Loading...
20100216 Late CorrespondenceCitizen Legislature Project Join Citizens for California Reform in our effort to bring accountability back to Sacramento by returning California to a Part Time Legislature. California Part -Time Legislature Initiative Since statehood, California has experimented with how frequently and for what periods of time the Legislature should meet in session. Sessions have been one year or two years, limited and unlimited in duration, with and without mandatory intervening recesses, and limited to certain legislative matters during specific types of legislative sessions. The biggest change came in 1966 when California voters enacted a sweeping revision of the State Constitution, including a provision providing for a full-time Legislature with no limitation on the duration of a legislative session. Our full-time Legislature has failed the people of California. The result is a Legislature domi- nated by career politicians beholden to special interests. A part-time Legislature will replace professional politicians with citizen legislators and break the stranglehold of these special interests. Full-time politicians are completely out of touch with the people they represent. By shortening the legislative season, we will take power away from Sacramento and return it to our local communities to ensure that legislators have a better sense of the needs of their communities. By returning to a part-time Citizen Legislature, representatives will meet in limited regular session then return to their respective districts to live, and work under the rules they make, among the people they represent bringing real life experiences to the Legislature. Citizens for California Reform has filed proposed ballot initiative language with the state's Attorney General to create a part-time, citizen -legislature and reduces legislative session and legislators' pay by at least 50%. The Citizen Legislature Act is a constitutional amendment initiative which outlines a legislative session, which will convene in regular session on the first Monday in January of each year for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days. The Legislature will then reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in May for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days and 5 days thereafter to consider bills vetoed by the Governor. The Act also reduces legislative pay by at least 50% and can only be increased through cost of living adjustments. For more information please visit: www.reformcal.com RECEIVED FROM 9 AND ft9A®E A PARI' OF TI IE O D Al THE COUNCIL MEETING C f OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORFIEALE, CITY CLERK CALF. JRNIANS FOR A PARP.L' TIME IMPORTANT INFORMATION — COMPLETED PETITIONS DUE MARCH 1S, 2010 Please review thoroughly before down-loading/printing petition Any registered voter in the State of California may circulate statewide petitions • Only ONE County can be represented on each petition form, no exceptions. • Signatures on each county form must come from voters registered in that particular county. • Start a new petition for each county — Print name of county on top line of signature box — keep each county separate when gathering signatures — clipboards work greatl • Personal information cannot be typed in — everything must be hand written • The person collecting signatures (circulator) must complete the bottom portion of the petition in their own handwriting. • The circulator may sign the petition once in the county where they are registered and may sign as circulator for ANY county petition they circulate. • Petitions are valid even with only one signature. PRINTING INSTRUCTIONS: • You may print or copy as many blank petitions as you wish. • PETITIONS MUST BE PRINTED ON LEGAL SIZE PAPER (8.5" x 14") • DO NOT ALTER THE SIZE OF THE PETITION • When printing, be sure to turn OFF any scaling options (shrink to fit, fit to page, etc.). If you need assistance with your printer's settings, please refer to the manufacturer's instructions and/or website. • Top MUST be a minimum 1 inch top margin • Bottom, Left and Right MUST be a minimum 1/2 inch margins Download petition: http://reformcal.com/Citizen Legislature Petition.pdf Online donations are welcome and much appreciatedl Click here: https://www.fu ndralsingbvnet.net/fbn/contributeState.asp?gu!dRegistration=S E5 D5A5C or make checks payable to "Californians for a Citizen Legislature" Mail Your Completed Petitions and/or donations to: Californians For A Part -Time Legislature 925 University Ave Sacramento, CA 95825 THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORTI CALIFORNIANS FOR A PAWI -TIME CITIZEN LEGISLATURE Thank you for helping us collect petitions! Please make sure to follow these instructions so that your signature will count. YOU MUST PRINT THIS PETITION ON 8.5 x 14 inch paper (LEGAL SIZE) Petitions that are divided into two pages WILL NOT COUNT. Petitions that are printed in smaller font WILL NOT COUNT. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PETITIONS FIRST, print petitions from the website reformcal.com making sure that the entire document fits on one page, then follow the steps below. STEP 1 Fill in the name of the County where you live. STEP 2 Clearly print your name and address and sign your signature in box 1. STEP 3 Have a friend or relative fill in Line 2. STEP 4 Fill Out the Declaration of Circulator Box Blanks First blank — Print your name Second blank — Fill in your address Third blank —Write the date Fourth blank —Write the date Fifth blank — Insert day Sixth blank — insert month Seventh blank — Insert city name STEP 5 Sign your name as the circulator. STEP 6 Mail your completed petition to the address below and ask your friends to do the same! Mail Your Completed Petitions To: Californians For A Part -Time Legislature 925 University Ave Sacramento, CA 95825 Please Call 916-648-1969 with any questions or visit www.reformcal.com INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO VOTERS The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: REDUCES LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND PAY BY AT LEAST 50%. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the Legislature's regular session by more than 50% to no more than ninety-five days. Directs the Legislature to convene in January for up to thirty days and again in May for up to sixty days. Allows the Legislature to reconvene for up to five additional days to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor. Requires that legislators' salaries be cut by at least 50%, regardless of the amount of work legislators perform. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential reduction in state costs of tens of millions of dollars per year, including over $5.7 million in reduced annual costs for legislator salaries. Actual reduction, if any, would depend on future actions of the Legislature and the Governor. (09-0031.) To the Honorable Secretary of State of California: We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of the County identified below, hereby propose amendments to the California Constitution, relating to the State Legislature and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of Califomia for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election or otherwise provided by law. The proposed constitutional amendments (full title and text of the measure) read as follows: THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT SECTION 1. Title. This Act shall be known and may be cited as "The Citizen Legislature Act." SECTION 2. Findings and Purposes. The People of the State of California hereby make the following findings and declare that their purpose in enacting this Act is as follows: (a) California's experiment with a "full- time" Legislature has failed. The result has been a Legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests. Legislators do not work "full-time" yet they receive full-time pay and benefits, more than double the amount of all other states. Yet, with all of these incentives, they continually fail to accomplish their most important job, passing a balanced state budget on-time. (b) California needs and deserves a Legislature that is only interested in conducting the people's business. Most states have a part-time Legislature, including some of the largest and most populous. A part-time Legislature will replace professional politicians with citizen, legislators and will break the stranglehold of special interests. It will reduce the number of unnecessary and self- serving bills and will result in amore responsible and accountable government institution. (c) In order to further these and the purposes stated in section 1.5, the people hereby amend the California Constitution to enact the "Citizen Legislature Act." SECTION 3. Constitutional Amendment Section 3.5 of Article IV of the California Constitution is added to read as follows: Sec. 3.5(a) The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in January of each year for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, whereupon the Legislature shall stand in recess. The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in May for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Legislature may reconvene for an additional period of 5 days following recess or adjournment to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor pursuant to section 10. (c) On or before the end of the fiscal year 2012, the California Citizens Compensation Commission shall, pursuant to section 8 of Article III, reduce the annual salary of Members of the Legislature by at least fifty percent of the salary established for the fiscal year in which this section becomes effective. Thereafter, the Commission may increase the annual salary of Members of the Legislature to account for any increase in the cost of living, and may reduce such salary at its discretion, pursuant to section 8 of Article III. SECTION 4. Operative Date/Severability (a) Section 3.5 shall become effective immediately, however it shall become operative for the biennium session commencing on the first Monday in December in 2012. (b) If any part of this measure or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications which can reasonably be given effect without the invalid provision or application. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK. All signers of this petition must be registered to vote in County. official use only 1. Print Your Name: Residence Address ONLY: Signature as Registered to Vote: city Zip 2. Print Your Name: Residence Address ONLY: Signature as Registered to Vote: City Zip DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR: (To be handwritten by the circulator after above signatures have been obtained) I, , am registered to vote or am eligible to register to vote in the State of California. (Print Name) I reside at the following address: (Address, City, State, Zip) I circulated this section of the petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each signature on this petition section is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the dates of and (Month, Day, Year) (Montle, Day, Year) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this day of , at California. SIGNATURE: Mail Your Completed Petitions To: Part -Time Legislature, 925 University Ave, Sacramento, CA 95825 5 EASY STEPS �1 Fill in County name -u2 Clearly print your name and address and then sign. �3 Have a friend or relative fill in Line #2. Fill in all blank spaces. URGENT! Your petition is invalid if you fail to also sign as CIRCULATOR. INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO VOTERS The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: REDUCES LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND PAY BY AT LEAST 50%. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the Legislature's regular session by more than 50% to no more than ninety-five days. Directs the Legislature to convene in January for up to thirty days and again in May for up to sixty days. Allows the Legislature to reconvene for up to five additional days to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor. Requires that legislators' salaries be cut by at least 50%, regardless of the amount of work legislators perform. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential reduction in state costs of tens of millions of dollars per year, including over $5.7 million in reduced annual costs for legislator salaries. Actual reduction, if any, would depend on future actions of the Legislature and the Governor. (09-0031.) To the Honorable Secretary of State of California: We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of the County identified below, hereby propose amendments to the California Constitution, relating to the State Legislature and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election or otherwise provided by law. The proposed constitutional amendments (full title and text of the measure) read as follows: THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT SECTION 1. Title. This Act shall be known and may be cited as "The Citizen Legislature Act." SECTION 2. Findings and Purposes. The People of the State of California hereby make the following findings and declare that their purpose in enacting this Act is as follows: (a) California's experiment with a "full- time" Legislature has failed. The result has been a Legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests. Legislators do not work "full-time" yet they receive full-time pay and benefits, more than double the amount of all other states. Yet, with all of these incentives, they continually fail to accomplish their most important job, passing a balanced state budget on-time. (b) California needs and deserves a Legislature that is only interested in conducting the people's business. Most states have a part-time Legislature, including some of the largest and most populous. A part-time Legislature will replace professional politicians with citizen legislators and will break the stranglehold of special interests. It will reduce the number of unnecessary and self- serving bills and will result in a more responsible and accountable government institution. (c) In order to further these and the purposes stated in section 1.5, the people hereby amend the California Constitution to enact the "Citizen Legislature Act." SECTION 3. Constitutional Amendment Section 3.5 of Article IV of the California Constitution is added to read as follows: Sec. 3.5(a) The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in January of each year for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, whereupon the Legislature shall stand in recess. The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in May for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Legislature may reconvene for an additional period of 5 days following recess or adjournment to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor pursuant to section 10. (c) On or before the end of the fiscal year 2012, the California Citizens Compensation Commission shall, pursuant to section 8 of Article III, reduce the annual salary of Members of the Legislature by at least fifty percent of the salary established for the fiscal year in which this section becomes effective. Thereafter, the Commission may increase the annual salary of Members of the Legislature to account for any increase in the cost of living, and may reduce such salary at its discretion, pursuant to section 8 of Article III. SECTION 4. Operative Date/Severability (a) Section 3.5 shall become effective immediately, however it shall become operative for the biennium session commencing on the first Monday in December in 2012. (b) If any part of this measure or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications which can reasonably be given effect without the invalid provision or application. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK. All signers of this petition must be registered to vote in County. Mail Your Completed Petitions To: Part -Time Legislature, 925 University Ave, Sacramento, CA 95825 5 EASY STEPS -"l Fill in County name -p2 Clearly print your name and address and then sign. -6 A- 3 Have a friend or relative fill in Line #2. Fill in all blank spaces. URGENT! Your petition is invalid if you fail to also sign as CIRCULATOR. 'J' L This ial use only 1. Print Your Name: Residence Address ONLY: Signature as Registered to Vote: city Zip 2. Print Your Name: Residence Address ONLY: Signature as Registered to Vote: city Zip DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR: (To be handwritten by the circulator after above signatures have been obtained) I, , am registered to vote or am eligible to register to vote in the State of California. (Print Name) I reside at the following address: (Address, City, State, Zip) I circulated this section of the petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each signature on this petition section is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the dates of and (Month, Day, Year) (Month, Day, Year) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this day of , at , California. SIGNATURE: Mail Your Completed Petitions To: Part -Time Legislature, 925 University Ave, Sacramento, CA 95825 5 EASY STEPS -"l Fill in County name -p2 Clearly print your name and address and then sign. -6 A- 3 Have a friend or relative fill in Line #2. Fill in all blank spaces. URGENT! Your petition is invalid if you fail to also sign as CIRCULATOR. 'J' L INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO VOTERS The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: REDUCES LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND PAY BY AT LEAST 50%. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the Legislature's regular session by more than 50% to no more than ninety-five days. Directs the Legislature to convene in January for up to thirty days and again in May for up to sixty days. Allows the Legislature to reconvene for up to five additional days to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor. Requires that legislators' salaries be cut by at least 50%, regardless of the amount of work legislators perform. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential reduction in state costs of tens of millions of dollars per year, including over $5.7 million in reduced annual costs for legislator salaries. Actual reduction, if any, would depend on future actions of the Legislature and the Governor. (09-0031.) To the Honorable Secretary of State of California: We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of the County identified below, hereby propose amendments to the California Constitution, relating to the State Legislature and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election or otherwise provided by law. The proposed constitutional amendments (full title and text of the measure) read as follows: THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT SECTION 1. Title. This Act shall be known and may be cited as "The Citizen Legislature Act." SECTION 2. Findings and Purposes. The People of the State of California hereby make the following findings and declare that their purpose in enacting this Act is as follows: (a) California's experiment with a "full- time" Legislature has failed. The result has been a Legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests. Legislators do not work "full-time" yet they receive full-time pay and benefits, more than double the amount of all other states. Yet, with all of these incentives, they continually fail to accomplish their most important job, passing a balanced state budget on-time. (b) California needs and deserves a Legislature that is only interested in conducting the people's business. Most states have a part-time Legislature, including some of the largest and most populous. A part-time Legislature will replace professional politicians with citizen legislators and will break the stranglehold of special interests. It will reduce the number of unnecessary and self- serving bills and will result in a more responsible and accountable government institution. (c) In order to further these and the purposes stated in section 1.5, the people hereby amend the California Constitution to enact the "Citizen Legislature Act." SECTION 3. Constitutional Amendment Section 3.5 of Article IV of the California Constitution is added to read as follows: Sec. 3.5(a) The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in January of each year for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, whereupon the Legislature shall stand in recess. The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in May for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Legislature may reconvene for an additional period of 5 days following recess or adjournment to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor pursuant to section 10. (c) On or before the end of the fiscal year 2012, the California Citizens Compensation Commission shall, pursuant to section 8 of Article III, reduce the annual salary of Members of the Legislature by at least fifty percent of the salary established for the fiscal year in which this section becomes effective. Thereafter, the Commission may increase the annual salary of Members of the Legislature to account for any increase in the cost of living, and may reduce such salary at its discretion, pursuant to section 8 of Article III. SECTION 4. Operative Date/Severability (a) Section 3.5 shall become effective immediately, however it shall become operative for the biennium session commencing on the first Monday in December in 2012. (b) If any part of this measure or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications which can reasonably be given effect without the invalid provision or application. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK. All signers of this petition must be registered to vote in County, Mail Your Completed Petitions To: Part -Time Legislature, 925 University Ave, Sacramento, CA 95825 5 EASY STEPS -&111 Fill in County name -6u2 Clearly print your name and address and then sign. `6iA 3 Have a friend or relative fill in Line #2. Fill in all blank spaces. URGENT! Your petition is invalid if you fail to also sign as CIRCULATOR. This ff cial use only 1. Print Your Name: Residence Address ONLY: Signature as Registered to Vote: City Zip 2. Print Your Name: Residence Address ONLY: Signature as Registered to Vote: City Zip DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR: (To be handwritten by the circulator after above signatures have been obtained) I, , am registered to vote or am eligible to register to vote in the State of California. (Print Name) I reside at the following address: (Address, City, State, Zip) I circulated this section of the petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each signature on this petition section is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the dates of and (Month, Day, Year) (Montle, Day, Year) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this day of , at , California. SIGNATURE: Mail Your Completed Petitions To: Part -Time Legislature, 925 University Ave, Sacramento, CA 95825 5 EASY STEPS -&111 Fill in County name -6u2 Clearly print your name and address and then sign. `6iA 3 Have a friend or relative fill in Line #2. Fill in all blank spaces. URGENT! Your petition is invalid if you fail to also sign as CIRCULATOR. INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO VOTERS The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: REDUCES LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND PAY BY AT LEAST 50%. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the Legislature's regular session by more than 50% to no more than ninety-five days. Directs the Legislature to convene in January for up to thirty days and again in May for up to sixty days. Allows the Legislature to reconvene for up to five additional days to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor. Requires that legislators' salaries be cut by at least 50%, regardless of the amount of work legislators perform. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential reduction in state costs of tens of millions of dollars per year, including over $5.7 million in reduced annual costs for legislator salaries. Actual reduction, if any, would depend on future actions of the Legislature and the Governor. (09-0031.) To the Honorable Secretary of State of California: We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of the County identified below, hereby propose amendments to the California Constitution, relating to the State Legislature and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election or otherwise provided by law. The proposed constitutional amendments (full title and text of the measure) read as follows: THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT SECTION 1. Title. This Act shall be known and may be cited as "The Citizen Legislature Act." SECTION 2. Findings and Purposes. The People of the State of California hereby make the following findings and declare that their purpose in enacting this Act is as follows: (a) California's experiment with a "full- time" Legislature has failed. The result has been a Legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests. Legislators do not work "full-time" yet they receive full-time pay and benefits, more than double the amount of all other states. Yet, with all of these incentives, they continually fail to accomplish their most important job, passing a balanced state budget on-time. (b) California needs and deserves a Legislature that is only interested in conducting the people's business. Most states have a part-time Legislature, including some of the largest and most populous. A part-time Legislature will replace professional politicians with citizen legislators and will break the stranglehold of special interests. It will reduce the number of unnecessary and self- serving bills and will result in a more responsible and accountable government institution. (c) In order to further these and the purposes stated in section 1.5, the people hereby amend the California Constitution to enact the "Citizen Legislature Act." SECTION 3. Constitutional Amendment Section 3.5 of Article IV of the California Constitution is added to read as follows: Sec. 3.5(a) The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in January of each year for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, whereupon the Legislature shall stand in recess. The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in May for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Legislature may reconvene for an additional period of 5 days following recess or adjournment to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor pursuant to section 10. (c) On or before the end of the fiscal year 2012, the California Citizens Compensation Commission shall, pursuant to section 8 of Article III, reduce the annual salary of Members of the Legislature by at least fifty percent of the salary established for the fiscal year in which this section becomes effective. Thereafter, the Commission may increase the annual salary of Members of the Legislature to account for any increase in the cost of living, and may reduce such salary at its discretion, pursuant to section 8 of Article III. SECTION 4. Operative Date/Severability (a) Section 3.5 shall become effective immediately, however it shall become operative for the biennium session commencing on the first Monday in December in 2012. (b) If any part of this measure or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications which can reasonably be given effect without the invalid provision or application. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK. All signers of this petition must be registered to vote in County. This column for official use only_ 1. Print Your Name: Residence Address ONLY: Signature as Registered to Vote: city Zip 2. Print Your Name: Residence Address ONLY: Signature as Registered to Vote: City Zip DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR: (To be handwritten by the circulator after above signatures have been obtained) I, , am registered to vote or am eligible to register to vote in the State of California. (Print Name) I reside at the following address: (Address, City, State, Zip) I circulated this section of the petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each signature on this petition section is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the dates of and (Month, Day, Year) (Month, Day, Year) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this day of , at California. SIGNATURE: Mail Your Completed Petitions To: Part -Time Legislature, 925 University Ave, Sacramento, CA 95825 5 EASY STEPS -&J1 Fill in County name t12 Clearly print your name and address and then sign. -4-Fal3 Have a friend or relative fill in Line #2. Fill in all blank spaces. URGENT! Your petition is invalid if you fail to also sign as CIRCULATOR. INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO VOTERS The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: REDUCES LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND PAY BY AT LEAST 50%. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the Legislature's regular session by more than 50% to no more than ninety-five days. Directs the Legislature to convene in January for up to thirty days and again in May for up to sixty days. Allows the Legislature to reconvene for up to five additional days to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor. Requires that legislators' salaries be cut by at least 50%, regardless of the amount of work legislators perform. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential reduction in state costs of tens of millions of dollars per year, including over $5.7 million in reduced annual costs for legislator salaries. Actual reduction, if any, would depend on future actions of the Legislature and the Governor. (09-0031.) To the Honorable Secretary of State of California: We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of the County identified below, hereby propose amendments to the California Constitution, relating to the State Legislature and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election or otherwise provided by law. The proposed constitutional amendments (full title and text of the measure) read as follows: THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT SECTION 1. Title. This Act shall be known and may be cited as "The Citizen Legislature Act." SECTION 2. Findings and Purposes. The People of the State of California hereby make the following findings and declare that their purpose in enacting this Act is as follows: (a) California's experiment with a "full- time" Legislature has failed. The result has been a Legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests. Legislators do not work "full-time" yet they receive full-time pay and benefits, more than double the amount of all other states. Yet, with all of these incentives, they continually fail to accomplish their most important job, passing a balanced state budget on-time. (b) California needs and deserves a Legislature that is only interested in conducting the people's business. Most states have a part-time Legislature, including some of the largest and most populous. A part-time Legislature will replace professional politicians with citizen legislators and will break the stranglehold of special interests. It will reduce the number of unnecessary and self- serving bills and will result in a more responsible and accountable government institution. (c) In order to further these and the purposes stated in section 1.5, the people hereby amend the California Constitution to enact the "Citizen Legislature Act." SECTION 3. Constitutional Amendment Section 3.5 of Article IV of the California Constitution is added to read as follows: Sec. 3.5(a) The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in January of each year for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, whereupon the Legislature shall stand in recess. The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in May for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Legislature may reconvene for an additional period of 5 days following recess or adjournment to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor pursuant to section 10. (c) On or before the end of the fiscal year 2012, the California Citizens Compensation Commission shall, pursuant to section 8 of Article III, reduce the annual salary of Members of the Legislature by at least fifty percent of the salary established for the fiscal year in which this section becomes effective. Thereafter, the Commission may increase the annual salary of Members of the Legislature to account for any increase in the cost of living, and may reduce such salary at its discretion, pursuant to section 8 of Article III. SECTION 4. Operative Date/Severability (a) Section 3.5 shall become effective immediately, however it shall become operative for the biennium session commencing on the first Monday in December in 2012. (b) If any part of this measure or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications which can reasonably be given effect without the invalid provision or application. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK. All signers of this petition must be registered to vote in County. This column for official use only 1. Print Your Name: Residence Address ONLY: Signature as Registered to Vote: city Zip 2. Print Your Name: Residence Address ONLY: Signature as Registered to Vote: city Zip DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR: (To be handwritten by the circulator after above signatures have been obtained) I, , am registered to vote or am eligible to register to vote in the State of California. (Print Name) I reside at the following address: (Address, City, State, Zip) I circulated this section of the petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each signature on this petition section is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the dates of and (Month, Day, Year) (Month, Day, Year) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this day of , at , California. SIGNATURE: Mail Your Completed Petitions To: Part -Time Legislature, 925 University Ave, Sacramento, CA 95825 5 EASY STEPS 1�"I Fill in County name ­ag2 Clearly print your name and address and then sign. -&-A3 Have a friend or relative fill in Line #2. Fill in all blank spaces. URGENT! Your petition is invalid if you fail to also sign as CIRCULATOR. CCC/ME Comments to CC on Appendix "D" 2/16/2010 • Appendix "D" was to address two main issues: 1.) A continuation of the 2 year AA vs. a new 4 year BA Degree program, and 2.) Retaining the existing soccer field at its current location and enlarging the field to as near regulation size soccer field, as possible vs. it's relocation close to P.V. Dr. East The BA Program • Our concern with the BA program is the BA degrees would require more course offerings more teachers, and other employees and therefore more traffic and parking demands. • Appendix "D" confirms these daily trips will continue to increase; Daily Trips to the campus: DEIR +1,478 EIR +1,636 Appendix "D" +1,931 • The Consultant (RBF) has suggested that carpools and shuttle buses can mitigate these additional trips and parking • The DEIR stated that additional shuttle buses to mitigate peak hour traffic were "infeasible" Sec. 5.3 —49 • 45 carpool spaces were mandated as mitigation in 1990 when the student union was added. These spots were never created by Marymount or enforced by RPV • Therefore, we have no confidence that carpooling will be enforced in the future or that such measures are a solution for more insufficient parking created by more trips. • The campus has been and is 216 parking spaces short now. • The new project is only adding 120 spaces. This is totally inadequate parking. The parking code requires an additional 410 spaces more than what exists now. • We request that you not mitigate parking shortages, by failed or infeasible measures, but by following existing RPV Parking Code for institutional zones. RECEIVED FROM IX 1�5+ AMD MADE -A PART OF TV ECORD T-TH I I P a g eCOUNCIL MEETING