20130305 Late CorrespondenceRon Moeller's statement to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council March 5,2013
Good evening.My name is Ron Moeller,I've been a resident of RPV since the mid-70s
and I'm speaking on behalf of Occupy Palos Verdes and the over 300 concerned
residents who have stopped by our table at the farmer's market and signed our petition
for the city of RPV to move its account from B of A to a smaller bank.'
At your council meeting last December 4th I inquired about the status of the City
Council's June directive for staff to provide a recommendation regarding competitive
procurement of banking services.At that time seven banks had complied with the
Council's October 22nd filing date for a "Request for Proposal"(RFP)and City staff
expected to return a recommendation to City Council by early 2013.
Occupy PV and the over 300 concerned RPV residents who signed our petition,urge
the City Council to limit their consideration to the four smaller banks that met the filing
date Le ..Bank ofthe West,Malaga Bank,Union Bank,and US bank.Our opinion (and
the reason Occupy PV requested this review in the first place)is that Bank of America
(which currently has the city's account),Citibank,and Wells Fargo Bank are three of the
six "too big to fail"banks that bear major responsibility for crashing our economy in
2008.
These three banks would have failed in 2008 had not the U.S.Government and the U.S.
taxpayers bailed them out with a near zero interest loan of $600 billion.Since then,all
three have incurred literally billions in fines and settlement fees for toxic mortgages,
municipal bond fraud,and illegal foreclosures.As I speak,all three still face substantial
litigation and are even bigger today than they were in·2008,having gobbled up much of
their smaller competition during that crisis.
The three are no less likely to fail now than in 2008 since efforts to regulate them have
been effectively neutered by financial lobbyists.Also,the three banks still are deeply
involved with derivatives and collateral debt obligations,the very instruments thpt
Warren Buffet labeled "weapons of mass destruction".
In the opinion of Occupy PV and its supporters,going with ,a smaller or more local bank
that requires no bailout,has no related litigation,is not too big to fail,and supports the
community,is safer for the city of RPV and a far more moral decision than siding with a
Wall Street corporation.
Thank you for hearing me out on this important issue.
·"<J,I
~"1'!~..p-p
~/:IO)VI)}>~IL~.
""1 \3 l-h~ht'l J~ib r R PV
~'lr3 )~'#,b·dP---Dr RPV
6¥3;l k·V~es·~ftV
'3)3 7t B,,"{~nl;i?eiJ<4.RfV
~63093~f'!<srO/le :'1(pll
2-0 1¥\)~OIL..~Pv to l.5-
2-~(-Io~lG'e1ac crcff c.t--(,~.'.q,;...,r;
~(J~~R.Pva~Cj6't'7~
(PO ~f (110 t>1JC!Jlt (?p 1/
~tJt3t V'ti J...ttc..re,{q IffV '7t1~?5
.t t,~v j Ii-$U:f-,.J A P.yv Cl-:1-5
j.rUJ3 JiI'f1vlPc/4.i~Illv tr/2.1 r
Q5r1f'CQ;r;Yslk'/)rt RJI/
~~e ..~'-e.fQ.~v 'yz..~v.~CJ?t r
SO !V\,hlt'i ~(.1-.q 1)2 ~
7t'~~W/I~iq~/Jtt.X;~V
STREET DDRESS IN RPVNAMENATURE
PETITION TO H VE THE CITY OF RPV MOVE ITS MONEY
FROM BANK OF:"AM RICA TO A·SMALLER BANK
PETITION TO H VE THE CITY Of RPV MOVE ITS MONEY
FROM BANK OF AM RICA.TO A'SMALLER BANK:
"N E J N TURE STREET ADDRESS IN RPV
c9-.0'3 7 ~4-~>/#-"A~_~.IJ.or J>t/t
/1 W;;rv--·1/
¥q ~~tYfRis7 PI?..."/3"}oR',fPi/
.'l:fi d i ~:
~(\1US mMlt 3001 t-
I Hot JIll.~€rs.Wtql(:t"1/
6~;)-~V....e--,~ek(~;.
~~~5l1 OfJt AtJdCJtJ {'?-e
2qfpCO ElCnd!lIJeu.;I<
~~¥2f}.fi:;f.~I!A~.:.._gfj I'f~7 ~1ft~R~
b,L~V'1 fo r-t~~PV
:s()'+o~~,,*p(3 f<PV qO?-':{.!;)
te Cf ~1.-~\(to ~-e i):~P-P vi qD 2--'((
\\:
PETITION TOH VE THE CITY OF RPV MOVE ITS MONEY
FROM BANK OF AMERICA TO A SMALLER BANK
.NAME
.'
Jd~·~
L'P1A-e~.6/~ki
~~~'ten
2k1oila.~SJ tri tJrIS
Vj;;Jti~
~o
EII'3
REET .ADDRESS IN RPV
;~77 ,f·IfITA-iI;'lS 7J4 '/)i .¥..YV'·
6·Tq-~'~~'~~6\'~~''~r~r.
