20100615 Late CorrespondenceRANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Ray Holland and Ron Dragoo
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr
DATE:
June 14, 2010
SUBJECT:
CC meeting 6/15/10 item #13 — Abalone cove sewer fee
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Ray and Ron,
Please provide a few answers to help me understand this issue.
Thanks,
Steve
1. Briefly, what is the logic for the city subsidy rather than assessing the
residents using the Abalone cove sewer system?
Staff Reply: The maximum annual increase in the rates for each zone is capped
at CPI this year, with a maximum cap which is set at 2% annually. This year the
costs for all zones except Zone B exceed the revenues needed.
2. Is it planned that the increased subsidy will be recouped by the general
fund in the future?
Staff Reply: No. Rates are set by the City Council but limited by a cap of 2%.
3. Are there likely to be other increases in the future that will be borne by the
specific residents or require additional subsidies?
Staff Reply: Ideally, the Abalone Cove sewer system should pay for
itself with the fee structure. Future increases in the fee structure to cover costs
are something that the City Council may consider during the City-wide Sewer
Fee process.
Page 1 of 1
W:1HRon\Council Inquiries\6-15.2010\PW Response cc meeting 2010 06-15#13 abalone cove sewer fee.doc 06115/10 5:20 P
The Truth About
the Mary Dunt Ballot Initiative
Presentation to
City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes
by
Jeffrey Lewis
e What is at stake?
e Why the Ballot Initiative violates the
California Constitution.
■ What RPV should do?
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MARYMOUNT BALLOT INITIATIVE
FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT. PalosVerdesTmthmordpress.com
MADE A PART OF THE RItCORD AT THE
VCIL MEETING OF [S� Mro_
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
0
■ The Marymount Plan represents a
misuse of the initiative process
■ If successful, other powerful interests
will also misuse the process to achieve
development goals at odds with our
city's goals for low density
development
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MARYMOUNT BALLOT INITIATIVE
FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT: PalosVerdesTruth.wordpressmm
■ Imagine a Trump Initiative to
place large homes on the current
location of the driving range?
■ Or a Ponte Vista Initiative?
■ Or a York Event Garden
Initiative?
■ Or an Annenberg Animal Center
j
Initiative?
Tri�ANNrrant:r,rRo}ecT THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MARYMOUNT BALLOT INITIATIVE
„1,
FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT: PalosVerdesTruth.wordpress.00m
initiative is unonstitu,tiona
■ The initiative would add section 17.30.100.050 to
the RPV Municipal Code.
■ Deprives City of any power to condition or review
project
o No time limit on construction.
o No six month review after construction to review
operating hours, etc.
o All of the conditions that Staff, City Council, the
Planning Commission and Marymount have
worked on for ten years would be unused.
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MARYMOUNT BALLOT INITIATIVE
FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT. PalosVerdesTwthmordpress.wm
ini i tiv ice. _unconstitutional J
■ The initiative process is limited to legislative powers
(i.e. the making of laws).
■ The initiative process is not appropriate for
administrative or executive powers (i.e. the
application of laws)
o City of San Diego v. Dunkl, 86 Cal. App. 4t" 384,
399 (2001)
■ Marymount's proposed section 17.30.100.050 of the
RPV Municipal Code would deprive the city of its
power to carry out is own laws.
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MARYMOUNT BALLOT INITIATIVE
FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT. PalosVerdesTmthmordpress.00m
3
■ Staff has presented two alternatives:
o Adopt the Ordinance.
o Place the Ordinance on the ballot.
Receive and file the City Clerk's Certification that the Petition tided "Adoption of a
*oft 'Plan for Development of the Marymount College Campus at 30800 Palos
Was Drive East In the City of Rancho Dabs Verdes and Related General Plan and
ning Ordinance Amendments" has qualllied for a Special Municipal Election to be
Iced on the November 2, 2010 Statewide General Election Ballot and, 2) Either
apt the ordinance, as proposed, or place the ordinance on the November 2, 2010
Mewkle General Etedlom
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MARYMOUNT BALLOT INITIATIVE
FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT. PalosVerdesTmthmordpress.com
■ There is a third option.
■ Follow the lead set by the City of Carpinteria.
o Oil company sought to bypass Carpinteria's city leaders
and pass a ballot initiative similar to Marymount's.
o The City Attorney filed a complaint on behalf of the city:
■ Seeking a declaration that the ballot is invalid
■ Staying the duty of the City Attorney to put the initiative on the ballot
■ The City of RPV should do the same.
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MARYMOUNT BALLOT INITIATIVE
FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT. PalosVerdesTmthmordpress.com
El
4F r M r 1 nform tion
THE TRUTH ABOUT
THE MARYMOUNT BALLOT INITIATIVE
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
MARYMOUNT INITIATIVE AND OTHER ISSUES
FACING PALOS VERDES VISIT:
PalosVerdesTruth.wordpress. com
6
L 14
k� RAN Cr%;HO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JUNE 15, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
for today's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
3 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz
4 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz
6 Correction to page 6-2 of Staff Report —paragraph 4
11 Exhibit C for Staff Report
14 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz (2 sets); Emails from:
W. Earle and Anita Robinson; Jim Gordon; Email exchange between
Councilman Stern and Alison Gordon
15 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz
Respectfully submitted,
,7
Carla - -
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday, June 14, 2010**.
W:WGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20100615 additions revisions to agenda.doc
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Dennis McLean and Kathryn Downs
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr
DATE:
June 14, 2010
SUBJECT:
cc meeting 6/15/10, item #3 City Investment policy
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Dennis and Kathryn,
Here are a few questions on this topic.
Thanks,
Steve
1. During the last year there was some conversation regarding the use of
local banks, to help our local economy. What was concluded and were
there any changes made?
Staff Reply:
Council member Campbell raised the question earlier this year. Staff has been
discussing this matter with the City's Financial Advisor and expects to a
framework of ideas before the end of the month.
2. Page 3-3, item #1. Where is a statement made twice in this paragraph
regarding a maximum amount of deposit being "... one million dollars
($5,000,000) ... Which is correct, the one million or the $5,000,000?
Staff Reply:
The intended amount is $5,000,000.
On April 7, 2009, the City Council approved Staff's recommendation to increase
the City's demand deposit limit from $1 million up to $5 million through the
remainder of the FY08-09 and FY09-10. The goal was to provide further liquidity
during the construction seasons during uncertain financial conditions. Staff
continues to maintain daily demand deposits levels ranging between $2 million
and $3 million. Based upon Staff's on-going discussions with the City's Financial
Advisor, as well as the continuing uncertainty in the financial markets and anemic
interest earnings, Staff continues its recommendation to maintain demand
deposit levels in the $3 million range, but not to exceed $5 million during FY10-
11.
Page 1 of 2
3. Does the Treasurer still recommend the large amount of investment to be
with LAIF?
Reply from City's Financial Advisor:
"We have specifically recommended this approach. The investment climate is
presently very challenging. Many local agencies in California do not restrict LAIF
as to either amount or concentration of the overall portfolio. (Anaheim, Costa
Mesa, Lakewood, Palm Desert, San Clemente, Tustin, as examples)
The LAIF is the functional equivalent of a mutual fund with several important
distinctions. First, it is managed by a large staff of another public agency (the
State Treasurer). That keeps its expense ratios low and provides a level of
accountability that we believe is more suitable for conservative public agencies
such as the City. Second, it enjoys a level of oversight that is unparalleled in the
mutual fund industry. Third, it operates without the necessity to pay 12b-1 fees
or distribution commissions to a 'fund distributor" as is the case with commercial
mutual funds. Finally, because of its sheer size, the credit risks to individual
securities are spread over a wider 'footprint." That is NOT to say that LAIF, like
any other mutual investment fund, cannot experience liquidity difficulties. It can.
But, in LAIF's case there is a statutory procedure for redeeming shares and
liquidating securities. Such a framework is not present in commercial money
market funds.
We have also advised you that several proposals to use alternate investment
pools sponsored or subscribed to by other local agencies does nothing to improve
the City's liquidity or safety. Such pools offer many advantages, but there is no
clear advantage to LAIF. In fact, there may be some disadvantages for the
reasons outlined above.
Therefore, we believe that the current concentration in LAIF is a reasonable
trade-off between the City's desire for safety and liquidity, and the less important
desire to fulfill the City's responsibility to earn representative yields on the
public's funds."
Page 2 of 2
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Dennis McLean and Kathryn Downs
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr
DATE:
June 14, 2010
SUBJECT:
cc meeting 6/15/10, item #4 Five-year model
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Dennis and Kathryn,
Here are several questions regarding the five-year model.
Thanks for the help.
Steve
1. Overall, there have been no changes to the five-year model that a
presented at the May 22nd budget workshop?
Staff Reply:
There have been only minor changes since the May 22nd version. The property
tax increase assumption has been decreased in the last 4 years of the Model (by
1 % for each year). The FY10-11 column has been updated to reflect City
Council's decisions at the May 22nd workshop. Finally, 3 additional projects
totaling about $1.4 million have been added to the last 3 years of the Model for
the Water Quality Flood Protection program (PVDE Lower Switchbacks, PVDS
North of Barkentine, and South Hawthorne/Frascati). The Oversight Committee
approved the 5 -Year Plan, including the 3 additional projects, at its meeting on
June 8, 2010,
2. Regarding the UUT — Does staff foresee that anytime with the five year
model that the 3% UUT should be reduced or eliminated?
Staff Reply:
Considering the list of unfunded projects in the Capital Improvement Plan, no;
Staff does not foresee an opportunity to reduce or eliminate the UUT at any time
in the near future.
3. Page 4-9, item #15 loss of shared sales tax with RHE. Previously staff
recommended that we not contest this reduction because staff anticipated
assumption of certain maintenance costs related to Indian Peak Drive.
Recently RHE announced that it would not assume any such related
costs. Given that recent action does staff recommend that the Council
revisit this issue (if not, why)?
Page 1 of 2
Staff Reply:
This matter is scheduled for closed session on July 6, 2010,
4. Page 4-10, item #10. It is a little difficult to follow the comments regarding
"project savings" and "replenishment of the reserve" until it reaches policy
threshold. In short are additional payments from or back to the general
fund anticipated?
