Loading...
20140121 Late CorrespondenceMarymount Athletic Field Expansion Project Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Declaration 115 yards long in order to accommodate NAIA sanctioned soccer matches. 1 Otherwise, the proposed field uses are generally similar to those in the approved project studied in the Certified EIR. The proposed athletic field would be used by men's and women's soccer teams. The proposed athletic field would also be a multiple purpose field that could accommodate a number of different recreational activities. Uses of the field would include club sports (i.e.: inter-collegiate matches) and intramural sports for teams playing softball, lacrosse, soccer, and flag football. The athletic field would also be used for summer recreational programs and by community organizations. Fencinig!Netting. In accordance with Condition of Approval No. 175, 30-foot high netting would be installed. In the approved project, the tennis courts to the west of the field included 20-foot high permanent fencing that would serve to block errant balls instead of netting. Because the proposed project would eliminate the two tennis courts on the west side of the field, the proposed netting would extend along the entire westerly side of the field, thereby surrounding the field on the north, west, and south sides. The netting would be retractable and only used when the athletic field is in use where there is a possibility of errant balls or objects leaving the field. Although the netting would be retractable, the 6-"nth diallileter. smpport pole&alo.ng the field's western and southern boundaries wou1d remain pe11manently extended. The poles along the north side 0£ the field would be retracted to a height of 10 feet above aderwhen the'llets are.~etracted. The netting would have holes approximately 1.5 square inches in size. Synthetic Turf The project involves a change in the proposed field surface from natural grass to synthetic turf in order to accommodate multiple recreational uses. The synthetic turf would be approximately 2.5 inches thick and would be laid on top of a four- inch deep Caltrans Class II aggregate base, which would be underlain by a sub-surface drainage system over a permeable membrane covering the graded site2• Maintenance of a synthetic field typically involves sweeping and brushing the field to remove debris and occasional rinsing or washing to remove stains and debris. Sound. The proposed project would involve a modification to Condition of Approval No. 136 to allow up to three events with amplified sound as part of and subject to Marymount's annual Special Use Permit (SUP). Currently, the only event permitted to have amplified sound on the field is the graduation ceremony. Dimensions and Topography. The grading of the athletic field would lower the profile of the area in order to minimize views of the field and to use the topography as a natural barrier to retain balls. The topography would slope down towards the field on three sides. The height of the slope around the athletic field on the north side would range from 10.5 to 12.5 feet, and on average the top of the slope would be more than 32 feet from 1 NAIA requires the field size to be between 70 and 75 yards wide and between 115 and 120 yards in length. 2 The proposed field would require approximately 1,050 cubic yards of aggregate base material, which would be imported to the site. The contractor would import this material using the same trucks that would be used to export the excavation material; thus, the trucks that would bring the aggregate to the site would also be used to remove the excavated material. Thus the estimated number of truck trips assumed in the analysis in this Initial Study includes both import of aggregate and export of excavated material. City of Rancho Palos Verdes . Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Joel Rojas Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:06 PM Diane Smith Cc: Subject: Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell; Eduardo Schonborn; Ara Mihranian; bubba32@cox.net; jlkarp@cox.net; karplS@cox.net; vickihanger@aol.com; 'Gregory Lash'; Carolyn Lehr; Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka RE: Marymount MND Athletic Field Diane I forwarded your email to Rincon and asked for an explanation. The response I received from Rincon is that in addition to including the omitted view simulation photos (Figures 8 through 11 b) and Mitigation Measures TR-8 and TR-9, Rincon modified the language of some of the traffic mitigation measures as some of the language did not exactly match the language of the original mitigation measures approved by the City Council in 2010. This explains the text differences that you found. Rin'con said that they did this to avoid any confusion if members of the public compared the language of the traffic mitigation measures from the original EIR to the language of the re-stated mitigation measures in the MND. Their intent was simply to clarify an aspect of the document which they thought would be well received. While it does clarify the mitigation measure language, I was not aware of this clarification. While Rincon has assured me that the clarifications to some of TR Mitigation measures were the only text changes made to the document (other than the cover sheet clarification, the corrected table of contents and possibly some typo corrections), I have requested that Rincon provide us with a "comparison" document showing all differences between both documents. Once the City receives said document, we will post it on the City's website. I should add that Rincon will be present at tonight's meeting to answer any questions about the MND preparation. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:44 AM To: Joel Rojas Cc: Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell; Eduardo Schonborn; Ara Mihranian; bubba32@cox.net; jlkarp@cox.net; karp15@cox.net; vickihanger@aol.com; 'Gregory Lash'; Carolyn Lehr Subject: RE: Marymount MND Athletic Field Dear Joel, It is very easy to run a "compare-rite" or other similar program, to show changes that have been made between documents. Please demand that Rincon provide such a comparison immediately to let us all know exactly the extent of the differences between the October 2013 MND and the November 2013 MND. We all relied on your representation that Rincon simply added Figures 8 through 11b and Mitigation Measures TR-8 and TR-9 that were missing from the October 2013 MND. I have now observed that there are many differences between the October 2013 MND and the November 2013 MND. am 64 and I am not as"quick" as I used to be so having a compare-rite to look at the differences between first draft and second draft would be so much easier for me than sitting at the Miraleste Library with lots of noisy distracting kids or standing at your counter at the city offices for so long. It is very time-consuming for me to proof-read by hand such a I~ large document. I have found so many additions and changes way over and above what Rincon represented. A lot of it . is jumbled and double-talk to me -but maybe it is very clear to you and others. Let's see. For instance, on Page 46, TR-4 has been changed as follows: After the 1st sentence ending "and 150 weekend students" Rincon added ---Additionally, it is assumed, Marymount College student enrollment as a maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the BA Program and a maximum of 793 weekday students minus current BA Program weekday students enrolled in the AA Program. ---and at line 7, after "part-time students" Rincon inserted ---",and maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the BA Program and a maximum of 793 weekday students minus current BA Program weekday students in the AA Program. ---added after TR- 5 ---The parking impacts and corresponding mitigating measures assume the Marymount College student enrollment as a maximum of 793 weekday students (based on the formula allowing 750 full-time students, 20 part-time students, -- and so on. (Please note these changes are re-typed from my hand-written notes.) There were so many changes between the October 2013 MND and the November 2013 MND that I am astounded that you would not demand Rincon confess the changes, additions and omissions. It is beyond slop for Rincon to represent to our hard working City Staff that they just added their inadvertently omitted Figures and mitigation measures TR-8 and TR-9. You say these are just "drafts" on the way to a final? That's not how you arrive at a final document. Surely Rincon, Marymount and Marymount's attorneys are aware that when you are negotiating or making presentations and make changes to a document you must show those changes. That is why I now believe that not only is Rincon sloppy but Marymount and its attorneys must be sloppy too (or maybe just very inexperienced in dealing with document changes). I think our City Attorney should take a look at this. Again, I ask you to demand Rincon provide a list of every single word, figure, diagram, that they added/changed/omitted in the November 2013 MND that is different from the October 2013 MND. Please let me know when this is printed out and ready for viewing so that I can review it at the City Offices today. Please also send it out electronically to everyone participating in this process and especially our City Council. Thank you. Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310/547-3856 -----Original Message----- From: Joel Rojas [mailto:JoelR@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:23 AM To: Diane Smith Cc: 'LOIS Karp'; bubba32@cox.net; 'Gregory Lash'; vickihanger@aol.com; Anthony Misetich; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell; Carolyn Lehr; Eduardo Schonborn; Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Marymount MND Athletic Field Diane City Staff did not compare every page of the October 2013 MND with every page of the November 2013 MND. After it was discovered that the view simulation photos were inadvertently omitted from the October 2013 document, we requested that Rincon go through the document to ensure us that no other items were omitted. Rincon did that and assured us that no items other than those listed in the revised Notice were omitted and no other changes were made to the document. Rincon did also clarify the cover page to clarify that Rincon prepared the document for the City. I should note that as part of the CEQA process, the MND that is currently circulating to the public is a "Draft" document that is intended to be scrutinized and challenged by the public before it is finalized. As a result of the public scrutiny, it is not uncommon for the Final CEQA document to have undergone some changes, clarifications and even errata corrections. All such changes and corrections will be documented in the Final document. Lastly, when we spoke at the counter I was trying to convey to you that Rincon is not a new consultant to the City but has done other past work for the City. I cited their work on the Annenberg EIR but forgot to mention their work on the Crestridge Project EIR. They are also currently working on the Zone 2 EIR for the City. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:27 AM To: Joel Rojas Cc: 'LOIS Karp'; bubba32@cox.net; 'Gregory Lash'; vickihanger@aol.com; Anthony Misetich; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell; Carolyn Lehr; Eduardo Schonborn; Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Marymount MND Athletic Field Dear Joel, Did you (or assign someone) proofread the October 2013 MND against the November 2013 MND? After Rincon's previous sloppiness, I would assume you would want to make sure Rincon was not devious as I earlier suspected. You represented to the community, and clarified to me, that Rincon simply included in the November MND, Figures 8 through 11b and Mitigation Measures TR-8 and TR-9 that were missing from the October MND. I ask you to re-affirm and assure me that Rincon did not sneak in any other additional language or changes from the October 2013 to the November 2013 MND document. Please respond at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Diane And by the way Joel, it seems petty, but you never told me that Rincon represented Crestridge -you told me that Rincon previously represented the Annenberg project. -----Original Message----- From: Joel Rojas [mailto:JoelR@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 5:02 PM To: Diane Smith Cc: 'LOIS Karp'; 'James'; 'Gregory Lash'; vickihanger@aol.com; Anthony Misetich; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell; Carolyn Lehr; Eduardo Schonborn; Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Marymount MND Athletic Field -Notice of Deficiency and Request for Extension of Time Hi Diane Please see my clarification comments below. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:48 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: 'LOIS Karp'; 'James'; 'Gregory Lash'; vickihanger@aol.com; Anthony Misetich; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell; Carolyn Lehr Subject: RE: Marymount MND Athletic Field -Notice of Deficiency and Request for Extension of Time Dear Joel, Further to our previous correspondence (below) and our discussion in person yesterday, I just wanted to verify a few things: 1) you told me that Rincon was the City's new Environmental consultant and NOT Marymount's consultant and not referred by Marymount's attorneys--that Marymount was only paying the bill. Actually, what I said was that Rincon was the new environmental consultant to the Marymount project as there was a different environmental consultant (RBF) that the City used for the previous Marymount EIR. Rincon is not a new consultant to the City as they have been used by the City over the last few years for CEQA preparation. The last document that Rincon prepared for the City was the EIR for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project that was certified by the City Council in May 2013. That is correct that Rincon is the City's consultant not Marymount's consultant. The City Council approved entering into a contract with Rincon on April 16, 2013. I encourage you to review the staff report on the item which is available on the City's website as it explains how and why Rincon was selected. Marymount pays for 100% of Rincon's work for the City. As stated in the April 16, 2013 Staff Report, Marymount agreed with the City's selection of Rincon. Marymount did not refer Rincon to the City. 2) that Rincon failed to include six critical drawings from its October 31, 2013 MND and failed to include two of the original mitigation measures and that these have now been added to the November, 2013 MND. As stated in the public notice that was widely distributed on November 26, 2013, view simulation photographs identified as Figures 8 through 11b and Mitigation Measures TR-8 and TR-9 were inadvertently left out of the final MND document that the City received from Rincon and released to the public on October 31st. For this reason, the original 43-day public comment period was extended for an additional 42 days. 3) I told you that I was not alone in not trusting Rincon since they are either sloppy or devious. You assured me that they were "just sloppy." This sloppiness does not belong in our City and certainly when there are such important upcoming potential changes to our community. You stated that reason for such an omission can only be sloppiness or devious behavior. I stated that no devious behavior was involved as it was just last minute sloppiness in trying to get us the final document in time by the October 31st deadline that we gave them. I also want to follow-up with our discussion to say that despite your acceptance and brushing off of their sloppiness I am not alone in not trusting Rincon nor trusting the oversight of our planning department. We residents feel like we must hover over everything you and Rincon do and that does not make us feel comfortable at all. When Rincon sent the revised MND that incorporated the critical missing documents and the two mitigation measures material they should have provided a cover letter describing the drawings they included plus the omitted matter and every single word that was added or omitted in the document. Did Rincon provide you with a "compare-rite" or include in their cover letter the specific words they added/changed or omitted? Please provide me with this information at your earliest convenience. Rincon did not provide us with a "compare-rite" document. Rincon notified us that they reviewed the entire document and confirmed that the only . missing items were the items noted above. I believe Rincon had no respect for you nor our City at the start of this contract. Rincon has caused more work for our City staff and residents have lost a great deal of faith in Rincon's integrity and ability to be fair and honest with residents. I believe Rincon should be fired as they are either not thorough/trustworthy and respectful of our City/City Planners/City Council OR they are devious -or maybe both -all are good reasons for them to be fired. Please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Diane Smith -----Original Message----- From: Joel Rojas [mailto:JoelR@rpv.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:50 PM To: Diane Smith; Eduardo Schonborn; Ara Mihranian; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich Cc: 'LOIS Karp' Subject: RE: Marymount MND Athletic Field -Notice of Deficiency and Request for Extension of Time Dear Ms. Smith We have confirmed that for some unexplained reason the MND document that was delivered to the city from the consultant was missing 3 figures that showed the view simulations of the reconfigured athletic field. We have asked the consultant who prepared the MND to perform a thorough check of the entire document to make sure there are no other missing figures. We intend to post a corrected MND on the city's website as soon as we get it from the consultant and extend the public comment period accordingly. Members of the public will still have the opportunity to provide any verbal comments on the document at the city council's December 3rd meeting. Joel Rojas From: Diane Smith [radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:20 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich Cc: 'LOIS Karp' Subject: Marymount MND Athletic Field -Notice of Deficiency and Request for Extension of Time Attached please find my MEMO regarding NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION and REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR RESIDENTS TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING MARYMOUNT ATHLETIC FIELD EXPANSION PROJECT. Please correct the omissions and re-circulate as the Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration incorporating the missing pages and new dates to submit written comments and give testimony. Thank you. Sincerely, Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310/547-3856 CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JANUARY 21, 2014 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 Description of Material Email exchange between City Manager Lehr and Councilman Campbell with Example of Weekly Report Cover Sheet Email from Gregory Lash; Email from Larry Clark; Powerpoint of Marymount Construction Phasing ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, January 20, 2014**. W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140121 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Carolyn Lehr Sent: To: Cc: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:35 PM Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net> cc Subject: Attachments: RE: City Manager report Weekly Report Cover Sheet Example Oce_202_20140121_152131.pdf Dear Council Members, I wish to provide you with a document that you might find helpful to reference during the CM Report. This is an example cover sheet from our Weekly Reports, with the topics indexed. The City Clerk will include in Late Correspondence. Carolyn From: RPV Councilman B Campbell [mailto:b.camp@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:13 PM To: Carolyn Lehr Subject: RE: City Manager report Ok, thanks. Brian From: Carolyn Lehr [mailto:clehr@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:08 PM To: Brian campbell <b.camp@cox.net> Cc: CC; 'acolman@closersgroup.com' Subject: RE: City Manager report Sure Brian, With the concerns you raised at the last meeting about less than adequate information being provided to the Council by staff on a range of activities and projects, as well as a request from Councilman Misetich for regular (quarterly) information sharing regarding street projects, facilitator Dr. Allan Colman felt it would be helpful if we looked into staff's practices in these areas to provide background for tonight's later discussion about transparency. I will reference the information to the Council orally-without a need for Power Points. No action is required by the Council during the City Manager's Report. The "additional measures" refers to our putting new systems in place to more fully utilize the Council Calendar as a communication tool going forward. Again, this will be described briefly to assure the public that staff is following up on Council's concerns. The one Power Point slide will be from Finance, which depicts rate of return information in a chart form, using the data recently reported by Cal PERS on its website, and the historic performance having already been provided to you in the Weekly Report last week. In other words, not new information, but may be of interest to the public. I hope this is helpful, 1 Carolyn From: RPV Councilman B Campbell [mailto:b.camp@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:23 PM To: Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru Subject: City Manager report Can you give me some additional info on what the "Council Information Sharing" topic will contain and if there is a visual or hard-copy presentation for the CalPERS data, to share that in advance as well? Thanks, Brian 2 MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Q,~ DATE: JANUARY 8, 2014 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE RE-PORT NO. 14-01 I. CITY MANAGER AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS (See Attachments) • CITY MANAGER -PAGE 5 • 2013 Film Permit Activity Summary • Speeding Ticket Summary • Advisory Board Recruitment Extension (Planning Commission) • "Listening Sessions" To Be Held For Improving Chemical Facility Safety & Security • FINANCE & IT -No report this week • PUBLIC WORKS -PAGE 20 • Construction Update on Phase II of FY 11-12 Residential Streets • San Ramon Canyon Project Update • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -PAGE 22 • Department Activity Reports • Applications of Note , .. • RECREATION & PARKS-PAGE 34 • Public Hike to Abalone Cove Tide Pools Attracts Record Crowd • Visitors Swarm Interpretive Center to See Whales • Park Events II. CORRESPONDENCE AND INFORMATION RECEIVED (See Attachments) A. Tentative Agendas -PAGE 37 B. Channel 33 Programming Schedule -PAGE 40 C. Channel 35 Programming Schedule -PAGE 41 D. Crime Report-PAGE 42 E. Miscellaneous -PAGE 49 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Joel Rojas Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:16 AM Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Eduardo Schonborn FW: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Marymount Athletic Field Expansion From: Gregory Lash [mailto:glash@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:39 AM To: Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich Cc: Eduardo Schonborn; Joel Rojas Subject: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Marymount Athletic Field Expansion Distinguished Councilmember's and Staff; I would like my comments to be included in this Environmental Review. While I do not agree that an MND is the correct review in this case, comments nonetheless should be forwarded to the Consultant in whatever form the Review takes. 1) Grading Totals: Seem to be missing from this Draft. They were included in the approved Expansion in 2010, including a total for the entire project, but I am confused as to where the 19,200 cubic yards of Field grading fit into the total allowed by the CUP. With the use of trucks to export, this is a significant change from the "Net Zero" Grading previously approved. In my mind, this constitutes "new information," as defined in CEQA Guidelines 3(A) "one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR .... " The Field Grading is but one part of much more Grading that will be required during the expansion. 2) Traffic Mitigation Measures: These are all based on 2010 Enrollment numbers. The numbers seem seriously outdated when one considers Traditional, Non-Traditional, Weekend, BA Students, the new Classrooms in San Pedro, and the approved expansion of the PV North Campus . The CUP limit of 793 Students seems obsolete, and consequently the traffic numbers studied are insufficient. Traffic studies included "Away Fans," since MCU will have NAIA Sanctioned events. The college has also, in an August 2013 Mailer, promised use of the Field to the "Community," in view of a "lack of recreational fields in the City." This likely will include AYSO Games. The 16 vehicles the Draft envisions for a NAIA match are woefully short of the vehicle traffic (and noise) AYSO Games would bring. In addition, MCU has publically stated that Lacrosse Games will be played on this field. The Lacrosse ball is much harder, and travels much faster, than a soccer ball. Neither A YSO or Lacrosse are addressed in the Draft. 3) Noise: The aforementioned AYSO Parent/Fan attendance at this new Field is not addressed. Those of us who live close to the College already live with noise on the Weekends, from Summer Camps, that were not approved through a Hearing Process. These were a natural outgrowth of the College having a pool, and wanting to expand their reach. The use of the new Field by "Community Groups" should not follow this same pattern - the MND or EIR should include this use as a new Impact. In addition, here is very little Sideline room for fans to stand in this new configuration. It appears the best viewing area will be the right lane of Palos Verdes Drive East -perhaps fans will gather along the roadside. Finally, the problem of "Piecemealing" haunts me. I have been trying to read CEQA Law on this subject. CEQA struggles to define this Term (described as "murky" by one Court), although it is supposed to be forbid bringing a project forward a little at a time to avoid the total impact. Examples of cases attempt to define this term -both pro and con seem similar to me, and none are better or worse than what MCU has done in the last few years. A previous City Council Resolved to unanimously oppose Marymount's Ballot Initiative "Proposition P," in part due it would have eliminated the Tennis Court "Safet~rs," from the Field's approved location, and would I• have allowed long unknown time windows for expansion projects. Now, the safety Buffer is gone, the Field is back in it's Prop P location, and MCU seems to be accomplishing long time windows with their multiple extension requests. This situation, in totality, seems to cries out for a full EIR process, in which the public could fully vet the process -these and more issues could be studied. I urge the Council, if within it's purview, to request this. Sincerely, Gregory Lash Vivienne Nixon-Lash 2829 San Ramon Drive RPV From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Larry Clark <forelc@cox.net> Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:01 PM cc Fw: Marymount MND Comment Session, Staff Report available High Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members: As a former 20 year decision maker (1989-2009) on land use issues in Rancho Palos Verdes and The State of Calif. (4 yrs View Restoration Commission/8 yrs Planning Commission/8 yrs City Council/ & 4 yr Calif Coastal Commission) is it very clear to me that Marymount's requested athletic field expansion should be subject to a Full EIR, and not considered and ruled on with only a MND. I urge you to require a comprehensive EIR in order to accurately and fairly determine what if any changes from the approved plan are appropriate. Your constituents and the applicant deserve this action by the Council. Respectively, Mayor(ret.) Larry Clark Rancho Palos Verdes From: rpvlistserver@rpv.com Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:40 PM To: forelc@cox.net Subject: Marymount MND Comment Session, Staff Report available Dear Listserve Subscriber, As you may recall, the Draft MND for Marymount's requested athletic field expansion is currently circulating for comments until January 24, 2014. The purpose of this email is to inform you that in addition to written comments, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will also receive public comments regarding the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration at a public meeting before the City Council to be held at 7:00pm on Tuesday January 21, 2014, at Hesse Park Community Building, located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. The staff report is now available on the City's website, and can be viewed by clicking on the following link: January 21st Staff Report (Comment on Draft MND) 1 /. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Eduardo Schonborn Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:13 PM cc Joel Rojas; Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka; Ara Mihranian Marymount Phasing powerpoint of phases_MMT.pptx Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, Although tonight's Marymount item is solely for the purpose of obtaining public and Council comments on the Revised Athletic Facility Mitigated Negative Declaration, questions have been raised regarding the construction phases approved by the City Council in 2010 for the campus master plan. The 2010 approval was divided into 3 construction phases, each with specific improvements and expiration dates spanning a total of eight years. Attached are slides from a previous power point presentation that list the improvements and expiration dates for each phase. Although the entitlements for Phase 1 expired on September 30, 2013, the entitlements for Phases 2 and 3 continue to be valid. However, because Phase 1 was not completed in its entirety, while certain improvements listed in Phases 2 and 3 could still proceed in the future (additions to the student union and the Admissions building), some improvements (shown in red in the attached slides) would require Marymount to request approval of a CUP-Revision from the City Council in order to proceed with their development. -eduardo Eduardo Schonborn, aicp Senior Planner t!'J City of ~nclio <Paws 'Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f eduardos@rpv.com ® Condition No. 60a Phase 1 -Time Limits • Phase 1 Completion Deadline: September 30, 2012 • Marymount's Request: Extend to September 30, 2013 • Council Extended: December 18, 2012 • Council Extended: May 7, 2013 PHASE 1 • Demolition of Existing Buildings -Nursery school, Fine Art Building, Bookstore/Health Center, Photo Lab, Maintenance Building, Library, Pool, Tennis Courts and Basketball Courts • Grading including installation of drainage and 8 water quality facilities • Installation of Utilities • Construction of New Parking Areas • Construction of New Athletic Field and Tennis Courts • Installation of Temporary Modular Buildings Phase 2 The planning entitlements, including building permits, for all construction described under Phase 2 shall remain valid and the construction thereof shall be completed no later than June 1, 2015 for the following construction: ~ • Fine Grading • Library Building • Maintenance Facility • Athletic Building • Outdoor Pool • Additions to the Faculty and Student Union Buildings Phase 3 The planning entitlements, including building permits, for all construction described under Phase 3 shall remain valid and the construction thereof shall be completed no later than June 1, 2018 for ® the following construction: • The New Fine Arts Building • Addition to the Admissions Building. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CrrYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JANUARY 20, 2014 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached. are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, January 21, 2014 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Materials 1 Email from George and Irene Tanaka W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140121 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear RPV City Council, gtanaka@hta.honda.com Monday, January 20, 2014 12:56 PM cc irene.tanaka@cox.net Marymount's CUP-Revision Request We are the homeowners and residents of 3270 Deluna Dr., RPV. We understand that MCU has requested to modify the athletic field and other specific conditions of the CUP that was approved by the City Council in 2010. We are submitting our comment regarding this matter via e-mail message since we cannot attend the public hearing at Hesse Park on January 21st. We emphatically urge the City Council to reject MCU's request to make modifications to the approved CUP without an environmental impact report. Thank you for your consideration. George and Irene Tanaka This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this e- mail message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail. 1 /.