The URL can be used to link to this page

20130507 Late CorrespondencePreview Page 1 of 2 W Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:38 PM a�m RECEIVED FROM From: bubba32@cox.net AND MADE A PART OF TH ECORDAT COUNCIL MEETING OF To: bubba32@cox.net OFFICE OF THE CITY LE K Subject: Recommend Continuance of EIR Agenda item on April 16th CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK Transmittal of Handout Material to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:19:14 -0400 From: Jim Gordon <bubba32@cox.net> To: cc@rpv Subject: Fwd: Recommend Continuance of EIR Agenda item on April 16th Honorable Mayor Brooks and City Council Members There are three important reasons to defer any decision on authorizing an EIR Consultant now because, among other valid reasons, this is just the very tip of the impending EIR "iceberg". 1.) The proposed Consultant Contract subject scope is incomplete, dealing only with limited EIR impacts of the proposed Revised Athletic Field submitted January 25, 2013 - most of those issues have previously been addressed in the 2010 EIR & CUP Resolutions. (Herewith) 2.) The College (October 29, 2012) is proposing a much more significant Re -Phasing (Handout page 3) of all of their CUP approved expansion entitlements, and this is a subject worthy of a far more in-depth EIR study. In a letter to the City of February 27, 2013, College Counsel stated (page 3) that although this Re -Phasing was temporarily withdrawn in the re -submittal of January 25, 2013, it will be BAAAACK! That admits to "Piecemealing", a prohibited CEQA practice. 3.) In an article (Handout page 5) in the PV News, and again today in the Daily Breeze, page 3, the College announced a significant functional change and a doubling of enrollments within the past three years. Therefore, as City Attorney previously stated; "Clearly this is a significant change that does need to be addressed." Those sentiments are also imbedded in the Councils' 2010-41 & -42 EIR and CUP Resolutions on pages 5 & 4 respectively (Handout, pages 7 & 8). A new EIR and CUP are totally justified. Jim Gordon Footnote: A "continuance" is not a denial of any current "right" the https://webmail.west.cox.net/do/mail/message/Preview?msgId=INBOXDELIM97994 4/16/2013 Preview Page 2 of 2 College/University may claim now since 1.) it simply extends the decision to a previously approved Compliance Review date - May 7, 2013, and 2.) the "College" has been in a non-compliance status (Condition 60a) since September 30, 2012 and which is now 33 months and counting since they received approval for their self -designed athletic field which can be constructed at any time without any further EIR hearings, with or without tennis courts. 3.) In the meantime, the College has failed to demonstrate any sense of "Urgency" regarding the new field, taking 171 days to produce a rejected "Application" and nearly two months more to file another. https://webmail.west.cox.net/do/mail/message/Preview?msgld=INBOXDELIM97994 4/16/2013 2.1 0 10 The City Council finds that the site is of adequate size tc accommodate an athletic field in addition to the other components of the project, providec that it is moved further to the east, with two tennis courts on either side, because a field sc configured, would not result in safety impacts on Palos Verdes Drive East. I r . 2010-42 M Current Phase i Cornptinents (in)completion Status (per,Condition #60 (a) and Exhibit 3-8) December 18, 2012 proved Plan Pei SIR and CtrP esviuti0n&: June r, 2910 through 5e temb£r 30, 2412: Future Time completion Hates from Application {October 29, 2012 : Canstnuction 12+1812012 Proposed Phase Ext construction Future. * Future " Years_ , .. - :Pian Complete?mp to December 1& .2012 :. Time Needed Phas£t Completion Date shifted DemolitienofEx d EMU" s: _ 7* ?..._.., 1.#sa;t days _•__:.Phase Phase One B Sept 302020 ;.,:., $#$ 2 .:i;af•:':4;:i�: ... .: 14 da 0 Sept 302024a ;;:i:•':s.. ;,.;;,,.....,.,.,,; .:... . t>:>:::':>; -33i ..::;ia?::iS>S:$:;:ri'>:i;:5">c „:;:>;::;:'�;??c+::»• :i.5:•<:i>i' +i:;i''i•::i;:5;<i•??>:: >:":R`s 'i;?'>`:i:<:; ? `:;i;54<3fif<; $., .,',,:,; PhsO£B14days Sept 302020 .,•...,; . ..,. i i S'f .. .. .. 14 d Phase One B Sept30 2020 .;;.:::. S 14 aPhase prig 8 Sept 30 2024 ::.,:.::- 14 days Phase One B Sept30 20206 J ;:::3344 a. 14 d One B Se 30 202014 Remove:.:' -ate :. 14 days..... Phase one B Sep; 30 2020 ;. 2 ..P,...2.....,.....:.:. :.., .. .t...:� . :: .. , .. ' 74 Phase one B Rough Gtad£lEsta, tls(t BFk1di�1,0 f : t1b 90 days: Phase Three Sept 30 2030 1 Ed ' ' ,: _2?+K,ZA??f...<?+'?i'iiiiii,�'S<:Ji'<�;:?i•3;<?S<i:.................. :..... 90 day3, Phase Two sept 30 ZOZS 3.1:hii¢Zc09 -i<: ...... W. 3�:�.'.7i; ... ...: r, • _._ 90 days:,.. Fhase.Two ,Sept 30202s, 4,^ �'s:;,tJE.?<':,<::?,: ;,;iup:? : 90 days..... Phase fibres Sept 30 2030 ~ ........ R?..:. .�. ,....; 14 days undefined various construcllRetgnfiEre : - i;1t '# - ... 50 days Phase One B _ Sept 34 2029 2 'nv. •+i?ai .:>: <?<; ;:;>; :• : 34 ?2tk r �n1t 14 dao Phase One 8 Sept 30 2020 -. 3 3S4# 6Q,4v$ Phase One 6 Sept 34 2020 $ ; :: -. 4 �# atagr 25 �, 60 dale Phast One A sept 30 2013 45 days Phase One 0 Sept 30 2020. g� f {gfa '. tad•, 'ds: s A,Yd .� .^'st i �t $y. _ 90 days Phar£ On£ B SerK 30 2020 wtt , $a 3 3x}4 , .; . nEa R£moved°' We 31>nk 6 &atsafR2RR" s ata S' .. .. nots cified &othin Done nots dried 11[3 :"e3 installation of, We :; .r.lti: ... t . net s ai LonstrutttoTime Ptanned in Ph e 1 in 28 months —: Tt1ta1 mos truUign time to 31 months with e-ct@ Ion to December 16, 2012 -_-- R£maNi Cflnstritednn Time to Constmct all other uokished Phase i com is i 0 days. Pr Post Dat£mbon 1 B 20 :2 ase ! Com Hent C nstrutti mime ? Days ". ..:.:. z u Eitil _ ,:Ph ! Approved :::No ns._.-. Ton B...Rcaltte'o these uH"n1e; Upgrafts On May low, 2012 the College announced that their new Athletic Field was "Coming Soon" The first actual proposal was submitted October 29, GO 20121 iii days later as A new Application was re - Submitted January 25, 2013 we Urgency? • "Marymount • California University" • Revealed in the articlePV News March 28, xe March 28, 2013 PV News article announces "Marymount California University", to "reflect the colleges' transformation from a two-year liberal arts college to one that offers four year degrees..and anticipate the addition of graduate degrees this year." Claims "increased enrollment which has doubled" in the past three years" Claims New Library a "current" Project (VS.2020 — 2025) Claims "Recent Admission" into the NAIA (2010 actual) These announcements require a new EIR and New CUP — see previous EIR & CUP "Whereas" statements..next Here is the EIR statement.. WHEREAS, on September 9, 2009, the College issued a press release announcing its intention to seek accreditation for and to commence offering four year degree programs as early as the Fall of 2010; and, WHEREAS, the introduction of four-year degree programs was deemed by the City to be a revision to the project that had the potential to cause greater environmental impacts than the project as analyzed in the Final EIR certified by the Planning Commission, thus the City conducted further review as required by CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the additional environmental analysis is embodied in Appendix D to the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, Appendix D was circulated for public review and comment, during which time the City received a number of comments to which responses were prepared; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on February 16, 2010, during the public comment period, to provide an opportunity for the College and the public to provide comments on Appendix D; and, Here is the CUP statement.. WHEREAS, on September 9, 2009, the College issued a press release announcing its intention to seek accreditation for and to commence offering Bachelor of Arts degree programs as early as the Fall of 2010; and, WHEREAS, the introduction of Bachelor of Arts degree programs was deemed by the City to be a revision to the Revised Project that had the potential to cause greater environmental impacts than the project as analyzed in the Final EIR certified by the Planning Commission, thus the City conducted further review as required by CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the additional environmental analysis is embodied in Appendix D to the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, Appendix D was circulated for public review and comment (January 21, 2010 through March 8, 2010), during which time the City received a number of comments to which responses were prepared; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on February 16, 2010, during the public comment period, to provide an opportunity for the College and the public to provide comments on Appendix D; and, "Clearly this is a significant change that does need to be addressed" RPV City Attorney Carol Lynch Y � N clarnpus Q On yX.P A� Ian faces T piest ji new u dy MARYMOUNT GOLLEGFt Rancho Palos o - Verdes wants to assess the impact proposed Mbd 0 four-year degree programs will have on city. H _ � BY TNaltasa Pain®t Staff Writer Responding to expteted "Clears news last week that Marymount y College Goers to 6egdn yrantmg this is a - four-yeardegrers, Rancho Palos Verdes ufcials on Saturday significant , asked for further audy f the change schools tong -delayed modern- �., fixation plana. that floes In move that is iwstpone several months a need for likely ar to be decision on Mnryntount'a con- addressed. .: troversial campus expansion proposal. tiw City Council voted aj( ea 4-0 to ask for a rm— of the there vriii - potentdaT impacts caused try the college allowing student, to be no otrtain tischrlor's degrees. Impacts w The vote came several days la _:,_.._,.. nRer the private Catholic two- hilt I'm Year. milegr revealed that it had t.G a nN aerreeelnot itatlied�ion agency to traffic begin offering a sol degrees, with te First class enginelar, exp�`.. (Counnccilomemd6eratrs and lcrcy and i don't m H stafY'said the new academic pro- know.rr gram could cause additional —Carol Lynch, traffic and have other effects on Rancho Palos Me residential arras surround- Verdes city w --- Ing Marymoant. A stale required environmental review attorney of the expansion plans which COLLEGE AB AprilRancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting 1 , 2013 vs The College's 2012-2013 Catalog, page 7, states: Academic Degree Requirements — Marymount Liberal Education Core: (36-44 Units) "This core provides a common foundation for all Marymount degrees." Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting Apn"I January 27, 2012 Director of Environmental Services City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275-5391 Per our RPV CUP requirements, Marymount College is submitting certification of Spring 2012 enrollment as follows: ➢ 734 Students are enrolled in Traditional Degree Programs, of which 93 are BA program students 106 Students are enrolled in Non-traditional Degree Programs. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brophy, Ph.D. President, Marymount College February 14, 2012 Director of Environmental Services City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275-5391 RECEtVEu FEB 2 12013 COW"ffyMNMj0PMEW DUMTMwr Per our RPV CUP requirements and its enrollment cohort parameters, Marymount College is submitting certification of Spring 2013 enrollment as follows: D 754 Students are enrolled in the Traditional Degree Program. There are no upper division courses offered in this day program, hence there are no BA program students in this category. ➢ 101 Students are enrolled in Non -Traditional Degree Programs in the evening. ➢ 79 students participated in driver safety training. Respectfiilly su milted, Michael Brophy, Ph.D. President Marymount College cc: Vice President for Finance and Administration, James Reeves cc: Vice President for Finance and Administration, James Reeves Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting April 16, 2013 The academic programs are a product of the Marymount College "mission, vision and values" statements and represent a belief in the value of the liberal arts and cross -disciplinary programs appropriate to our students and faculty. There are also programs and courses that emphasize learning through field work and through individual investigation and experience. Marymount College offers the following degree programs: • Associate in Arts • Associate in Science • Bachelor of Arts in Business • Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts • Bachelor of Arts in Media Studies • Bachelor of Arts in Psychology Degree programs are comprised of a common liberal education core plus degree - specific requirements. Each degree program also offers a choice of concentrations or emphases. (see Academic Degree Requirements) All Bachelor degree programs culminate in a senior capstone project and a portfolio of work and reflection. (See Capstone descriptions under course numbers 497-498 in corresponding disciplines) Degree program learning dutcomes represent embedded versions of the Institutional Student Learing Outcomes (ISLOs) at the level and in the disciplines appropriate to each degree. Each degree ensures achievement of learning outcomes via a coherent curriculum, robust assessment, and student reflection that forms a foundation for lifelong learning and the creation of meaning. (See ISLOs listed on page iii and degree specific learning outcomes and curriculum under Academic Degree Requirements) Degree programs are enriched and supplemented by options that include study travel, service learning, internships, field practicum, independent study, Marymount Advantage opportunities, and Honors. Split Campus Alternative Infeasible "PV North site is 15.7 acres." •False. -Appellant "Combine with Rolling Hills Prep in constructing a mutually beneficial sports facility." -Appellant -Site is 11.35 acres based on lease. -Less .31 acres for the road easement. -11.04 acres total. -Z acres geologic constraints. MA&YMOUNT ..., , 24 Split Campus Alternative Po,- Add a CEQA finding of infeasibility due to inadequate site size. m BP Unit Type 'A' W06. 82LEE r � 6®yam t' .r.: - ��r_._. �� ', (9�► mss �rrrrarrr. N �I PHASE I-SUMMARY Buik6np Areas: 80172!1 sf. SWAM Llvinp tA11�: 80.720 sf. SWdeM Berk 800 Parking RegulremeMe: 164 epet�a SWdeMLivinaUrdts 784sr�ces 82 units x 2 spaces(unft 1 B4 spaces Parkirtst Provided : 207 sped Norifi PV Paddng 123 spaces Street Parking 2 spaces (loft Parking 82 spaces Partdnp Summary: Parking proved 207 spaces Parking required 164apece s PHASE 11- SUMMARY BWldkm Arm: 102.022 a1. Student Living Units: IM022 s f. UnftType'A &'B': Sdrdsnt Beds 82 800 Parkkm Requirements: 184 spaces Student Llvkm Units iS4 spaces 82 units x 2 spaces/un8 184 spaces Paridna Provided: 175epacas Nath PV Parking Street Parking 123 spaces S2 spaces Parkirm Summary: P-Wng provided ParldngregWmd 17s spaces 164sapcas *Increase s.f. due to comrersion of garages to bedrooms PHASE I_I Y i BtYa wPeirt� S� Inc. I MCUP WAWWCOUBM WOMMM tm r.�MM 81f&KMRM MMO ) PHASE itl - SUMMARY Bui d'irm Areas: 125,884 s.f. Student Uvina Unb: 94,5578.1. Unit Type A: 32 Unit Type 8': 44 Student Beds 800 'Old Make (mixed-use occupancy) 27,000 sf. 9 classrooms @ 1000 sf. each 9,000 81 Support Spat/ (Catateda, When, at--.) 14,400 s f. 12 Admin. Offices @ SM s.f. each 3,600 81 Maintenance Faclftlles 4,077 s f. Warehouse 2,708 s.f. Office 1,369 s.f. Parting Razwkements: 190speoss, Student Llvft Units 152 spaces 78 units x 2 spaoWur t 152 spaces 'Oid Main' bWkflm 30 spaces 27,01)0 s.f. -12,000 91 fining= 15.000 31 @ 1 apace/500 S.f. 3D spaces Maintenance Facilities 8 spaces 4,000 a.f. @t space /WD 81 8 spaces Partdrnt Provided: 266 spaces North PV Paddng 123 spaces Street Level Parking 58 spaces Subterranean Parking 75 spaces Parking Summary: Parking provided 256 spaces Parking required 190 spaces PHASE III 2013 A � &�eM P,�1mer Soto Inc. WRMMWOOLUME CUP UMPAUS M:1011 LWAMM MM I MM(IaiiNtb PHASE N -SUMMARY BUUdina Areas: 125,694 s.f. Student Uvina Units: 94.557 a.f. Unff Type'A: 32 UnitType'E': 44 Student Beds 600 Did Main' (mixed-use occupancy) 27.000 s.f. 9 classroom @ 1000 s.f. each 9,000 s.f. Support Spaces (Cafeteria, Kitchen, etc...) 14,400 s.f. 12 Admin. Offices @ 300 s.f. each 3,600 s.f. Maintenance Facilities 4A77 s.f. Warehouse 2,708 s.f. Office 1,389 s.f. Parkins Requirements: 190 spaces Student Living Units 152 spaces 76 units x 2 spaces/unt 152 spaces Did Main' buildirxg 30 spaces 27,000 s.f. • 12,000 s.f. Dining= 15,000 s.f. @ 1 spece/500 s.f. 30 spaces Maintenance Facilities 8 spaces 4,000 s.f. @i space /500 a.f. 8 spaces Parking Provided • 258 spaces North PV Parking 123 spaces Street Level Parking 58spam Subterranean Parking 75 spaces Parking Summary: Parking provided 256 spaces Parking required 190 spacm PHASE IV 2015 i.1110 Is r "f i s Br�eM Palmer Soto Inc. wr IWires Glm we"mm PHARE Nom) r( R 5 _VO• PHASE V -SUMMARY Buitdino Areas: 143,134 s.f. Student Uvina Units: 94.657 s.f. Unit Type A: 32 Unit Type V: 44 Student Beds 600 Classroom Buikikst: 17,514s.f. 16 classrooms @ 6DO s.f, each 9,600 91 32 offices @ 200 af. each 6,400a.f. Support Spaces r 1,500 s.f. 'Otd Malrf (rrfhod use occupancy) 27,000 s.f. 9 classrooms @ 1006 s.f. each 9,000 &L Support Spaces - (Cafeteria, K11zlan, sto...) 14,400 91 12 Admin. Offices @ 300 sf. each 3,600 s.f. Maintenance Faciliffes 4.077s.f. Warehouse 2,708 91 Office 1,8.f. Parking Requirements: 225 spaces Student t.HkmUnits 152specas 76 units x 2 spacesfunit uult 'Okl Main' building 36 spaces 27,000 s.f. -12,000 s.f. Dining - 15;000 91 @ i spaca/Wo s f. 30 spaces Classroom Buiklkm 35 spaces 17,5W s.f. @ 1 space/MO s.f. r( R 5 _VO• PHASE V -SUMMARY Buitdino Areas: 143,134 s.f. Student Uvina Units: 94.657 s.f. Unit Type A: 32 Unit Type V: 44 Student Beds 600 Classroom Buikikst: 17,514s.f. 16 classrooms @ 6DO s.f, each 9,600 91 32 offices @ 200 af. each 6,400a.f. Support Spaces (Public Lobby, Restrooms, etc...) 1,500 s.f. 'Otd Malrf (rrfhod use occupancy) 27,000 s.f. 9 classrooms @ 1006 s.f. each 9,000 &L Support Spaces - (Cafeteria, K11zlan, sto...) 14,400 91 12 Admin. Offices @ 300 sf. each 3,600 s.f. Maintenance Faciliffes 4.077s.f. Warehouse 2,708 91 Office 1,8.f. Parking Requirements: 225 spaces Student t.HkmUnits 152specas 76 units x 2 spacesfunit 152 spaces 'Okl Main' building 36 spaces 27,000 s.f. -12,000 s.f. Dining - 15;000 91 @ i spaca/Wo s f. 30 spaces Classroom Buiklkm 35 spaces 17,5W s.f. @ 1 space/MO s.f. 35 spaces Maintenance Facilities 8 spaces 4,000 s.f. @i space j500 91 8 spaces Parking Provided; 419 spaces North PV Parking 123 spaces Street Level Parking 118 spaces Subterranean Parking 178 spaces Parking Summary: Parking Provided 419speces Parking required 226 spaces IIIarrt Palmar Soto tnc. MMOMOIINiCOLLEGE CM ,NWACAUM RM PHASE V fir) 2020+ CUP -5:P5 Rancho Palos Verdes ..: e:. windoW to build library a• students E serve as a+' MaY 7. 2013 A 3n ilia m Ver` main degrees, it Capacity from Is need for a2t- d In June 2010, :perience of i } Pursuant to existing conditions of approval established by Revision "C" to CUP No. 9, enrollment of students at the College is limited to an average of 750 full -tune students (students taking 12 units or mare) for the Fall and Spring semesters, and a maximum of 20 part-time students (stints teldng 11 units or less) each semester with a margin for 1137710.10 A-3 Resdulkm tato. 2010-41 Exhfit A Page 3 of 88 difference of 3.0 percent. The College does not request any expansion of the ext student enrollment limitations, which are 793 students. The College currently employs 215 full- and parttime faculty and staff. The College anticdpates adding one full-time and one part time security positions upon project approval. The College also anticipates the need for four or five total custodial and maintenance personnel. In sum, the proposed Project would add approximately 7 new full- and part -tine employees. The salaries associated with all of these positions would be at moderaterincome levels or below. a fta l ElP% Appandix A at p.13 . See also latter from Donald Davis to Ara Mihranien dated AprU 24, 2009,3- AP - 4. 1137710.10 A-4 Resolution foto. 2010-41 Extubit A Page 4 of 88 1600 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH ft2g "Project: The subject site is currently developed with 86 dwelling units that provide off -campus housing for students attending the Marymount College Rancho Palos Verdes Campus. The stated goal of the College is to develop a fire phase undergraduate and graduate campus, which at total bund out would accommodate 1,500 students, with 847 students being housed on the site. The project proposes: to convert the garages of the existing dwellings into additional bedrooms, construct a surface parking lot along Pam Verdes Drive, construct new structures comprised of a 27,000 square foot dining facility, with classrooms and administrative offices, (called the Old Main), a 17,500 square foot buffing located south of Old Main containing classrooms, laboratories design studios and administrative offices and a 4,077 square foot maintenance building. The proposed buildings will be two to four stories 30-75 feet in heIghL The Old Main building will have an 87 foot 6 inches in height tower element which will serve as a focal point for the campus. ReauestedActions: 1. Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Cade (LAMC) Section 12.24U.6 of the Municipal Code, a I Conditional Use authorizing the construction of a five phased college campus in the RD6 zone. 2. Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.24 F, modifications of the following height and area regulations are 3I being requested: a. From LAMC Section 12.2 1.1 to permitthe proposed campus buildings to have a variable range of stories from three (3) to four (4) stories, and heights ranging from 36 feet to 75 feet (including elevator towers) for the required classroom buildings and resjdenco halls, and 87 feet 6 inches for the administration building tower feature instead of the 30 -feet permitted in the 1XL zone. b. From LAMC Section 12.09.1 B 3 to maintain the existing rear yard setbadc of 10 feet instead of the 25 foot rear yard required in the RD6 zone. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 4 APRIL 11, 2013 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meetin� MaY 7. 2013 x Rancho s .. 7. 2013 isq_________________a__e____________________ 9 u MARYMOUNT COLLEGE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PLANS FOR THE ATHLETIC FIELD AND A REQUEST FOR EXTENSIONS OF THE APPROVAL PERIODS FOR THE REMAINING APPROVED FACILITIES ALONG WITH OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE MARYMOUNT CUP (Proposed Revision "F" to CUP No. 9) You cannot Un -ring thisell introduction Marymount College is seeking four revisions to its current Conditional Use Permit No.9 ("CUP") approved by #w City -in 2UT07 as Revision T" to the CUP. First, Marymount is proposing to remove the four tennis courts approved for the western portion of the campus in order to enlarge the playing area for the multi-purpose athletic field (Athletic Field") and to change the surface material of the Athletic Field from natural grass to synthetic turf. Second, Marymount is requesting an amendment to CUP Condition of Approval No. 136 to allow up to three events (including graduation ceremonies) with amplified sound on the Athletic Field under its annual Special Use Permit. Third, Marymount is requesting that the time periods of the approvals to demolish certain existing facilities and construct the new approved facilities under Condition of Approval No. 60 be revised although the actual overall construction time period for the construction work will remain at thirty-six (36) months. Finally, Marymount is requesting a revision to the wording of Condition of Approval No 79 to more accurately reflect the limitation on structures for primary occupancy in the identified Geologic Setback Area. Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting MaY 7. 1 courses! Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting MaY 7. 2013 The academic programs are a product of the Marymount College "mission, vision and values" statements and represent a belief in the value of the liberal arts and cross -disciplinary programs appropriate to our students and faculty. There are also programs and courses that emphasize learning through field work and through individual investigation and experience. Marymount College offers the followis W programs: Education • Associate in Arts • Associate in Science aarymount Liberal • Bachelor of Arts in Business • Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts nis Core provides a common • Bachelor of Arts inMedia Studies • Bachelor of Arts in Psychology foundation for all Marymount Degrees Degree programs are comprised of a common liberal education core plus degree - specific requirements. Each degree program also offers a choice of concentrations or emphases. (see Academic Degree Requirements) All Bachelor degree programs culminate in a senior capstone project and a portfolio of work and reflection. (See Capstone descriptions under course numbers 497-498 in corresponding disciplines) Degree program learning dutcomes represent embedded versions of the Institutional Student Learning Outcomes (ISLOB) at the level and in the disciplines appropriate to each degree. Each degree ensures achievement of learning outcomes via a coherent curriculum, robust assessment, and student reflection that forms a foundation for lifelong learning and the creation of meaning. (See ISLOs listed on page tit and degree speck learning outcomes and curriculum under Academic Degree Requirements) Degree programs are enriched and supplemented by options that include study travel, service learning, internships, field practicum, independent study, Marymount Advantage opportunities, and Honors. "Lower Division `Core' Courses" must be taken by all Marymount BA degree students that attend the RPV Main Campus Requirements blARYMOUNT LnERAL EDUCATION CORE (m44 trams) This cure provides a common founda4��on fm all Marymount degrees. 1. Skill Core (12-13 units) Developmnent of the reading, Liberal thinking skills nececonFunicat confidence, clarity, sensitivi% efficiency and pmeci provides One course from eaeh of the following: F_rposhory Writing: 3 units English 112 Marymount Analytical Writing: 3 units English 114 Speech: 3 units Communication Arts 105,125,130,145, 200, 250 or Speech 105.125,130,145,20D, 250 Logical Thinking: 3-4 units Computer Science 183 or above, Math 060,090 (not 0900 or above, Philosophy 130,Anthropology(Psychologyy/Sociology 235 or Business 220 2. Humans Core (13.15 units) A focus on the world condition in which the primary purpose is to assist the strident with discovering and developing hisbbmimmanity as a person, and thus with developing the knowledge, wisdom and values that emphasize why and haw this humaneness ought to be critically applied to personal, social, vocational, environmental and spiritual life. One course from each of the following: The Art of Being Human: 1-3 units Interdisciplinary Studies 117,117H or ID217 by placement Literature: 3 units English 120 through 260 Philosophy: 3 units Philosophy course Religion: 3 units Religion course Fine Arts: 3 units AM 101 through 271 Art 104 through 231 CommuaicationAtts ilO,Music 100 through 116,185 Theater 100 through 121,185 - The academic programs aro a product of the Maty—unt College "mission, vision and values" statements and represent a belief in the value of the liberal arts and crass -disciplinary programs appropriate to our students and faculty ram are also programs and courses that emphasize teaming through field work and through individual investigation and experience. Ed=t • Associate m fence • Bachelor of Arts in Melia Studies Axis in Psychology DegraMCare comprised of a common liberal education core phis degree - specific requirements. Each degree program also offers a choice of concentrations or emphases. (see Academic Degree Requirements) All Bachelor degree programs culminate in a senor capstone project and a portfolio of work and reflection. (See Capstone descriptions under course numbers 497-498 in corresponding disciplines) Degree program learning outcomes represent embedded versions of the Institutional Student Learning Outcomes (ISI.Os) at the level and in the disciplines appropriate to each degree. Each degree ensures achievement of learning outcomes via a coherent curriculum, robust assessment, and student reflection that forms a foundation for lifelong learning and the creation of meaning. (See ISLOs listed on page iii and degree specific learning ourcontes and curriculum under Academic Degree Requirements) Degree programs are enriched and supplemented by options that include study travel, service learning, internships, field practicum, independent study, Marymount Advantage opportunities, and Honors. Experiential Learning Study Abroad and Faculty -Led Study Travel Programs Studying overseas provides a unique opportunity which can open up fresh perspectives on international political, economic and social issues, interpersonal and intercultural relationships, anti career choices. Marymount's surly abroad and faculty -led study travel programa directly support our emphasis on encouraging students to recognize and develop multiple perspectives and global awareness. , Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting M"Moum to Y ' 2013 �,dwt ng"mwed ft W ba am ft _ For mvwAd to of as of ft. 60 be Ib is 'is a Signi ficant Change Q ura�a MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT NCIL MEETING OF RVI 2 01_ OFFICE OF THE CITY LERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK Im CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY x '.; .y h4 .. 4 4 4 •�h if,. .. , .. ; ,•: �::::::::>:,}:•:. � X44 X q 44�4h, 4WX S t"Ayy a � 4 '� �t �� a� c<`�, t 4 r°n: ,rg* .� .tar '�..� y, . . M-ARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY � `� �k .: � ��: .. a;,.'. h:;',:; MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY DY OF LI; PALOS VERDES March 4, 2013 PLANNING. BUILDING, 8a CODE ENFORCEhtl<-47 Or. Mie6a" Brophy President Mpryrrourt College 30,300 Polus Vern 4tls Di ive East Rancho Palos Ve-des, CA W275 SLBJECT ANNUAL ENROLLMENT STATISTICS FOR SPRING 20-13 TERRA Dear 0r Brophy, Thank you for providing tho --ity wit -i oortifioation of tho student enrollment for the Sprung 2012- term. 014term. As you are aviare, the Conditions of Apprcval adopted by th? City Council on June 1: 2010 ender Resolution No. 2010.42 which approved Revision "E" of Conditional Use Pe -mit No. 9 row applies to the oporaticona of tho College. According to Com iticn No. 146 3f Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision T," the College shat submit to then City an enrollment report for each Term within an academic year for al Traditiana and Nan-Tracitional agree Programand Summer Educational Programs no tatsr than 30 - days after a term has commenced. Based on the enioll"nt information subMitted to the City on February '4, 2013 and the student ern Ament limits "Eablishe d under Cowitiun Hu. 145. the student erroftmert for the Spring 2093 terra is vEit h thj scope of the Conditions of Approve' as described below. 754 0xientc enrolled in ft `traditioial" degree prr_igrarn for Sipring 2013 (7tl3 mandmirrr students alloyed) No students are en'olied in the Bachelcr of Arts degree program (250 maximurr students aRovaead out of the testas 793 mau'rmum student eanrolirrernti 101 students are earstled in the'non-tra4itional" degree program for Sond 2013 415c, mwdmurn students at owed) In addition to the above, Condition No. 144 states that the College shall provide all of its incomi'tg students a driver's training course regarding local roaftay condi ons, The .ota number of students receiving .he required driver training course shall he kidudec in the enrollment report for each term as desrribMd in Condition filo. 146. Based on the en-ollrient information provided by the College, there were 79 students who participated in the driver safety program for the Swing 2019 terra. Shaine yo,r have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Are Atihranian at (310) 344- $220 cr vla et -mail at arartigtpv, com- Sir07rety\ Joel r'�1 o s, At C:amrr sty C1e topmern fjirwor Address Pile Cup No. 9 Revision "E" Enrollment Pile Kil EDGE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. Hp4Xl6w IRON FENCE V-0" FROM PROPERTY LINE PARTIAL SITE PLAN SCALE, I"=IOD'-O" ATHLETE FIELD GOMPAR150N Y 50500 PAL05 \v RD DRIVE EAST RASMUSSEN A ASSOCIATES MARYMOLW COLLEGE MAy 02, 2013 ArtAittltltl ►t1ADlA( t"lnbr• MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY Fix W Kil EDGE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. Hp4Xl6w IRON FENCE V-0" FROM PROPERTY LINE PARTIAL SITE PLAN SCALE, I"=IOD'-O" ATHLETE FIELD GOMPAR150N Y 50500 PAL05 \v RD DRIVE EAST RASMUSSEN A ASSOCIATES MARYMOLW COLLEGE MAy 02, 2013 ArtAittltltl ►t1ADlA( t"lnbr• MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY :13 Phase 1 Revisited (September 2012) Utilities done in September 2012 Permanent Parking Lot by Christmas 2012 - Waiting for Federal Approval Field by June 1 - Waiting for City Council Approval for reduced project CITYOF A4O RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MAY 7, 2013 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. City Manager Report 1 and 2 4 Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale Description of Material Email exchange between City Manager Lehr and Terri Haack Emails from: Gregory Lash; Donald M. Davis; Randy Bowers; Chris and Kathy Venn Emails from: Lynn Swank; Barbara Gleghorn ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, May 6, 2013**. MAGENDA12013 Additions Revisions to agendasi20130507 additions revisions to agenda.doc Carla Morreale From: Carolyn Lehr Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:11 PM To: Carla Morreale Subject: FW: Thank You Late correspondence. From: Haack, Terri[mailto:THaack(aldestinationhotels.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:07 PM To: Carolyn Lehr; Vancans, Gaye Cc: susanbrooks0l(a)yahoo.com; Carolynn Petru; Mona Dill; TER - Executive Committee; Sabatier, Jamie; Hickey, Mark Subject: RE: Thank You Carolyn, Good evening. Thank you so much for these kind words. It was our honor to play a small part in the grand celebration of 40 years of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes! You, Mona and your entire committee worked so hard and you should be proud of this accomplishment. Warm regards, Terri Haack From: Carolyn Lehr [mailto:clehr(ubrpv.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:56 PM To: Haack, Terri; Vancans, Gaye Cc: susanbrooks0l@)yahoo.com; Carolynn Petru; Mona Dill Subject: Thank You Dear Terri and Gaye, The Gala last night stands out as the premier event for any of the Peninsula cities—ever! Elegant ambiance, grand scale, eye-popping, magnificent gourmet food, great entertainment staging, lovely wines, the perfect venue for dance and celebration! We so appreciated your assistance during our challenges—and we learned and overcame them to earn huge compliments last night and today. Our guests used accolades like "first class all the way" to describe their experience at Terranea. Our deepest gratitude to you and your staff, Carolyn Lehr, City Manager Susan Brooks, Mayor C yr f M.paJAGCIL From: Gregory Lash <glash@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:52 AM To: CC; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell Cc: Planning; Ara Mihranian Subject: Fw: Letter to City Council Regarding Case no ZON2003-00317 Marymount Facilities Expansion Dear Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro -tem, Councilmembers: I read with great interest the Staff Report released in advance of the 07May13 Hearing on this matter. I fully support the Staffs Recommendation, & commend them for their work. I hope the Council will support their conclusion as well. I live on San Ramon Drive, a very short distance from the College entrance. I have been there since 2001, & have tried to co -exist with the College & it's growing presence since then. Over the years, my Spouse & I have endured noise, amplified Outdoor Events, trash, excess parking, multiple turn-arounds in our driveway, the Measure "P" Campaign, & most recently much dust & asphalt fumes. I am a veteran of many Hearings on various Marymount expansion efforts since 2001. Virtually all have been beset with last minute changes & downright deceptions by the college. Early on, due to the complexity of the process, I forgave them. Now, I think it is their strategy. We support Education, & wish the College success, but have found it most difficult to do in the last several years. The College & some supporter's implications that the City will not "give them their field" are disingenuous. The College got their Field, that they designed, in 2010. Ironically, during those Hearings, CCC/ME pointed out in great detail that Marymount would not like the size of this Field. Further, the City Council insisted that Tennis Courts act as a safety buffer between the field & PVDrive East. Now the field is too small, & the Tennis Courts are gone - it's 2010 all over again. At an earlier Hearing, when it was clear the Construction Phases agreed to were not being followed, Mayor Brooks was reduced to asking Dr Brophy what he would be doing next. This from the body that is supposed to be driving the process. Dr Brophy has stated to the Council he does not intend to follow the timelines laid out by the process. The City is close to losing control over the entire process. How are residents supposed to know what to expect, & what to support or not support if the College is constantly moving the Goalposts & not honoring their commitments? The City has been most accommodating in it's dealings with the College. A Small Business or an individual would never have gotten the amount of Staff time/Hearings Marymount has had. I ask that they be dealt with as any other entity before the Council would be dealt with. Either Marymount is very bad at planning or the have no intention of following what they have agreed to. Which ever of these you believe, the situation cries out for a firm hand and a short leash. Marymount has not taken yes for an answer yet, perhaps it is time to give them no for an answer. I urge the Council to be firm in future dealings with Marymount, & resist pressure to "fast-track" any future changes. I fear there are more changes on the horizon. My first glance of Marymount's Website, convinced me that a completely different Campus was being described than the one I live next to. Enrollments & Facilities well beyond what is allowed & beyond what their 24 acres could possibly hold are prominently shown. Finally, I found the College's complaints that their latest changes were not being expedited most ironic. They are fully to blame for the length of time that has transpired. If they do not have an Athletic field by Fall 2013 (which they are prematurely advertising, I might add), the City will not be at fault. Sincerely, Gregory Lash Vivienne Nixon -Lash 2829 San Ramon Drive RPV, CA 90275 At first glance of Marymount's Website, I was convinced that a completely different Campus than the one 1 live next to was being described. c From: Davis, Donald M. <DDavis@bwslaw.com> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:43 PM To: CC; Carolyn Lehr; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: 'Michael Brophy'; 'Jim Reeves'; 'Anette Jensen'; 'Jim Hanafin'; Rodriguez, Irene J. Subject: Marymount Comment Letter for 5-7-13 City Council Hearing Attachments: Ltr to RPV. pdf Importance: High Dear Mayor Brooks and City Councilmembers: I am forwarding a letter on behalf of Marymount California University regarding the Marymount items on the agenda for your meeting of May 7, 2013. Because of the importance of these items to Marymount, Dr. Brophy and I would like to have 20-30 minutes of time to address the Council. We look forward to seeing you tomorrow evening. Regards, Donald avis 1 Partner 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 1 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953 d - 213.236.2702 1 t - 213.236.0600 1 f - 213.236.2700 ddavis@bwslaw corn I vCwd I bwslsw.00rn 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. 444 South Flower Street - Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90071-2953 voice 213.236.0600 - fax 213.236.2700 www.bwslaw.com May 6, 2013 VIA E-MAIL & HAND DELIVERY Direct No.: 213.236.2702 ddavis@bwslaw.com Susan Brooks, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Marymount California University: Request for Permitted Time Extension and Expedited Processing of Revised Athletic Field Plans Dear Mayor Brooks and City Councilmembers: Marymount California University ("Marymount") respectfully requests that the City Council take the following actions with respect the University's Campus Master Plan at its meeting of May 7, 2013: Authorize the Professional Services Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for the environmental review of the revised Phase One Athletic Field and grading plans. 2. Direct staff and Rincon to expedite processing of the environmental review consistent with similar projects Rincon has performed for other jurisdictions. 3. Grant the remaining time extension for Phase One to allow a reasonable opportunity for the Council to consider the revised Athletic Field plans and for Marymount to initiate the use. A. Under The City's Municipal Code, The Proper Inquiry In A CUP Time Limit Extension Request Is The Effort Made By An Applicant To Apply For the Requisite Permit And/Or Timely Commence Construction. Marymount Has Diligently Pursued The Revised Athletic Field Plans For Over One Year And Must Be Afforded A Reasonable Opportunity To Commence The Use Before The City Council Affirmatively Acts To Void The Entitlement. The City's Municipal Code controls the interpretation of Marymount's Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In order for the Council to interpret the time periods in Condition 60(a) in a manner consistent with the Municipal Code, Marymount's efforts to commence construction and LA #4813-6276-7635 v1 C -Q ) r, i `i, n : w ! nr,)n e - Marin County - Oakland -- Orange County - Palm Desert - Silicon Valley - Ventura County Marymount California University: Request for Permitted Time Extension May 6, 2013 Page 2 not the completion of construction must be emphasized when considering the extension request. As set forth below, CUP Condition 60(a) is inconsistent with the City's Municipal Code in its emphasis on construction completion dates rather than commencement dates. RPV Municipal Code section 17.60.070, which governs CUP time limits, provides as follows: "Time limit. Before approving any conditional use permit, the planning commission shall establish a time limit within which the applicant shall commence upon the permitted use, as that phrase is defined in Section 17,86.070 (Enforcement) of this title. The time limit shall be a reasonable time based on the size and nature of the proposed development.... All such permits shall be null and void after that time unless the applicant has commenced upon the permitted use, as that phrase is defined in Section 17.86.070 (Enforcement) of this title. Upon a showing of substantial hardship, delays beyond the control of the applicant, or other good cause, the planning commission or city council may extend this period one time for up to one additional year." (Emphasis added.) RPV Municipal Code Section 17.86.070.A defines "commencement of use" in relevant part as follows: "For purposes of this section, an applicant has commenced upon a permitted use if: 1. The applicant has submitted an application for a building permit, if such a permit is required for the permitted use; or 2. The applicant has begun development and no building permit is required for the permitted use..." The inherent conflict between the language in Condition 60(a) and the City's governing Municipal Code is further underscored by its inconsistency with the City's construction permits. This is aptly demonstrated by the building permit issued for the Marymount Parking Lot, which vests Marymount with the right to complete the Parking Lot improvements until July 8, 2014.' PERMIT NO.: APP'LIEC>: IS�I.JEL7 FEE ?CF=' I FRCS BLID2O1 2-0033? 5/?/201 2 1 /1;3/20'1 3 7/8/20'1 .4 ' The complete building permit for the parking lot is attached to this letter. LA #4813-6276-7635 v1 U Marymount California University: Request for Permitted Time Extension May 6, 2013 Page 3 Section 4 of the proposed staff Resolution concedes this point by specifically acknowledging that despite the fact that the City Council only extended the completion date for Phase One to May 7, 2012, Marymount's commencement of construction of the Parking Lot improvements supersedes the CUP completion date under Phase One: 'Section 4. ..the Parking Lot Expansion Project ... is still allowed to proceed because it is considered a vested construction project with active building permits..." Marymount's position is further supported by the condition of approval for the phasing of the St. John Fisher project, which staff references in its report for the proposition that a time extension was not requested for that project, but then staff fails to provide the Council with the actual text of the condition. Upon further scrutiny, it is obvious that the St. John Fisher approval was (in comparison to Marymount's condition) drafted in a manner consistent RPV Municipal Code section 17.60.070 in that the vesting of entitlements is based on project commencement and not completion dates., Here is the applicable condition from City Council Resolution No. 2009-10 approving the St. John Fisher project: ;'45. The proposed St. John Fisher Master Plan may be broken up into two main phases as described below. If within one year of the final effective date of the Notice of Decision, the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or has not commenced the approved project as described in Phase One below, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Director. s2 (Emphasis added.) In sum, under the condition of approval granted to St. John Fisher, which conforms to the requirements of the City's Code, either an application for a construction permit or the commencement of construction is sufficient to vest an entitlement. As a similarly situated institutional use, Marymount has already submitted an complete application for the grading permit needed to construct the revised Athletic Field and must also be afforded a reasonable opportunity to commence the construction of this desired Phase One improvement before any action is taken by the City to void the existing entitlement. Interestingly, the City Council elected to permit phasing extensions for the St. John Fisher project to be handled administratively despite significant neighborhood concerns, whereas the Marymount project was made subject to a public hearing process. LA #4813-6276-7635 v1 /;1 Marymount California University: Request for Permitted Time Extension May 6, 2013 Page 4 B. Marymount's Original Request For A One Year Extension Was Reasonable Based On The Size And Nature Of The Campus Master Plan Project. As noted above, governing RPV Municipal Code section 17.60.070 requires that any time limit imposed by the Council in a CUP must "be a reasonable time based on the size and nature of the proposed development." Marymount has long asserted that changed circumstances and conditions post -Master Plan approval have required it to reassess the University's facility needs, which in turn have required the requested revisions to the approved plans, including the need to make the Athletic Field regulation size and change the surface from grass to the more utilitarian and environmentally preferable synthetic turf. One would expect the City Council to be cognizant of the complexities of large construction projects in light of the City's multi-year efforts to design, finance and construct the San Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project. Indeed, the introduction to San Ramon Project on the City's website contains the following notice: "Despite the urgency of the situation at the project site, an undertaking of this complexity takes time to study, plan, design and construct so that the most appropriate solution can be found." (Emphasis added.) Marymount's request for a single year extension to commence construction of its desired Phase One Athletic Field improvements would appear to be extremely reasonable given the nearly eight years or more it has taken for the City to commence construction of the far more urgently needed San Ramon Project. C. Marymount Has Submitted A Complete Grading Permit Application For The Revised Athletic Field Plans And Is Prepared To Immediately Commence Construction Under Such Permit When The Council Acts On The Revised Plans. The proper analysis for Marymount's extension request should be whether the University has submitted a complete application for a grading permit and/or is actively seeking to commence construction of the proposed Athletic Field improvements. The following actions provide substantial evidence of the satisfaction of both prongs of the inquiry: • April 11, 2012: Marymount submits letter request for one year extension, which states: "Marymount is also prepared to start construction on the relocated athletic field that is also part of the Phase One improvements. However, because Marymount is requesting a modification to the site plan to allow the filed to be regulation size for certain intercollegiate sports, it is not known when the City Council will be in a position to act on the revised site plan..." LA #41313-6276-7635 v1 0 Marymount California University: Request for Permitted Time Extension May 6, 2013 Page 5 • April 2012: Marymount initiates pursuit of Resource Agency permits for the revised Parking Lot and Athletic Field plans. • May 10, 2012: Marymount submits conceptual revised Athletic Field plan and description to City staff for review and direction as to the approval process. • June 29, 2012: City staff responds to request and outlines approval process. • September 4, 2012: First Extension Hearing. Marymount reaffirms its commitment to commence construction of the revised Parking Lot plans and revised Athletic Field plans within the Phase One time period. (Extension granted — no mention that revised Athletic Field would not be considered part of Phase One.) • October 29, 2012: Marymount submits formal application for revised Athletic Field plans and grading permit. • November 27, 2012: City staff requests additional information to deem application complete. • December 2012: Marymount receives final Resource Agency permits for Parking Lot and Athletic Field improvements. • December 18, 2012: Second Extension Hearing. Staff report acknowledges submittal of revised Athletic Field plans and grading permit application. (Extension granted — no mention that revised Athletic Field would not be considered part of Phase One.) • January 25, 2013:3 Marymount provides additional information and materials on revised Athletic Field plans and grading permit application in response to staff comments. • February 22, 2013: City staff again requests further information on 5 items in order to deem the application complete. Among the alleged "completeness" items was this: `2. ... please identify a realistic completion 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." • February 27, 2013: Marymount letter advising staff that alleged incomplete items were not proper completeness items under the Permit Streamlining Act and that the application should be deemed complete. Marymount also requests prompter attention to the processing of the application and the issuance of the RFP for the CEQA consultant. 3 As of this date, the City had sufficient information to commence, at minimum, the RFP selection process for the CEQA Consultant. LA #4813-6276-7635 v1 (�D Marymount California University: Request for Permitted Time Extension May 6, 2013 Page 6 • March 8, 2013: Staff response letter withdrawing 4 of the 5 alleged incomplete items. Staff letter at page 2 states: "Understanding that the College wishes to proceed as soon as possible with the construction of an athletic field, the City will process the submitted grading_ plan as the most current grading plan, with the grading quantities specified, by amending Condition No. 67, March 15, 2013: Marymount submits updated hydrology calculations in response to comments on the revised Athletic Field plans. • April 10, 2013: City staff deems application for the revised Athletic Field plans, including the grading permit application, to be complete. • April 16, 2013: City staff recommends retention of CEQA consultant for the review of the revised Athletic Field plans (including revised grading plans). No mention in Staff report that revisions would not be part of Phase One. City Council postpones action on the selection of CEQA consultant. Based on the above administrative record, Marymount has not only actually commenced construction of Phase One improvements (Parking Lot), but has diligently pursued the submittal of a complete application for the revised Athletic Field plans and the requisite grading permit, which plans and applications in all communications from City staff prior to May 1, 2013 were considered as applicable to the existing Phase One entitlements. Accordingly, good cause exists for granting Marymount's original one-year extension request.4 D. Providing Marymount The Same Opportunity To Commence Construction Of The Athletic Field As Other Project Applicants Is Not Only Legally Required Under the Applicable Facts But Will Not Result In Any Prejudice Or Harm To Any City Interests. At the December 18, 2012 hearing, City staff was forced to concede in the wake of a Marymount public records request that the City Council had never previously granted less than a full one year extension to a project applicant. With the Parking Lot improvements now substantially completed, the City's purported justification for its unprecedented partial extensions is no longer applicable. And if the Council accepts staffs recommendation, its enduring legacy will be that of the first City legislative body to deny a request for an application that is routinely granted in almost every other city. Furthermore, the active voidance of an entitlement based on a project proponent's alleged inability to meet completion dates rather 4 If the revised Phase One plans are approved by the Council, a new completion date would be established in the approval as noted by staff in its letter to Marymount of February 22, 2013. LA #4813-6276-7635 v1 7 Marymount California University: Request for Permitted Time Extension May 6, 2013 Page 7 than City Code specified commencement of use dates would also appear to be unprecedented particularly where, as here, the ability for Marymount to actually commence construction is wholly dependent of City approval of plan revisions, which have been delayed, in part, by actions (and inactions) of City staff and the City Council. To compound matters, the Staff reports fails to provide a single harm or prejudice to the City that would result from the Council's adoption of listed Alternative 1: Grant the University's Phase 1 time extension request until September 30, 2013 (for the remainder of the full one year). The reason is simple -- there is no resulting harm to the City from granting the full extension. The delays in the processing of Marymount's revised Athletic Field plans, on the other hand, do appear to have had at least one harmful side effect to the City and that is with respect Marymount's offer to provide the City with the proposed 17,000 plus cubic yards of export material to be excavated from the Athletic Field for use as fill at the San Ramon Project site. The use of such materials by the City would shorten the haul route from the Marymount campus and would provide substantial savings to the City as well. The latest information Marymount has received from City staff on this matter indicates that the time period for the City to accept these materials at the San Ramon site may be limited to the end of this summer. As such, it appears likely that what would have been tens of thousands of dollars in free materials to the City, will now likely need to be purchased and hauled in at taxpayer expense. This is a disappointing outcome, but Marymount will continue to explore ways in which these materials may ultimately be put to beneficial use on other City or local projects. In closing, coming just days after the City's 40th Anniversary celebration, this hearing presents a unique opportunity for the City Council to support the efforts of one of the City's oldest residents to provide enhanced facilities that will be available for the entire community. This support can best be displayed by granting the requested extension. Sincerely, 1;6"� nl-�A\ OL%r-,N DONALD M. DAVIS DMD.ir Attachment LA #4813-6276-7635 v1 A A BUILDING PENT City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 265-7800 Inspections: (310) 541-9809 PERMIT NO.: BLD2012-00337 APPLIED: 5/7/2012 ISSUED: 1/8/2013 EXPIRES: 7/8/2014 SITE ADDRESS: 30800 PALOS VERDES DR E APN #: 7564024002 9WNEFtIAPPLICAN7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 124,887sf New paved Pa ing ot, landscaping, site drainage, lighting, MARYMOUNT COLLEGE 19,400cy Grading, & 2 Retaining walls-695sf 30800 PALOS VERDES DR E RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 CON TRACTOR WORK COVERED 744458 DEL AMO CONSTRUCTION, INC BLD ELE MEC PLM GRD DEMO 23840 MADISON ST TORRANCE CA 90505 PLANNING No. CLEARANCE BY Total:$14,169.02 ISSUED BY. NOTES or INSPECTIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 Public Works Dept. Right of Way permit required prior to start of work. 2 Inspector to verify conditions in field. 3 Public Works approval required prior to final. 4 Planning approval required prior to final. 5 All Geology Conditions of Approval apply. 6 Don't forget to call (310) 541-9809 for a FINAL inspection. I hereby acknowledge that I have read/permftate that the ail information above and any attached sheets is correct, and agafi ordinances and state and federal laws regulating activities covered by thrize representives of this city to enter upon the above mentioned property foses. Applicant or Owner's ` n tyre Date 0 DATE: FEES Tvpe Amount DATA 4,0 GRPC $570.00 PCAC $6,908.12 EXAD $37,00 SFEI_ $866.79 APPL $35.00 GRAD $460.00 PRMT $5,017.92 SMP2 $218.19 1473 $42.00 Total:$14,169.02 ISSUED BY. NOTES or INSPECTIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 Public Works Dept. Right of Way permit required prior to start of work. 2 Inspector to verify conditions in field. 3 Public Works approval required prior to final. 4 Planning approval required prior to final. 5 All Geology Conditions of Approval apply. 6 Don't forget to call (310) 541-9809 for a FINAL inspection. I hereby acknowledge that I have read/permftate that the ail information above and any attached sheets is correct, and agafi ordinances and state and federal laws regulating activities covered by thrize representives of this city to enter upon the above mentioned property foses. Applicant or Owner's ` n tyre Date 0 DATE: From: Randy Bowers <randyb@malagabank.com> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:15 PM To: CC Cc: Michael Brophy; Randy Bowers Subject: Marymount California University athelitic field extention To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: As an active businessman in the community and a member of the Marymount College Board of Directors, I am compelled to write to you regarding the importance of granting the college an extension beyond May 7, 2013 to complete construction of the athletic field. Not only does an athletic field provide a location for student athletes to engage in collegiate competitions with other schools, it also provides space for general physical education courses and an environment allowing students the much needed physical outlet of intramural sports to help alleviate the stress and rigors of college life. The field at Marymount College will also benefit the community as a place for community members to walk/run the track, as an additional option for organized youth sports around the Palos Verdes Peninsula while also adding an aesthetically pleasing quality to the campus. All of this is to be accomplished with no additional depletion of precious water resources as the planned field material is synthetic. I hope the City Council is able to see the many benefits an athletic field at Marymount will provide and agree to grant the extension. Sincerely, Randy Bowers President and CEO Malaga Bank Randy C. Bowers President Chief Executive Officer MALAGA A N K 2514 Via Tejon Palos Verdes Estates CA 90274 (310) 375-9000 @ ext 20Q4 Office (310)373-3615 Fax rbowersCa.malagabank.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error -free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this, message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Aga From: Diggoryl@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 11:07 AM To: cc Cc: Planning; Ara Mihranian Subject: Marymount Facilities Expansion Date: May 6, 2013 From: Chris and Kathy Venn To: cca-rpv.com Subject: Marymount Facilities Expansion Cc: arama-rpv.com, joelr _rpv.com Honorable Mayor Brooks and City Council Members, As residents of RPV living on San Ramon Drive and sharing a wall with Marymount College we speak in favor of Staff Recommendation to extinguish all remaining Phase One entitlements of the College expansion project not constructed . We find it extremely difficult to agree to proposals from Marymount if they are continually being broken. As a next door neighbor to The College we expect the city and staff to hold Marymount accountable for their proposals so that when we are presented with plans from this very large neighbor we know what to expect and can agree or disagree based on reliable information. We accepted Marymount's stated expansion plans on good faith only to learn they have abandoned those plans almost before they've begun. I am referring to the "D-2" design for an athletic field that was submitted on May 4, 2010 and has now been replaced with a Revised Athletic Field design. These plans for expansion significantly affect our quality of life. The College has agreed to minimize the impact of the construction and act in good faith as a neighbor in announcing their plans for the future. Their failure to follow through with even the 1St phase of this very extensive development is a great cause of concern for my family. I am also concerned that plans were submitted for the College with an enrollment of 943 and now the college is projecting an enrollment of 1200. Chris and Kathy Venn Chris is President of the San Ramon Homeowner's Association. From: Swank Lynn <lynn.swank@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:11 PM To: CC Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru; Carla Morreale Subject: Renaming Agenda Item 4 RPV Council Members: Tonight the City Council is asked to approve the naming of the Fred Hesse. Jr. Community Park Multi -Purpose Room in honor of John McTaggert and begin the process to establish A Wall of Honor. a) I support the establishment of a Wall of Honor and urge you to begin the process to facilitate its implementation. b) I am concerned about naming of facilities after a person, regardless of their contributions to the City. In addition to the concerns I stated in my previous correspondence to you and included in the information for this agenda item I have the following concerns: I also question whether the policy established in 2013 reflects how the City should address this issue as we begin our next 40 years. It is unclear to me if the selection of a person is entirely fair. The city council has the sole power to nominate an individual for this honor and the person must be deceased for only 3 years. A method for a resident to request to name a facility has not been established. A resident can ask a city council member to put forth this recommendation, but this is entirely dependent upon whether the council member knew the person, liked the person, or even would listen to a particular constituent. Exceptional contributions to the City are not well defined. What specific amount for a financial contribution will justify a facility to be named after a group or individual? How long should an elected official provide public service to qualify for this honor? How is public service defined? Is a community volunteer qualified for volunteer work in just RPV or other areas as well? What period of time constitutes long-term sponsorship agreements? These and other questions are not addressed in this policy and leave policy interpretation subject to interpretation at the time each naming opportunity arises. The current and future council chambers be named after a particular individual stems from the above questions. John McTaggert certainly has made contributions to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, but I don't believe he stands alone in our city in this regard. Many contributors, who could also be considered for this honor but have not yet died, are ineligible to be considered for this naming opportunity. To name a few, in no particular order (there are others) one might consider Ken Dyda, Barbara Gleghorn, Jackie Bacharach, Ann Shaw and many others. Recommendation: Take the time to review the Naming Policy established in 2013 to determine if this is the fair way to name things in our city. There are too many questions that are left to interpretation and may appear to be unfair. Do not name any city -owned facility, property, room, etc. after an individual. These names should be generic and reflect the many features of our city. Move quickly to establish the Wall of Honor and have a clearly defined policy of who can qualify, who can nominate a candidate, Amount of money deserving an honor, criteria to honor a group, etc. Recommendations/nominations can be submitted to the City Council for approval. From: BJGleghorn@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 4:26 PM To: CC Cc: lynn.swank@cox.net; Carolyn Lehr Subject: City Council Agenda Iten #4 Dear Council Members: I am writing in support of the general points that Lynn Swank has written you opposing the renaming of the Hesse Park community room, Item # 4 on tonight's agenda. Though I have worked with John MacTaggart and admire his contributions to the city, I believe that the process of selection and procedures and the general criteria of selection should be carefully considered and codified before additional individuals be named for honor. Please take the time for adequate consideration of this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Barbara Gleghorn 4 CITYOF O RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MAY 6, 2013 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached -are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, May 7, 2013 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material City Manager Report Emails from: Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic; Councilman Campbell; Lynn Swank; Andrea Dolan Owen; Ann Shaw; Jim Gordon 1 and 2 Emails from: Jim Gordon; Mark Wells; Richard M. Grotz; Brian W. G. Marcotte; Antoine -Marie Bauder; Alan Johnson; Dr. Sue Soldoff; Thomas S. Ricci; Barbara Ferraro; Patricia Dilligan 4 Letter from Douglas Stern; Email from Larry Clark; Tom Long Respectfully submitted, �u 1—i w.zz Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendasi20130506 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc From: Jerry Duhovic <councilmanduhovic@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:58 PM To: cc Subject: Wow Just a quick note to say what a spectacular event tonight. Everything was first class. Congratulations to all who were involved in making the evening a night to remember. You all did RPV proud tonight. Please express my appreciation to all the staff who were involved. I know there were many, many people involved, but special recognition to Carolyn and Susan. I know you both worked very hard on this and you are to be congratulated for a job well done. Congrats again! Jerry i From: Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:37 AM To: Jerry Duhovic<CouncilmanDuhovic@hotmail.com>; CC Subject: RE: Wow Jerry; right on the money. Same comments here. Terrific success of an event last night. Every single person I spoke to, and that was a lot, had a great time and thought the program was well done. Brian Brian Campbell Councilmember City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA LA 310-544-7400 cell + text 424-255-8887 office 888-855-9619 fax ply" to sign up for my Email Newsletter RPV Website: www.palosverdes.com/rpv Twitter: http://twitter.com/CgmpbellforRPV 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(ci)hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:58 PM To: cc(a)rpv.com Subject: Wow Just a quick note to say what a spectacular event tonight. Everything was first class. Congratulations to all who were involved in making the evening a night to remember. You all did RPV proud tonight. Please express my appreciation to all the staff who were involved. I know there were many, many people involved, but special recognition to Carolyn and Susan. I know you both worked very hard on this and you are to be congratulated for a job well done. Congrats again! Jerry 1 From: Swank Lynn <lynn.swank@cox.net> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:08 AM To: Carolyn Lehr Subject: Gala-Congrats! Carolyn, What a great evening; everyone one I'spoke to and more importantly observed had a great time! Thank you for the acknowledgement in the program - it is much appreciated. All the CC also thanked me and I think they were very pleased by the entire event. Congratulations for putting it all together! Lynn From: Andrea Owen <aowen@blaisassoc.com> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:43 AM To: Kit Fox Cc: Carolynn Petru; Carolyn Lehr; 'Destin Blais' Subject: Thank You for a Great Celebration! Dear Kit, On behalf of Blais & Associates, I wanted to congratulate RPV on a beautiful 40th Anniversary celebration last night. The location was magnificent; the weather ended up cooperating; the food was delicious; and the program was fun and informative. The City did a wonderful job putting together an event that not only celebrated its accomplishments but benefitted PVPLC and Los Serenos de Point Vicente as well! We at Blais & Associates are honored and thrilled to be working with all of you at the City. Thank you for a lovely evening! Best, Andrea Dolan Owen Blais & Associates Professional Grant Management 7545 Irvine center Drive, Ste. 200 Irvine, CA 92618 949-525-5674 www.blaisassoc.com From: Ann Shaw <anndshaw@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:01 AM To: Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru Subject: 40th I just opened the goodie bag and everything was very thoughtful. Betty's cards are lovely. Other than trying to figure out where the tables were the party was great. Congratulations on a great job. Teresa Takaoka From: bubba32@cox.net Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:05 PM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; Joel Rojas Subject: Fall 2013 MCU Athletic Field Window Is Closing Attachments: Marymount requesting Enrollment increase larger size 001 (2).jpg; Marymount PVDN Phase I site Plan cropped 001 (2).jpg Honorable Mayor Brooks and City Council Members First of all, I would like to commend the City and yourselves for a spectacularly successful RPV 40th Birthday Party last night. Wonderful event with superb food and ambiance as well as thoughtful and appropriate Commemorative presentations. With regard to' another subject, I see that Dr. Brophy has "weighed in" requesting a further extension of Phase One in order to construct a Revised Athletic Field". (May 7, 2013 RPV Staff Report, page 1-58) I believe that Staff has appropriately recommended that Phase One, pending completion of the on-going Parking lot, deserves no further extension since the College is not seeking to construct any other approved Phase One entitlements by September 30, 2013. I wish to offer a few related thoughts on Dr. Brophy's allegations and statements, including those regarding his April 18, 2013 e-mail to the City Council. My comments are far from complete, but I believe are most appropriate at this time. 1.) The College has had an approved field now for over 35 months (almost three years). Yet the College has chosen not to construct or even applied for any approved Phase One field permits. And but for a gracious City extension of entitlements until May 7, 2013, the entirety of the uncompleted as well as future Phase Two and Phase Three entitlements would have already been extinguished per Condition #60a. I hope that the Council will ask Dr. Brophy if he plans to construct the approved field if the Revised version is not approved. His presumption is that if the College asks for something - a "speedy review" for example, the City should instantly respond with an affirmative "OK, how soon can we give it to you?" acquiescence. When the College asks the City to "jump", (in his mind) the City should ask "How High?" The City supports MCU Athletics, doesn't it? Even if the City has not timely been notified of the College's change in becoming a "University" with a new name and Mission. Interesting logic. 2.) Notably, It has taken 171 days from May 10, 2012 until October 29, 2012 for the College to actually design and submit the Application to construct a "Revised Athletic Field" that was not approved. That site plan contains a fundamental error because it contains a field elevation 1 foot higher than the approved field elevation and is c 7Y M4 R R P7 - / 1 a 1 foot higher than what the College presented (p.85) to the City Council in their March 30, 2010 - a presentation given by Attorney Donald Davis. College representatives subsequently explained and then told Ara that this increased field elevation was due to the required subsurface grading for the synthetic field. Baloney! It was actually intended to reduce, by approximately 4,000 CY of exported grading material, and another 288 undisclosed truckloads going down PV Drive East! 3.) The College then took another nearly three months - 89 days - to provide the City with a corrected Application that still contained contradictions and the incorrect field elevation, an underestimated amount of exported grading, and indecipherable haul route, among many remaining contradictions that make such a field ineligible to receive the required new findings or compliance with approved safety issues. Thus there seems to a real lack of concern and urgency - as claimed by Dr. Brophy - for a field to be in place by August 2013. 1 believe that Ara had previously demonstrated to the College that such an abbreviated time schedule was infeasible, even if the limited Reduced Field EIR had gone ahead on April 16, 2013! 4.) But that idea has been totally eclipsed by recent events and announcements. As you now know, the College/University (announced in the PV News March 28, 2013) their transformation to becoming a University, granting advanced degrees with a doubled enrollment within the past three years. Such a significant development now voids the enrollment limitations (793 in the Traditional Degree Program) that formed the underlying basis for both the EIR and CUP approvals as part of those enabling 2010-41 & 2010-42 Resolutions. 5.) The College/University, to my knowledge, has yet to formally inform the City of the recent approvals, on April 11, 2013, by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission for their Phase One Construction of an 800+ student Residences at their Palos Verdes Drive North property (attachment). That is a game changer since the additional approved facilities at that location are scheduled to also accommodate up to 1,500 day students as well. Those added students will undoubtedly add to the spectator attendance at the Main RPV campus as well. 6.) Such significant change of the institutional structure and standing, plus the increased student enrollments had been the basis to conduct an added EIR review (September 9, 2009) for City Attorney Lynch, at that time, to re -set an ongoing EIR to add the announced changes, stating that (quote from the Daily Breeze of September 13, 2009) confirming that necessity "Clearly this is a significant change that does need to be addressed". What we are witnessing is what appears to be a dysfunctional institution employing a pattern and practice of deliberate misinformation or no information as it suits their purposes. 7.) You should also be informed that the College is presently proposing an increase in their enrollment limitation status at the Main Campus in RPV (attachment) from "943 to 1,200". That alone should be reason enough to now reset the proposed scope of the EIR study contract now before you. z 8.) As mentioned previously, the proposed Revised Field is NOT a component part of Phase One per Condition #60a, and even if an EIR study would have been approved, it would still not qualify the College/University to claim that the (larger, proposed) field is essential for Community uses. Zero examples of which have so far been given by any of the Applications to date. Note the submitted public comments are dated in 2012. Old news. 9.) If, and this is only an undisclosed reason by the College, a bigger field is needed for intercollegiate competitions which have never been held here, the College is a bit tardy in coming to that realization. They were informed of this requirement by their Architect - Scott Boydston - responding to my concerns on that very subject - in a letter written to the City dated March 17, 2010, of which Dr. Brophy was a recipient. 10.) Subsequently, in May of 2010, the College failed to disclose that they needed a bigger field and, instead - proposed a field (Late submittal May 4, 2010 by Don Davis) that the City granted and approved. At that time - I have the presentation page - the College also discredited the application of a synthetic turf field as well. Nor did the College acknowledge their membership in the NAIA as required by Mitigation Measure LU -1. 11.) At no time - and this is the time to get them on the record - has the College formally refused to construct the approved field, waiting instead, to allow their own lack of progress to bring this situation to a crisis point - of their own making. Please question Dr. Brophy on this and see if he will admit that the College refuses to construct the field as approved (they designed it) before giving any solace whatsoever because the City is in no way responsible for this latest "Coming Soon" problem. 12.) The City Council has consistently and historically opposed moving this field closer to PVDE based on numerous well-documented Findings and Facts in Support of Findings in the record. Such reservations have been completely omitted by the both of the College's Applications. For example, both the Planning Commission and City Council adopted specific Resolutions that argued against moving the field westward - Resolutions PC 2010-24 and CC 2010-64, for reasons of public safety. The relocated field had been included and incorporated into the College's defeated Measure P, as were a number of other revisions applicable here, including the right to construct any component at any time on an unannounced 20+ year schedule time line. This would seem to be their current objective as well, Measure P by small increments. 13.) Both the Planning Commission and City Council also adopted Condition #175 prohibiting the use of "small balls" (including baseball, softball and lacrosse) that could not adequately be contained with the netting used to contain larger (soccer) balls. The College has yet to acknowledge this valid limitation. 14.) As noted (above), Dr. Brophy's recent "University" announcement in the PV News March 28, 2013, brings up other significant reasons to convene a comprehensive EIR than now being considered for just the Revised Athletic Field scope of work. Because of that "doubling of enrollment" over the past three years, the existing CUP and EIR are 3 sadly outdated. To proceed with only a "limited" EIR Review for a Revised Field" would seem to be both ridiculous and short-sighted. (see "Whereas" on page 5 of Resolution 2010-41 "Press Release of September 9, 2009) 15.) In the PV News Announcement, College, Dr. Brophy claimed the College's recent" admission into the NAIA (2012). This is incorrect (also misstated in the Application) because he was well aware of the College's NAIA 2010 membership on August 27, 2010 when he signed the acceptance of the CUP conditions - one day AFTER the College's first NAIA men's soccer game! The College has now completed three full seasons of NAIA membership and play offsite - 2010, 2011, 2012 and part of 2013 (Lacrosse). So they have proven to be perfectly capable of continuing this arrangement into the future. 16.) The College, at present, is demonstrably not in compliance with their Conditions #140-146 to report the enrollment of certain degree program students (Bachelor's Degree candidates - which format they had unilaterally changed after SPRING 2012 - which for the prior four reports beginning with Fall 2020, had been correctly reported. Now Dr. Brophy is reporting that there are ZERO BA students with the stated (false) reason that no BA ("upper division" classes are held at the RPV campus. Since the approved reporting Condition addresses "enrollment", and not classes at any particular location the College is not in compliance with Condition #146 among others. The dictionary definition of "Enrollment" means "registration", not where classes of a particular type are given and therefore any use of a "lower division courses" excuse for failure to report the enrolled number of BA students is unacceptable and False because Marymount's own 2012-2013 Academic Catalog, on pp. 1, 7 & 9, clearly identifies a minimum of (lower division) 36-44 units of "Core" courses that are required for awarding ALL Marymount degrees and that are provided at the RPV Main Campus site. So, if for no other reason, the College needs to be brought into compliance before any affirmative City action can be authorized. 17.) As a concluding information, the College is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior Division (WASC) that the Directory of that website describes the location and "Modality" of Degree Delivery as being "on-site" at the 30800 PVDE address. Thank you for publicizing this latest ridiculous message from Dr. Michael Brophy, M.F.A. Jim Gordon 4 0 79 jd { { f I t SY � tI{!{ i �'j a t'.• E � R From: bubba32@cox.net Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 11:36 AM To: cc Subject: My answers to Mark Wells' 10 questions Attachments: 10 Simple Questions and My Answers. pdf Honorable Mayor Brooks and City Council members Recently, Mark Wells sent his 10 simple questions to you. These are attached, and I have attempted, where possible, to supply honest answers to them. There are many more than just 10 questions because a number of them require multiple answers. My answers to Mark's questions, based on some research, are as follows: Question 1: (Current name of Institution?) Multiple current answers, depending on source: a.) Marymount itself (website marymountpv.edu): "Marymount College" b.) City of RPV (most recent listserver@rpv.com message) Two answers: Marymount California University (in subject title) & "Marymount" (in body of message sent) c.) WASC Sr. Division: Marymount California University d.) CollegeBoard.com: split decision: "Marymount College Palos Verdes" in Search results, "Marymount California University" in Summary page Quick facts e.) NCES: Marymount College f.) Princeton Review: Marymount College g.) Secretary of State, California: Marymount College Palos Verdes h.) Carnegie Classification: Marymount College Palos Verdes g.) Guidestar: Marymount College Palos Verdes Comment: These may change, some lagged, with an expected formal name changeover of 1 August 1, 2013. Question 2: (Types of Degrees offered Fall 2013?) The College website lists an extensive number of both A.A and A.S Degrees by numerous majors plus 4 Bachelors degree Programs which have been confirmed by the WASC Senior Division website. The second part of that Question would need be answered by the College as it has stated it is currently seeking new graduate degree accreditation from WASC not yet confirmed. Question 3: ((How many enrollees May 7, 2013?) Cannot definitively answer this futuristic question now on April 25, 2013 :How many will be enrolled May 7th, 2013". We cannot even answer that question as of this present date either because there is a College - Certified SPRING 2013 enrollment of 754 Students in the Traditional Degree Program with / 169, "no BA program students in this category" (because "there are no upper division courses offered in this day program", a non -sequitur). *see below for further detail; For reference purposes, there are a number of divergent and inconsistent answers for "Total Enrollment" as of Spring 2013, as follows: a.) Marymount College Enrollment Report: 855 (Combined Traditional/Non-Traditional categories reported. b.) WASC: 919 "Undergraduate" (919) Graduate (0) c.) CollegeBoard.com: 1,001: "total undergrads" d.) Princeton Review: 1,001 "Certificate, Associate, Bachelors" e.) LACES College Navigator: 923 "Associate's degree, Bachelor's degree" Question 4: (Composition, by Degree category, of current student population?) Two questions: Cannot distinguish students attending the RPV campus site from the San Pedro "Waterfront" campus. WASC lists the accredited degree delivery "Modality" as "on- site" at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East. On May 11, 2013 (graduation) we will have a better idea of the actual graduation degrees by category which were (2011) 104 AA/AS degrees conferred, 2012; 56 AA/AS, and 26 BA degrees. My other data is incomplete with respect to historical graduations between 2008 - 2010, but the others are (all Associate Degrees) ; 2007 = 148, 2006 = 160, 2005 = 141, 2004 = 155, 2003 = 190, 2002 = 188, 2001 = 220. Question 5: (Does the College still offer A.A. and A.S. degrees?) Although I am not the one to predict the Institutions degree offerings into the future, I am led to believe (by a WASC telephone call response recently) that Marymount will continue to award Associate Degrees, Bachelors' degrees and eventually graduate degrees of some limited academic subject(s). I believe the institution does currently offer Associate degrees as shown extensively on their website now and confirmed as being "accredited": to do so by the WASC representative I spoke with just recently. According to the NCES College Navigator, currently (of the 923 undergraduates), 9% were from out-of-state and 6% were from foreign countries. 85% were from in-state. Question 6: (What percentage of 2012 students graduated?) The percentage of students who attended this institution in the Spring of 2012 that actually received their degrees in May 2012 were: Associate degrees: 56 of 661 or 8.4%, Bachelors: 26 of 93 or 28% Question 7: (What percentage of 2013 students will graduate?) The LACES published overall graduation rate is/has been 30%. The achieved rate (above) demonstrates a declining Associate degree graduation rate and an increasing BA graduation rate. For a Two-year Associate program, the "ideal graduation rate (numbers) would be around 50% of the entering class, with 25% the ideal for the entering BA 4 -year students. However, as shown in the NCES data, there is a pretty hefty "Transfer out" rate of 65%, z non -differentiated by degree classification. I would expect that the Associate degrees will stabilize at near 2012 levels (56) with a gradual increase in the number of BA degrees awarded. My reasoning on this is that the College probably is (as recently described) having an increasing BA enrollment, probably above the 250 limit level (Condition #145), while their customary Associate Degree candidates continue to make a transfer to other 4 -year institutions at ever-increasing rates. Question 8: (Current WASC member?) Yes. WASC Senior Division has a published Institution list which includes Marymount California University showing their accredited 4 Bachelors degree programs, although the website does not produce any Associate degree programs when queried. Question 9: (What if the Revised Field is not approved? Will the College construct the approved Field?) The College might find themselves to be in a very difficult situation to refuse to construct the approved field if the Revised Field is denied. They must first, however, be directly asked this question in a public forum which so far has been the more difficult part. I have repeatedly asked for this question to be directly posed to the College, although the answer is obvious based upon their non -actions to date. It is interesting to know that the institution knew by March 17, 2010 that this larger field was necessary for NAIA intercollegiate play and that Dr. Brophy actually signed the CUP acceptance document one day after the College began NAIA intercollegiate mens' Soccer's on August 26, 2010. I do not believe the College has any reasonable excuse to now claim that any of their rights would be violated by a reasoned refusal to approve their new "Revised Athletic Field" site design. The approved Field design was granted based upon important Public Safety issues extensively discussed and documented from March through May 2010. For example Section 2. 1.10 of Resolution 2010-42 (CUP) states; "The City Council finds that the site is of adequate size to accommodate an athletic field in addition to the other components of the project, provided that it is moved further to the east, with two tennis courts on either side, because a field so configured would not result in safety impacts on Palos Verdes Drive East." Moreover, recent LA City PVDN site entitlement approvals plus the announced enrollment increases since the proposed Consultant Contract Draft EIR (Mini EIR) work statement was prepared, would invalidate conclusions reach from any limited EIR review based on the outdated prior enrollment limitation (793). A question also arises as to why has the College waited so long to raise this issue and delayed the submittal of the required Application to the City since - June 2010 - when the approved field was available to commence work and that had admittedly been based upon the College's own design. (see Don Davis May, 2010 Late Submittao 3 Question 10: (Will College prepay for a comprehensive vs. limited EIR?) I believe they will have to, based on the recent approval by the LA City Planning Commission for their PVDN site improvements granted April 11, 2013 that now have greatly expanded the number of residences and future day enrollments that will ultimately impact this campus in RPV. I expect that the College will also be required to fund a comprehensive EIR because of their proposed Re -Phasing of all entitlements described in the October 29, 2012 Application. You cannot simply "un -ring" that bell and put on blinders to restrict any new EIR to only the Revised Athletic Field and try and tack it onto an outdated 2010 EIR/CUP. There are bigger issues here. Thus it would be foolhardy, and not happen in my opinion, for the City Council to accept any limited "Mini" EIR Contract. Such would be inappropriate given all those recent announcements of significant enrollment increases in the works (923 to 1,200), plus the PVDN 800+ residences recently approved (vs. 300+ now) in Phase One, and their own boast in the PV news that their "enrollment has doubled in the past three years". Both the EIR and CUP Resolutions 2010-41 & 2010-42 were approved based upon a much smaller enrollment assumption that "The College does not request any expansion of the existing student enrollment limitations, which are 793 students." (Resolution No. 2010- 41, Exhibit A, Page 4 of 88). When you combine the College's Main Campus student increase to 1,200 with the projected and now -approved 1,500 students at their PVDN campus (total 2,700), that is a tremendous potential number of spectators for the Revised Athletic Field which has a natural amphitheater capacity of over 2000 spectators (documented to RPV Staff) even without any permanent seating. Jim Gordon *Further, that report lists another 101 students enrolled in Non -Traditional Programs in the evening. According to the CUP Conditions (140), such students are "generally" not supposed to "overlap" with the class schedules of the Traditional Degree Categories and may consist of (listed) degree programs such as the academic programs (Associates, Bachelors, and Masters degrees) plus; (Condition #141) "Continuing education Programs - in either category specifically ESL), Condition #145 further limits enrollment of BA degree enrollees to 250 of the 793 Traditional Degree program enrollment From: Mark R Wells <mtwells@pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:05 AM To: CC; Ara Mihranian; inquire@marymountpv.edu; Planning Cc: Jim Gordon; Lois Karp Subject: Comments Regarding Upcoming Public Hearing Greetings. I would like to respectfully submit for consideration my changes to two Sections of the Resolution that may be voted on during the May 7, 2013 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting. Section 6. The denial of the extension of Phase 1 could affect components of Phases 2 and 3 because there is no indication that the remaining elements contained in Phase 1 would ever be completed prior to or in combination with elements detailed within Phases 2 and 3. Should Marymount attempt to fold into Phases 2 or 3 elements contained within Phase 1, it could change the overall contents within those Phases, including construction timing, construction order of the elements and the currently approved language and construction related conditions of Phases 2 and 3. The City Council finds that in denying an additional time extension to Phase 1 renders the entirety of Phases 2 and 3 null and void. There is no indication Marymount administrators are willing to ever construct the remaining elements of Phase 1, as currently approved or that major changes to elements of Phases 2 and/or 3 would not be sought, in the future. Section 7. The City Council finds that in denying the time extension for Phase 1 is without prejudice to, and does not prevent, Marymount from submitting a CUP Revision application at any time to pursue any of the project components, or variations. If Marymount indicates that it would like the City to continue processing its currently submitted CUP Revision request to reconfigure the 2010 Council - approved Athletic Field, the City can continue to do so, since this request would be considered a stand-alone application that is no longer tied to, or part of, Phase 1. Any such subsequent application will be evaluated by the City and will be considered and determined (granted or denied) at a duly noticed public hearing before the City Council. Other notes. The title of the Public Hearing is also another indication of continual changes that can be considered to be or become problematic, into the future. was unaware that back in 2010 the City Council approved "Marymount California University Facility Expansion Project" I don't believe I have in any of my files, that project or its plans. I do have the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, which to date, has nothing completed as far as any of its Phases originally contained. Without The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project lingering on, Marymount California University administrators and supporters can move forward in any direction they wish, I feel. As I have written before, it is my opinion that the entire process, except for the final completion of the 'Revised' parking lot, be allowed along with the elimination of the Temporary Parking Lot, when that time has come. / Y a I support independent study and approval of any and all items Institution Administrators and supporters bring forth to City Staff and others representing the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Teresa and I have moved to Murrieta, Ca. We are very pleased that the home we left in RPV now has a young family living in it. I hope the parents of the 2 -year old boy and newborn son learn to love Rancho Palos Verdes and all the city has to offer. Thank you. Mark Wells From: Richard Grotz <rmg rotz@g mail. com> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 11:59 AM To: cc Subject: Marymount Improvements If the City is interested in having Marymount perform the improvement to the ,RPV campus in the best possible way then an extension to the deadline is necessary. Otherwise, the work will have to be the subject of another 10 year approval program, with millions wasted on hearings, meetings, lawsuits and the inevitable lies of the opponents. Buck up, RPV, look at how the city of LA has done whatever is necessary to bring Marymount to the San Pedro area. Richard M. Grotz, Trustee 3720 I ightide Drive Rancho Palos verdes, CA 90274 From: Brian Marcotte <bmarcotte@marcottecompany.com> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 12:09 PM To: CC Cc: Michael Brophy; bmarcotte@marcottecompany.com Subject: Marymount Extension for Completion --Parking and Athletic Facilities Attachments: Mary mou ntRPVCou ncil Letter. pdf Dear City Council Members, Please find the attached letter of endorsement to extend the completion period for the Phase I upgrade project for Marymount California University—parking and athletic facilities. I greatly appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, Brian W.G. Marcotte lis 6 Eucalyptus Lane Rolling Hills, California 90274 310-544-6556 May 5, 2013 City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California,90275 Dear Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tem Jerry Duhovic, Councilmember Brian Campbell, Councilmember Jim Knight and Councilmember Anthony Misetich What a wonderful place we live in! Our communities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula are truly some of the jewels of California. Weare blessed with excellent schools, amenities and wonderful homes to raise our families. We are truly unique. How many communities of our size are able to boast of excellent schools with top performance through high school? Now, with the new programs at Marymount California University, the community may boast of another facet to the jewel—a local, small, high quality university offering four-year degrees and, soon, graduate degrees to attract some of the best and brightest students from near and far. I am very honored to be a part of the Marymount California University Board of Trustees. We have been on quite a journey but the vision is clear. We are filling an important void that will continue to make Rancho Palos Verdes and the surrounding communities one of the most sought after areas in California—indeed anywhere. As part of this dynamic area, we believe Marymount adds to the desirability of our communities and, in turn, bolsters property values and creates a vibrant level of commercial and community activities. I am writing to urge you to grant a one-year extension to Marymount's completion period for the approved parking lot and athletic field facilities. This is an important part of the college experience and will add to the attractiveness of a Marymount California University education. The extension to allow the expansion should be a "win" for all concerned. My wife and I recently spoke to a family repatriating from an overseas assignment with a major corporation. As with so many in that situation, they first looked to the school systems of various communities before focusing their home search. They were so impressed with the Peninsula knowing there was potential for their children all the way through the university experience. Their children had been accustomed to a smaller school environment with the inclusion of athletic programs. Their children will be in a position to take advantage of several levels of educational excellence—Marymount California University included. "Selling" them on this area became a very easy task! Again, I urge you to approve the extension to the entitlements granted to Marymount for another year. Sincerely, From: Antoine -Marie Baurier <ABaurier@marymountpv.edu> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 12:38 PM To: cc Subject: Marymount athletic field City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. May 4, 2013 Mayor Susan Brooks, Mayor Pro Tem Jerry Duhovic, and Councilmembers Brian Campbell, Jim Knight, Anthony Misetich Having been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes since 1969, and a strong supporter of Marymount College, soon to be Marymount California University, I would like to ask your help in granting MCU an extension to build their athletic field. This project would greatly help Marymount as well as the Rancho Palos Verdes community at large. The benefits of this project are many... • The Palos Verdes Peninsula needs more athletic fields for organized youth sports. • An athletic field would provide a location for student athletes to engage in collegiate competition including the California Pacific athletic conference men's and women's soccer and the club -sponsored lacrosse teams. . Many RPV residents use the campus for their morning walks. the athletic field would be much safer than walking the parking lots. An athletic field is a place for individuals to get exercise while walking the perimeter. An athletic field would provide instruction space for physical education courses. An athletic field would provide students a place to recreate with one another including intramural sports, "pick-up" games and student -led activities. • An athletic field will be an aesthetically pleasing feature to the campus. An athletic field will be an aesthetically pleasing feature to the campus. • The planned field is synthetic material and will not need to use precious water resources. I want to thank you for your help in getting this project to become a reality. Sincerely, Sr. Antoine -Marie rshm French and Spanish Professor Marymount Palos Verdes College Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 qa From: Alan Johnson <AlanJ@Victory-Group.com> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 7:29 AM To: CC Subject: Marymount's request for an extension to build athletic field. Dear Mayor Brooks - I am writing to you in support of Marymount California University's request for an extension to build their athletic field. As someone who grew up and raised a family in Rancho Palos Verdes and is a proud member of Marymount California University's Board of Trustees, I know firsthand of the great work and many accomplishments of the institution. Athletics play a crucial role in college life, help fight youth obesity and are often the last chance for many to participate before they settle down to careers. RPV has always had a shortage of athletic fields. Allowing Marymount to add fields will enhance the community as a whole. I would expect a city that is fortunate enough to have an institution of higher learning in its midst to celebrate and nurture it. Sadly, that is not always the case. I respectfully submit we begin to change that dynamic and extend the permitting necessary to complete the athletic field. Sincerely, Alan Johnson /�a From: DrSue <drsue@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 12:50 PM To: cc Subject: Marymount Athletic Field Dear Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic and Councilmembers Campbell, Knight and Misetich, I am writing to you to ask you to grant Marymount California University (MCU) an extension to complete the RPV campus athletic field by this coming fall semester (Fall, 2013). As many of you well know, I proudly serve on the Board of Trustees of MCU. Also, my husband Steve and I have lived in the Marymount neighborhood for 43 years (Mediterrania HOA). We are pleased that our neighborhood will finally be getting a regulation -size athletic field that not only will benefit MCU's student athletes, but also Peninsula organized youth sports. It is too bad that government required studies and construction of a water runoff collection basin forced delays in the construction of the MCU parking lot, making it necessary for Marymount to construct a temporary parking lot on the land that was to be used for the athletic field. Now that the permanent parking lot is a reality, work can finally begin to regrade the temporary lot for the athletic field. Synthetic material will cover the completed athletic field, thus preserving precious water resources and further reducing the impact of water usage on our sensitive Palos Verdes environment. Of course, no unsightly night lighting will be used on the field (day use only), and the eucalyptus trees that enhance the views of Catalina and the Pacific, as well as provide perches for a myriad of birds, will be preserved. Please grant MCU the extension they are requesting and the slight reconfiguration of the 2010 City Council -approved athletic field. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Sue Soldoff Dr. Sue Soldoff 3414 Coolheights Dr Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-6229 Home: (310) 544-1115 • Cell: (310) 740-2465 Fax: (310) 544-4605 e-mail: drsue@cox.net / 5a From: Tom Ricci <tricci@tpgre.com> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:43 AM To: CC Subject: Marymount California University Athletic Field Extension Monday, May 06, 2013 Mayor Susan Brooks Mayor Pro Tem Jerry Duhovic Councilmember Brian Campbell Councilmember Jim Knight Councilmember Anthony Misetich Mayor Brooks and Distinguished Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council; My name is Thomas Ricci. I currently serve as Vice Chair of the Marymount California University (MCU) Board of Trustees and I have been a member of the Board of Trustees for the past 8 years. I reside at 2220 Via Alamitos, Palos Verdes Estates, CA. Although I work in Los Angeles our family has lived on the Palos Verdes Peninsula for the past 19 years. We have raised three children here and my wife Amy and I are active in several community, educational and philanthropic organizations. I am writing to you today to express the importance of granting Marymount California University an extension to build their athletic field. Marymount California University has been and continues to be a vital part of our community. Over the years it has served a critical role in offering a faith based institution of higher learning to a diverse constituency. I firmly believe our community has benefitted from MCU's Mission and will continue to do so with the University's recent accomplishments including accreditation of the MA programs, the addition of the Clear Lake Campus, the expansion of the Waterfront Campus, the LA City approval for the development of the San Pedro Residential Campus and other significant accomplishments. A critical part of MCU's educational mission is the total student experience of which physical activity, sports, recreation and exercise play a key role. As MCU implements its modernization program with improvements to physical plant and facilities, the MCU's Athletic Field is a much needed next step in that process. The Athletic Field will provide: a location for student athletes to engage in collegiate competition including the California Pacific athletic conference men's and women's soccer and the club -sponsored lacrosse teams; instruction space for physical education courses; a place to recreate with one another including intramural sports, "pick-up" games and student -led activities; a place for individuals to get exercise while walking the perimeter; the Palos Verdes Peninsula more athletic fields for organized youth sports; an aesthetically pleasing open space feature to the campus. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has played a pivotal role in Marymount's success. Over the past 75 years Marymount has continued to evolve and change to meet the ever changing needs of it various constituencies. A transformation of this magnitude takes time, foresight and proper planning. Not everything can happen at once and that is why I am asking each of you to favorably consider MCU's extension to build their athletic fields on the main campus. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely, Thomas S. Ricci Vice Chairman Marymount California University Board of Trustees Residence 1 2220 Via Alamitos Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 310-902-2894 This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not a named addressee you should not disseminate or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake, and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error -free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard -copy version. From: Barbara Ferraro <mrsrpv@aol.com> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:32 PM To: CC Subject: Marymount California University Dear Mayor Brooks, Mayor Por Tem Duhovic and City Council Members Please allow Marymount California University to have the time it needs to install the athletic fields. The athletic fields will be an asset to our neighborhood because the community is allowed to use them. In construction, it is often hard to adhere to strict time tables. 1 would just like to say as neighbors of Marymount, my husband Charles and I are very happy to have Marymount nearby. We urge you to approve the requests made by Marymount. Thank you very much. By the way, the 40th Anniversary celebration was a huge success!! Thank you all for your dedication to our community! Barbara Ferraro mrsrpv(a)-aol.com /1'�z May 1, 2013 City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, Dear Mayor Susan Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Jerry Duhovic and Councilmembers Brian Campbell, Jim Knight and Anthony Misetich, Thank you for your service to our city. We moved to Rancho Palos Verdes thirty-four years ago to raise our children in our community because of the excellent schools. For the past five years, I've had the honor to serve on the Board of Marymount College, now Marymount California University. As Marymount has grown and developed new curricula to meet student needs, there has been a parallel outreach with so many benefits to Peninsula residents. I am, writing to ask you to Want an extension to MCU to build its'athletic field which will benefit our community as a whole, Students need space for athletics, physical education activities, intramural sports and recreation, Organized youth sports need more fields for the children of Palos Verdes. We can all be proud that we live in a city that has a vibrant University committed to serving its students, faculty, staff and the residents who attend the many educational and cultural events offered to them. Thank you for your consideration of the difference it will make to grant an extension to build the athletic field. S,r I Lnce e y, (N\ Patricia Dilligan 7010 Hartcrest Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 541-7104 pdilligan@yahoo.com From: Douglas W. Stern <douglas.w.stern@gmail. com> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:31 PM To: CC; Carla Morreale Cc: Carla Morreale; Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru; Kit Fox; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; swolowicz123@gmail.com; tlong@nossaman.com; Larry Clark - forelc@cox.net Subject: May 7, 2013 Agenda, Item 4 - Renaming in Honor or John McTaggart Attachments: Mayor Brooks and members of the City Council.pdf Mayor Brooks and Members of the City Council, Please see the attached letter relating to Item 4 on your May 7, 2013 agenda. DOUGLAS W. STERN DOUGLAS W. STERN 2731 Coral Ridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 May 5, 2013 Re: May 7, 2013, Item 4: Renaming of City Council Chambers in Honor of John McTaggart and Establishment of City "Wall of Honor" Mayor Brooks and Members of the City Council, I am writing to communicate my support for the proposal put forth by Mayor pro tem Duhovic that you rename the present City Council Chambers at Hesse Park after former Mayor John McTaggart. I had the privilege of serving 4 of my 12 years on City Council with John McTaggart, Those 4 years were the last of his five terms as a member of the City Council. I know firsthand John's dedication to the residents of the City which he loved. Whether he and I agreed or disagreed on the issues that we both addressed, I always knew that John made each decision based on his best judgment as to what was best for our City and its residents. Much of the history of John's involvement in our City is detailed in the April 16, 2013,Report from Mayor pro tem Duhovic. John's decades of service to the residents are unequalled in our City's history, spanning from the years leading up to the City's incorporation in 1973, until the final days of his life. It is particularly fitting that the City Council Chamber in which he spent so many hours serving the residents should bear his name. Importantly, naming the City Council Chamber at Hesse Park where John McTaggart served for 20 years is consistent with Policy No. 37. I also support the proposal that the City move forward with the Wall of Honor. The Wall of Honor allows our City to recognize the contributions of many who have, and in the future shall, contribute to our community, while preserving the long established practice of naming City facilities based on geographic location. The Wall of Honor is and should be the preferred means for such recognition in our City. Thank you for your consideration of my input on this matter. And should it be necessary to take a recess while considering this matter, I trust that there shall be a majority supporting such a motion. Sincerely, t�tl. Douglas W. Stern 0 From: Larry Clark <forelc@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:08 AM To: Douglas W. Stern Cc: CC; Carla Morreale; Carla Morreale; Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru; Kit Fox; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; <swolowicz 1 23@g mail. com>; <tlong@nossaman.com> Subject: Re: May 7, 2013 Agenda, Item 4 - Renaming in Honor or John McTaggart All, Having spent 20 years as a both an appointed and elected city commissioner and council member/mayor and thousands of hours in conducting city business in the Hesse Park Community Room, I also support the proposal to rename this room after my former council colleague John McTaggert. Mayor (ret.) Larry Clark Rancho Palos Verdes Sent from my Whone On May 4, 2013, at 10:31 PM, "Douglas W. Stern" <douglas.w.stem2gmail.com> wrote: Mayor Brooks and Members of the City Council, Please see the attached letter relating to Item 4 on your May 7, 2013 agenda. DQUGIA.S W. STERN <Mayor Brooks and members of the City Council.pdf> From: Long, Thomas D. <tlong@nossaman.com> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:36 AM To: Larry Clark - forelc@cox.net; Douglas W. Stern Cc: CC; Carla Morreale; Carla Morreale; Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru; Kit Fox; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; <swolowiczl23@gmail.com> Subject: RE: May 7, 2013 Agenda, Item 4 - Renaming in Honor or John McTaggart 0 I also support renaming the Hesse Park activity room that doubles as a city council meeting location in honor of John McTaggart. This is an appropriate honor for John's two decades of selfless service as an elected official. I regret that I will be out of town and unable to participate in the event in his honor. I will also note that it would be more fitting to name an actual city council chambers in a dedicated city hall in honor of McTaggart. And it might also have been more appropriate to wait the 5 years contemplated by the city's naming policy. Hopefully the city's leadership will realize that it is settling for something that is less than optimal and will redouble its efforts to strive for excellence in the future. Tom Long Former Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes (2007, 2011) From: Larry Clark [mailto:forelc(�bcox.net] Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:08 AM To: Douglas W. Stern Cc: <cc@rpv.com>; <carlam@rpv.com>; Carla Morreale; Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru; <kitf@rpv.com>; <CLynch a rw Iq aw.com>; <swolowicz123@amail.com>; Long, Thomas D. Subject: Re: May 7, 2013 Agenda, Item 4 - Renaming in Honor or John McTaggart All, Having spent 20 years as a both an appointed and elected city commissioner and council member/mayor and thousands of hours in conducting city business in the Hesse Park Community Room, I also support the proposal to rename this room after my former council colleague John McTaggert. Mayor (ret.) Larry Clark Rancho Palos Verdes Sent from my Whone On May 4, 2013, at 10:31 PM, "Douglas W. Stern." <douglas.w.stemggmail.com> wrote: Mayor Brooks and Members of the City Council, Please see the attached letter relating to Item 4 on your May 7, 2013 agenda. DOUGLAS W. STERN <Mayor Brooks and members of the City Council.pdf> I We