'tJCc.•:r.~fd&a\lf.'I'~O',~n/
([1$4'~(\(l\.,""lJ'r{,-;,~2~'.~G =t~
o.;s /J j~~~l/)ir .'R.lf/."J.fi'--
'J..t8'~-~{7i'£iV'S)It<~:Ii:t.9c:J I~
6,Cfy'f (t(;jr RJ)iRF'V (.+cZ 75
2~-e..;'.::>z-~-t,~...J('~~.'J ,~~I c'",:...i J'
.r *,;.<;lJe)~l,,-t ~:..~C'e.'-'9""&/I\(L)~~~tt pV 'tCLl'5
Lfl3 tl,Lt1u Vt'~L~t ..~~l,'~~.~~b<)'1 ,t\)J"f~.V\.~'l-u/~crC'Ll5
.~/t IJ?-{(j..Lu-,-P1:1 c )..']<)
t/t:/)SVI/I Sc;lt''''.c )1.·'1 ..:.\c]t")')S
~~~~/u~J--b;..1(/ro 2-1<;
320/q(~6'...~A-~lk.~P~}Y.c.:>2..7)
5.;l.c t;fi'\l Ule <"\I'qt RJ :(Z.r \i 0\(;)~1 S
3t1~ttl (~?/~L-7).1'·?'9 if·if02-'L\-
2.1l~''1eVV'\e,VtQ.(iJ R(()902.7 r-
J.j;'14-56r~lk·".!/'?p·v 'i oz,7:J'
7.;/ttir;f :;:~90~)r
,.,~~fU~tr?v ~o /S
~£sf'V~t-(Sc.tfrV ~azs
~itJ)'3S \Jhrh?Sh-~~f\Jjy q~
3oo'-l~t4'brl~.RfV '1 0 J-.=tS
7-~(0 C(Lb!ot"1JcI(PI";'Il..f),v ('[0 2))'
QZlO'f Lohf1Jok))r:Rlv q027~
ED BY OCCUpy PV :.
PETITION TO 'H VE THE CITY OF RPV MOVE ITS MONEY b
FROM BANK OF AMERICA TO A SMALLER BANK
STREET ADDRESS IN RPV
~~~~~i*ff!£?ro7:>
q::u tf S-n.tw ,,~r1Ji..f2-PV 9 O'=J 5
3cf7Si ~,\}~(o:\~qo~.~
&6lf:t~7~1~~:7~i J
Ul~C\~~'~JY.~\I ~~7\
"7'1"1-frhh4~vJclOJ.'bl\ap\I Qo 7)
~v,t\.J:>~~ttl...-"RPv,0,02 7~
)rtt~lo G-AN~.(A?,Cfoa-=r-
627///ol.Ft1Xldt-t-(kt 111 t"o 7$
7t!J57 ~:lsV6rJJA ,()r 1~/lV?tl;).·:>.
J.1Uq'r WtUlJl<A.!/C?;ifV ,91(2-1
QJW4dd 6(0.Lj5Jok Rd Cfoa=!__
III RIt1/~5f{,(v~2)RW r 275
l~H G-;'~j..J{)"Ie
f\)vrh.~'~
~r--rA-If..A f'(J!)(;-1I11
~U.S~l'Vl,-Mr;)~J
PETITION TO H VE THE CITY OF RPV MOVE ITS MONEY
FROM BANK OF AMERICA TO A SMALLER BANK:
N M~SIGNAT RE /STREET ADDRESS IN RPV V
~...'308J/o Vttl ,V~.
UlI.eNtr'I &cAwn~'l,r1.-\6 'JA fCA"~'liY~J-O-.fV
r'~,~e\'t ~vL<....~\'S"E\~cJ..~Mi.1.oJ.,:."l~
~~'Hi ru....~l btffuftxif{d-W3q I Tra.i'IV'i~.9l)~~r-
~~t"'".a C(q 0 ~stov\tere~t '[0 ~IS--
"ST ~H~1t4tJ'A,~n ~vo,3.v1.4 SoNI1IVl t2,2-7.
Snve.'J R,',L {.....~s .O<~/,;l..t N P.{,~-cc-<.:'trRJ ~0-<'75
6oeov1t-tte--WAf,}..1-o....ffl lSi tinA hew I'\V'If n
51 NATURES COLLECTED BY OCCUPY PV
PETITION TO THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
The B.nk of America holds our Rancho Palos Verdes city financial account.Bank of
Americtt has been deeply involved in activities leading to the housing market collapse
(sub-prime mortgages)and great economic problems recently.We,the citizens,had to
bail ;ut Bank of America with approximately $200 Billion since they were judged by political
allies as "too big to fail".While some bailed out corporations were required to put in new
management,Bank of America was not.They are still lead by incompetence or worse.The
bank is not helping desperate home owners caught in this crisis while they stall and enjoy
huge bonuses.
PETITION,
We,the undersigned residents of Rancho Palos Verdes,request the Rancho Palos Verdes
city council investigate and bring the process to conclusion by removing all city funds from
the Bank of America and placing such funds in a smaller local bank.
Home Address
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 5,2013
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
Public Comments
5
Respectfully submitted,
Description of Material
Email exchange between Mayor Brooks,Staff,Dr.Brophy
and Don Davis
Email from Sunshine
~~
Carla Morreale
**PLEASE NOTE:Materials attached after the color page(s)were submitted
through Monday,March 4,2013**.
W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas.\20130305 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dr.Brophy,
Ara Mihranian
Monday,March 04,2013 9:25 PM
Michael Brophy
Davis,Donald M.;Joel Rojas;CC;Carolyn Lehr;Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>;Jim
Reeves;Scott Boydstun;Jim Hanafin;Anette Jensen
Re:Is there something wrong
City staff will provide a response this week to Mr.Davis'letter that was received at the close of the business day on
Wednesday,February 27.
