20150203 Late CorrespondenceSingle Story Design
RECEIVED FROM 4 -
AND MADE A PART OF THE R C�RDATTHE
COUNCIL MEETING OF 3
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
• A large house of 3,000 sq -ft (including garage) may be attainable with a
single -story design
1. 3,634 sq -ft is available for structure and paving, using allowed 52%
of the 7,014 sq -ft lot
2. The current 1,838 sq -ft may be increased to 3,000 sq -ft with single -
story design (including garage), more with variance on lot coverage.
3. The new neighbor at 6206 Monero is using a single -story design to add
1,006 sq -ft, resulting in 3,432 sq -ft overall (including garage)
4. Several neighbors added approximately 1,000 sq -ft using single -story
design.
5. Better to approve variance on setbacks or lot coverage than on
height
• A single -story design will eliminate problems of compatibility, bulky
appearance, blocked views, and infringement on privacy.
Please encourage a single -story design in this case.
Please uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
Page 1 of 1
Opposed to 2nd Story @ 6321 Villa Rosa
a
._�.�
NO
EIVED FROM-1�1,, IULM-CC1--�-
MADE A FART OF THE R C RD AT TH
iNCIL MEETING OF 3
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
2/3/15
I
RELA TI VE PROPERTY L OCA TIONS
Hamilton Property
Peachtree Family Trust Property 6309 Villa Rosa
6321 Villa Rosa 22 Year Resident
Ir
1.
ox, LL
LU
LL
.. Monro -Dr.tom.
_
Monero�p,
17i - .
..� TO ' - • <.�
LLJ
0 0
�LU
W
IV4 Pi,
.-Rio Linda Dr. s d;0,.
Y ? ' 11�7D
1- " , , "
Villa Rosa Dr.
ZZ
r-'" Hawthorne Blvd.
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 1N 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 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
6309 VILLA ROSA
.�i• � � � � �.r..�• t it
___l ft-m-m�-Z
6315 VILLA ROSA
_ �� 'g•�.,. tic ��'• �`:� 'Hx f r,�yi .i5. ".i>r_.
IF� k Y+1 d -
ru�q , • � #r �
�gS
;1
i tom" �� • � - '
k
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2015
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
G Staff Report Exhibit B
1 Revised Resolution; Email from Raymond Nuber
3 Email from Information Technology Manager Landon
5 Revised Employment Agreement
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, February 2, 2015**.
W:WGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150203 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 5:17 PM
To: CC
Cc: Joel Rojas; avona@pvplc.org
Subject: February 3rd CC Meeting - Agenda Item No. G
Attachments: SIGNED GRANT CONTRACT.pdf
Mayor Knight and City Council Members,
Tomorrow night, you are being asked to authorize the Community Development Director to sign and
record Deed Restrictions on the properties that make up the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve in
connection with the 2012 Habitat Conservation Fund grant awarded to the City. Exhibit B (Grant
Contract) to the Deed Restriction was inadvertently left out of the Staff Report and is being provided
to you now (see attachment). The grant contract essentially describes how the grant funds are to be
administered and how the project funded by the grant (see staff report for the project description) is to
be used by the public.
I will ask the City Clerk to provide copies of the attachment (Exhibit B) as late correspondence.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
L5
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
ADo you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
State of California - Natural Resources Agency
Department of Parks and Recreation
GRANT CONTRACT
Habitat Conservation Fund
Trails
GRANTEE City of Rancho Palos Verdes
GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD is from July 01, 2013 through June 30, 2018
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD is from July 01, 2013 through June 30, 2033
PROJECT TITLE PALOS VERDES NATURE PRESERVE CONNECTIVITY & TRAILS PROJECT NUMBER HT -19-018
The GRANTEE agrees to the terms and conditions of this contract, hereinafter referred to as AGREEMENT, and the State of
California, acting by and through the California Department of Parks and Recreation, agrees to fond the total grant amount indicated
below. The GRANTEE agrees to complete the GRANT SCOPE as defined in the GRANT SCOPE / Cost Estimate Form of the
APPLICATION submitted to the State of California.
GRANT SCOPE:
Development of approximately 4 miles of trail wid ash=iated 'habitat restoration Including trailhead signage, trail markers, and minor
amenities for 10 reserves within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Total State Grant not to exceed $130,800.00 (or 50% of the total project, which ever is less)
The General and Special Provisions attached are made a part of and incorporated into the Contract.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Grantee
By �{' -
Typed or pri ted name of Autf orized Representative STATE OF CALIFORNIA
q DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
'} j
Signatu(e o Authorized Repr seritaUve By
Title Community Development Director Date tl
Date 7 "'._-q- _
CERTIFICATION OF FUNDING
CONTRACT NO AMENDMENT NO CAI. &TA.RS VENDOR NO. PROJECT NO.
C97710-15 000000489600 HT -19-018
AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THtB DOCUMENT
`FUNp.
$130,800.00 Habitat Conservation Fund
!PRioRAMOUNi ENCUMBERED FOR THIS ITEM CHAPTER ;STATUTE FISCAL YEAR
CONTRACT 3790-601-0262(1) Pcop.1.1'7 ' 1990 2013/14
rOTAL MAOUNT ENcuMBERED ra DATE INDEX. OBJ. EXPEN0 FCA. PROJECT / WORK PHASE
g $130,800.00 1091 702 63664
.. ........_. __ ._..__. _._._._.w____.. _._ _._._. __. ._--....—___ _...._ . _.-- —- _....._-------
I
- _ I hereby certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance
B.R.. NO, ACCOUNTING OFFICER'S SIGNATURE OATS.
GRANT CONTRACT
1, This agreement is entered into between the State of California, by and through the
California Department of Parks and Recreation (hereinafter referred to as "STATE") and
City of Rancho Palos Verdes (hereinafter referred to as "grantee").
2. The California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990, Fish and Game Code, Chapter 9,
commencing with Section 2780 (the ACT) authorizes the STATE to award grants to
eligible entities,
3. Pursuant to the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990, Fish and Game Code
Chapter 9, commencing v�iith Section 2780, the STATE is authorized to oversee and
manage grants to eligible entities for the purposes stated within its provisions. Funding
for this $2,000,000 GRANT program was made available through the California Wildlife
Protection Act of 1990, Fish and Game Code, Chapter 9 (commencing with Fish and
Game Code § 2780),
4. The STATE hereby grants to grantee a sum (hereinafter referred to as "grant monies")
not to exceed One Hundred Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ( 1130,800
subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, the HCF Application GUIDES,
any legislation applicable to the ACT and the APPLICATION.
5. In consideration thereof grantee agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of this
agreement as well as the provisions of the ACT. Grantee acknowledges that the grant
monies are not a gift or a donation,
6. In addition to the terms and conditions of this agreement, the parties agree that the
terms and conditions contained in the documents set forth below are hereby
incorporated into and made part of this agreement.
a, The Grant Administration Guide
b. The APPLICATION GUIDE
c. The submitted APPLICATION
Ill. SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1. This agreement includes the following special provisions, when project circumstances
warrant (by either party)-
As used in this agreement, the following words shall have the following meanings:
1. The term "ACT" means the statutory basis for this grant program.
2. The term "APPLICATION" means the individual project APPLICATION packet for a grant
pursuant to the enabling legislation and/or grant program process Grant Administration
Guide requirements,
3. The term "ACQUISITION" means to obtain fee title of real property or a permanent
easement which provides the recipient permanent rights to use the property for the
purposes of the project, Leases or rentals do not constitute ACQUISITION.