OF, OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK�� CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK • Following Code requires, no mitigations, no follow up, no enforcement and irrespective of what activities the college holds, there will be adequate parking because the code takes into account the number of students, staff, athletic activities, etc. • The parking code was enacted to insure there would be adequate parking ... we ask that you require that there be code compliance! • The analysis presented in Appendix "D" only accounts for a maximum possibility of 250 BA Degree students. • If Marymount is successful in their new program, it is "foreseeable" that the "mix" of "University" vs. "Junior College students" would reverse and there would be more 4 - year than 2 -years students. • Such a foreseeable transformation means that there would be substantial inadequate parking. This is a "foreseeable" event and under CEQA it must be taken into account. • If you park this project to Code without mitigations there are no future problems. If you mitigate we have nothing but future problems Soccer Fields: • The plan that was approved by the Planning Commission places the soccer field on the west side of the campus right along the edge of PV Drive East. • Many mitigations are required nets, fences, etc. because the placement of this field in this particular place on the site creates safety hazards for drivers on PV East from errant balls escaping the field and it also creates more noise to the residents across the street. • CCC/ME proposes to keep the existing "castle field" where -is, as -is. • Such a solution would not only solve the safety and noise problems but also saves tens of thousands of cubic yards of excavation and grading on this geologically fragile site. • For nine of the past ten years, the presence of dorms suggested that the "castle field" needed to be moved to the west side of the campus. The dorms are not part of the current project • In a letter to the City dated November 2, 2009, on page 4, the College referred to its desire to have an athletic field that would be near regulation size as part of this Addendum (Appendix D). It was assumed that the "castle field" was undersized, and did not meet this regulation objective. We have measured the current soccer field and determined that it exceeds full regulation size. Alternative D-2 • Placing the soccer field on the west side of the campus further away from the road by flanking it on both sides by tennis courts is a flawed solution. • That plan creates new large retaining walls needed to construct a set of tennis courts along the Western side of the field. • No variances were approved by the Planning Commission for these large retaining walls. • These courts will also have 240' of 10' high fencing in the View Corridor, which have never been shown before. • By comparison, with Alternative D-1, our recommended solution, the four tennis courts can remain, but at a lower elevation, near the location shown on page 22 in Exhibit 2-4 of Appendix "D". • Since Appendix "D" has been prepared and circulated, on January 10, 2010 new and extensively revised grading plans, dated January 6, 2010, have been submitted to the City by the College. • These latest plans retain the west side soccer field but grade the field 2 feet higher with the tennis courts graded 9 feet higher. There is no 10' high (required) tennis court fence in those plans, but if placed on the 9 -foot higher grade, are they blocking views? • Marymount's latest new plan adds a second 9' high retaining wall between the courts and soccer field. • Such unexplained continuing revisions are more examples of the constantly and untimely changing of previously approved plans. • If such changes are constantly made we certainly don't have a Stable Project, which is required by CEQA but more importantly no one can truly know or understand what they are approving or what they are voting on. • On page 2-14, as described in Section 2.4 - Modified Project Objectives, the last item says "To allow for the future development of a community preschool". BE= • The preschool was removed from the project and not studied in the DEIR— A California Supreme Count Case Laurel Heights v. Regents of the University of California states an EIR should include foreseeable future actions. • Adding back the Preschool in Appendix "D" is misleading and illegal and should be removed or if it is to be included it must be studied In Summary • Require strict enforcement of the RPV Parking Code • Retain the existing Castle soccer field at its present elevation and location. A responsible and feasible solution. • Reject the tennis courts graded 9 feet higher until there are visual studies and silhouettes • Do not violate CEQA by the inclusion of a preschool without studying it in the EIR M w1me— MA ---------- N I 2 &P, el. 51 ...................... n9j 9 n���ae�NcalienuL ,�d ac s — -- ke --- sdV(ml��nJ�� - kcuv�.o-All ✓mo - b Bc�shm� � �J ,bfe�i s® n a 0 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Postal Customer Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 Prsrt-STD U.S. Postage PAID Rancho Palos Verdes Permit # 194 ECR-WSS CJ W �\ c� Ln �U®' ,ry� 4 6d r �� � � 3 T R ,��, r...; f,. � �,v, r... 'r'^`, � wW, '�n�� �, t, t� .!.� ,,n„ mss �� . VA -A --- N., RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA (2"d Batch) Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 10 Revised Professional Service Agreement Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale 2.2 Payment Address All payments due CONSULTANT shall be paid to: MAGIS Advisors 1301 Dove Street, Suite 380 Newport Beach, CA 92660 2.3 Terms of Compensation CONSULTANT will submit invoices monthly for the percentage of work completed in the previous month. CITY agrees to authorize payment for all undisputed invoice amounts within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. CITY agrees to use its best efforts to notify CONSULTANT of any disputed invoice amounts or claimed completion percentages within ten (10) days of the receipt of each invoice. However, CITY's failure to timely notify CONSULTANT of a disputed amount of claimed completion percentage shall not be deemed a waiver of CITY's right to challenge such amount or percentage. Additionally, in the event CITY fails to pay any undisputed amounts due CONSULTANT within forty-five (45) days after invoices are received by CITY then CITY agrees that CONSULTANT shall have the right to consider said default a total breach of this Agreement and be terminated by CONSULTANT without liability to CONSULTANT upon ten (10) working days advance written notice. 2.4 Additional Services CITY may request in writing that CONSULTANT perform additional services not covered by the specific Scope of Work set forth in this Agreement, and CONSULTANT shall perform such services and will be paid for such additional services in accordance with CONSULTANT'S Schedule of Hourly Rates attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The schedule of hourly rates shall be in effect through the end of this Agreement or December 31, 2010, whichever occurs first. 2.5 Time of Performance of Services Term of A^aementt This Agreement shall commence on the day it is executed. CONSULTANT shall perform all services pursuant to this Agreement in a professional and timely manner in accordance with any deadlines established by' ITY.. n------------- --------------- rAcFtffiviie-2.4—vvmnvates of insurance must be G en+ on the dei. this AgFeemen , if seheduled to lapse pFier to the termination date, must be updated before final payment is made to CONSULTANT. ARTICLE 3 INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE 3.1 Indemnification Page 6 Of 12 Formatted: Strikethrough — Deleted: Formatted: Strikethrough Deleted: Q L Awk - , RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2010 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 12 Email from Mel Hughes 15 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz; Emails from: Priscilla Koehler; Bruce Kines; Letter from Donald M. Davis Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale Pagel of 2 Carla Morreale From: Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:07 AM To: K6SY@aol.com Cc: 'Carolyn Lehr'; 'Carolynn Petru'; 'Carla Morreale' Subject: RE: Schedule of Interviews Good Morning Mel, I wanted to acknowledge receipt of a copy of your email. I'm sorry to hear you will be unable to attend tonight's interview, due to your prior commitment. I wanted to mention that I did send an earlier notification email (on February 4, 2010) regarding the interviews; however, I realize you probably already had plans by that date. As you know, the item regarding the appointment of Chair for the Emergency Preparedness Committee is on tonight's agenda for Council's consideration, and of course the Council has received your email. When an applicant is unable to attend his/her interview we suggest he feel free to contact the Council Members individually prior to the interviews. Please feel free to do so; I am attaching the Council contact information