Staff Reply:
It appears that your question relates to the Capital Improvement Projects
Reserve (item #20). Each year, there is some project savings realized in this
fund. For example, a residential street project may have a budget of $1.5 million
and final actual costs of $1.4 million. When these projects are funded by the
General Fund, the savings is added to the CIP Reserve. In addition, projects are
sometimes delayed, which causes the idle funds to earn additional interest
revenue. In both of these cases, the CIP Reserve increases; and over time, we
anticipate the Reserve will be restored to its policy level.
5. Page 4-10, item #22 utility undergrounding fund. In prior years this fund
was completely dedicated to undergrounding on the major arterials
(Hawthorne, etc.) I thought that there was an understanding that
undergrounding would resume by neighborhoods or by the City when the
fund balance began to grow again. Were there carryover comments from
that council or staff on other specific projects that should be considered
again?
Staff Reply:
An initial engineering study is required before a neighborhood can proceed with
self-assessment for utility undergrounding. This fund was also established to pay
for this initial engineering study. Since 2001, not one neighborhood has
requested that the City provide an engineering study; therefore, Staff believes
that it's prudent to return a portion of the fund balance to the City's General Fund.
Page 2 of 2
man -power and gas- powered tools to control natural vegetation growth. After the success
of the pilot program in the fall of 2008, Staff prepared bid documents and publicized a
request for the clearance of brush citywide using goats and in FY 2009/2010, a contract
was awarded to Elizabeth Gonzalez, owner of Ranchito Tivo Boer Goats Farm. During the
summer of 2009, Ranchito Tivo Boer Goats successfully cleared six zones and received
positive feed back from the community, as well as on time completion and within budget.
It should be noted that the goat clearing technique cannot be applied to all of the fuel
modification zones throughout the City. Additional areas will require the use of man -power,
and power tools. Staff will prepare project specifications for this work and go out to bid in
the summer.
DISCUSSION
A notice inviting bids was advertised on May 5, 2010, and bids were received and
opened on June 7, 2010. After a reference check FIRE GRAZERS, INC. provided the
lowest responsive, responsible bid.
CONCLUSION
It is important for the City to meet the Los Angeles oun Fire.Department, and the Los Comment [m]: Added the word
Angeles Weights and Measures requirements for fuel modification on City owned
County here
properties. The use of goats to help reduce vegetation growth has proved to be an
effective tool in combustible vegetation management. Therefore, Staffs recommendation
is to award a maintenance agreement contract to FIRE GRAZERS, INC.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended action will be completed for the lump sum cost of $89,645. Authorize a
20% contingency to the awarded contractor for unanticipated work, and emergency
clearing. For a total not to exceed cost of $107,574. Funds are currently budgeted in the
FY 10-11 Parks, Trails, and Open Spaces Maintenance Program for this project.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Plans and Specifications
Exhibit B: Prices in Contractor's Proposal
Exhibit C: Maintenance Agreement
Exhibit D: Bid Opening Sheet
Proposed Performance -Based Employee Compensation Plan - Exhibit C
June 15, 2010
Page 1 of 3
The Performance -Based Compensation Plan (the "Plan") would set forth a
process and standards to compensate employees based on the achievement of
goals set by the City Council. Annual goals would be based on values that flow
from foundational documents adopted by the Council, including: Tactical Goals,
the annual Budget, Capital Improvement Plan, Committee/Commission work
plans, the Core Values Statement, Vision Statement, General Plan and related
planning and policy documents.
As part of the budget approval process, the City Manager would propose to the
City Council a set of broad (but measurable and achievable) organizational goals
for the coming year. The achievement of the goals would be tied to the
recommended employee merit and bonus pool funding being requested in the
budget.
While economic savings and/or benefits shall be a recurring theme, the Plan will
provide for the flexibility to modify and adjust the performance themes each year
as appropriate. With an emphasis on cost savings as well as service excellence
in FY10-11, this system is intended to enable the City Council to directly link
adoption of employee compensation schedules in the proposed budget to
achievement of Council's highest priorities—thus transforming what is often a
subjective process into a more objective process.
From the broader goals, the management staff would then develop achievement
plans with and for each employee—designed to achieve the fiscal, operational
and quality goals established for the organization. .
The following core principles would be followed while setting specific
performance goals annually for each full time and part time employee:
1) Strive to maintain or exceed the level of customer service our residents
and the public deserve and expect.
2) Motivate employees to perform at the highest level and develop an
understanding of how their position contributes to the overall success and
attainment of goals for the organization.
3) The Plan will utilize and augment existing statistical measurements for
performance when available and meaningful, including the development of
statistical measurement tools in conjunction with enhancements and
replacements of electronic database systems.
The Performance -Based Employee Compensation Plan shall be segregated into
the following programs:
(A) Employee Incentive ("bonus") Program; and
(B) Merit Program.
0 of 3
Proposed Performance -Based Employee Compensation Plan - Exhibit C
June 15, 2010
Page 2 of 3
(A) Framework - Employee Incentive ("bonus") Program
During FY10-11, the implementation year, the primary theme shall be the
attainment of at least an aggregate of $150,000 from new cost savings/new
revenue innovations that are verifiable and are not already included in the FY10-
11 budget. The FY10-11 goal is slightly greater than the combined total of the
employee merit and bonus pools. Therefore, if the goal is realized, the City's
merit and bonus pools will be "cost -neutral". As added incentive, in the event
new cost savings/new revenue innovations reach $250,000 during FY10-11; an
additional $50,000 will be allocated to the bonus pool. The goal will be realized
from a mix of verifiable cost savings/new revenue innovations, including, but
limited to:
1) Reductions in operating costs and project savings;
2) Improved employee productivity/service efficiencies;
3) New or enhanced revenue streams; and
4) One-time receipts of grants.
The Incentive ("bonus") program component shall include the reward to full time
and part time employees for the accomplishments that result from teamwork, as
well as individual accomplishments. Staff will present a report of organizational
achievement to the City Council after the end of FY10-11. Upon acceptance of
the results by the City Council, the allocation of payments to employees from the
bonus pool will be distributed as follows:
1) 50% for new cost savings/new revenue innovations;
2) 25% for achievement of the 2010 Tactical Goals established by the City
Council; and
3) 25% for achievement of maintaining or exceeding the level of customer
service our residents and the public deserve and expect.
The determination of achievement of 1) and 2) are verifiable. The achievement
of 3) will be judged by the City Council, with examples provided by the City
Manager.
(B) Framework - Merit -Based Program
Annual reviews are conducted on the employee's anniversary date. The City
Manager, Department Head, direct supervisor and the employee will collaborate
in the establishment of goals for the next year that will be considered during the
subsequent annual review. The goals shall include the achievement of excellent
customer satisfaction, successful completion of major tasks, projects and
initiatives, job knowledge, performance and productivity, dependability,
cooperation, initiative and workplace environment and safety. To the degree
appropriate, an employee's contribution towards the achievement of Tactical
M
Proposed Performance -Based Employee Compensation Plan - Exhibit C
June 15, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Goals, tasks and projects included in the annual Budget, Capital Improvement
Plan and Committee/Commission work plans shall be considered when
determining a possible salary adjustment. The Merit component shall include the
reward to employees for the accomplishments that result from teamwork, as well
as individual accomplishments.
Subject to City Council's approval of this general framework, staff will develop
and launch the Performance -Based Employee Compensation system for FY10-
11.
Page 1 of 1
Carla Morreale
From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:40 PM
To: 'Steve Wolowicz'
Cc: 'Carol W. Lynch; 'Joel Rojas; 'Carla Morreale; 'Carolyn Lehr; 'David Snow'
Subject: Marymount - Staff Responses to Comparison Analysis
Attachments: STAFF RESPONSES 6-15-10—comparison initiative and approved.doc
Steve,
Attached are Staff's responses to the summary you prepared.
In areas where clarification is warranted, Staff responded in bold.
Otherwise, the summary is accurate.
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 -rrpv.com
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.
6/15/2010
MARYMOUNT INITIATIVE
COMPARISON WITH APPROVED PROJECT
Questions relating to Elections Code:
1. (a) Will additional law enforcement services be required as a result of dorms?
Staff Response: As stated in the Draft EIR, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department projected that the project, including the residence halls, could likely
result in an increase in calls for services. This would place a greater demand on
police protection services. In order to address this potential impact, mitigation was
imposed that required the City review the College's Code of Conduct. This mitigation
measure is not included in the Campus Specific Plan Requirements.
(b) What other city services will be required as a result of the dorms
Staff Responses: As stated in the Draft EIR, the implementation of the project,
including residence halls, would increase solid waste generation. However, the
recommended mitigation measures addressing this impact has been incorporated in
Campus Requirement Nos. 110 through 114.
No other impacts to city services were identified in the Draft EIR.
2. The initiative amends the General Plan
Staff Response: Yes
3. The Specific Plan (by the initiative) states that the College will comply with the requirements
for affordable housing.
Staff Response: Yes
4. Regarding City infrastructure the Specific Plan states the College will be mitigating drainage
on site.
Staff Response: Yes
5. Employment — 27 additional full and part time jobs added due to dorms.
Staff Response: The estimated 27 new full and part-time employs is a result of
project implementation including the Residence Halls, but not solely the Residence
Halls.
6. Regarding City's open space (Nature Preserve), per the EIR drainage can be mitigated.
Staff Response: Yes
7. Traffic mitigation already addressed in EIR.
cAdocuments and settings\carlam\local settings\temporary internet files\olk451\staff responses 6-15-10_comparison initiative and approved (2).docPage
J 0� 5—
MARYMOUNT INITIATIVE
COMPARISON WITH APPROVED PROJECT
Staff Response: Yes, the mitigation measures stated in the project EIR are mostly
incorporated in the Campus Requirements.
Items excluded in School's initiative
1. Pg. 14-8. No affidavit accepting conditions of approval 90 days from approval date.
2. Pg. 14-8. No requirement to comply with Mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program.
3. Pg. 14-8. Not required to implement and comply with all City conditions that were part of the
items which were approved.
4. Pg. 14-8. There are no penalties for not complying with the City's conditions that
accompanied the approvals.
5. Pg. 14-8. There will not be a six-month review of the project at a public meeting.
6. Pg. 14-9. There is no prohibition of the dorms
7. Pg. 14-9 There will not be the additional buffer of the tennis courts to minimize exposure of
soccer balls in PUDE.
8. Pg. 14-9 and Pg. 14-13. Construction and phasing is not subject to EIR and construction
period is no longer limited to three-year period over eight-year period.