4. The term "CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD" means the period of time described
on page 1 of this agreement.
5. The term "DEVELOPMENT" (trails category only) means capital improvements to real
property by, but not limited to, improvement, construction, reconstruction, and/or
protection of permanent or fixed features of the property,
6. The term "ENHANCEMENT" means to increase the habitat value of the land to benefit
the targeted species.
7. The term "GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD" means the period of time described on
page 1 of this agreement, during which eligible costs can be charged to the grant and
which begins on the appropriation date and ends on the fund liquidation date.
8. The term "GRANT SCOPE" means the items listed in the GRANT SCOPE /cost estimate
form found in the APPLICATION.
9. The term "GUIDES" means the documents identified as the APPLICATION and Grant
Administration GUIDES for the Habitat Conservation Fund program for deer/mountain
lion habitat, rare, endangered, threatened, or fully -protected species habitat, wetlands,
anadromous salmonids and trout habitat, riparian habitat, trails, and WILDLIFE AREA
ACTIVITIES, as incorporated by reference in Title 14, California Code of Regulations,
Section 4870-4877,
10. The term "RESTORATION" means the act of bringing either land or a species back into
a former, non -impaired condition,
2
N
11. The term "STATE" refers to the State of California acting by and through the Department
of Parks and Recreation,
12. The term "WILDLIFE AREA ACTIVITIES" means an event, or series of events to be
accomplished with grant funds, such as a nature interpretation, educational, or other
enrichment project, (e.g., classes, trips, etc.), organized and/or conducted by the
grantee, and intended to bring urban residents into park and wildlife areas.
B. Project Execution
1. Subject to the availability of grant monies in the ACT, the STATE hereby grants to the
grantee a sum of money not to exceed the amount stated on page 1 of this agreement, in
consideration of, and on condition that, the sum be expended in carrying out the purposes
set forth in the GRANT SCOPE, and under the terms and conditions setilorth in this
agreement.
The grantee shall assume the obligation to furnish any additional funds that may be
necessary to complete the GRANT SCOPE.
2. After the STATE has approved the APPLICATION, all changes and alterations to the
GRANT SCOPE must be approved in writing by the STATE. Grantee's failure to comply
with this provision may be construed as a breach of the terms of the agreement and result
in the termination of payment of the grant monies provided for in this agreement.
To maintain the integrity of the competitive grant program, the grantee agrees that any
other project changes or alterations which deviate from the GRANT SCOPE in the
original competitive APPLICATION must be submitted in writing to the STATE for prior
approval.
3. The grantee shall complete the GRANT SCOPE in accordance with the time of the
GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD set forth on page one of this agreement, and under
the terms and conditions of this agreement.
4. The grantee shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code, Section 21000, et. seq., Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et.
seq.),
5. The grantee shall at all times comply with all applicable current laws and regulations
affecting ACQUISITION, ENHANCEMENT, RESTORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND
WILDLIFE AREA ACTIVITIES projects, including, but not limited to, legal requirements for
construction contracts, building codes, health and safety codes, and laws and codes
pertaining to individuals with disabilities, including but not limited to the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C, §12101 et. seq.) and the California Unruh Act
(California Civil Code §51 et seq.)
3
6. If the GRANT SCOPE includes ACQUISITION of real property, the grantee agrees to
comply at all times with all applicable STATE and local laws or ordinances affecting
relocation and real property ACQUISITION.
7. Grantee agrees that lands acquired with grant monies shall not be acquired through the
use of eminent domain.
'' s
1. Grantee agrees to abide by the GUIDES.
2. Grantee acknowledges that the STATE may make reasonable changes to its procedures
asset forth in the GUIDES. If the STATE makes any changes to its procedures and
guidelines, the STATE agrees to notify grantee within a reasonable time.
D. Project Administration
1. If the STATE advances grant monies for ACQUISITION projects, the STATE shall place
the grant monies in an escrow account. If grant monies are advanced and not expended,
the unused portion of the advanced funds shall be returned to the STATE within 60 days
after the close of escrow.
2. If grant monies are advanced for an ENHANCEMENT, RESTORATION,
DEVELOPMENT, or WILDLIFE AREA ACTIVITIES project, the advanced funds shall be
placed in an interest-bearing account until expended. Advanced funds must be spent
within six months from the date of receipt, unless the STATE waives this requirement.
Interest earned on the advanced funds shall be used on the project as approved by the
STATE. If grant monies are advanced and not expended, the unused portion of the
advance and any unused interest earned shall be returned to the STATE within 60 days
after project completion or the end of the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD, whichever
is earlier.
3. The grantee shall submit a written status report within 30 calendar days after the STATE
has made such a request. In any event, the grantee shall provide the STATE a report
showing total final project expenditures within 60 days of project completion or the end of
the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD, whichever is earlier. The GRANT
PERFORMANCE PERIOD is identified on page one of this agreement.
4. The STATE shall have the right to inspect all property or facilities acquired and/or
developed pursuant to this agreement and the grantee shall make such property or
facilities available for inspection upon 24 hours' notice from the STATE.
5. The grantee and the STATE agree that if the GRANT SCOPE includes ENHANCEMENT,
RESTORATION, DEVELOPMENT, or WILDLIFE AREA ACTIVITIES project activities,
0
AMr"a
final payment may not be made until the work described in the GRANT SCOPE is
complete.
6. Any grant funds that have not been expended by the grantee by the date on the
PROJECT COMPLETION Certification form, or by end of the GRANT PERFORMANCE
PERIOD, whichever is earlier, shall revert to the STATE,
gnaersxa��
1. In the event of non -completion of a GRANT SCOPE, the STATE may request the return
of any grant funds advanced or reimbursed,
2. This agreement may be rescinded, modified or amended only by mutual written
agreement between the grantee and the STATE, unless the provisions of this agreement
provide that mutual agreement is not required for a rescission, modification or amendment.
3. Failure by the grantee to comply with the terms of this agreement, as well as any other
agreements that grantee has entered into with STATE, may be cause for suspension of
all obligations of the STATE under this agreement unless the STATE determines that
such failure was due to no fault of the grantee. In such case, STATE may reimburse
grantee for eligible costs properly incurred in performance of this agreement despite
non-performance of the grantee. To qualify for such reimbursement, grantee agrees to
mitigate its losses to the best of its ability.
4. The grantee agrees that in the event of a breach of this agreement, the STATE may seek,
in addition to all remedies provide by law, specific performance of the agreement in
accordance with the purpose of the agreement to preserve, protect and increase the
quantity and quality of habitat opportunities and/or resources available to the people of the
State of California,
F. Budget Contingency Clause
For purposes of this program, if funding for any fiscal year is reduced or deleted by the
budget act, executive order, the legislature, or by any other provision of statute, the
STATE shall have the option to either cancel this agreement with no liability occurring to
the STATE, or offer an amendment to the agreement to reflect a reduced grant amount.
This paragraph shall not require the mutual agreement as addressed in Paragraph E,
subsection 2, of this agreement.
G. Indemnity
1. The grantee shall waive all claims and recourse against the STATE including the right to
contribution for loss or damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of or in
5
Es
any way connected with or incident to this agreement, except valid legal claims arising
from the concurrent or sole negligence of the STATE, its officers, agents, and employees.