Ara
On Mar 4,2013,at 8:47 PM,"Michael Brophy"<MBrophy@marymountpv.edu>wrote:
>Greetings:
>
>The College is prepared to break ground on our field later this spring,but we have not heard back from the City as
expected today.
>
>Please advise on the status of our application.Our college community and many others in RPV are anxiously awaiting
the arrival of this field.I will speak to this tomorrow at Council.
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael
>----------------->From:Davis,Donald M.[DDavis@bwslaw.com]
>Sent:Wednesday,February 27,2013 5:14 PM
>To:Joel Rojas;Ara Mihranian;cc@rpv.com;Carolyn Lehr;
>c1ynch@rwglaw.com
>Cc:Michael Brophy;Jim Reeves;Scott Boydstun;Jim Hanafin;Anette
>Jensen
>Subject:Marymount College:Processing of Application for Revision
>"F"to CUP No.9
>
>Joel and Ara,
>
> I am forwarding a letter on behalf of Marymount College regarding the referenced application and the City's letter to
Dr.Brophy that was received on Monday.
>
>Regards,
>
>Don
>
>
>Donald M.Davis I Partner
>444 South Flower Street,Suite 2400 I Los Angeles,CA 90071-2953 d -
>213.236.2702 I t -213.236.0600 I f -213.236.2700
1
(9
>ddavis@bwslaw.com<mailto:ddavis@bwslaw.com>I
>vCa rd<http://www.bwslaw.com/tasks/sites/bwslaw/assets/file/vCa rd .cfm?p
>kid=12>I bwslaw.com<http://www.bwslaw.com/>
>[http://www.bwslaw.com/tasks/sites/bwslaw/assets/I mage/logo_signatu re_
>dark.jpg]<http://www.bwslaw.com/>
>
>The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated
addressee named above.The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents
confidential attorney work product.Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records.If you
are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated
addressee,you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review,dissemination,distribution or
copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited.IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN
ERROR,PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT 800.333.4297.Thank you.
>
>------------------------------>This email has been scanned by Marymount College's email security
>service
>------------------------------>
>------------------------------>This email has been scanned by Marymount College's email security
>service ------------------------------
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mayor Susan Brooks <subrooks08@gmail.com>
Monday,March 04,2013 8:59 PM
Michael Brophy
Davis,Donald M.;Joel Rojas;Ara Mihranian;CC;Carolyn Lehr;Carol Lynch
<clynch@rwglaw.com>;Jim Reeves;Scott Boydstun;Jim Hanafin;Anette Jensen
Re:Is there something wrong
Dear Dr.Brophy,
Thank you for your letter.Since this is a non-agendized item,you will be allotted the requisite 3 111inutes under
"Public Comments"for your remarks.I will be referring any requests or inquiries for further action to Staff for
followup per our Rules of Procedure.Thank you for your time during this process.The College has been very
active during the past month with the retention basin and parking lot construction.We are unable to address the
other issues at this time.
In Appreciation,
Susan Brooks
Susan Brooks,Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA
(310)541-2971 home
r:::1...=.•==-...:-------~
On Mon,Mar 4,2013 at 8:47 PM,Michael Brophy <MBrophy@marymountpv.edu>wrote:
Greetings:
The College is prepared to break ground on our field later this spring,but we have not heard back from the City
as expected today.
Please advise on the status of our application.Our college community and many others in RPV are anxiously
awaiting the arrival of this field.I will speak to this tomorrow at Council.
Regards,
Michael
From:Davis,Donald M.[DDavis@bwslaw.com]
Sent:Wednesday,February 27,2013 5:14 PM
To:Joel Rojas;Ara Mihranian;cc@rpv.com;Carolyn Lehr;clynch@rwglaw.com
Cc:Michael Brophy;Jim Reeves;Scott Boydstun;Jim Hanafin;Anette Jensen
Subject:Marymount College:Processing of Application for Revision "F"to CUP No.9
Joel and Ara,
I am forwarding a letter on behalf of Marymount College regarding the referenced application and the City's
letter to Dr.Brophy that was received on Monday.
Regards,
Don
Donald M.Davis I Partner
444 South Flower Street,Suite 2400 I Los Angeles,CA 90071-2953
d -213.236.27021 t -213.236.0600 I f -213.236.2700
ddavis@bwslaw.com<mailto:ddavis@bwslaw.com>1
vCard<http://www.bwslaw.com/tasks/sites/bwslaw/assets/file/vCard.cfm?pkid=12>1
bwslaw.com<http://www.bwslaw.com/>
[http://www.bwslaw.com/tasks/sites/bwslaw/assets/Image/log0 signature dark.jpg]<http://www.bwslaw.com/>
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the
designated addressee named above.The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or
represents confidential attorney work product.Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly
accessible records.If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for
delivering it to the designated addressee,you received this document through inadvertent error and any further
review,dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly
prohibited.IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR,PLEASE NOTIFY US
IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT 800.333.4297.Thank you.
This email has been scanned by Marymount College's email security service
This email has been scanned by Marymount College's email security service
2
(j)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ara Mihranian
Tuesday,March 05,20138:05 AM
Teresa Takaoka
FW:Marymount College:Processing of Application for Revision "F"to CUP NO.9
Revision F.pdf
Original communication from the college
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@rpv.com .