9. Pg. 14-11. No one at city is indemnified from actions relating to the Marymount project.
Staff Response: Campus Requirement Nos. 32 and 33 provide for an
indemnification for the City and its officers and employees for the willful or negligent
acts of the College and its agents and for insurance that covers City officers, which
would include Council Members and Commissioners. Under legal precedent in
California, City Council Members and Commissioners who are acting within the
course and scope of their official duties generally are subject to the City's
indemnification and defense obligations. The Initiative does not extinguish those
general principles.
10. Pg. 14-12. Height of gym is not subject to ten foot reduction designed to minimize view
impairments.
11. Pg. 14-14. Maximum grading cut increased 16,745 CY and fill increased 2,500 CY.
12. Pg. 14-15. Movement of dirt and debris will not require CUP or grading permit.
Staff Response: A Building and Grading Permit from Building and Safety is still
required prior to commencing construction.
13. Pg. 14-18. City cannot limit stone cutting in terms of time, location, and equipment.
14. Pg. 14-23. Limits removed on times of operating for library deck, tennis courts and gym
deck.
15. Pg. 14-23. No limits on use of outdoor amplifiers (no CUP required).
16. Pg. 14-25. No regulation over sub -leasing of campus for commercial purposes.
17. Pg. 14-26. Students at School are not required to have local area driving course.
18. Pg. 14-26. Number of four-year students is not to be limited (vs. 250 of 793).
19. Pg. 14-27. No penalty for submitting late enrollment report.
cAdocuments and settings\carlam\local settings\temporary internet files\olk451\staff responses 6-15-1 0 -comparison initiative and approved (2).docPage
0 q 6-
MARYMOUNT INITIATIVE
COMPARISON WITH APPROVED PROJECT
20. Pg. 14-27. No Noise level restrictions.
Staff Response: Campus Requirement Nos. 133 through 136 set the noise limits
that the College would adhere to if the Initiative Measure is approved by the voters.
21. Pg. 14-28. Noise level test reports within 6 months of completion not required.
Staff Response: Campus Requirement No. 136 states that the College shall provide
the Director with a sound test report within six (6) months from the completion of any
improvements exceeding 20,000 square feet.
22. Pg. 14-28. The Lighting Plan not required.
Staff Response: Campus Requirement No. 137 requires the College submit a
Lighting Plan but a photometric plan is not specifically required.
23. Pg. 14-28. Lighting test for one light mock-up not required.
24. Pg. 14-29. Trial period of 30 -days after installation not required.
25. Pg. 14-31 Annual Parking management strategy program not required.
Staff Response: The City's annual review of the Parking Management
Strategy is no longer applicable under the Initiative Measure.
26. Pg. 14-32. No landscaping plan included.
27. Pg. 14-33. Specific trees blocking views of neighbors were to be trimmed or removed.
Staff Response: Staff believes that Campus Requirement No. 158 allows to
City to ensure that the tree pruning and trimming is in accordance to minimizing views
impacts from neighboring residences.
28. Pg. 14-33. Existing trees were to have been used to screen gym.
29. Pg. 14-34. Shrubs were required around 6 -foot wrought iron fence.
30. Pg. 14-34. Reviews by CDD not included.
31. Pg. 14-34. Not included noise abatement of complaints.
Staff Response: Specifically relating to noise generated from the
maintenance of the lawn area or athletic field.
32. Pg. 14-35. Excluded CDD 3 -month review of campus landscape plan.
33. Pg. 14-36. Excludes 30' net around Soccer field and to be lowered when done.
34. Pg. 14-36. Excluded Sunday and holiday prohibition of sports requiring 30' net.
35. Pg. 14-36. Excludes prohibition of small balls that can go through net.
36. Pg. 14-37. Excludes 20" fence around tennis courts.
37. Pg. 14-37. Excludes report to City of Athletic Associations.
38. Pg. 14-38. Excludes Construction Safety Lighting Plan.
39. Pg. 14-39. Excludes testing of lighting equipment 90 days after installation.
cAdocuments and settings\carlamtlocal settings\temporary internet files\olk451\staff responses 6-15-10_comparison initiative and approved (2).docPage
MARYMOUNT INITIATIVE
COMPARISON WITH APPROVED PROJECT
40. Pg. 14-39. Excludes review of minimally reflective glass in gym.
41. Pg. 14-40. Excludes specific limitation of numbers of students.
42. Pg. 14-41. Excludes Parking Management Program.
Staff Response: The City's annual review of the Parking Management Strategy is
no longer applicable under the Initiative Measure. The College will still adhere to a
Parking Management Program
43. Pg. 14-41. Excludes limitations on student enrollment (see specifics).
44. Pg. 14-42. Excludes additional specifics as to nets and fences around soccer field.
45. Pg. 14-43. Excludes electric and diesel stationary equipment when feasible.
46. Pg. 14-44. Excludes subsequent noise analysis.
47. Pg. 14-44. Excludes Wreview of School's Code of Conduct regarding noise control.
48. Pg. 14-45. Excludes prohibition of tennis courts from sundown to sunup.
49. Pg. 14-45. Excludes prohibition of amplified sounds around athletic locations.
50. Pg. 14-47. Excludes update of preliminary grading and drainage plan to address athletic
locations.
51. Pg. 14-47. Excludes implementation of approved security system.
52. Pg. 14-48. Excludes required temporary trash cans at athletic fields.
New items included in School's initiative
1. Pg. 14-9. Residence dorms are specifically included.
2. Pg. 14-9. The soccer fields will be directly next to PVDE without buffering tennis courts.
3. Pg. 14-13 Structures must be completed within time set by City code.
4. Pg. 14-14. Maximum grading - cut increased 16,745 CY and fill increased 2,500 CY.
5. Pg. 14-28. Sound test for buildings greater than 20,000 sf based on CDD Director
6. Pg. 14-28. SUP only needed when based on past history exceeds 65 dba.
7. Pg. 14-32. Parking for dorms limited to 125 cars.
8. Pg. 14-36. Soccer field net set at 20'.
9. Pg. 14-37. Set tennis fence at 10'.
cAdocuments and settings\carlam\local settings\temporary internet files\olk451\staff responses 6-15-10_comparison initiative and approved (2).docPage
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Ara Mihranian & Joel Rojas
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr and Carol Lynch
DATE:
June 14, 2010
SUBJECT:
CC meeting 6-15-10, item #14 Marymount Initiative
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Joel and Ara,
Thank you for what appears to be a comprehensive staff report. Following are my
questions which I will appreciate some help with answers.
Thanks,
Steve
1. City services needed due to dorms.
(a) Will that assessment need to be made by an addendum to the EIR
now paid for by the City?
Staff Response: An EIR is not required for an initiative
measure that is put forward by the public, whereas the City
Council initiated measures are subject to CEQA (See CEQA
Guidelines Section 15378(b)(3).). Therefore, the City will not be
required to prepare an environmental document for the dorms nor
will the City need to pay for an EIR to address these issues.
(b) Given that the School has not been required to address these
additional costs and services how will those requirements be enforced
or will it require litigation to recoup City costs?
Staff Response: According to Campus Requirement No. 8,
the College will be responsible for paying costs associated with
services provided by City Consultants (City Engineer, City
Attorney, Biologist, Landscape Architect, Geotechnical
Consultant) in the review and permit issuance of the Campus
Specific Plan.
2. Affordable housing requirements
(a) What allocation formula should be applied?
Staff Response: As stated in Campus Requirement No. 6, if
applicable, the College is to comply with the City's Affordable
Housing Requirements as stated in Section 17.11.140 of the
Page 1 of 4
RPVMC. As analyzed in the Draft EIR, since more than 10,000
square feet of new construction is proposed combined with the
estimated number of new employees, the project is subject this
requirement. It should be noted that according to the Draft EIR, 3
affordable housing units would be required, however, the College
offered to construct 10 affordable housing, as depicted in
Alternative 4 (Affordable Housing Alternative).
(b) If the School refuses to comply with our RHNA requirements will the
City need to file a law suit?
Staff Response: If the College does not comply, the Initiative
says that the City can use its standard enforcement mechanisms
to compel compliance, except that the City cannot revoke or
suspend the approval given by the Initiative. (See Section
17.38.100.030) What this means is that the City would be required
to file a lawsuit to enforce compliance with any of the Campus
Requirements.
3. Have the new 27 employees been added to their parking proposal?
Staff Response: The parking analysis contained in the Draft EIR
accounted for the estimated 27 new employees. Most of the
Mitigation Measures listed in the Draft EIR to address the projected
parking deficiencies have been incorporated into the Campus
Requirements. However, it should be pointed out that the City does
not have the ability to review the Parking Management Strategies.
4. Pg. 14-8, First General Requirement. The initiative excluded the
requirement for an affidavit accepting the conditions of approval. Does this
mean that if the initiative passes that the School does not need to adhere
to any of the requirements passed by the City?
Staff Response: Compliance with the Conditions of Approval
adopted by the City Council will not apply if the Campus Specific
Plan is approved by the voters. If the measure passes, the Campus
Requirements will be part of the law governing the Campus, and thus
the only requirements the College would need to satisfy are the
Campus Requirements set forth in the Initiative. However, it should
be noted that some of the requirements are the same as the
conditions imposed by the City Council. The College must satisfy
the Campus Requirements.
5. The limitation of construction period over three years during an eight year
period is excluded in the initiative. Does this mean that other than their
requirement to complete
Page 2 of 4
Staff Response: As stated in Campus Requirement No. 48,
construction must be completed with the time periods specified in
the Building Code. According to the City's adopted Uniform Building
Code, a building permit is valid for 6 months and can be extended, at
the discretion of the Building Official for 6 month increments. In the
event a building permit is not extended by the Building Official, the
College could reapply for a new building permit provided that the
construction complies with Campus Specific Plan. Essentially,
without time limits, the Uniform Building Code allows construction to
occur indefinitely (there is no outside time limit imposed by the
Campus Requirements), unless the City took legal action claiming
public nuisance.
6. If the height of the gym is left at being 10' higher than approved, or if the
trees are not removed or thinned then is the City precluded from ruling on
any disputes relating to view restoration?
Staff Response: The City's View Restoration Ordinance only
applies to properties in the Single -Family Residential Districts (RS).
However, Campus Requirement No. 158 requires a Campus
Landscape Maintenance Plan to be approved by the Director prior to
issuance of grading permits. One specific requirement of this Plan
is to provide a "General tree pruning and trimming schedule." It is
within the Director's discretion in reviewing the Plan to require a
trimming and pruning schedule that will address growth into view
areas from neighboring residential properties.
7. If so, then view disputes will only be settled in private lawsuits?
Staff Response: The View Restoration Ordinance provides an
administrative process to be used before litigation is filed.
8. If the grading for the dorms is approved in the initiative then it appears
there will be a required export of roughly 14,000 CY. If so, how is that to
be regulated or monitored on city streets?
Staff Response: If approved by the voters, the grading for the
Campus Specific Plan would remain balanced on-site, as stated in
Campus Requirement No. 54, despite the increased quantity of
grading. The 14,200 cubic yards of earth stated under Maximum Cut
in Campus Requirement No. 54 is for earth shrinkage resulted from
removal. It should be noted that select fill is exempt from the import
and export prohibition.
Page 3 of 4
In regards to impacts to City Streets resulting from construction, the
Campus Requirement No. 19 states that the Director of Public Works
shall review and approve a Construction Management Plan, which
will identify, among other things, the permissible haul route.
Campus Requirement Nos. 20 through 23 requires the College to pay
for damage to City streets by posting a security bond prior to
commencing construction and filming the pre -construction roadway
condition.
9. If there is a lack of required indemnification than should any member of
City Staff, Commissioners, or Council set foot on the site or participate in
any decision?
Staff Response: Campus Requirement Nos. 32 and 33 provide for
an indemnification for the City and its officers and employees for the
willful or negligent acts of the College and its agents and
for insurance that covers City officers, which would include Council
Members and Commissioners. Under legal precedent in California,
City Council Members and Commissioners who are acting within the
course and scope of their official duties generally are subject
to the City's indemnification and defense obligations. The Initiative
does not extinguish those general principles.
Page 4 of 4
From: Earle Robinson [earle.robinson@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 8:08 PM
To: 'City Councilat'
Cc: jlkarp@cox.net
Subject: Ballot for Marymount initiative
Please put this matter on the ballot for the November election.
W. Earle and Anita Robinson
3234 Corinna Dr.
RPV, CA 90275
6/15/2010
From: bubba32@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:02 PM
To: Ara M
Cc: cc@rpv.com
Subject: RE: Marymount College Specific Plan Exception Listing - Power Point
Attachments: Marymount Campus Specific Plan Exception Listing Revision 1.ppt
1WtQ__
Vlarymount Campus
Specific Plan...
Ara
Thank you for that correction. Accepted.
Same Difference since it is non-binding, just not included in the Conditions as I believe
it should have been.
A revised and corrected copy of that Presentation is attached.
Jim
---- Ara M <aram@rpv.com> wrote:
> Jim,
> I will have the power point saved on the lap top tonight.
>
> I do want to point out that contrary to your presentation, the
> College's offer to pay $200,000 for the roadway median was NOT
> included as a condition of approval.
> It was a non-binding offer that the Council accepted.
> You may want to correct your presentation.
>
> 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@rpv.com
> www.palosverdes.com/rpv
1 6 it) 1q,
> P 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: bubba32@cox.net [mailto:bubba32@cox.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:29 AM
> To: cc@rpv.com
> Cc: aram@rpv.com
> Subject: Marymount College Specific Plan Exception Listing - Power
> Point
> To the City Council
> Attached for your review and consideration during this evening's
> meeting, is a Power Point Presentation of the Key distinctions between
> the Council's Approved Resolution and Conditions, vs. those proposed
> by the College on their Campus Specific Plan.
> Portions of the presentation have excerpted from Council Member
> Stern's June 14th, 2010 information sent by e-mail, but include a
> comprehensive detail of differences based upon Staff's side-by-side
> comparison prepared for this evening's meeting.
> I would appreciate it if a hard copy of this presentation is made
> available for tonight's review.
> Respectfully submitted.
> Jim Gordon
c
0
W
V
X
W
A1 I
`J
XE
r.i
Marymount Campus Specific Plan Exception
Listing - OVERVIEW
THE GREATEST
COLLEGE IS THAT THE PROCESS OF REVIEW IS FLAWED., BROKEN
AND NEEDS TO BE ""CORRECTED" BY VOTER APPROVAL
INITIATIVE: DON'T BE FOOLED BY THEIR PROPAGANDA:
• OF THE TOTAL 10 YEARS THIS "PROCESS" HAS REQUIRED., THE
..., COLLEGE HAS CAUSED 87 MONTHS OF DOCUMENTED
OBSTRUCTION AND DELAY!
• THE COLLEGE FAILED TO CONDUCT GEOLOGIC "DUE DILIGENCE"
THAT CAUSED THE "PROCESS" TO BE SUSPENDED AFTER 37
MONTHS OF WASTED EFFORT AND ANOTHER 25 MONTHS TO
PRODUCE NEW PLANS! THAT IS OVER 5 YEARS OF WASTED TIME!
• THEN THEY DISRUPTED WORK FOR AN ADDITIONAL 15 MONTHS BY
FAILING TO PROVIDE REQUIRED CEQA DATA AND INFORMATION!
ETC.
Marymount Campus Specific Plan Exception
Listing - Summary
• The most significant differences between the two plans are that the
Initiative would allow:
• (1) the construction of two residence halls (2 buildings that will house
255 occupants) that may be connected by a gallery; (14-7)
• (2) the placement of the athletic field immediately adjacent to the
Palos Verdes Drive East roadway curvature* with the tennis courts located
immediately to the east of the athletic field; (14 — 9)
- • • (3) increased grading quantities; (14 —14)
• (4) no limit on the maximum duration of construction activities** (14
—9), and
• (5) no periodic review of the conditions of approval that would allow
conditions to be revised by the City Council to lessen impacts upon the
surrounding residential neighborhoods." (14-3.)
• Page References in Parenthesis are from the Staff Report of June 15, 2010)
Marymount Campus Specific Plan Exception
Listing - Detail
• * The City Council approved the athletic field in that same general
location at the curvature of Palos Verdes Drive East, but moved it away
from the road a small distance based on perceived safety issues created
by Marymount's proposed location. ( 14-9)
• ** Marymount's campaign literature characterized its construction as
.� involving 36 months. However, Marymount strenuously objected to the
City Council limiting it to one 36 month construction period. Instead, it
sought, and was granted a construction period of 36 months spread over
up to 8 years. And its Initiative does not have that time limitation] (14 —
9&14-13)
• Their Campus Specific Plan deletes key safeguards of athletic field and
tennis court use, allowing all sports and night time (lighted) activities
without specific safety restrictions included in the Approved Plans. (14 —
23, 14-28, 14-29, 14-36, 14-37, 14-38, 14-39, 14-42, 14-44, 14
—45, 14-47, 14-48)
al
Marymount Campus Specific Plan Exception
Listing — Detail Page Two
• The Campus Specific (Initiative) Plan VOIDS Key protections and
limitations provided in the City Council Approved Plan, including;
• Deletes Compliance with Mitigation Measures: (14 — 8)
• Deletes Compliance with Council adopted conditions of approval and
grounds for revocation of such approvals based on non-performance: (14
-8)
® Removes 6 month review of the project performance compliance: (14 — 8)
• Deletes required Compliance of all Construction activity consistent with
Certified EIR : (14 — 9)
• Deletes Indemnification of the City against third party suits: (14 —11)
• Deletes compliance with Athletic Building Maximum Height Limitation:
(14-12)
• Balanced on-site grading: Not required! (14 —15)
M.arymount Campus Specific Plan Exception
Listing — Detail Page Three
• Removes restriction of on-site stone cutting: (14 —18)
• Introduces Unrestricted outdoor amplified sound events: (14 -23)
• Allows sub -leasing of the campus for commercial purposes: (14 — 25)
• Deletes promised (Dr. Brophy) driver training for incoming new students
regarding local roadway conditions: (14 — 26)
�o
® • Removes enrollment limitation on BA students: (14 — 26)
• Deletes Enrollment reporting on a timely basis: (14 27)
• Removes Noise Level restrictions and Compliance : (14 — 27, 14 — 28, 14 -
44)
• Deletes Lighting Plan restrictions and Reviews: (14 -28, 14 — 29, 14 — 38,
14-39)
• Removes Parking Management Strategy Program: (14 — 31, 14 - 32)
• Adds 125 new parked on -campus vehicles for Residence Hall residents:
(14-32)
0
Marymount Campus Specific Plan Exception
Listing — Detail Page Four
• Removes Key Landscape Plan Reviews and Requirements: (14 — 32, 14 -
33.,14 — 34,14 — 35)
• Deletes requirement for minimally reflective glass for Athletic Building —
would also apply to new Residence Halls also: (14 — 39)
• Removes all Enrollment restrictions and limitations: (14 — 40, 14 - 41)
• Deletes required Parking Management Strategy Review Requirements:
_ 14-41)
Removes Air Quality Construction Requirements: (14 — 43)
• Removes Marymount Student Code of Conduct Review and Approvals at
noticed Public Hearing: (14 — 44)
• Deletes Drainage Reviews for Athletic Field and Tennis Courts: (14 — 47)
• Deletes Oversight of Private Security Program: (14 — 47)
• Deletes requirement for recycling and waste containers during events:
(14-48)
I
Marymount Campus Specific Plan Exception
Listing — Detail — Page Five
• The Initiative does not include a Non -Binding offer for the College to pay a
$200,000 "donation" to the City for Construction of a Collision Barrier costing
upwards $500,000. Nor does the Initiative "pay" the City for Costs to be
incurred for the special Ballot Measure, approximating $80,000.
• There are many, many more details to master. The project is complex, and
RPV City Planning Staff, the RPV Planning Commission, and the RPV City
Council all reviewed thousands of pages of material to balance the merits of
each aspect of this multifaceted project.
• They all conducted detailed hearings, with input from all interested parties —
Marymount, neighboring residents, professional planners, geologists, etc — in
order to reach the "right" decision that best meets the needs of Marymount
and the community.
• The City hearing process gave all interested parties the ability to make their
voices, points of view, and information heard and understood by those
charged with making the "right" decision. It involved decision makers who
devoted many hours to master the details.
• NOTE: Portions of this Presentation have been excerpted from Council Member Doug Stern's e-mail of June 14, 2010
8
From:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 8:02 AM
To:
'Carla Morreale'
Cc:
'Teri Takaoka'
Subject:
FW: Update - Marymount College Initiative on City Council Agenda: What are the Differences
Between the City Council Approved Marymount Project and the Marymount Ballot Initiative?
-----Original Message -----
From: Alison Gordon [mailto:aag7ll@msn.com)
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:14 AM
To: stevew@rpv.com; tom.long@rpv.com; 'Douglas Stern'; anthony.misetich@rpv.com;
briancampbell@rpv.com; citymanager@rpv.com
Cc: pvpwatch@pvpwatch.com; letters@dailybreeze.com; drudge@drudgereport.com;
kcurtis@marymountpv.edu; inquire@marymountpv.edu
Subject: RE: Update - Marymount College Initiative on City Council Agenda:
What are the Differences Between the City Council Approved Marymount Project and the
Marymount Ballot Initiative?
TO: The Honorable Mr. Stern:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
I disagree with your analysis.
1. It appears you have heartburn because you & the rest of the council are
losing power; power that many of my neighbors and RPV citizens believe the
RPV City Council has been abusing for a long while.
2. I suggest that the council get out of the way, quit impeding and let
Marymount College build its facility. I support Marymount, its measure, and
I am willing to march with them along with supporting the ballot measure -
obviously Marymount needs the measure because it does not trust RPV city
government.
3. I am old enough to remember and lived in PV when there was no council
(early 19701s) and the county handled everything just fine and from a
distance.
4. I recall my building permit for a non -occupancy shed costing in the
1970's about $8.00 and that was the total cost from county building. My
permit this year to replace the non -occupancy shed cost nearly $1,500 and I
had to also pay $250 for a soils engineer report (the contract soils
engineer spent about 3 minutes on my property doing a visual inspection). I
also had to fight Planningp Building & Safety all the way as they tried to
find every reason in the book not to grant me a permit to replace a shed
that survived earthquake after earthquake for 40 years but was just getting
old esthetically. Eight Dollars then to over $1,500 now - Do you get the
picture of a City Government out of control?
5. It did not escape my attention that no one in Planning or Building &
Safety would do their officious visual inspection of my shed site without
calling in a hired hand soils consultant. Why do we have all these people in
these departments if they are not qualified to do even a rudimentary
inspection (an inspection that by the way was not required previously by the
county)? Are these the same people you want to manage the Marymount project?
6. Perhaps your time would be better spent investigating how RPV could
reduce staff in these two bloated departments. The people in these two
departments are quick to justify their obstructionist ways by claiming we
are in earthquake country and they are worried about safety. I surmise the
only safety going on here is the safety of their jobs and pensions.
7. Hello? Earthquake country? My home is 54 years old, built well before RPV
incorporated and outside of a few minor stucco cracks survived Northridge
and the 1971 quakes with flying colors. RPV council and its departments have
1q
Iq
done nothing to improve my home and neighborhood's safety or esthetics but
cost all residents excessive taxes over the years. By the way where is the
replacement infrastructure to eliminate aerial utilities in our
neighborhood? My electric bill for over thirty years had a line item cost
dedicated for such a project. The last I checked the line item and perhaps
the capital funds have both disappeared.
I can empathize what Marymount has had to deal with over the years in
dealing with the city. I was fortunate in not having to do an Environmental
Impact Report for my replacement shed, although I was given the impression
that if I complained too much, I might have to do one or not have a shed at
all.
RPV council is working the wrong priorities: The council needs to be working
to reduce staff and reversing the imposition of taxes. After all why do we
need all this staff in Planning and Building & Safety, are not building
projects requiring permits down over 60% since 2008 and is not the economy
in a depression that we like to politically call a recession? All of your
studies and reports are contracted out to consultants - why all that staff
to manage a few consultants?
And by the way, why does the council want to build a new city hall in the
middle of the economic downturn, at a time when staff should be reduced, and
when the existing city buildings, built to support the Nike air defense
program, are more than MIL -SPEC structurally adequate for another 50 years?
OK, I get it! RPV is in earthquake country.
Perhaps RPV council should consider moving its offices to Colby, Kansas.
Colby is virtually earthquake free.
Have you considered resigning for the good of the City? Are you not part of
the council that also voted for a $160,000 study to change the waste
disposal contract when a super majority of North side residents were quite
happy with the current disposal contractor?
Best Regards,
A. GORDON
Rancho Palos Verdes
Life Long Property Owner and Resident
-----Original Message -----
From: Douglas Stern [mailto:Douglas.Stern@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 10:08 PM
To: Douglas.Stern@cox.net
Subject: Update - Marymount College Initiative on City Council Agenda: What
are the Differences Between the City Council Approved Marymount Project and
the Marymount Ballot Initiative?
11
Update - Marymount College Initiative on City Council Agenda: What are the
Differences Between the City Council Approved Marymount Project and the
Marymount Ballot Initiative?
The RPV City Council approved most of the Marymount College modernization
project. This approval includes virtually all of the campus modernization
that Marymount requested. Nevertheless, Marymount College has qualified its
own Ballot Initiative, asking Rancho Palos Verdes voters to allow it to
build its project according to its own plan, with the conditions it decided
to place in the Initiative, and not according to the City Council approved
plan for modernization.
I make no bones about the fact that I believe that placing this complex land
use decision on the ballot is a very bad way to make land use decisions.
Compare the hearing process that involves public hearings, with analysis of
thousands of pages of materials by RPV Planning Staff, RPV Planning
Commissioners and the RPV City Council with the ballot initiative process.
How does one compare the RPV hearing process, which gave all interested
parties an opportunity to testify and present information and make their
point of view understood with the ballot initiative campaign process? The
ballot initiative process deprives virtually everyone except the proponent
the ability to make its position known. Ordinary residents simply don't
have the financial resources to mount an expensive citywide campaign. No
opportunity to present information to the voters exists, unless one has tens
of thousands of dollars. And it is very difficult to get unbiased
information.
The ballot initiative process is not tailored for this type of decision
making. It harms our residents.
* What are the right conditions to impose?
* What must one know to answer that question?
* How can the City best protect all interested parties, balancing the
rights of the property owner with the rights of those impacted by that
property?
* How does one gather the information to evaluate the "harms" that
should legitimately be mitigated?
* How does the system allow ordinary residents to make their concerns
understood by their fellow residents?
Whatever your point of view on the Marymount project, you won't get
information in the ballot initiative process to help you answer these
questions.
The Ballot Initiative forces our conscientious residents, who desire to
reach the "right" decision (however one defines that) to devote excessive
amounts of time to master the complexities of the Marymount project.
Importantly, the Ballot Initiative shall essentially prevent the City from
adjusting conditions to improve the situation for our residents, should it
turn out that there are negative consequences that could otherwise have been
addressed in the Conditions. It essentially allows one self-interested
party to write its own ticket, and then sell it to the public, with whatever
campaign it can create. And judging by the many glossy mailers I have
already received, our residents shall be inundated by mailers that gloss
over the issues, minimizes issues, and presents information that is at best,
"slanted." I find this unacceptable, a poor substitute for the hearing
process, and an undue burden on our electorate that our residents should not
have to bear.
The City Council Approved Marymount Modernization Plan vs. the Marymount
Initiative
Two of the questions Rancho Palos Verdes voters need to ask are "What does
Marymount College get to build, and with what conditions, under the
Marymount Initiative if I vote 'YES'?" and "What does Marymount College get
to build, and with what conditions, under the City Council approved
Marymount modernization project if I vote "NO?"
Only if one understands the two different outcomes can one make an informed
decision as to which outcome you believe is the most appropriate outcome.
Fortunately, RPV City Staff has prepared a Staff
<http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2010_Agendas/MeetingDate
-2010-06-15/RPVCCA_SR_2010_06_15_14_Initiative_Measure_Marymount.pdf>
Report for the City Council (Click
<http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2010_Agendas/MeetingDate
-2010-06-15/RPVCCA SR 2010_06_15_14_ Initiative _ Measure_Marymount.pdf> on
the link to download it) that provides a side-by-side comparison of what
Marymount will be allowed to build with the present City Council approvals,
and what it will be allowed to build if it's Ballot Initiative is passed by
the voters. It lists the conditions that the City Council placed on the
project, and shows which of those conditions Marymount shall not have to
live up to if the voters adopt the Marymount Initiative.
3 0f
I strongly urge everyone to review that Staff
<http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2010_Agendas/MeetingDate
-2010-06-15/RPVCCA SR_2010_06_15_14_Initiative_Measure_Marymount.pdf>
Report, so that each voter can make an informed decision.
Make no mistake, this Ballot Initiative is not about whether or not
Marymount will be allowed to modernize. It has already been granted
virtually all modernization aspects it requested. It is not about whether
it will have a new Library, Administration Building, Classrooms, Athletic
Building, Pool, and Athletic Field in the western portion of its site, to
the size that it requested. Those have all been approved by the City
Council.
The Marymount Ballot Initiative relieves Marymount of a number of conditions
that the City Council placed on its project. It also allows Marymount to
build some aspects it was not granted. Perhaps the RPV City Staff summed it
up best:
"Based on Staff's review of the expansion project approved by the City
Council and the project that would be allowed by the Initiative, the most
significant differences between the two plans are that the Initiative would
allow:
* the construction of two residence halls (2 buildings that will
house 255 occupants) that may be connected by a gallery;
* (2) the placement of the athletic field immediately adjacent to the
Palos Verdes Drive East roadway curvature* with the tennis courts located
immediately to the east of the athletic field;
* (3) increased grading quantities;
* (4) no limit on the maximum duration of construction activities**,
and
* (5) no periodic review of the conditions of approval that would
allow conditions to be revised by the City Council to lessen impacts upon
the surrounding residential neighborhoods." (Staff report page 14-3.)
[* The City Council approved the athletic field in that same general
location at the curvature of Palos Verdes Drive East, but moved it away from
the road a small distance based on perceived safety issues created by
Marymount's proposed location.
** Marymount's campaign literature characterized its construction as
involving 36 months. However, Marymount strenuously objected to the City
Council limiting it to one 36 month construction period. Instead, it
sought, and was granted a construction period of 36 months spread over up to
8 years. And its Initiative does not have that time limitation]
There are many, many more details to master. The project is complex, and
RPV City Planning Staff, the RPV Planning Commission, and the RPV City
Council all reviewed thousands of pages of material to balance the merits of
each aspect of this multifaceted project. They all conducted detailed
hearings, with input from all interested parties - Marymount, neighboring
residents, professional planners, geologists, etc - in order to reach the
"right" decision that best meets the needs of Marymount and the community.
The City hearing process gave all interested parties the ability to make
their voices, points of view, and information heard and understood by those
charged with making the "right" decision. It involved decision makers who
devoted many hours to master the details.
I sincerely regret that the Ballot Initiative process we have embarked upon
is devoid of much of analysis and the public hearing process that should be
involved in order to reach a good decision for our entire community. I hope
our residents recognize the harm they do to themselves if we go further down
this path.
Thanks,
Douglas W. Stern
Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilman
4 4
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Carla Morreale, Carol Lynch, and Joel Rojas
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr
DATE:
June 15, 2010
SUBJECT:
CC meeting 6-15-10, item #15 Certification of petition
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Carla, Carol, and Joel,
The regulations and staff recommendation are clear as to the options available to the
Council. However, it is not clear as to the reason and potential subsequent action if the
City Council refers the proposed ordinance to any City Agency for the preparation of a
report of the topics listed on page 15-3. The preliminary answers on page 14-2 do
identify several matters yet to be resolved. As a result of this information it does not
appear that the Council can prevent the petition from appearing on the ballot, merely
increasing the information disclosed. Is that correct, and if not what will be the result?
Thanks,
Steve
ANSWER:
Steve,
The only reason for another report is to obtain additional information about the
Initiative. The City Council's options do not change as a result of any of the information
that has been, or would be, provided in any report regarding the Initiative.
The Council's options are:
1. Adopt the Initiative as presented with no changes, which means there would not be
an election, or
2. Call the special election on November 2, 2010, to allow the voters to determine if the
Initiative should be adopted.
Given the comprehensive analysis that has been performed by Staff, the City Council
may determine that there is no need to expend any additional City resources to obtain
additional information prior to selecting one of the options listed above.
Carol Lynch, City Attorney
Page 1 of 1
06/15/10 10:14 AM 115,
LI
aqk.' RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JUNE 14, 2010
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, June 15, 2010 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
Public Comments Ann Shaw
14 Emails from: Ari Requicha; Bashar Komoc; Phil and Marti Adler;
Vic Quirarte; Pat Carroll; Ann Ehrenclou; Grace Malolepszy; Dorie
Marshall; Letters from: Mike and Elizabeth DeNardo; Dr. Dennis
McLeod; Donna R. Black
17 City of Carpinteria Resolution No. 5235
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20100614 additions revisions to agenda through Monday
afternoon.doc
From: ANN SHAW [anndshaw@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 3:12 PM
To: RPV Council
Subject: Abalone Cove grant
I continue to have grave doubts about this grant in its current form. The grant has now been read carefully
by several members of the community and it is clear that if the application is successful there is very little
leeway to alter the project without penalty. Additionally, the proposed project is not included in the Vision
Plan although it appears that several projects in the Vision Plan would qualify for the grant.
I am not against improvements at Abalone Cove and think it is appropriate that the City seek grants to fund
improvements in our open space areas. However, I am disturbed that there was no public input prior to
preparation of the grant and no public knowledge of the grant prior to it appearing on the Consent Calendar
at the June 2nd meeting. Rancho Palos Verdes was founded to gain local control and I have been proud that
the City Council and staff has been responsive to its citizens. The handling of the Abalone Cove grant seems
a step in the wrong direction.
I request that a member of the Council place this item on the agenda at the June 15 meeting so that the
grant can be altered.
Thank you,
Ann Shaw
6/14/2010
From: Aristides Requicha [arirequicha@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 9:41 AM
To: City Council
Cc: arirequicha@hotmail.com
Subject: Marymount initiative
Dear Members of the RPV City Council:
If you simply approve the Marymount initiative you will be making a mockery of the process
followed over these last few years by the Planning Commission and yourselves. I hope you
do what is right, rather than what is cheaper or less likely to lead to a lawsuit.
In fact, if you can find appropriate legal grounds, I suggest that you dismiss the
initiative altogether. I do not see the rationale (or the legality) of putting on the
ballot a proposition that authorizes building anything significant without a certified
EIR. As far as I know the EIR in this case was approved only after the dorms were removed
from the project and therefore cannot be applied to the initiative project, which contains
the dorms. Has the RPV electorate the authority to allow building something that does not
have an approved EIR? I doubt.
Sincerely,
Ari Requicha
RPV
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-
US:WM HMP:042010 1
VA
From: B. Komoc [holisticdoczen@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 2:51 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Marymount initiative
I urge you, as RPV resident to adapt a resolution AGAINST this unjust initiative.
We, in close proximity to Marymount , will suffer and our quality of everyday living will change for ever.
We do have beliefe that you will care for our quality of life.
Thank you,
Bashar Komoc
6/14/2010
14
From: MARTI ADLER [madler4@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:41 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Marymount Initiative
Mayor and City Council,
We implore you you to actively oppose the Marymount initiative in all
This ballot measure usurps the City council and sets a dangerous precedent.
drafting a position statement against the initiative and further educating
the voting public of the ramifications of the initiative. It is imperative
understand that this initiative is against the voting public's interest and
impact our City. Thank you.
Phil and Marti Adler
31139 Palos Verdes Dr. E.
RPV
legal ways.
Please include
and informing
that the public
will adversely
14.
From: Vic & Sil Quiarte [vicsilq@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 11:57 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: INITIATIVE
Gentlemen,
For the last few weeks I have been aware that the Marymount Initiative poses serious
problems to the Citys'abilitiy to enforce building rules and regulations. I would like to see
expansion of the Marymount Campus but not at the expense of obviating the Citys' "right to
rule". So I am in a dilemna of sorts wanting expansion and at the same time, wishing the
Initiative would just go away.
Has anyone considered a possible compromise that would not be to the liking of either
Marymount or the Coalition? The thought I had was to allow Marymount to construct a 50
room residence hall that would house two students per room. It is not what Marymount
wanted in that it would cut their request in half, and is not what the Coalition wanted, no
resident students at all. However, if such an agreement was achieved it would require
that Marymount set aside the Initiative and the Coalition to end their "nit picking" of
expansion plans. The most important benefit would be that the City would retain it's
construction rights, whichl believe, is the most important issue of all. I do not believe that the
City should be subjected to outside influances. As I said at the top, just a thought for your
consideration.
Vic Quirarte
6/14/2010
From: PECarroll@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 11:17 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Marymount's Initiative
Gentlemen,
Eleven letters
Five syllables
One word
CARPINTERIA
Carpinteria..v.aters_say no fio new oil -drilling project L.A. NOW 1 Los Angeles Times
Sincerely,
Pat Carroll
31050 Hawksmoor Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes
6/14/2010
t C> J 'p, 14
Subscribe Place An Ad Jobs Cars Real Estate Rentals Foreclosures More Classifieds
I' ' AliftearI $ M � � $ LOCAL
LOCAL I.I.S. WORLD BI.ISINt.SS SPORTS l,NTI?RTAINMI?NT I-IPAU1II LIVING 'IRAVI;I.. OPINION MORE search co !
L.A. NOW POLITICS CRIME EDUCATION O.G. WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS ENVIRONMENT OBITUARIES HOT LIST
L.A.
W Prom the me&o staff of the Los Angeles filmes and...
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA - THIS JUST IN K LARNEVYIS SAN019GO
Crime I Gur,erunieut I Medical marijuana I Education I Prop 8 ( Traffic I Westside
Carpinteria voters say no to new oil -drilling project
June 9, 2010 1 1:43 pro
Voters in Carpinteria have decisively defeated an oil company's initiative aimed at slant drilling from
the shore into the Santa Barbara Channel.
Stay Connected
Visit us now on Facebook
@latimescitydesk I @lanow
Subscribe to RSS
Sign up for breaking news alerts
Share your tips newstips(«iatimes.com»
About 70% of voters in the Santa Barbara County city, which claims to have "the world's safest beach,"
ca'A nn fn M.am r advertisement
The measure would have paved the way for Denver-based Venoco Inc. to build a multistory drilling rig
at its oil facility on a bluff overlooking the Pacific. The company had said it would encase the rig in a
lighthouse -like structure and that the project would bring the city millions of dollars in royalties and
fees. It also pledged to donate up to $5 million to Carpinteria schools.
But Tuesday's vote came at the worst possible time, as massive slicks continued to foul the Gulf of
Mexico seven weeks after the worst drilling disaster in U.S. history.
City officials had opposed the initiative, saying it amounted to an end run around local regulation.
"We felt that Venoco's misuse of the initiative process and their attempted hostile takeover of our
small city was completely inappropriate," said Donna Jordan, a former Carpinteria mayor, in a
statement issued by the initiative's opponents.
Venoco pointed out it would still face intensive scrutiny from the California Coastal Commission and
other agencies. The project "would have benefited the community for years to come," said Lisa M.
Rivas, a company spokeswoman.
She said Venoco still owns the offshore lease and will consider ways to tap it from existing platforms.
However, she said, those possible projects would not, under state law, provide Carpinteria the
revenue it would have had with the onshore proposal.
-- Steve Chawkins in Ventura
More from LA. Now
Your Commute: Morning traffic update
San Diego Padres to honor player killed during World War II
• Pedestrian Killed in Cahuenga Pass Collision
Email: newstips@latimes corn I Twitter: .7 Permalink
@latimescitydesk @lanow I Facebook: latimescitydesk
Comments (4)
More in: ShareThis
Share
J r:
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Partly Cloudy
Partly Cloudy
Partly Cloudy
81° 1 63°
76° 161-
74° 1 58°
About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times' news blog for
Southern California. It is produced by more than 8o
reporters and editors in The Times' Metro section,
reporting from the paper's downtown Los Angeles
headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long
Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Riverside, Ventura and Santa Monica.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847•
Meet the L.A. Now team
From: Ann Ehrenclou [aehrenclou@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:09 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Marymount
In view of the possible failure of Palos Verdes Drive East switch backs due to earth
movement proposed by Marymount's building initiative, I urge you to pass a a resolution
against that initiative. The safety and well being of ALL City residents, especially
those on the East side (including Marymount students), is at risk.
Please do not give Marymount a free pass.
Sincerely,
Ann Ehrenclou
3234 Deluna Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
June 14, 2010
1
/ I
From: Grace [GKMalolepszy@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:53 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Cc: Mira Catalina HOA
Subject: Marymount
I would like to point this out to some of you what happened during this past week; Miraleste Middle School had its graduation.
It took me over 30 minutes to get past PVE and Miraleste Dr. What do you think will happen when Marymount will have
several events on the same day and I am sure they will have several of these events through out the year? I am sure they will
have them so that they can get the money back that they have spent remodeling the campus. This whole thing is being blown
out of proportion. It should not go to the voters because the voters do not make up the majority of the people that this matter
impacts.
Grace Malolepszy
6/14/2010
From: Dorothea Marshall [djmrpv@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 3:49 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Cc: Lois and Jack Karp
Subject: Marymount Initiative
RPV City Council: Messrs. Wolowicz, Campbell, Misetich, Stern and Long,
The City Council must pass the Resolution Against the Masrymount Initiative. RPV residents need to be put on
notice that passage of the November Marymount Initiative will establish a precedent that will make the City
Council and ineffective body.
Any wealthy developer by promising jobs or school funding etc, can use the initiative process to over ride the City
Council to obtain condominium development, fair grounds etc. The character of our small city would be completely
changed.
Regards, Dorie Marshall (RPV resident)
6/14/2010
John M. (Mike) DeNardo
Elizabeth C. DeNardo
2903 Vista del Mar
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 514-3048
Fax (310) 514-1607
June 13, 2010
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: Proposed Marymount Expansion Initiative
As a neighbor immediately adjacent to Marymount College we have several significant
concerns with this project and Marymount's ballot initiative:
• Dormitories would irreparably damage the greater neighborhood.
• Marymount has proven once again they are not a good neighbor, saying one thing in
public then going behind neighbor's backs to try to get their way. We saw this with
the "sudden" decision to go to a four year campus and now the ballot initiative.
The city council needs to firmly show it does not support Marymount's further attempt to
bypass the city planning process.
Sincerely,
Mike DeNardo Elizabeth C. DeNardo
Dr. Dennis McLeod
3348 Corinna Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-6212
June 13, 2010
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
Distinguished Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
I am writing you as a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, whose home is close to Marymount
College. I have written the Planning Commission and City Council on a number of occasions, and
have attended the public hearings. I have sought, with little success, to suggest some balance
and respect for homeowner rights in this matter. I also asked that the major negative impacts on
me be considered - no one has assessed the noise impact, view impact, or anything else from
where my home is located. Why I have been dismissed in this way, I do not understand.
Marymount College has been and is planning a project whose scope and depth of negative
impact on the area is unacceptable, intolerable, and a violation of property rights. Moreover, it
poses greatly negative safety, environmental, traffic, noise and view impacts - which cannot be
mitigated. The City Council has already accepted/made many overriding considerations that are
unsupported.
I am distressed and highly concerned with a recent action by the City Council on this matter. First,
a clear decision was made not to allow an athletic field in the dangerous, unsuitable location on
the west side. As I stated in a public hearing and a letter, locating the field there would pose a
great safety problem, a huge negative noise impact, and a major negative view impact. The City
Council took the action of disapproving an athletic field in that location. Then, the City Council
decided to reverse itself. Why? I suspect this is due to Marymount College's legal
pressure/threats. Why does Marymount want to move the field in the first place? Of course, it is
so they can build the dorms. They intend to get those dorms whatever way they can. And, the
City Council is not protecting the residents of the City. I am one such resident. To partly address
the major safely issues of this athletic field, the City Council generated a requirement for some
Marymount students to take a special driving education course. This is absurd. It does not
adequately address the problem. Moreover, why is this for only those students? Others will visit
the athletic facilities, for example, so should they be required to have a special "course" to drive
onto the portion of Pales Verdes Drive East near Marymount College? The City Council has
identified a major safely issue - if the City is in "avoid lawsuits at all costs" mode, the City is
setting itself up for a major problem when a tragic accident occurs. In sum, approval of that
athletic field in the location I noted above should be reversed now.
With regard to the ballot initiative in consideration here - the City Council must not approve the
addition of dorms and all of the other things that accepting the contents of the ballot initiative
would entail. That content ("plan") removes restrictions and conditions imposed by City Council
actions to date. So, if the City Council accepts this "plan", instead of allowing the voters to decide,
it will give the impression that the City Council is giving special treatment to Marymount College
at the expense of those who elected the City Council members - the residents.
By using this ballot measure, Marymount College is costing the City and taxpayers a great deal of
resources; it is also inundating the public with material that includes major misrepresentations.
What is needed is a clear statement from the City Council that this approach will not "force" the
City to accept the contents of the ballot measure - none of it. If the measure is indeed on the
ballot, I am confident that there will be a media blitz by Marymount College to convince residents
1,0f a
of the City who do not understand the situation to vote for it. I am hopeful that the voters will see
that this ballot measure is absurd - entitling one entity to ridiculous rights, and gravely negatively
impacting many residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the City.
I would like to share one additional point. Two days ago, I was driving to my home, turning onto
Casilina Drive from Palos Verdes Drive East. I encountered two boys (guessing their age as 10-
12) - they were skateboarding, actually holding skateboards and being careful of vehicles. As I
passed, they waved a sign that encouraged me to please attend the City Council meeting on
June 15 regarding the Marymount matter and voice my views. I gave them a "thumbs up", which
they returned. This truly touched me. It made me realize - what a terrible effect on the children in
the area the ballot measure or dorm approval would have, with all of the negative, dangerous
impacts. In addition to property rights, views, noise, etc. - this is also about the children whose
safety and environment must be of paramount concern.
In sum, I strongly urge the City Council to reject the Marymount College ballot initiative.
What that means is that the City should do only what is required - IF AND ONLY IF the
ballot initiative has legally qualified for the ballot, it goes on the ballot. To take any action
now to approve any of it's contents would be a grave mistake.
Respectfully yours,
Dennis McLeod
KELLY LYTTON & WILLIAMS LLP
LAWYERS
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 1450
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORMA 90067
TELEPHONE (310) 277-5333
FACSIMILE (310) 277-5953
www.klwpartners.com
VIA FACSIlVIME AND UNITED STATES MAIL
June 14, 2010
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Report on Initiative Measure for Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project
Dear Mayor Wolowicz and City Council Members:
BRUCE P. VANN
(1955-2004)
TIMOTHY P. FURLONG
(1946-1988)
This letter responds to the Marymount College Initiative City Council
Memorandum (the "Council Memorandum") dated June 15, 2010. The Council
Memorandum purports to be an objective comparison of the proposed Initiative
Measure with the Marymount expansion project recently approved by the City Council.
Instead, it is a document that includes errors, misstatements and mischaracterizations
seemingly designed to make the Initiative Measure appear less sensitive to the
community's image and less concerned about the health and safety of its residents.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The following sets forth our objections to this
document and our request that it be revised accordingly.
First, with regard to the items specified by the Elections Code, the Council
Memorandum suggests that the dorms will create a significant fiscal impact on the City
due, for example, to the need for more law enforcement personnel (p. 14-2). This
statement completely ignores the fact that City revenues will actually increase as a result
of the City's share of property taxes from the dorms and from utility fees and taxes
(cable TV, telephone, electricity, etc.) paid by the residents of the dorms and by the
College in the common areas. Moreover, as the Council Memorandum concedes, the
EIR thoroughly studied this issue and concluded that there would be no impacts to City
services that could not be mitigated to an insignificant level by one or more mitigation
measures. The fact that the City did not certify this portion of the EIR is a political
matter; it has nothing whatsoever to do with, and makes no negative comment upon, the
validity of the study or its conclusions.
Second, the "Discussion" section of the Council Memorandum (pp. 14-3 through
14-7), summarizes the "most significant differences" between the Initiative
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
June 14, 2010
Measure and the Council action in a way that greatly favors the Council action. For
example, the Memorandum states that the Initiative Measure places the Athletic Field
"immediately adjacent to the Palos Verdes Drive East roadway" without also noting,
since the Athletic Field is below street level, that it could not possibly have any visual
impact on Palos Verdes Drive East. In addition, as noted in the Council Memorandum,
Marymount College ("the College") has offered to pay $200,000 towards the installation
of a barrier within the roadway median to address public safety concerns regarding
errant balls that might enter the roadway at the curvature of Palos Verdes Drive East (p.
14-50).
The Discussion section of the Council Memorandum goes on to state that the
Initiative Measure includes "no limit on the maximum duration of construction
activities," despite the fact that the Initiative Measure specifically provides that all
construction must be completed within the time limits allowed in the applicable building
permits. Next, the Council Memorandum claims a significant difference in that the
Initiative Measure includes "no periodic review of the conditions of approval that would
allow conditions to be revised by the City Council to lessen impacts on surrounding
residential neighborhoods," while failing to acknowledge that the electorate can always
place measures on the ballot to tighten the College's operating conditions, if they later
deem it necessary to do so. Finally, in describing the Administrative Modifications
allowed by the Initiative Measure, the Council Memorandum alleges that
"modifications to the development standards and requirements are permitted as an
administrative modification provided that: (1) the modification does exceed more than
15 percent (17,700 feet) of the maximum permitted 118,000 square feet of new
development." This is directly contrary to the specific language of the Initiative
Measure that allows such modifications only if they do not exceed more than 15 percent
of the maximum permitted development.
Finally, the Council Memorandum includes a table comparing the Initiative
Measure's "Campus Requirements" with the Council -approved project (pp .14-8 through
14-50). Despite the errors, mischaracterizations and other efforts apparently designed to
cause the Council action to appear vastly superior to the Initiative Measure, even by the
City's own calculations only about 20 percent of the Council's conditions of approval
are not included in or are different from the "Campus Requirements". We believe that
this percentage is actually much smaller, as will be demonstrated by the section -by -
section discussion below.
1. General Requirements — According to the Council. Memorandum,
the Initiative Measure does not require compliance with the Mitigation
Measures as stated in the Council certified Mitigation and
Monitoring Report Program. While the Initiative Measure does not
include the MMRP in precisely the same format, the Campus
Requirements contain many of the same mitigations as the Council -
2
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
June 14, 2010
certified program, or other mitigations designed to accomplish similar
purposes.
Also, several of the General Requirements apply only to the Council -
approved project, have no legal relevance to the Initiative Measure, and
thus would not be part of the Campus Requirements. These include (a)
the requirement that the College sign a written affidavit accepting the
Council -approved conditions of approval; (b) the requirement that the
College implement all Council -approved conditions of approval; and
(c) the requirement for a six-month review of project status by the City
Council. Finally, with regard to location of the Athletic Field, the
Initiative Measure and the Council -approved project simply differ in
their determination as to which location would be most beneficial
overall to the College and the City. This is not a deficiency in the
Initiative Measure, but simply a difference of opinion, and should be
regarded as such.