2. To the fullest extent of the law, the grantee shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend
the STATE, its officers, agents and employees against any and all claims, demands,
damages, costs, expenses or liability costs arising out of an ACQUISITION,
ENHANCEMENT, RESTORATION, DEVELOPMENT, or WILDLIFE AREA ACTIVITIES
project, construction, operation or maintenance of the property described as the project
which claims, demands or causes of action arise under California Government Code
Section 895.2 or otherwise except for liability arising out of the concurrent or sole
negligence of the STATE, its officers, agents, or employees.
3. The grantee agrees that in the event the STATE is named as codefendant under the
provisions of California Government Code Section 895 et, seq., the grantee shall notify
the STATE of such fact and shall represent the STATE in the legal action unless the
STATE undertakes to represent itself as codefendant in such legal action in which event
the STATE shall bear its own litigation costs, expenses, and attorney's fees,
4. The grantee and the STATE agree that in the event of judgment entered against the
STATE and the grantee because of the concurrent negligence of the STATE and the
grantee, their officers, agents, or employees, an apportionment of liability to pay such
judgment shall be made by a court of competent jurisdiction.
5. The grantee shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the STATE, its officers, agents
and employees against any and all claims, demands, costs, expenses or liability costs
arising out of legal actions pursuant to items to which the grantee has certified. The
grantee acknowledges that it is solely responsible for compliance with items to which it
has certified.
H. Financial Records
1. The grantee shall maintain satisfactory financial accounts, documents and records for
the project and make them available to the STATE for auditing at reasonable times.
The grantee also agrees to retain such financial accounts, documents and records for at
least five years following project termination or final payment, whichever is later.
2. The grantee shall keep such records as the STATE shall prescribe, including records
which fully disclose (a) the disposition of the proceeds of grant monies, (b) the total cost
of the project, (c) the amount and nature of project funds provided by other sources, and
(d) any other records that will facilitate an effective audit of the grant monies.
3. The grantee agrees that the STATE shall have the right to inspect and make copies of
any books, records or reports pertaining to this agreement or matters related thereto
during regular office hours. The grantee shall maintain and make available for
N
N
inspection by the STATE accurate records of all of its costs, disbursements and receipts
with respect to its activities under this agreement. Such accounts, documents, and
records shall be retained by the GRANTEE for at least 5 years following final payment of
grant monies.
4. The grantee shall use a generally accepted accounting system, per state and federal
requirements,
1. Use of Facilities
1. The grantee agrees to operate and maintain project sites and/or locations for the
duration of the CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD. If any property is acquired,
enhanced, restored, or developed with grant monies, the grantee is required to operate
and maintain the same for the duration of the CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD,
2. The grantee agrees that during the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD, any income
earned by the grantee from a STATE -approved use of the project shall be used for
project purposes, or, if approved by the STATE, for other purposes within the grantee's
jurisdiction.
3. The grantee acknowledges that reasonable public access shall be provided except
when that access may interfere with habitat protection,
4. All facilities shall have operating hours consistent with the times proposed in the
APPLICATION and be open to members of the public in accordance with the project
selection criteria in the APPLICATION, unless otherwise granted permission by the
STATE and except as noted under the special provisions of this agreement or under
provisions of the enabling legislation and/or grant program.
5. The grantee agrees that for the duration of the CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD,
any property acquired, enhanced, restored or developed with grant monies under this
agreement shall be used only for the purposes of the grant and consistent with the
GRANT SCOPE referenced in the APPLICATION unless prior written approval is given
by the STATE.
6. The grantee agrees to use any property acquired, enhanced, restored, or developed
with grant monies under this agreement only for the purposes of the grant and no other
use, sale, or other disposition shall be permitted except as authorized by a specific act
of the legislature in which event the property shall be replaced by the grantee with
property of equivalent value and usefulness as determined by the STATE.
7. The property acquired, enhanced, restored, or developed with grant monies may be
transferred to another eligible entity only if the successor entity assumes the obligations
imposed under this agreement and with written approval of the STATE,
7
H
8. Any real property acquired or developed with grant monies (including any portion of it or
any interest in it) may not be used as security for any debt or mitigation, without the
written approval of the STATE, provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld as long as the purposes for which the grant monies were awarded are
maintained. Any such permission that is granted does not make the STATE a guarantor
or a surety for any debt or mitigation, nor does it waive the STATE's rights to enforce
performance under this agreement,
9. All real property or rights thereto, acquired with grant monies shall be subject to an
appropriate form of restrictive title, rights, or covenants required and approved by the
STATE. If the project property is taken by use of eminent domain, grantee shall
reimburse the STATE an amount at least equal to the amount of grant monies received
from the STATE or the pro -rated full market value of the real property, including
improvements, at the time of sale, whichever is higher,
10. If eminent domain proceedings are initiated against grantee, grantee shall notify the
STATE within 10 days of receiving the complaint,
J. Nondiscrimination
1. The grantee shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex, race, creed,
color, national origin, age, religion, ancestry, sexual orientation, disability, medical
condition, or marital status in the use of project site(s) as included in the APPLICATION.
2. The grantee shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of residence, and
shall not apply differences in admission or other fees on the basis of residence. Fees
shall be reasonable and not unduly prevent use by economically disadvantaged
members of the public.
K. Severability
If any provision of this agreement or the application thereof is held invalid, that invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications of the agreement which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this contract
are severable.
L. Liability
STATE assumes no responsibility for assuring the safety of construction, site
improvements or programs related to the GRANT SCOPE. The STATE's rights under this
agreement to review, inspect, and approve the GRANT SCOPE and any final plans of
implementation shall not give rise to any warranty or representation that the GRANT
SCOPE and any plans or improvements are free from hazards or defects.
1
Without the written consent of the STATE, the grantee's interest in and responsibilities
under this agreement shall not be assignable by the grantee either in whole or in part.
N. Section Headings
The headings and captions of the various sections of this agreement have been inserted
only for the purpose of convenience and are not a part of this agreement and shall not be
deemed in any manner to modify, explain, or restrict any of the provisions of this
agreement.
0. Waiver
Any failure by a party to enforce its rights under this agreement, in the event of a breach,
shall not be construed as a waiver of said rights; and waiver of any breach under this
agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Grantee
Bv:
Signature of Autho4d Rep
(Position Authorized in the Resolution)
Title., Community Development Director
Date:
01
IN
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES OVERTURNING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION, AND APPROVING THE APPEAL,
THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION,
GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 292 SQUARE
FOOT ONE STORY ADDITION, 1,446 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY
ADDITION, 48 SQUARE FOOT BALCONY AT THE FRONT OF THE
RESIDENCE, 4'-0" TALL RETAINING WALL AND 52.97 CUBIC
YARDS OF ASSOCIATED GRADING, ON AN EXISTING LOT
LOCATED AT 6321 VILLA ROSA (CASE NO. ZON2014-00064).
