The URL can be used to link to this page

20120904 Late CorrespondenceEIR/CUP Approved Entitlement Phasing - Months Duration Construction Calendar Phase Months Months Dates 1 28 3 6/1 /2010 to Sept 30. 2012 II 32 19 10/1 /2012 to May 31, 2015 11I 36 14 6/1 /2015 to May 31, 2018 Total 96 36 6/ 1 /2010 to May 31, 2018 Phase I Components (per Condition #60 (a) and Exhibit 3-8) Approved Pian per EIR and CUP Resolutions: June 1, 2010 through September 30, 2012 9/4/2012 Current Proposed Phase I Extension Construction Status to December 18 2012 Time Utilized Demolition of Existinq Buildin s: 1 Nursery School I Not Demolished No Chane 0 days 2 Arts I Not Demolished No Chane 0 days 3 Bookstore Health Center Not Demolished No Chane 0 days 4 Maint Photo Lab Not Demolished No Chane 0 days 5 Pool Not Demolished No Chane 0 days 6 Library Not Demolished No Chane 0 days 7 View Room Hall Not Demolished No Chane 0 days Remove: 1 Tennis and Handball Courts Not Removed No Chane 0 days 2 1 West and South Parking Lots Not Removed No Chane 0 days Rough Grade Establish Building Pads for 1 Athletic Facility Not Graded Established No Chane 0 days 2 New Libra Not Graded Established No Chane 0 days 3 Faculty Addition Not Graded Established No Chane 0 days 4 Administration Addition Not Graded Established No Chane 0 days Construct Reconfi ure 1 North Parking Lot Not Constructed /Reconfigured No Chane 0 days 2 Retaining Walls I Not Constructed /Reconfigured No Chane 0 days 3 New Campus Entry Drive Not Constructed /Reconfig ured No Chane 0 days 4 New East West Parking Lot Extensions Not Constructed /Reconfigured Partial West portion only 80 days 5 Athletic Field and Tennis Courts Not Constructed /Reconfig ured No Chane 0 days 6 installation of Utilities* Not Constructed Reconfi ured No Chane 0 days Installation of Modular Buildings to replace demod facilities Not Installed I No Chane 0 days Drainage and Water Quality Facilities I Not Installed I Partial Only 80 days Remaining Construction Time to Construct all other unfinished Phase I components 10 days * Separate Permitissued for Utilities Upgrades not included as a art of the Original App roved Plan 3 T- BELIEVE IT OR NOT! -7. � I I In his Marymount College Presentation of March 30, 2010 to the RPV City Council, Attorney Don Davis presented several exhibits (pit 5, 22, 23, 25 & 99) to "Set the Record Straight", that The PV North site is inadequate in size, that the Split Campus Alternative is Infeasible, requests a CEQA finding of infeasibility and that "Neighbors mischaracterize this 11.4 acre site that is constrained by a road easement, geologic constraint area and slope area. YET A FUNNY THING HAPPENED THAT NOW, AS IF BY MAGIC, THE COLLEGE IS ACTUALLY PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT THE FOLLOWING MAJOR NEW FACILITIES., WELL BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUS ALTERNATIVE LIVING CAMPUS PROPOSED BY CCC/ME; THE ADDITION OF; 1 192 Bedrooms (in addition) to the existing 86 units 2 Construction of a 27,000 sq ft Student Services Building with a Dining Hall, 3 50 Faculty and Administrative offices and 9 Classrooms 4 construction of a 2,200 sq ft maintenance Facility, including removal of 6 dwelling units 5 Construction of (a) 16 Classroom Academic Building with studios, laboratories and 32 Faculty offices 6 The addition of 342 parking spaces Call 213-978-1332 1 day in advance to review the file at 200 N. Spring Street, Rm. 750, Los Angeles, California. Ask to see the file of the MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -NG -12 -254 -PL: ENV -2011-2478.1600 W. Palos Verdes Dr. N. Wilmington -Harbor City -Council District No. 15: 5 CUP Revisions Condition No. 60(a): Allow two full summer periods to complete Phase 1. 66 The planning entitlements, including grading and building permits, for all construction described under Phase One shall remain valid and the construction thereof shall be completed no later than September 30th of the year that two years from the date the decision becomes final." Y OU T COLLEGE 78 km MWS VEKpES, C.ALMORNIA cr I O 't ae 71 i MARYMOUNT COLLEGE - CUTIFILL EXHIBIT 01106=10 nn RY o[. NT COLLEGE WkAft PAWS VMPES, CALIFORNIA Construction Process • Phase 1: demolition, mass grading, parking lot reconfiguration, athletic field and pads for new buildings (3 months during summer) • Phase 2: construction of Library and Athletic building • Phase 3: smaller items - administration building, art studio Estimate cumulative activity: 36 months Time = Money 73 Phis* 1 Description Coestrustian Task PHASE I (YEAR 1 [ANTICIPATED 20081) Remove: VJ*Oend SouthParktna Lots — Ranov�e Bundings: View Rooaw salt;• ;Sits Do"Utian Lab; Bookstore! Health! ills C"ft—rl .�R. sshoai: Rough GradelEoabNsh Building Pads: Ap lRouOh GradingNow dull ftips Fine Grath: Residence 1taNa we Buitdkq ,Fhm Grading I f t Rovegetaba Landscape: Now Building Pads. Hydrtasosding _ -- C._.._�A WaNs. IYlasoA_._ 1 — i F _._.�.. i Ra-csrApum 140e1h PlBidt Lot ' Cubs. Paving and Striping Gor:stsuts Campus NOW 4rtw. ....__New --•--- —___-- _ _ _ ConsVucb New Parking Lot stons. Curbs. Paving and Striping — Co uct: Athbft Field and Tennis --- Fins Grade, Landscape. Tennis Court Construction PHASE 11(YEARS 2 TO 4 [tANTICIPATED 2009 TO 2012)) �Founda8on/Sisbs ; � Construct Subding,Additions: Fa=ft and L6ldidina Frstnk�B ceding Enclosure_ ; ; I Student union: Construct Now Buildings: LUrary. intortor Finish Maintenance and AtMoNc Facility.(Arses Surrounding New Construct Now C Moor Pool Excavatbn Plaster. Paving RemodolftlsNngBuMding: dingy ChssroondAcadertNcs Building. Construct: Site Pedestrian bnprowments _ Inaiior t?rvwiNl interior FttNah ___..__ ______ . Landscape A Sits Paving PHASE III (YEARS 5 TO 8 [ANTICIPATED 2013 TO 2015]) Remove:,_ 14eistinp_Srrtnantal.- --- - - _-?Pool Demolition_ IFounsaetoois. _%s � Construct Building Additions: E - AuditortumlFkw Arts Studio and ipulldMip-F rinni BuildlnB Erttsiosurs -- >is I _ _ .` --_ --- _ Conetruct Residence Hail Nos.1 A 2i Bul!tlEnaloeum ___-.___..— _.-Wit_.. .linterior_DtvraN--__- Fkw Grade - _ Fine Grading ; construe Site Pedestrian ImprowInsnta (Adlacaft to New Buildings). j L.ndscapo a Sia PavingI i 3 CONSUL"I'm ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJEC Const uctison schadalf Exhibit 3A Phase 1 i j " i UUUJJU!! �-k iF 11JJ fr t �,... � � r------ �-- _ . - z —=mow-•. ..�.-� _- _ __ ' �. Y- � r . _ •--•— -^' PAWS V€1�"5 fMIVE FAST ��; ��,� "'- - demolition -- mass grading parking lot reconfiguration �,t`4 athletic fielditennis courts pads for new buildings ` 4 = SITE MAX - PHASE I YEAR U � w.usrxwrem�«n MARYMOUNT COLLEGE wx,. RASNUESEN�f ASSOCIATES RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA ^,Y " n 1) 74 Phase 2 11 75 ti� ( .•• n _� �" 1 J 'rr :- � '� 'ter .3-.--�'_ 1 � _"....--• � � .� �,.. ,f • fir' ��x� rs _ _ x i i SS ` ..._. _�..,.—.�•." PN.05 VER5ES DRIVE EAST , '�•�•,�� . ..L ,. t �t Fine grade for new construction associated with this phas -Construct library addition.