link from our website for your convenience: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/contact/index.cfm#CITYCOUNCIL Thank you, Carla From: K6SY@aol.com [mailto:K6SY@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 7:36 AM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: citymanager@rpv.com; cityclerk@rpv.com Subject: Schedule of Interviews Good Morning Gentlemen, I received, via e-mail on Friday evening, the schedule of interviews for Chairman of the Emergency Preparedness Committee. The time slot for my interview is Tuesday, February 16 at 6:50 PM. In scheduling this interview you neglected to check with my wife. May I remind you such an omission near Valentines Day can be fatal, or nearly so. I will not be able to make the interview as scheduled as I will be dinning with my wife before attending the theater (theatre if you are British or a snob) to see the "Calor Purple." In previous years I scheduled our theater events for Thursday nights but had to reschedule this year to accommodate the date change from Mondays to Thursdays for the Emergency Preparedness Committee meetings. I would ask you to postpone the selection of Chair of the Emergency Preparedness Committee until you have taken time to interview me on an evening that is convenient to all of us. I will be at Hesse Park on Wednesday Evening, February 17, for the regular meeting for the Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Club, an important element in the emergency preparedness of our City. I invite all of you to attend and I will be available to meet with each of you individually, or two at a time, for an interview that evening. If that is not convenient I'm confident the City Clerk can find a date that will work for all of us. I'm sure you would not 2/16/2010 Page 2 of 2 want to make your decision until you have had the opportunity to interview the most qualified person for the position. Regards, Mel Hughes 2/16/2010 Page 1 of 1 Carla Morreale From: Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:45 PM To: 'timweiner@gmail.com'; 'K6SY@aol.com'; 'dkramer@dmkeng.com; 'LYNN SWANK' Cc: 'Carla Morreale'; 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: Interviews Tentatively Planned for EPC Chair and TSC Chair on February 16, 2010 Hello, I wanted to give you early notification that interviews for the position of Chair of the EPC and Chair of the TSC are tentatively planned to be held between 6:00-7:00 p.m. on February 16, 2010 prior to the Council Meeting. I will be in touch with you next week regarding your specific interview time. Thank you again for your interest in serving as the Chair of your respective Committee/Commission. Regards, Carla Morreale, CMC City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5208 2/15/2010 RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carolyn Lehr DATE: February 16, 2010 SUBJECT: cc meeting 2-16-10 item #10 Marymount FEIR appendix D QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Ara and Joel, Please help me the following questions. Thanks, Steve Steve, Staff's responses are shown below in bold blue. As a general note, as tonight's meeting is solely an opportunity for the public to provide comments on the Draft Appendix D, Staff will be prepared to address your comments in more detail when the project's public hearing take up again in April. The stated relationship between the number of four- year students, the number of classes, and number of faculty is stated not to have a significant impact on the amount of additional traffic. (A) Will the number of classes be limited to the numbers included in the new analysis or is that governed strictly by the cap on the number of students? According to the traffic analysis, it is the number of students enrolled in the BA program that influences potential traffic impacts which is why there is a maximum enrollment cap. (B) If not, should there be a cap on the number of courses offered in order to assure that traffic will not be subject to unexpected increases? Again, based on the traffic analysis, there is no need to cap the number of courses, but rather student enrollment to minimize potential traffic impacts. 2. Under Athletic Field Alternative D-2 will the 20 -foot high net be in place during all daylight hours seven days a week? If not, what are the plans to assure that balls will not be kicked into the roadway? Page 1 of 3 1.5. C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\STAFF RESPONSES - cc meeting 2010 02-16 #15 marymount addendum EIR.doc 02/16/10 3:5E According to the analysis in Appendix D, the 20 -foot net is not required for the reconfigured Athletic Field and Tennis Courts. This is because there is approximately a 20 -foot grade difference between the northern edge of the athletic field and Palos Verdes Drive East. In addition to the grade difference, there is approximately a minimum 60 -foot setback between the northwest corner of the field and Palos Verdes Drive East with a 42 -inch wrought iron fence and landscaping located along the property line adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive East to help contain balls from rolling onto the roadway. 3. Under Athletic Field Alternative D-2 what is the distance from the western most soccer goal to the 42" high landscape hedge? What assurance will there be that balls skimmed off the top of the goal post or kicked over the goal post will not also clear the 42" high hedge and into the street? Was there any measurement of likely kicked balls in the testing of the theory? As stated in the previous response, there is approximately a minimum of a 60 -foot setback between the roadway and the northwest corner of the athletic field. It should be noted that this setback increases along the roadway. There are no assurances that a ball cannot be kicked over the goal post and the 42 -inch fence, especially when you consider human behavior. When the public hearing recommences in April, the Council may wish to consider adding a condition that requires a coach be present for all field activities involving balls. Lastly, there was no measurement or formula used to asses the probability of balls being kicked into the roadway. However, the design of this alternative incorporated topography change between the roadway and the field with the setback distance to reduce the likelihood of errant balls entering the roadway. Furthermore, the field is now flanked by the tennis courts to create an added buffer between the roadway and field. 4. It was not entirely clear in the comments; will on -campus parking be adequate if the school hosts inter -collegiate sports events? At this time, the College has indicated it does not anticipate participating or applying for membership in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). This is because the requirements for joining the NAIA would require a minimum number of sports teams the College cannot provide at this time. However, according to the recommended mitigation measures for the Bachelor of Arts Degree Program (LU -1), the College is required to submit an Athletic Associations Membership Report to the City every July 1St so Staff can assess potential impacts in connection with team sports and to determine whether a revision to the Conditional Use Permit is needed to address issues such as parking. Page 2 of 3 C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\STAFF RESPONSES - cc meeting 2010 02-16 #15 marymount addendum EIR.doc 02/16/10 3:5° It should be noted that the EIR has concluded that there is adequate parking for sporting events that currently occur on campus, and that will continue to occur under the modernization, since these sporting events occur during campus non -peak hours when parking is less impacted. 5. Page 3.3-1, Summary of Findings paragraph is very difficult to follow and understand. However, the statement that "Significant and unavoidable traffic impacts would remain at the Palos Verdes Drive East / Palos Verdes Drive south intersection." Does this mean that nothing can be done to mitigate the problems at that intersection? This paragraph essentially summarizes the conclusion relating to traffic impacts for the project EIR without consideration of the analysis for the proposed project revisions. As reported to the Council back in September, in terms of Traffic and Circulation, there is a significant and unavoidable impact in connection with cumulative impacts at the intersection of PVDE / PVDS regardless of the recommended mitigation to modify the intersection median. In other words, in terms of long-term cumulative impacts there is nothing that can be done to mitigate traffic problems at this intersection to a less than significant level. That is why the Council is being asked to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. Page 3of3 C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\STAFF RESPONSES - cc meeting 2010 02-16 #15 marymount addendum EIR.doc 02/16/10 3:5E From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:57 AM To: 'Teri Takaoka'; 'Carla Morreale' Subject: FW: Marymount College Expansion Marymount, Late correspondence. Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 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. From: fred koehler [mailto:fhkoehler@cox.net] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 6:28 PM To: Ara M Subject: Marymount College Expansion Ara, I am discouraged and angry because so many of our problems in my neighborhood are either ignored or open to mitigation (which is a big joke if you consider the duplicitous actions of marymount'sPresident and his board. We are currently overwhelmed by this 2 year college and it's student's bad behavior and the thought of it becoming a 4 year college is the only thing in this word that would make me consider moving from my home of 42 years. I have personally seen students driving out of control obviously under the influence of drugs or alcohol, which is epidemic on college campuses, and we who live near the college have seen fatal accidents, near fatal accidents from reckless teenage drivers in my neighborhood. Why doesn't the Planning Commission acknowledge this? Don't the residents of RVP have as much right as Marymount, regardless that Marymount has a good deal of taxpayer free money, a paid lobbyist, buses to bring their supporters to City meetings etc. There are so many reasons why this expansion should be controlled that I cannot name even half of them due to space constraints. If they are allowed to become a 4 year college with intercollegiate sports, I can guarantee you there will be terrible consequences with out of area kids driving PVDE, the most dangerous road on the Pensula. Why do our local residents have to suffer the consequences of this fiasco??? This school started with less than 100 students and you know the old saying "give an inch and they'll take a mile". We all know that very few 2 year schools have dorms, but 4 year schools do. Marymount's neighbors know what they are up dol, how come the Planning Common doesn't get It? I could go on, but unless someone in the City wakes up and looks at where Marymount is heading, my neighborhood is indeed being sold out by Rancho Palos Verdes and this is a shameful way to treat it's citizens who have b even here longer than Marymount and who pay taxes and need to be protected from this runaway expansion project. Priscilla Koehler 3352 Seaclaire Dr. RPV,Ca. 90275 2/16/2010 /3- - -----Original Message ----- From: Bruce Kines [mailto:brucekines@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 10:55 AM To: aram@rpv.com Subject: Marymount College I live about a half mile from Marymount near Mira Catalina school, and I SUPPORT Marymount 100%. Let them beautify their campus. This group that is against it, I believe is just a small group. I believe the majority of the residents in the area have not been heard from. Let Marymount beautify their campus. Beautifying Marymount would only help the community not hinder it. Let the four year bachelor degree go ahead. The enrollment cap of 793 will stay the same, so I can not see the problem with it. It is only right to let Marymount improve their facility. 15 Marymount Comment Letter on Appendix D From: Carolynn Petru Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:54 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Marymount Comment Letter on Appendix D Attachments: Scan001.PDF From: Davis, Donald M. [mailto:DDavis@bwslaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 12:45 PM To: cc@rpv.com; Ara M Cc: Michael Brophy; Michael Laughlin Subject: FW: Marymount Comment Letter on Appendix D Dear Mayor Wolowicz and Councilmembers Campbell, Long, Misetich and Stern, Page 1 of 3 As you will see below, Marymount College's comments on Appendix D to the Final Environment Impact Report, which is on the agenda for this evening, apparently were not forwarded to you last week. We do so now per staffs direction, and hope that you will have a moment to look over our relatively brief points in advance of the meeting. We look forward to reviewing these comments with you at the meeting, and intend to keep our overall presentation to 12 minutes or less. Best regards, Donald M. Davis Partner Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 444 South Flower Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-236-0600 phone 213-236-2700 fax 213-236-2702 direct www.bwslaw.com From: Ara M [mailto:aram@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:12 AM To: Davis, Donald M.; 'Joel Rojas'; 'Carol W. Lynch'; 'Dave Snow' Cc: 'Michael Brophy'; 'Michael Laughlin'; 'Scott Boydstun'; 'Jim Reeves' 2/16/2010 Marymount Comment Letter on Appendix D Page 2 of 3 Subject: RE: Marymount Comment Letter on Appendix D Don, The City Clerk will provide the Council with your comment letter at tonight's meeting as late correspondence. If you would like the Council to see your comment letter beforehand, I suggest emailing it to cc@rpvcom. See you tonight, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(cDrpvcom www.palosverdes.com/rpv Do 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. From: Davis, Donald M. [ma iIto: DDavis@bwslaw.com] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:58 AM To: Ara M; Joel Rojas; Carol W. Lynch; Dave Snow Cc: Michael Brophy; Michael Laughlin; Scott Boydstun; Jim Reeves Subject: Marymount Comment Letter on Appendix D <<Scan001.PDF>> Dear Joel and Ara: I am forwarding Marymount's comments on Appendix D. We would appreciate it if the letter could be forwarded to the City Council in advance of the meeting. We thank you again for the efforts made to move this review process along. With respect to the re -scheduling of the appeal hearing, the April 20th date would work better for the College and our entitlement team. Regards, Donald M. Davis Partner Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 2/16/2010 a � R Marymount Comment Letter on Appendix D Page 3 of 3 444 South Flower Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-236-0600 phone 213-236-2700 fax 213-236-2702 direct www.bwslaw.com The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (213) 236- 0600. 2/16/2010 444 South Flower Street - Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 9007 1-2953 voice 213.236.0600 - fax 213.236.2700 BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP www.bwslaw.com Direct No.: 213.236.2702 Our File No.: 04693-0001 ddavis@bwslaw.com February 12, 2010 By E -Mail and U.S. Mail Ara Mihranian, AICP Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391 Re: Marymount College Campus Modernization Plan: Final Environmental Impact Report Appendix D - Bachelor of Arts Degree Program and Athletic Field Alternatives Dear Mr. Mihranian: On behalf of Marymount College, I submit these comments on Appendix D to the Marymount College Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The College expresses its appreciation to City staff and the City's environmental consultant (RBF) for the timely preparation of the analysis. In general, Marymount finds the analysis to be more than adequate for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the College is prepared to accept the recommended mitigation measures pertaining to the proposed Bachelor of Arts Degree Program (BA Program) and the College's athletic field Alternative No. D-2 (although, as detailed below, this alternative remains the College's second choice). With respect to the analysis regarding athletic field Alternative No. D-1, Marymount concurs that this alternative neither avoids nor substantially lessens any significant environmental effects of this aspect of the project, but rather, would create new significant impacts. Moreover, this alternative not only fails to further the College's desired project objective of moving the athletic field away from nearby residences, but the estimated additional $1 million in construction costs resulting from the proposed requirement to use synthetic turf also renders it financially infeasible for the College. These facts have been readily apparent to the College since the alternative was first suggested in September 2009. Now that the City's own independent analysis confirms that this is not a "reasonable alternative" under CEQA, the College requests that the City Council, at minimum, acknowledge the environmental advantages of the College's original plan or Alternative No. D-2 and indicate a willingness to withdraw Alternative No. D-1 from further consideration at the scheduled public hearing on February 16, 2010. LA #4814-0619-9301 v1 0/ Los Angeles - Inland Empire - Menlo Park - Orange County - Palm Desert - Ventura County BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Ara Mihranian, AICP February 12, 2010 Page 2 BA Program The description of the BA Program in Section 2 of Appendix D is fully consistent with the information provided by the College. The College has no comments on the environmental analysis in Section 3 other than to note that the traffic and circulation analysis is consistent with the extremely conservative methodology utilized in the FEIR, While the forecast increases in vehicle trips and parking demands are negligible and do not result in any new impacts after the proposed mitigation (essentially the adoption of the existing parking management strategy that the College voluntarily agreed to include as Planning Commission approved Condition No. 158), such additional trips and parking demand are, in reality, not likely to occur as a direct result of the BA Program because the underlying operations of the College in terms of student enrollment, student seats, course offerings and sequencing, and faculty and staffing will all remain essentially Unchanged from the existing conditions. The City Council and the general public should also bear in mind that this environmental analysis is based on a maximum projected BA Program enrollment of 250 students, which the College does not anticipate achieving for a number a years. (See Appendix D at pp. 2-6 to 2-7.) Therefore, even if the forecast trips and parking demand are taken face value, any such minor changes would be spread over an extended period. The College has no objections to and is prepared to accept the recommended Mitigation Measures associated with the BA Program in Section 4 of Appendix D (i.e., LU -1 (athletic association membership report), TR -4 and TR -7 (enrollment cap of 250 BA Program students), and TR -5 and TR -6 (parking management strategy)). 