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2014, the applicant submitted a Height Variation,
Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application to the Community Development
Department requesting approval of a one and two-story addition to an existing one-story
single-family residence, and a 4'-0" tall retaining wall with associated grading to
accommodate the project; and,
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2014, the application was deemed incomplete due to
missing information on the project plans; and,
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2014, March 20, 2014, March 25, 2014 and April 17,
2014, the applicant submitted additional information and revised plans; and,
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2014, Staff deemed the project complete; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. Seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. Seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), Staff found no evidence that ZON2014-00008 would have a significant effect
on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically
exempt under Class 1 (Section 15303), since the project involves construction of an
addition to an existing residence on a legally subdivided lot; and,
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2014, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence. Given concerns raised regarding neighborhood compatibility,
view impairment, and privacy impacts, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to July 8, 2014, to allow the applicant time to address the concerns raised by Staff,
the Planning Commission and the public; and,
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the applicant submitted revised plans to the
Community Development Department to address the concerns raised by the Planning
Commission. The revisions included the elimination of the second story addition over the
garage, an increase in the rear yard setback from 19'-3" to 33'-8", elimination of balconies
along the rear fagade of the second story addition, clerestory windows and one (1)
standard window along the rear fagade of the second story, reduction in ceiling heights
from 9'-0" to 8'-0" on the second floor, reduction in the roof pitch from 4:12 to 2.5:12,
reduction in the square footage from 4,452 square feet to 3,886 square feet, reduction in
the structure height from 25'-5" to 23'-7" and second story setbacks from the first floor; and,
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2014, the Planning Commission heard public testimony and
considered the merits of the revised project submitted by the applicant. The Planning
Commission determined that the revised project continued to create cumulative view
impairment impacts to 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. and bulk and mass impacts
due to the overall height and overall size of the structure. Given the continued concerns,
after discussing potential design revision options with the applicant at the public hearing,
the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 12, 2014, to allow the
applicant time to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2014, the applicant submitted revised plans to the
Community Development Department to address concerns raised by the Planning
Commission at the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. The revisions included an
additional reduction in structure height from 23'-7" to 22'-7, an increased side yard setback
from 5'-0" to 6'-3", and a further reduced structure size from 3,886 square feet to 3,841
square feet; and,
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to August 26, 2014 without discussion on the merits of the project; and,
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission heard public testimony
and considered the merits of a project. Based on discussion at the August 26, 2014
hearing, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and directed Staff to return to
the September 9, 2014 meeting with a Resolution to deny the project. The Planning
Commission determined that the project is not compatible with the immediate
neighborhood character as it creates bulk and mass impacts to the neighborhood. More
specifically, the Planning Commission determined that the project was the second largest
home in the neighborhood on the second smallest lot, and due to the overall square
footage of the revised project, the residence would be out of character with the immediate
neighborhood; and,
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, a representative for the property owner at 6321
Villa Rosa, David Moss, submitted a timely appeal letter of the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the proposed second story addition. The appeal letter stated the grounds
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 2 of 12
of the appeal, noting that the Appellant (Applicant) is aggrieved by the Planning
Commission's decision, and the Planning Commission erred in its decision for the reasons
set forth in the appeal letter; and,
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, Staff mailed notices for a City Council appeal
hearing to 206 property owners within a 500 -foot radius from the subject property, and all
interested parties, providing a 30 -day time period for the submittal of comments and
concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on November
6, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2014, the City Council considered the merits of the
appeal, heard public testimony, provided the appellant (applicant) with direction to redesign
the project, and continued the public hearing to February 3, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2015, the applicant submitted a redesigned project to
address the concerns raised by the City Council by making the following revisions to the
project: 1) A reduction in the overall size of the house from 3,841 square feet to 3,576
square feet (garage included), for a total reduction of 265 square feet; 2) an increase in the
east side first floor setback from 6.3' to 11.7'; 3) an increase in the east side second floor
setback from 9.3' to 12.4'; 4) a window along the rear fagade that is opaque; and 5) the
HVAC system was relocated from the west side yard to the rear yard; and,
WHEREAS, on February, 3, 2016, the City Council considered the merits of the
appeal, and heard additional public testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to
the application for a Height Variation to allow the construction of a 1,446 square foot two-
story addition:
A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process
established by the City by sending a copy of the plans, via certified mail, to the
property owners within a 500 foot radius. After multiple attempts to obtain the
required number of signatures, the applicant requested permission from the
Community Development Director to proceed with an alternative method because
the applicant was only able to obtain 5 signatures from property owners within a
100 -foot radius (35%) and 9 signatures from property owners within a 500 -foot
radius (4%). This includes the applicant's holding of an open -house on April 12,
2014 to obtain additional signatures. As such, on April 17, 2014, the applicant sent
a copy of the plans, via certified mail, to the property owners within a 500 foot radius
who did not sign the "acknowledgement of early neighbor consultation."
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 3 of 12
B. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that
exceeds sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public
property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails),
which have been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as
City -designated viewing areas. Specifically, due to the location of the property and
the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure is not visible from a
public viewing area or viewing site, is not located in the City's Coastal Zone, and
will, therefore, not impair a public view.
C. The Height Variation is warranted, since the proposed two-story addition that
exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject
property is located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood,
on an existing pad lot. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as
defined in the Municipal Code.
D. The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed new addition that is above
sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not
significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. The proposed
project would not significantly impair the views from a majority of the surrounding
residences due to the topography in the immediate neighborhood, lot
configurations, and existing development. While the project would create some view
impairment from two properties located at 27925 and 27931 Alvarez, the
impairment is less than significant as a majority of the horizon line and ocean views
from the viewing areas (living rooms) of these properties would be maintained with
the revised project. More specifically, the project was redesigned to significantly
reduce the second story side fagade, which is the fagade seen from the properties
along Alvarez Dr. By eliminating portions of the second story addition and covered
balconies, a large portion of the second story footprint that was impairing Pacific
Ocean views was eliminated. Furthermore, the overall height of the second story
addition was reduced by 2'-10", to a maximum height of 22'-7". The reduction in the
overall height of the structure and the reduction in the second story footprint allows
the majority of the narrow band of ocean view and horizon line to be maintained as
seen from the properties along Alvarez Dr. As such, the view impairment from these
properties is less than significant.
F. The Height Variation is warranted because the residence has been redesigned in
such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of view. The project was
redesigned to reduce the overall height of the two story addition from 25'-5" to 22'-
7", thereby resulting in a 2'-10" reduction in structure height. This modification was
achieved by reducing the ceiling heights from 9'-0" to 8'-0" and reducing the roof
pitch from 4:12 to 2.5:12. As such, the applicant has redesigned the residence in
such a manner as to reasonably minimize view impacts.
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 4 of 12
E. The Height Variation is warranted since there is no significant cumulative view
impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall
be determined by: (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be
caused by the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or
addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) considering the
amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other
parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. A
view analysis was conducted from the primary viewing area (living room) of three (3)
properties located at 27919, 27925, and 27931 Alvarez Dr., where potential view
impacts were observed. In order to address this finding, an assessment was
conducted of the amount of cumulative view impairment that would be caused to
these properties if a similar addition over 16'-0", such as the proposed project, was
also constructed on other nearby properties. According to the City's Height Variation
Guidelines, the assessment did not extend beyond four (4) parcels nearest to the
subject property. Based on the existing neighborhood, the four (4) closest properties
to the applicant are located at 6315 Villa Rosa, 6309 Villa Rosa, 6303 Villa Rosa
and 6320 Rio Linda. Given the number of design modifications including, but not
limited to, reducing the structure height by 2'-10", significantly reducing the second
story side fagade of the addition, and increasing the second story setbacks, the
revised project does not create a cumulative view impairment from the three
properties along Alvarez Dr., even if the four other properties on Villa Rosa were
expanded with additions that are similar to the proposed addition.
F. The proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements, including the
development standards related to the RS -5 zoning district with respect to lot
coverage and setbacks, and the off-street parking requirements for single-family
residences.
G. The proposed addition is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in
terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style and bulk and mass.