2. General Construction — The Council Memorandum implies that
there is no limit on the time for construction of the facilities expansion
because the Campus Requirements do not include a phasing plan.
However, the Campus Requirements clearly impose a limit on the
duration of construction by requiring that all construction be completed
within the time required by the applicable development permits
(Campus Requirement ("CR") No. 48).
3. Construction Phasing — See General Construction discussion,
above.
4. Grading and Geology — Because the Campus Requirements allow
more grading than the City -approved project, the City is seeking to
make it appear as if this has been done without any regard for the
health and safety of City residents. Thus, the Council Memorandum
states that the Campus Requirements allow up to 10 percent additional
grading for "unforeseen circumstances," with no qualifications. In fact,
the Campus Requirements only allow this deviation in the event that
"such deviation... achieves substantially the same results as with the
strict compliance with the grading plan" (CR No. 54). The City should
not be allowed to mischaracterize the Initiative Measure in this fashion.
5. Operational — The Council Memorandum claims that the Initiative
Measure does not require that tennis courts be closed between sunrise
and sunset, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained. This is wrong. The
Campus Requirements, at CR No. 140, include this condition.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
June 14, 2010
d. Noise/Mechanical Equipment — The City -approved project and the
Initiative Measure differ only with regard to the circumstances in which
Special Use Permits are required for campus activities and the trigger
for requiring that the College provide the City with sound test reports.
The City's trigger for these reports is six months after completion of
each phase of construction; the trigger in the Initiative Measure is six
months after completion of any improvement exceeding 20,000 square
feet. This is a distinction without a difference.
7. Landscaping — Although the Initiative Measure does not include a
requirement that a Landscape Plan be prepared in accordance with
standards set forth in the Municipal Code, it does require that all
landscaping be planted and maintained in accordance with Municipal
Code requirements. Therefore, there is no deficiency in the Initiative
Measure's treatment of Landscaping that could be detrimental to City
residents.
Moreover, two conditions listed in the Comparison Table, concerning
six-month review of the Campus Landscape Maintenance Plan by the
City Council and revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for
violation of this condition, are not included in the Initiative Measure
because a decision made by a vote of the citizens is not dependent on a
CUP in order to be effective.
8. Fences, Walls and Hedges — The chief differences here are the
requirement for installation of a retractable net for the athletic field
(mandatory v, permissive if shown to be necessary), the height of the
net and the height of the chain link fencing at the tennis courts. The
Initiative Measure has taken into account the same concerns as the
City, and has simply addressed them slightly differently.
9. Aesthetics-- The principal difference in this section is that the City
once again includes the requirement for a retractable net for the
Athletic Field. The fact that the Initiative Measure does not address this
requirement a second time is not a deficiency in the Initiative.
10. Building` Design Standards — Rather than arbitrarily reducing the
height of the Athletic Building by 10 feet to minimize view impacts, as
required by the Council -approved conditions, the Initiative Measure
provides that the College install a certified silhouette for review by the
Community Development Director to ensure that the Athletic Building
does not result in a significant view impairment and, if it is shown to
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
June 14, 2010
have such an impairment, the Building will be redesigned. There is no
practical difference in these requirements.
11. Traffic and Circulation — For reasons that are not clear, the City
repeats for a third time its requirement for a retractable net for the
Athletic Field and chain link fencing for the tennis courts, while the
Initiative Measure does not, thus accounting for another "difference" in
the Comparison Table that is not meaningful.
12. Noise iti-Ration Measures) — The Council Memorandum claims
that the Initiative Measure does not restrict use of the tennis courts
unless a Special Use Permit has been issued. This is wrong (see CR No.
140). The Council Memorandum also claims that the Initiative
Measure does not restrict use of amplified sound at outdoor gathering
areas by requiring a Special Use Permit. This is also not accurate. The
Initiative Measure requires that a Special Use Permit be obtained if the
level of noise generated can be demonstrated to exceed allowable noise
levels as set forth in the City's Municipal Code (see CR No. 136), and
thus protects equally against excessive noise generation.
Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that the City revise the
Council Memorandum to accurately reflect that there are only a few genuine differences
between the City -approved project and the Initiative Measure. Even with the errors and
mischaracterizations in the existing Council Memorandum, the Initiative Measure
differs from the City -approved project in only 54 of 274 areas listed in the Comparison
Table, or approximately 20 percent. With appropriate corrections, we believe this
difference could be slashed to less than 10 percent, which would provide the required
level playing field for the Initiative Measure when it is presented to the voters in
November.
Very truly yours,
Donna R. Black
Cc: Ms. Carla Morreale
Ms. Carolyn Lehr
Mr. Joel Rojas
Carol Lynch, Esq.
5 v F .5
Mayor Wolowicz requested that the Council Members receive a copy of the
Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Carpenteria opposing the
Paredon Oil and Gas Development Initiative (attached).
/°i3 /7
RESOLUTION NO.. 52.35
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARPINTERIA,
TAKING A POSITION OF OPPOSITION TO MEASURE J2010
THE PAREDON OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
CERTIFIED FOR THE JUNE 8, 2010 BALLOT
WHEREAS, the Paredon Oil and Gas Development Initiative ("Measure X), a voter sponsored initiative prepared
by Venoco, Inc., a private corporation, was submitted to the City Clerk on February 2, 2009;
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the value of the initiative process when it is used to advance the public health,
safety and welfare;
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2009 the City Clerk certified that sufficient petitions had been signed to qualify the
Initiative for a special election;
WHEREAS the City Council, at a public meeting on December 14, 2009, ordered a special election to be held on
the Initiative and consolidated with the June 8, 2010 general election;
WHEREAS, the City Council ordered a report on the effects of Measure J under Elections Code section 9212,
and between November 2009 and February 2010 received draft and final copies of a formal 9212 Report on
Measure J, several staff reports and presentations, updates to the Report, and extensive public comment thereon;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 16, 2010 to consider whether or not
to take a position on Measure J in light of the direct and indirect effects of Measure J on the community as
identified by the 9212 Report and other sources;
WHEREAS, numerous members of the public urged the City Council to take an official position against Measure J
because: (1) the City Council was elected to act as the citizens' voice on important public issues, (2) the Initiative
has a direct impact on the City and its operations, and (3) the City Council has the resources and experience to
evaluate and understand the complexities of the Initiative;
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that taking a position is an appropriate method of fulfilling its duty to
protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the provisions of Measure J and determined that it does not
advance the health, safety and welfare of our community;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARPINTERIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE,
DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Carpinteria is opposed to Measure J on the June 8, 2010
election ballot for the following reasons:
A. The Initiative Interferes with the City's Self -Rule. The City incorporated 45 years ago to
gain more control over local issues. Measure J takes away the City's local control by preventing the City Council
from applying its comprehensive local permit and environmental review processes to the Paredon Project
authorized by the Initiative. All other oil and gas development in Santa Barbara County has received review and
regulation by local government to protect public health and safety and to ensure that the development is the best
that it can be. Under Measure J, the Paredon Project will be approved in a manner unlike any other oil and gas
project in Santa Barbara County and will create an unprecedented gap in local regulation. This is an abuse of the
Initiative power and creates a dangerous model for future development in Carpinteria and in California.
B. The Initiative Undermines Local Planning Laws. The City's General Plan / Local Coastal
Land Use Plan, zoning laws and other regulations form the basis for orderly land use development in Carpinteria
and preserve the community as a "small beach town." These regulations apply equally to all properties and were
adopted only after review and approval from the California Coastal Commission to ensure protection of the City's
unique coastal resources. Measure J amends and overrides these important laws that protect the environment
SB 528667 v3:005444.0968
a o�
and provide a healthy, balanced local economy, making special exceptions for Venoco. A private corporation's
policies and priorities should never supersede those of the City.
C. The Initiative Evades Environmental Review. Under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), every qualified development in Carpinteria must undergo environmental review, which results in the
identification of mitigation measures that are necessary to protect both the environment and public health and
safety. Measure J prevents the City from conducting environmental review of the Paredon Project. Instead,
under the terms of the Initiative, Venoco imposes on itself only those environmental and safety measures that it
alone created. Allowing an industrial applicant the exclusive authority to pick and choose for itself which
environmental and safety measures will apply to its own business poses unnecessary risks to the community.
The damage the Initiative's Paredon Project will cause through noise, odors, pollution, night lighting and potential
catastrophic accidents, and the impacts to Carpinteria's unique natural resources including the ocean views,
harbor seal habitat, and bluffs, are too important to be left unexamined and unaddressed.
D. The Initiative Authorizes After -the -Fact Changes. Measure J allows Venoco to change the
Paredon Project development specifications, including the scope of the Project and the mitigation measures
included in the Initiative, after the election without voter approval. As a result, the development that could
ultimately occur at Venoco's oil and gas facility under the Initiative may not resemble the development that is
presented to the voters under Measure J. The possibility that a "bait and switch" might occur deprives the voters
of their rights to know exactly the nature of the project on which they are voting.
E. The Initiative Does Not Benefit the Local Economy. The Paredon Project as set forth in
the Initiative is not expected to result in any substantial increase in jobs in Carpinteria over the life of the Project
and represents a threat to the local economy in the event of an oil spill or accident.
F. The Initiative Leaves Many Unanswered Questions. The meaning of many aspects of
Measure J will not be clear until long after it is approved. For example, while oil and ,gas development would
produce royalties for the City, County and State, there are so many variables associated with calculating and
allocating royalties that the amount the City can expect to receive is uncertain and speculative. In addition, the
life of the project and procedures for abandonment of the oil and gas facility are also unknown. Further, Measure
J raises legal questions regarding its implementation that will likely require litigation to resolve. The ambiguities
built into Measure J make it impossible for the voters to accurately evaluate the costs and benefits of the Initiative.
SECTION 2. No public funds have been or shall be used in any campaign for or against Measure J;
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March, 2010, by the following called vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:
ATTEST:
City Clerk,City of Carpinteria
Stein, Clark, Reddington, Carty
Armendariz
None
Mayor, City of Carpinteria
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Carpinteria held the 8th day of March, 2010.
AP ED AS TO FORM:
Cityttorney
SB 528667 v3:005444.0968
City Clerk%City�of Carpinteria