2. College Athletic Field Redesign (Alternative No. D-2) Marymount has no comments on and generally concurs with all aspects of the description and analysis of the College's proposed modifications to the site plan for the athletic field and tennis courts. For the record, the reason this layout was not originally put forward is because dividing the tennis courts into two separate areas is not conducive to instruction or athletic competitions, which are the College's primary uses of the tennis courts. Tennis classes are typically taught by a single instructor and the College's competitive tennis teams have a single coach. Under this revised site plan, a single instructor or coach cannot monitor all the activities on the courts due to the resulting separation and distance between the two sets of courts. Thus, while the modified layout also fully addresses concerns regarding errant balls from the athletic field, it negatively impacts the College's project objectives with respect to the instructional and competitive uses of the tennis courts. Accordingly, the College's preferred site plan for the athletic field and tennis courts remains its original proposal, which was found in the FEIR to have no significant impacts after mitigation. LA #4814-0619-9301 v1 5 0 /- O BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Ara Mihranian, AICP February 12, 2010 Page 3 3. City Council Athletic Field Redesign (Alternative No. D-1) The analysis of the athletic field alternative suggested by the City Council for CEQA study purposes (Alternative No. D-1) concludes that this alternative would introduce a new significant and unavoidable impact to the visual character of the western portion of the campus if the proposed grass athletic field were to be replaced with an asphalt parking lot. In short, in comparison to the College's original site plan or Alternative No. D-2, this proposal is found to be completely contrary to the underlying purpose of CEQA, which is to identify ways to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. (See Public Resources Code § 21002.1 and CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6) Accordingly, while the study of this alternative appears to have fulfilled the Council's desired purpose of fostering informed decision-making, it must be rejected from further consideration due to the identified new and unavoidable significant impact. The College's comments on this alternative are directed at what the College believes to be other potentially significant impacts that are not identified in Appendix D. To begin, the analysis does not state in writing (although it is clearly visible in Exhibit 2- 4) that this plan would place the location of the athletic field approximately 20 feet from the proposed Library and very close to the College's existing classroom building. The field would also be in close proximity to a parking lot and main pedestrian walkway. As a result, the College concurs that netting would be required to contain errant balls, but due to the extreme proximity to these facilities and walkways, netting would be needed for virtually all activities using balls or other objects (e.g., Frisbees) and would likely also be needed to simply separate the spaces. Therefore, the netting would likely be raised far more than the occasional periods suggested in the analysis (see Appendix D at 3.2-2) and certainly for longer time periods than under the current field relocation plan. Accordingly, the semi-permanent use of netting during weekdays could potentially result in a significant long-term visual impact to the identified neighboring properties. Although one of the College's project objectives has always been to relocate the athletic field away from residences to reduce potential noise impacts, Marymount's proposal to relocate the athletic field to the westerly side of the property was also intended to move such an active use further away from passive use campus facilities such as classrooms and faculty offices. Much like the visual impact analysis, the noise analysis in Appendix D fails to address the proximity of or potential noise impacts from this field location on either the College's new Library or primary classroom building, which, like residences, are also sensitive receptors. With respect to potential public service impacts (see page 3.8-1), the analysis fails to disclose that Alternative No. D-1 would either preclude or significantly interfere with any vehicular connection to the proposed fire lane along the southeasterly portion of the campus. (Compare Exhibit 2-4 with Exhibit 2-5.) This would effectively render a large portion of the existing and proposed campus out of range of fire service, and would assuredly be unacceptable to the fire department. LA #4814-0619-9301 v1 'f' 0 f BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Ara Mihranian, AICP February 12, 2010 Page 4 Finally, in order to avoid potential drainage and hydrological impacts, proposed Mitigation Measure HYD -3 would require the utilization of synthetic turf as the field surface. The analysis does not disclose the additional cost associated with this mitigation measure. Attached is a letter from DPR Construction, Inc. to the College's architect indicating that the installation of synthetic turf would add over $850,000 in construction costs to the project. Such a significant increase in cost for an alternative that clearly provides no environmental benefits over the other alternative field locations renders the alternative economically "infeasible" under CEQA, and provides an additional basis for rejecting further consideration of the alternative. (See Public Resources Code § 21061.1 [feasibility may take into account economic factors].) In sum, because of the significant new impact identified in Appendix D and the additional potential impacts noted above by the College, including the extraordinary increase in construction costs that would be necessary in order to avoid other identified new impacts, Alternative No. D-1 is neither a "reasonable" alternative nor a "feasible" alternative that meets the College's basic project objectives pertaining to the athletic field as such terms are defined under CEQA. As such, it does not warrant further consideration by the City Council. Marymount appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments, and Dr. Brophy and I, along with other representatives of the College, will be available at the Council meeting on February 16 to respond to any questions from the City Council or the public regarding the BA Program or the College's two athletic field proposals. Sincerely, BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP DONALD M. DAVIS DMD:ir Attachments: 1. DPR Construction, Inc. letter re synthetic turf construction costs cc: Dr. Michael Brophy Michael Laughlin Scott Boydstun Joel Rojas, Planning Director Carol Lynch, City Attorney David Snow, Assistant City Attorney LA #4814-0619-9301 v1 p C1 �J -P--� R Construction Inc. February 4, 2010 Mr. Scott Boydstun Rasmussen & Associates 248 South Mills Road Ventura, CA 93003 Re: Marymount College 30800 Palos Verde Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Proposed Sports Field Dear Scott: DPR Construction, Inc. 4220 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Te 1949.955.37 71 Fax 949.253.0015 www.dprinc,com We have done a cost comparison for the proposed sports field turf options. Our Initial Construction Cost Estimate was based on installing hydroseed turf. If it is required that we install synthetic turf, there would a significant increase in construction cost, Below is a recap of the costs: Materia! Quantity Cost H droseed Turf 82,174 SF $ 13,740 Synthetic Turf 82,174 SF $897,361 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Ever Forward, ' � U ' Karen Wiley cc: Randy Fulton (Stegeman and Kastner, Inc.) Scott Carriveau (DPR)