The proposed lot coverage and setbacks are consistent with those of the
surrounding properties. The immediate neighborhood is comprised of both one and
two story homes that range in size from 1,942 square feet to 4,612 square feet. As
such, the proposed residence (3,576 square feet) will not exceed the largest home
in the neighborhood. Additionally, the project has been redesigned to reduce the
overall square footage and second story footprint of the second floor, and to provide
second -story setbacks to soften the appearance of the structure as seen from the
street and neighboring properties. The east side yard setback has been increased
from 6.3' to 11.7' to reduce the overall scale of the project as seen from the street
and easterly neighboring property, and the square footage of the residence was
reduced from 3,841 square feet to 3,576 square feet in order to meet compatibility
concerns raised by the City Council. Additionally, the applicant previously
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 5 of 12
redesigned the project to reduce the overall height of the structure from 25'-5" to
22'-7", which minimized the overall bulk and mass of the structure to a less than
significant level. Furthermore, the project was previously redesigned with a hipped
roof and second story setbacks to reduce the bulk and mass of the structure.
H. The Height Variation is warranted since the new second story addition would not
create an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting
residences. In response to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission
regarding potential privacy impacts to the neighboring property located at 6320 Rio
Linda., the applicant redesigned the project to mitigate potential privacy impacts.
The applicant has removed the rear yard balconies and increased the rear yard
setback by 14'-0", resulting in a 33'-8" rear yard setback to the second story facade.
Additionally, the applicant has only provided one standard window along the rear
fapade that is setback 35-11" from the rear property line, with the remaining
windows proposed as clerestory windows. Given the increased rear yard setback
and revised window designs, the revised project would not create an unreasonable
infringement of privacy to the neighboring property located at 6320 Rio Linda.
Section 2: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to
the application for a Grading Permit:
A. The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot. Specifically, the underlying zoning district is single-family
residential, and the property was previously graded to accommodate a new single-
family residence. The applicant is proposing to excavate 52.97 cubic yards of dirt
along the east side property line and constructing a new 4'-0" tall retaining wall,
similar to other grading projects found throughout the residential neighborhood to
accommodate walkways along the side property lines.
B. The proposed grading does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships
with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. One retaining
wall will be located along the east side property line and will not be easily visible
from neighboring properties.
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours as the
applicant is not proposing to alter the existing contours found on the property. The
applicant is constructing one 4'-0" tall retaining wall by cutting into the transitional
slope along the east side property line to provide access along the east side of the
residence.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features
and appearances by limiting the grading to the existing pad area.
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 6 of 12
E. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence
of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property.
F. The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, cut and fill and
finished slope contours. Specifically, the proposed grading would not occur on an
extreme slope (35% or greater), the proposed grading will not significantly alter the
contours of the lot, and no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created.
G. The 4'-0" tall retaining wall along the east side yard can be supported above a
height of 3'-6" as the retaining wall would provide a reasonable development of land
as noted in Section 17.76.040 of the Municipal Code. Approving the deviations to
the grading standards allows the applicant to provide a retaining wall that is similar
to other retaining walls found throughout the neighborhood. In order to ensure that
no visual impacts are created from the new retaining wall, a condition of approval
was included to ensure that landscaping and small shrubs in front of the retaining
wall are maintained at the front of the residence to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director. Further, allowing the deviations to the grading to
allow retaining walls at or near 4'-0" in height are common within the hillside
neighborhood. Approval of the retaining wall would not constitute a special privilege
regarding the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity due to the hillside
topography. Further, the retaining wall would not be detrimental to the public safety,
nor to other properties as the City's geotechnical consultant will be required to
approve a soil engineering report for the grading and retaining walls.
Section 3: With regard to the Site Plan Review, the proposed 292 square foot
first floor addition would comply with the required residential setback standards, lot
coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for
the RS -5 zone. Further, as noted in the Height Variation findings above, the addition will be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Section 4: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
Section 5: Based on the additional revisions to the project that were made to
address the City Council's concerns, and for the foregoing reasons and based on the
information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of
proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby overturns the
Planning Commission's decision, and approves the appeal, thereby conditionally approving
a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Planning Case No. ZON2014-
00064) for the construction of a new 292 square foot first floor addition, 1,446 square foot
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 7 of 12
second floor addition, and a 4'-0" tall retaining wall with 52.97 cubic yards of associated
grading 6321 Villa Rosa., subject to the Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit'A'.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of February 2015, by the following
vote:
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City or Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carla Morreale, the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby
certify that the above Resolution No. 2015-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted
by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on February 3, 2015,
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 8 of 12
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2014-00061 (HV, GR, SPR)
(Peachtree Family Trust, 6321 Villa Rosa Rd.)
General Conditions:
Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and
the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have
read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days
following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant
shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to
the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved
plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require
approval of a revision by the final body (City Council) that approved the original
project, which may require new and separate environmental review.
5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform
to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but
not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards.
6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures
contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code.
7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the
approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section
17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 9 of 12
this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect
unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community
Development Department and approved by the Director.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed
in substantial conformance with the plans reviewed by the City Council on February
3, 2015 and the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this
Resolution.
10. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified
on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or
legal non -conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal
or legal non -conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or
on the stamped APPROVED plans.
11. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be
kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
12. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity
permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or
grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in
the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before
9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in
this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide
staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction
equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging
activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official.
13. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a maximum of 52% lot coverage (47.1 % proposed).
14. The approved additions shall maintain setbacks as depicted on the APPROVED plans
for both the first and second floor additions. BUILDING SETBACK
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 10 of 12
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
15. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not
exceed 50%.
16. A minimum 2 -car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space
being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of
9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance.
17. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section
17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is
permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of
a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is
physically located.
18. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
19. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on
a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable
bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be
placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property
owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official.
20. No more than 50% of any existing interior and exterior walls or existing square
footage may be removed or demolished. Residential buildings that are remodeled
or renovated such that 50% or greater of any existing interior or exterior walls or
existing square footage is demolished or removed within a two-year period shall be
considered a new residence and shall then conform to all current development
standards for that zoning district and the most recently adopted version of the
Uniform Building Code.
21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the
project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445
and the City Municipal Code requirements regarding wood -burning devices.
Project Specific Conditions:
22. This approval is for a 3,576 square -foot, 2 -story single-family residence, which
includes a 404 square -foot 2 -car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 11 of 12
REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to
building permit final.
23. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 128.60'. BUILDING HEIGHT
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of
walls, a FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a
licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the lowest Finished Grade
Elevation at 106.02'.
24. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 14'-6 Y2" front (existing), 33'-8"
rear, 7'-6%4 ' west side and 10'-1" east side. BUILDING SETBACK
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
25. This project includes a 4'-0" tall retaining wall along the east side property line with a
total of 52.97 cubic yards of excavation to accommodate side yard access. Portions
of the retaining wall that are located within the 20'-0" front yard setback shall not
exceed a maximum height of 3'-6" in height. Prior to submittal of plans into Building
and Safety Plan Check, the applicant shall submit revised plans to the Community
Development Department reflecting the height of the retaining wall within the front
yard setback.
26. Prior to final on the Building Permit, the applicant shall install and maintain shrubs in
front of the new 4'-0" tall retaining wall, for portions of the retaining wall that are
visible from the street, to screen said retaining wall to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
27. (Privacy Mitigation) The windows along the rear fapade of the second story shall be
installed and maintained as depicted in the APPROVED plans.
28. (Privacy Mitigation) Balcony's of any size at the rear facade of the second story shall
not be allowed without obtaining a revision to this project by the City Council at a
duly noticed public hearing.