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
.J:i 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 stridly prohibited.If
YOll...rece,ivec).this..e,nli1iLII1 ..err()r(..()r..ar.(')...r1o,ti1r1 ..i,f1!(')rlcJ§lcLr~fipi~D.~I.RI.~i1~~.!]g~![y'.1~~.2~1~2~Cir::!!~~.cJ.li1.t~!Y,..::rI)i1f)~..x9Y.f()r..iOY!:.<l~~1"!<lf)~'"i1r1£LS.29P,"r,i1!i()f1:.....
From:Davis,Donald M.[mailto:DDavis@bwslaw.com]
Sent:Wednesday,February 27,2013 5:14 PM
To:Joel Rojas;Ara Mihranian;CC;Carolyn Leh.r;Carol Lynch <c1ynch@rwglaw.com>
Cc:Michael Brophy;Jim Reeves;Scott Boydstun;Jim Hanafin;Anette Jensen
Subject:Marymount College:Processing of Application for Revision "F"to CUP No.9
Joel and Ara,
I am forwarding a letter on behalf of Marymount College regarding the referenced application and the City'S letter to Dr.
Brophy that was received on Monday.
Regards,
Don
Donald M.Davis I Partner
444 South Flower Street,Suite 2400 I Los Angeles,CA 90071-2953
d -213.236.2702 It -213.236.0600 If -213.236.2700
ddavi bwslavlicorn vCard bwslaw.com
The information contained in this e·mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above.The information transmitted is
sUbject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product.Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records.If
you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee,you received this document through
inadvertent error and any further review.dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited.IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR,PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT 800.333.4297.Thank you.
1
cD
444 SOUUl Flower Stleet Suite 2400
los Angeles.CaliforniD 9007 1-2953
vOice 2 I 3.236 0600 fox 2 I 3 236 2/00
www bwslaw COI11
Direct No.:213,236.2702
Our File No.:04693·0005
ddavis@bwslaw.com
February 27,2013
VIA U.S MAIL &E-MAIL
Joel Rojas,Director
Ara Mihranlan,Deputy Director
Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391
Re:Marymount College:Processing of Application for Revision "F"to CUP No.9
(ZON2012-Q0366)
Dear Messrs.Rojas and Mihranian:
I write on behalf of Marymount College in response to the letter to President Brophy
dated February 22,2013 from Mr.Mihranian (attached)indicating that the referenced
application has not been deemed "complete"by the City based on the "information or
clarification"items requested in the letter.While this letter is intended to address the listed
items,we strongly disagree that such items constitute grounds under the Permit Streamlining
Act for the apparent inertia on the part of the City to expeditiously process the requested
modifications to the College's approved plans for its relocated Athletic Field,which revisions
were first presented to City staff more than 10 months ago.This recreational facility is critical
not only to Marymount's programming needs,but is also a long-awaited community asset.
Accordingly,we respectfully request that the City devote the time and resources necessary to
act on this application without further delay.
A.The Application should be deemed complete under the Permit Streamlining Act.
As an initial matter,the College is extremely disappointed that City staff waited until the
last possible day of the 30-day period afforded under the Permit Streamlining Act ("PSA")to
respond to such a time sensitive application.The additional information or revisions provided by
the College on January 25,2013 in response to the City's first-request of November 27,2012
were not extensive and the application was itself narrowed to a single improvement -the
Athletic Field.
LA #4822-8643-7395 v1
Marymount CUP Revision "F"
February 27,2013
Page 2
Turning to the requirements of the PSA,as the City is well aware,1 the overall policy of
the PSA,as stated in Government Code section 65921,is to "expedite decisions"on projects
and to relieve permit applicants from protracted and unjustified delays in processing their permit
applications.2 In order for project applicants to have a clear understanding of what is required
of them,the PSA mandates that "each local agency shall compile one or more lists that shall
specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development
project."3 The City's PSA information list must also "indicate the criteria which the [City]will
apply in order to determine the completeness of any application submitted to it for a
development project."4 Furthermore,the PSA also clearly states that an applicant cannot be
required to "submit with his or her initial application the entirety of the information which a public
agency may require in order to take final action on the application.,,5
With these policies and requirements in mind,the five alleged "completeness"items are
not included in any City PSA "list"that I am aware of,nor could I find them posted on the City's
website (which is generally a fine example of government transparency).I suspect that this is
because the items are not true completeness items,but rather,as further discussed below,the
items are permissible requests for clarification or supplemental information that the City may
certainly request after an application is deemed complete based on the City's PSA Iist.6
The College's response and position on each specific item follows:
1.Clarification of the College's intentions with respect to the approved
facilities and improvements under Phases 1 ·3.
Within the outer time period currently permitted under Phase 1 of Condition No.60(a)
(e.g.,September 30,2013),and as disclosed on mUltiple occasions in conversations with staff
and before the City Council,the College has indicated that it is prepared to complete the parking
improvements needed to provide the 120 additional spaces required under the CUP (currently
underway)and the Athletic Field.
With respect to the remaining Phase 1 improvements,the Council's approval of the
revised parking lot plans in April 2012,which provided for all required campus parking,reduced
the need to concurrently commence work on the reconfiguration of the northern campus parking
areas proposed under Phase 1 because such work would not add any additional parking
1 I refer you to my prior letter of September 2005 outlining the City's non-compliance at the time with the
PSA regarding the College revised application for CUP Revision "E"'for the campus master plan.As you
will recall,the City ultimately acknowledged that the application should be deemed complete under the
PSA.
2 See Bickel v.City of Piedmont (1997)16 Cal.4th 1040,1046.
3 Govt.Code §65940;emphasis added.
4 Govt.Code §65941 (a).
5 Govt.Code §65944(b);emphasis added.
6 See Govt.Code §65944(a).
LA #4822-8643-7395 v1 (j)
Marymount CUP Revision "F"
February 27,2013
Page 3
spaces,but would require significant and costly grading.Much of the remaining preliminary
grading work in Phase 1 is associated with the construction of the proposed Athletic Building,
which has always been part of Phase 2.Again,rather than do extensive preliminary grading for
an improvement that was not being immediately constructed (and would thus only result in an
empty bUilding pad),the College put the City on notice in its CUP amendment application of
October 2012 that Marymount would like to amend its approvals to extend the outside
completion date for this grading work as well as the time periods to complete Phases 2 and 3.
In the City's letter of November 27,2012,staff requested detailed information on any proposed
revisions ·to the grading plans and quantities associated with the application to extend the
phasing schedule.
Marymount viewed this as a valid request under the circumstances,and promptly
directed its engineers to provide such information.City staff was advised in December 2012
that such work was underway,but would take many weeks to complete,which is why the
requested phasing amendments to the CUP in the October application were deleted from the
application for Revision "F"submitted in January 2013.City staff was further adv,ised that the
phasing amendments would be resubmitted at a later date once the requested grading
information was prepared.
In short,at no time has the College indicated that it intended to let the approval for the
remaining Phase 1 grading and other improvements "lapse,"but rather,the College has for
many months been working on an extension request that the College had originally hoped when
submitted in October 2012 would be considered by the City Council in advance of the current
outside completion date for Phase 1,which at the time was approximately one year later (Le.,
September 30,2013).
With respect to staff's understanding,as stated in the letter,that "At a future time,the
College intends to seek further approvals to ...the improvements for Phase 2 and 3,"we are not
entirely clear as to what you are referring to.In order to avoid any misunderstanding,let us
explain the College's intentions again in our own words.In its October 2012 application,the
College stated its intention to request additional time to complete construction of the approved
facilities listed in these phases,so to the extent a time extension for the existing approvals is
desired by the College ~~that is a correct understanding.However,to be clear,Marymount has
not proposed and is not intending to propose any changes to the physical locations,footprints,
or features of the seven facilities included in Phases 2 and 3.Furthermore,SUbject to its
continuing rights under the existing CUP approvals described below,Marymount's current
intention is not to commence work on these facilities until action is taken by the City Council on
the desired extension of the phasing schedule.
Marymount would also like to clarify what may be a misconception held by certain City
staff members based on some of the comments made by staff during the February 22,2013
conference call.That is,if the City Council for whatever reason does not act on or approve the
request to extend the time period for the remaining Phase 1 grading work by September 30,
LA #4822·8643·7395 v1
Marymount CUP Revision "F"
February 27,2013
Page 4
2013,then the approval of the facilities in Phases 2 and 3 would somehow immediately become
null and void.That is not a correct interpretation of the current CUP approvals.There are
seven facilities approved and to be completed within the time periods provided under Phases 2
and 3.The preliminary site grading in Phase 1,however,is not associated with at least four of
the improvements.Those facilities are the Administration/Admissions,Auditorium/Fine Arts
Studio and the Student Union,which involve additions to existing structures,as well the
Maintenance Building,because it is a minor improvement.The preliminary site grading is also
arguably not a critical component of the approved Library,as the existing Phase 2 approval
includes grading for this facility.In short, the College's ability to proceed with these
improvements will remain valid for the current periods allowed under Phases 2 and 3 (including
the permitted one year extension)regardless of any actions taken or not taken by the City
Council on or before September 30,2013 with respect to any remaining Phase 1 grading.
Marymount does acknowledge that if the Council does not timely act on an extension
request for the remaining Phase 1 grading work,which is part of the College's proposed
Revision "G"application,then the College will not be able to proceed with the construction of the
Athletic Building and the Faculty Building,in addition to the remaining northern parking area
improvements,until such an application is approved.
To summarize the College's intentions,and their ramifications on the current CUP
approvals,the submitted Revision "F"requests modifications to a single facility -the Athletic
Field.The application requests an expansion of the playing surface,but results in an overall
reduction in new developed area because the tennis courts will be eliminated.The other
requested change is that approXimately the same amount of excavated material as in the
approved plan will need to be exported over a three-week period because there is no place to
utilize or store such material on the campus at this time.The proposal is thus,as aptly stated in
the City's letter,for "discrete revisions"to a limited portion of the approved campus master plan,
which will have no direct bearing on the remaining facilities other than the previously identified
need to revise the preliminary site grading plans.
2.Completion of the Athletic Field.
Item NO.2 in the City's letter -a request for the date by when the "construction of the
athletic field will be completed"-is clearly not an appropriate PSA completeness item for the
simple and ironic reason that such date is wholly dependent on when the City acts on the
application,which initially requires the application to be deemed complete.According to the
College's construction team,the revised Athletic Field should take approximately 3 months to
complete.Because the College cannot proceed with the final construction plans until the City
Council acts on the requested modifications,at least another 30-45 days will need to be added
to the process.Additional pre-construction time may also be needed,but the College is
cautiously optimistic that many of the delays encountered in the start up to the parking lot work
have been addressed and can be avoided in the future through better communication and
coordination between City staff and the College's construction team.
LA #4822·8643-7395 v1
'-//,'[j
Marymount CUP Revision "F"
February 27,2013
Page 5
In terms of programming needs,Marymount has long made it clear to the City that the
Athletic Field needed to be relocated once the parking lot improvements were built.Thefall
semester begins in August and Marymount's athletic teams and students will need a field to
practice on starting August 1.As such,time is of the essence,and every reasonable effort
should be made to expedite this process.
3.Spectator information.
Item No.3 in the City's letter requesting information on where 70 spectators will observe
games and where they will park regrettably both misconstrues and ignores the applicable
information in the College's January supplemental submittal.As such,it is also not a PSA
completeness item,bur rather,a minor request for clarification,which could have been
addressed in a 5-minute phone call many weeks ago.On pages 3 -7 of its sUbmittal,
Marymount reiterated that its plans do not call for any formal seating as spectators will,as they
have for many years past,simply sit or stand on the sideline areas of the Field.The College
also interviewed faculty and provided detailed estimates of historic spectator attendance,which
has been and is expected to remain minimal.Of all sports played on campus,only men's
soccer is likely to draw more than a few dozen spectators to any given match,and of these
spectators,the College's Athletic Director believes 30 or fewer are likely to be "visitors,"which
the College defined on page 6 as "non-Marymount students."?Thus,as to the apparent
question as to how will campus parking accommodate these 30 non-Marymount student visitors,
according to some of the most recent City staff reports on campus parking,the temporary
parking lot has been observed to be largely empty by late afternoon,which is precisely when the
anticipated 10 men's soccer matches would be played during the course of the year.With the
completion of the 120 permanent additional spaces in the new parking lot,Marymount believes
there will be more than sufficient parking capacity for these 30 visitors.This understanding is
based in part on the findings of the City staff recommended and City Council certified Final EIR
for the campus master plan and the current conditions of approval,which allow up 100 visitors
on campus at one time.8
4.Update to Hydrology Report.
Technical responses to the questions raised about potential runoff from the proposed
use of synthetic turf were provided by the College in its January submittal.Again,although not
a PSA completeness item,an updated hydrology report,as requested,will be provided within
the next two weeks,which will allow more than sufficient time for consideration of this
information before the application is acted on by the City Council.
7 Parking demands for eXisting Marymount students have been fully addressed in the Final EIR and
current CUP.
8 See Condition of Approval No.139.
LA #4822-8643-7395 v1
(x
Marymount CUP Revision "F"
February 27,2013
Page 6
5.Request for landscape plan revisions to address campus areas and issues
unrelated to the Athletic Field.
The City's final "completeness"item was a request that the College's modifications to its
Landscape Plan for the Athletic Field "be expanded"to address an unrelated issue regarding
the College historic fire suppression practice of disking its unimproved campus areas.
Marymount has acknowledged its willingness to work with the City on alternative fuel
modification practices,which typically occur during the summer months.Compliance with this
request is·not a proper basis for deeming the application incomplete,however,because,like all
of the other items listed above,it is not part of the City's PSA application list for this specific
development project.
For the reasons set forth above,Marymount requests confirmation from City staff
by no later than March 4,2013,that its application for CUP Revision "F"pertaining to a
single facility -the Athletic Field -be deemed complete under the PSA,subject,like any
another project,to continuing reasonable requests from the City for additional
information and clarification prior to final action on the application.
B.Retention of CEQA consultant for CUP Revision "F".
Marymount was also disappointed to learn in last week's conference call that the City
had not taken any steps towards the retention of a CEQA consultant to do any of the necessary
supplemental environmental review on the proposed modifications to the Athletic Field.We had
been advised several weeks earlier that a request for proposals (RFP)would be sent to the two
firms identified by the City based on the understanding that the scope of work would be limited
to the Athletic Field plan revisions.
Marymount requests that a copy of the proposed scope of work be immediately
provided,and,subject to any significant concerns the College may have with respect to
such scope of work,that the RFP be sent out by no later than March 4.2013.
C.Assurance of adequate staffing to timely process CUP Revision "F"and oversee
ongoing construction activities.
In light of the remaining processing work to be done on Marymount's pending application
and the time sensitivity of the matter,along with the need to monitor the ongoing construction
activities 9 as well as other campus operations,the College has concerns regarding the time
demands being placed on Mr.Mihranian,who clearly also has numerous other administrative
9 We note that the Marymount campus master plan remains listed on the City's website under the heading
of "Proposed Development Projects."Given that work has been underway for some time,the College
believes that proper public disclosure reqUires that the project be listed under the City's heading for
"Development Projects under Construction."
LA #4822-8643-7395 v1
Marymount CUP Revision "F"
February 27,2013
Page 7
responsibilities.Accordingly,Marymount respectfully suggests that this may be an opportune
time to delegate more responsibility to other staff members,and at a minimum,the College
requests assurances that adequate staffing will be provided to ensure the timely and proper
administration of these matters.
Sincerely,
(~MS
~LDM.DAVIS
DMD:ir
cc:(Via e-mail only)
Dr.Michael Brophy,President,Marymount College
Jim Reeves,Vice President,Marymount College
RPV City Councilmembers
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Carol Lynch,City Attorney
LA #4822-8643-7395 v1
CITY OF
February 22,2013
VIA EMAIL &U.S.MAIL
Dr.Michael Brophy
President
Marymount College
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING.BUILDINC.&CODE ENFOI~CEMENT
Subject:Conditional Use Permit No.9 Revision "F"et.a!.(ZON2012-00366)-
Amendments to the Council Adopted Athletic Field and Conditions of Approval
Dear Dr.Brophy,
On October 29,2012,Marymount College submitted a request to amend its current
Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council in 2010.On January 25,2013,in
response to the City's November 27,2012 letter,Marymount College submitted the
requested additional information for its Conditional Use Permit (CUP)Revision "F"
application.Included in this submittal is a Variance application to revise the Council
approved location of the proposed 30-foot tall athletic field netting.The College's CUP
Revision IF'application 'is to modify the configuration of the Council approved athletic field
and to amend specific conditions.Specifically,Marymount College seeks the following three
revisions to its current Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council in 2010:
•To remove the four tennis courts approved for the western portion of the campus in
order to enlarge the playing area for the proposed Athletic Field and to change the
surface material for the Athletic Field from turf grass to synthetic grass.The proposal
also changes the Council approved grading quantities requiring a revision to the
Grading Permit to allow export of earth material and a Variance Permit for the
proposed 30-foot tall retractable nets.
•To amend Condition No.136 to allow up to three outdoor events (including the
graduation ceremonies)with amplified sound on the Athletic Field with the approval of
a Special Use Permit.
•To amend Condition No.79 to more accurately reflect the limitations on structures for
primary occupancy in the identified Geologic Setback Area.
3~'>W It",,"O""B,VD.II"""~'"VCRO".CA 91>2"'5391
PI J\NNIN(;/CODf I NI ()1~C1 <\'11 NI (310i 5,III·f.?28 /BlJlI.DIN(.(310)265·7800 I D!PI.fAX (310);)4"·5293 /[-\-1AIl I'IANNINC@I~PV.C()M
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE CUP NO.9 REVISION "F"
FEBRUARY 22,2013
PAGE2
Based on Staff's review of the submitted materials,the following information or clarification is
needed to deem your application complete for processing:
1.As discussed during the February 22.2013 conference call.City Staff understands
that the College intends to only complete the expanded parking lot and revised
athletic field as part of Phase 1.As we understand it.the College intends to let the
remaining elements authorized in Condition No.60 regarding Phase 1 to lapse,
including on-site grading that is necessary for the improvements contemplated for
Phases 2 and 3.At a future time,the College intends to seek further approvals to
revive the lapsed Phase 1 improvements,as well as the improvements for Phases
2 and 3.Please confirm our understanding of the College's approach on this
issue,because the College's acknowledgement that the future phases require
separate review and approval is necessary to enable the City to proceed to
analyze the discrete revisions contemplated for the athletic field.
2.As indicated during the February 22.2013 conference call,City Staff is concerned
that the entitlement process,plan check process,and construction process (if
approved by the City Council)for the proposed modifications to the Council-
approved athletic field will not be completed within the Phase 1 time period.As
such,please identify a realistic date by when the College believes the construction
of the athletic field will be completed so that this can be considered as part of the
City's review of the requested application and whether the completion date for the
athletic field will need to be extended.
3.According to the information recently submitted,the College anticipates up to 70
spectators attending certain games that will be held at the proposed athletic field.
Please indicate on the project plans where these spectators will be accommodated
around the athletic field and where parking will be provided for spectators.
4.An updated hydrology report (with updated calculations)will be needed to account
for any added runoff generated by the use of synthetic turf material for the
proposed athletic field.Additionally,please demonstrate how the proposed project
will or will not increase flow rates released from detention basin for the 10 and 50
year event.Include a depth-duration curve for the detention basin demonstrating
that no overtopping will occur during 50 year event.
5·,The College's disking of the southern slope results in a denuded hillside that
causes sloughing of soil into the City's V-ditch and storm drains,which has the
potential for clogging storm drain inlets and adversely impacting storm water
quality.Over the past several months,this iS,sue has been discussed with the
College's design team to find a way to stabilize the slope surface soil while
accomplishing any fuel modification requirements.As such,since the College is
updating its landscape plan to address Jb.EHmJdifrcattens.1Q the athletic field,the
~,,:.equ~::~...~~::J?~~~~ed LandscaP~la~.be e~_~~..:~"§)1ddress this issue .
...............,........._<W<,<w,........"...,,,,,.
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE CUP NO.9 REVISION "F"
FEBRUARY 22,2013
PAGE 3
If you should have any questions or comments,please contact me at 310-544-5228 or via
email ataram@r[).v.com.
Ara anian
Deputy Director
c.Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Carol Lynch,City Attorney
Dave Snow,Assistant City Attorney
Don Davis,Marymount College Attorney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ron Dragoo
Tuesday,March 05,2013 1:48 PM
Teresa Takaoka
Carla Morreale
FW;March 5,Council Agenda Item 5.San Ramon Canyon improvement contracts,
Trail connect map -0388.pdf
Teri,we received this email from Sunshine on Saturday.Please include it in your late correspondence
packet.Thanks.
Ron Dragoo,P .E.
Senior Engineer
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5253 Office
(310)544-5292 RAX
From:SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com]
Sent:Saturday,March 02,2013 8:41 PM
To:Ron Dragoo
Cc:Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE:March 5,Council Agenda Item 5.San Ramon Canyon improvement contracts,
RE:March 5,Council Agenda Item 5.San Ramon Canyon improvement contracts,
5)Award a Professional Services Contract to Harris &Associates for design related consulting services
($113,000)during the construction of the San Ramon Canyon Stormwater Flood Reduction Project;
Hi Ron,
I would like to think that you are already planning to mention the Council's goal about enhancing trails in your
verbal/power point Staff presentation.If not,I request that you do and here is a slide.
Please explain to the Council how your recommended award of a contract for design related consulting services
can be used to monitor and modify the construction so that the finishing touches leave behind sustainable trails
of at least TYPE 6 criteria preserving the California Coastal Trail (CCT)and restoring the trail connection
between the switchbacks and Friendship Park.
From an emergency circulation interest,you might want to look into making a TYPE 3 connection to Friendship
Park....S
5
'Sf I b/l0 1'-
t'~'",
cc..T
CT(O
Area of future trail
connection between
San Ramon and
Friendship Parle
•c:Tf
oc....,.,...R...".
o
I I
r::::J Reserve Bowldary
~T.....ad
-Rom
•••Pede*iln &Bbs Only
3Jm eonmur Unes
,.,."..~.,....,..~......~
,•~4o
....------
r'IlHU
C9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 4,2013
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday,March 5,2013 City Council meeting:
Item No.
City Manager
Report
1
Description of Material
Email from Raymond Knauss
Letter from the Steigers;Email from James O'Malley
Respectfully submitted,
~Cp;~
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendaS20130305 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
Ray <ray.knauss@verizon.net>
Sunday,March 03,20134:08 PM
CC
FAC
Letter From a Concerned RPV Resident
Dear City Council Members:
I am a Rancho Palos Verdes resident and have been since the city's inception.I am also a member of Occupy PV.We,
and many of our fellow residents,are very concerned that our city has been doing business with Bank of America.Not
only does this and like banks (i.e.,Citibank and Wells Fargo)not share our local community's interest but it has done
many things to harm not only RPV but our country.Senator Bernie Sanders
(Vermont)has stated some of the unethical and devious tactics used by some banks:
"In 2010,Bank of America set up more than 200 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands (which has a corporate tax rate of 0.0
percent)to avoid p'aying U.S.taxes.It worked.Not only did Bank of America pay nothing in federal income taxes,but it
received a rebate from the IRS worth
$1.9 billion that year.They are not alone.In 2010,JP Morgan Chase operated 83 subsidiaries incorporated in offshore
tax havens to avoid paying some $4.9 billion in U.S.taxes.That same year Goldman Sachs operated 39 subsidiaries in
offshore tax havens to avoid an estimated
$3.3 billion in U.s.taxes.Citigroup has paid no federal income taxes for the last four years after receiving a total of $2.5
trillion in financial assistance from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis."
We do not believe our city should be doing business with such corporations.We should be working with an honest local
bank that will keep profits working in our local economy.We urge you to keep this in mind when selecting a bank for
RPV.
Sincerely,
Raymond Knauss
26513 Rockhurst Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
1
Date:
To:
Subject:
February 25,2013
City Council Members,Rancho Palos Verdes
Crestridge Senior Housing Project
Conditions for Structure Heights
and Foliage Heights
cc:Community Development Department,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes:
*Joel Rojas,mrector
*Eduardo Schonborn,Senior Planner
Dear Honorable Council Members:
As residents of Mesa RPV with magnificent views overlooking the proposed Crestridge Senior Housing
site,we are concerned about protecting our views from the potential heights of the actual structures and
foliage on the site.
Therefore,we respectfully request:
1.that as a condition of approval of the Crestridge project,the following shall be required:
(~)the actual structures built on the site shall not exceed their officially approved/planned
elevations as measured from sea level to the structure's roof ridgeline,or if no roof
ridgeline exists,to the top of the structure.
(b)should actual grading level(s)be higher than officially approved/planned,then actual
structure height(s)shall be reduced accordingly so that the resulting elevation(s)
above sea level do not exceed the officiall approved/lanned elevation(s).
2.that amendments to the Conditions for landscaping heights be made and approved which:
(a)would extend equally to all Mesa RPV properties on Mistridge Drive,Seaside Heights
Drive,and Ocean ridge Drive the same rights to enforcement of the Condition's zero
tolerance rule which would prohibit landscaping heights from exceeding our individual
view "lines"from our backyard perspectives.
(b)would ensure enforcement of resolutions on our behalves independently of the four
designated Mesa PV properties listed whose photo simulations appear in Exhibit B to
Resolution 2012-23.
(This independence is critical because the four designated properties may deny access
to their backyards for verification of foliage height issues involving other residents.
Their access denials should not preclude the resolution of our view "line"issues.)
(c)would require the Crestridge HOA (per their C,C,&R's)to maintain foliage heights so
not to exceed our individual view "lines"in order to protect and restore our views.
We thank you for your consideration of our requests.
Sincerely,
The Steigers
Ocean ridge Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
(This letter was sent on 2-25-13 as an attachment to email addressed to EduardoS@rpv.com for inclusion
in the 3-5-13 Staff Report to the City Council.)/.
Subject:FW:Crestridge Request for a 4-2-13 CC Hearing
From:James O'Malley [mailto:jomalley@trumarkco.com]
Sent:Sunday,March 03,2013 8:36 PM
To:Eduardo Schon born
Cc:Jason Kliewer
Subject:Crestridge Request for a 4-2-13 CC Hearing
Eduardo,
Thank you for your help and patience.
As we discussed last week,Trumark is requesting a 30 day extension of the City Council Hearing currently scheduled for
this coming Tuesday night.
If this request caused any concern or additional efforts,you have our sincere apology.
As I explained to you,we have a few "internal"reviews we are completing that will confirm the costs and schedule to
bring this community to a reality sooner than later.
Please as always,call me if you have a question or require any form of clarification.
Thank you again!
James O'Malley
1 I.