente Vista Development-LiaiGGR Staff Kit FGx) * Form 700 Required W:\City Council\2015\2015 DRAFT City Council Assignments.doc 12/12/2014 3-4 CITY OF J,1:4Lyir• : A • ► j. ftil Oil RANCHO f ALOS VERSES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CAROL W. LYNCH, CITY ATTORNEY DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2014 SUBJECT: CONTRACT WITH THE NEW CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Review and approve the contract with the new City Manager. BACKGROUND: On February 2, 2014, the City Council created the City Manager Recruitment Firm Selection Ad Hoc Subcommittee (Council Members Brooks and Campbell). Through the efforts of the Subcommittee and interviews conducted by the full City Council, Bob Murray & Associates was selected on April 15th to represent the City's interests in the recruitment process. At its meeting on June 3rd the City Council approved Staffs proposed public outreach plan, consisting of two Town Hall meetings, community outreach using an online survey, and media announcements. The outreach effort was completed on July 11, 2014. On Friday, September 12th the City's recruitment period for the City Manager position closed. Mr. Murray reviewed the 49 applications and resumes that he received from candidates across the nation. Mr. Murray used the input gathered from the ane -on -one interviews with each City Councilmember, the Town Hall meetings and the results from the online survey as he reviewed the qualifications and characteristics of each candidate. Mr. Murray identified the top tier candidates from the applicant pool and conducted preliminary interviews. Mr. Murray then presented a list of the top candidates to the City Council, who then selected six exceptional candidates to interview. After the first interview, the City Council scheduled a second interview with the top two candidates and selected the candidate whom the Council believes will best serve the City as the next City Manager, Mr. Bill Widmer. 4-1 Contract with the New City Manager December 16, 2014 Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION: Mr. Widmer's resume is attached to this report. Mr. Widmer has extensive executive management experience in the private sector, including with both smaller and larger businesses from within the United States as well as international businesses, including businesses specializing in information technology. Mr. Widner's management experience includes leading companies in new and innovative directions and negotiating with unions. His public sector experience is related to six years of service to the City of Atherton as Mayor, Vice Mayor and a Member of the City Council and as a member of that City's Audit Committee, Environmental Programs Committee, and New Town Center Committee. He also has served on the U.S. Congress' Office of Technology Assessment's Defense Diversification Committee. In addition, Mr. Widmer served as Chairman of the South Bay Waste Management Authority. As the Mayor and Vice Mayor of Atherton, Mr. Widmer led the development of new policies and procurement procedures that restored Atherton to a position of fiscal health and stability and enhanced the Town's transparency. He also led the search and selection process for a new City Manager and City Attorney. Mr. Widmer actively assisted the City Manager in selecting a new Police Chief and Director of Finance, Given Mr. Widmer's extensive experience in both the public and private sectors, the City Council found him to be the ideal choice for the new City Manager for Rancho Palos Verdes. The City Council has negotiated a contract with Mr. Widmer, a copy of which is attached to this Staff Report. The salient provisions of the contract are briefly summarized below: 1. The Agreement will commence on January 1, 2015. 2. The term of the Agreement is indefinite. The City Council may terminate the Agreement at any time, with or without cause, with ninety days prior written notice (Section 2). 3. Correspondingly, Mr. Widmer must provide ninety days prior written notice to the City Council if he were to choose to terminate the Agreement (Section 4, Paragraph C). 4. If the Council terminates the Agreement without cause, six month's salary must be paid to Mr. Widmer as severance (Section 4). 5. The annual salary that the City will pay to Mr. Widmer is $215,000, The salary may be adjusted by the Council, in its sole discretion, based on Mr. Widmer's annual performance evaluation (Section 6). 6. Mr. Widmer will receive an automobile allowance in the amount of $700.00 per month (Section 9). 7. He will not receive an allowance for electronic devices (Section 10). UK Contract with the New City Manager December 16, 2014 Page 3 of 3 8. He will receive the health and other benefits that are available to other City management employees. (Section 11, Paragraph A). 9. Mr. Widmer will receive twenty days of vacation per year (Section 11, Paragraph B.) 10. Mr. Widmer will receive eighty hours of Administrative Leave for each year that he works for the City (Section 11, Paragraph F). 11. Because Mr. Widmer is relocating from Northern California to Southern California, he will receive compensation for moving and temporary housing expenses, including a maximum of three trips to Southern California for Mr. Widmer and his wife to find a new home; a temporary housing allowance of $3000 a month for nine months while the transition continues, and a maximum amount of $10,000 to pay for the actual cost of moving his household, which is expected to occur in two phases (Section 12). FISCAL IMPACT: In addition to the salary and benefits described above, Mr. Widmer will be eligible to receive PERS retirement benefits. CONCLUSION: The City Council has selected Mr. Widmer as the next City Manager, The Agreement that is attached to this report reflects the terms that have been negotiated with Mr. Widmer. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Agreement that is attached to this report. Attachments Agreement Mr. Widmer's Resume 4-3 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND WILLIAM R. WIDMER This Employment Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of January 1, 2015, by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a California municipal corporation ("CITY" or "EMPLOYER"), and William R. Widmer, an individual ("EMPLOYEE"). EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE are referred to collectively as the Parties. RECITALS A. After a formal recruitment and selection process, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City Council" or "COUNCIL") selected EMPLOYEE to serve as City Manager commencing January 1, 2015, B. EMPLOYEE has the requisite skills and is otherwise qualified to serve as City Manager. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE agree as follows: SECTION 1. DUTIES EMPLOYER hereby agrees to retain the services of EMPLOYEE as City Manager of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to perform the functions and duties specified in Chapter 2.08 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, as is currently in effect and as may be amended from time to time, and to perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the COUNCIL shall from time to time assign. EMPLOYEE shall also serve as Executive Director of any authority or agency created by or staffed by EMPLOYER, including the Successor Agency to the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority. SECTION 2. TERM A. The term of this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2015 and shall continue indefinitely from year to year unless terminated by EMPLOYER or EMPLOYEE as provided herein. B. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the COUNCIL to terminate the services of EMPLOYEE at any time with 1776252.2 EWA or without cause upon ninety (90) days advance written notice, subject only to the provisions set forth in Section 4, paragraphs A and B of this Agreement. C. Unless EMPLOYEE has provided notice to EMPLOYER as required by Section 4, paragraph C, EMPLOYEE agrees to remain in the exclusive employment of EMPLOYER and neither to accept other employment nor to become employed by any other employer while employed by EMPLOYER. The prohibition against other employment shall not be construed to prevent occasional teaching, writing, or consulting performed on Employee's time off in accordance with Section 8 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SUSPENSION EMPLOYER may suspend EMPLOYEE in accordance with the provisions of Section 2,08.130 of Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. SECTION 4. TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAY A. Consistent with California Government Code Section 36506, EMPLOYEE is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the City Council as an at -will employee. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of EMPLOYER to terminate this Agreement and the employment of EMPLOYEE, with or without cause. EMPLOYER shall pay EMPLOYEE for all services through the effective date of termination, and Employee shall have no right to any additional compensation or payment, except as provided in this Section 4. In the event that EMPLOYEE is terminated by the COUNCIL without cause at or during such time that EMPLOYEE is willing and able to perform his duties under this Agreement, then in that event, EMPLOYER agrees to pay EMPLOYEE a lump sum cash payment equal to six months (6) month's salary, provided EMPLOYEE has executed a full and final release of any and all actual or potential claims that EMPLOYEE has or could have against EMPLOYER. Also, in the event EMPLOYEE and EMPLOYEE'S dependents are covered under EMPLOYER'S health plan(s), and in addition to the described lump sum payment, EMPLOYER shall provide for continuation of health plans for six months after the date of termination or until EMPLOYEE obtains other employment, whichever occurs first. EMPLOYER, at its option, may provide for health benefit continuation through appropriate EMPLOYER contribution to COBRA coverage or by maintaining EMPLOYEE on EMPLOYER'S payroll roster for such insurance benefits only. Only in the event that EMPLOYEE is terminated because of a material breach of this Agreement on his part, or because he has been convicted of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude during the term hereof, shall EMPLOYER be relieved of the obligation to pay EMPLOYEE the benefits or the severance sum designated in this paragraph. 1776252.2 Wa 4-5 B. In the event EMPLOYER, at any time during the term of this Agreement, reduces the salary or other financial benefits of EMPLOYEE in a greater percentage than an applicable across the board reduction for all employees of EMPLOYER, or in the event EMPLOYER refuses, following written notice, to comply with any other provision herein benefiting EMPLOYEE, or in the event that the COUNCIL substantially reduces EMPLOYEE'S responsibilities, or in the event EMPLOYEE resigns following a suggestion or request by the COUNCIL that he resign, then EMPLOYEE may, at his option, be deemed "terminated" within the meaning and context of the herein severance pay provisions as of the date of such reduction of benefits, refusal to comply with the provisions of this Agreement, substantial reduction of responsibilities, or suggestion or request by the COUNCIL to resign. C. In the event EMPLOYEE voluntarily resigns his position with EMPLOYER, then EMPLOYEE shall give EMPLOYER three (3) months written notice in advance unless EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE mutually agree in writing to a reduction of the notice period. If EMPLOYEE terminates this Agreement (thereby terminating EMPLOYEE'S Employment), EMPLOYEE shall not be entitled to any severance, D. Any other term of the Employment Agreement notwithstanding, the maximum severance that EMPLOYEE may receive under this Agreement shall not exceed the limitations provided in Government Code Sections 53260 — 53264, or other applicable law. Further, in the event Employee is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of office or position, Employee shall reimburse the City for any paid leave or cash settlement (including severance), as provided by Government Code Sections 53243 — 53243,4, SECTION 5. DISABILITY If EMPLOYEE is permanently disabled or is otherwise unable to perform his duties because of sickness, accident, injury, mental incapacity or health for a period of four consecutive weeks beyond any accrued sick leave, EMPLOYER shall have the option to terminate this Agreement, subject to the severance pay requirements of Section 4, paragraph A, and the provision of health benefits as set forth in paragraph A of Section 4. However, EMPLOYEE shall be compensated for any accrued vacation, holiday, and other accrued benefits, if any, in accordance with EMPLOYER'S personnel rules, which are applicable to management employees and in effect at the time of such termination. SECTION 6. SALARY 1776262.2 -3 - me A. EMPLOYER agrees to pay EMPLOYEE for his services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, an annual salary of two hundred fifteen thousand dollars ($215,000), subject to legally permissible or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on CITY'S normal paydays. EMPLOYEE'S salary is compensation for all hours worked. EMPLOYEE shall be exempt from the overtime pay provisions of California law, if any, and federal law. B. In recognition of accomplishments and excellent performance, merit increases may be granted to EMPLOYEE by COUNCIL, EMPLOYER agrees that EMPLOYEE'S salary shall be reviewed at the same time that EMPLOYEE'S performance is reviewed pursuant to Section 7. SECTION 7. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION A. Immediately following the commencement of EMPLOYEE'S employment with EMPLOYER, CITY COUNCIL and EMPLOYEE shall discuss the CITY'S goals and objectives for the next six months. Beginning on the first anniversary of the commencement of EMPLOYEE'S employment with CITY, COUNCIL and EMPLOYEE shall define annually the goals and objectives that they determine are appropriate for the proper operation of the CITY and to attain the COUNCIL'S policy objectives. Concurrently with the establishment of the goals and objectives for the CITY, COUNCIL and EMPLOYEE shall establish the performance goals for EMPLOYEE and any specific criteria that shall be used to evaluate EMPLOYEE'S performance, COUNCIL may amend said criteria from time to time, after consultation with EMPLOYEE. B. The parties agree that the COUNCIL'S failure to carry out the provisions of this Section 7 shall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement or a waiver of its right to conduct a performance evaluation as authorized by the Municipal Code and this Agreement. C. Such evaluation shall be discussed with EMPLOYEE, and an opportunity shall be provided to EMPLOYEE to respond to any aspect of said evaluation. It is the intention of COUNCIL that so long as authorized by Section 54957 of the California Government Code, or any other statutory provision, such performance evaluation shall be conducted in closed session. SECTION 8. OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES EMPLOYEE shall not spend more than an average of four hours per week in teaching, counseling or other non -Employer related business without the prior approval of the COUNCIL. 1776252.2 _4_ WA SECTION 9. AUTOMOBILE EMPLOYEE shall provide and have at his disposal for use for City business a clean, presentable and well-maintained automobile. EMPLOYEE shall be responsible for all costs of maintenance and operation of said vehicle. During the term of this Agreement, EMPLOYEE shall secure and maintain, at EMPLOYEE'S expense, automobile insurance in accordance with the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Administrative Instruction No. 8-02, and the minimum insurance requirements established by State law, whichever is greater, and shall provide satisfactory evidence of such automobile insurance to EMPLOYER. EMPLOYER shall pay to EMPLOYEE the amount of $700.00 per month to compensate EMPLOYEE for the use of EMPLOYEE'S automobile for City business, including, but not limited to, all applicable costs of automobile liability insurance, maintenance, operating expenses, depreciation and interest. SECTION 10. ELECTRONIC DEVICES Other than the desktop computer and telephone system that are located in EMPLOYEE'S office at City Hall, EMPLOYEE shall supply at his own expense and be responsible for his own cellular telephone and other electronic devices that are used for communication purposes. SECTION 11. BENEFITS GENERALLY A. Except as specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement, EMPLOYEE shall receive all employment benefits that have been approved by COUNCIL for other management employees, as set forth in the City's Management Employee Personnel Rules and Resolution No. 97-93, as they now exist and from time to time as they may be amended by COUNCIL. If at any time such benefits exceed the benefits stated herein, they shall immediately apply to EMPLOYEE. Health care benefits (medical, dental and vision) shall be fully paid for by EMPLOYER for EMPLOYEE and his eligible dependents. In addition, any health care benefits for EMPLOYEE'S dependents, which were in effect immediately prior to EMPLOYEE'S death shall continue through the end of the month following the death of EMPLOYEE, if he were to pass away while employed by the CITY. EMPLOYER then shall provide for health benefit continuation for EMPLOYEE'S dependents by the appropriate EMPLOYER contribution to COBRA coverage for the maximum period allowed by law (which currently is 36 months) until such time as EMPLOYEE'S dependents receive health benefits from another source. The provisions of this Section 11 exclude any automatic adjustments to EMPLOYEE'S salary; such increases, if any, shall be determined by the COUNCIL, in its sole discretion, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph B of Section 6. 1776252,2 -5- 21"90 B. EMPLOYEE shall accrue vacation leave at the rate of twenty days per year. The vacation leave granted to EMPLOYEE may be used by EMPLOYEE at his discretion, always considering the best interests of the City. EMPLOYEE shall notify the Mayor and the Council whenever vacation leave is to be taken. In recognition of the need for EMPLOYEE to meet existing obligations, an initial bank of 5 days of vacation leave shall be provided to EMPLOYEE upon commencement of his employment with EMPLOYER as a part of the aforementioned vacation accrual, If not used, said vacation leave shall continue to accrue up to a maximum of two year's allocation (40 days). Upon termination of EMPLOYEE'S employment under this Agreement, EMPLOYER shall pay EMPLOYEE, at the rate of compensation then being earned by EMPLOYEE, for all accrued and unused vacation leave. C. EMPLOYER recognizes that EMPLOYEE may incur certain expenses of a non -personal and job related nature. EMPLOYER agrees to reimburse or to pay such reasonable business expenses, which are incurred and submitted according to EMPLOYER'S normal expense reimbursement procedures. To be eligible for reimbursement, all expenses must be supported by documentation meeting EMPLOYER'S normal requirements and must be submitted within time limits established by EMPLOYER, D. Bonding. EMPLOYER shall bear the full costs of any fidelity or other bonds required of EMPLOYEE (if any) under any law or ordinance by virtue of his employment as City Manager. E. EMPLOYEE may participate in the deferred compensation plan(s) to which CITY employees may contribute in the same manner as other CITY employees, F. EMPLOYEE is granted 80 hours of Administrative Leave for each CITY fiscal year that EMPLOYEE is employed by EMPLOYER. EMPLOYEE shall. consider the workload and obligations of the City Manager's Department and the best interests of the CITY when EMPLOYEE schedules his Administrative Leave. Like other CITY employees, EMPLOYEE'S Administrative Leave may not be accumulated or carried over to the next fiscal year. Upon termination of EMPLOYEE'S employment, EMPLOYEE shall not be granted and, accordingly is not entitled to be paid for, unused Administrative Leave. Administrative Leave may be used for medical appointments, disability leave and leaves provided pursuant to the federal and California family and medical leave statutes. EMPLOYEE also may use Administrative Leave in connection with his relocation to Southern California. G. EMPLOYEE shall be granted sick leave in the same manner as other CITY management employees. Unused sick leave shall carry forward, but no more 1776252.2 than 720 hours shall ever be accumulated. There shall be no payout of unused sick leave upon separation from the CITY. SECTION 12. MOVING AND TEMPORARY HOUSING ALLOWANCE As a result of accepting the position as City Manager with CITY, EMPLOYEE will relocate from his current residence to another residence that is within or near the CITY. EMPLOYER shall reimburse or pay the expenses of moving his family and personal property, as follows: A. Housing Search Allowance. EMPLOYER shall reimburse EMPLOYEE for a total of two trips for EMPLOYEE'S spouse (Mary Widmer) and one trip for EMPLOYEE to assist with house hunting and other facets of the transition and relocation process. Each trip shall include coach round trip air fare, the cost of a rental car, and a per diem amount of $250 per day, per person, for lodging and meals, not to exceed a total of eight days for all three trips. Expenses incurred by EMPLOYEE pursuant to this paragraph A may occur prior to January 1, 2015, B. Temporary Travel and Housing Allowance. Commencing January 1, 2015, EMPLOYER shall provide EMPLOYEE with a temporary monthly travel and housing allowance in the amount of $3,000 per month for a maximum period of nine months. C. Moving Allowance. In consideration for relocation, EMPLOYER shall reimburse or pay for actual and reasonable moving expenses to transport household items, not to exceed a total cost of $10,000.00. Moving expenses are expected to occur in two stages (the first for EMPLOYEE alone, and the second to move EMPLOYEE'S family). Moving expenses may include professional labor, packing services, packing supplies, rented moving equipment, transport, temporary storage and insurance. To be eligible for reimbursement, moving expenses must be incurred within one year of the effective date of this Agreement and must be submitted to EMPLOYER for reimbursement, along with reasonable documentation, within six months after being incurred. COUNCIL, in its sole and absolute discretion, may extend these time limits for circumstances outside of EMPLOYEE'S control. If such moving expenses have been reimbursed by EMPLOYER, and EMPLOYEE terminates his employment with EMPLOYER before December 31, 2015, then EMPLOYEE shall reimburse EMPLOYER for the amounts previously paid to EMPLOYEE pursuant to this paragraph C with a pro rata reduction of 1/12th of the total expenses paid by EMPLOYER for each full month that EMPLOYEE remains employed by City. All applicable IRS regulations will apply to these temporary benefits, and none of these benefits shall be compensation that is subject to PERS. 1776252.2 -7- 4-10 SECTION 13. DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS EMPLOYER agrees to budget and pay for the professional dues and subscriptions of EMPLOYEE necessary for his continuation and full participation in national, regional, state and local associations and organizations necessary and desirable for his continued professional participation, growth and advancement, including the acceptance and performance of duties related to such associations and organizations and for the good of EMPLOYER. EMPLOYEE shall provide written notice to COUNCIL of the organizations and subscriptions that are being reimbursed by EMPLOYER pursuant to this Section 13. SECTION 14. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYER hereby agrees to budget for and pay the travel and subsistence expenses in accordance with the COUNCIL -approved travel policy, as contained in the Administrative Manual and City resolutions, for professional and official travel and meetings and occasions adequate to continue the professional development of EMPLOYEE and to adequately pursue necessary official duties and other functions for EMPLOYER. EMPLOYEE shall provide written notice to COUNCIL of the expenditures that EMPLOYEE incurs pursuant to this Section 14. SECTION 15. INDEMNIFICATION Except as otherwise permitted, provided, limited or required by law, including, without limitation, California Government Code Sections 825, 995, and 995.2 through 995.8, EMPLOYER will defend and pay any costs and judgments assessed against EMPLOYEE arising out of an act or omission by EMPLOYEE occurring in the course and scope of EMPLOYEE'S performance of his duties under this Agreement, However, in the event City provides funds for legal criminal defense pursuant to this Section 15 or the terms of the Government Code, EMPLOYEE shall reimburse EMPLOYER for such legal criminal defense funds, if EMPLOYEE is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of office or position, as provided by Government Code Sections 53243 — 53243.4 SECTION 16. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT The COUNCIL, in consultation with EMPLOYEE, shall fix any other terms and conditions of employment as it may determine from time to time to be appropriate, relating to the performance of EMPLOYEE, provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, City ordinances or any other law. 1776252.2 _8_ 4-11 SECTION 17. NOTICES Any notice to EMPLOYER under this Agreement shall be given in writing to EMPLOYER, either by personal service or by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the City Clerk at the address listed below. A courtesy copy shall be given to the City Attorney in a like manner. Any such notice to EMPLOYEE shall be given in a like manner and, if mailed, shall be addressed to EMPLOYEE at his home address then shown in City's files. EMPLOYEE'S current address is set forth below. For the purpose of determining compliance with any time limit in this Agreement, a notice shall be deemed to have been duly given (a) on the date of delivery, if served personally on the party to whom notice is to be given, or (b) on the third calendar day after mailing, if mailed to the party to whom the notice is to be given in the manner provided in this section. EMPLOYER: Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 EMPLOYEE: William R. Widmer SECTION 18. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior oral and written agreements, understandings, commitments, and practices between the parties concerning EMPLOYEE'S employment with EMPLOYER, Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, oral or written, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, that are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding on either party. B. No amendments to this Agreement may be made except as mutually agreed to in writing, signed and dated by EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE. C. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the heirs at law and executors of EMPLOYEE. 1776252.2 -9- 4-12 D. This Agreement shall become effective commencing the 1 sc day of January, 2015. E. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, unless EMPLOYEE agrees otherwise or unless notice of termination has been given prior to any City Council election, EMPLOYEE shall be retained for a minimum of three months following any such election. F. If any provision of this Agreement, or portion thereof, is held invalid or unenforceable for any reason, including that the provision or portion conflicts with federal or state law, the remainder of this Agreement shall be deemed severable and shall remain in full force and effect. If any provision is held invalid or unenforceable with respect to particular circumstances, it shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect in all other circumstances. G. This Agreement sets forth the final, complete and exclusive agreement between EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE relating to the employment of EMPLOYEE as City Manager by CITY. Any prior discussions or representations by or between the parties are merged into or rendered null and void by this Agreement. The foregoing notwithstanding, EMPLOYEE acknowledges that, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, his employment is subject to EMPLOYER'S generally applicable rules and policies pertaining to employment matters, such as those addressing equal employment opportunity, sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. H. This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced and governed under the substantive laws of the State of California, without giving effect to conflict of laws principles. Any legal action to enforce the provisions of this Agreement shall be filed in any court of competent jurisdiction in Los Angeles County. I. None of the Parties hereto shall be deemed to be the drafter of this Agreement as it will be deemed jointly drafted with each party having the right of review and consultation with counsel of their choosing. The terms of this Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed in favor of, or against, any Party hereto. Should any provision of this Agreement be found to be ambiguous in any way, such ambiguity shall not be resolved by construing this Agreement in favor of or against any Party herein, but rather by construing the terms of this Agreement as a whole according to their fair meaning. J. EMPLOYEE acknowledges that he has had the opportunity and has conducted an independent review of the financial and legal effects of this Agreement. EMPLOYEE acknowledges that he has made an independent judgment upon the 1776252.2 Et#Z 4-13 financial and legal effects of this Agreement and has not relied upon any representation of EMPLOYER, its officers, agents or employees other than those expressly set forth in this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, has caused this Agreement to be signed and executed on its behalf by its Mayor, and duly attested by its City Clerk, and EMPLOYEE has signed and executed this Agreement, as of the date and year first above written, Dated: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES (EMPLOYER) MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM, CITY ATTORNEY Dated: EMPLOYEE WILLIAM R. WIDMER 1776252,2 4-14 BILL WIDMER 6503256428 bwidrner(4,',pacbe11. net OVERVIEW General Manager with a track record of strong contract, personnel and prcject management experience. Successful budget management and revitalization of both small and large organizations. Experienced in executing and managing outsourcing programs, start-ups, turnarounds and product launches, A track record leading change in organizations. Experienced in multiple industries including IT & Business Process outsourcing, defense products and federal, state and local government activities. Extensive international business and cultural experience. covering North America, Europe, Middle East, and parts of Asia. Budget -minded yet customer-t6cused leader. A strategic thinker who devises creative solutions and manages in a hands-on, team -oriented, and mentoring way. Experienced in working with unions, both internationally and domestically. • As VP./Deputy CEO, of European IT services organization, grew recut -ring revenue from operations by $65M. • As VP/COO, Outsourcing Group, built a $150M electronics design services (BPO) business unit. • As GM, led two services organizations to profitability while launching new product lines and improving client satisfaction, • Led multiple strategic engagements and new business contract negotiations resulting in over $813 combined value, • Elected to Council running on platforni of establishing financial stability using business practices and methodologies, • As Mayor, reversed 8 years of deficit spending while improving services with key leadership changes and outsourcing, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION EXPERIENCE • Elected to Council and subsequently to Vice Mayor- 2010, Mayor 2011-2012 • Member of Town of Atherton's Audit, Rail and Finance, Environmental Programs and the NeivTown Center Committees • Chairman of South Bay Waste Management Authority and board member for serveral other regional organizations • Led development of several Town contracts and procurement procedures and developed trash rate structure R)rTown • As Mayor, led selection of new City Attorney, Finance Director, Police Chief and City Manager • Led efforts for key town ballot initiatives, the outsourcing of selected services and paying off major Town liabilities, • Led Council activities resulting in moving fringe benefit programs to a more sustainable and competitive basis EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Orange Business Services/F rance Telecom Group 2004 -present Deputy Vice President, Commercial Management Began ,is a consultant, developing and negotiating strategic. deals and equity transactions in Europe and North America. Later, hired its Commercial Management Global Practice Lead, for leading the development of major partnerships including outsourcing opportunities. Named Commercial Head for BMSA & WW Outsourcing in early 2007 and then moved plead of CNI. world-wde operations responsible -for day to day operation of a 70+ employee world-wide organization. • planned and implemented departmental restructuring creating a world-wide service organization using a leveraged model, standard processes and tools benefiting multiple sales channels with 20% fewer resource.,, overall. • Personally developed and closed global agreements (worth over $500MTCV) with IBM, BT, Bell Canada and EY. • Developed and gained corporate support for establishment of low-cost near shoring facility to support business development activities which had an 18 -month payback while improving bid turnaround by 25%. • Led corporate activities leading to the development and startup oFa Contract Management practice. • Developed OBS' International Risk Assessment and Risk Management Practice and tools resulting in improved financial models while creating risk registers R)r delivery teams, • Named 'Best Commercial Manager' for 2006. EDS, San Ramon, CA 2002-2003 Vice President, Outsourcing Sales, Northern California Responsible for a team of sales and business development executives fbr the business process & IT outsourcing product lines. • Led organization which achieved funded backlog growth of over $960M. • Grew pipeline from $1.513 to over $2.513, 4-15 William R. Widmer Page 2 Borland Software Company, Scotts Valley, CA 2000-2001 Vice President & General Manager, World-wide Professional Services Hired to revitalize an international P&L business unit, providing consulting and educational services. • Organized regionally, disparate organizations into a virtual group with focused creation and execution organizations leading to expanded offerings (e-commerce and e -learning), increased backlog and $2M of incremental revenue. • Established organizational and sales processes, product marketing, metrics and pipel ine management which led to a doubling of consultant utilization rates while restoring profitability from pervious $1M/qtr loss. Mentor Graphics Corporation, San Jose, CA 1999-2000 General Manager, Mentor Consulting and Knowledge Products Divisions Worldwide responsibility for technical publications, training, consulting and electronic design support. • Revitalized a dis,jointed 300 -person, $40M business unit into a synergistic $50M business unit. • Exceeded margin plan by 50% ($6M vs, $4M) and revenue plan by 25% with backlog growth. • Established new operating processes and partnership program leading to consistent profitability. Cadence Design Systems, San Jose CA 1996-1998 Vice President and COO, World Wide Outsourcing Group Mired to lead Cadence's growth into outsourcing and solution selling with a services -led model and grow a services organization, • Co -developed, negotiated, and closed over $200M of multi-year business including Cadence's largest ever services engagement ($1 17M+) with Oki in Japan, • Led evaluation, due diligence, transition and negotiations for several strategic mergers and acquisitions including a $50M, 100+ person acquisition with Lucent (Bell Labs). • Built global outsourcing organization; created infrastructure and processes necessary to vvin multi -,year, multi-million dollar strategic partnerships. Computer Science Corporation (CSC), USA & Europe 1993-1996 I tired as, Director, Business Development and progressed (in '94) to Vice President • VP/General Manager of 1000 person business unit supporting 9 major divisions ofl3ritish Aerospace, • Named Deputy CEO for 1700 person, $300M/yr (Aerospace Systems) business unit and grew it by over 30%.. • Planned, negotiated and executed three strategic service and technology outsourcing alliances resulting in savings of over $17M per year with improvements in service performance and service resilience. • Rationalized geographically dispersed service delivery organizations from vertical structures into a matrix -managed, centers of excellence structure, resulting in improved performance and $20Mp,a. savings. • Revamped procurernerrt processes and streamlined supply chain reducing time span to acquire and provision distributed processing equipment from six weeks to three days, General Dynamics -Electronics Division, CA & FL 1985-1993 Progressed from Director, CAE/CAD/CAM to Director and General Manager, Tallahassee Operation Transferred from Data Systems Division after'7 years ('78-`85) in various software engineering and management roles in TX, • Planned, directed and managed the start-up of nationally recognized, automated manufacturing and support operation in Tallahassee, FL, growing it from inception to over 120 employees and $30M/year. • Deputy Program Director sharing responsibility f'or the development, negotiation and planning of $400M DoD program, SINCGA.RS, and led negotiations for award of $I OM in state and local economic assistance. • Developed and executed Division's strategic plan which led to its migration from manual design and manufacturing process to integrated and automated processes resulting in b0% cycle time improvement and quality improvements EDUCATION • MBA, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas • BS, Computer Science, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas • Executive Program, Northwestern University, Kellogg Graduate School of Management 4-16 William R. Widmer Page 3 MEMBERSHIPS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION • As CEO of g8solutions.com, 20034005, grew company from startup to over $1 M with 3 product lilies, • Managing Director of Diamond Hawk Ventures, 2001-2002, a retainer -based consulting company. • US Congress Office of" Technology Assessment, Defense Diversification Committee Member • Texas Christian University Evening College Professor of Computer Science 4-17 From: Carol W. Lynch <CLynch@rwglaw.com> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 3:34 PM To: 'Ken DeLong' Cc: CC Subject: RE: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Special Meeting Agenda December 13, 2014 Hello Mr. DeLong: It is the Council's goal to have the agreement with the new city manager on the agenda for review and approval Tuesday evening. We hope to have it posted on the City's website after the closed session tomorrow. The "Open" ordinance applies to negotiations with an employee organization or union and does not govern negotiations with a candidate for the position of City Manager. Sincerely, Carol Lynch From: Ken DeLong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 3:21 PM To: CC@rpv.com Subject: FW: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Special Meeting Agenda December 13, 2014 According to the message below, Council is having another closed session in regards to hiring a new City Manager. The Council agenda for Tuesday (Dec. 16) agenda has this matter as item 4. Apparently the plan is to approve the proposed contract for hiring new City Manager at that meeting? Question: When do the residents / taxpayers get to review and comment on the proposed City Manager contract? Or has the recently approved "OPEN" ordinance already been discarded? Ken DeLong From: rpvlistserver(cbrpv.com[ma i Ito: rpvl istserver(cb rpv.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 2:42 PM To: ken.delona@verizon.net Subject: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Special Meeting Agenda December 13, 2014 AGENDA RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING SATURDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2014 @ 2:30 P.M. CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM/ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE ROOM 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD 2:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION: SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECK LIST FOR DETAILS. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC COMMENTS (On items listed on the Special Meeting Agenda): RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION: CLOSED SESSION REPORT: ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting. CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST Based on Government Code Section 54954.5 (All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections) Conference with Legal Counsel Personnel Public Employee Employment G.C. 54957 Title: City Manager The City Council will meet in closed session to discuss negotiations relating to the employment of a new City Manager. American with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you require a disability -related modification or accommodation to attend or participate in this meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please call the City Clerk's Office at 310 544-5208 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. NOTE: Staff reports are available for inspection at City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard during regular business hours, 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Monday — Thursday and 7:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. on Friday. The agenda and staff reports can also be viewed at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard during regular business hours: Monday — Friday from 9:00 A.M. until dusk; Saturday and Sunday from 10:00 A.M. until dusk. Written materials, including emails, submitted to the City are public records and may be posted on the City's website. In addition, City meetings may be televised and may be accessed through the City's website. Accordingly, you may wish to omit personal information from your oral presentation or written materials as it may become part of the public record regarding an agendized item. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the front counter of the lobby of the City Hall Administration Building at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes during normal business hours. You can also view the agenda and staff reports at the City's website www.palosverdes.com/RPV. ...... . ._ .......... _ ........ _ BREAKING NEWS City staff occasionally posts other important non -emergency information on the Breaking News page of the City's website located at: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/breakin ng ews Be sure to go to the List Server page and subscribe to receive email messages whenever a Breaking News article is posted to the City's website. You can join at: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/listserver Please do not reply directly to this message. The correct contact for each Listsery message topic is included in the message. We welcome your comments and suggestions, please send them to: comments( palosverdes.com 501c3 community service organization serving our communities by providing computer technology support to the City - educational internships and animation training to kids, workforce training to adults, free classes for seniors, and free web pages to non-profit organizations since 1995. Click here for information about free classes to residents. Contact us by email at informationCo).palosverdes.com Click here to report this email as spam. NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. From: Nelsongang <nelsongang@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 8:24 PM To: CC Subject: Appointment of Mr. Bill Widmer as City Manager Mayor Knight, Mayor Pro -tem Brooks, Councilmembers Campbell, Misetich and Duhovic Sandie and I congratulate each you on the selection of our new City Manager, Bill Widmer. You have to feel a load is off your shoulders, that you have established one of the keystones of your legacy to our city as its council. We do feel we were very fortunate to have Carolynn Petru step in as quarterback for this year. Happy Holidays! Bob and Sandie Nelson 310-544-4632 From: Ken DeLong <ken.delong@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 8:31 PM To: CC Subject: FW: City Manager Agreement To: Mayor Jim Knight Cc: Council members; Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Misetich Subject; New City Manager Agreement — Council Agenda Item 4 — December 16, 2014 It appears that the agreement with former City Manager Lehr was used as a template for the proposed agreement with the proposed new City Manager. To the extent that the language in the new agreement has been "cleaned up" is certainly a step in the right direction. In Section 11 Benefits, Item B Vacation Leave; the language was improved to make the conditions clear. The City Manager is to inform the Council whenever taking vacation leave. This is good and was sorely needed, but Item F Administrative Leave was left untouched. Why was the same clarity added to Vacation Leave not applied to Administrative Leave? Do not Council members recall that use (misuse) of Administrative Leave was the "hole in the dike" that initiated the review of the former City Manager's pay / benefits? Section I Duties remains vague and simply refers to MC 2.08. It would seem that this would have been an ideal opportunity to clean up this section as well. Inserting RPV Council Goals, Objectives and General Responsibilities with more specific duties defined in MC 2.08. That the Council majority failed to seize this opportunity is, unfortunately, not surprising. Section 4 in the Agreement pertains to Termination and Severance. While the wording in Section 4 is improved, it does seem to be in conflict with existing MC 2.08.120, MC 2.08.130, MC 2.08.140, MC 2.08.150 and MC 2.08.160. Of course there are many components of MC 2.08 that are either no longer pertinent or outdated; regrettably the Council majority seems to have little interest in appropriately managing / protecting the people's assets. Ken DeLong �f