29. Pursuant to the plans APPROVED by the City Council, the HVAC mechanical
equipment shall be relocated from the west side yard to the rear yard of the
property.
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 12 of 12
From: Leza Mikhail
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 7:48 AM
To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka
Subject: FW: Case #ZON2014-00064): In support of the Planning Commission's Decision denying
a Height Variation, Grading Permit, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive
From: Raymond Nuber [mailto:raymond.nuber@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 11:50 PM
To: Leza Mikhail
Subject: RE: Case #ZON2014-00064): In support of the Planning Commission's Decision denying a Height Variation,
Grading Permit, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive
Raymond M Nuber
27919 Alvarez Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
2 February 2015
RPV City Council, c/o Ms. Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner, Planning Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
lezam{a�rv.com
RE: Case #ZON2014-00064
Dear RPV City Council:
I am writing in support of the Planning Commission's Decision denying a Height Variation, Grading Permit, and
expansion of the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive (Case #ZON2014-00064). The proposed expansion of this
house exceeds our neighborhood's scale, bulk, mass, and square footage, exceeds the 16 foot "by -right"
height, infringes on neighbor privacy, and breaks the rhythm of the street scape.
Recall the fact this applicant never proposed a design that, as suggested multiple times by our Planning
Commission, either expands only as a single story, as a split-level, or by excavating. Such designs could remain
under the 16 foot "by right" height. Exceeding the 16 foot "by right" height directly violates our
neighborhood's character, evidenced by the fact not one multi -story variance has been permitted in our
neighborhood (defined by upper Monero, Alvarez, Centuria, Rio Linda, and Villa Rosa) since our city's voters
agreed to put Measure M into force.
1
In addition, I remind you that you are aware that more than 60 signatures have been collected on petitions
that object to building this proposed 2r,d story expansion in our neighborhood and supports our Planning
Commission's denial of this application. Clearly, your voters and constituents understand the bad precedent
that would be set if you were to approve this proposed 2nd story expansion. Keeping variances in our
neighborhood below the 16 foot "by right" height reasonably constrains both individual as well as cumulative
view impairment, without denying applicants the option to expand the size of a home. Note that one
collateral benefit of limiting the height to 16 feet would be to virtually eliminate our neighborhood's privacy
and streetscape issues.
I continue to urge you to respect our city's Measure M Ordinance. To reverse the denial of our Planning
Commission and approve this application, you would effectively be allowing the home equity value of me and
my neighbors to be transferred to the Appellant as the two-story house would rob us of our ocean views and
give these to the Appellant. I disagree with the Staff Report's finding the Appellant's plans don't significantly
impact views. The practical impact on the direct views of my neighbors and the potential cumulative view
impact on my own property are the overbuilding that our city's passage of Measure M was intended to
prevent. As the elected leaders of our city, do you really believe the Appellant's expansion plans and the
effect on our neighborhood are a reasonable compromise in the spirit of Measure M, when the Appellant has
yet to proposal plans that expand horizontally within the 16 foot "by right" height, whether within the current
single story, a split level, or by excavating?
I look forward to the opportunity to publically summarize my position verbally during your February 3rd
Council Meeting.
Sincerely,
Raymond M Nuber
From: Sean Robinson
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 7:52 AM
To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka
Cc: Carolynn Petru
Subject: FW: Errors in data collection for the Classification and Compensation Study - IT Manager
Position
Regular Business Item 3, Classification/Compensation Study - Late correspondence
From: Dan Landon
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 7:04 PM
To: Sean Robinson
Subject: Errors in data collection for the Classification and Compensation Study - IT Manager Position
Hello Sean,
The City Council Agenda for February 3, 2015 has a Koff and Associates Classification and
Compensation study prepared for review by the City Council. I am writing in regards to 2 data
collection errors related to the IT Manager position in that study. I ask that you forward this
information to Koff and Associates for corrections to their survey prior to any final salary schedule
decisions.
• The 2 errors together created a $2,768 monthly error in the survey results for the IT
Manager position.
This is not something that affects me personally any time soon because I'm not near the salary cap,
but this error could have long term negative effects to retention and recruitments of quality talent in
the future, so it is important to fix now.
Incorrect RPV IT Manager salary range
The survey lists the top monthly salary for the IT Manager range as $11,956 which is incorrect. The
accurate top monthly salary for the IT Manager position is $10,487 ($125,839 annually/12).
An error that incorrectly overstated the current RPV IT Manager top of the salary range
by + $1,469.
Incorrect positions used in the comparison
Most importantly, there are 4 positions listed in the comparator agencies, two of those positions are
accurate IT Manager comparison positions with an average salary and benefit of $15,388. The other
2 positions listed in the survey are subordinates of an IT Manager, so of course they would have a
lower total compensation average of $12,789. This disparity between the management and non-
management positions is clearly evident in Volume II, Attachment II of the Koff study (attached).
30
• Categorizing the subordinate positions as the Manager incorrectly skewed the
comparison agency average compensation by - $1,299.
IT Operations Supervisor — subordinate to the IT Manager
The IT Operations Supervisor from the City of Redondo Beach is not a comparable position to an IT
Manager. The Supervisor position reports to the IT Manager, is only accountable for a portion of the
IT Department function and does not perform management duties. The IT Operations Supervisor is
not listed as a management position according to the City of Redondo Beach Salary Schedule and is
not an accurate comparison position.
Information Systems Administrator — subordinate to the IT Manager
An Information Systems Administrator is a position lower than even a Supervisor. It is a hands on
staff position that deals with the technical support and troubleshooting of servers and systems, adding
users to the system, configurations, etc. This position is not a management position and does not
have budgetary or strategic direction responsibilities. An Information Systems Administrator reports
to the Supervisor or Manager, it is a position I held over 10 years ago.
Changes to correct the survey
Correct the RPV IT Manager compensation listed in the study:
a. Revise the total top compensation from $15,083 to $13,614.
2. Remove the 2 positions that are subordinates to the IT Manager (keeping the accurate IT
Manager comparison salaries):
a. Revise the comparison average compensation from $14,089 to $15,388.
3. Recalculate the IT Manager survey results.
'r��, est f�aro9�c �rxw ti'�a.�a �-rta`rA"CIY^�s�
MCI
§aP'+ed ,,Rpe�A igcYafi. rY::;j,f
` olumv 11 Appondix li
City of Rancho P �l�aas
2014
>,'6ty cel CYLaes 4A`g '�t i:w) i2xmees.a Oq 0
txkx,kv"6`• Pea, �... tv.'': a�:'.