- -Remodel existing Classroom Building. -Construct Academic Building addition. -Construct Athletic Facility and pool. -Construct Maintenance Building. -Construct Bookstore addition. t �� -Construct site pedestrian improvements adjacent to new construction`. -Remove modulars as new facilities are constructed. SITE PLAN - PRASE 11 il'EAS25 2-5) /j \ maumns `caw".'" B MAR'rMOUNT CC!l..LE&E ra.n.zw R0.A`SMq lAT£5 RAW,W PALOS VERMS GALIFOFWA '.ASSOC e 11 75 Phase 3 12" T % 4 f . !A 111lu PALM VVbM VMVE EAST -Fine grade for new construction associated with this phase. _� = -Construct site pedestrian improvements adjacent to new construction. , -Construct Fine Arts Studio Addition. SITE PLAN — PHASE III (YEARS b—y T zcrarr.np (ww�"� ma+o� ewaMw MARYMOUNT GOLLEOE wraaeo+ RA8[[Y8S8R i A880G1A768 RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA P;;;; 2g "r• RI+Lqr♦ 12" T CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION / MARYMOUNT EXPANSION CCC/ME, Inc. 31115 Ganado Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 phone: 310-541-3197 fax: 310-868-2880 email: ilkarp&cox.net September 1, 2012 Honorable Mayor & City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project -A request to extend the time Periods4or Completion of Phases 1 and 2 for an Additional Year (CASE NO. ZON2003-00317) To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: We have reviewed the staff report and have found major inconsistencies. Marymount is asking and staff is recommending an extension of the planning entitlements and the construction completion deadline for Phase I to December 18, 2012, without prejudice to granting a further extension up to September 30, 2013. According to the EIR and the CUP #60 "This Facilities Expansion Plan approval ...shall be constructed in no more than 3 phases totaling 36 months of actual construction time over a period not to exceed eight (8) years... ". See page 80-1 of this staff report (September 4, 2012) the Construction Phasing Schedule, Exhibit 3-8 of the EIR. There is a significant problem with this concept because the total approved construction time for Phase I (years 1-2) is limited to only 3 -months or 90days, Phase II (years 2-5) is 19 months of actual construction and Phase III (Years 6-8) is 14 months of actual construction time while the total construction time is 36 months within a running clock time totaling 8 -years. Construction time limits do not transfer between phases according the EIR and the CUP. This was an intrinsic part of the approval process and was stressed by the college and staff, through out the hearings on this project. Even though this was the most lengthy project ever approved by RPV the burden and denigration on the quality of life for the surrounding residents was to be spread out over ONLY 36 MONTHS of construction time. M Staff recommends that you approve a construction time, in Phase 1, for the '— permanent parking lot of 80 -days (September 30 — December 18, 2012). That leaves 10 days of actual construction time to complete all the other tasks in Phase I. Not Possible! What is in Phase I? The college is requesting a change to a major element of this project, the athletic field. In letters from Marymount's attorney you have been advised that they are not planning to reconfigure the parking lot and entrance but other site plan modifications will be requested. Before extensions or further approvals are agreed upon we need a revised list of what will be constructed in Phase I. II and 111. Without this information you have no knowledge of what you are approving. With the recent disclosure published in the Los Angeles Times on August 30, 2012 "City of Los Angeles Environmental Notices"(see attached) the colleges Mitigated Negative Declaration for extensive new facilities at their PV North campus, there is some question as which, if any, of the remaining RPV Phase I improvements will still be constructed, much less completed in the 10 remaining construction days in Phase 1. Are they planning duplicate facilities? This shows the imperative of establishing a revised list of improvements and a revised Phasing Schedule. The requested one-year extension is not "hardship" within the meaning of RPV 17.60.070. Rather it is "self -induce" hardship within the meaning of the California Appellate Case, City of San Marino Vs. the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (1960) 180 Cal. Al2p.2d 657. Marymount had the funds on September 4, 2008 when Marymount held an open house. One resident asked the question of Dr. Brophy "If this project was approved with everything in it that you have requested, do you have all the money today to complete this project" the answer was YES and she repeated the question again and the answer was still YES. Attorney Donald Davis was present. Marymount had funds when it chose to spend in excess of 1.5M on Measure P. And Marymount also had funds when it chose to improve the PV North campus and start the Waterfront campus. We now have a fiasco with Marymount's "temporary parking lot". The desecration of our beautiful corridor view of Catalina together with the ad hoc changes that has lead to obnoxious odors and dust clouds. We have concluded that the constant changes and unknown modifications to the agreement is not the way to proceed. r Let's get the facts, a definitive list and the specific time frames. Let's not invalidate what has already been agreed to and approved. Let's do "our homework", this time before we agree to any more changes. Yours truly, Lois Karp CCC/ME U) TM I'm RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material Email from Barry Hildebrand Email exchange between Councilwoman Brooks, Lois Karp and Staff; Email exchange between Clara Duran Reed and Staff; Emails from: Janice Kollar; Mark Wells; Sunshine; Teri Milam; Letter from Lois Karp 2 Staff Report Attachment 3 Email exchange between Joan Barry and Staff; Emails from: Ginette Aelony; Sunshine; Edward Stevens; F & S Murman; Lenee Bilski Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale MAGENDM2012 Additions Revisions to agendas120120904 additions revisions to agenda.doc Page 1 of 1 From: bjhilde@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 12:18 AM To: CC Cc: Carolyn Lehr Subject: Agenda Item "I" on 4 September 2012 CC Agenda Dear Council, The referent item asks for your approval of some taxpayer $$ to look into, along with the PVPLC, the acquisition of some more open space acreage to "preserve." Currently the city is overburdened with "preserve" land that it cannot afford to maintain properly; As I recall, the current yearly outlay is approximately 2-3 times what it was predicted to be just a few years ago, and most of that outlay is CONSUMED by the very same PVPLC that wants to "help" the city in this acquisition. Let's get some fiscal smarts and inform them to go bey it themselves if it's of some importance to "preserve." This city needs to relearn that cities are for people, not critters, creatures, and weeds, aka "native plants.". Barry J. Hildebrand 3560 Vigilance Dr. RPV, CA 90275 310-377-0051 9/4/2012 Page 1 of 3 From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:48 PM To: jlkarp Cc: CC; Larry Clark - forelc@cox.net; Joel Rojas; Carolyn Lehr; Susan Brooks Subject: RE: Blight at Marymount. Lois, City Staff shares a similar concern and as you will see in the forthcoming September 4th City Council Staff Report, Staff is addressing this concern by recommending that the College's time extension request be granted to a date certain so that the City can ascertain if the permanent parking lot is actually completed. Furthermore, if the permanent parking lot is completed and the area of the temporary parking lot not restored to its pre-existing condition (which per the conditions for the temporary parking lot must be done within 30 days), the City has the ability to use the college's security deposit (posted for the temporary parking lot) to restore the area of the temporary parking lot to its pre-existing condition. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(rpy.com www.valosverdes.com/rpv Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the Individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender Immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: jlkarp [mailto:jlkarp@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:56 PM To: Ara Mihranian; Susan Brooks Cc: CC; Larry Clark - forelc@cox.net; Joel Rojas; Carolyn Lehr Subject: Re: Blight at Marymount. Ara, thanks for the explanation. Now that we all agree that this is an untenable situation. I want to know what penalties Marymount faces if the permanent parking lot is not built and the temporary lot is not restored to its original state within 180 days. With Marymount's track record of getting nothing done just saying it needs to be done is not enough. Lois ----- Original Message ----- From: Ara Mihranian To: Susan Brooks Cc: CC ; Lois Karr); Larry Clark - forelcCa.cox.net; Joel Rojas ; Carolyn Lehr Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 3:22 PM 8/30/2012 Page 2 of 3 Subject: RE: Blight at Marymount. Councilmember Brooks, I can understand your reaction to the temporary parking lot, especially when viewed from the neighborhood across the street, particularly from the homes on Casilina. While Staff and the College agree that this is not an ideal solution, it is temporary and it is in response to concerns raised by the City Council and some neighbors about the excessive street parking that occurred during the last school year due to the lack a new expanded permanent parking lot. Thus, the sole purpose of the temporary parking lot is to take the student cars off the street and onto the campus until the permanent parking lot approved by the City Council in April 2012 is constructed. To ensure that the parking lot is temporary, the City issued permit is only valid for 180 days (until February 12, 2013) or completion of the permanent parking lot, whichever occurs first. Once the agency approvals are secured for the permanent parking lot (at this time only the ACOE approval is pending), the College will begin construction of the permanent parking lot immediately and the site of the temporary lot is required to be restored to its pre-existing condition within 30 days. As such, the typical landscaping and screening associated with a permanent parking lot were not required to be installed. As for the effectiveness of the temporary parking lot, based on my field observations yesterday and this morning, it appears that the temporary parking lot is being used resulting in approximately 5 to 6 cars parked on the street rather than the approximately 90 cars that were routinely observed last year. The parking lot is required to be closed one hour before sunset in order to avoid nighttime use of the parking lot and is to be closed on weekends and federal holidays. When closed, the parking lot must be closed off with the use of a gate post and chain barrier, with reflective material, to prevent cars from parking or accessing the area. The required barrier and sign will be installed tomorrow. That is why you were able to access the parking lot yesterday around 7:45, but that should not be the case once the required barrier is installed. In regards to the dust, we have raised the same concern to the College and they will be installing irrigation hoses to water down the site, particularly the driveway, to minimize the formation of dust clouds when driven on. I hope my response helps clarify your concerns with the temporary parking lot. I am at the campus on a daily basis this week monitoring the parking condition and can meet with you at the College to further discuss your concerns. Regards, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aramO-rpv.com www.nalosverdes.com/rpv WA 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: Susan Brooks[mailto:susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:14 AM To: Ara Mihranian; Joel Rojas; Carolyn Lehr Cc: CC; Lois Karp; Larry Clark - forelc@cox.net Subject: Blight at Marymount. z C�3 8/30/2012 Page 3 of 3 Guys, This parking lot has got to be a joke. Not only does it look like a Walmart parking lot during the day, but the cars just don't want to park there anyway. Why? Well, last night at sundown, Meredith (my daughter visiting from Hawaii and a former MMT student) and I drove into the new lot to see just what it looked and felt like. There were very few cars in the lot at 7:45pm. First, the huge lot looks like a tribute to the late Neil Armstrong's attempt to land on the Moon; a circular, quarry -like, crater. To our right, the view from every view home on Casilina Dr and throughout the neighborhood now have this awful blight smack in their faces. Next, the view from the edge overlooking Catalina Island is just magnificent! A great place for wedding photos if you don't mind falling off the cliff to get out of the dustbowl. As we snaked around the MMT maze, we noticed the ingress and egress is disjointed and confusing, least of all dark and darker as nightfall emerged. Finally, we arrived home only to see my brand new black Audi completely covered in a blanket of dust. Looks like anyone who parks there will have to save extra $$$ for lots of car washes. No wonder they'd rather park on the street. Duh? Who thought of this option anyway? When does the tail stop wagging the dog? This used to be a beautiful campus and the community used to share positive energy with the school. I share these observations with you in hopes that we can seek common sense solutions to problems as they arise. In my opinion, the cars on the street were far less intrusive than the Roswell scenario which was just created. Council members, do not reply to the email. Susan Susan Brooks Mediator,Councilrvoman, RPV, CA (424) 206-9160 (office) (310) 541-2971 (home) [ am using the Free version of SPAMfighter. SPAMfighter has removed 6740 of my spam emails to date. Do you have a slow PC? Try free scan! �o�-3 8/30/2012 From: Joel Rojas Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:00 PM To: Clara Duran Reed Cc: CC; PlanningCommission; Ara Mihranian; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: RE: Increased "students" at Marymount Clara This issue came up at the August 7th City Council meeting when Marymount College's time extension request was before the City Council. At that time, the college's representative, Mr. Don Davis, informed the City Council that said courses for Peninsula Seniors members were being offered at the college's San Pedro facility. However, as you point out, the announcement in yesterday's PVP News states otherwise. Given this new information, we plan on following up with the College to obtain more facts about this program. The college's conditions of approval do allow groups or organizations not affiliated with the college (that involve less then a 100 participants) to use the