An Email and The Reply

I wrote an Email and addressed it to many in the government of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

When Marymount's talking voice on its T.V. ad stated that there would be no cost to taxpayers for Marymount's Expansion Project, I wanted to fact check that statement.

I already know that many hours of our city staff's time has been afforded to the Marymount plan and that costs taxpayers' money.

Specifically, I am still seeking to learn how much our city's General Fund might be charged if the initiative qualifies for the November ballot. Here is my Email, minus the addresses and my return address:

Greetings.

I am sending this to a wide range of individuals in hopes someone knows the answers to my questions.

With concerns about a potential ballot measure qualifying for an upcoming election, specifically the proposed Marymount initiative, here are some questions.

Has the City Attorney calculated the possible costs to the city for incorporating the proposed ballot measure either as part of the November, 2010 general election, or as being part of a special election, if the proposed measure qualifies to become part of any ballot?

If the information has been created, will it be part of the petition or will it become public information in some other format?

If the information is not known at this time, when might the information become available?

Are city funds that would be used for the vote on the Marymount Expansion Plan, part of the general funds or are funds for a purpose like this kept in a different account? If so, what type of account would these funds be in?

Thank you for any and all assistance that can be provided at this time.

I wish I was more optimistic that the proposed ballot measure not qualify for placement on any ballot.

Now here is the reply I received today from our City Clerk:

Mark,

I cannot answer all of your questions, since some of the estimates/facts are not known at this time and will require further research; however, I can provide some information for you.

First of all, as you realize, the initiative would have to qualify for the ballot. If that occurs, the City Attorney will not be the one to calculate the cost of the election. The estimate comes from the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s Office to me, as City Clerk. I placed a request for the estimate with the County for the November 2010 Election and am waiting to hear back from them; they noted that I should receive the estimate in 3-4 weeks. Therefore, the cost is not a known quantity at this time. If the estimated cost has been provided by the County when a report is prepared for the City Council about the election, the estimated cost would be included in the report.

The cost of the Nov. 2009 General Municipal Election for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (which was consolidated with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Library District through the County) with seven candidates and one measure on the ballot was $74,553. For comparison, the cost of the Nov. 2007 General Municipal Election (which was consolidated with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District through the County) with five candidates and two measures on the ballot for the City was $96,553. If the petition qualifies for the November 2010 ballot, the funds to pay for the Special Election would come from the General Fund.

Regards,

Carla

Carla Morreale, CMC

City Clerk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right now, the November ballot is not slated to have any candidates or issues specifically associated with our city government or issues in Rancho Palos Verdes.

That would all change if the Marymount initiative qualifies for the ballot and it appears our city's General Fund would have funds charged against it for the added costs associated with Marymount's proposed ballot measure, if it qualifies.

Now if approximately 10% of the registered voters in R.P.V. sign the petitions being circulated, that means that our city General Fund, which 100% of our residents, pay into would take a hit.

Since Marymount College is tax exempt, only students, faculty, staff, and supporters of Marymount who are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes would contribute to the General Fund, in some manner, possibly.

I highly doubt that those actively associated with Marymount College make up 10% of the registered voters of R.P.V.

Please do not sign the petition.

News About The Terrace Cinemas

I feel bad that so many of the posts, by necessity, are downers.

But this post is a happy and pleasurable one.

The new Terrace Cinemas located in the same spot the old Regal Six Cinemas left is undergoing a big remodel and the prices of tickets still remains low.

The new management is replacing all the seats in the theatre. We found one theatre half way done with high-back seats that recline!

There are still at least a few of the six theatres that haven't had any of their seats replaced yet and one theatre only has half of its old seats with a barren floor on the other side of the isle.

I hope the ticket prices remain as great as they are right now, but I would not be surprised if the ticket prices rose once the remodel is complete.

Here are some of the current pricing rates:

All shows prior to Noon, all theatres, tickets are $5.00.

Between Noon and 6:00 PM, all theatres, tickets are $6.00.

After 6:00, the prices jump to $9.00.

For 3D movies, there is a $2.00 surcharge.

Are you ready for the really good prices?

All day Tuesday and Thursday, all showings, all theatres, tickets are $4.00!

A small popcorn goes for $4.00. I don't know how concession prices compare with other theatres.

We went to the cinemas today, with the discount card that you can pick up for free and I was given a free small drink because of the points I have already accumulated.

The movies that are showing are first-run.

http://www.terracecinemas.com/ is the URL for the theatre's Web site.

Commercial, Web Site, Desperation?

Television commercials are now appearing concerning the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and asking viewers to go online or call to receive a petition to place a measure on the November ballot, basically taking away the right of city government to have a say in the project's plans.

There is also a brand new Web site also dedicated to Marymount's plan.

The female voice on the commercial claims that Marymount's plan will not cost taxpayers any money. Well, if the proposed measure qualifies to be part of the ballot, R.P.V. taxpayers will be on the hook for that portion of the ballot and voting for that initiative.

Since Marymount College is tax exempt, R.P.V. taxpayers continue to fund costs related to public access to the campus, and other infrastructure costs like sewer lines and other utility necessities.

The voice also claimed that traffic will improve because there would be more on-campus parking.

That really doesn't matter when students, faculty, and other continue to park on public streets and even in a residential neighborhood because they just don't like parking on the school's campus.

In fact, when the College experienced its largest student and faculty counts, there was never a day when every parking place on-campus was taken.

Oh, and the proposed measure seeks to remove the minimum number of parking spaces mandated by municipal code which Marymount College NEVER anticipates to meet, even with all of the improvements to the campus they want.

And now about the residents halls that are and have been the main issue for the College.

The two buildings already have been given names. The names of the halls are probably the result of wealthy benefactors making large contributions.

128 rooms for 250 students and five administrators that will sit on land that will have to be worked on because of its slope and geological makeup.

Supporters claim that traffic will be less because of dorms, but they cannot explain why 40% of the 1,561 vehicle trips PER WEEKDAY will be along Western Avenue between Trudie Drive and Palos Verdes Drive North, MILES away from the actual campus, WITH the completed project.

Another 25% of the 1,561 vehicle trips will cross the intersection of Western Avenue and 9th Street and continue into San Pedro.

Now, supporters of Marymount's plan contend that "the plan" will take 36 months to accomplish, if the measure passes.

Then, during the 10 years that the plan has been undergoing reviews, the administration stated that "the plan" will take 8 years to complete and they even offered a timeline to back that up.

Marymount College failed at one time.

Marymount College's programs were placed on academic probation, at one point.

As many as 77% of former students who offered an opinion if they would choose to attend the school again or recommend it to others stated NO!

Supporters won't tell you that the main reason they seek on-campus housing it to attract students who do not necessarily come from the local community or even the State of California.

To put it more bluntly, wealthy parents want to send their kids to a campus where the administration (and the members of the community) offer observation of the students and those parents want better monitoring of their kids' activities.

Marymount Supporters want R.P.V. residents to become part of a larger 'student-sitting' group that will help control the students living so far from home.

And to be even more blunt. Marymount really want to have foreign students come and study there, along with the dollars the parents would be willing to spend on the hope that others will assist in the parenting for their kids.

As a Junior College, a years tuition, with boarding at one of the two off-campus student housing sites cost up to $37,000 and more. That is for costs associated to working towards an associate of arts degree.

Now the College has been granted the opportunity to offer three different Bachelor's degrees and become a four-year institution.

This was also done, many believe, so that on-campus housing would have a better shot at finding approval or even something like a court order to provide.

What could happen is that, if the proposed measure qualifies for the ballot and the measure passes, the College may not be able to finance the entire project and they just might build residents halls before some of the other improvements which would have more public uses.

Since the proposed measure seeks to allow for Specific Plan zoning, Marymount would have control over many matters which would have been decided by city government with oversight that now may not happen.

Please do not sign the petition.

The one idea that keeps floating around is the concept that Marymount College could and would find great success and be able to offer many more seats and on-campus housing if it were to have a land swap with those who own the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site, in San Pedro.

Yes, traffic really would be impacted on Western if that were to happen, but it would be much less of an impact having Marymount at the site rather than hundreds of condos.

I support the idea of a land swap even though it is impossible at this time.

I also support Marymount becoming a four-year institution as long as there is no on-campus housing at their Palos Verdes Drive East site.

Please always remember that Rancho Palos Verdes already has a College with on-campus housing for students and it is the only one of the five cities that sit on the peninsula that can claim that.

Please do not sign the petition.

The New Poll

Traffic signals at Miraleste and Palos Verdes Drive East?

Having them is warranted under current conditions at that intersection.

The current Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project contains plan to have signals placed if and when that project receives approval by the City Council or possibly, registered voters.

Subjectively, I have talked to many people who use that intersection on a regular basis who all say they do not want that intersection to have traffic signals.

I want to find out your opinion. Maybe myself, my wife, and many others are in the minority with our thought that the intersection should not have traffic signals and walking signs installed.

Please answer the poll only once. It certainly is not scientific, but it may demonstrate how many folks desire having the intersection signalized.

You are also most welcome to provide you comments why you answered the poll question the way you did.

I sent out an Email about the poll to many individuals. The Email address I have for Dr. Brophy, the President of Marymount College came back as undeliverable. So I forwarded the Email to another Email address for the College because it is fair to seek input via the poll from folks at Marymount.

Thank you all for participating.

An Opinion From Councilmember Stern

Rancho Palos Verdes Councilmember Douglas Stern has offered his opinion on the proposed ballot measure currently being offered by supporters of the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Councilmember Stern sent and Email out to an unknown number of people.

Here is Councilman Stern's opinion along with a short report by City Staff, I believe Councilmember Stern requested.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Update – Some Comparison Information about the Marymount College Ballot Initiative

---

RPV City Staff has provided a short Memorandum for the City Council providing some summary information about the 51 page Marymount College Ballot Initiative that Marymount is trying to place on the November 2010 ballot. I thought providing most of the Memorandum to the residents would be valuable to aid them in deciding if they wish to sign the petitions, or vote for or against the initiative. This information will help residents begin to understand the initiative, some of the complexities, and some of the reasons that I am troubled that a significant and complex land use decision may become a voter initiative. The purpose of the Measure would be to amend the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code to create a new specific plan district that will apply only to Marymount College's property.

Like most things, the devil is in the details. I am not a fan of the initiative process, and do not believe that it leads to good laws or good public policy. This initiative has some troubling details. On the assumption that enough voters may sign the initiative and place the matter on the ballot for all voters to decide, I think it important that we try to provide as much information as possible for the voters. This is not a simple matter, and yet the voters will have to vote “Yes” or “No” to either adopt the entire proposal as written by MarymountCollege, or reject that initiative.

Placing the matters on the ballot will also cost the residents tens of thousands of dollars, as the city is obligated to pay the costs of the election, and there otherwise would be no RPV election in November 2010.

Once the Initiative Petitions are circulating, I would urge RPV residents to NOT sign them. (You can download the entire Petition by clicking:

http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/marymount/Marymount-College-Initiative-Measure.pdf)

---

Comparison of the Marymount College Proposed Initiative vs. the College’s Current Application

On March 2, 2010, Marymount College submitted a proposed initiative for possible qualification as a ballot measure. The initiative submitted by Marymount College for ballot qualification and the City’s decision on the College’s current entitlement application are two separate matters.

With regards to the differences between the Marymount College expansion project approved by the Planning Commission and the project described in the submitted ballot initiative, it appears that the main differences are that the project in the initiative contains dormitory housing (2 buildings for 255 occupants) and the athletic field in the location originally proposed by the college adjacent to PVDE. In addition, based on a preliminary review, the differences between the conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission and the “campus requirements” included in the College’s initiative include but are not limited to the following:

• Deleting the requirement to implement the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program. Although it appears that some (if not all) of the mitigation measures have been added to the “Campus Requirements.”
• Deleting the six (6) month review condition.
• Allowing the construction of the Residence Halls and the Gallery connecting the two Residence Hall buildings.
• Constructing the athletic field and tennis courts at the western portion of the campus similar to the plan approved by the Planning Commission [This places the athletic field in the location closest to P.V.Dr. East of all the proposed locations.]
• Installing photovoltaic roof panels.
• Replacing the 8 year construction phasing condition with a requirement that construction be completed within the time period allowed pursuant to the City’s Uniform Building Code, including time extensions.
• Deleting the condition prohibiting the permanent use of temporary modular buildings.
• Replacing the condition that allows a 200 cubic yard deviation from the permitted grading to a ten (10) percent deviation (approximately 8,480 cubic yards based on a total of 84,800 cubic yards of total grading) for unforeseen circumstances.
• Deleting the condition that prohibits the removal or delivery of earth, rock or other material without first obtaining City approvals through a revision to the grading permit and environmental analysis.
• Implementing campus “Quiet Hours” between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and discouraging late night driving and staff monitoring of vehicles entering and leaving the campus between 11:00 p.m. and6:00 a.m.
• Replacing the condition prohibiting the use of outdoor amplification, with the exception of graduation ceremonies, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained with a requirement that a Special Use Permit will only be required for special events where demonstrable evidence indicates that noise levels will exceed 65dba for a cumulative period of 15 minutes in any hour at the applicable property lines.
• Deleting the condition prohibiting sub-leasing the campus for commercial purposes that are unaffiliated with the College.
• Deleting the condition that requires a trial period of thirty (30) days for the installation of outdoor lighting.
• Adding traffic impact mitigation requirements at the intersections of PDVE/Miraleste, Western Avenue/Trudie Drive – Capitol Drive, and PVDE/PVDS similar to the Commission adopted mitigation measures.
• Deleting the condition requiring the College construct and maintain no fewer than 463 on-site parking spaces with minimum dimensions.
• Limiting a total of 125 vehicles to be parked on site in association with the Residence Halls
• Replacing the conditions regulating landscaping, including tree heights, with a requirement that the landscaping shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the City’s landscape requirements.
• Deleting the condition prohibiting the use of the athletic field for activities involving baseballs, golf balls or other similar sized balls that cannot be adequately contained by the use of the field net.
• Including requirements for biological resources that are consistent with the mitigation measures adopted by the Planning Commission.

---

Brilliant Blackmail?

Naturally, I have been trading Emails with various individuals about the proposed ballot initiative petition gathering document and other documents Dr. Susan Soldoff, a trustee for Marymount College has filed with the City Clerk.

Here is a reply from a top official with Rancho Palos Verdes City Government to an email I sent pertaining to a question of my own:

"Mark,

One of the ramifications of the Marymount initiative is that if the residents of the city sign the petition in sufficient numbers, (it's either 10 or 15% of the registered voters) the City Council will have to either adopt the initiative as the act of the City Council, or place the matter on the ballot for the residents to decide.

I obviously do not know what the City Council will do in that circumstance, however, at that point the signatures themselves would not necessarily indicate that a majority of the residents wish the City Council to adopt the Marymount initiative.

Unless the City Council adopts the Marymount plan, it is required to call for an election. In that case, the residents will pay tens of thousands of dollars to conduct the election, no matter what the outcome.

So no matter what, the city will be spending a lot of taxpayer money dealing with this matter."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can the recent action by Dr. Soldoff and others desiring on-campus housing on the campus of Marymount College be something some may call brilliant blackmail?

Ms. Ashley Ratcliff, in her article written for the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, stated that to qualify for the November ballot, supporters of the proposed initiative need 10% or about 2,700 valid signatures of registered voters residing in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes to qualify the measure to be placed on the ballot.

Rancho Palos Verdes currently has somewhere in the neighborhood of 41,000 residents and, according to math, about 27,000 of these residents are registered voters.

If the petition-gathering action, slated to begin on or about March 18, 2010 is successful, residents and our City Council members basically have three options.

The first option is to have the Council members actually override the certified Final Environmental Impact Report and grant Marymount, the right to build on-campus housing, even after the Applicant removed that portion of the document from consideration by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission.

This would probably avoid the taxpayer funding of the proposed ballot measure because Marymount officials and Dr. Soldoff would hopefully, remove the ballot measure from consideration.

The second option is that if the City Council Members do not adopt the current plans for Marymount's Project and the proposed ballot measure qualifies for the ballot, they are required to call an election, and taxpayers' funds would be used for that purpose.

The third option is to watch the qualified measure become part of the ballot in the General Election on the first Tuesday in November, which taxpayers fund, even the proposed ballot measure regarding Marymount's expansion.

Now is this brilliant or not!

Before you answer that simple question, you should be reminded that Marymount College is currently operated as a private college associated with a religious organization and therefore not required to pay many taxes other organizations and residents are required to pay.

While it is true that taxpayers fund most elections, there would be added costs, paid through tax revenue, associated with the proposed ballot measure from Marymount.

I do not know what the amount of taxpayers funds would be required to fund the portion of the election that would have the proposed ballot measure part of.

If enough valid signatures are gathered for the measure to become a possible ordinance or ordinances, the City Attorney would draft the ballot measure and it would include the costs of the measure taxpayer funds would be required to cover.

So it looks like taxpayers may be, once again, on the hook for an institution that pays relatively no taxes to the city.

Do it their way and/or pay for the highway?

Marymount's supporters have the same rights as the rest of us, perhaps. Only we may have fewer rights than they do.

It is also true that there are a number of supporters of Marymount's plans who live and pay taxes in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am sure they feel their taxes should go for what they want.

But there are a number of residents and business owners who have property or spend money in R.P.V. that do not want their taxes paying for a portion of an election that would ultimately benefit a private enterprise or for religious institutions.

What it looks like right now to me, is that taxpayers will continue to be on the hook to an organization that claims to be a good neighbor in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.