kkcm 101 R,M.xi^q s. IV i':x_.a I ,41�1'4 AI< I--1; $" 'A �:f
M1aa
4[IkrdvSTsktGer 4000[
i
-City of RbaM0,0I`Woa Ferndaa
Mzwv
4 'fp,, ,
ir,�ce ,.artos lr. ht^,:i+.,gy 4.`„=rarrxs;eey. "c�;vnrti€�r
z Sty =,t ,SA:s`rtxa
U'1
e f ter R.rr�'xal'1� i+zf�,
y <4 ter �z
r sC..r r
y of
Cf!y <4 S �..gUD r. vp3a �✓Pba
Thank you,
Volume 11 Appendix 11 a,
Clly *1 Rancho € af*s Verdes
Tap Monthly Salary nate
cernber 2014
ip wMaaion qtm yh( ovi mors cr
ltd 4a 61�td � ;xg�,l r�r-�., h%ctPh'iaay'2
Mzwv
ir,�ce ,.artos lr. ht^,:i+.,gy 4.`„=rarrxs;eey. "c�;vnrti€�r
U'1
Avezage at t omparemrs
u C of Rarcha Patoa V r6rz Aboyazgiiiow
MiDdlat} of Comp4wor%
% Cee yr of RanchR, PAaaa Farcies d b-:)YwSaigw
3600 Par;v 6111,p
Mz COV of Ranci* Paio4 Verc%a Above?attcm
N mibnr of MattNm
Dan Landon
Information Technology Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
danl@rpv,com www,rpv.com
P (310) 544-5311 F (310) 544-5291
MOMIN,iy Mcti" salwy pvcvmlagu
tit,36 ic11412g11 L14P.awn Ur kna=asp
1.1,tcrrr i Xs, 14 e ,,,) .
a a.tr'S Ili'4114 r,l :^}3t>
V.., ib 71 tit4remrF 3, n;rmra
X34;663
4
his to en ! a;a,nS i for€nw'wi helonconq to the, City of Rancho Palos derides, Which € ay he ;00o'ge d, confiri>.rit1<ai and/,x from
1 _losi:ie 'T" )r(Tir1Cis"�. is nt.;�',�_ ('xi, o V foi ,ise of 'heIl��ltVii�€�,�tl {fir entity named,�,natittit3riZed dist erlhtizl'CIOtt, distribution, ,^,' i:£il;yill(# i ��'"€i`C�J ,}i J1;13€1"(?i;..�.¢
"AAi P¢!.:::"Wed ..i71f> {Yu31i iri @. r:?.> .7r +'. ;K7Y I:tit r?tc,r.,#i:'?:I PYI(� (il£?'i (.i£, i.�a-, notif?! `h( SC,"lf.£:r ir11iY e a",.dy, Thank you tiir your assistanco i3'"I£ iom
3
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND DOUGLAS WILLMORE
This Employment Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of
March 1, 2015, by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a California
municipal corporation ("CITY" or "EMPLOYER"), and Douglas Willmore, 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 March 1, 2015.
B. EMPLOYEE has the requisite skills and experience 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 March 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 for
cause, or without cause upon ninety (90) days advance written notice, subject only to
the provisions set forth in Section 4, paragraphs A, B and D of this Agreement.
1776252.3
5
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.
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
1776252.3
-2-
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.
1776252.3
-3-
SECTION 6. SALARY
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 year. 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
Ag reement.
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.
1776252.3
-4-
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.
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.
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. 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.
1776252.3
- 5 -
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 vacation and for medical
appointments, disability leave and leaves provided pursuant to the federal and
California family and medical leave statutes. EMPLOYEE shall notify the Mayor and
the Council whenever Administrative Leave exceeding twenty-four hours in length is to
be taken.
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 than 720
hours shall ever be accumulated. There shall be no payout of unused sick leave upon
separation from the CITY. EMPLOYEE shall notify the Mayor and the Council
whenever sick leave exceeding twenty-four hours in length is to be taken.
SECTION 12. MOVING ALLOWANCE
EMPLOYEE currently lives within 30 miles of the CITY. Accordingly,
EMPLOYEE does not plan to relocate from his current residence and will not be
required to do so as long as he continues to reside within 30 miles of the CITY.
However, if EMPLOYEE moves his residence to the CITY within one year of the
commencement of this AGREEMENT, EMPLOYER shall reimburse or pay the
expenses of moving his family and personal property, as follows:
1776252.3
M
Moving Allowance. In consideration for relocation to the City, 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. 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
March 1, 2016, then EMPLOYEE shall reimburse EMPLOYER for the amounts
previously paid to EMPLOYEE pursuant to this paragraph C with a pro rata reduction of
1/12t" 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.
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
1776252.3
-7-
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.
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: Douglas Willmore
6230 Wilshire Boulevard, Unit 1775
Los Angeles, California 90048
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
1776252.3
-8-
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.
D. This Agreement shall become effective commencing the 1St day of March,
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.
1776252.3
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
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:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
1776252.3
-10-
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
(EMPLOYER)
MAYOR
Dated:
1776252.3
-11-
EMPLOYEE
DOUGLAS WILLMORE
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2015
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, February 3, 2015 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
G Email from Sunshine
Letter from Sam Hassan; Emails from: Connie Semos;
Donald and Betty Brogdon
Respectfully su mitted,
Carla Morreale
W:WGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150203 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
CITY
OF
RANCHO
PA -\LOS
V/ERIDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2015
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, February 3, 2015 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
G Email from Sunshine
Letter from Sam Hassan; Emails from: Connie Semos;
Donald and Betty Brogdon
Respectfully su mitted,
Carla Morreale
W:WGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150203 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:49 AM
To: CC; Carolynn Petru; Cory Linder
Subject: Feb 3, 2015 RPV City Council Consent Calendar Item G. More Deed Restrictions
MEMO from Sunshine
TO: RPV Council, Staff and interested parties
RE: Feb 3, 2015 RPV City Council Consent Calendar Item G. More Deed Restrictions
Once again, Staff has put an Item on your Consent Calendar which begs for more transparency and public
discussion. $130 K is not enough to compensate the public for adding more restrictions to the future use of City
owned land.
I urge you to move and deny this recommendation altogether or move and approve a direction to Staff to bring
back a recommendation to amend the City's Parks Master Plan to record the legal descriptions and parcel by
parcel deed restrictions which have already been agreed to.
In particular, the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) has not yet been approved by the appropriate
State Agencies. These boundaries and restrictions have not been processed as amendments to the RPV Parks
Master Plan. Staff has a lot of "housekeeping" to do before they impose even more restrictions on the public's
use of these City owned properties.
The recommended action will not enhance trails and it will not improve the current level of Citizen Involvement
& Public Outreach. If it is in the Staff Report, I did not find a deadline for acting on this Grant. Whenever it is,
let this one slide.
What this City really needs to invest in is a Signage Master Plan. There is something of one in the RPV Trails
Master Plan but it does not apply to roadways and parks. It is not being applied to the City's trails in or not in
the Preserve.
(S
Dear City Council
MENU)
FEB 02 201
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
I would like to submit the following five (5) letters representing
the neighbors in the immediate neighborhood who support my
project. As you can see in the support letters, these neighbors
live on the same street as me. These letters were previously
given to you, however given the extensive background, I
wanted to provide this information to you again.
Thank you for your consideration.
2 `z
sffAl\ )'d 4SJ'q/t---
This letter is to advice you that we are a neighbor of Mr. Hassan in Villa Rosa Dr
We believe that Mr_ Hassan's pians to improve his home will enhance the value of
not only his home but also the entire neighborhood. We agree that the
improvements to Mr. Hassan's home are not objectionable but, to the contrary it
will be good for our neighborhood.When you beautify the homes in our
neighborhood it is great for the area _
We desire to see the city of Rancho Palos Verdes approve Mr. Hassan plans
expeditiously.
Dame
r
Address_
b-302-
3+3
-3023+
cam- 1 r; l ltt /45, d.;
t�.
CA
" S
01
Signature
12-110
Ael-
?e
December,` , 2014
Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Support for Single Family Nouse Project — 6321 Villa Rosa — Even Setter than in
September?
Dear Leza,
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-story.
I urge the City Council to approve the addition to this home.