campus. However, the intent of this condition was to allow a group like Peninsula Seniors to have a meeting on the campus as opposed to allowing individual members to enroll or take classes. Thus, we plan on reviewing the information we receive from the college about this program with the City Attorney. We will report our findings to the City Council and public in the forthcoming staff report for the September 4th City Council meeting as the Council is scheduled to take up the College's extension request that evening. If you have any additional information or questions, please feel free to contact myself or Deputy Director Ara Mihranian at aram@rpv.com. Joel -----Original Message ----- From: Clara Duran Reed [mailto:pv_realtor@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:52 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: CC; PlanningCommission Subject: Increased "students" at Marymount Dear Joel, I was wondering if you heard anything further regarding Marymount permitting graduates to continue taking courses at the school without paying tuition and if this is a violation of the city's limitations on the number of attending students. I know the City Attorney was looking into this. Today, the school announced in the PVP News (8/23/12, Pg. All) that it is opening its doors for the 2012 fall semester to the Peninsula Seniors. These attendees will be able to "audit courses at both Marymount College's campuses "without tuition payment". Is this permitted under the school's limitation on the number of students who attend the school? If not, it should be. Total attendees and staff at the school should be limited as already determined by the City. How can anyone keep track of the number of people who "audit" courses? It again appears as a hidden way for the school to increase the city approved number of people on campus, which can then later be used as an argument to increase future student enrollment. Under these circumstances, no student limit appears in sight. Could you please let me know. Traffic and parking issues are negatively raised with increased attendance, regardless of the type of student or whether the students pay tuition or not. Thanks. All the best, Clara Duran Reed �P Page 1 of 1 From: Kollar [rjkollar@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 11:51 AM To: cc Subject: Marymount Temp Parking Dear Council Members... In the words of Joni Mitchell: "Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got til it's gone They paved paradise and put up a parking lot" I nough said., Marymount College is bent on ruining our community. Do not let them! This temporary parking lot is an eyesore beyond all eyesores! Janice Kollar Coolheights Drive 9/4/2012 I Page 1 of 2 From: Mark R Wells [mtwells@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:00 PM To: CC; Ara Mihranian Cc: Jim Gordon Subject: New Blog Post About Extension Hello all! If I am not able to attend Tuesday's meeting, below are my thoughts on the extension question: http: //eastrpv.blogspot. coml20l 2/08/to-extend-or-not-extend-that-is-question.html It is my most recent post on my East RPV blog. I want to thank and commend our city's staff for the report. I know there may be omissions or other things some or residents might object to, but it seems easy enough for me to read and I do think the recommendations have been thought out and considered. I do think there is some 'wiggle room' where, within any motion to extend the date of Phase One, some new wording could help all sides gather a more clearer picture to what residents, governors and the applicant wants, down the road. It was a nice surprise to see that Staff recommends the December 18, 2012 date. I think it sets a better bar for Marymount officials to adhere to and also allows time so that residents and 'deciders' see whether the items sought within Phase One are actually being done in 2012. I think that extending the time frame for Phase One should be something that Marymount earns rather than being given. That could only be done, in my view, by allowing the extension to December 18 and then watching what happens at the RPV campus. Will the addition of the temporary parking lot really mean the vast majority of vehicles that used to be seen parking off -campus, be gone and that there are just a handful of cars parked where they should not be? A study during this Fall semester at the college should determine whether Marymount official 'earn' a further extension, if necessary. This is ONLY part of the question, though. Does anyone outside the offices of Marymount College or its law fire really know what might get completed with any extension of Phase One? I think Marymount officials have had plenty of time to determine the answers to that and the answers, I believe should be know to anyone who considers voting on a further extension beyond December 18, 2012. Of course and naturally, there must be NO DISCUSSION of any increase in the number of students allowed to take classes on the RPV campus until our City Council is completely satisfied that Phase One is completed or that all council members know that Phase One will be completed during any extension(s) earned and awarded. If Marymount officials wish to proceed with their new plans for the athletic field, that requires separate studies and an additional or addition to the currently approved EIR. 9/4/2012 0 Page 2 of 2 We have all waited long enough for Marymount officials to more forward with Phase One. We have seen their own changes to parking and the athletic field and so many of the delays to Phase One have been met with excuses that so many of us are tired of. If you award Marymount College any extension, please try to consider whether they truly earn or earned it. They need to be good neighbors in our community and they need to be 'fair' to our residents, governors, staff and supporters, I think. Thank you for reading this. Mark Wells 9/4/2012 Page 1 of 1 From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 9:12 AM To: CC; Ara Mihranian Subject: Marymount College. September 4, 2012 City Council Agenda Item 1 September 1, 2012 MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council and Staff, Ara Mihranian RE: Marymount College. September 4, 2012 City Council Agenda Item 1 I have no problem with extending Marymount College's expansion project for another year with the condition that they reduce their enrollment back to what it was when they proposed this facility expansion to accommodate more students. That is a compromise. They really should cut back their enrollment even further to account for the lack of student amenities during the construction. 9/4/2012 From: Terry Milam [mailto:smilam@cox.net] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:22 AM To: Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: Marymount College - September 4th City Council Meeting This sounds like the first of many extensions.... i think you need to tell Marymount that you expect them to stick to the agreed upon timetable. On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:59 PM, rpvlistservergKpv.com wrote: TIME EXTENSION REQUEST - SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING On September 4, 2012, the City Council, pursuant to Condition of Approval Nos. 60a and 60b, will conduct a continued public hearing (continued from the August 7, 2012 Council meeting) to consider the College's requested one year time extension to complete Phase 1 and a one year time extension to complete Phase 2 of the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project approved by the City Council on June 1, 2010. According to Condition of Approvals No. 60a and 60b, Phase 1 which consists of demolition of existing buildings, grading including the installation of drainage and water quality facilities, installation of utilities, the construction of new parking areas, athletic field, tennis courts and the installation of temporary modular buildings must be completed by September 30, 2012 unless a time extension is granted by the City Council. Phase 2 which consists of fine grading, construction of the new library building, maintenance facility, athletic building, outdoor pool, and additions to the faculty building and student union must be completed by June 1, 2015 unless a time extension is granted by the City Council. No time extension to the total 3 -year construction activity or the overall 8 -year construction time frame for Phases One, Two and Three is requested. Click here to view the September 4, 2012 City Council Staff Report. Inquiries should be directed to Ara Mihranian, project planner, at 310-544-5228 or via email at aramArpv.com BREAKING NEWS City staff occasionally posts other important non -emergency information on the Breaking News page of the City's website located at: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/breakingnews Be sure to go to the List Server page and subscribe to receive email messages whenever a Breaking News article is posted to the City's website. You can join at: http://www. palosverdes.com/rpv/listserver Please do not reply directly to this message. The correct contact for each Listsery message topic is included in the message. We welcome your comments and suggestions, please send them to: commentsCab-palosverdes.com This Listsery program is one of many services created, hosted, and provided by Palos Verdes on the NET, a non profit 501c3 community service organization serving our communities by providing computer technology support to the City, educational internships and animation training to kids, workforce training to adults, free classes for seniors, and free web pages to non-profit organizations since 1995. Click here for information about free classes to residents. Contact us by email at information @_palosverdes. com 02- CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION / MARYMOUNT EXPANSION CCC/ME, Inc. 31115 Ganado Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 phone: 310-541-3197 fax: 310-868-2880 email: ilkarpercox.net September 1, 2012 Honorable Mayor & City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project -A request to extend the time Periods for Completion of Phases 1 and 2 for an Additional Year (CASE NO. ZON2003-00317) We have reviewed the staff report and have found major inconsistencies. Marymount is asking and staff is recommending an extension of the planning entitlements and the construction completion deadline for Phase I to December 18, 2012, without prejudice to granting a further extension up to September 30, 2013. According to the EIR and the CUP #60 "This Facilities Expansion Plan approval ...shall be constructed in no more than 3 phases totaling 36 months of actual construction time over a period not to exceed eight (8) years... ". See page 80-1 of this staff report (September 4, 2012) the Construction Phasing Schedule, Exhibit 3-8 of the EIR. There is a significant problem with this concept because the total approved construction time for Phase I (years 1-2) is limited to only 3 -months or 90days, Phase Il (years 2-5) is 19 months of actual construction and Phase III (Years 6-8) is 14 months of actual construction time while the total construction time is 36 months within a running clock time totaling 8 -years. Construction time limits do not transfer between phases according the EIR and the CUP. This was an intrinsic part of the approval process and was stressed by the college and staff, through out the hearings on this project. Even though this was the most lengthy project ever approved by RPV the burden and denigration on the quality of life for the surrounding residents was to be spread out over ONLY 36 MONTHS of construction time. Staff recommends that you approve a construction time, in Phase I, for the permanent parking lot of 80 -days (September 30 — December 18, 2012). That leaves 10 days of actual construction time to complete all the other tasks in Phase 1. Not Possible! What is in Phase I? The college is requesting a change to a major element of this project, the athletic field. In letters from Marymount's attorney you have been advised that they it is not planning to reconfigure the parking lot and entrance but other site plan modifications will be requested. Before extensions or further approvals are agreed upon we need a revised list of what will be constructed in Phase I 11 and III. Without this information you have no knowledge of what you are approving. With the disclosure published in the Los Angeles Times on August 30, 2012 "City of Los Angeles Environmental Notices"(see attached) is the colleges Mitigated Negative Declaration for extensive new facilities at their PV North campus. There are questions whether the remaining RPV Phase I improvements will still be constructed, much less completed in the 10 remaining construction days in Phase I. Is Marymount planning duplicate facilities? It is imperative that a revised list of improvements be established along with a revised Phasing Schedule. The requested one-year extension is not "hardship" within the meaning of RPV 17.60.070. Rather it is "self -induce" hardship within the meaning of the California Appellate Case, City of San Marino Vs. the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (960) 180 Cal. App.2d 657. Marymount had the funds on September 4, 2008 when Marymount held an open house. One resident asked the question of Dr. Brophy "If this project was approved with everything in it that you have requested, do you have all the money today to complete this project" the answer was YES and she repeated the question again and the answer was still YES. Attorney Donald Davis was present. Marymount had funds when it chose to spend in excess of 1.5M on Measure P. And Marymount also had funds when it chose to improve the PV North campus and start the Waterfront campus. We now have a fiasco with Marymount's "temporary parking lot". The desecration of our beautiful corridor view of Catalina together with the ad hoc changes that has lead to obnoxious odors and dust clouds. a � P� /,,� 9 We have concluded that the constant changes and unknown modifications to the agreement is not the way to proceed. Let's get the facts, a definitive list and the specific time frames. Let's not invalidate what has already been agreed to and approved. Let's do "our homework", this time before we agree to any more changes. Yours truly, Lis Kar � GCC/ME r B6 THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2012 WST Cos. Ar%des 91mC$ . CITY OF LOS ANGELES ENVIRONMENTAL NOTICES f Wfl&XfEY NE6ATIVE•DECLARATION- NG -12 -254 -PL: ENV -2011-2478.1600 W. Palos Verdes Dr. N; Wilmington -Harbor City. Council District The addition o e rooms tot the existing 86 -units, construction of -a 27,000 sq. ft- student services building with a dining hall, 50 faculty and administrative offices and 9 classrooms, construction of a 2,200 sq. ft. maintenance facility, including the removal .of 6 dwelling units, construction of 16 classroom academic buil'ding with studios, laboratories and 32 faculty offices and the addition of 342 parking spaces. Please. call a DAY in advance to review file: ( 213) 978-1332. If�no answer, please leave message. Documents are available for review by appointment ONLY at: Los Angeles City Hall, 200 N. Spring St., Rm. 750, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Comments can be faxed to: (213)978-1343 or e-mailed to: Darien e.Navarre'te@lacity.or . REVIEW/COMMENTrmriod ends: Se t.19,2012 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -NG -12 255 -PL: ENV -212-455. 1340 N. Glendale Blvd:; Silver Lake -Echo Park -Elysian Valley. Council District o. 13. A Zone Variance to allow t e provision of zero parking spaces in lieu of the 15 pparking spaces otherwise required by Section 12.21-A4(c) of the Code; Pursuant to Section 12.24-W,l.of the Code, a Conditional Use to allow the on-site Sale and dispensing of beer and wine only in a restaurant seating 64 patrons indoors and 12 patrons in an outdoor patio, with live entertainment and hours of operation from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm dailyy, and pursuant to Section 12.27-W,27 of the'Code, a Conditional Use to allow the following deviations from the Commercial Corner regulations of Section 12.22-A,23 of the Code; hours of operation before 7:00 am, no storage area, no recycling area, and no landscaping along Glendale Blvd. and Lakeshore Ave. The west side of Lakeshore Ave. is being vacated under Council File No. 083343. 3 parking spaces will be lost, but 15 angled parking spaces will be provided in their stead. please call a DAY in advance to review file: (213)978-1332. If no answer, please leave message. Documents are available for review by appointment ONLY at: Los Angeles City Hall, -200 N. Sppring St., Rm-750, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Comments can be faxed to: (213)978-.1343 or e=mailed to: Darlene.Navarrete@lacity.org. REVIEW/COMMENT period ends: Sept. 19, 2012 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -NG -12 -256 -PL: ENV -2012-1038. 10019. Grand Ave.; Central City, Council District No. 9. The Project is the sale of beer and wine foro -site consume ion m coniunetion with the use and maintenance of an existing mini market opperating 24 hours per day, 7 daps a week, with sale of alcohol from 10:00 am to $:00 pm. Please tail a DAY in advance to review file: {213)978-I332. If no answer, pl�aase leave. message. Documents are available for review by appointment ONLY at: Los Angeles City Hall, 2Q0 N. Spring St., Rm 75D, Los Aeles, CA 90012. Comments can be faxed to. (213)978-1343 or e-mailed to: I�arlene.Navarrete@lacity.org. REVIEW/COMMENT period ends: Se. 19, 2612 IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -NG -12 -257 -PL: ENV 2012-1338. 5471 N. Maemurray Dr.; Northeast Los Angeles. Council District o. rim moils ra or a ermma ion to perms retaining wall with heights varying from 3 -ft. to 15 -ft. in lieu of the 2 walls otherwise permitted, on a lot with arecently-constructed single family dwelling on a cut pad. Please call .a DAY in advance -to review file: (213)978-1332. If no answer, please leave message. Documents are available for review by. appointment ONLY at: Los Angeles City Hall, 200 N. _S_ppringg St., Rm 750, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Comments can be faxed to: (213)978-1343 or e-mailed to: Darlene:Navarrete@lacity.org. REVIEWJCOMMENT period ends:0ct.1, 2012 iiiiiiiiiiiiiijillillillillillillilI M M EIR/CUP Approved Entitlement Phasing= -Months Phase Duration Months-- Construction Calendar Dates Months 1 11 28 32 36 3 19 14 6/1 /2010 to Sept 30. 2012 10/1 /2012 to May 31, 2015 6/1 /2015 to May 31, 2018 ill Total 96 36 6/1/2012 to May 31, 2018 I Phase I CalTtponents (per Condition *60 (a) and Exhibit 3-8) J Approved Plan per EIR and CUP Resolutions: June 1, 20-10 through September 30, 2012 —. /4/2012_Current Proposed Phase I Extension Status _ to December 18 2012 _Construction _ Time Utilized Demolition of Existing Buildin s 1 Nursery School _� _ Not Demolished. — _. -_ No Chafe 0 days_ Not Demolished_. __ _. 2 Arts .._—_ ,. _ No Change _ 0 days 3 Bookstore Health Center Not Demolished No. Change 04ays --_ -- ._-. 4 MaintjPhoto lab—_ Not Demolished _ —.. _ —__ _—_ _ _ No Change — ,- 0 dam 5 _ S_ Pool_ _ Not Demolished._ _ No Change— — -- 0 days — Libra. _ _. Not Demolished No Change _ _. 0 days — - 7_ View Room/Hall Not Demolished No C_han�c Remaye: - 1 Tennis and Handball Courts Not Removed No Change— 0 days — __- 2 West and South Parking Lots ._ _Not Removed — _ _._ No Change__.. ._ -_- days_. - - _ Rough Grade Establish Buildin Pads for — — -- - _ -_ — - __- -- -- _0 - - _ 1 Athletic,Facili — Not Gradetablrshed No Change — 0 days 2 New Library_, _ _. Not Graded/Established — . _ No Change __—. 0_days .- 3 FaciiltyAddition — — Not Graded/Established _ No Chang!_ —_ _ 0 days_ _ _ 4 Administration Addi_t_ion Not_Graded/Established No Change 00 _— Construct/Reconfi ure 9 _ _ — _._.__ _ 1 North Parking —Lot _. Not Constructe�LReconfigured No Change 0 days_ _ _ -2. Z. Retaining Wdlls� —_ _ _ Not Construnscted/ReconedJRfigured __- _. No Change _ —.. ._ _ O days— . 3 New Campus Entry Drive _ _ Not CotructeConfi ured- No Chnge _ _. a —_. _ _.0 days_ --. - 4 New East/West Parking Lot Extensions _ _ Not Constructed /Reconfigured_ Partial, West_porton only_, _ 80 days _ 5. Athletic_Field and Tennis. Courts_ _ __ .- _Not Constructed/Reconflgured __.. No Change ___ —_ 0 days 6 Installation of Utilities Not Constructed /Reconfig_ured No Change 0 days —_ Installation of _ _ _ - _ _ Modular Buildings to replace demod facilities, Not Installed _ —. --__- No Change- 0 days Drainage and Water Quality Facilities Not Installed Partial Only80 days Remaining Construction Time to Construct all other unfinished Phase I components 10 days Separate Permit issued for Utilities Upgrades, not included as mart of the_Original Approved Plan N 6M From: Brian Campbell [b.camp@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:21 PM To: FAC Subject: FW: PublicCEO: Costa Mesa Receives Mixed Ruling from District Court of Appeals; San Josh, State Spar Over Audit Results; Will Costa Mesa Force Light into Labor Negotiations? FAC Chairman Wang and Committee Members: I attached an email from Councilman Duhovic that is timely to upcoming events in our city and potentially relevant to FAC. This is an excellent free email list to be part of regarding municipal updates and challenges around the state. As part of your agenda discussion this evening I hope that you will proactively consider some ideas to put forward to us on council as how to potentially lend a hand with some of the financially oriented issues that we will be addressing in the near-term. Two possible examples of the many that I hope you will consider: • Union negotiations; RPV is embarking on our first Union negotiations with our city employees over the next few months. Significant portions of the discussion will likely revolve around pay, bonus, COLA, other benefits that are of a monetary nature or can be monetized, and pension issues. • Next years 2 -Year budget cycle; I see the FAC as being able to play a more significant role than in the past with analysis and input to the council. For us to be able to best consider these items and other items that I hope to include your Committee in, we need good, accurate and thoughtful input. Your group clearly did a terrific job of just that with your recent analysis of both the Banking RFP and Unfunded Pension Obligations analysis and suggestions. I hope that you approach FAC's future role with an active and proactive perspective. I believe that the community will welcome and embrace your additional involvement. I am just one of the five Councilmembers but I can say that I fully welcome your involvement with assisting us as we advance the best interests of our community over the next year. Best regards, Brian Brian Campbell Mayor Pro Tem L'i City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 424-255-8887 office 310-544-7400 office + text 888-855-9619 fax "Reply" to sign up for my Email Newsletter RPV Website: www.palosverdes.com/rpv Twitter: htti)://twitter.com/CampbeliforRPV 8/31/2012 5TA,FATTprfFu .-" r,-1 MENT 1 0t, 5 a , Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you. From: Jerry Duhovic [mailto:councilmanduhovic@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 12:41 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: FW: PublicCEO: Costa Mesa Receives Mixed Ruling from District Court of Appeals; San Jose, State Spar Over Audit Results; Will Costa Mesa Force Light into Labor Negotiations? Colleagues, Please see the email below. If you haven't signed up for these daily emails from Public CEO, you should. They are full of interesting and timely tidbits regarding government news and issues, particularly in the municipal arena. I have just read the third item (Will Costa Mesa Force Light into Labor Negotiations?) and the link contained therein to the actual proposed COIN ordinance (Civic Openness in Negotiations). Here is the link to the article in the OC Register that contains the link to the ordinance - http://www.ci.costa- mesa.ca.us/council/agenda/2012-08-21/TransparencyLabNeQOrdinanceAttachmenti.pdf. Not all of the proposal is germane to our city, but the openness and public involvement sections are interesting. Please do not hit reply or reply all. Have a great day. Regards, Jerry Jerry V. Duhovic Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilman jerry.duhovic@rpv.com City Hall:(310)544-5207 Cell:(310)502-8036 LIR To: councilmanduhovic@hotmail.com From: newsletter@publicceo.com Subject: PublicCEO: Costa Mesa Receives Mixed Ruling from District Court of Appeals; San Jose, State Spar Over Audit Results; Will Costa Mesa Force Light into Labor Negotiations? Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:30:07 -0400 8/31/2012 "Updating Our Readers With California's Local Government News"' Add Friend To Free E-mail List I I Facebook I Twitter I PublicCEO Jobs Board (click for more information) Wednesday, August 22 Edition Of PublicCEO.com Costa Mesa Receives Mixed Ruling from District Court of Appeals Costa Mesa's ongoing efforts to outsource numerous public services has been dealt another speed bump by the Fourth District Court of Appeals, even as it was shown the way forward in the same court opinion. Read more. San Jose, State Spar Over Audit Results Just six months after the Joint Legislative Audit Committee in Sacramento requested the California State Auditor investigate concerns over the City of San Jose's operating budget and pension obligations, findings have been disclosed. The report describes the figures cited by city officials and media outlets as `likely overstated' and unsupported.' The city disagrees with those findings. Read more. Will Costa Mesa Force Light into Labor Negotiations? Labor negotiations are famously secretive. Even knowing what goes on behind the closed -doors is often no better than reading second hand, anonymous -sourced accounts. But one council member in Costa Mesa is hoping to change that. Read more. State: San Rafael, Other Cities Owe Redevelopment Money 27 cities have yet to pay a portion or all of their bills to the state, after the Governor demanded billions from former redevelopment agencies. Their cumulative unpaid tab totals more than $123 million. Read more. 3 0� 5 8/31/2012 OTTGFITf qNVES, L Tho 4Bustiloyo, of r*IIyr C'r%wMr"nt 01-1K I Rei; r Rewr & KKIEGER av1010a411 ... r - Today's Top Headlines Fresno Seeks Eminent Domain for Land at Willow Nees Avenues Obituary: Tom Frieiy,. 69, Oversaw Sacramento's Finances for Nearly 30 Years Los Banos Told to Fix Mistakes on Grant Funds Occupy L.A. Cost: $4.3 Million and Rising Oakland Police Radio Culprit: Cell Towers Meet Your Manager — John Pietig of Laguna Beach CCMF is proud to announce the launch of our twelfth Meet Your City Manager' video featuring John Pietig of Laguna Beach. These videos feature candid interviews with city managers from across California talking about the council-manager relationship, their favorite accomplishments as managers and their love for the profession. Read more. Th�% California's PremierSourceforPrinting e e &Direct Mail Production Services Monaco Q-1ity * Flexibility • Impact • Efficiency Group Tel' 714.505.5180 • F=714.505.5187 www.MonacoGroup.conz Printing & Mailing email• vmonaco@?nonacogmup.com PublicCEO Trivia Question of the Day (See all oast winners here JA winner will be randomly selected from all the correct answers received between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. and will receive a Starbucks gift card. Congratulations to yesterday's winner, James Clark, Emergency Services Manager, San Benito County Office of Emergency Services, for correctly answering that the name "Alameda County" reportedly came from Spanish meaning avenue shaded by trees. Please email Dan@PublicCEO.com to claim your prize. Which California city's Little League team is currently making a run for the Little League World Series? E-mail your answers to trivia Opublicceo.com 0 -WOULTAM. Story Idea? E-mail the editor at dan@publicceo.com Charles Abbott Associates, In, Providing Agency Budget Solutions Since 1984 8/31/2012 Local Gov 2.0: Social Networking Directory Highlighted Feature! The followina is the start of PublicCEO's new directory of California's local government officials using social networking through Facebook or Twitter. Add yourself to our director). W 0 C_" 5 Irvine Councilmen: Insider Info Leaked to Private Developer Supervisors to Vote on 'God' Motto African Americans in SF Arrested at High Rates, Analysis Finds Standard & Poor's Downgrades Fresno's Debt Taxpayer Group Takes on Santa Clara County, Water District Read more. Click Here to Unsubscribe 5 o�- 1J 8/31/2012 From: Greg Pfost Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:19 AM To: itsthebarrys@cox.net Cc: CC; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolynn Petru; Carolyn Lehr; Joel Rojas Subject: FW: Renaming Trump Drive Hi Ms. Barry - Your email directed to the City Council made its way to me as I am the City's project manager for the Trump National project. In regards to your question regarding the Golf Course, all requirements for its permanent opening have been met and it has been operating as a permanently opened golf course since May 2007. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. -Greg. Sincerely, Gregory Pfost, AICP Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5228 From: <itsthebarrys@cox.net> Date: September 2, 2012 12:32:58 PM PDT To: "Brooks, Susan" <susan.brooks@rpv.com>, Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>, "Campbell, Brian" <brian.campbell@rpv.com>, "Duhovic, Jerry" <jerry.duhovic@rpv.com>, "Knight, Jim" <jim.knight@rpv.com>, "Misetich, Anthony" <anthony.misetich@rpv.com> Subject: Renaming Trump Drive Mayor and Council members: At Tuesday's meeting you will be discussing a change in the name of the street leading to the golf course to Trump Drive - or something similar. I don't remember hearing that the Trump organization had completed all its requirements to the City and the Coastal Commission in order to be a fully functioning golf course. If this is true, shouldn't the name change be postponed until that happens? If they have indeed fulfilled these requirements, could you please apprise me? Thank you. Joan Barry From: G_ZITPA [mailto:gzitpa@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:02 AM To: Dennis Mclean Subject: Re: FW: Add to White List per Dennis From: gzitpaggmail.com Date: Thu, 23 Aug 201217:17:57 -0700 Subject: Ocean trails To: CCgn2v.com It is an appropriate name . "ocean Trails " Politically correct .there is no real reason to change it and on all the maps etc ... I really do not see why it is on the agenda. Ginette `Aelony Page 1 of 1 From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 8:48 AM To: CC Cc: leneebilski@hotmail.com; jessboop@cox.net; mjcasaburi@aol.com; erstevens@cox.net; lynn.swank@cox.net; lori@ultramercial.com Subject: Re: Ocean Trails Drive. September 4, 2012 City Council Agenda Item 3 September 1, 2012 MEMO from Sunshine TO: RPV City Council and City Attorney RE: Ocean Trails Drive proposed name change Changing a street's name is a big hassle. It costs a lot more in staff time than in new signage. It takes years for all the maps and real estate web sites to get updated. Mr. Trump is not famous for keeping his investment properties long term. Ocean Trails Drive is an appropriate street name no matter who owns the golf course. Terranea is also the sort of street name that can survive a change in the resort's name. Nobody seems to care that Armaga Spring Road has a fictitious word. (Agus Amarga Canyon is proper Spanish for "bitter water". see the difference?) The Staff Report in support of this change does not include a specific cost estimate. One should be readily available since Staff just went through the process of changing the name Pt. Vicente Fishing Access to Pelican Cove Park. There is a good reason for that change. Nobody may go fishing there any more. (Thank you ICLEI.) It is our Coastal Zone. A street name change is not going to make a huge difference in helping golfers find and patronize the Trump National Golf Club. Staff claims to be too busy to take care of some marginally important matters. This is not one of them. Please do not approve this proposed resolution. 9/4/2012 0 Page 1 of 1 From: erstevens@cox.net Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 12:34 PM To: Carolyn Lehr; CC Cc: Greg Pfost Subject:: Ocean Trails Drive. September 4, 2012 City Council Agenda Item 3 Subject: Re: Ocean Trails Drive. September 4, 2012 City Council Agenda Item 3 TO: RPV City Council and City Attorney RE: Ocean Trails Drive proposed name change Changing a street's name is a big hassle. It costs a lot more in staff time than in new signage. It takes years for all the maps and real estate web sites to get updated. Mr. Trump is not famous for keeping his investment properties long term. Ocean Trails Drive is an appropriate street name no matter who owns the golf course. Terranea is also the sort of street name that can survive a change in the resort's name. Nobody seems to care that Armaga Spring Road has a fictitious word. (Agua Amarga Canyon is proper Spanish for "bitter water". see the difference?) The Staff Report in support of this change does not include a specific cost estimate. One should be readily available since Staff just went through the process of changing the name Pt. Vicente Fishing Access to Pelican Cove Park. There is a good reason for that change. Nobody may go fishing there any more. (Thank you ICLEI.) It is our Coastal Zone. A street name change is not going to make a huge difference in helping golfers find and patronize the Trump National Golf Club. Staff claims to be too busy to take care of some marginally important matters. This is not one of them. Please do not approve this proposed resolution. Mr Trump should pay for all the related cost if City Council decides by chance to approve the name change. Sincerely Edward Stevens 9/4/2012 3 Page 1 of 1 From: fermur@dslextreme.com on behalf of Fernando [Fernando@Murman.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:58 PM To: Cc Subject: Name change. To: Members of City Council. Subject: Proposed name change. Since the first day of Mr. Trump's appearance in the Rancho Palos Verdes scene he has been a continuous source of confrontation, always acting with a total disregard for civility and good manners, having his whims as only goal. Please do not reward such a bad neighbor with the privilege of putting his name on a city street sign. It is totally undeserved. F&SMurman residing at 30585 Ganado Dr. RPV for the last 45 years. 9/4/2012 From: Len&e Bilski [leneebilski@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 3:58 PM To: CC Cc: Lenee Bilski Subject: Sept. 4 Agenda item re: Ocean Trails Drive Sept. 4, 2012 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I think the name Ocean Trails Dr. is appropriate and should be kept, not changed at this time. The street leads to the public trails along the ocean blufftop. The previous owners, the Zuckermans did not name the street Zuckerman Dr. What if Donald Trump sells the property and ownership changes some day? Ocean Trails would still be an appropriate name, but Trump National Drive would not. Ocean Trails Dr. is a public road, leads to the public Founders Park and theup blit trails as well as to the public golf club. Are you aware that this golf club is named and advertised as Trump National Los Angeles, not Trump National Rancho Palos Verdes? Maybe when the golf club is renamed Trump National Rancho Palos Verdes this request for a street name change could be reconsidered. by the city. Until such time keep it as is and deny this request. RPV Planner Greg Pfost said a name change would not have to be approved by the CA Coastal Commission. However, additional staff time would be needed to apply for map changes and submission to LA County Supervisors. Would Trump National pay for this? On this same Agenda, the Closed Session lists the Trump lawsuit against the city of RPV. It would be a nice gesture of cooperation if the Trump organization would drop the lawsuit. I hope you agree with me that this is an unnecessary name change and expense for the city. Please vote No Change. Thank you for all you do for RPV! Lenee Bilski 9/4/2012