Yours truly, r
�:
if(jr !f U%iG his vL%
, }}
,7
14JECEIVED,
AUG 11 2014
COMMUNITY DEVEl.OPMEN a
DEPARTMENT
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
Attm Leza Mikhail
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Case #ZON2014-00064
Dear Leza:
wQ. F" 3 _ 2-2
'i—:��i-,5 or
PVL
May 9, 2014
1 am the next door neighbor to Sara Hassan and his family. My home is on the west side of his home.
First of all, I want to let you and the City know that I am 100% in favor of the remodellrebuild and 2"0
floor addition that the Hassan Family is planning to do to this property.
Shortly after the sale of this home, Sam Hassan stopped by to introduce himself and to let me know
what his plans were for his new home. I liked him right away and was very impressed. Upon meeting
his wife, Rehab, and their children, 1 commented to them, that I had never met such a wonderful,
friendly, caring and just plain nice group of people. They have become and continue to be my
friends, a nice thing to have in a neighborhood.
Unfortunately, I cannot say that about all the people who live in this area. I have been approached by
several who were trying to convince me to sign their petition or go along with their dispute over the
remodeling of this home. They argued on the points of privacy and view and I was actually asked
about "my view" being affected. I have only a very small amount of view across Villa Rosa through
the roofs of the houses there, which is fine for me. I have a two story house on my west side and
another 2 story across the street from me on the South side. This new remodel and addition WILL
NOT affect my view, nor will it affect my privacy in any way, nor will it cause me to feel "squeezed in-
between". I think these people have forgotten what it is like to have more than 2 people in their
houses, having children around. They are living in 3 -4 bedroom homes with only two people in the
house. Try adding 5 more and they would maybe think differently. Maybe we should all be thinking
about what we would do if we were in Sam and Rehab Hassan's shoes. I like their remodel plans
and think this is a positive addition to our neighborhood, adding value to our homes!
Neighbors are supposed to be friendly, supportive, kind, helpful, giving and loving. Instead, a few of
the neighbors on Villa Rosa and Rio Linda are just the opposite, showing they are self-centered,
selfish, uncaring, unfriendly and almost mean in their treatment of our new neighbors, the Hassan
Family. My late husband, who died 4 % years ago, would be appalled by what is going on and would
be extremely supportive to Sam Hassan as I am.
?'hank you and God bless you,
Sherry B. Eric on
NO
27
12/12/2014
From: oz026 <oz026@aol.com>
To: cc <cc@rpv.com>
Subject: 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Addition
Date: Fri, Dec 12, 2014 8:23 pm
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
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
fmior 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.
Arlen sborne
N
https://rnaiI.aol.conV38865-418/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
RPV Associate Planner
Leza Mikhail
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Case #ZON2014-00064
1,0( f,3 ?017;
C;QMkIUNrrY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Dear Leza and the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and Planning Commission:
Although I am again unable to attend the public hearing on December 16, 2014,
concerning the above Case #, the appeal of the decision to deny the additions
requested by the owners of the home at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, I do want to reiterate
my approval and agreement of the project which happens to be next door to mine. With
having a two-story home across the street from me and also to the west side, I have no
problem with this family building a larger home to accommodate their family of seven.
They have lived in the present home for several months now and I know they are living
very cramped and uncomfortable. This is a very nice, friendly and quiet family and I am
happy they Bre my neighbors. if they can afford to enlarge, they should be allowed to do
so. I do approve the desire they have to enlarge and add to their home.
Thank you and God bless you all,
Sherry Erick on
N
From: Connie Semos <bconmast@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:05 PM
To: CC
Subject: 6321 Villa Rosa Drive
Re: December 16,2014 City Council meeting
Case No. ZON2014-00064 6321 Villa Rosa Drive
Dear Mayor Knight and Council members,
I no longer believe that this CC is looking out for all residents of RPV and especially not for those of us who live in
"those Zuckerman tract homes." Your decision and some of the comments made were condescending and
disrespectful with disregard to all the "tract" home families. I live in one of the over 2000 "Zuckerman tract" or
"older stock" homes.
Planning Commissioner Nelson's disdain for our neighborhood surfaces in his votes in favor of second story homes,
his comments about "those stock homes" and further made clear by his presence at the CC meeting as "a
concerned citizen." His denigrating remarks further reflect his dislike for "those older stock 1960`s homes."
The original 2nd story homes in Los Verdes were built in a manner and on streets that made them fit in. The
recently approved second story homes, especially those whose owners have been represented by David Moss, are
out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods. A child could easily "pick out the one that doesn't fit in.
Mr. Hassan states that he was told by a Planning Department employee that he could add a second story to his
home. Several years ago I was told by a senior Planning Department official "all the homes in Los Verdes will
eventually be two story homes." Wasn't Measure M supposed to curb that growth? There's a pattern evolving
with bias in favor of building second stories in neighborhoods with primarily single story homes. RPV City Hall is
not representing all residents and certainly not existing ones.
It is interesting that staff seems to choose the option for neighborhood compatibility (in this case, 20 closest) that
best fit the applicant's goals. Could staff have chosen "20 closest" because that included the only 3 homes in the
entire neighborhood with second stories?"
Do you believe that a second story on the smallest home on the smallest lot on the narrowest street will enhance the
curb appeal of any of the homes on Villa Rosa?
Are the three homes with second story additions on Villa Rosa remodeled before Measure M now the standard to
which we apply Neighborhood Compatibility?
Big jumps in square footage give neighborhoods with smaller surrounding homes a fiefdom ambience. It takes
away the openness and sky, casting shadows that weren't there before. Essentially that is what you are
approving.
The Rio Linda -Villa Rosa -Via Alvarez neighborhood is isolated in that access is primarily from Granvia Altamira and
distantly from Grayslake. It is a neighborhood by itself and dismissing the surrounding residents indicates how out
of touch you are with them. Every neighbor's voice should have been considered thoughtfully.
The owner of the Villa Rosa home is concerned that his children are not being treated kindly by his new
neighbors. Do you really think people here would take their frustrations out on small children? Children say all
kinds of things and they listen to adult conversations. Unfortunately, we live in an era where anyone can say almost
anything about anyone. Critical minds know better than to believe everything they read and hear. Although I
believe Ms. Brooks cares deeply for all children, her passionate outcry cast a negative spirit on the ensuing
discussion. The decision should have been made on the merits of the project, neighborhood compatibility and
existing neighbors' sentiments.
Now, no neighborhood is safe. Why worry about burglars when we have a staff and City Council that undermines
it's residents' home values? Despite the costly and careful one story upgrades, our property values will decline if
this continues. Our paradise is Paradise Lost, and now we can look forward to seeing so much more of Mr. David
Moss.
Connie Semos
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear RPV Council Members;
Donald Brogdon <donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com>
Monday, February 02, 2015 11:55 AM
CC
Leza Mikhail
"Everyone is a winner"
As the scheduled date for the hearing regarding, RPV Planning Division Case number : ZON2014-00064 is Tuesday,
February 3, 2015, we would like to take this opportunity to reiterate our- support for the planning commissions original
decision to deny the variance application for a 2nd story addition to the existing property at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive.
The house located at 6206 Monero Drive will be a single story design to expand the house to 3,482 sq -ft including the
garage. By having the house located at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive follow the same single story design to expand the house to
3,576 sq -ft including the garage; there will be no issues for our community regarding view impairment, neighborhood
compatibility, or privacy. "Everyone is a winner".
Please uphold the planning commission's denial of this project for a 2 story addition.
Sincerely,
Donald and Betty Brogdon
Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes,