PC RES 2009-027 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 21009® 27
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO POS VERDES VERDECERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL i A T REPORT FOR THE Y U T
COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION JECT, LOCATED ON THE
PROPERTY AT 30800 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST, AT THE
INTERSECTION OF P L S VERDES DRIVEVERDE EAST AND CREST
ROAD; MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PUA T TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; D ADOPTING
A MITIGATION MONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on September 2, 1975, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes (the "City Council") adopted Resolution No. 75-73 granting Marymount
College (the "College") Conditional Use Permit #9 ("CUP No. 9"), thereby allowing the
College to operate a non-profit, private two-year liberal arts community college at the
30300 Palos Verdes Drive East (the "Property") under certain conditions of approval;
and,
WHEREAS, the College sought and received various additional approvals from
the City between 1975 and 2000; and,
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2000, the College submitted applications for revisions
to the College's facilities (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 — Revision "D"), which
application was subsequently withdrawn by the College on June 12, 2003, in light of
geological constraints on a portion of the Property that impacted the proposed library,
maintenance and art studio buildings; and,
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2003, the College submitted case No. ZON2003-
00317 including applications for a Conditional Use Permit #9 — Revision °E", Grading
Permit, Variances, Master Sign Permit (collectively, the "Application"), and
Environmental Assessment, for the Property; and,
WHEREAS, the Application proposed a number of revisions to, and expansion
of, the existing Marymount College facilities, including but not limited to the demolition
of approximately 18,022 square feet of existing buildings, the addition of approximately
14,916 square feet to existing buildings, the construction of 121,092 square feet of
new buildings consisting of a library building, a maintenance building, an athletic
building, and two residence hall buildings consisting of approximately 125 double
occupancy rooms; and,
P.0 Resolution No.2009-27
Page 1
R6876-1078\1 134373v3.doc
WHEREAS, the existing College campus consists of 92,268 square feet of floor
area, and after factoring the demolition of approximately 18,022 square feet of existing
floor area and the construction of 139,008 square feet of new floor area, including
expanding 14,916 square feet of existing buildings, the proposed development would
result in a total of 210,254 square feet of campus floor area; and,
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2005, the Application was deemed complete for
processing, pursuant to the State Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), Government Code
Section 65920 et seq.; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste
and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2002021127) (the "EIR");
and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared an initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study")
for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study
concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant
environmental impact on several specifically identified resources and governmental
services, including aesthetics / light and glare, air quality, noise, geology and soils,
hydrology and water quality, land use and relevant planning, public services and
utilities, traffic and circulation (including parking), and biological resources; and,
WHEREAS, the City and its EIR consultants prepared and distributed a Revised
Initial Study and Notice of Preparation of an EIR on November 17, 2005, and held
public scoping meetings on December 13, 2005, and January 10, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission held a voluntary
pre-screening workshop on January 31, 2006 to provide the College with input on the
proposed Project; and,
WHEREAS, prior to finalization of the Draft EIR, the College and an interested
community group, CCC/ME, were provided an opportunity to review an administrative
draft of the EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the City circulated the Draft EIR for a public review and comment
period between October 24, 2007, and January 4, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, the College constructed a partial silhouette of the proposed
structures on the project site, which remained in place for viewing between December
20, 2007 and January 25, 2008; and,
P.0 Resolution No.2009-27
Page 2
R6876-1078\1134373v3.doc
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a
special meeting to visit the site and view the partial silhouette of the proposed
structures; and,
WHEREAS, the City and its EIR consultants prepared responses to comments
on the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, a Final EIR was prepared and presented to the Planning
Commission and the public; and,
WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on October 28, 2008, at which time all interested parties were
given an opportunity to be heard and further present evidence regarding the Final EIR
and the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008, the Planning Commission continued the item
to the December 9, 2008, Planning Commission meeting to allow time for additional
review of the Project's EIR; and,
WHEREAS, response letters were sent to each public agency that commented
on the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on
December 9, 2008, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence, and the item was continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of January 27, 2009; and,
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2008, the College submitted modified plans and
updated information to Staff, including an application for a Minor Exception Permit and
an additional Variance Permit to allow fencing and netting around the perimeter of the
athletic field and tennis courts to be considered by the Planning Commission as part of
the overall development proposal (collectively, with the Application, referred to as "the
Project"); and,
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2009, the City's Traffic Safety Commission
conducted a public hearing, at which time presentations were made by the EIR traffic
consultant, the City's independent traffic consultant retained to review the traffic study,
and the College's traffic consultant, and all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence on the project related traffic study
prepared for the project EIR; and,
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2009, public notice of the Minor Exception Permit
and additional Variance Permit applications were mailed to all property owners within a
P.0 Resolution No.2009-27
Page 3
R6876-1078\1 134373v3.doc
500-foot radius of 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East (Marymount College) and to
interested parties, as well as concurrently published in the Peninsula News; and,
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2009, public notice of the Minor Exception Permit
and additional Variance Permit applications was issued by electronic correspondence
to the city's list-serve subscribers; and,
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
and continued public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and continued the item to its March 10,
2009, meeting; and,
WHEREAS, prior to the March 10, 2009, Planning Commission meeting, the
College formally requested that the Project not be considered at the March 10, 2009,
meeting due to the unavailability of the College's President on that date; and,
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2009, the Planning Commission continued the
hearing on the Project to March 31, 2009, at the request of the College; and;
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2009, supplemental responses to various
environmental concerns raised by the public, the applicant and the Commissioners,
were provided to the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, after deliberations, and taking into account changes made by the
College, changes recommended by the Planning Commission, and exclusion of the
Residence Halls because of a tie vote on whether the necessary findings could be
made, Appendix A to the Final EIR was been prepared; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued deliberation regarding the
Project at the May 26, 2009, and June 9, 2009, Planning Commission meetings; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the continued public hearing
regarding the Project on June 9, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081, and based
upon information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. The City contracted with
independent consultants for the preparation of the technical studies for the EIR and on
November 17, 2005, prepared and sent a Notice of Preparation of the EIR to
responsible, trustee, and other interested agencies and persons in accordance with
P.0 Resolution No. 2009-27
Page 4
R6876-1078\1 134373v3.doc
Guidelines Section 15082(a). Comments on the Notice of Preparation were accepted
during an extended 57-day comment period ending on January 13, 2006. During the
scoping period, the City held advertised public meetings on December 13, 2005 and
January 10, 2006, to facilitate public input regarding the scope of the EIR.
Section 2. The City completed. the Draft EIR, together with those certain
technical appendices (the "Appendices"), on or about October 24, 2006. The City
circulated the Draft EIR and the Appendices to the public and other interested parties
between October 24, 2007 and January 4, 2008, for a 72-day comment period. In
addition to receiving numerous written comments submitted during this time, public
comments were received at the November 27, 2007, regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting and at City's Traffic Safety Commission meeting on December
10, 2007.
Section 3. Throughout the proceedings, Concerned Citizens Coalition
Marymount Expansion ("CCC/ME") representatives and other members of the public
expressed concerns regarding various environmental issues.
Section 4. As a result of the comments received during the public comment
period for the Draft EIR and the comments received at the various Planning
Commission hearings, as well as concerns raised by the College, CCC/ME and the
Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommended various modifications
to the Project. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission's deliberations, the
Residence Halls failed to gain support from a majority of the Commissioners and thus
are excluded from the Revised Project, the Athletic Building was relocated and
reduced in height, the east parking lot modified to provide a greater buffer between the
college and neighboring residences, and other minor modifications described in
Appendix A of the Final EIR were made. The Project as described in Appendix A of
the Final EIR is referred to herein as the "Revised Project."
Between the analysis of the originally proposed Project, the analysis of the
various project alternatives, the analysis of the Revised Project in Appendix A of the
Final EIR, and extensive testimony in the record, the Planning Commission finds that
the potential impacts of both the Project and the Revised Project have been fully
assessed and fully disclosed. The Planning Commission also finds that impacts of the
Project and the Revised Project have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible
for the reasons set forth in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings attached
hereto as Exhibit A, with the exception of significant unmitigable impacts with respect
to cumulative traffic and construction noise.
Section 5. The Planning Commission considered the administrative record
be-fore it, which is hereby incorporated by reference, including the Final Environmental
Impact Report, the written and oral comments on the EIR, staff reports and responses
P.0 Resolution No.2009-27
Page 5
R6876-1078\1134373v3.doc
to comments incorporated into the EIR and all testimony related to environmental
issues.
Section 6. During the Draft EIR public comment period, the City received
over 140 individual comment letters, many of which contained numerous comments.
In addition, comments were received during public hearings before the Planning
Commission on November 27, 2007 and the Traffic Safety Commission on December
10, 2007. Responses to each of the individual comments, including a number of
master responses, were prepared and made available in October 2008. The
comments and responses are found from pages 12-1 through 12-1046 of volumes I
and 2 of the Final EIR, and are incorporated herein by reference. In response to the
comments, the Draft EIR was revised as appropriate, as set forth in the Errata
contained in Volume 2 of the Final EIR. The written responses to comments were
made available for public review in the Department of Community Development, at the
Rancho Palos Verdes Public Library and on the City's website. After reviewing the
responses to comments, the revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Final EiR, the Planning
Commission concludes that the information and issues raised by the comments, the
responses thereto and the additional analysis in response to the Revised Project
revisions set forth in Appendix A do not constitute new information requiring
recirculation of the Draft EIR. As more fully explained in Appendix A, the additional
clarifying information does not show (a) that a new significant impact would result from
the Revised Project or from a new mitigation measure, (b) a substantial increase in the
severity of an environmental impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant
level, (c) the existence of a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure
considerably different from those already analyzed that would clearly lessen the
significant environmental impacts of the Revised Project, or (d) that the Draft EIR is in
adequate such that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Section 7. Additional written comments on the EIR from the College,
CCC/ME and the public were submitted during the Planning Commission proceedings,
although the comment period for the EIR had lapsed. Nonetheless, the City prepared
responses to certain written comments, which are incorporated into the Final EIR.
Section 8. The Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR, including
Appendices, dated October 2007; the Comments and Response to Comments on the
Draft EIR included in the Volumes 1 and 2 of the Final EIR dated October 2008,
including errata pages-, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
.responses to additional comments presented to the Planning Commission, and Final
EIR Appendix A which provides analysis of the project as revised by the Planning
Commission and Planning Commission (collectively the "Final EIR").
Section 9. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the
information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial
P.0 Resolution No.2009-27
Page 6
86876-1078\1 134373v3.doc
evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission
and in the record of the proceedings. The documents, staff reports, technical studies,
appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during
normal business hours in the Department of Community Development and with the
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, who serves as the custodian of
these records. Each of those documents is incorporated herein by reference.
Section 10. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant, CCC/ME and
interested members of the public, have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to
comment on the EIR and the Project.
Section 11. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and
considered the contents of the Final EIR prior to rendering a decision on the Project.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent
judgment of the City. The Planning Commission further finds that the additional
information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses
to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral
testimony at the Planning Commission Hearings, does not constitute new information
requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented to
the Planning Commission has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to
comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Revised Project or a feasible
mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement.
Section 12. The Planning Commission finds that the comments regarding the
Draft EIR and the responses to those comments have been received by the
Commission; that the Planning Commission received documents and public testimony
regarding the adequacy of the EIR; and that the Planning Commission has reviewed
and considered all such documents and testimony and the Final EIR prior to making its
determination on the Project and Revised Project. The Planning Commission,
pursuant to Guidelines Section 15090, hereby certifies that the Final EIR has been
completed in compliance with CEQA.
Section 13. Based upon the Final EIR and the record before the Planning
Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the Revised Project will not cause
any significant environmental impacts after mitigation except in the areas of noise
(construction), and traffic (cumulative at Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes
Drive South). Explanations for why the impacts other than the foregoing were found to
be less than significant are contained in the Environmental Findings set forth in Exhibit
A to this Resolution and more fully described in the EIR and the Initial Study which is
included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR.
Section 14. Based upon the Final EIR and record before the Planning
Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the Revised Project will create
P.0 Resolution No.2009-27
Page 7
R6876-1078\1134373v3.doc
significant unavoidable impacts to noise (construction), and traffic (cumulative - Palos
Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South). These significant impacts are
further described in the "Findings and Facts in Support of Findings," set forth in Exhibit
A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and in the Final
EIR. The findings in Exhibit A explain that all feasible mitigation, including project
revisions, have been incorporated to reduce the level of impact, but that even after
mitigation certain impacts remain significant.
Section 15. The EIR describes, and the Planning Commission has fully
considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project.
With respect to each of the alternatives analyzed in the EIR, the Planning
Commission hereby makes the findings, set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto
and incorporated by reference. On the whole, the Revised Project, which incorporates
features of some of the alternatives and variations, is environmentally superior to other
feasible alternatives. As such, the Planning Commission finds all other alternatives
and variations infeasible or not environmentally preferable for the reasons set forth in
Exhibit A.
Section 16. For the significant and unavoidable impacts, consisting of
noise (construction) and traffic (cumulative at Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos
Verdes Drive South) as identified in the Final EIR as "significant and unavoidable," the
Planning Commission hereby adopts the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" as
set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The Planning Commission finds that each of the overriding benefits, by itself, would
justify proceeding with the Revised Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts
identified in the Final EIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings.
P.0 Resolution No.2009-27
Page 8
R6876-107811134373v3.doc
Section 17. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated
herein by this reference, and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition of the
Revised Project's approval. City staff shall be responsible for implementation and
monitoring the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit C.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 9th day of June, 2009 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Tomblin; and Chairman Lewis
only as to certification of EIR and adoption of Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
NOES: Chairman Lewis as to adoption of Statement of Overriding
Considerations
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
RECUSALS: Commissioners Tetreault, Perestarn and Ruttenberg
ffrey W�s
L�� l
Chairl-111
Joel b-jai , AIC
Dire-korol* PlannL Owilding and
o
Cod En rcement; and, Secretary
to the anning Commission
P.0 Resolution No.2009-27
Page 9
R6876-1078\1134373v3.doc
EXHIBIT A
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
R6876-1078\1 134373v3.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1
A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects identified in the EIR.......................................................................
B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
otheragency...............................................................................................1
C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. ...............1
Ii. PROJECT OBJECTIVES......................................................................................1
Ill. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................2
IV. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT/NO IMPACT IN
THE INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION..............................................6
A. AESTHETICS.............................................................................................7
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................7
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................7
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES.........................................................................7
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................................8
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.............................................8
G. HYDROLOGY and Water Quality...............................................................9
H. LAND USE AND PLANNING......................................................................9
I. MINERAL RESOURCES............................................................................9
J. NOISE .................................................................................................. .....9
K. POPULATION AND HOUSING..................................................................9
L. PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................10
M. RECREATION.......................................................... ...............................10
N. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC........................................................10
V. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT
MITIGATIONIN THE EIR .......................................................................... ........10
A. AESTHETICS / LIGHT AND GLARE........................................................10
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
PAGE
B. AIR QUALITY...........................................................................................11
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES....................................................................11
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...........................................................................11
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS...........................................12
F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................ .......12
G. Land Use..................................................................................................13
H. NOISE ......................................................................................................13
I. POPULATION AND HOUSING................................................................14
J. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES.......................................................14
K. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC........................................................15
L. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS. ............................................................15
V1. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO
BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.................................17
A. AESTHETICS / LIGHT AND GLARE........................................................17
1. Short-Term Visual Character......... ...............................................17
2. Long-Term Visual Character/Visual Aspects / Light and Glare...20
B. AIR QUALITY...........................................................................................26
1. Construction Related Impacts........................................................26
2. Operational Emissions...................................................................29
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES....................................................................30
1. Wildlife Species .............................................................................30
2. Special Status Species..................................................................32
3. Conflict with Wildlife Species Covered by the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes' Natural Community Conservation Subarea Plan ..............33
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...........................................................................34
1. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking....................................................34
2. Other Seismically Induced Hazards...... ........................................35
3. Soil Erosion ...................................................................................36
4. Expansive Soils ....................................... ...... ..............................37
5. Slope Stability................................................................................38
6. Landslides .....................................................................................40
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY....................................................41
1. Drainage and Hydrology. ......................................................... .....41
2. Water Quality — Construction.........................................................45
3. Water Quality — Long Term............................................................46
F. LAND USE AND PLANNING....................................................................47
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
PAGE
1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan...................................47
2. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code .........................48
G. NOISE ............................... ......................................................................49
1. Long-Term Stationary Noise Impacts .... ................. .....................49
H. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES.......................................................53
1. Police Protection............................................................................53
2. Solid Waste ...................................................................................54
I. TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION.............................56
1. Construction Traffic........................................................................56
2. Project Level Traffic Impacts compared to Existing Conditions .....57
3. State Highway Analysis ....................................... .........................62
4. Parking ..........................................................................................62
5. Traffic Hazards ..............................................................................65
6. Cumulative Traffic Impacts ............................................................66
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION ................................................................66
A. NOISE ......................................................................................................67
1. Construction Noise ........................................................................67
B. Cumulative Traffic Impact— Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes
DriveSouth...............................................................................................69
Vill. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES. ....... ......................................................................70
A. ALTERNATIVE 1: NO DEVELOPMENT/NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 71
1. Summary of Alternative .................................................................71
2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative..................................................71
3. Conclusion Regarding Alternative 1...............................................72
B. ALTERNATIVE 2 — Reduced Density Alternative.....................................72
1. Summary of Alternative .................................................................72
2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative..................................................73
3. Conclusion Regarding Alternative 2...............................................73
C. ALTERNATIVE 3 — Living Campus /Academic Campus Alternative .......74
1. Summary of Alternative .................................................................74
2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative..................................................76
3. Conclusion Regarding Alternative 3...............................................77
D. ALTERNATIVE 4 —Affordable Housing Alternative..................................77
1. Summary of Alternative .................................................................77
2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative..................................................79
3. Conclusion regarding Alternative 4. .......................................... ....79
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
PAGE
E. The Revised Project................................................... .............................79
1. Summary of the Revised Project...................................................79
2. Conclusion Regarding the Revised Project ...................................81
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc iv
EXHIBIT A
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
1. Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the
"Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which
an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that will occur if a project is approved or carried
out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects identified in the EIR.
B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency.
C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.1
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Planning Commission hereby makes the
following environmental findings in connection with the proposed construction of the
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East (the
"Project"), as more fully described in the EIR and as revised by the Planning
Commission. These findings are based upon evidence presented in the record of these
proceedings, both written and oral, the EIR and all of its contents, the Comments and
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, Appendix A to the Final EIR, and staff and
consultants' reports presented to the Planning Commission.
11. Proie-ct Ob'ectives
As set forth in the EIR, objectives that Marymount College (the project applicant,
hereafter referred to as the "Applicant" or the "College") seeks to achieve with this
Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows:
* To create an enhanced living and learning environment for the College's students
to enable the College to fulfill its religious and educational mission.
* To ensure that the College maintains its reputation as a distinguished institution
of higher education by providing the type and quality of academic, residential and
Cal. Pub. Res. Code§21081; 14 Cal.Code Regs.§ 15091.
R6876-1078\1 13771 Ov5.doc A-1
recreational facilities available at other liberal arts colleges.
To provide on-campus housing for freshmen so they may take advantage of the
full complement of academic, cultural, recreational and spiritual facilities and
services offered on campus.
To relocate housing to the campus in order to reduce traffic generation and
impacts on local roads.
To relocate parking facilities to improve the design of the campus and increase
the number of parking spaces to reduce the need for off-site parking.
* To relocate outdoor athletic facilities away from nearby residences.
* To provide enhanced facilities for community activities.
* To allow for the future development of a community preschool.
Ill. ac round
The College's proposal for the Project consists of demolition of certain existing facilities
and construction of new and expanded facilities. The following table provides details of
the College's proposal:
roOose,
Total
I rill 'U�
I I
Boilchrig' .. J ng
Sul wilding_�M
t. Building ionAddition )
Existing Buildings
A Classroom/Academics 26,180 0 0 26,180
B Auditorium/Fine Arts Studio 8,012 0 1,869 9,881
C Faculty Office 7,346 0 7,455 14,801
Student
D Union/Bookstore/Faculty 18,158 0 3,492 21,650
Dining
E Administration/Admissions 9,450 02,100 11,550
Buildings to be Removed —
View Room/Hall 1,530 (1,530) 0 0
Maintenance/Photo Lab 2,696 (2,696) 0 0
F Bookstore/Health Center 2,870 (2,870) 0 0
Arts 3,648 (3,648) 0 0
Preschool 2,998 (2,998) 0 0
Library 4,072 (4,072) 0 0
Pool Equipment 208 (208) 0 0
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-2
Total Pipc� dc�psed
Total
Building ng Exls n ulldi 0,169
align
I.t3. �I€ Ir . , be Adfror
G Church 5,100 0 0 5,100
Subtotal Existing Buildings 92,268 (18,022) 89,162
Buildings to be Added
N Library 26,710 26,710
C Maintenance 1,975 1,975
P Athletic Facility 33,243 33,243
Q Residence Hall No. 1 22,878 22,878
R Residence Hall No. 2 35,626 35,626
S Gallery (Connects Proposed 660 660
Residence Halls
(1) Subtotal
New 121,092 121,092
Buildings
(2) Total 136,008 210,254
Total Existing Buildings 92,268
Net Chane 117,986
Source: Rasmussen & Associates, Proposed Master Site Plan, Revised August 16,
2006.
The campus modernization plans propose a variety of site improvements. These
improvements are summarized as follows:
Two new entry signs (6.0 feet in height);
An information/welcoming booth at the campus entrance (48 square feet);
A rose garden;
Substantial new landscaping and new trees;
Raised planters;
Fountains;
Multiple plazas;
Colored and textured pedestrian walkways;
Low retaining walls with stone finishes;
Trellis structures;
Loading facilities adjacent to the maintenance and athletic facility; and
Trash enclosure in the service yard area.
The existing vehicle entry access to the College would remain at its current location at
the intersection of Palos Verdes ®rive East and Crest Road. The current driveway is
narrow and intersects Palos Verdes ®rive East at an awkward angle. To improve this
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-3
condition, the driveway would be widened and oriented to Palos Verdes Drive East,
such that a right angle is formed.
Parking at the campus would be increased
d and reconfigured, and would primarily be
located on the north and east portions of the campus. A total of 463 off-street parking
spaces, plus loading spaces, would be provided with the proposed Project: 383 full size
spaces; 71 compact spaces; and nine (9) handicap spaces. This would represent a net
increase of 120 parking spaces over the existing 343 spaces.
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-time students
(students taking 12 units or more) for the Fall and Spring semesters, and a maximum of
20 part-time students (students taking 11 units or less) each semester with a margin for
difference of 3.0 percent. The College does not request any expansion of the existing
student enrollment limitations.
The College currently employs 215 full- and part-time faculty and staff. Construction of
the proposed Residence Halls would result in the transfer of five (5) residential life staff
members from off-campus housing to on-campus housing and the relocation of ten (10)
part-time student residential advisors to the campus. The College also anticipates
adding four (4) full-time and two (2) part-time security positions upon project approval
(one full-time and one part-time positions are proposed for the non-residential
improvements). The College also anticipates the need for one full-time maintenance
position and one-full-time custodial position for each 30,000 to 40,000 square feet of
additional facilities (a total of six new employees for the proposed Project). In sum, the
proposed Project would add approximately 27 new full- and part-time employees to the
campus if the Residence Halls were approved. The salaries associated with all of these
positions would be at moderate-income levels or below. The College has indicated that
some area within the proposed Residence Halls may be used for apartment style
affordable housing units.
Although analyzed in the EIR, the Residence Halls are not included as part of the
Project approval, thus the total number of new employees would be less than ten.2
During Planning Commission deliberations and consideration of various project
alternatives, the Commission requested certain revisions to the Project. The College
made certain revisions to the Project in order to address concerns of the Commission
and to respond to certain potential adverse environmental impacts of the original
proposal. These revisions include:
Redesign of the Eastern Parking lot. The Eastern Parking lot was redesigned to
remove the proposed grasscrete material, which could result in water intrusion into
areas with landslide potential. Also, the Eastern Parking lot was redesigned to
2 Final EIR,Appendix A at p. 13 . See also letter from Donald Davis to Ara Mihranian dated April 24,2009, pp. 3-
4.
R6876-1078\1 13771 0v5.doc A-4
increase the setback from neighboring residential properties. The original proposal
included parking directly below adjacent residences and the College redesigned the
parking area to create a 52'-2" landscaped setback. Due to continued concerns
from the Planning Commission, the College agreed to increase the landscaped
setback to 80'-6" feet.
* Relocation of the Athletic Building. In response to concerns regarding
construction over an extreme slope, the College relocated the Athletic Facility so that
no part would be constructed over the extreme slope.
* Revision to Athletic Building Height and Design. In response to concerns
regarding the building height and the potential view impacts, the College revised the
Athletic Building design such that the northern portion of the building is lowered by
ten feet, with the southern portion of the building lowered by four feet. The College
also proposed, and the Planning Commission accepted, a condition of approval that
would require the Athletic Building to be designed so that there is not a significant
impairment of the view of Catalina Island from the viewing area of property located
at 3302 Narino Drive, which will be verified by the installation of a certified silhouette
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the redesigned structures to ensure full
compliance with the condition of approval.
* Incorporation of fencing and temporary retractable netting in perimeter areas
around the proposed Athletic Field to limit the possibility of errant balls from entering
Palos Verdes Drive East, and inclusion of the minor exception permit necessary for
the 6-foot perimeter fencing and 10-foot tall recreational fencing around the tennis
courts, and a variance request for the height of the proposed temporary retractable
netting.
Reduction in the amount of proposed grading from 102,000 cubic yards to
84,800 cubic yards, with the grading remaining balanced on the site, excluding
select fill that may be necessary.
Minor revisions to the Library including a reduction in the overall structure height
from 44 feet to 39 feet, changing the orientation of the tennis courts, reconfiguration
and relocation of the rose garden, incorporation of temporary modular buildings to
house certain College functions when permanent buildings for these functions are
under construction, changes in the construction phasing, landscaping modifications,
a net increase of 5 student seats beyond the existing condition but a decrease of 56
seats from the number of seats analyzed in the Draft EIR, and lighting plan
revisions.
At the conclusion of the Planning Commission's deliberations, the Project supported by
a majority of the Commission consisted of the Project with the revisions described
above, but, due to a 3 to 1 vote, the Commission could not affirmatively make the
necessary findings to approve the Residence Halls.
The Project as revised by the College and excluding the Residence Halls is referred to
herein as the "Revised Project."
Many of the project modifications were made in furtherance of CEQA's policy of
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-5
changing the project as a method for protecting the environment. CEQA Guidelines
Sec. 15002 (h). Revisions to the Project intended to, or having the effect of reducing
impacts, include increased setbacks between the eastern parking lot and neighboring
residences, reduced height of the Athletic Building, relocation of the Athletic Building off
of an existing extreme slope, redesign of the Athletic Building to ensure no impacts to
upslope properties' views of Catalina Island, and exclusion of the Residence Halls.
Many of these revisions eliminated potentially significant impacts associated with views,
visual character, land use, and noise. The modifications incorporated into the Revised
Project are not substantial, did not result in new or more severe significant impacts, and
were clearly articulated during the proceedings. As discussed in Appendix A of the
Final EIR, none of these revisions trigger the requirement to recirculate an EIR.
Between the analysis of the originally proposed Project, the analysis of the alternatives,
and the analysis of the Revised Project in Appendix A of the Final EIR, the potential
impacts of the Revised Project have been fully assessed, fully disclosed, and mitigated
or avoided to the extent feasible.
IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in, he Initial
Stu Mice of Preparation
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes originally received applications for an earlier version
of the project in July, 2000. The City completed an initial study in 2002 for the July 2000
proposal, however, the Applicant subsequently withdrew the original applications in
June, 2003. At the same time the 2000 proposal was withdrawn, the Applicant
submitted the applications for the Project that are now under consideration by the City.
Thereafter, a new initial study was completed on November 17, 2005, to determine
whether the Project had the potential to result in significant adverse environmental
effects. A Notice of Preparation was issued on November 17, 2005, commencing a
public comment period that, due to the holidays, was extended to from 30 days to 57
days to end on January 13, 2006. During the Notice of Preparation comment period,
the City held public scoping meetings on December 13, 2005, and January 10, 2006.
Thereafter, the City Council and the Planning Commission held a voluntary pre-
screening workshop on January 31, 2006, to provide the College with input on the
proposed Project.
In the course of the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation evaluation, certain impacts of
the Project were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this
scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects
of this type. The following effects were determined not to be significant for the reasons
set forth in the Initial Study, and were not analyzed in the Draft EIR (refer to Draft EIR
Appendix 13.1, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation). Revisions to the Project, as
described in Section III, do not change the conclusions of the Initial Study.
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-6
A. AESTHETICS
1 The Project will not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
1. The Project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.
2. The Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act Contract.
3. The Project does not involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. The Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites.
2. The Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
3. The Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Project is
not within the City approved NCCP area.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. The Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.
2. The Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15604.5.
3. The Project will not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature.
4. The Project will not disturb any human remains, including those interred
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-7
outside of formal cemeteries. Nonetheless, all applicable laws relating to
human remains shall be followed in the unlikely event that remains are
discovered during project grading.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. The Project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects including risks involving the rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault.
2. The Project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
3. The Project will not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternatives wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater. The project will be
connected to sanitary sewer.
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. The Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials.
2. The Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
3. The Project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school.
4. The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
5. The Project is not located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public
use airport, and therefore will not result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area.
6. The Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and therefore will
not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area.
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-8
7. The Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
vegetation.
G. HYDROLOGY and Water Quality
1. The Project will not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow.
H. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. The Project will not physically divide an established community.
2. The Project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan. The Project is not within the City
approved NCCP plan area.
1. MINERAL RESOURCES
1. The Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state.
2. The Project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan.
J. NOISE
1. The Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, and thus would not expose
people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels
from airport activities.
2. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and thus
would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels from airstrip activities.
K. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. The Project will not induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly.
2. The Project will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-9
3. The Project will not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
L. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. The Project will not result in a substantial adverse physical impact
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for schools, parks, park service or other
recreational or public facilities.
K RECREATION
1. The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
N. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
1. The Project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in a
substantial safety risk.
V. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in
the EIR
The Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR and appendices, comments on the Draft EIR
and the responses to those comments, and the appendices to the Final EIR, including
Appendix A which analyzes the Revised Project (collectively referred to as the "EIR")
found that the Revised Project would have a less than significant impact without the
imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas, listed below. A less
than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following
topic areas, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the EIR. Further,
the project revisions described in Section Ili above do not change the following
conclusions.
An AESTHETICS / LIGHT AND GLARE
1. Construction of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
Visual Aspects identified in the City's General Plan.
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-10
B. AIR QUALITY
1 Construction of the Project would not generate diesel particulate matter, or
other toxic emissions in a manner that would constitute a significant
cancer risk from the release of this toxic air emission.
2. Construction of the proposed Project would not create objectionable
odors.
3. Development of the Project would be consistent with and not conflict with
the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan.
4. Development of the Project would not cause cumulative operational
impacts.
5. The Project and Revised Project are both consistent with various
strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and project and
cumulative contributions to climate change are found to be less than
significant.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. The proposed Project would not have a significant impact on plant species
identified as special status.
2. The proposed Project would not conflict with the Rancho Palos Verdes
Natural Community Conservation Plan Subarea Plan with regard to those
plant species covered by the Plan
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Development of the Project would not expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault.
2. Liquefaction. Project implementation will result in a less than significant
impact regarding the exposure of people/structures to potential substantial
effects associated with liquefaction, since the subsurface conditions
favorable for this hazard are not present within the Project site. No
mitigation is required.
3. Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading involves the lateral displacement of
surficial blocks of sediment, as a result of liquefaction in a subsurface
layer. The liquefaction potential within the Project area is considered to be
86876-1078\113771 M.doc A-11
nonexistent. Therefore, Project implementation is anticipated to result in a
less than significant impact regarding the exposure of people/structures to
potential substantial adverse effects associated with lateral spreading.
4. Ground Lurching. Because deposits of loose terrace sands and
slopewash do not exist on the Project site, ground lurching is not expected
to occur. Project implementation is anticipated to result in a less than
significant impact regarding the exposure of people/structures to potential
substantial effects associated with ground lurching.
5. Seismically Induced Landslides. The Project site does not lie within the
bounds of a "Seismically-Induced Landslide Area," as defined by the State
of California as delineated on the Seismic Hazards Zone Map-San Pedro
Quadrangle (March 25, 1999). Therefore, no impacts are anticipated in
this regard.
6. Tsunamis. The hazard from tsunamis is considered to be low, because
the site is elevated to approximately 800 feet above sea level. Therefore,
Project implementation is anticipated to result in a less than significant
impact regarding the exposure of people/structures to potential substantial
adverse effects associated with tsunamis.
7. Development associated with the Project, in conjunction with other related
cumulative projects, would not result in cumulatively considerable geology,
soils, and seismicity impacts.
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Development of the Project would not be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment.
2. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency or evacuation plan. According to Figure 39 of the
General Plan Safety Element, there are not evacuation routes located
adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Project site. Palos Verdes Drive South
is the closest disaster evacuation route. The Project contemplates
balanced grading, and thus export of material will not be required.
Further, most construction related activities will occur on site. Therefore,
no impacts to disaster routes will occur.
F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Development of the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-12
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned land uses for which permits have been granted).
2. The Project would not result in a significant increased demand for water
supplies.
3. The Project would not result in a significant increase in waste water
generation.
4. The Project, along with other cumulative development, would not result in
significantly increased impacts to hydrology, drainage or water quality.
G. Land Use
1. The Revised Project, combined with other future development, would not
result in cumulatively significant increases in the intensity of land uses in
the area.
2. The Revised Project is consistent with the various policies of the General
Plan, as more fully discussed in the Final EIR and Appendix A.
K NOISE
1. Long-term mobile noise generated by the development of the Project
would not exceed the thresholds articulated in Table 5.5-6 in the EIR and
would constitute a less than significant impact without the imposition of
mitigation.
2. Development of the proposed Project, combined with cumulative projects,
would not cause a significant construction noise impact as noise impacts
would be limited to each respective project sites and their vicinities due to
the distance between the Project and cumulative projects' sites.
3. The Project is not anticipated to cause long-term operational noise
impacts associated with slowly moving trucks (deliveries).
4. The Project is not anticipated to cause long-term operational noise
impacts associated with noise generated from the loading docks, including
maneuvering and idling trucks, truck refrigeration units, fork lifts, banging
and clanging of equipment, noise from the public address systems, and
voices of truck drivers and employees.
5. The Project is not anticipated to cause long-term operational noise
impacts associated with landscape maintenance tools and equipment.
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-13
6. The Revised Project will not result in any long-term operational noise
impacts associated with the previously proposed Residence Halls.
7. Operation of the proposed. Project is not anticipated to cause long-term
noise impacts associated with noise generated from pool equipment.
8. Operation of the proposed Project would not result in cumulative
significant stationary noise impacts.
9. Mobile noise generated by the operational phase of the Project would be
nominal, as more fully detailed in the EIR, and combined with cumulative
projects, would not cause a significance noise impact.
1. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Development of the Project would not induce population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure).
JH PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
1 Project implementation would not place a significant increased demand on
existing fire protection resources, or require the construction of new fire
protection facilities or the modification of existing facilities.
2. Project implementation would not result in a significant increase in
demand for water, and the proposed Project would have an adequate
water supply.
3. Project implementation will not result in a significant increase in
wastewater generation.
4. Implementation of the Project would not result in a significant impact with
respect to electric services, as it would not significantly impact SCE's
system capacity or ability to provide service.
5. Implementation of the Project would not result in a significant impact with
respect to natural gas services, as it would not significantly impact SCG's
system capacity or ability to provide service.
6. Project implementation would not significantly impact Verizon's system
capacity or ability to provide telephone service.
7. Implementation of the Project is not anticipated to result in significant
impacts with respect to cable service.
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-14
8. The Project, along with cumulative projects, would not result in a
significant increase in the demand for public services or an increase in the
consumption rates for public utilities.
K. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
1. Project traffic would not cause an increase in traffic that would exceed
level of service standards established by the County of Los Angeles
Congestion Management Program.
2. Project implementation would not conflict with adopted programs
supporting alternative transportation, including but not limited to bus
routes.
3. Development of the Project would not cause a significant impact on
residential roadway segments in the Mira Vista Neighborhood, based on
the analysis set forth in Appendix A.3 of the Final EIR.
4. The Revised Project and inclusion of a total of 463 parking spaces,
provides surplus parking during all periods, as more fully explained in
Final EIR Appendix A.
5. Development of the Project would not cause a significant impact for risk of
off-site intersection collision, since the Project would not change off-site
intersection location, geometrics, or traffic control devices, resulting in
obstructed sight distance, over-reduced lane width, removal of exclusive
left-turn or right-turn lanes, unsafe timing and phasing designs, or other
safety deficiencies.
L. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS.
Project implementation is not anticipated to result in significant growth inducing impacts
upon the City of Rancho Palos Verdes based on the following factors:
1 The proposed Project is an expansion of existing facilities within the
boundaries of an existing campus. The Project site is located in an area
that is served by all utilities (i.e. water, sewer and storm drains) and other
public services (i.e., police, fire and solid waste). Also, the existing
facilities can be readily upgraded and/or extended onto the site to serve
the proposed development. Project implementation would not establish a
new public service or provide new access to the area. The proposed
Project would not remove an impediment to growth and is not considered
growth inducing in this regard.
2. Although the Revised Project excludes the Residence Halls, if included
the Project's resident population (255 persons) could result in increased
sales at nearby commercial uses (i.e., Miraleste Center). Nonetheless,
86876-1078\113771 M.doc A-15
potential changes in the City's revenue base from increased sales are not
anticipated to be significant, because the population growth associated
with the proposed Project would only occur while school is in session and
would represent a less than significant increase over existing conditions
(2.0 percent or less). Therefore, the population increase associated with
the proposed Project would not foster significant economic expansion or
growth through changes in the City's revenue base.
3. A project could foster population growth in an area either directly (through
the development of new homes) or indirectly (through the development of
employment-generating land uses). The proposed Project does not
involve the development of new homes; therefore, would not foster direct
growth in the City's permanent population. The proposed Project, if
Residence Halls were approved, would add approximately 27 new full-
and part-time employees to the campus, which is not considered sufficient
to warrant the construction of new housing. The proposed Project does
not involve the development of significant new employment-generating
land uses-, therefore, would not foster an indirect growth in population.
The proposed Project, if approved, would involve the development of two
Residence Halls that would provide a total of 128 rooms on the College
campus. The resident housing would result in temporary increases in the
City's population of 255 persons while school is in session. This
temporary population increase would represent approximately 0.59
percent increase over the City's 2007 population of 43,092 persons and
approximately 2.0 percent increase over Census Tracts 6706/6707.02
population of 12,688 persons. Because the population growth associated
with the proposed Project would occur only during the school year and
would represent a less than significant increase over existing conditions
(2.0 percent or less), it would not result in a significant impact regarding
substantial population growth in the City. The growth inducing impact of
the Revised Project would be even less due to the exclusion of the
Residence Halls.
4. Project implementation would not result in the establishment of a
precedent-setting action. No Zone Change or General Plan Amendment
is proposed.
5. The proposed Project would not be growth-inducing with respect to
development or encroachment into an isolated or adjacent area of open
space. The Project site is surrounded to the north, northeast, south and
west by residential development. It is unlikely that development of the
proposed Project has the potential of encouraging the intensification of
land uses on adjacent single-family residential properties. Additionally,
the vacant lands situated to the southeast include hillsides containing
extreme slopes. The City does not consider these lands suitable for
development.
R6876-1078\1 13771 Ov5.doc A-16
6. See Also, Master Response to Comment 12.4.10 in the Final EIR.
V1. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be
Miticiated to a Less Than Significant Level.
The EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental
impacts in the areas of aesthetics / light and glare; air quality; biological resources;
geology and soils; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; public
services and utilities; and transportation and traffic. With the exception of the two
specific impacts as discussed in Article V11 below, measures were identified, or project
revisions were made, that would mitigate all of these impacts to a less than significant
level.
The Planning Commission finds that revisions to the Project, in conjunction with the
feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR would reduce the impacts to a less
than significant level, with the exception of the two unmitigable impacts discussed in
Article V11 below. The Planning Commission adopts all of the feasible mitigation
measures for the Revised Project described in the Final EIR as conditions of approval of
the Revised Project and incorporates those into the Revised Project.
A. AESTHETICS / LIGHT AND GLARE
The Project's potential impacts on aesthetics / light and glare that can be mitigated or
are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 5.2,AestheficslLight and
Glare, of the Draft EIR, as well as Final EIR Appendix A. Potential impacts include
short-term visual character, long-term visual character, visual aspects, light and glare,
and cumulative impacts.
1. Short-Term Visual Character
The EIR analyzes in detail the potential for short-term construction impacts on the visual
character of the area.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant operational related environmental effect
as identified in the Draft EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures imposed
upon the Revised Project mitigate impacts to less than significant levels:
AES-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, a Construction Management
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a
minimum, indicate the equipment staging areas, construction worker parking,
vehicle staging areas, fencing, haul route, dust control measures, hours of
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-17
construction, detailed construction schedule, and contact information for the
Construction Manager.
AES-2 Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, a Construction Safety
Lighting Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. All construction-related lighting shall
include shielding in order to direct lighting down and away from adjacent
residential areas and consist of the minimal wattage necessary to provide safety
at the construction site.
AES-3 Upon completion of the Phase I grading activities and prior to any Building
Permit issuance, the graded areas shall be hydroseeded and/or otherwise
revegetated, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement.
(b) Facts In Support of Findings
During construction of the Revised Project, which would occur intermittently during an 8-
year period, construction activities would periodically alter the character of the Project
site. Graded surfaces, construction debris, construction equipment and truck traffic
could be visible. Construction-related visual impacts would not be constant over eight
years. The rough grading work would occur during Phase I for a period of
approximately three months. Upon completion of the rough grading, the graded areas
would be hydro-seeded and managed to mitigate visual impacts (refer to Mitigation
Measure AES-3). Similarly, most heavy grading equipment would be on-site only for
the period needed to complete the rough grading. Construction Phases 11 and III would
involve less heavy equipment and once each building is completed, the associated
short-term visual impacts would be eliminated. Construction-related impacts to visual
character would be reduced through compliance with Code Chapter 17.56,
Environmental Protection, which includes provisions relative to dust control, hours of
operation, temporary construction fencing, and construction site maintenance; refer to
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code discussion above. Construction-related
impacts to the site's visual character would also be lessened through implementation of
the recommended mitigation requiring preparation of a Construction Management Plan,
which specifies measures restricting the equipment to staging areas, among others.
Implementation of a Construction Safety Lighting Plan is also recommended to further
minimize construction-related visual impacts. Following compliance with the provisions
of Code Chapter 17.56 and the recommended mitigation, construction-related impacts
to visual character are found to be less than significant.
The Revised Project includes temporary use of prefabricated modular buildings for
college activities during construction activities to modify existing facilities and build new
facilities. The modular buildings would be located in the following three areas: south of
the existing faculty building, north of the existing administration building and north of the
existing classroom building. The rooflines on the modular buildings, including any roof-
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-18
mounted mechanical equipment would be lower than the building to which it is adjacent
(approximately 15 feet). Furthermore, the finished materials are to resemble the new
and remodeled buildings with similar color stucco
The modular buildings located south of the existing faculty building would be lower in
height, and therefore, the faculty building, as well as the other buildings currently
located within the site (i.e., classroom/academic building, church, and student union)
would primarily block views of the modular buildings from surrounding uses to the north,
east, and west. Additionally, no blockage of views from off the Project site would occur
from uses to the north, east, and west due to the height of the faculty building being
greater than the modular buildings located directly to the south. The modular buildings
would be visible from Palos Verdes Drive East and homes located to the south.
However, elevations and details of the modular buildings would be provided to the City
for approval as part of the Construction Management Plan to ensure that the design of
the temporary buildings would be compatible with the character of the site and its
surroundings.
The modular buildings located north of the existing administration building would be
visible from residences located to the north and east of the Project site. However, the
modular buildings would be lower in height than the existing auditorium building to the
east, administration building to the south, and classroom/academic building to the
southeast. Therefore, the modular buildings would not block views beyond the Project
site from residential uses to the north and east. As stated, elevations and details of the
modular buildings would be provided to the City for approval as part of the Construction
Management Plan to ensure that the design of the buildings would be compatible with
the character of the site and its surroundings. Additionally, due to the location of the
modular buildings north of the administration building and the lower height, views from
residential uses located to the south and from Palos Verdes Drive East would not be
impacted.
The modular buildings located south/southeast of the existing auditorium, east of the
administration building, and north of the classroom/academic building would be visible
from residences located adjacent to the eastern property boundary. The modular
buildings would be lower in height than the existing classroom/academic building to the
south. Therefore, the modular buildings would not block views beyond the Project site
from residential uses to the east. Additionally, due to the location of the modular
buildings north of the classroom/academic building and east of the administration
building, views from residential uses located to the south and from Palos Verdes Drive
East would not be impacted.
Review and approval of the elevations and details of the modular buildings would
ensure that the character of the buildings is compatible with the site and surrounding
area, reducing visual impacts. Specifically, the facades of the modular buildings would
be required to have a Mediterranean architectural style with stucco in a color similar to
other campus buildings.
86876-1078\113771 M.doc A-19
2. Long-Term Visual Character/Visual Aspects / Light and Glare
Development of the proposed project could substantially degrade the existing visual
character/quality of the site and its surroundings.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant operational related environmental effect
as identified in the Draft EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures imposed
upon the Revised Project mitigate impacts to less than significant levels:
AES-4 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for the easterly parking area or the
modular buildings, a revised Landscape Plan shall be prepared and submitted to
the Planning Department for review and approval. The revised Landscape Plan
shall incorporate the revisions outlined below, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.
* Additional gold medallion tree plantings shall be incorporated on the site's
northeastern boundary, up to the northern corner of the existing deck on Lot 27
(2750 San Ramon) and not beyond, in order to further screen the eastern parking
lot from the adjacent property (Lot 27).
* The gold medallion tree proposed adjacent to Lot 26 shall be omitted from the
Plan.
* Additional tree plantings shall be incorporated on the south-facing slope
(southern portion) to further screen the temporary modular buildings and the
Athletic Facility from areas to the south in a manner that would not result in view
impacts to properties to the north.
AES-5 Lighting shall be designed as an integral part of the Project. Lighting levels shall
respond to the type, intensity and location of use. Lighting shall be designed and
installed such that it is directed downward and away from adjoining properties
and does not spill out onto adjacent areas, while maintaining safety and security
for pedestrian and vehicular movements.
AES-6 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, a Revised Lighting Plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement and City Engineer. The Revised Lighting Plan shall include:
* Low-level bollards, not to exceed 42-inches in height, in place of the currently
proposed pole-mounted lighting along the lower terrace of the eastern parking
lot.
* Light standards adjacent to the privacy wall for the properties on San Ramon
Drive shall not exceed the height of the privacy wall.
R6876-10781113771 M.doc A-20
* Pole-mounted lighting shall not exceed 10-feet in height, except along the
easterly boundary of the eastern parking lot, as noted above.
* The selected fixtures shall include reflectors, refractors, lenses, or louvers.
* The selected shielding accessories shall be the sharp cut-off type.
* Lighting fixtures with cut-off shields to prevent light spill and glare into adjacent
areas.
AES-7 Ninety (90) days after the installation of lighting for each phase of the Project, the
lighting equipment shall be tested and adjusted to ensure that the proper levels
of light and glare have been achieved, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and City Engineer.
AES-8 Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate to
the satisfaction and approval of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code
Enforcement and the Building Official that the Athletic Facility (south facing
fagade) use minimally reflective glass, based on manufacturers' guidelines. All
other materials used on the exterior of buildings and structures shall be selected
with attention to minimizing reflective glare. The use of glass with over 25
percent reflectivity shall be prohibited on the exterior of all buildings on the
Project site.
TR-7 Prior to issuance of any Grading Plan, the Project Plans shall be revised to
include a combination of wrought iron fencing along the westerly edge of the
athletic field at approximately 6.0 feet in height and 80 percent open to light and
air, and temporary retractable netting along the northwestern and southwestern
corners of the athletic field at approximately 20.0 feet in height, so that errant
balls are sufficiently contained, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning,
Building, and Code Enforcement. The retractable net shall only be extended
during activities involving field balls at the Athletic Field. The Applicant shall be
responsible for retracting the net. The use of a landscape screen around and
adjacent to the wrought iron fence along the perimeter of the Athletic Field shall
be limited to a maximum height of 42 inches.
(b) Facts In Suppott of Findings
The Draft EIR determined that impacts to the south-facing slope due to the development
of the proposed Athletic Building and Residence Halls would be considered significant
and unavoidable. In response to mitigation (AES-4) identified in the October 2007 Draft
EIR, the July 2008 project modifications proposed additional landscaping along the
south-facing slope to further buffer and screen the proposed Athletic Building and the
proposed Residence Halls, which are excluded in the Revised Project, from areas to the
south; refer to Exhibits 5a, 5b and 6 in Appendix A.1. As shown in Exhibit 6 of Appendix
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-21
A.1, with the introduction of a shrub buffer and tree line along the south-facing slope,
views of the south-facing slope from this area, which consists of the previously
proposed Residence Halls and Athletic Building, would be shielded.
In response to the Planning Commission's deliberation at its April 14, 2009 meeting,
and the Commission's conclusion that the site could not accommodate the Residence
Halls, the Residence Halls have been removed from the proposed project and
modifications to the Athletic Building are proposed. With removal of the Residence
Halls, the potentially significant and unavoidable impact to the visual character of the
south-facing slope associated with the Residence Halls, as identified in the Draft EIR,
would no longer occur.
As to the Athletic Building, the College proposes relocating the building footprint of the
Athletic Building north by one-foot from the 906' elevation contour (with no resulting
reduction in the overall building square footage) and reduction of the roof ridgeline by
10-feet along the north facing elevation with a flat roof and by four-feet along the
southern elevation with a pitched roof. As shown on Exhibit 5 of Final EIR Appendix A,
views of the Athletic Building along the south-facing slope would be partially shielded
and views of the south-facing slope and vegetation would continue to predominate.
Impacts would be considered less than significant. In response to the College's
proposed revisions, the Planning Commission agreed to impose a condition of approval
requiring that a silhouette of the proposed structure be constructed to verify that no
significant impacts to views of Catalina Island from upslope residential properties. If a
significant impairment of the view of Catalina Island is suggested by the silhouette, the
Athletic Building would need to be revised to avoid any such impacts.
The July 2008 project modifications propose the reconfiguration of the east parking lot
and rose garden, and additional landscaping, which would alter views of the site
(Exhibits 4a and 4b in Appendix A.1 provide an updated view of the east parking lot
from the adjacent residence at 2742 San Ramon Drive identified on Exhibits 5.2-9a and
5.2-9b in the October 2007 Draft EIR). The October 2007 Draft EIR determined that
with implementation of recommended mitigation measures AES-4 and AES-6, impacts
resulting from proposed improvements in the easterly portion of the site would be
reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation measure AES-4 requires submittal of
a revised Landscape Plan incorporating additional tree plantings on the site's
northeastern boundary, up to the northern corner of the existing deck on Lot 27 to
further screen the eastern parking lot from the areas to the north (Lots 26 and 27). In
response to mitigation AES-4, additional landscaping would be provided along the
eastern property line to further buffer views from adjacent residences on San Ramon
Drive. The introduction of additional landscaping would provide additional screening of
the eastern parking lot without interrupting existing views of the Pacific Ocean and
Catalina Island (refer to Exhibit 4a). Further, a one-way drive aisle would be created on
the lower level of the parking lot to direct cars away from the adjacent residences to
reduce the potential impact of car headlights at night, and parking spaces previously
proposed along the shared east property line would be relocated and replaced by a
R6876-1078\1 13771M.doc A-22
landscape buffer. Mitigation measure AES-6 requires submittal of a Revised Lighting
Plan to include low-level bollards, not to exceed 42 inches in height, along the easterly
boundary of the eastern parking lot and to demonstrate that all pole mounted lighting in
the remaining areas shall not exceed 10-feet in height. In response to mitigation
measure AES-6, the previously proposed pole mounted lighting along the easterly
boundary of the eastern parking lot has been removed. Additionally, the height of the
proposed pole mounted lighting in all other parking areas would be reduced to 10.0 feet
above finished grade, compared to the 16.0 feet previously proposed.
Overall, with removal of the pole mounted lighting along the easterly boundary of the
eastern parking lot and pole mounted lighting in the remaining area not exceeding 10
feet in height, existing views of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island would continue to
predominate.
In response to direction from the Planning Commission to further reduce potential
impacts to neighboring properties at 2742 and 2750 San Ramon Drive, the College
proposes to increase the buffer between the San Ramon properties and the parking lot
by relocating 14 parking spaces from the lower tier of the parking lot to the flat area of
the existing athletic field (where a portion of Residence Hall No. 2 was originally
proposed). Relocation of the parking spaces would result in an approximately 80-foot
buffer between the San Ramon property lines and the parking lot. The 80-foot buffer
would increase the original buffer (50 feet) identified in the July 2008 project revisions
by 30 feet. The one-way drive aisle would also be relocated further south from the San
Ramon properties. Relocation of the parking spaces to the flat area of the existing
athletic field would not result in significant view impacts from residences on Vista del
Mar, as additional landscaping is proposed to screen views of the east parking lot from
uses south of the site (Exhibits 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d in Appendix A.1 provide an updated
view of the east parking lot and rose garden identified on Exhibits 5.2-20a, 5.2-20b, and
5.2-20c in the October 2007 Draft EIR). Impacts would remain less than significant in
this regard.
Although City Staff recommended relocating 40 parking spaces from the lower tier of
the parking lot to the flat area of the existing athletic field to further reduce impacts to
neighboring properties on San Ramon Drive, the Planning Commission found that an
increased buffer of this size was not necessary, and that the 80-foot setback with which
.the College concurred was sufficient to ensure that potential impacts to neighbors were
mitigated to less than significant levels.
As part of the July 2008 project modifications, the rose garden, originally located at the
south/southeastern terminus of the east parking lot has been reconfigured and
relocated further southwest from the east parking lot and the rear property line for the
residence on Vista del Mar. A concrete walkway between the east parking lot and the
Library would provide access to the five foot wide decomposed granite ("D. G.")
pathway that forms the rose garden. Although seating within the rose garden is not
currently proposed, the area would nonetheless serve as an overlook and low level
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-23
night lighting would be provided. The rose garden, however, would be closed between
sunset and sunrise. Signs would be posted identifying the hours of use. Additional
landscaping is proposed to screen views of the east parking lot and rose garden from
uses south of the site.
The Draft EIR determined that impacts from development of the athletic field and tennis
courts in the western portion of the site would result in less than significant impacts to
the visual character of the site and its surroundings. As part of the July 2008 project
modifications, the tennis courts have been reconfigured in a north-south orientation.
However, the size, number, and location of the courts remain unchanged from the
previously proposed project description. A 10-foot tall recreation fence is being
proposed at the tennis courts. The chain link-fence with a green or black mesh would
be 80 percent open to light and air and would not result in view obstruction from
surrounding uses. The recreation fence would be allowed provided that a Minor
Exception Permit for the 10-foot tall fence is approved. (Exhibit 9 in Appendix A.1
provides an updated view of the tennis courts and portion of the athletic field identified
on Exhibits 5.2-10a and 5.2-10b in the October 2007 Draft EIR).
The size and location of the athletic field would be consistent with the previously
analyzed project description. The playing surface of the soccer field would be
depressed (with a 2:1 slope bank). An approximately three to six foot tall (measured
from the top of slope) continuous landscape screen is proposed around the field
adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive East, extending to the tennis courts to buffer views from
the residential uses west of the project site and to capture errant balls (Exhibit 8 in
Appendix A.1 provides an updated view of the athletic field). Depending upon the
height and location, the proposed landscape screen would alter existing views of the
Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Section
17.76.030 of the City's Development Code limits landscaping adjacent to a six-foot
fence within the front and side setback area to 42 inches. To ensure that potential view
impairment impacts associated with the proposed landscape screen would not occur,
Mitigation Measure TR-73, as set forth above, is imposed on the Revised Project.
To ensure that errant balls are sufficiently contained, a combination of wrought iron
fencing around the west and south sides of the athletic field at six-feet in height and 80
percent open to light and air and a 20-foot temporary netting around the north and south
sides of the athletic field are proposed. The provision of fencing and netting in
compliance with Mitigation Measure TR-7 would not significantly impair views, since the
fencing would be 80 percent open to light and air and the netting, although 20.0 feet tall,
would only be permitted during hours of play involving balls (during non-play times the
temporary netting would be required to be retracted), further minimizing potential view
obstruction. Existing views of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island would continue to
predominate. Thus, impacts would remain less than significant in this regard.
3 Mitigation Measure TR-7 was previously identified as TRA 0, but was renumbered in Appendix A as a result of
deletion of traffic mitigation measures TR-5,TR-6 and TR-7 from the Draft EIR.
R6876-1078\1 13771 Ov5.doc A-24
Overall, in consideration of the development proposed at the top of the south-facing
slope, development of the proposed Athletic Building would not result in a significant
and unavoidable visual character impact. The Athletic Building, along the south-facing
slope, would be partially shielded and views of the south-facing slope and vegetation
would continue to predominate. Therefore, impact to the visual character of the south-
facing slope associated with the Athletic Building and the proposed Residence Halls
would no longer occur.
Views analyzed in the October 2007 Draft EIR would not be significantly altered by
proposed project modifications encompassed by the Revised Project. As discussed,
the modular buildings would be prefabricated one-story buildings on a raised foundation
with a flat roof, for a total height of approximately 15 feet to the peak of the roof. The
rooflines of all the modular structures, including any roof-mounted mechanical
equipment would be lower than the building to which it is adjacent, thus the modular
units would not block any views. To reduce potential temporary view impacts resulting
from the placement of modular buildings along the south-facing slope, mitigation
measure AES-4 requires submittal of a Landscape Plan prior to issuance of a grading
permit for the modular buildings that provides for additional tree plantings on the south-
facing slope to further screen the modular buildings from areas to the south.
The modified landscaping plan would further buffer and screen proposed improvements
from adjacent uses. However, existing views would remain relatively consistent or
improved from those analyzed in the October 2007 Draft EIR. Thus, impacts would
remain less than significant in this regard.
Minor lighting modifications would occur, providing additional needed lighting and to
minimize spillover lighting impacts to adjoining properties. In response to mitigation
measure AES-6 identified in the October 2007 Draft EIR, the previously proposed pole
mounted lighting along the easterly boundary of the eastern parking lot has been
removed. Additionally, the height of the proposed pole mounted lighting in all other
parking areas would be reduced to 10.0 feet above finished grade, compared to the
16.0 feet previously proposed. Thus, potential lighting impacts would be lessened with
the proposed modifications. Additionally, a one-way drive aisle with a buffer from
adjacent residential uses would be created on the lower terrace of the eastern parking
lot to direct cars away from the adjacent residences to reduce the potential impact of car
headlights at night. Thus, impacts would remain less than significant in this regard.
Overall, with the exception of the modular buildings and the athletic field, proposed
project modifications would not introduce any new, different, or potentially adverse
aesthetic/light and glare impacts not previously considered and addressed in the
October 2007 Draft EIR. The Revised Project would introduce temporary visual
character impacts associated with the placement of the modular buildings along the
south-facing slope. However, Mitigation Measure AES-4 identified in the Errata to the
October 2007 Draft EIR would be revised to require a Landscape Plan and appropriate
screening of the modular buildings prior to issuance of a grading permit, reducing
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-25
potential impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, the Revised Project would
introduce visual impacts associated with the introduction of landscaping around the
athletic field. However, as required by the Development Code, the landscaping would
be required not to exceed 42 inches in height, which would reduce potential visual
impacts to a less than significant level.
B. AIR QUALITY
Many of the Project's potential air quality impacts have been determined to be less than
significant without mitigation, as discussed in Section V above. Below are the air quality
impacts that have been determined to be less than significant through the imposition of
various mitigation measures. For the reasons set forth below, the impacts will not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, violate any air
quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors), expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
1. Construction Related Impacts
Short-term air quality impacts are predicted to occur during grading and construction
operations associated with the implementation of the proposed Project. The following
potential air quality construction impacts associated with fugitive dust emissions, ROG
emissions from the application of asphalt and surface coatings, total construction
emissions (including construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust), and the
exceedance of localized significance thresholds will be reduced to a level of
insignificance with the imposition of various mitigation measures. Additionally,
proposed project modifications would not produce any new significant air quality
impacts, or require the imposition of further mitigation to ensure the following
construction related impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant construction related impacts as
identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures are imposed upon
the Project to mitigate impacts to less than significant levels:
AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Director of Public Works and the
Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
specifications stipulate that, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be
controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures, as specified in
86876-107811 13771M.doc A-26
the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rules and Regulations. In
addition, South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 requires
implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from
creating a nuisance off-site. Implementation of the following measures would
reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:
* All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive
amounts of dust;
* On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph);
* All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or
chemically stabilized;
* All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust; watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at
least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day;
* If dust is visibly generated that travels beyond the site boundaries, the Applicant
shall conduct street cleaning along the roadways impacted by dust (i.e., Palos
Verdes Drive East and/or Crest Drive), surrounding the Project site;
If dust is visibly generated that travels beyond the site boundaries, clearing,
grading, earth moving, or excavation activities that are generating dust shall
cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 mph averaged over one
hour) or during Stage 1 or Stage 2 episodes;
All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site;
All delivery truck tires shall be watered down and/or scraped down prior to
departing the job site-, and
No more than 5.0 acres per day shall be graded.
AQ-2 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Director of Public Works and the
Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
specifications stipulate that, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 403, ozone precursor emissions from construction
equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in
proper tune per manufacturer's specifications, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Maintenance records shall be provided to the City. The City Inspector
shall be responsible for ensuring that contractors comply with this measure
during construction.
AQ-3 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the City shall verify that the construction
contract standard specifications include a written list of instructions to be carried
out by the Applicant/Construction Manager specifying measures to minimize
emissions by heavy equipment for approval by the Director of Public Works.
Measures shall include provisions for maintenance of equipment engines,
measures to avoid equipment idling more than two minutes, and avoidance of
unnecessary delay of traffic along off-site access roads by heavy equipment
blocking traffic.
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-27
AQ-4 During construction and in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District Rule 1113, ROG emissions from architectural coatings shall be reduced
by using pre-coated/natural colored building materials, water-based or low-ROG
coatings and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer
efficiency.
AQ-5 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Project Engineer shall include the
following measures on the Grading Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works and Building Official:
* The General Contractor shall utilize electric- or diesel-powered stationary
equipment in lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible; and
* Work crews shall turn off equipment when not in use.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The construction related air quality emissions will be reduced to a level of insignificance,
for the reasons set for the below.
Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust emissions include both PM10 and PM2.5. Construction activities are a
source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact
on local air quality. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground
excavation, cut-and-fill operations and truck travel on unpaved roadways (including
demolition as well as construction activities). Additionally, fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) is mostly produced by the mechanical process, including automobile tire wear,
industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re-suspension of particles from
the ground or road surfaces by wine and human activities such as construction.
However, with the imposition of the applicable mitigation measures articulated above
which require that fugitive dust emissions be controlled, both PM10 and PM2.5 will not
exceed SCAQMD standards, and fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant.
ROG Emissions
The application of asphalt and surface coatings creates reactive organic gas (ROG)
emissions. ROG emissions are ozone precursors, and have the potential to cause a
significant impact. Mitigation Measure AQ-4, which requires that all architectural
coatings for the proposed Project structures comply with the SCAQMD standards, will
ensure that any potential ROG emissions impact is reduced to a level of insignificance.
Total Construction Emissions fincluding those from Construction Eguipment and
Worker Vehicle Exhaust)
Potential construction emissions include ROG's (as articulated above), NOx, CO, SOx,
PM2.5, and PM10. Construction would occur in phases over an eight-year period;
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-28
thus, it has been assumed that the greatest emissions would be generated within the
first stages of development of each phase, during site grading and demolition activities.
Additionally, the greatest ROG emissions would typically occur during the final stages of
development of each phase due to the application of architectural coatings. The
recommended mitigation measures provide a reduction in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.
The applied mitigation measures would not provide reductions to pollutants such as
NOX and CO. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all mitigation
measures, which specify compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations, as well as
proper consultation with the City prior to grading activities. With implementation of
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, the proposed construction would result in a
less than significant impact.
Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has also developed localized significance threshold methodology that
can be used to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse
localized air quality impacts that impact sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive
receptors would be homes directly surrounding the Project site. The homes are located
approximately 50 to 100 feet from the site. As more fully detailed in the EIR, mitigation
measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 would ensure that the proposed construction activities of
the Project would not exceed the localized significance thresholds during the
construction phases.
2. Operational Emissions
Total operational emissions of the Project, as well as localized Carbon Monoxide (CO)
emissions associated with vehicle traffic and CO hot spots, have the potential to cause
a significant air quality impact of the Project. However, with the imposition of mitigation,
any potential impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Additionally, proposed
modifications embodied in the Revised Project will not alter the impacts, or the required
mitigation, to ensure a less than significant impact.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant operational air quality impacts as identified
,in the Draft EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures are imposed upon the
Project to mitigate impacts to less than significant levels:
AQ-6 Prior to issuance of any Building Permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Building Official that the Project complies with Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations established by the California Energy Commission
regarding energy conservations standards.
AQ-7 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and
approval by the Director of Public Works and Director of Planning, Building and
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-29
Code Enforcement, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that is
applicable to students, faculty and staff. The TDM Plan shall include, but not be
limited to, preferential parking for vanpooling/carpooling, subsidy for transit pass
or vanpooling/carpooling, flextime work schedule and the location of bicycle
racks throughout the College campus.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Total Operation Emissions
Proposed Project emissions would represent increased emissions for ROG by
approximately 15 percent. However, emissions for NOX, CO, SO2, PM1 0, and PM2.5
would decrease with implementation of the Project. As more fully detailed in the EIR,
emissions associated with the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Although the anticipated emissions
from the proposed Project would not result in exceedances of SCAQMD thresholds,
Mitigation Measure AQ-6 would require the Project to comply with Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations established by the California Energy Commission. All
recommended mitigation measures and Project Design Features would help reduce
long-term air quality impacts; therefore, emissions are anticipated to be less than
significant.
Localized CO Emissions
The proposed Project would result in an overall increase in the local and regional CO
emissions pollutant load, but would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Although impacts
are not anticipated to exceed SCAQMD thresholds, mitigation measure AQ-7 requiring
a Transportation Demand Management Plan would support the reduction of any long-
term operational impacts. With mitigation, impacts are anticipated to be less than
significant.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Wildlife Species
The Draft EIR identified that three sensitive wildlife species, consisting of the Palos
Verdes Blue Butterfly, El Segundo Blue Butterfly, and western Burrowing Owls had the
potential to occur on the project site, but none were expected to occur because of lack
of suitable habitat. Nevertheless, the Project includes mitigation measures to ensure a
less than significant impact.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-30
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures are imposed upon the Project to
mitigate the potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels:
BIO-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, a habitat assessment for the El
Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist permitted by the USFWS to conduct surveys for this species,
approved by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, and paid
for by the Applicant. If any El Segundo blue butterfly is located in the impact
area, authorization from the UFWS shall be required prior to commencing any
construction activities in the surveyed area. Authorization can occur through
either Section 7 or 10 of the FESA. The authorization process would require a
preparation of Biological Assessment or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which
would include a Special Status Plant Mitigation Program to avoid or minimize
impacts to this species. The Special Status Plant Mitigation Program may
include avoiding the habitat of this species or purchasing off-site habitat for this
species.
BIO-2 The Applicant shall hire, at the Applicant's expense, a qualified Biologist,
approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, who shall
conduct a focused survey for active raptor nests no more than 30 days prior to
commencement of any grading or construction or the removal of the gum trees, if
such activity occurs during the breeding season between February 1 and June
30. If an active nest is found, some restrictions on grading activities may be
required in the vicinity of the nest until the nest is no longer active as determined
by a qualified Biologist.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Three sensitive wildlife species were identified as having the potential to occur on the
Project site: the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glacopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis),
El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) and western Burrowing Owl.
Neither milk-vetch nor deerweed were observed on the Project site. The Palos Verdes
Blue Butterfly is not expected to occur on the Project site due to the lack of suitable
habitat. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact
in this regard. However, to ensure no impacts to this species would occur, mitigation
measure BIO-1 is included in the Project. This mitigation BIO-1 requires that a habitat
assessment be conducted for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly by a biologist permitted by
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service prior to commencing construction as an additional
means to confirm whether the species has moved into the property. With
implementation of this mitigation measure, potential impacts to this species would be
reduced to less than significant.
Besides the potential three sensitive wildlife species, nesting raptors have the potential
to occur on the Project site. No raptor (bird of prey) nests were observed in the
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-31
immediate vicinity of the Project area. However, raptor species have the potential to
nest in the gum trees located at the northwestern portion of the study area. Therefore,
impacts to raptors (i.e., the loss of an active raptor nest) resulting from removal of the
existing gum trees would be considered a violation of the CDFG Code, thus, a
significant impact. However, regulations by the CDFG prohibit activities having the
potential to disturb active raptor nests, a protection that is generally discontinued once
nesting activity is complete. Mitigation is recommended requiring that a survey for
active nests be conducted 30 days prior to commencement of construction, if
construction occurs during the breeding season (February 1 to June 30). With
implementation of the recommended mitigation BIO-2, Project implementation would
result in less than significant impacts in this regard.
2. Special Status Species
The Draft EiR identified the potential for an impact on special status habitat based on
two drainage channels located on-site (eastern drainage and western drainage) that
have the potential to contain wetlands and/or riparian habitat.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure is imposed upon the Project to
mitigate the potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels:
BIO-3 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, a jurisdictional delineation shall be
conducted by the Applicant to determine whether the two drainage channels are
under the jurisdiction of ACOE and CDFG. If these agencies have jurisdiction
over the Project's study area, permits or waivers thereof, would be required from
one or both of these agencies prior to issuance of any Grading Permit. The
Applicant shall be required to comply with all permit conditions from the ACOE
and/or CDFG. Conditions of these permits may include, but are not limited to,
the replacement of habitat value within the jurisdictional areas impacted. The
replacement may come in the form of habitat restoration and/or enhancement
onsite or in the immediate vicinity at the discretion of the permitting agencies.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Neither drainage channel located on-site (eastern drainage and western drainage), that
has the potential to contain wetlands and/or riparian habitat, appeared to have riparian
(water-dependent) vegetation during prior survey. Although no water was present on
the surface of either of the drainage channels during the survey, if circumstances
changed, they may be determined to be under the jurisdiction of the ACOE and/or
CDFG. Permits/agreements from these agencies may be required prior to any
alteration of these areas. (!✓litigation 13I0-3 is recommended requiring that a
R6876-1078\1 13771M.doc A-32
jurisdictional delineation be conducted to determine whether either of the two drainage
channels is under the jurisdiction of ALOE and CDFG. If these agencies are
determined to have jurisdiction over the Project site, permits or waivers thereof, would
be required from one or both of these agencies. Acquisition and implementation of
these permits may constrain development and impacts to these areas should be
minimized to the extent practicable.
3. Conflict with Wildlife Species Covered by the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes' Natural Community Conservation Subarea Plan
The Draft EIR identified three potential species known to occur in the vicinity of the
Project site that are covered by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Natural Community
Conservation Subarea Plan.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure is imposed upon the Project to
mitigate the potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels:
810-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, a habitat assessment for the El
Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist permitted by the USFWS to conduct surveys for this species. If
any El Segundo blue butterfly is located in the impact area, prior to issuance of
any Grading Permit, a Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall be
developed in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies if the status of
the species and the size of the population warrant a finding of significance.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The following three species are covered by the City's Subarea Plan and are known to
occur in the vicinity of the Project site: (1) El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes
battoides allyni); (2) Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus
palosverdesensis); and (3) Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica).
The El Segundo Blue Butterfly has a limited potential to occur on the Project site based
on the limited distribution of ashy-leaf buckwheat, which is a possible, but not certain
host plant. With implementation of the recommended mitigation BIO-1, which requires
that a habitat assessment be conducted for the ESB by a SFWS-permitted biologist,
potential impacts to this species would be reduced to less than significant.
Additionally, the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly's known, existing, and historical locations
are not on or adjacent to the Project site, nor is it expected to occur on the Project site
due to the lack of suitable habitat. Similarly, California Coastal Gnatcatcher are not
R6876-1078\1 13771M.doc A-33
expected on the Project site due to the lack of suitable habitat. The known gnatcatcher
locations are not on or adjacent to the Project site. Further, this species is not expected
to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat.
With mitigation, no significant impacts to these wildlife species covered by the City's
Subarea Plan are expected from development of the proposed Project. Also, no
significant impacts to regional planning efforts are expected from Project development.
Therefore, Project implementation would not conflict with the provisions of the City
adopted Natural Community Conservation Subarea Plan, since the Project site is not
within that plan.
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Project's potential impacts on geology and soils that can be mitigated or are
otherwise less than significant is discussed in the EIR. Identified impacts include
seismic groundshaking, ground failure, and expansive soils.
1. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Given the highly seismic character of the Southern California region, and being in close
proximity to several known active and potentially active faults, severe ground shaking
should be expected during the life of the proposed structures. Therefore, people and
structures may be exposed to potential adverse effects from seismic groundshaking.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the Draft EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure imposed upon the Project
mitigates impacts to less than significant levels:
GEO-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit for Phases 1, 11, and
III (as outlined in DEIR Section 3.5, Phasing) of the Project, the Applicant shall
comply with each of the recommendations detailed in the Preliminary Grading
Plan Review and Geotechnical Response to City of Rancho Palos Verdes (ASE,
June 28, 2002, 2005), and other such measure(s) as the City deems necessary
to adequately mitigate Project geotechnical impacts, which may include, but not
be limited to, the following during each construction phase of the Project:
* Ingrading mapping and inspections by the Project geotechnical
engineer/engineering geologist, and/or City Inspector.
* Corrosivity and expansivity soil testing upon completion of rough grading.
* Final compaction testing upon completion of precise grading.
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-34
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The potential geological impacts from construction and operational activities of the
Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant
by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Recommendations and
specifications of the geotechnical investigation, as well as compliance with all City
Building and Safety standards and requirements, would guide the design and
construction of the Project, and are intended to mitigate seismic impacts. In addition,
the Project would be required to conform to the latest edition of the UBC, which includes
design measures to mitigate against seismic hazards. The UBC and City of Rancho
Palos Verdes building standards would be enforced through review of plans and
inspection of structures during construction. By incorporating recommendations of the
geotechnical investigation reports as required through implementation of mitigation
measure GEO-1, and complying with the UBC and City of Rancho Palos Verdes
standards, Project impacts related to ground shaking would be less than significant.
Consideration of part of the overall grading as "remedial" due to exclusion of the
Residence Halls does not change these conclusions.
2. Other Seismically Induced Hazards
The Project could result in the exposure of people or structures to potential effects
associated with settlement or landslides.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the Draft EIR. Specifically, mitigation measure GEO-1, as set forth above, and as
imposed upon the Project mitigates impacts to less than significant levels.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Seismically Induced Ground Settlement. Unconsolidated soils, such as colluvium and
poorly compacted artificial fill on the Project site, are subject to seismically induced
ground settlement. Currently, no existing campus buildings appear to overlie any
significant amount of these soils. However the proposed buildings would rest atop
artificial fill soils, unless the artificial fill soils are removed during grading. These
impacts would be considered significant unless mitigated. The Project proposes that all
loose/compressible soils be removed during grading and that engineered fill be placed
on very dense and competent bedrock. With implementation of mitigation
recommended in the preliminary Grading Plan Review and Geotechnical Responses
pertaining to site grading, impacts relative to seismically induced settlement would be
reduced to a less than significant level. As all proposed buildings would be founded on
either compacted fill soils or bedrock, the potential for seismically induced settlement is
not anticipated.
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-35
The Revised Project, as analyzed in Appendix A of the Final EIR, includes revisions to
certain slope configurations resulting from the removal of the Residence Halls,
reconfiguration of the east parking area, and modifications to the rose garden.
Geotechnical-related impacts of the proposed buildings in the Revised Project
associated with soils/bedrock units would be reduced through over-excavation of the
bedrock and re-compaction as engineered fill beneath the proposed buildings. Impacts
would be less than significant in this regard, with implementation of identified mitigation.
The potential geological impacts from construction and operational activities of the
Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant
by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Recommendations and
specifications of the geotechnical investigation, as well as compliance with all City
Building and Safety standards and requirements, would guide the design and
construction of the Project, and are intended to mitigate seismic impacts. In addition,
the Project would be required to conform to the latest edition of the UBC, which includes
design measures to mitigate against seismic hazards. The UBC and City of Rancho
Palos Verdes building standards would be enforced through review of plans and
inspection of structures during construction. By incorporating recommendations of the
geotechnical investigation reports as required through implementation of mitigation
measure GEO-1, and complying with the UBC and City of Rancho Palos Verdes
standards, Project impacts related to other seismically induced hazards would be less
than significant. Consideration of part of the overall grading as "remedial" due to
exclusion of the Residence Halls does not change these conclusions.
3. Soil Erosion
Implementation of the proposed Project could trigger or accelerate erosion, such that
slope failure could occur.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure imposed upon the Project
mitigates impacts to less than significant levels:
GEO-2Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit, the Grading Plan and
Landscape Plan shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City
Geologist, and City Building Official, that the plans have been designed such
that:
* Runoff, including irrigation run-off, at the eastern parking lot shall be prohibited
from draining onto adjacent properties including the South Shores Landslide;
* Drainage shall be prohibited from flowing over the top of the south-facing slope,
ponding, or soaking; and
* Runoff from all hardscape areas and any disturbed area in conjunction with the
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-36
Project construction, particularly the parking lots, shall be prohibited from
draining onto the south-facing and east-facing slopes and neighboring properties,
as required by the City; all runoff shall be diverted to on-site storm drains.
To reduce the potential impact resulting from slope deformation one or more of
the following measures shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any grading
permit:
Design and build improvements with flexible joints between individual structures
to accommodate slope deformation; and
Set the foundation for improvements deeper and use less flexible materials that
will resist soil movement.
In the event improvements within the creep zone cannot be avoided, a soil
engineer shall assess the depth of the creep zone and determine if the proposed
improvements would contribute to slope deformation. The Applicant shall comply
with each of the recommendations identified by the soil engineer to reduce any
potential slope deformation impacts associated with the proposed improvements
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City Geologist, and City Building Official.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Adverse surface drainage could promote accelerated soil erosion, which could
undermine proposed structures and lead to surficial slope failures on either
manufactured or natural slopes. Therefore, impacts associated with soil erosion would
be considered significant unless mitigated. The Project would be subject to compliance
with the mitigation recommended in the Preliminary Grading Plan Review and
Geotechnical Responses (ASE, 2002, 2005, 2009) pertaining to the removal and
recompaction of soils, and the mitigation recommended to reduce the Project's
hydrology and drainage impacts. To further lessen potential impacts associated with
soil erosion, mitigation has been adopted which prohibits irrigation along the eastern
parking lot that drains onto the South Shores Landslide. Additionally, mitigation has
been adopted, which prohibits runoff from draining onto the south-facing slopes; all
runoff would be diverted to on-site storm drains. Following compliance with the
recommended mitigation, impacts associated with soil erosion would be reduced to less
than significant. It is also noted that implementation of grading in accordance with Code
Section 17.76.040(B)(2)(a), Grading Pennit, and the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit requirements would further minimize impacts in this regard.
Consideration of part of the overall grading as "remedial" due to exclusion of the
Residence Halls does not change these conclusions.
4. Expansive Soils
The proposed Project could be located on expansive soils, creating substantial risks to
life or property.
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-37
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Specifically, mitigation measure GEO-1, discussed above, imposed upon the Project
mitigates impacts to less than significant levels.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Laboratory test results indicate that the on-site soils and portions of the bedrock are
considered to have a "moderate to very high" expansion potential. Expansive soils
could result in significant distress in the form of cracking and/or differential uplift of
concrete footings and floor slabs when the soils become wet. With implementation of
the mitigation measures recommended in the Preliminary Grading Plan Review and
Geotechnical Responses (ASE, 2002, 2005, 2009), which include additional tests
during/after grading to confirm the degree of soil expansion, impacts associated with
expansive soils are considered less than significant. In addition, impacts associated
with expansive soils would be further lessened through compliance with City Code
Chapter 15.04, Building Codes. Because the Project would be designed and
constructed in conformance with recommendations included within the various
geotechnical reports and all applicable local, state, and federal regulations, such as the
UBC, impacts to life and property from expansive soils would be less than significant.
Consideration of part of the overall grading as "remedial" due to exclusion of the
Residence Halls does not change these conclusions.
5. Slope Stability
Development of the proposed project could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable or that could, as a result of the Project, become unstable.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure imposed upon the Project
mitigates impacts to less than significant levels:
GEO-3 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Final Grading Plans shall specify
that the oversized (i.e., one- to three-foot-wide blocks) that are generated from
excavation of the one-to two-foot-thick (+/-), discontinuous layers and/or lenses
of very hard, silica and/or calcium-magnesium carbonate cemented siltstone,
which is commonly referred to as TV Stone," shall not be placed in engineered
fills unless their location and disposal methods are specifically reviewed and
approved by the Project Soils Engineer and City Engineer. No rock crushing
shall occur onsite.
See also Mitigation Measures GEO-2, HYD-1, HYD-2, and HYD-3.
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-38
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The geologic structure (i.e., orientation) of weak bedding planes within the site's
bedrock is both neutral (i.e. favorable) to adverse along portions of the southwest-facing
slope. More specifically, the results of ASE's (2005) slope stability analyses indicate
that the uppermost portions of the natural and overlying man-made fill soils along the
top of the slope, along the southern side of the Project area (i.e., the area adjacent to
the proposed Residence Halls), does not possess an adequate factor-of-safety against
failure. Consequently, ASE has recommended incorporation of soil buttresses along
the upper portions of the slope, which would provide the necessary factor of safety of
1.5 for static and 1.15 pseudo static conditions. The Preliminary Grading and Drainage
Plan (March 13, 2007) depicted a laterally extensive buttressed slope along the
southwest facing natural slope at the southeast corner of the Project site. Proposed
keyway excavations for the buttress fills, which are associated with creating more stable
slopes along the southerly margin of the Project site, would not require shoring.
A slope stability analysis was also performed for the natural and overlying man-made fill
portion of the slope bordering the eastern side of the campus, which also demonstrated
an inadequate factor of safety. In this region of the Project site, ASE has recommended
a 150- to 220-foot-wide "structural setback" for the proposed Library and Residence Hall
from the top of the slope.
Surface water runoff from the parking lot may flow onto the slope bordering the eastern
side of the campus. According to the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, all
surface water runoff from the parking area along the eastern side of the Project is
designed to flow in a southerly direction. Drop inlets along the southern edge of the
parking lot would then capture this water, which would not allow the runoff to flow over
the top of the slope above the South Shores Landslide, nor over the top of the
southerly-facing slope. Additionally, the Drainage Plan indicates that a detention basin
is proposed on the south-facing slope. The surface water runoff and basin have the
potential to trigger or accelerate erosion that could result in slope failure. In particular,
the basin is considered a potentially significant impact to slope stability unless mitigated.
These potential impacts associated with slope stability would be reduced to less than
significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation, which requires that the
basin design include an impermeable liner and adequate secondary overflow.
Additionally, mitigation is recommended, which prohibits drainage and runoff from
flowing across the south-facing slope. With implementation of the recommended
mitigation, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated
with slope failure from surface water runoff.
All of the bedrock units are considered easily excavatable using conventional earth
moving equipment and rock crushing would not be necessary. However, based on the
character of the bedrock in this area of the City, there are likely to be one- to two-foot-
thick (+/-), discontinuous layers and/or lenses of very hard, silica and/or calcium-
magnesium carbonate cemented siltstone, which is commonly referred to as "PV
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-39
Stone." Although these layers/lenses can be readily excavated with conventional earth
moving equipment, the one- to three-foot-wide blocks that are generated from their
excavation should not be placed in engineered fills beneath any of the new buildings.
Further, there are generally accepted methods for incorporating these hard blocks in
portions of engineered fills that do not directly support structures. With implementation
of the mitigation recommended in the Preliminary Grading Plan Review and
Geotechnical Response (ASE, 2002, 2005), and the recommended mitigation regarding
the placement or hauling off-site of excavated materials, fill slopes are anticipated to be
both surficially and grossly stable, provided they are properly maintained. With
implementation of the recommended mitigation, impacts in this regard would be
considered less than significant.
As to the Revised Project, compliance with the geotechnical recommendations by ASE
(May 19, 2009), including removal of any bentonite bed encountered during excavation,
and shoring of trenching in the shear key with appropriate backfilling, the storm drain
will not affect the stability of the existing or proposed slopes. Consideration of part of
the overall grading as "remedial" due to exclusion of the Residence Halls does not
change these conclusions.
6. Landslides
Development of the proposed Project could increase the number of people and
structures exposed to potentially significant effects associated with landslides.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the Draft EIR. Specifically, imposition of mitigation measure GEO-2, as set forth above,
upon the Project mitigates impacts to less than significant levels.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Both Keith Ehlert (1997) and ASE (2002, 2005) consider the zone of potential slope
instability identified by C. Michael Scullin (1983) on the slope in the southeastern corner
of the site to be lacking sufficient features to indicate a zone of deep creep or
landsliding, and is most likely underlain by in-place bedrock.
With respect to the Project's potential to experience an impact from or have an impact
on the existing South Shores Landslide situated approximately 200 feet east of the
Project site, ASE (2002, 2005) provide salient recommendations. These include the
establishment of a structural setback for new buildings from the top of the slope above
the South Shores Landslide; and grading recommendations to direct surface water
runoff away from the top of all natural and man-made slopes. From a soils engineering
and engineering geologic point of view, the proposed improvements would have no
impact (adverse or otherwise) on the South Shores Landslide, provided the Project: 1)
R6876-1078\1 13771M.doc A-40
is graded in accordance with the local codes; 2) is graded in accordance with the
recommendations and grading specifications presented in ASE's 2002 and 2005
geotechnical reports; and 3) complies with the recommended mitigation, which prohibits
drainage and surface water runoff from flowing onto the adjacent slopes. The proposed
Project would be subject to compliance with the City Development Code and the UBC,
which would lessen potential impacts in this regard. To further reduce potential impacts
in this regard, mitigation is recommended, which involves the prevention of flow onto
adjacent slopes.
Further, the Revised Project and removal of the grasscrete material will minimize the
amount of water that could otherwise percolate into the South Shores Landslide area,
and incorporation of catchment basins should prevent water from flowing onto the man-
made slopes, as well as over the natural east-facing slope above the South Shores
Landslide. As such, the Revised Project, with mitigation measures, will not result in a
significant impact with respect to landslide potential. Consideration of part of the overall
grading as "remedial" due to exclusion of the Residence Halls does not change these
conclusions.
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Drainage and Hydrology.
The proposed Project would alter drainage patterns, which could result in increased
runoff amounts and erosion potential.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the Draft EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project
mitigate impacts to less than significant levels:
HYD-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Director of Public Works and the
City Engineer shall review and approve a Revised Storm Drain Plan. Such Plan
shall-
* Include an on-site storm water collection system designed to prevent the flow
(sheet or concentrated) from eroding the natural hillside surrounding the Project
site.
* Identify how storm drains and catch basins are designed to control stormwater
leaving the campus.
* Control erosion downstream of the development.
* Include storm drains designed to convey flows per Los Angeles County
Standards.
19Includes a system of storm drain pipes that would divert the flow to the proposed
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-41
storm drain system.
Calculations shall be provided to the Director of Public Works and the City
Engineer indicating that the diversion area does not impact the existing storm
drains (i.e., no more than the existing condition flow at any given time).
HYD-2 Increased flows from Watersheds A and BC shall be mitigated with the
installation of a detention basin (i.e., Watershed A Sub-Basin and Watershed BC
Sub-Basin), as illustrated on Exhibit 5.7-3, Proposed Storm Drain Layou , and
Exhibit 5.7-4, Detention Basin Layout, or where determined by the Director of
Public Works and the City Engineer, to reduce the peak flow. The detention
basin shall be designed such that:
* The 2- through 100-year storm events are mitigated.
* Water would be detained a minimum of 24 hours, but not greater than 96 hours,
pursuant to Vector Control District standards.
* Berms shall be provided at Palos Verdes Drive East to allow adequate free
board. The flow leaving the detention basin shall be maintained equal to the
existing condition.
* Watershed A Sub-Basin shall include an outlet that ties into the storm drain
system at Node 1.
* Watershed BC Sub-Basin shall include an outlet that drains to the storm drain
system at Nodes 2 and 3.
* The pipe outlets that would drain the sub-basin shall be sized to allow no more
than the existing condition flow out of the detention basin at any given time.
* Water quality requirements shall be satisfied through detention basin design.
The extended detention basin shall serve also as a flood control detention basin.
* Adequate secondary overflow shall be provided.
* An impermeable liner shall be provided to eliminate saturation of soil in the
vicinity.
Maintenance of the detention basin shall be the Applicant's responsibility.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Preliminary Hydrology Report for Marymount College prepared by MAC Design
Associates (July 6, 2006) is the hydrologic analysis and was provided by the Applicant,
and was thereafter independently reviewed by the City's environmental consultant.
These were utilized to determine drainage patterns and storm drain locations in order to
assess Project impacts.
HYDROLOGY
Project hydrology (based on proposed flow paths and storm drain locations) was
completed by RBF Consulting to determine the impacts that the new development
would have on runoff. Hydrologic analyses were performed in June 2007 in accordance
86876-1078\113771 M.doc A-42
with Los Angeles County Hydrology Method.
The watershed subarea boundaries were delineated utilizing topographic mapping, the
Master Plan, a site visit and proposed Project maps. Hydrologic parameters used in the
analysis, such as rainfall and soil classification, are as presented in the Los Angeles
County Hydrology Manual (January 2006).
Proposed Watershed Description
The proposed storm drain layout utilizes the same discharge points used in the existing
condition and accounts for changes to the watershed areas and the percentage of
impervious surfaces.
Similar to the existing condition, the proposed drainage area has been divided into three
watersheds: Watershed A, Watershed BC and Watershed D. Hydrologic properties
such as slope, assumed drainage patterns, soil type and vegetation were characterized
for each subarea. The watershed subareas were utilized to develop a "link-node"
model. The subareas range from 1 to 38 acres in size.
In the proposed condition, the watershed delineation changes slightly from the subareas
defined by the Master Plan (Existing Condition) due to Project-related grading, the
construction of new buildings and increases of impervious areas (parking lots, walkways
and buildings). As a result, the proposed Project would alter the existing drainage
patterns. Changes in tributary area would also influence flowrate. An increase in
flowrate could result in increased flooding offsite. The impacts are considered
potentially significant if not mitigated.
In addition, without mitigation to reduce the flow downstream, the increased runoff can
contribute to onsite erosion of the hillside. A detention basin, storm drains and catch
basins would be required to mitigate erosion downstream of the Project.
With increased and potential concentrated flows, significant erosion may occur. The
area of particular concern is south of the existing athletic field, because the South
Shores Landslide occupies the area further south. Mitigation is recommended to
prevent the further erosion of the natural hillsides downstream of the Project site and to
direct flows away from the South Shores Landslide. Specifically, the recommended
mitigation requires preparation of a Revised Drainage Plan, which includes a storm
water collection system to prevent the flow (sheet or concentrated) from eroding the
natural hillside. A system of storm drainpipes would be required to divert the flow to the
proposed storm drain system.
The proposed detention basin, which involves Watershed A and BC Sub-Basins, is
proposed at the bottom of the south-facing slope adjacent to Node 1. The proposed
location of the detention basin is considered a potentially significant impact to slope
stability unless mitigated. Therefore, mitigation has been recommended requiring that
the detention basin be lined to eliminate saturation of soil in the vicinity and to eliminate
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-43
the concerns of locating a detention basin on a slope.
The detention basin would be designed as a storm water and water quality detention
basin to satisfy required hydraulic and water quality mitigation. The basin would detain
water a maximum of 96 hours, pursuant to Vector Control District requirements. The
detention basin would be required to mitigate the 2- through 100-year storm events.
These facilities are commonly paired with a flood control detention basin. Maintenance
of any detention basin associated with the Project would be the responsibility of the
College. Underground pipes would direct flows from the proposed site to their
respective sub-basins. The Watershed A Sub-basin would require an outlet that ties
into the storm drain system at Node 1. The Watershed BC Sub-basin would require an
outlet that drains to the storm drain system at Nodes 2 and 3. The pipe outlets that
would drain the detention basin (i.e., both sub-basins) are required to be sized to allow
no more than the existing condition flow out of the sub-basins at any given time.
Stormwater mitigation would be required to reduce the Project's drainage impacts to a
less than significant level. Specifically, the recommended mitigation involves
requirements for onsite storm drains to be designed to convey flows per Los Angeles
County Standards and for detention basin calculations regarding the diversion area to
be provided. With implementation of these drainage mitigation measures, drainage
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Proiect Condition Surface Water Hydrology
The Rational Method and Modified Rational Method were used for developing the peak
runoff rates (discharge) for the Project condition 10-year and 50-year storms.
Flow is assumed to cross the campus via storm drain. The Project condition would
increase the amount of impervious surface, as compared to the existing condition. The
change in impervious area has the potential to cause significant downstream impacts,
particularly since many on the cross culverts downstream of the Project site are
hydraulically deficient; refer to the Existing Conditions discussion in the Draft BIR.
The proposed Project would alter hydrology due to onsite grading and increases in
impervious area. This could result in existing storm drains being undersized due to the
increased flows onsite. Thus, the impacts are considered potentially significant if not
mitigated.
Table 5.7-8, Fiow Comparison, compares the flowrate for the three watersheds that
have been analyzed. The increased flows in Watersheds A, BC and D are considered a
significant impact, since the facilities downstream of Watersheds A, BC and D are all
hydraulically or maintenance deficient. The increase would cause a greater amount of
flooding on Palos Verdes Drive East cross-culvert No. 2-27, 2-25 and 25th Street cross-
culvert No. 2-26, as denoted in the 1998 Master Plan.
Stormwater mitigation would be required to reduce the Project's hydrology impacts to a
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-44
less than significant level. Specifically, the recommended mitigation involves
requirements for the provision of an onsite detention basin for increased flows if the
existing storm drains are undersized. The detention basin would be required for
Watershed A and BC. With implementation of this hydrology mitigation measure,
hydrology impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, and off-site flow
rates would not increase. The mitigation is also sufficient to address the impacts
associated with the Revised Project.
2. Water Quality — Construction
Grading, excavation and construction activities associated with the proposed Project
could impact water quality due to sheet erosion resulting from exposed soils and
subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage areas.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project
mitigate impacts to less than significant levels:
HYD-3 The hydrological and drainage improvements identified in Mitigation Measures
HYD-1 and HYD-2 shall be completed during the Phase I grading period and
prior to issuance of the Building Permit for the Phase 11 buildings (i.e., Library,
Maintenance, or Athletic).
HYD-4 Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, and as part of the Project's
compliance with the NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent shall be prepared
and submitted to the Los Angeles RWQCB providing notification and intent to
comply with the State of California general permit. Also, a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Public Works and the City Engineer for water quality construction activities
onsite. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the
construction site at all times. The SWPPP shall outline the source control and/or
treatment control BMPs to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction
site to the "maximum extent practicable." The SWPPP shall contain, at a
minimum, the BMPs outlined in Appendix 13.6, Hyftloay and Water Quality
Data.
HYD-5 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Applicant shall prepare, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer, a Water
Quality Management Plan, which includes Best Management Practices (BMPs),
Structural Measures and Adaptive Management, under the guidelines in
Development Planning for Stormwater Management - A Manual for the Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) prepared by Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works (2002) or the most current/updated version. The
WQMP shall contain, at a minimum, the BMPs outlined in Appendix 13.6,
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-45
Hydrology and Water Quality Data.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Construction controls are separated from other water quality management because the
measures are temporary and specific to the type of construction. Construction of the
proposed Project has the potential to produce typical pollutants such as nutrients, heavy
metals, pesticides and herbicides, toxic chemicals related to construction and cleaning,
waste materials including wash water, paints, wood, paper, concrete, food containers
and sanitary wastes, fuel and lubricants.
As part of its compliance the NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent (NOI) would need
to be prepared and submitted to the Los Angeles RWQCB providing notification and
intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to grading or
construction, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for the
construction activities onsite. Implementation of recommended mitigation (i.e.,
compliance with the NPDES requirements) would reduce construction-related impacts
to water quality to a less than significant level. The conclusions remain the same for the
Revised Project.
3. Water Quality — Long1erm
Implementation of the proposed Project could result in long-term impacts to the quality
of stormwater and urban runoff, subsequently impacting water quality.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the Draft EiR. Specifically, mitigation measure HYD-5, set forth above, imposed upon
the Project mitigates impacts to less than significant levels.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
A Water Quality Management Plan is required prior to issuance of any grading permit
for the proposed Project under the guidelines in Development Planning for Stormwater
Management-A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP)
prepared by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The SUSMP conforms
to the NPDES permit requirement for Los Angeles County.
Project implementation would increase impervious areas and would increase the level
of activity at the Marymount College campus. As a result, impacts to stormwater quality
would occur. The Project would increase pollutant loadings immediately offsite and
would potentially violate water quality standards. The pollutants that would be expected
with implementation of the proposed Project include typical pollutants found in
stormwater runoff; refer to the Existing Setting Section. Without mitigation, the Project
R6876-107811 13771M.doc A-46
would be expected to increase pollutant loadings, including hydrocarbons, fertilizers,
pesticides, trash and sediment.
The specified mitigation requires preparation of a comprehensive WQMP that includes
both Structural and Non-Structural BMPs and complies with the SUSMP, as required by
the Los Angeles RWQCB and NPDES permits. With mitigation, potential impacts of the
Project and the Revised Project in this regard would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
F. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan
The proposed Project could conflict with the land use plan, policies, or regulations of the
city of Rancho Palos Verdes general plan.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the Draft EIR. The proposed modifications involve lack of approval of the Residence
Halls, and the relocation of the Athletic Building north by one-foot from the 906'
elevation contour, resulting in no portion of the Athletic Facility being sited within an
existing extreme slope area.
Thus, these previously identified significant and unavoidable impacts associated with
construction over extreme slopes would no longer occur.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The General Plan contains elements mandated by the State. The consistency analysis
of the proposed Project with the applicable goals and policies of each General Plan
Element is provided in Table 5.1-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, and is
incorporated herein by reference, except as modified in the Final EIR and as discussed
herein. The General Plan further identifies issues and contains requirements for
development, which pertain to the Project, as set forth in the Environmental Setting
discussion in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR concluded that the Project was consistent
with all General Plan policies with the exception of one (Urban Environment Element
Residential Activity Policy 11 ("Control the alteration of natural terrain"), for the reasons
set forth in the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable as to Urban
Environment Element Residential Activity Policy 11 because of the grading and the
construction over extreme slopes. However, in response to comments on the Draft EIR
and reconsideration of the issues related to general plan inconsistency, the Final EIR
concludes that the Project (and thus the Revised Project) would be consistent with
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-47
Residential Activity Policy 11 of the Urban Environment Element. Specifically, project
implementation is subject to review and approval of a Major Grading Permit, which, with
appropriate conditions of approval, would control the alteration of the natural terrain and
minimize grading. The proposed Athletic Building and Residence Halls (although not
approved as part of the Revised Project) are designed to be cut into the site in order to
maintain the general contours of the terrain and minimize the profile of the structures.
Further, with the exclusion of the Residence Halls, and the relocation of the Athletic
Building off of the extreme slope area, impacts would be reduced further.
Land Use Plan. The Project site is designated Institutional - Educational (I-E) in the
General Plan Land Use Policy Map. The Project does not propose to change the
current land use, but rather, proposes to expand the existing facilities. Therefore,
Marymount College would continue to operate as a private educational institution. The
Project would be consistent with the site's existing land use designation and a less than
significant impact would result in this regard.
The Land Use Plan notes the Project's "environmental impacts must be mitigated
through proper design." Mitigation and project revisions have been recommended in
this EIR and during the proceedings to avoid or lessen the Project's potential
environmental impacts.
In summary and as is evidenced by the analysis presented above, Project
implementation would be in compliance with the relevant policies of the Rancho Palos
Verdes General Plan. Further, the modifications contemplated in the Revised Project
do not alter this conclusion.
2. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code
The proposed project could conflict with the land use plan, policies or regulations of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes development code.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the Draft EIR. The proposed project modifications involve lack of approval of the
Residence Halls, and to relocate the overall building footprint of the Athletic Building
north by one-foot from the 906' elevation contour, resulting in no portion of the Athletic
Facility being sited within an existing extreme slope area.
Thus, these previously identified significant and unavoidable impacts associated with
construction over extreme slopes would no longer occur.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Project site is zoned Institutional (1) District. The consistency analysis of the
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-48
proposed Project with the relevant standards of the Development Code is provided in
Draft EIR Section 5.1. With completion of the necessary entitlement procedures
applicable to the Project and by complying with the specific development provisions set
forth in the City's Development Code, the Revised Project conforms to the Development
Code's requirements. Although the Draft EIR concluded that the Project would be
inconsistent with the Development Code because of construction over an extreme
slope, Revised Project does not contemplate any construction over an extreme slope.
As such, the Revised Project would not conflict with the provisions of the Development
Code.
Code Section 17.11.140 (Affordable Housing Requirements for Nonresidential
Project)
Because the proposed Project involves construction, expansion, or intensification of
nonresidential uses (i.e., Institutional) and includes an application for a CUP whereby
more than 10,000 SIF of space would be created, the Project would be subject to the
requirements of this Code section. Based on estimates of the number of new
employment opportunities for persons of low or moderate income created as a result of
the Project, the College would be required to construct up to three affordable housing
units. The Applicant has offered to construct up to ten affordable housing units; thus,
the Project would be in compliance with this Code Section. However, under the
Revised Project, the number of new employees is less than 10, and the affordable
housing provisions would not apply to the Revised Project.
Approval of the entitlements for the Revised Project, and compliance with the Mitigation
Measures and conditions of approve, demonstrates compliance with the relevant
provisions of the Development Code, and no land use impacts would result.
G. NOISE
The proposed Project has the potential to cause long-term stationary noise impacts.
1. Long-Term Stationary Noise Impacts
Project implementation would create both new noise sources and would
eliminate/relocate existing noise sources. The major noise sources associated with the
proposed Project that may impact nearby residences include the following: Mechanical
equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); Slow moving delivery/supply
trucks on the Project site, approaching and leaving the loading docks; Activities at the
loading docks (i.e., maneuvering and idling trucks, banging and clanging of equipment);
Parking lots (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up and car pass-by);
Landscape maintenance; Residence Halls (i.e., TV's, stereos, social gatherings and
shouting); Athletic field (i.e., practices, games and athletic tournaments); Tennis courts;
and Outdoor pool.
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-49
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures are imposed upon the Project to
mitigate impacts to less than significant levels:
NOI-2 Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall
submit a noise analysis that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and the City
Engineer, that site placement of stationary noise sources would not
exceed noise standards indicated in the State Land Use Noise
Compatibility Guidelines for adjacent residences (i.e., Community Noise
Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, DBA) for Residential — Low Density, Single-
Family would be 50 —60/Normally Acceptable, 55—70/Conditionally
Acceptable, 70 —75/Normally Unacceptable, and 75 —85/Clearly
Unacceptable).
NOI-3 Prior to issuance of any Building Permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate,
to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement, compliance with the following:
All mechanical equipment shall include specifications on quiet equipment;
All mechanical equipment shall be properly selected and installed
according to manufacturer's specifications, and shall include sound
attenuation packages;
To the extent possible, all mechanical equipment shall be oriented away
from the nearest noise sensitive receptors; and
All mechanical equipment shall be screened and enclosed to minimize
noise.
NOI-4 Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, a subsequent noise
analysis shall be prepared, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement and the City Engineer, which
demonstrates that all reasonable sound attenuation has been incorporated
into the northeasterly and easterly parking areas (i.e., landscaping and
brushed driving surfaces), such that noise from the parking areas has
been minimized.
NOI-5 Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Marymount College
Code of Conduct shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission at a duly noticed public hearing. The provisions of the Code
of Conduct shall outline measures for minimizing operational/stationary
source noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods that would also
minimize the need for police enforcement). The City or Applicant could
initiate revisions or modifications to the Code of Conduct, which shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-50
public hearing. The Code of Conduct shall, at a minimum, include
provisions for the parking lots, common open space area , and security
measures, in order to ensure stationary noise impacts are minimized, and
shall specify the following provisions, among others:
* "Quiet Hours" throughout the campus are designated between 10:00 PM
and 7:00 AM; and
* Limitations on noise from congregations during quiet hours.
City review and approval of the Code of Conduct shall be limited to
provisions related to potential Project impacts to adjacent neighbors (i.e.,
offsite) related to noise and police protection.
NOI-6 Use of the athletic field and tennis courts shall be prohibited between
sunset and sunrise, seven days per week, unless a Special Use Permit for
said use has been issued by the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement, pursuant to Code Chapter 17.62, Special Use Permits.
NOIJ The use of amplified sound shall be prohibited at the proposed athletic
field, tennis courts and swimming pool, and other outdoor gathering areas,
unless a Special Use Permit for said use has been issued by the Director
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, pursuant to Code Chapter
17.62, Special Use Permits.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Mechanical Eauliment
Mechanical equipment noise from various sources, including the proposed library, and
the proposed Athletic Building, are not anticipated to exceed the City's 65 dBA noise
standard and a less than significant impact is anticipated. The Revised Project
eliminated any potential mechanical equipment noise source from the proposed
Residence Halls. Although the mechanical equipment noise from the proposed Library
and the proposed Athletic Building is anticipated to be a less than significant impact, the
Project would be subject to the provisions of City Code Section 17.26.040.17, which
restricts the operation of mechanical equipment that emits noise levels in excess of 65
dBA (as measured from the closest property line to the equipment) to between the
hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Sunday. Noise levels from mechanical
equipment would be further minimized with the implementation of mitigation requiring
the orientation of the equipment away from any sensitive receptors, proper selection of
equipment and installation of equipment with proper acoustical shielding. With
implementation of the recommended mitigation NOI-2 and NOI-3 and compliance with
Code provisions, impacts from mechanical equipment would be further minimized and a
less than significant impact will be ensured.
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-51
Parking Lots
Noise associated with operation of the parking lots to be reconfigured and expanded as
part of the Project would be a less than significant impact as noise at the nearest
residences would not exceed the City's 65 dBA level. In particular, the Project plans a
reconfiguration of existing parking lots in a respective westerly and easterly direction. In
addition, parking would be removed from the top of the south-facing slope and a new
parking area would be provided in the area currently occupied by the tennis and
hardball courts, and athletic field. Proposed modifications to the Project from that
proposed in the EIR involve a reconfiguration of the east parking lot to relocate parking
spaces along the shared east property line and installation of a landscape buffer, which
would both lessen noise impacts in the area. Compliance with mitigation NOI-4
ensuring all sound attenuation from parking areas, and NOI-5 requiring review of the
Marymount College Code of Conduct, the less than significant noise impact associated
with the parking lots would be even further reduced.
Athletic Fields/Tennis Courts
The Project proposes to relocate the existing athletic field and tennis courts to the
western portion of the Project site. Recent modifications to the Project would
reconfigure the tennis courts in a north-south orientation. These recent modifications do
not change the impact analysis contained in these findings or in the Draft EIR.
Noise associated with activities on the athletic field are not anticipated to exceed the
City's 65 dBA standard as the nearest residences are 80 feet away from the proposed
athletic field, and noise levels at the property line of the closest residences is estimated
to be 54 dBA. Comments were raised during circulation of the Draft EIR, and a master
response regarding noise was provided, based on the technical studies contained in the
Draft EIR. The City has taken into consideration the short term and maximum noise
levels that might occur, but concludes that with mitigation, the CNEL standards relied
upon are not exceeded.
The distance between the proposed relocation of the tennis court and the property lines
of residences is 110 feet, and noise is estimated to be 50.9 dBA, as more fully detailed
in the EIR. Therefore, the 65 dBA CNEL standard would not be exceeded and a less
than significant impact is anticipated.
To further lessen the already anticipated less than significant impact, compliance with
mitigation measure NOI-6 and NOi-7 requiring particular usage times and prohibition of
sound amplification equipment at the athletic fields and tennis courts, will ensure a less
than significant impact.
Outdoor Pool Activity Noise
The proposed pool facilities would be located approximately 250 feet from the nearest
sensitive receptors (residential uses across Palos Verdes Drive East). Based on the
standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, pool activity noise would be
R6876-10781113771 M.doc A-52
less than 57 dBA Leq. Although pool activity may result in peak noise instances of 87.5
dBA Lmax at 35 feet, the continuous noise level is not anticipated exceed the City's 65
dBA CNEL noise standard. Noise from pool activities would be primarily attenuated due
to the proposed retaining wall and grade differential between the pool and adjacent
structures (i.e., pool elevation is approximately 898 feet and proposed Maintenance and
Athletic buildings are approximately 912 feet). Noise from pool activities would be
further attenuated by distance and intervening structures and vegetation that would
block the line of sight of the pool from the adjacent residential uses. Additionally,
roadway noise along Palos Verdes Drive East would mask peak noise levels. As a
result, the continuous noise level is not anticipated to exceed the City's or EPA noise
standards. Thus, a less than significant impact is anticipated. A less than significant
impact will be ensured by the imposition of NOIJ, which requires that the use of
amplification equipment at the outdoor pool be prohibited unless a Special Use Permit
has been issued.
K PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
1. Police Protection
The Draft EIR articulated a potential increase in calls for service for police protection
with Project implementation, especially in regard to the Residence Halls. The Revised
Project eliminated the proposed Residence Halls, and as a result will not cause any
increase in impacts beyond those articulated in the Draft EIR.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure is imposed upon the Project to
mitigate the potentially significant impact to less than significant levels:
PSU-1 Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, a private security
program, reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department at a duly noticed public hearing,
shall be implemented at the campus enforcing the Project's Conditions of
Approval and the Marymount College Code of Conduct; refer to Mitigation
Measure NOI-5. The private security program shall, at a minimum, consist
of a security patrol officer and a staffed security/info kiosk (during the
Campus' operational hours).
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LACSD) advises that there could be an
increase in calls for service as a result of Project implementation, including from the
proposed Residence Halls (i.e., students living on campus resulting in 24-hour
operation). An increase in calls for service would place a greater demand on police
protection services. Although Project implementation could result in an increase in calls
86876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-53
for service to the Project site, it would not generate the number of calls that warrants the
construction of new police protection facilities, nor would it result in the need for
alteration of existing facilities. Further, the Revised Project would not include the
proposed Residence Halls. Thus, the potentially significant impact is even less so with
project modifications. Nevertheless, recommended mitigation PSU-1 would require
implementation of a private security program at the campus, as well as the City's
review/approval of the Marymount College Code of Conduct. Following implementation
of the recommended mitigation, the Revised Project would result in a less than
significant impact with respect to police protection services.
2. Solid Waste
The Draft EIR has identified potentially significant solid waste impacts due to the
demolition and construction of the proposed Project, and due to long-term operations of
the Project.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Specifically, the following mitigation measures are imposed upon the Project to mitigate
the potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels:
PSIS-2Prior to issuance of any Building or Grading Permit, an approved
Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan shall be
prepared and submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and
approval. Said Plan shall include:
* All demolition (buildings and hardscape), new construction and
alterations/additions.
* How the Applicant proposes to divert 85 percent of the existing
parking/paving, concrete walkways and other concrete or asphalt
pavement away from land disposal.
* Identify where recycled material generated by the demolition of the
existing buildings and parking areas will be stockpiled on-site and
disposed.
* Identify measures to reuse or recycle 50 percent of the demolition and
construction materials, including, but not limited to wood, metal and
cardboard, to meet the City's diversion goal requirements, as established
by AB 939.
PSU-3Upon completion of demolition and construction, and prior to issuance of
any Certificate of Occupancy, a Construction and Demolition Materials
Disposition Summary shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works.
The Summary shall indicate actual recycling activities and compliance with
the diversion requirement, based on weight tickets or other sufficient
documentation.
R6876-107811 13771 M.doc A-54
PSU-4Where possible, the site design shall incorporate for solid waste
minimization, the use of recycled building materials and the re-use of on-
site demolition debris.
PSU-5The proposed Project shall incorporate storage and collection of
recyclables into the Project design, and refuse collection contracts shall
include provisions for collection of recyclables. Recycling shall be included
in the design of the Project by reserving space appropriate for the support
of recycling, such as adequate storage areas and access for recycling
vehicles.
PSU-6Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall, to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, implement a
comprehensive Recycling Program on an on-going basis, including but not
limited to the following measures:
* Grasscycle, use as mulch, or compost all greenwaste generated from the
athletic field and landscape areas.
* Recycle all bottles, aluminum cans, glass and foodwaste.
* The existing paper recycling program shall be expanded to include the
proposed improvements, including but not limited to the Library and
Administration Building.
* Reports detailing the progress of the recycling for each academic year
(including summer) shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of
Public Works at the end of the academic year. Said report shall include
the volume of tonnage that has been diverted to solid waste disposal,
recycling, composting and grasscycling.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Site preparation (demolition of existing buildings and parking areas, vegetation removal
and grading activities) and construction activities, would generate typical construction
debris including wood, paper, glass, plastic, metals, cardboard and green wastes. The
construction wastes would result in an incremental and intermittent increase in solid
waste disposal at landfills and other waste disposal facilities within Los Angeles County.
Implementation of the recommended mitigation PSU-2 through PSU-4 requiring
preparation of a Construction Demolition Materials Management Plan, which addresses
.the recycling of building materials resulting from demolition and construction of the
Project, would reduce construction-related solid waste impacts to a less than significant
level.
The long-term operations associated with the proposed improvements would increase
the volume of solid waste generated by the College. The increase in solid waste
generation would increase the demand to provide disposal service and would impact
the capacities at the Puente Hills Landfill and additional landfill facilities. Further, the
increased solid waste generation would incrementally shorten the lifespan of the Puente
Hills Landfill. The volume of the Project's solid waste, which would be ultimately
R6876-1078\1 13771M.doc A-55
disposed of at the Puente Hills Landfill, would be minimized through compliance with
the requirements of AB 939 and AB 399. The Project would also be subject to
compliance with the provisions of Code Chapter 17.58, Recycle, which would facilitate
the diversion of solid waste and recyclable materials from landfills. To further lessen
potential impacts in this regard, mitigation measures PSU-5 and PSU-6 have been
adopted.
1. TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION
The EIR analyzed the traffic related impacts of the Project and the Revised Project,
concluding that all impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels with the
exception of a cumulative impact at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and
Palos Verdes Drive South, which is discussed more fully in Section VII below.
1. Construction Traffic
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the Draft EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure imposed upon the Project
mitigates impacts to less than significant levels:
TR-1 Prior to issuance of any Demolition or Grading Permit, the Director of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall review and approve the
Construction Management Plan, which shall specify the following, at a
minimum:
Demolition debris hauling and materials delivery shall be scheduled, as
indicated below, to avoid the peak hour traffic period and minimize
obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site. If necessary, a flag
person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways:
Weekdays: Hauling and deliveries shall be scheduled between
9:00 AM and 4:00 PM, with consideration given to reduce deliveries
during the 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM lunch period.
Saturdays: Hauling and deliveries, if any, shall not occur during the
peak hour period of 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM.
There shall be no idling or staging of equipment or accumulation of
vehicles on Rancho Palos Verdes City streets. Staging of trucks for-the
hauling of all demolition debris shall be limited to the College campus.
R6876-10781113771 M.doc A-56
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Project or Revised Project would be constructed in three phases over an eight-year
period. The Grading Plan proposes a balanced cut and fill on the Project site; thus, no
import/export of material would be required, excluding select fill (building material,
gravel, sand, and rock). The proposed demolition, grading, and construction activities
would, however, generate traffic from construction workers (approximately 100) and
truck haul trips.
During each construction period, demolition debris hauling and materials delivery would
be scheduled for the least inconvenient time period to the public, avoiding the peak
traffic period. Truck traffic would be directed to minimize congestion within the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes and would require approval by the City. Mitigation is recommend,
which requires preparation of Construction Management Plan that specifies the
provisions for debris hauling and deliveries, among other things.
As previously noted, demolition, grading, and construction activities would generate
traffic from worker vehicles and truck haul trips. However, the resultant traffic impacts
are not expected to be significant, based on the following:
* Construction workers are estimated to generate approximately 200 average daily
trips (two trips per worker), which would not constitute a substantial percentage
of current daily volumes in the area or significantly impact the levels of service at
area intersections.
* The proposed construction would be phased over eight years; for certain phases
of construction, there would be fewer workers onsite.
* For certain phases of construction, construction would occur during the summer
when school is not in session or during breaks in the academic calendar,
thereby, reducing construction worker related trips.
* Construction workers may be instructed to park at the PV North Facility and take
the shuttle to the campus, thereby, reducing construction worker related trips.
As such, given implementation of an approved Construction Management Plan that
prescribes haul routes and times of operation that avoid peak-hour traffic, traffic impacts
during construction activities would be less than significant.
2. Project Level Traffic Impacts compared to Existing Conditions
Project traffic could cause a significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic
capacity of the street system and could exceed an established standard.
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-57
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the Draft EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project
mitigate impacts to less than significant levels:
TR-2 Prior to issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase 11
buildings (i.e., Library, Maintenance, or Athletic Facility), the Applicant
shall implement the following improvement and may be eligible in the
future for partial reimbursement from future projects that result in impacts
on this intersection:
Palos Verdes Drive East/Miraleste Drive — Signalize the intersection. The
intersection traffic signal shall be designed to include a westbound right-
turn overlap, which would preclude u-turn movement from southbound to
northbound Palos Verdes Drive East.
TR-3 Prior to issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase H
buildings (i.e., Library, Maintenance, or Athletic Facility), the Applicant
shall implement the following improvement, at the City's direction, and
may be eligible for reimbursement from future projects that result in
impacts on this intersection:
Western Avenue (SR-213)/Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive — Re-stripe the
eastbound Trudie Drive approach from one shared left-turn/through
lane and one de-facto right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and
one shared through/right-turn lane. The Project Applicant shall
coordinate with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, City of Los Angeles,
and Caltrans regarding implementation of this mitigation.
TR-4 For purposes of this analysis, the traffic impacts and corresponding
mitigation measures assume the Marymount College student enrollment at
a maximum of 793 weekday students (based on the formula allowing 750
full-time students, 20 part-time students, and a marginal difference of 3.0
percent), and 150 weekend students. Therefore, prior to issuance of any
Certificate of Occupancy, student enrollment shall be limited to a
maximum of 793 weekday students and 150 weekend students, including
full- and part-time students. An Annual Student Enrollment Report shall
be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
for review and approval within 2 weeks of the end of the spring semester.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The forecast Project trip generation in the Draft EIR considers the following:
R6876-107811 13771 M.doc A-58
* Construction of an additional 77,504 square feet of campus facilities
consisting of:
- 14,916 square feet of additions to existing buildings;
- 26,710 square foot library;
- 1,975 square foot maintenance building;
- 33,243 square foot athletic facility; and
- 660 square foot gallery connecting Residence Halls.
* Demolition of 18,022 square feet of campus facilities; and
* Construction of 128 dormitory rooms (58,504 square feet) occupied by a
maximum of 250 full-time weekday enrolled students (including 10
residential student advisers) plus five faculty supervisors (Residence
Assistants) for a total of 255 occupants; and
* Campus addition of 12 new security, custodial, and maintenance staff.
ITE Trip Generation published trip generation rates were used for the proposed uses to
determine forecast trip generation of the Project. The trip rates are presented as "daily
trip rate" and "peak hour rate." The daily trip rates consider the total number of trips
generated by a land use during a 24-hour period and are identified for both the typical
weekday and typical Saturday. Therefore, the trip rates take into account trips off
campus. The peak hour trip rates consider the total number of trips generated by a land
use during a peak 1-hour, which is considered the worst-case scenario for the
surrounding circulation system. Hence, trips during non-peak hours, such as those
anticipated from the Residence Hall occupants, would result in fewer impacts than
during peak hours. Use of the ITE trip rates is an industry-accepted standard and
methodology. It is noted, while the analysis does not independently study the impacts
of the Residence Halls' nighttime and off-school hours, the impact analysis is more
conservative in that it presents the worst-case scenario based on peak hour analyses.
The traffic analysis is prepared at study intersections based on peak hour trips
generated during times when the system is peaking rather than late at night or off-
school hours.
ITE describes the Junior/Community College land use as including two-year junior,
,community, or technical colleges (four-year colleges or universities are described
separately by ITE as the University/College land use). ITE trip rates are based on
surveys of representative facilities throughout the United States. The ITE
Junior/Community College category is assumed to include buildings serving
administration and instruction, as well as ancillary uses such as library, cafeteria,
athletic facilities, etc., but not on-campus dormitories. ITE trip rates for the
Junior/Community College category is assumed to account for trips associated with
students, faculty, and support staff.
86876-107811 13771 M.doc A-59
As indicated in Final EIR Appendix A, the Revised is forecast to generate approximately
1,636 weekday daily trips, which includes approximately 177 weekday a.m. peak hour
trips, approximately 183 weekday mid-day peak hour trips, approximately 157 weekday
afternoon trips, and approximately 152 weekday p.m. peak hour trips.
Although ITE also publishes Junior/Community College trip generation rates based on
enrolled students; therefore, if ITE trip generation rates based on enrolled students were
used, the junior college component of the proposed project would generate no new
weekday trips because enrollment is not proposed to change. The Planning
Commission finds that use of enrollment based generation rates would not be
appropriate because it is unreasonable to expect that the proposed campus
development would not increase student activity and traffic related thereto. For this
reason, use of the enrollment generation rates is rejected.
The Revised Project is forecast to generate approximately 696 additional Saturday daily
trips, which include approximately 87 additional Saturday mid-day peak hour trips.
The trip distribution utilized in this analysis is consistent with that identified in the
October 2007 Draft EIR and is assumed to remain unchanged with the Revised Project.
Based on City established thresholds of significance, the addition of Project-generated
trips is forecast to result in a significant impact at the following study intersections for
existing plus Project weekday conditions:
* Palos Verdes Drive East/Miraleste Drive (AM and PM peak hours); and
* Western Avenue (SR-213)/Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive (AM peak hour
only).
Similar impacts would result from the Revised Project.
Based on City of Los Angeles established thresholds of significance, the addition of
Project-generated trips is forecast to result in a significant impact at the following study
intersection for existing plus Project weekday conditions:
o Western Avenue (SR-213)[Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive (AM peak hour
only).
Similar impacts would result from the Revised Project.
Existing Plus Project Without Residence Halls Weekday Mid-day and
Afternoon Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes established thresholds of significance, the
addition of Revised Project-generated trips is forecast to result in a significant impact at
86876-1078\1 13771 Ov&doc A-60
the following study intersection for weekday conditions:
Palos Verdes Drive East/Miraleste Drive (mid-day and afternoon peak
hours).
Existing Plus Project Without Residence Halls Saturday Mid-day Peak Hour
Intersection LOS
Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes established thresholds of significance, the
addition of project-generated trips is forecast to result a significant impact at the
following study intersection for Revised Project Saturday conditions:
0 Palos Verdes Drive East/Miraleste Drive (mid-day peak hour).
As shown in the Final EIR, no significant impacts are forecast to occur at City of Rancho
Palos Verdes study intersections assuming full implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures for either the Project or the Revised Project weekday conditions
a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
As shown in the Final EIR, no significant impacts are forecast to occur at City of Los
Angeles study intersections assuming full implementation of the recommended
mitigation measure for the Project or Revised Project weekday conditions a.m. and p.m.
peak hours.
As shown in the Final EIR, no significant impacts are forecast to occur at City of Rancho
Palos Verdes study intersections assuming full implementation of the recommended
mitigation measure for the Project or Revised Project weekday conditions mid-day and
afternoon peak hour.
As shown in the Final EIR, no significant impacts are forecast to occur at City of Rancho
Palos Verdes study intersections assuming full implementation of the recommended
mitigation measure for the Project or Revised Project during Saturday mid-day peak
hour conditions.
Signal Warrant Analysis
A MUTCD signal warrant analysis was prepared to determine if signalization is
warranted at the four unsignalized study intersections for weekday and Saturday
conditions for the following the signal warrants:
Minimum Vehicular Traffic Warrant;
Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant; and
Combinations Warrant.
R6876-10781113771 M.doc A-61
Traffic signal warrants are satisfied at the following study intersection for existing plus
Project conditions:
SR Palos Verdes Drive East/Miraleste Drive (weekday conditions only).
3. State Highway Analysis
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the Draft EIR. Specifically, mitigation measure TR-3, as set forth above, imposed upon
the Project mitigates impacts to less than significant levels.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
As indicated in the Final EIR, with the addition of project-generated trips, the Western
Avenue (SR-21 3)/1 st Street intersection is forecast to continue to operate at a deficient
LOS (LOS D or worse) according to Caltrans performance criteria with the addition of
the traffic from the Revised Project during the various studied periods.
As indicated in the Final EIR, with the addition of project-generated trips, the following
study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS (LOS D or worse)
according to Caltrans performance criteria for forecast year 2012 with the Revised
Project in weekday conditions:
* Western Avenue (SR-213)/Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive (both a.m. and
p.m. peak hour); and
* Western Avenue (SR-213)/1st Street (both a.m. and p.m. peak hour).
As also indicated in the Final EIR, the addition of project-generated trips is forecast to
result in a significant impact at the Western Avenue (SR-213)[Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive
intersection for forecast year 2012 with project without residence halls weekday
conditions.
However, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures set forth above, each of
these impacts is reduced to a less than significant level.
4. Parking
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant related environmental effect as identified in
the Draft EIR. Specifically, exclusion of the Residence Halls from the Project with no
reduction in the amount of parking proposed results in a surplus of parking and thus no
R6876-1078\1 13771M.doc A-62
significant impacts will result.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Parking operations associated with the project modifications are analyzed to determine
if impacts are greater, the same, or less than those identified in the Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project Traffic & Parking Impact Analysis (September 28, 2007).
The analysis includes review of parking capacity required based on City of Palos
Verdes Parking Code, as well as based on observed college-related parking counts,
including forecast demand associated with the proposed junior college project without
residence halls component. The existing on-site parking requirements have been
revised to reflect the updated number of student seats, as further verified by the
College.
Existing On-Site Parking Required According to City Code
The parking capacity required according to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking code
(RPVMC Section 17.50.020) to accommodate current on-site land uses based on the
following existing conditions:
* Maximum student enrollment of 793 students;
* 215 employees and faculty members; and
* 648 student seats provided on campus.
According to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code, 635 parking spaces are
currently required to accommodate the existing Marymount College parking demand.
Because the College currently provides 343 parking spaces, a 292 parking space
deficiency currently exists based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code. While
parking spaces required by City code indicated a potential deficiency of 292 parking
spaces, only 49 college-related vehicles were observed to park on the street during the
weekday peak parking demand between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. when 54 parking
spaces were unoccupied on-campus.
According to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code 640 parking spaces would
be required to accommodate the entire Marymount College parking demand assuming
completion of the proposed project.
Since the entire Marymount College, assuming completion of the proposed Project, is
planned to provide 463 parking spaces, a 177 parking space deficiency is forecast to
occur based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code.
Parking deficiencies are forecast to occur for existing and future conditions based on
calculations using City code rather than observed parking counts, therefore an alternate
parking analysis was prepared to more accurately portray future parking conditions
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-63
assuming completion of the proposed Project.
The EIR summarizes the Marymount College-related weekday and Saturday peak hour
parking ratio for existing conditions, based on observed parking demand during the Fall
2005 semester when weekday student enrollment was 658 students and weekend
student enrollment was 80 students.
As indicated in the EIR, the existing peak parking ratio at Marymount College is 0.57
parked vehicles/student during weekday conditions and 0.12 parked vehicles/student
during Saturday conditions. The parking ratio assumes all on-street parking associated
with Marymount College is included, and therefore, forecast demand using these ratios
assumes all Marymount College-related on-street parking activity is relocated on-
campus.
Forecast parking demand for weekday and Saturday conditions has been prepared
utilizing the following assumptions:
* Maximum weekday student enrollment is 793 students (based on the
formula allowing 750 full-time students, 20 part-time students, and a
marginal difference of 3.0 percent);
* Maximum weekend student enrollment is 150 students (based on modified
Project description and mitigation measure);
Students would park at the campus based on the observed vehicle to
student peak parking ratios;
Calculations of parking spaces required assumes no Marymount College-
related parking on adjacent streets, i.e., all on-street parking demand is
relocated to on-campus parking areas;
Parking spaces required for new student seats is based on City of Rancho
Palos Verdes Parking Code for colleges and universities;
* Addition of 7 new security, custodial, and maintenance staff; and
* The cumulative projects identified within the traffic analysis section are not
-forecast to increase parking demand at the parking study area.
As indicated in Appendix A, since the proposed Project is planned to add 120 parking
spaces to the existing 343 parking spaces, a six parking space surplus is forecast to
occur during the weekday peak hour based on the observed weekday parking ratio and
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code.
Appendix A summarizes the forecast parking capacity required for existing plus Revised
Project Saturday peak hour conditions assuming a maximum weekend enrollment of
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-64
150 students, based on the observed Saturday parking ratio and City of Rancho Palos
Verdes Parking Code. Since weekday enrolled students utilize the campus during
weekend conditions, the 793 maximum enrolled weekday students are included in the
Saturday parking demand forecast.
As indicated in Table 35, since the proposed project is planned to add 120 parking
spaces to the existing 343 parking spaces, a 345 parking space surplus is forecast to
occur during the Saturday peak hour based on the observed Saturday parking ratio and
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code.
In conclusion, the EIR concluded that the Project would result in a significant impact that
could be mitigated with the implementation of certain mitigation measures. However, a
parking space surplus is forecast to occur under the Revised Project scenario.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are required to address parking conditions
associated with the Revised Project, and mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR
as TR-5, TR-6, and TR-7, are no longer necessary. Project revisions reduce potential
parking impacts to less than significant levels.
5. Traffic Hazards
Project implementation could increase traffic hazards due to a design feature, in that the
proximity of the athletic field to Palos Verdes Drive East could result in errant balls
creating hazards for vehicles.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the Project's potential traffic hazard impacts, as identified
in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure imposed upon the Project
mitigates the cumulative impacts to less than significant levels:
TR-7 Prior to issuance of any Grading Plan, the Project Plans shall be revised to
include a combination of wrought iron fencing along the westerly edge of
the athletic field at approximately 6.0 feet in height and 80 percent open to
light and air, and temporary netting along the northwestern and
southwestern corners of the athletic field at approximately 20.0 feet in
height, so that errant balls are sufficiently contained, to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, The use of a
landscape screen around the perimeter of the athletic field shall be limited
to a maximum height of 42 inches.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The existing athletic field is proposed to be relocated to the western portion of the
Project site, refer to Exhibit 3-5, Proposed Site Plan. Although the playing surface of
the athletic field would be depressed (2:1 slope bank) and a grade differential of
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-65
approximately ten feet would exist between the field's northern boundary and Palos
Verdes Drive East, due to the field's proximity to the roadway, a major arterial in the
City, the potential exists for errant balls to enter the roadway and create a hazard for
motorists. Therefore, Project implementation could increase traffic hazards along
portions of Palos Verdes Drive East resulting in a potentially significant impact unless
mitigated. In order to reduce this potential traffic hazard to less than significant,
mitigation is recommended which requires installation of a combination of fencing
(approximately 6.0 feet in height and 80 percent open to light and air) and temporary
retractable netting (approximately 20 feet in height during game activities involving field
balls, i.e., footballs, soccer ball, etc.) along the northwest corner, westerly edge, and
southwest corner of the athletic field. The temporary retractable netting along the
southern portion of the athletic field would be 20-feet in height. With implementation of
the recommended mitigation, potential traffic hazards associated with errant soccer
bails entering the Palos Verdes Drive East would be reduced to less than significant.
6. Cumulative Traffic Impacts
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the Project's contribution to cumulative traffic impacts as
identified in the Draft EIR. Specifically, mitigation measures TR-2, TR-3, TR-4 and TR-5
imposed upon the Project mitigate the cumulative impacts to less than significant levels
in all aspects except for the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes
Drive South, as discussed in Article VII below.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Full implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce the
significant cumulative impacts to a level considered less than significant at the following
intersections for forecast year 2012 for both the Project and the Revised Project :
Palos Verdes Drive East/Miraleste Drive;
Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South; and
Western Avenue (SR-213)/Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive.
Although one significant cumulative traffic impact remains, as discussed below, the
remainder of the Project or Revised Project cumulative impacts are mitigated to less
than significant levels.
V11. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable
After Mitiqation
In the environmental areas of construction related noise and cumulative traffic impact to
the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South, there are
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-66
instances where environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after
mitigation. These areas are discussed below.
A. NOISE
1. Construction Noise
Short-term construction related noise impacts are anticipated during the three phases of
construction, as more fully detailed in the EIR.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure is imposed upon the Project to
mitigate the potentially significant impacts :
N01-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Applicant shall provide, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, a
Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Such plan shall ensure that the
proposed Project provides the following:
* Construction contracts shall specify that all construction equipment, fixed
or mobile, shall be equipped with mufflers maintained according to
manufacturer's specifications and other state required noise attenuation
devices.
* Property owners and occupants located within 0.25-mile of the Project
construction site shall be sent a notice, at least 15 days prior to
commencement of construction of each phase, regarding the construction
schedule of the proposed Project. A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet,
shall also be posted at the Project construction site. All notices and signs
shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement, prior to mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates
and duration of construction activities, as well as provide the contact name
and a telephone number of the Noise Disturbance Coordinator where
residents can inquire about the construction process and register
complaints.
The Applicant shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement, a qualified "Noise Disturbance
Coordinator" who shall be responsible for receiving, registering, and
responding to any complaints about construction noise. When a complaint
is received, the Coordinator shall notify the City within 24-hours of the
complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting
too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-67
resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement. All notices that are sent to residential
units within 0.25-mile of the construction site and all signs posted at the
construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number
for the Disturbance Coordinator.
* Prior to issuance of each Grading or Building Permit, the Applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official how
construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling
equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary
construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction
equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and electric air
compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall
be used where feasible.
* During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed
such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any additional
mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR, however, changes or
alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which substantially
lessen the significant impacts identified in the EIR.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Construction noise, which would occur during the proposed three phases of
construction, would occur periodically throughout the duration of construction, although
it would be most noticeable during the periods of demolition and site-intensive grading
(over three months during Phase 1). Also, noise sensitive receptors in proximity to the
construction site would experience excessive noise levels intermittently during
construction activities from Phase I through Phase 111. Construction activities would be
restricted pursuant to Code requirements and would cease upon completion of the
construction. To further lessen construction-related noise impacts, a Noise Mitigation
and Monitoring Program (NMMP) would be prepared that would require the
muffling/placement of construction equipment and would place the stockpiling/staging
areas for construction vehicles away from sensitive receptors. Additionally, the NMMP
would require the provision for a Noise Disturbance Coordinator whose responsibility
would be to respond to any local complaints about construction noise, as well as
provide noticing to all owners and occupants within a 0.25-mile radius of the Project site
regarding construction the construction schedule. Furthermore, construction activities
are prohibited from taking place between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday
through Saturday, and Sundays or Federal Holidays. However, due to the construction
related noise impacts identified above, short-term construction impacts would be
significant and unavoidable and remain so, despite compliance with recommended
mitigation NOI-1 and applicable Code requirements.
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-68
No additional feasible mitigation besides N01-1 is available to reduce the short-term
construction impact to a less than significant level, however adoption of the Revised
Project would result in an incremental reduction in the amount of construction noise
because construction of the proposed Residence Halls would not occur.
The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of these findings.
B. Cumulative Traffic Impact — Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes
Drive South.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure is imposed upon the Project or
Revised Project to mitigate the potentially significant cumulative traffic impact at Palos
Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South:
TR-6 Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall
make a proportionate share contribution (13.219% based on AM peak
hour cumulative impacts) to implement the following, in addition to
improvements specified in Mitigation Measures TR-2 and TR-3:
Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South — Modify the
intersection to provide a two-stage gap acceptance design for southbound
left-turning vehicles. A raised median refuge area shall be constructed for
vehicles to turn left from Palos Verdes Drive East to cross westbound
Palos Verdes Drive South while waiting for a gap in eastbound traffic to
complete the turn to eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South. Additionally,
the existing raised median shall be narrowed to provide an acceleration
lane along Palos Verdes Drive South to accommodate vehicles
accelerating to join eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South traffic flow.
Modifications to the Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South
intersection shall be designed taking into account truck turning radius
requirements and shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Since the Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South intersection
is impacted by the proposed Project for "Cumulative with proposed Project
conditions," a proportionate share contribution by the Project Applicant is
applicable.
Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any additional
mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR, however, changes or
alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project and Revised Project
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-69
which substantially lessen the significant impacts identified in the EIR.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
As indicated in the EIR, with the exception of cumulative traffic impacts (forecast year
2012 plus Project weekday and Saturday conditions), cumulative impacts would be less
than significant. Since proposed project modifications would not result in new or
significant changes to project impacts, new or significant changes to cumulative impacts
beyond those identified in the EIR would not occur. The significant and unavoidable
cumulative traffic impact from the Project at the Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes
Drive South intersection would remain unchanged for the Revised Project. All other
cumulative impacts would remain less than significant with the implementation of
recommended mitigation measures.
Feasible mitigation, consisting of a proportionate share contribution to the Palos Verdes
Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South intersection improvements has been required.
However, payment of the fee likely will not enable the completion of the intersection
improvements before the Project or Revised Project construction would be complete.
Legal limitations on exactions limit the City's ability to require more than a fair share
payment for this Project's contribution to the need for the improvement. While payment
of the College's fair share will address the Project's incremental impact, it would not
result in actual intersection improvements in the short term. Therefore, the significant
impact at the Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South intersection would not
be reduced to a level considered less than significant. A significant and unavoidable
traffic impact would remain at the Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South
intersection for forecast year 2012 with project without residence halls weekday
conditions.
Specific economic and legal considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation
measures or alternatives that would fully mitigate the cumulative impact at this
intersection, although the fair share payment offsets this Project's portion of the
cumulative impact.
Vill. Project Alternatives.
.In defining Project alternatives that would be analyzed in the EIR, several alternatives
were considered. The CEQA Guidelines stipulate that alternatives addressed in an EIR
should be feasible and should not be considered remote or speculative.
As discussed below, the Draft EIR fully analyzed four alternatives. During the course of
the Planning Commission's deliberations on the EIR and the Project, the Commission
considered the various alternatives.
The City received various comments on the Draft EIR that suggested a "Sale of College
Property" alternative, which envisioned that the College sell it's property in Rancho
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-70
Palos Verdes and relocate the entire campus to another unidentified location. Because
this suggested alternative does not meet the basic Project objectives, and is not
something that the City could require of the College, this alternative was rejected as
infeasible and was not studied further.
A. ALTERNATIVE 1: NO DEVELOPMENT!NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
1. Summary of Alternative
The No Development/No Project Alternative would retain the Marymount College
campus in its current condition. None of the improvements proposed, as part of the
Project would occur. The campus would not be renovated and the existing buildings
would not be modern ized/expanded. Further, the new Library, Maintenance, Athletic
Building, and Residences Halls would not be constructed, and the recreational and
parking facilities would not be relocated/reconfigured.
Implementation of Alternative 1 would avoid both of the significant and unmitigable
impacts because no construction activity would occur, and no change in the existing
traffic patterns would result.
2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
The following objectives of the Project would not be met by this Alternative:
* To create an enhanced living and learning environment for the College's students
to enable the College to fulfill its religious and educational mission.
* To ensure that the College maintains its reputation as a distinguished institution
of higher education by providing the type and quality of academic, residential and
recreational facilities available at other liberal arts colleges.
* To provide on-campus housing for freshmen so they may take advantage of the
full complement of academic, cultural, recreational and spiritual facilities and
services offered on campus.
To relocate housing to the campus in order to reduce traffic generation and
impacts on local roads.
To relocate parking facilities to improve the design of the campus and increase
the number of parking spaces to reduce the need for off-site parking.
To relocate outdoor athletic facilities away from nearby residences.
To provide enhanced facilities for community activities.
R6876-10781113771 M.doc A-71
e To allow for the future development of a community preschool.
3. Conclusion Regardinq Alternative 1.
Although this Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project and the Revised
Project, the Planning Commission hereby finds that failure to meet the Project
objectives set forth above is grounds for rejecting Alternative 1 as socially infeasible
which justifies rejection of Alternative 1. Further, the benefits of the Revised Project,
as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, warrant rejection of this
Alternative.
B. ALTERNATIVE 2 — Reduced Density Alternative
1. Summary of Alternative
The Reduced Density Alternative involves the development of the Project's proposed
improvements, however, at a reduced density as outlined in the Draft EIR. This
Alternative would involve 18,022 square feet (SF) of building demolition and 14,916
square feet of building additions, similar to the proposed Project. Five new buildings
would be constructed providing a total of 98,214 SF of floor area. Overall, this
Alternative would involve the construction of 113,130 SF of new floor area, resulting in a
total of 187,376 SF of floor area (existing and proposed). Comparatively, the net
change in floor area resulting from this Alternative would be 19 percent less than the net
change in floor area resulting from the proposed Project.
With this Alternative, the existing buildings would be modern ized/expanded as proposed
by the Project. One Residence Hall building would be developed, resulting in a total of
76 dormitory units (housing 149 students and one supervisor), in place of the proposed
two Residence Halls. The Residence Hall would be designed as an "L-shaped"
structure that would be setback further north of its currently proposed location and not
on an extreme slope (grade of 35 percent or greater). Additionally, with this Alternative,
a Library Building, Maintenance Building, and Athletic Facility would be developed, as
with the currently proposed Project. The remainder of the campus grounds would be
renovated with new landscaping, fountains, and hardscape walkways. The parking
facilities would be relocated/reconfigured resulting in 463 parking spaces. As with the
proposed Project, the athletic field and tennis courts would be relocated from the
eastern portion of the College campus to the western portion. This Alternative involves
a construction schedule where all of the proposed improvements are built concurrently
(assumed two years), rather than in three phases over eight years, as proposed by the
Project.
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed
Project in most environmental impact areas analyzed, because it would involve
improvements and a development footprint generally consistent with that of the
proposed Project (excluding the south-facing slope). This Alternative would involve
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-72
similar, although slightly reduced impacts, because it proposes 19 percent less floor
area and 52 fewer dormitory units and a shortened construction period. The following
discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the Reduced
Density Alternative, as compared to impacts from the proposed Project.
2. Reasons for Rejectinq Alternative
The following objectives of the Project would be met by this Alternative:
* To create an enhanced living and learning environment for the College's
students to enable the College to fulfill its religious and educational mission.
* To ensure that the College maintains its reputation as a distinguished
institution of higher education by providing the type and quality of academic,
residential and recreational facilities available at other liberal arts colleges.
* To relocate parking facilities to improve the design of the campus and
increase the number of parking spaces to reduce the need for off-site parking.
* To relocate outdoor athletic facilities away from nearby residences.
* To provide enhanced facilities for community activities.
* To allow for the future development of a community preschool.
The following objectives would be only partially met by this Alternative:
* To provide on-campus housing for freshmen so they may take advantage of
the full complement of academic, cultural, recreational and spiritual facilities
and services offered on campus.
* To relocate housing to the campus in order to reduce traffic generation and
impacts on local roads.
This Alternative generally would fulfill the proposed Project's objectives, although to a
lesser degree than the proposed Project, because only one of the two Residence Halls
would be constructed, resulting in a 40 percent reduction in dormitory units.
3. Conclusion Regarding Alternative 2.
Implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the two significant and
unavoidable impacts. The unmitigable construction noise would be reduced due to the
reduced amount of construction. Similarly, the reduced density of the project would
result in a proportional decrease in the level of cumulative traffic impacts at Palos
Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South, however, the impacts would not be
fully mitigated under this Alternative.
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-73
The Planning Commission hereby finds that failure to fully meet the Project
objectives set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 2
as socially infeasible and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify
rejection of Alternative 2. The Planning Commission also finds that Alternative 2 is
not environmentally beneficial because its impacts are similar to the unmitigable
impacts associated with the Revised Project. Further, because a majority of the
Planning Commission could not make the necessary findings for inclusion of the
Residence Halls in the Project, this alternative cannot be found feasible from a social
perspective.
C. ALTERNATIVE 3 — Living Campus / Academic Campus Alternative
1. Summa[y of Alternative
Under this Alternative, development of the proposed Project would occur at two
locations, rather than exclusively at the existing College campus in Rancho Palos
Verdes. The two locations involved in this Alternative are: 1) the proposed Project site
(i.e., Marymount College), which is located at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East, in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and 2) the site of one of two existing off-site housing
facilities (i.e., Palos Verdes North Living Facility), which is located at 1600 Palos Verdes
Drive North, in the Harbor City portion of the City of Los Angeles.
The Palos Verdes North Living Facility (PV North Facility) involves approximately 11.4
acres. Approximately 2.0 adjacent acres have been identified as geologically
constrained in a 1988 Rough Grading Report prepared for the U.S Navy. This property
was formerly a part of a 47-acre U.S. Navy Surplus property that was used for Naval
housing. In April 2004, the Federal government, through the Department of Education,
transferred title to the site to Marymount College, subject to certain restrictions on the
use, encumbrance, and transfer of the property (including a right of reverter to the
Federal government if not used for educational purposes) for a 30-year period. The PV
North Facility is developed with housing (86 townhome units) and athletic facilities once
used by the military. Marymount currently uses the 86 pre-existing townhomes to house
students, staff, and employees (a maximum of 312 persons). The two-story townhomes
have been refurbished by Marymount College. Each designated student unit is
occupied by approximately four students.
The two properties involved in the Living Campus/Academic Campus Alternative would
be developed as two separate campuses, a Living Campus (i.e., PV North Facility) and
an Academic Campus (i.e., Marymount College campus). In general, this Alternative
would reduce the amount of new development (including lot coverage) at the existing
Marymount College campus; however, it would result in new development at the PV
North Facility. The improvements proposed by this Alternative are described below.
R6876-10781113771 M.doc A-74
Living Campus
In order to accommodate development of the Living Campus with the buildings and
facilities proposed under this Alternative, it is assumed that the existing structures (86
townhomes) would be demolished. The Living Campus would consist of three
Residence Halls 180 dormitory units (maximum occupancy of 359 persons), an Athletic
Facility (including a health center), a Student Lounge (Gallery) and a Student Resource
Center (consisting of a cafeteria, computer lab, and offices). In total, this Alternative
would involve construction of 133,485 SF of new floor area at the Living Campus,
whereas, the proposed Project involves no new development at this site. Additionally,
an athletic field, tennis courts, outdoor pool and parking facilities (surface and
subterranean) would be developed at the Living Campus. Under this Alternative, the
College's physical education classes would be transferred to the Living Campus.
Academic Campus
This Alternative would involve specific educational-related improvements at the
Academic Campus (Marymount College campus), including the modernization and
expansion of the existing campus buildings, and construction of new buildings.
Furthermore, the existing campus grounds would be improved and the existing parking
facilities would be relocated and reconfigured, as part of the Academic Campus
improvements. This Alternative would involve 18,022 SF of building demolition and the
construction of 14,916 square feet of additions to existing buildings at the College
campus, similar to the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, two new
buildings would be constructed providing a total of 28,685 SF of floor area
(Academic/Library Building and Art Studio). The proposed Academic/Library Building
would be constructed at a similar location as the proposed Project, while the proposed
Art Studio would be constructed in the area vacated by the easterly most Residence
Hall (outside the geologic structure setback zone). In total, this Alternative would
involve the construction of 43,601 SF of new floor area at the Academic Campus,
resulting in a total of 117,847 SF of floor area. Comparatively, this Alternative proposes
44 percent less floor area at the College campus than the 210,254 SF proposed by the
Project.
This Alternative would involve a modified construction schedule, as compared to the
proposed Project, because construction activities would occur consecutively to minimize
disruptions to the College's academic program, however, at two separate locations.
Therefore, with this Alternative, construction would occur in two phases: Phase I would
involve consecutive development of the Living Campus (approximately two years) and
Phase 11 would involve consecutive development of the Academic Campus
(approximately two years).
Although this alternative would generally result in reduced impacts at the Project site, it
would also result in increased impact at the Palos Verdes Drive North site in Los
Angeles, assuming the necessary entitlements were obtained from the City of Los
Angeles.
86876-10781113771 M.doc A-75
2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
In general, this Alternative would reduce development at the Marymount College
campus and thus potential land use impacts. However, development of the athletic
facilities at the Living Campus would not further the General Plan policies pertaining to
the provision of additional recreational facilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
because under this Alternative, the facilities would be developed in the City of Los
Angeles instead. Specifically, the Alternative would not advance the Socio/Cultural
Element (Current Social, Service, and Cultural Organizations Policies 1, 3, and 4, and
Social Services Policy 12), and the Urban Environment Element (Recreational Activity
Policy 11). Because this Alternative involves development of the PV North Facility,
additional land use issues would result but at a different location. Specifically, this
Alternative would require applications to City of Los Angeles for entitlement, including
environmental review, to develop the Living Campus at the PV North property, which
would be independent of the applications to City of Rancho Palos Verdes for entitlement
to develop the Academic Campus. When compared to the proposed Project,
implementation of this Alternative would result in similar land use impacts, since both
would result in similar permitting requirements, although, this Alternative would involve
permitting in both the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Los Angeles.
With relocation of the Residence Halls, Athletic Facility, and outdoor athletic uses to an
off-campus location, this Alternative would only partially fulfill the proposed Project's
housing- and recreational-related objectives. This Alternative:
* Enhances the living and learning environment for the College's students,
enabling the College to fulfill its religious and educational mission,
because it involves modernization and expansion of existing College
campus buildings, and construction of a new Library.
* Provides the residential and recreational facilities available at other liberal
arts colleges, although, they would be provided off-site at the Living
Campus that is currently used by the College to house approximately 312
students and faculty.
Provides housing for freshmen, although, it would be provided off-site at
the Living Campus.
Does not relocate housing to the campus. Housing would be retained at
the Living Campus.
Relocates and reconfigures parking facilities, thereby, improving the
design of the campus and increasing parking.
Relocates outdoor athletic facilities away from nearby residences.
86876-1078\1 13771 M.doc A-76
Would not provide the amount of enhanced facilities for community
activities as would the Project or Revised Project.
Allows for the future development of a community preschool.
3. Conclusion Regarding Alternative 3.
Alternative 3 would not reduce the overall impact of the Project, except that many of the
mitigable impacts would occur in the City of Los Angeles near the Palos Verdes Drive
North site rather than in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Although Alternative 3 would
reduce the level of impact as to the two remaining unmitigable impacts associated with
the Project or Revised Project, those impacts remain significant and unmitigable under
the Alternative. Thus, the Planning Commission finds that Alternative 3 is not
environmentally superior to either the Proposed Project or the Revised Project.
Alternative 3 is also found to be legally infeasible because the Planning Commission
lacks the authority to approve any portion of the "Living Campus," which is not within the
City's jurisdiction, but subject to the land use controls of the City of Los Angeles.
The College has submitted evidence in support of its contention that Alternative 3 is not
feasible because the Palos Verdes Drive North site is insufficient in size to
accommodate all aspects of the "Living Campus." Whether this is true or not may not
be known until such time as applications are made to the City of Los Angeles and
decisions made on those applications. Further, implementation of the Academic
Campus portion of the project would not occur until the College first obtained
entitlements from Los Angeles for the Living Campus, which could delay implementation
of the project.
The Planning Commission finds Alternative 3 infeasible due to lack of jurisdiction over
half of the property included in the Alternative.
D. ALTERNATIVE 4 —Affordable Housing Alternative
1. Summar v of Alternative
The proposed Project involves construction, expansion, or intensification of
nonresidential uses (i.e., Institutional) and includes an application for a CUP whereby
more than 10,000 SF of space would be created. Therefore, the Project would be
subject to compliance with Code Section 17.11.140, Affordable Housing Requirements
for Nonresidential Project. Based on estimates of the number of new employment
opportunities for persons of low or very low moderate income created, as a result of the
Project (approximately 27 new full- and part-time positions), the College would be
required to construct up to three affordable housing units within one year of the first
Institutional space.
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-77
The Affordable Housing Alternative involves improvements to the Marymount College
campus consistent with the proposed Project, in addition to construction of up to ten
affordable housing units within the proposed Residence Halls (through reconfiguration
of the interior floor plan, with no modifications to the proposed building footprint) for
occupancy by qualifying lower income employees or students of the College. Under this
Alternative, the proposed Residence Halls would be developed within a building
footprint and area consistent with the proposed Project (no additional square footage).
Under this Alternative, the two proposed Residence Halls would include approximately
103 dormitory units with occupancy for approximately 206 persons and ten (110)
affordable housing units (five studio units and five two-bedroom units) with occupancy
for approximately 28 persons (based on an average of 2.769 persons per household').
The College would reserve the occupancy of the ten affordable units to its 15 residential
life staff members (10 student residential advisors plus 5 adult supervisors). Thus, the
total resident population associated with this Alternative would be approximately 234
persons, an 8.0 percent decrease when compared to the proposed Project. This
decrease in resident population results from reconfiguration/replacement of 25 dorm
units with 10 affordable housing units, resulting in a net loss of 15 dorm units.
Similar to the proposed Project, the Affordable Housing Alternative involves renovations
to the campus consisting of demolition of some existing buildings, modernization and
expansion of existing buildings, construction of new buildings, and relocation and
reconfiguration of recreational and parking facilities. No change to the College's
existing academic operation or student enrollment limit is proposed under this
Alternative.
Consistent with the proposed Project, the Affordable Housing Alternative involves
demolition of 7 of the 13 existing buildings, representing approximately 18,022 square
feet of existing floor area. Additionally, this Alternative involves construction of 136,008
square feet of new floor area, which would be developed in the form of six new buildings
(121,092 square feet) and the expansion of four existing buildings (14,916 square feet).
This Alternative involves a construction schedule similar to the proposed Project (i.e.,
three phases over eight years), with the exception of Residence Hall No. 2, which would
be constructed during Phase 2, rather than in Phase 3, as proposed by the Project.
According to Section 17.11.140.13.2 of the RPVMC, the affordable residential units shall
be available for occupancy within one year of occupancy of the first nonresidential
space within the Project.
The Affordable Housing Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed
Project in all environmental impact areas analyzed, because it would involve
improvements and a development footprint consistent with that of the proposed Project.
The proposed changes to the Residence Halls would occur within the building interiors
(modifications to the building floor plans). This Alternative would involve similar
impacts, because it proposes an equal amount of floor area, although ten new housing
'State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties
and the State, 2001-2007, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2007.
R6876-1078\1 13771 Ov5.doc A-78
units would be introduced. The following discussion evaluates the potential
environmental impacts associated with the Affordable Housing Alternative, as compared
to impacts from the proposed Project.
2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
This Alternative would fulfill all of the proposed Project's objectives (refer to Section 3.4,
Project Objectives), because similar to the proposed Project, the Affordable Housing
Alternative involves renovations to the campus consisting of demolition of some existing
buildings, modernization and expansion of existing buildings, construction of new
buildings, and relocation and reconfiguration of recreational and parking facilities.
However, for the following reasons, this Alternative is rejected.
The Alternative would not reduce either of the significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with the Project or the Revised Project. Further, because the residence
halls are not approved as part of the Revised Project, there is no obligation for the
College to provide affordable housing.
Implementation of the Alternative would not avoid any of the significant impacts
associated with implementation of the Project.
Other significant impacts associated with implementation of the Project would also
occur with implementation of this Alternative, which would be more impactful that the
Revised Project, including construction or residence halls over an extreme slope and
the visual character impacts associated with the construction of the residence halls at
the top of the slope with visibility from Palos Verdes Drive East.
3. Conclusion regarding Alternative 4.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that failure of the Alternative to reduce any of
the significant unmitigable impacts, and the fact that the Alternative would have
incrementally greater impacts than the Revised Project, although most are still
mitigable, are grounds for rejecting Alternative 4 as socially and environmentally
infeasible and, independent of any other reason, justify rejection of Alternative 4.
Ev The Revised Project
1. Summary of the Reviqed�Pr6e�ct
This Revised Project is the product of Planning Commission deliberations and
modifications made by the applicant in response to Planning Commission direction.
The Revised Project is described in detail in Appendix A of the Final EIR, and would
consist of removal of the Residence Halls, a minor relocation of the Athletic Building,
modification to the east parking lot, introduction of fencing and netting to control impacts
to Palos Verdes Drive East from use of the athletic field, and other minor modifications
to the project.
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-79
Implementation of the Revised Project would eliminate some of the significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with implementing the Project, including the general
plan and land use compatibility impacts associated with construction of the Residence
Halls and Athletic Building over extreme slope areas. The removal of the Residence
Halls also eliminates the significant and unmitigable visual character impact associated
with the Residence Halls, although the Planning Commission did not affirmatively find
that this would be a significant environmental impact.
The following project objectives are met with the Revised Project:
* To create an enhanced learning environment for the College's students to
enable the College to fulfill its religious and educational mission, although
the objective of providing living opportunities on the Project Site in addition
to other locations is not achieved.
* To ensure that the College maintains its reputation as a distinguished
institution of higher education by providing the type and quality of
academic, residential and recreational facilities available at other liberal
arts colleges.
To relocate parking facilities to improve the design of the campus and
increase the number of parking spaces to reduce the need for off-site
parking.
To relocate outdoor athletic facilities away from nearby residences.
To provide enhanced facilities for community activities.
To allow for the future development of a community preschool.
The following objectives are not met by the Revised Project:
* To provide on-campus housing for freshmen so they may take advantage
of the full complement of academic, cultural, recreational and spiritual
facilities and services offered on campus. However, existing off-site
housing opportunities remain available at the discretion of the College.
* To relocate housing to the campus in order to reduce traffic generation
and impacts on local roads. However, as demonstrated by the analysis of
the Revised Project in Appendix A, the impacts of the Proposed Project
are similar to those of the Revised Project, such that allowing residences
on the Project Site would not result in a reduction in the level of impact or
the required mitigation of the impacts that can be mitigated.
R6876-1078\113771 M.doc A-80
2. Conclusion Regarding the Revised Project
The Planning Commission finds that the Revised Project achieves many of the Project
objectives without increasing any of the impacts associated with the Project as
described in the Draft EIR, and while addressing many of the concerns and issues
raised by the public and the Commission during the hearings on the Project.
R6876-1078\1 13771 Ov5.doc A-81
EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
R6876-1078\1 134373v3.doc
EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the
approval of the Revised Project.
The Planning Commission finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the
Revised Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts
identified in the EIR and in the record, some of which have been eliminated or reduced
in severity to the degree feasible through modifications to the originally proposed
Project. In making this finding, the Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of
the Revised Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to
accept those adverse impacts. The Planning Commission finds that each one of the
following benefits of the Revised Project, independent of the other benefits, would
warrant approval of the Revised Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental
impacts of the Revised Project.
A. The Revised Project provides new, expanded, and enhanced facilities that
could be used for community meeting space, in furtherance of General Plan
Socio/Cultural Policy 3.
B. The Revised Project provides new and expanded recreational facilities,
including the new athletic field, in furtherance of General Plan Socio/Cultural
Policy 4.
C. The Revised Project will upgrade on-site drainage and flood control systems,
thus reducing the likelihood to site instability as a result of flood water sheet
flowing across the property.
D. The Revised Project will enable the College to upgrade its facilities to better
provide higher education opportunities to the public.
E. The Revised Project increases the landscaped setback along Palos Verdes
Drive East, thus enhancing the appearance of the campus from the public
right-of-way.
F The Revised Project will assist the College in its ability to attract and retain
students, which in turn will help maintain existing jobs, including the
opportunities for highly trained workers like professors and faculty.
R6876-1078\1 13771 M.doc B-1
EXHIBIT C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
R6876-1078\1 134373v3.doc
Environmental Impact Report
Marymount College Facilities Expansion project
MITIGATION
REPORTING PROGRAM
The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add
Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting
program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation
measures applied to proposed development. As stated in Section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code:
". . . the ,public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the
changes to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project
approval, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment."
Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring
programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be
enforced during project implementation, shall be defined prior to final certification of
the EIR.
The mitigation monitoring table below lists those mitigation measures that may be
included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation
measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised, which
identifies the milestone and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The
Applicant will have the responsibility for implementing the measures, and the various
City of Rancho Palos Verdes departments will have the primary responsibility for
monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures. The
mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been revised to reflect the analysis
for the revised project, as discussed in Appendix A.
Appendix .bane 2009 A.4-1 Mitigation MonRoAng and Repong Progmm
E
0
CL
CL
0 te
CL M 0
CL
'a CL
x
c LU
E .w
C:
C LL
LLI 4)
0
U
:3
0
E ujooc ooCOC ca a) ca 0 CL
'6 E T3 —M ate) 6 - -a
cu 0) cc < a) a) (D
a) m co 0.
> 2 > 2 :n cc -0 w
2 -cZ cm-M E
cc a- 2 -,;, ,a 2
- = 0) 2 (D
a -0 co
0
CL Cf) ca
(D co -j
0 0 -10 -0 115
-0 t!
C= a 6 a 16 6 C= a)
Ca (D (D cc a) to
co 6 (D E E E - w E
O .a -0 C) D)-O
z Z 02 - M a 0)�O (D
C .9 0 a C= 0 a 0 2 a 0
uj Z 12 :2 0 —0 01 cc :5 C) A (_D
.�D _T �5 C-) �O ca :E5 C-) —0
.5 EL CL
m w m w m LLI co LLI
CL F
x
0
W
a_ —
w 0 -�, -S --- 9
a 0 -0
ry ca (D a) < < a)
0) cu 0)a- 0 cc a_ C-0 CU (D
IL a Qtr 0) ( •- CL -a =
cm -0 CLA r - t7, cc
0 co
CT (D a) a) 0C
0 E 15 —
a_ 0 .5 CL 0 CL
m m C-) F- co 0
ca CL uj
z
16 C C O 16 Z '8 0)15 (1) 0) a> CD (D -0 CD G)
z R 0 .0 cc 4) G 23 :2 E- ma - :E; a) ca.
— > 0
LU UJ 0 tE3 0 E Ca 0 X-- CU 0 0
2 Z 0 -6 cm-- — a E� w 0
vi 0 0) ca. M :s -0 -0 -0
ca cu a M = a a
E 0 co a) (n ca .2
0 Ca 0 a
LLI z z i5 a a .9 cD E -2 >1 — —i Z
CD ca z — 0 tm co -0
Ca co 0 a a -0 —ca
w (D p 2 X-- M 0) M M
—J 2E
as -0
= G �O Mn
:3 a) :3 -Z5 C-D > CC
-0 0 -0 0 3!� 8
0 r�) �6 0 (D 8 -a M ca
> z C-) im ca '= a) -
0 17, 0 0) 0" ID (D
w > 2
75
z a Q. a '5)
0. 0 ca co a 2 -�5 w a) 2 •c= (D
UJ ca e� -1-- 0 O. a c cm CO -0 a
z cm- CIO FIL co il: a)
3 1=5 CEO 2 62 a> 0 co a) 0 :�U: 0 0 E
a) CL -0 -a ir- (D -6
c < '5 -0
0 's 3: E CS cu - — -C Ca C.)
a
5: :5 il: Z E cu cu
a2 a) — (D 2 —0
'S *5; a- UJ
0 a) co W .-
0 9_- ca = cD 0) E 0 :t-- CD cu CD
tm— w a) m ca cr - -0
20M ;B ED- 3: o -
8 CD 0
.G -O UP co 0 0
cu
—0a U) >
C2 CD co ca -0
; tm a .0 C=
c.9 E UJ Ca
(D CU CO CU (D a) Ca 0) .0 15 >
E2 4) C5
>1 E -F,5 .2 -C - — —
a U) 0 V5 0 — z 4) C a
Ca a) C cD 55 (D a) :6
Ef a) cn 2 0 0 ca w m—C.0
(D
LU a a 0
-01 0 ca
m 0 w E -2 8 m 0 c cm-0 a) 75
= Ca .— .9-- 0 - -a Ca a c cn 16 w CL
co a (D — C_) 0 = :5 ,
> 0 a) CD 0 c
E CU cm— a) CO
C ca A- C N co
6 41 C.)
ca tm 0 a
SO co 2 8
a, ca j w cu :5 a 0 -E2
in 00 ccs a •
(n M w :3 • a-
(,) _M M 0 CD O" W
i2 a. :3 =
MM Ca U� 0 E cn a) W Ca
E CL D .— cu
a_) -B tm CL
3: Q) 15 E
ca CD a) cn 0
O E C D 4>- a 0)
Ca
ca -2 0 tN
0 0 Z a =
tm ca Ca in a) > CD
WH _(DO WO -O
a) - Ca Q� T
a- :��; .5 e a- 2 Lu d- E a_ 0
co
uj 4D
<
C� C?
OIC/) C/) U) O U)
M c UJ uj <uj 0 ¢
1� '5 E
e
0
LU
E .w
C
ca0UU-
0
E ca rya
-0 ca-0 0) 5- a) a-
W
25' m 2 -5 m
(D C (D
of
O 7�!
C5
C6 (D
E C-D
E a)
2
C5-0 CD U c
a) -E
ID
co -0 a_0 c a A a
f5 FL ==3 w Lu ® a- •= c CO LU
m uj m w
E
M CD ca
M
d- d- 2 C9
CD CD
W C CD E Q) -0a) E a) CD _0 4) a) a (D —0
0 0 M- a -0 0 -0 a ca -C CO C--
0 co >a) = co U)
co :2 a) co 0)
m 0 o C m
('no _ID
(D 4) 0) 0) = = >, .9-- a = 0 0 ch cc
.S-- -T3 C 0 0) co C%3 U5 a) (D
a 3: Cc (n i5 A2 0 0 co co a5
, = a_ Cc CU
cc' 05 co 0) c a) 7�L CL_0
— a) CL CD CD
--
I
Cn
-a cc E a) 0 Qi Ln
(D t! _j -a a a) - c
ca
maxi o =3 co Lm cc -E5 > 9 > o Q .
0 -
2
a) 07B (D --i <D 0 -X- 0
cc -0 5 E a —i X-- Co 0 CA
= 0 3 181 0-0 CL
cn -ss� — ca tm
8 cq E co 0 a) -0 cc -0 CD :F; cc 'm a)
(D E 03 Cc 2: -C — OO-w
cli 0
a 72 -0 4--
0 CU 0 (D — > m ZO
E 0 -0 -0 C CD CO — a) a a) — w 0 (D
0 > 0 0
8 o —W 16 0 -0 _0 0 (D — (a CD
co m E _,- M a: — — a) (D 9)
-0 (D z 0 06 -2 -0 CL
0 — 0 L) :3 cc g!
W (D 0 0 8 CL a) cc
S CD 0
=(D cc m
�� C� 0 cc cc CD-D co .2
CD V- (D cc 0 FE -z-
a 0 .a — :u 0 — = 0 >
. 0 — cc cc _0 0- 0) -0 co
NC0 (D CD CU -- (D _0 8
M 0 a 0 -0 a) (D 0 (D >, 0) (D -0 CD X Q) (D
cc a) M — LD 0- -D = (D .— .-
-0 8 -0 co !E a CD 8 -2 t5 -
?-' 0 cn
iO
0 c). ul CU - w CD
w 0 C = C" a a
a) — Co CL c 0 W Cc tt--
- 0 W 0 ui CD 0
CD CO a) cn 0
0 2 x = Cc =3
CL Q) a) w a)
0 0 E 0 w
E E 0 -
2 a - = M co 0 — cm
—0 a) -0 C.) _0 CL Cc 0 CD a
0 CD CL (D -0 :6 a a .—
a �m ZI -0
a) co cc cc cc co -0 cc x
E :3 a o -a cl _0 ca
0 ca CO) a) a 16 co M, U)
E 0)
-0 cn 0) ca Co (D a co a) Cc 43) 0 0) co —
_0 (D Lj- M a a -0 ca
0 8 5; w 0 o -;�; cc 0)
com E c3 a) — w 0 1.0 te --- -0 - — , > - 0 2
E -.S2 LD — — 0) (D 2 E 0- ca 0 ,6
> -0 0.
C14 C� "ru E a) -0 (D
-0 —0
ca
0 cu E -5 cc (D :E -a tL w cn 8D t;c-- E 0 a E co a) a
(D cm CD —0 a) 0 (D cn -4,-
N UL M a Mo -0 E
1-- -0 (b 4u) a) > a) L Ca
cn a) -0 tm a) Lu cc
Ca = (D CD 2 0 c 6 0 cm C13
0 0 w 0 .2 Co
a) F- S:E; 2 •-9 a) _0 CD :n Cr F- 0 -J CO C)
2 CC,
w 0
w .0= (D W ca 0 CD
co Z5 _0 (a .- In
LO x
C/I)
C/) '0
LU LU
CL
-cc
c
c U.
0
0 cl)
a — a z
E V5 W 0 0 a)
-ffi t E
> 2
2 cc
U- CL. CL 0 cc
M
W
0
0) co EEEE
0 ci) cc 03 a a) CD
E C5 co
o E 0 (D E
-F 0)-0 a)
ca C .G o `
_0 a CD -R. -
Ed :E5 0 T .M
A C
Cc LU iE5 IL C
i5 EL = a i5
M Lij M LU M:3 M LU
cc
> o o (D aE
o U- -C W
m a) CL
a>
1 CL
71CL cm
cm
C
O .
C.) 0
.1 E :a
Cc (D C_U
CJ Lu O.. m a0
cn (D
0 (D tM (D C CD co 0) a
(D .06 70 a _Q ._ 0 9 Cc N _.G CR CD 4-: 0 W
(D M z 016 . — 3: 0 ,
cVo
a
2 (_D E L-- V;
0) (D
CL A w 2 cc — a
-0 _C CO Co 403 x
0 (D -C
(D a) a = w
(D a A a: , (D �o
0 M cm— 0 (D
= >
!c , -0 cc
cc E 6 0. 00
a) a — 0 0 =
rnc
c" 0 i� w
-cc -0 -0 0
(D (D — a a)
ID 0
0 — 2 - 2 Z T "s "
ca a) im Itz E -0 o cc
.0 M Q (D 0
cn w W 0 5 a) cc _0 c
cl —ca LL = .2 'M
cD E cL ' -a
(D CO CM cm F- a) cn (D cc E
;;-- a m a Cc
Co co LLI 0 *E = CO '9 — (D a) -6 =
a) co co ca it� 4� — a) -� o 8 -6
a) ca 0 W
(D -C m 2 cL
U) WD CCU a a 0- Ca CL 0 — 8
o c a- 0 — 0
a) 0 C) (D
O 's > 3;: 0 U) 0 -tE!
cc cm cn a) cm
R ca .
_0 E
Fu 0) CD =3 )
CD-o (D w) — q> > E .1 C�_ cl)
C > w cc o -2 (D C:)
cu E (L > 0
(D a) CD o c7 U)
a- 0 0 CL
tF, - w �-, E (D (D
N -C CD CC
coW (D w -0 = —
toCO m ® C ;Cj M -;z a) a (D a
C :5 0 0) -0 0
LLJ (D 0� cc
W -0
0 j§ w
:3 tM m
M — a) 0 E 4:3 a) m cm—
> 0 M -=
n tM CD 5:3 w cc
a CC CD- CR 0 =3 -0 cG 0 -
a >1 C.) 0 7�: 2
CO (D 0 a :E a) D) w
LLI 0- a a)
tM (D -a CD a) " = m
Z 0) CD 0 -2
cc E E cD 0 0 -0 e -oz 0 cc cc o — (D a)
w 5. Cc Cc -0 .- co !� C 0 > U)
a a C, 4) 0 Cc ca
5, cc 0 0 C
co :3 (n 0 a)
cc cr a
c. E Z
w -o ;:i M Cc •o a) a) w M 0 0
0) :5 :3 a cl) -6 CL -0 U) cl
QUA(D Ucwn w E E :5 Z co (L
—ww E :, � ig 2 3r 3: < _C 0
co � E -0 u.) -ff 25 w a) -a cc CO w 0 '4=
co .2c
c� cL 0 cp o = 2
co cn as CD
(D —0 A a) , ol.- =
o a) CL 0 .5 1 cD E
> — > z 'M co
(D o a_ LTj —ca t lw 0
0
.....................
OP
cn ch
LLI LLI 0
0 CD
< CL
CL
-C -6 9
0 0
C.
CL
0
CL
7@
CL
x
UJ
U)
Eas
C LL
IM
2
6
0 o c '15 <n aci
Ea
0 • 0
aq-
c CL
0 0�
> cn > < C a LU
0 6 cc Q) 0 CB ca a) c-- 0 Cb CD
0 .- - .F E
a a) E (D E (D
C5�o a) 0 c 0)-0 a) —0 CM-0 CD
a -S 0 2 -a *5 ZO 0 0
0 ad0
cc -0 _0 a a I_D '
LU ch Lij o
CO LU 6 1� .5 c Co LU (L 'S a
M ca LU
0
—0
cl
CU cc CL _0 w cG -0 M
C,) 0- C
:3 t= !E =3 w
8 8 --p- Lo -= 8
CD o .1 a) o (D 0 <
CL a_ LO
co a) .LCO 0)
= = C 0 = =cc 0= --i,- a 0 0 C —LO 0 w < A
— tM g--
E w c E cD a —
:E5 CO (D CD
7,
o a 0 R E
-0 CU 00 *- *- - 'o a) (_D
x v) !E
N m o
aw) Q 5
a) cD E E a) m :3
cn cc Q) -co CQ co L) V5 2
CO :3 CD a) Co �5 CD w
.S- -E 6 a U 0 a
a- w E a_ CO) CD 0 ca cO
c ac)L Cau E 0
C:)
=CR = -,L (D E
LO Cl - E
CL— 0 0 0 Ci 0
Q) -91 -R co
- 8 im— co ZL
(D Ct. co
—0 OL c E 0 0- CO , CL 0
< -ca a a) < cu 0 -0 G o E
CO < _3 E
= 3:: co co
CD (D Cc) 0 > co '8 -0
0 co 0 cc -L S
cc E 0 0 E ca
- U) E CO a) 0)
0- c I - 0- C 4-- E
E :3 (D 0) O . ca -0 0) (D _O
a s 0 Z > 0 0 co CD Q)
> .!2) 0 0-
0 Z CD Fn CO 0 E - CL
fn 0 E
co � cc a)
-0 a) 0 LL
�: a) o 0 E
a) CC E ax'io 'm 0 0 a w
0 cu w 0 w —(D (D -0
co v5 LU > co 0
0 cc a, (n 0
E a) cc = - 0 a)
0 - co co,4a E
Co — —
o Cc — — — C Z5 -=
te Z 0 w 0 - o E w w Lu w
-cc a) - 0- - w co
=) r- = - 0 -0 M - 15- a) C,
Cw-) "o co T '-in'- -co -s W c-) Z5 cu 2 CD 0 0 (n E Q) CD Q) cn - -0
(n -0 Z5 E a 0
CL w
ui > Co C
w Q 0 cl
10 -0 w - -5 E
U) sm — F- (n
a E w a E Co a> M
a) cc a) > 0 .2 co a>
r '= EF (D a) 2 a :f(D;
> 0 :E E cc
a>
0 2 E cc E 2 ca tm 0 -a w (cl, a=) coi LU
-0 -0 - (D
0 0 (b 5= E :S
cD m E 4i (D cc E < E -- ac) LO 7�!
E - -2 o !2 a = 0
a C D "r-- C7, 'n " -0 - (D (D
(D CO a) - -0
w 0) a) > 0 Q) 0 CM0 MCD E a) a = w
CD 0 = -0 w cn a IM
E w E 2 -0 0 2 - E
a) cn V5 -0 ca 0 U) _Ile Cc U)
,2 a) ca
mn M- 9 - & T 0 -0
(n a) E = • -0 CB
�5 M 0 Co C -g- (a
-0 o CL :3 a) co cn CL
0 =) CD :3 C)
M. cn
cu C: a) C*4
2 CD a) E CD E
U) , Z5 (1) M C) a)
a-) 0") LL. E Ki 3: 00 V=
N
I=
F- F-
# ;
„ .Y,, f_
it 1L -
a � r!
f
r MO
gmHFA
coi
lfti�
$ z", ,•
x
ID
sy £
r y w/
E" cc
0�
f �� � •i1 ua •11
r '
�(
+r }
...........
f
f f s - � •, rl O • `I O a_ a �)
i �
yy•
NOM
'f:t
r
cc
f
«y7_ ,•
f
f lJi�:f . •-�
x+ f_ •II •II
A
cc
X cc
co
' ..
al ■1 �1 1 ■1 ■1 � Y ., a' 1
„v
t:
0
jL
0
CL
4)
CL
to
E
> ca
c U.
4)
CF)
2
0 CD
Ea) c ca 0 o co
0 c 2 -0 T
E
.9 Ct� ->
U) tE cu
2 Q)
:3 a
LU (D 2
> a CL
ts 15 d,
ca (D cu 4
0 --
. E cD (D E a)
6-0 E -0 co) IZ55
a 0
ca 0 c cr —0 :E5 —W
FL — ca a 12 = 040
wow CL =3 a cc LU CL
m LU m LLJ
0U C p0 C Cc
O 0
0 cc cr
0- CL
t= :3 -Z: =
O tE 0 .0 ZE 8
a) 0 CD
C) 0 C) o aCD
(D 42 a) -0 Z5 -0 .20 0
c w a) c — a = CO0 C, =3 .0 CD CD a_-
(D (D a) -C3 -Nd ca a, :3 -D =3 0 Ca 0 �5 co -ff - =
-a Cc 0 16 0 0
D -0 -0 Z a) 0 uE c U) (D CL
E R = = 0 E :2 C-0 0) a> 0 0) CL cn
:3 co V5 V5 CO E > H=- a) 2 a>
= =3 a) 0 > 4? cr
>, w 0 CL 15 C) C-0 -C 0) a) -D
CO 0) cn W a) a)
6 Oa
cc -1 E
he U) COD) C:3) a Ca CO =3
off -4�'
co a) i� (D CO 0 - cc -00 a) — -0
E
w w 0 V5 a) b 'V5 Q) E 0 -- 0 0 a)
CL -hd E g)-c C w
CO C,> co 0 -0 E U) 0 > 0 cn
CL 0 O= 0 w C,) .— --
co 0.) C:) 0 ca a) — > SR -5 cn
CD r- C-4 C� c� cL 2 cn -0 -a 2 = c (D
E — < to CL 0
A (D :E C�- a) 8 ca cu 0� Cc :3 4) E cc -s--
0 0 a) < LU CC% Li- —
E a a) no �? 0 �� U) =3 g
m — 0 0 co
.) .6 L) 8
1= a) -a 0 cc > as cn -0 � (D CO cc, -2 =
-0 0 — M. (D -= (D cD -2 co 4) - 2 A) 0
4::: =3 �O c co 8 cm i=l Z5 PO �: 4:- (D LLI 0 :07 ca
x cn !E I-- (n a — > —0 ,
cc ca a) 0 a) 0 0 0 > 0 cr,
'(5 ca cn> t= 0 a
E w 5 E 0. 0 ",'� rn
E Z5 0- " a) cc U) C,) 0)—ca — (D '-0
-02 0 cn M (D
tm Cc > ca a
c E = 03 w CD
-�6 =L CD ::, = -t� 0 . ca LO —a)
co cc cn a) -0
=3 CL E m — C: > U) cc w cn CL
8 cq 0 Cy) CD a) cc 0
c cc a) Cc
-2 J- a_
0 (1) c=> c) M ce) CY) E o LLJ 2
Cui- E CO- — z,.E- C? CL (n -0 'Fu 4) CD (D a) 0
a) = 5 E w 5: :�- 6 CD D- 0 w '0 > 0 .>c '0 CL
t= 2 ca -L 0 - - 6 w LO (D -0 u) 0� 0 G m
0 L= 0 — co --0 cn a> ti� 70 :3
te = -d uj E E 15 AO — —0 -Q' 0 0—
(D 0 0 Cc -0 0 M M 0 T 2
(D CP c a) =3 �
j:� 0 0 CO Ca < C,) CD 0) > Q) cc
o c a) a C) E CD -2 a)
o != = 04 0)
Cc -0 CO 43) CS 2 a � I > cl) a) > CO ID Cn a) W >,-6
ca ki - 0 — W 6 -= *'COD _0
ca 0 c �— Cc
-5 4t c C) ch ca 0 M a 0 0
0 15 cc 0 CR—0 •
co — cl) 0 (—D E w cao) w — cl) ca C5
C�L 0) -0 co cm cc
CO 4) -2 > CD
a) —0 Z5 0) 0) cn CO CO
E -5 w 0. q) 0 CD (D c mc
a) CC (D W E Cc > as E
CD t_M 0 =CO '0= C=G (D a) E
a co 15 ME a) E cD a) ca
cn x w a)
V; W c, C� (D WE E Q)
E co 0 W
0 0 CD
0 a) -2 12E -Cc E w p2 cr
0 0 CU CL
a) a _,- M .2 (1) Cl
CL -0 E 0 0 co CL > a- 0 a_
= ca 0)
CD
U3 -0 a) 2 (D Z5
soca LL
2 (D
cc P a) CL CL.E= CL
75
co
CL
0
CL
,2 `2
m 0
CL
W UD
E
cs>
C LL
w 0 0
0
E0 Co cc .0
> CD cn-0
2 .G a 'm !E
M CL 0
m U)
c
cc a)
6 7 0) E
0
2 U Um
—0
LU ca
(D
O a_
Q?
C-9
7E _0 Z (D a) (D
0 w a) -0 Z, G) -0 oi (0 E 22 a =
c-- CL a = -0 M a 0 p CD 0
Ca CD 0 >, w a) -0
a) Es 4= 0 > 0 0
w =3 — 0 tr-- T — 0) 0 -0 ce (D
a c6(3 W (D CO Cr-�, ca - U) 0) G
E j5 o - -o Cc a CX— CD CL= .—
(D a _ -o a E 0 0 = — co Co -0
a) (D CO 04 0- a
i2 .�= m 0 cc
CL U) CO a) — 0 0 2 E S
O CL CD co a cc W C� (D co — 0 -0 - 3:
2d) — 0 Co 0 :3 ,— t=
cm—
— a) Co Fn CO -0 a) a) E a) om — 0 Cl) =3
C> w 0 , a) Co cn a) a — —:5 a) ca a) -0 can
a a 0) E a) cD — " =
a) 0 - 0 0 0 -- - ca =3 Cc a) CU
C) .— — Cl) E :3 w Q> --:�
C-4 — — a) CO w a—) 31: 0 M >
CD 0 -0 CD
a) > (D a) `
C:F :3 E M > 0 .0 a) U) 'i'*-:: (D CC 20
ocol —cu —w P 016 0 0 co a) = CL cc (D CM CD
M cn 0 w -- — 0 =
E > '4 J=j C�- Co 73
C6 — 0 (D ID
R a) 0 a_ Co -C-- E E cc 0)C-
CU o -c a) a) 0 = > !F= a — J-- w 0 0
Co - — I- (D a) CD:t:! a) a) E o w
CL 0 a) C-- A= a �!: "a > An Lo (D E w o -
0 :5 2 0 E (co
a) D o a) -cu —0
cc co — M a)
AT cn ca 0 :E; A= E CL- a) w
C -- -o a) 2 8 a .2 co M,
.- - -o a 0)-;= - x-- CD , w w 0 a -CTJ ca a
G a a = a) cc
ca -> -0 -0 = C5 a)
a) a E cu a
.S; a M • E 'x (D = U) -0 0 Z 2 a) to a min
— , w o m cL (CnD — ao))M —a) ac) 2 '- > 'm a) cc
(D (D c2 20 E E
,0 :6 0 M a) 0 X -C-- co i->, a E Cn C�.—
a) — C .- 0 CD w - -o Ca >1 75 g?
w tr-- J:L 0 CD 0 Co ._ _ C�_ I a) 15 w
C - = o 8 m a) co
-��Uj 0 - - 0) M E 4.;, ca -a w
C6 co q- 0 — _0 0 a 0 ("D E Z - CD 4=
a) > 0 a) co a) cn
>1 4= Ira 2D a 'm S L" 0 = � cn
CD 0 0 W = ca -0 0) C-0 Z
a) E CO M -ffi CD
C- co U) - - -o = c) -o — tL
V= 0 w CD a a) 0 0 W .- 4) 0 C
Cc 2�— :3 -a (D C E -:3 a w -0 a) — Co - (D
E cu t= 5 co 0 >
CL
co > 0 o -0 = m
X a) ui ca co < C-) 0) o w 0 §� o@
0- Ccn
SL -M t:7-)-t3 QW) w = CO -a te 0 a) 0 -0 -Z = 0
Mm E CD as " = ;R 0 w 0 -5 U C- — o E -5 cD t-- w -Fn cu
CU (D E a) a U) (D -- -52 - m -:5 0 C'a - cu :e Co �;"S;
C:> ca M -0 15) W 0 a, —a) CLai
— 0 .0 -0 Z - C-) 0 (D W a)
Ca -0 co U) w
M > > L> a) .?: �o
If ZZ3 rn (1)
ca .2 cc 7�
a E a = ff= C: c >, C-- e
(n o .2 a) -0 -5 0 U) co
cc 0 E
-S? 2 cn 2 0 0 a CO cc a) .=
co E 0 a) A
M-5 t5 E a -f :1
a) 0 ',5 cc cz a) C/5 cm (1) = —
< oc =< CL< —0 < CL
CC (D -0 (1) -- 0
:F; cu a q> ;5 75 coL 0 0_ a) C9
-5� 0- 2 (D (D
0 0 — 0 C�- 0 E
ca 0 w 0 0 co a- M cn
<
M
C
V- 15 E
0
TE
rL
c
vo
UJ
E
>
c U.
0
E —0 cco�
-Fu a: CL 10
co
Im 0 0) 2 E (D -0
E2 =
a co a) CL a 0 c) > .s CO
--a :5 Q)E5 ca a w CL 0 0 0
:3U)
m
4a
15 -a
0-
-G
CL cc CL
E
0 c SR
15 a) tm
CL
m2
0 :5D a •-0G
(L CL
a -�5 0—
0 0
0 -0
(D CC -0 cc Cc (D
.a 0) — w g-
M CD 'M Co -0 (D o E d)
�5 2 a) a- c.
U) — 'S
cc 0 M — 0 -ca CL
-0 --*= ' 3: 2 cn 0 -0 E
0 (D Z5 3: 0 ID C> In
--4- CD 0
0 0 CL c.) E E
ca
> -�S m
ca7) E ac) 0 E a) 2 v as
m .> L) 'o 2 E t 0 2
.9 tm A) Q- C .0 0 0 0 cc
.2�—cu cD = — �.,
ca 0 = 0 (a 0 p a
W EFE M 0
a C7 4--
0 Q) Cc (D ED (0 0
as
o 0) -5 E
(D 0 " CU cn (D o 0 -0
-24 a 0 U: E U) .4 -0
— a (D8 qwS� Eo - (D (Q
co (D (D a)
co — _0 IOD :>2 =(D m 2 E
a) = : �5 Co
_0 0 0 a 3: o C 0- 0 —
cn u f° 2 cu ZO
.2 EOL
(D co 0 0 8 =3 E c w a a L cm
> — 0 0 (1) co - = 0 ca a
cc 0 c2- c) s: CD C a) >,:r- C E c —0 5 M w a) E
-C ca > co S,-0 (D O C6
cm
C;) a a) >
a a a) 0 (D EF as C.9
(D CO w
cu 9 " E t= 9" WC -C
0 0 " E E o :6 Im
(D U) cin E W a)
0 cc 8 104 T Ca- C 2-
E w w (f a)
_0 8 cj
0 0 -0 w 0
(D
co 0 (D -0 cl) 0 -L- 0 a)
0 o W -- T (D 0 cl, 8
M -0 > CL . (D a) �� — C T::
S -0 C) z .— — 2 cc
(D a E c-,, 'a :2 , 0-
Cc (D 0 >1 Cc 0) 0
(D a> = 1= o- a
0
co CU 0 w 0 0 (D .2 (D > -0 0)w ca
co >, -Fu 75- ca cc a
8 -0 CL 0 cn
co cL 2 W ca
> (n — to :3 0 L)
cc 8 Z
2 T 0 —0 —0 CCU Ma 0 W 0 cn ty,
W cc a) '— 0 co cL:E; w E (D C CD G) Q> -0 (D
-0 CL > a) a) _0 0 .0
-C Co (D 8 C 0 E
0 .0
c;) E 8 J� 2�— 76 0 Cc cr, ) cn 0 2 w
C .5 CO 0
co (D CO=3 -0 .— cc M 0
co a) a)
E2; cj -0 cc a o > CD a E o (D
N E In ol a) 7�!
(D a 0 (D :2 E 'E Q")
-0 ca E 0 E
cc a -9� 0� 0
0 a) (D
cc a) = = 4) 0 cm a) a) a) 0 cn a CD 0)
A 0 _C CL -a . c=0
!t= 0 cm— (D ch -.0 Z im E (D Z =3 2 (D ca E mo)-o -,
cc CL — (D E
0 a) CL,F" CL ca 0 CO -M .a
C - . 0 =3 co co w (D
ca 2 a W a) .= a CF
a- M ch M (D EL Lij S E •
a- 8 ES ff ?�: Q> co (D 75; -S 20 a
. ....................... N
CD
Ict
E
0
D.— 4
,2 ,,e e
0c:
:e
C&
c
cw
C LL
0 16
E
0 CO W CC >
2 m E 0)a: 0 :� 0
mm =3 -- CL co a) cu m :2 2
col _0 CL a o CCU CL
< <
CC
16
W
CC CC
: - E 0: CY)_0w E IM-0w W
tm o 0
w o cu =0
-0 -0 :2 -0 -0 0- Cl CL
[L co CL m LU co LU
m CC
QW W a) a)
a- < al < 0- < CL
o cm 20) .2 0)
0 G c 8 .9
CL CL a- a- c-0
CD m
(D >1 03 a a a) C13 (L) ami
0
w co -0 0 (D
0
CC — 0
-0 ,6 - 0 a :�� --5 :2 (D co cL -= 2
C"D a) -9qr LU m E Z CL- Lo
C-4 W 4) 0) en -
'o -0 = :3 W -0 (D a 0
(a w S2 0)F- CC en %-- .5; - E 0 cc z 8
0 :3 O- 0
=(D I"D p o E co a) -
cc 0 -0 W a
0
C = 0 cc LU C7-0
w E - 0 Lo
0 7a
0 , *§ 0 , L Ea od 76 W
a) C = — W CL C -0 co o -0
W 0 = U) w 0 CM m - U) 0 J-- -.6
a .r-- W W CU LD 0 _C — C13 co -0 C-) W
.50 W 0 C 0 t3 C 04 co M
a 2 'Z5 =3 (D tm ca
W W U) 15 co F- 0).0 cc -0 w
LU = - E rn C C.) C - -�5 E
A2 c o >,-20 W - : U) cu 0- C 1-0
caca 0 w 8 T W W
(D ca
0 0 cc
-15 cc ca 0 a)
o W o .a C Q. 0 70 CL = F=
:F; 0) w < cc E 4=' cm: ?�r C13 :3 W
a- :G C3 W U) -0 CL C
0 C W < 2 > w E w o
W 0 = cc
W C0 E cn
W -0 -he 0 -;= E M
0) (_D -x m
0 E
0 0 a 0) W CC 0 W a) <
3: — CG C = — — .
cu E W a 0) 0) _0
(ED
CL
=3 0 a) a d) cm a) �:
CL tm CL.9 - w CL :5 0 - w a - 0 rn a) (a W 0 "o
--, = 0 = CL C 0 --5 0 tm - CL 04 t;-- -
ca m CY a EL tMt> CC M W 0 CL
M-0 . 0 0 OF M a aa Fa o 0 -5 2 -0
o = ca r= cc >,15 46 Tu 2 0 Z5 CL> co COT o - V5
M o o U) o c o -5 -- ou —0 co 4; -Z6 a
CD 0 - Z5 -F-
0 CD t 0 0 -0 -ab =
Z E -0 cm >,- o b a) "E3 122:1 8 Cc,
= M a) 0 G 0 0 a) CO -0 W co
0 to >, W :E - 2
t-:o -= C13 ."! :2 '�= C�- o W 0 Cl
=C :2 C I E c=0 w 0) U) cr, > C = (n
a O 'S C) 0 =3 4) 0 -0 o o ca — a)
a) E o ci MA —0 a " — C U) 0) U)
-0 w> m 0 cc. u.J o , 3) 2 W CO CD- Co a a)
9 a E
W W a) Cc cl) 7p� 2 (D !� Z Z- a -L)
0 < W 0 0 0 86
C- Q Z -0 - 5 --o W -=
co CU D C 2 -T C cc 0 a)
ca a - 0 ca 0 C.) Z a -
co a) 0 :3 Cc 2 -0 co W =3
:3 a) E co m 0 0 ao 20 UJ -L) 0 :3
(n E -a W 2 :0 cn a Lm 0 .9 E -0
(9 .0� a :3 a ) w o - E 0- w
0 cm 2 cc Fn n 2 W EL - -0 C a E 0
coM _0 CES W = -
E CL 0 cc L— W 0 ca 2 M
6 - C) 0
'E cc a, u) o E -0
CL o 5 u>
0 F- W 0
0) ZO
co r- CA co D�
0 =0 cl E o 0 — C4
:3 C0 2 W
U)
CL a- cL w 0 co-) cc ca 2 -6 a- Uw) m
M N
i. Lo
6 0
<
E
0
e
w 0 %e
m
Z
a0-
x
LU
E
C
LM
cn
0 o F
n
E
az>
_0
0- (D
o
o cc
- CD
CD-0
0 C 0
=3
o ca Cc
CL
o
0
.0 CD C)
a-
U) -0 co 0) -0 CO CD t5 0 0 0 C" C -0 -0 as 6-6 Q)
c a J? ca 0 R):5 — -C-- Cc 0 c ca 4) C= co 0
tm ca Cc — CU (D a 9 Co a) 0
c 03 o 0 w Z5 cn E 'P_ c
rn C c c cc a) -c — C a) 70 0 U�:a Cc 10
0 -- C -0 _a c CD
'E4 (D w =j -D E
0 o- a)
a w co .5
cc :2 0 C14 cc a) Co m a) a)
a) 0 (D
CD Co C)
=3 J-_ C C%,
-) C "CL 0 CD -Fa C..—
M — cc E (a 0 —
(D Z E cc —
0 CM Q) 0 —C 0>' C3 Co U = a) rn o
— 4) 4) w a) a a-) cn w
C CD 0 D — '5 (D S 2 (D :E; 0
CU 01 " E w :L-- -2
a 0 o c 0 -0 w M Z- -5 W .Tas
-2 _0 -C) Z — cu (n -0 w 16 72
CL o 0-ZL w (—D E
m a) .%-- ca
ZZ U) (D 's; o a E 0 0 0 fn
S2 a -, - = :F; -- 8 - :B 0 CWO .�B (D
0 (D 0 4) W '_ <
L_: E — -1 a) 0 cn
a) L — .— 0 a (D
:�=D L> 0 �E a) 2 cu CL cu C�_— cr 0) — 0 a)
co =3 CD w =3
co 2 Vs 75 — 0 -0 , —
0 Z 0) 3: tm a -- (D
a = 0 Cl) a) (D C-) tm 0 0)
V 2 .c co Er 0 0 — (D -a E 8 - -2 -- G o ��: c E >r,.g tcm:
0 — 0 co a 0) =3 :2 a) N 0 C2 C, Z Lu
w C) a co
2 w w E a) -0 Cl) -15
Vi = E c a) = CCOL15 4--
(D OL im 78 o -- w
CD CD A2 =3 cu
C� x C,3 -0 —
w U) 0 Z5 'U* Z5 a) cu co CO U)
0 — 0 *4-- a 0) c
.— 0 0) m c w co
> 0 16 a 8 w . 8
C I-_ .,—C 1 0 0 E E o 0 x
U =3 a) a) CL a LU -5 ca a F= co -Z,� 0 -0 — CD
(D -0 Z5 0 E w :5 — -0 0 a)
= w -0 CD CC 0 _0
-57 (D CO -0 ca T� 0)-0 a 16
0 8 —0 =m-00 A.! w 715 - 0 (D C a Q) CC :0:
> E a E cn
CL 0 0 (D cc 00 =3 E 0 Ln " Cc 0 as c
8 c-9 — -.r-- 0� 2 a) cc = a ,—
(D E 0 E :3 ca 3: 0 -0
D-- Z 8 lao)
cr :2 UJ E w -06 .2 0 -5 0 o 0)
2 > E 0
`o_ t5 0 ca Cc) co (a (D in a) a)
0 - a) C 2 a) CD W =
co -0 CL -6 0 a o
>1 CD w (D E CD (D 0 — C)
> w An 0� -0 o c
a) m 8 C�_ Cc 0 a > Co
-0 0 0 0 w . >;- >a' E —0
co a) a) — en _c_- 9 ,�5 = 6 :2 0 a) CD 5 -4. 5 -5
co F CO co -5 C.0 0 -0 C-) 0 E
-0 LU
0 E 0 3: 0 0) cr 0 cc 2 0
CD 2) ca E Q) 0 =
cc 0 — (D
(D o 8 w =L cl) w E
> cn CL 0 w 8
E
cO R cm c w -r o o -..r a W . o
0 (D co a)
c G S2 a cc a 8 .
cc a) C5 m cc, Lo 0 cn
w cu T a (D 0
ie 0 opo a 0
— a) 0) D ,
cc -0 LU ca CL a G; a E 2 2 .2 E
w CL In .0--t6 V; W
(D 0) = •
'2 cc
w E 0 E w = 0 cL E 4-= IE! CC$ Z5 :3 Mn
0 cc Oc 0 o — .59 a) V5 E a 5 = a a
0 cD q cr o o cr :3 C cc, cm CO
w en L) w o b w E —0 2 CL 2 CL -0 0 0 0 o 0 w w o c a
o A i5 .9
W cm
aio (D
0 CL a m V;
........... 0 0
CL
E
CL
CL
C LL
o (D
o 0 =3
E cu > E
0
.2�= 2 2
(D Cr D�.Ln O) o
:E LU o
-0
a) 0 ca (D 0).2
E — .E- - w E — a - a) E C (n
a CM'O (D 0 M-0 CD C-) a C Mn
-O,cn .2 0 —0 0 a E
c 2 (_D
a cc �o o M -00 -0 a a cc E
Cc LU FK --- a FL 0
co LU
o
ELU m LU ch LU
(D —a)
a- < ca 0 cc
m 8 CL CD-
:3
0 'j= 0 0
'= (D C) .1
0- 0 0 CL 0 0
a) Mn -D = -0 (D 0 CD 0
I 1 0 0 a cm co a)
o — CO CD
— , �; ., -r. cu
--J Lo LO CD 0) cc =3 (D U) = a a-)
76 0)15 (n 'n (D -6 0 a ,
Lo E E C .— — cts CL 0 cc cc
025 a _0 maw ) --, - 0
.— — 9 2 E� U) E 0 C�_ -
= o CD
:3E -a = — C.) w
cr 0) Co 0 a 0 a !E a)
u a) CO CL
a) -.r-- -0 cc 0 ca Q) .2 .- M 4) (D CU 0 (1) -0 ca..E
-0 a cc E Lu w 0 0 (D 0
.- (D — - i5 a) 0
iri
co a) CD a) io 0 70 a E tm '— >'-O (D CD
.5 -0 a 0) c — 0 E -a , w Z
_0 cr -0 0 0) 4) - CL—
:a -0 a> (D U) C w 0 0 o a
a> 0 49 = 0 0 0 -00 0 0 0
a rL C13 CU c
= 0 0 0 :3 a E CD co -0 2 — w 0) cr
CO -0 co Cr ca = > FL D = W a > — 0
cc o 0 CD CD a) — a) — *= a) 0 N 2 0 0 L-- co
Co w U) a- -0 0 _0 -0 w E cc
_0 _0 -0 a) cn --
c co 0 -0 = E Mn -0 E
8 0) jp a .2 a :3 0 >,.- > Co 0
Cc E 0 W CC Cn -0 CD 2 0 -0
- < - =) 0 -�5 Co
om 0 E -0= -0 cc .2 CD =. (D 0 E -oa (D — a
c 0 cc - .0
® M }" C-— Q, cc CD Wo 3�: 1-� 2 -E
co < 'S a m 0
(n
'E L) Kmn 2
LLJ 0 C5 a) 0 0. 0 0 a
(D z (D c ca. U) 0 M 0 -0 w 0 CL
-0 c _0 Lj .- 0
>
0
Q) CD 0 0) 75 > cl,
0 -0 —0 -0 t=0 o 2 (D cc
CD ca ca (D -0 0 ,6 a a
a) LU a) -EL a a> cc
0 = 'D = — a a) U) a) cc -a
M - 0 > cc 0 o 16
co CD iN_0 Es cc L a)
.- co 00
:5 OS CO a E (D co
t;-- o co _0 U) �E
W CO Cc ca a *a= cL
co :2 0 A-- m (D a -o CL fn — 0 =
CL (D :3 a) co w 6 Mn a A 0
w 0 -
E a) 0 ID E , E co 0 cc 0 <
o CO (D E cL c..) .
C CO a) E -E o
ow (D a-- -6
.Fq -.:, -!:= CL (D as
::,0 0 (D c 0 U)
CL >, 5. a) a = :3 cr CL 0 -- -o
X = 0) -0 CO (D 0 lu- (D w cn cr ca > CL
0 — CD C CO (D = = E 0 U)
Lu E 8 -wa CL Ca 0 = w C13 — w -0 - CDO 0 — -
a) a) , — — co a) CL 0 J-- = 0 — :3 :3 CL CO
ca 0 -L- o - a ta _ CD (D -a cc cc
Z (D U- < () 6 (D ca a) -a (D a) a = 70 Q) (D
52 d, a_- 0 -6 -0 CD
N w 0 C CC3 a CO E tm w w oc cc E c)
-�, 8 t-- .2
= Ca 0
z cu Cc — , z c
= = Z 0 —ca cn 0 ca - 2 CA F; o -6 w
0 w a) 4) (D ,E- cQ 0 cc a 0
E U) -D-—0 a) ca cn 0 c a) a> '05 =3 -0
—co E E E co a
ca cn C.) CD
0 E 2 E W CD
CO .2 co .2 LU cu ;�,A2 '6 = , �5 8 -F CD N C>
E a) Cc -a < < E 0-t2 < a a = 0 w -0 a w — = E 'n E
(D 05 0 8 0 -10D con -2 0 -0 W = —0 E
jg E C) 0 ca E (D (D cli
0 — za .7 0 -5 = .9-- -
C:) c 0 (D
Co 0 M 1— 00 M . 0 2 4130) a- 0 0 — (D — O cc
C?
0 0 0
;z
CL(D
0
CL
0
C
0
CL
Cas
m
x
LU
U)
E
>
a U.
Lu 4)
ty)
M
C)
0 c C:
E E0-
E CD CL (D 0 co ca
> °- a °-
oa- ,, a-
2 Do) cao .DE-)
C) o
CL
C= a
LU LU m
0 a)
w E co mE
ccca6-0 (D 'F= M-0 a) 4-- Oc
c 0 -0 a .9 0
:E5 0 co
Ao cL
j5 a- a 5 C: LU
m uj m ui
(D
cn
CLZb co
CL a-
0 cm _0 0)
CD
a a ca
0 0 LU
8 CV)
LL
cn _0 (D -a r -6 cc -0 0) w w E co w>,
c co con c
ca GO
=3 E CD > Co
m CO CD CD
co 'E cu ?�- CD = 12
(D a) = CL 0 C) i>
0)
_ _O Z n — QL 0
=0 a C/) co_� 5 a)
a) ui 15 I- o
ca CO) I ca ( .0 tm a)
j
_0 0 (D Cc <2 Z5 CNF a) 26
co2 Z
15 G
a).afl -- 'D Foo (n = -6 -- co CO -m a) 0ceoc
-0
=3 0 0).T 0 — - 0 Co M .6
0 .2 CL M a 13- a E
(D CD -0 2 ca 8
0 (D W C, E w a)
cco cc E (D CO
2 a) ca L) CD
cc w 16 �5 -2 a)
0) cr Cc C�. co, CD >1 rL a- CO cu E 0
-a 0) _t__ — CL 2
CD co a) -0 c 0) 4) cc 0) w cx
0) E 16 Z5 -o CD (D 0 IM
_0 o 05 -0 E -06)
cc
-0 cc m it 0 0-
2 0 =3 .0
co co co 4D w
c 0 co cn CO o o
co U) :I - - .1- 0 W M 0 cc Z5 Z
0
=3 .0 C-) tu fn cO -E 0 0 w a C;5 0)
0_ -�6 16 1= c - .9-- CD CU co .2 0 0 3: E
E 5) a) =0' W CL_ -0 =, CL.S-_ o a) Cc .2
cc 2 CL 0 co cn — a- = 0- 8
0 (D U) ID -0 Q) 0 0 (n
0) 0 .4 .0 -0 M L6 a W
rnyoa
CD a Ae C= = o. (1> a) =0
'm — a) CD co 0
w CD co CD o)m E cc ccu,):F; 0 0-
�R cc,4 E =3
E E 0 •0
0 0 -0 a5 0 - -0 O -o E TM Lo E 0 ca CD 2: CM
CD 0) co a
22 c-A= — a) 11 = in
(D cl CU CD >,'o
cn a) cm — a) 0) CO
(D C-n a) a>
0
0 2 cc ca w :F; c4 15 E •Q. 0
2 -0 , w .= x
= 2 CL CD -a E —0 CU [u- — C:) =3 —
CU c C. (D E :t� u1i M— 0 C:) CT a>
c3- w 0 _o L) = 0 70 C14 a) -0 E '6
cc cu a) E -(D 17 C CO co
0 (1) co -a
:3 < w -0 at a) Q>) 0 w 0 w U .— co w co cu '6 CL
0 a C 43) w 0 E - c) -q C -0 (D CN c 0) E
Cl o cu 16 cu (n Co 0) 0 C: a)
C) cu in 0 J:
cn , = CO co CD G) (D Cl)
0 CO a c
a) in .2 W Ea ca .-
cc CD co
(D .2 = = . 0")
C=3 -0 E a) c a) (D 0 tm 0 C:
CC co w -Fu 2 .2 0 10 ED U-
S2 (D co wo - "a Cl) -M a- 0
0 co .0 .CCD5 25 c, E cn ou 73 (D
'E CM
0 (D 0 — (D
<
CU CD
C'/) C'n W E CL 0 a- C
_C_ CL F- .2 —
0 c)
E
0 La
0 UJ 0 2sc0
0 � LU
z z w c5 CD CD
CL
� -5 E
0
e
w 0 :e
x
LU
U)
m
C LL
0
E o
CD
CL > cm
CY) 2 .a
0-
O .a co
-0
-a CL CC
a
co cc$
A2
C CD M0
CD
76 .9 -2
a _0 co mE�0 CD 0 C5 0
c a) -0 0)
LU
a 0 LU CD = .9
cc M
a)
co
(D Q- CL CD n-
(D
O —0 U cm
0 cu a
.= -a -0 LU .0 i,-
O- 6 's — a- M
co
M LL
CC cD (D -0 a 0 -0 C CD 0 a 0 a CD
ca C13
cc C3 = w .5 x 0
N C1
CL C d7 N CD COa) to
4f E :5
aa (D a) -9--
;5 LU -0 U) 0 (D (D
:3 — us
0 cn A (a :2 E Q) '5
a) C7) cn U) (D ca a) 0 Co a)
C-) a) a) o a —co >
CD -0 _C z 0 co a) Cc a>
U) -0 0
w (D a) 0
a — 3 cn
za C3 0
w CL 0 - -o cQ
CU = ca CCS Ca
-0 w co E _0
C CO (D cc), cD 2 0 -CE C'o a 4) CD
Q) .2 CD _0 0 — .- -o C CD 0 10 LU
a- 15 m .2� a ca !E
—a) iE W q w v —
W CD Ca -0 0 co a) c,> 25 (D ca
0) CU M .1 -0
co CL cm.?, CD (D CL (D N a> CL
:5 C (D c w :2 E
CD 4) 2 CL 0 a> 0 C. CL .-
-t5 :2 >,.g 0 (D
cn a) CD- 0 0 (D -2 -0 x tm -0 0
m a) 0) a C13 M 0 Z E rn a) C= Q", -Fo 0 4 CL �m 0
cu 75 "i E a)
z 0
co 01-- =3 -0 E (D
tt=
CO F�F = cu cc 0 E (D 0
(? cu E (D
cn
EF- ca CL 0 > '(D
2 -a w e:F; 5 0 — 0 :2 0 *2 E
a- 0 2 a a — 0 t:)r- a
ca cc 0 0) Cn CD E -05 cL E o
CD cm 0 2 -0 a) a) E = 7rL (D
a 0 c -- a > 0 a)
;5 E Z CD CL 0 W
@v 0
-5 cc a cm cc Co ` O
0 -5 (D oacC,
m 0 Cc C,) C .G co C6 CL CD- 0 — w (n (D 0 Z 0
ca -6
CD 0 -0 0 C CD % C —
E c) E 'Fn "c �c 3:
2 cn '4-- ncuf6i
Ca
_0 cc$ CD 4) �o 0 E
cu cn C-) CD CD -0 0--o
0 = 0 CO (D Co
0 =3 > 0
cc
o co cc E ac) w -0 ca a 6 E w 0 E o
=3 0 CU a 0 Z (D -0 o :3 Co — (D 0� (D
0 Co J= O)—Cn CX. 0 =
(D ca -0 X- t5 E a 0 CL Cc > > 0)
a _0 >, 0 a
E E 0
C -0 CO c , cn
'C ID
= (D M,g SD co Q-:2
Ca 0 4) --J (D 09 a) 0 j_- (D Z
W CM CL , .2 a
Z .9 = - a E E
J- cc
co 0 (—D a) a)
Q-
a CD fa CL E
(D cu CO o =3
-C o
cu cr- Z5 V5 0 -Fn w 3: EL c _o c D VS u) E 0 'D oU 0
N
ca. CL
CL CO
2 c" 2
CL co M9
LU
0 LU C
w Cf) (D 0
r- -6 E
as
0 .0 a
eCL
CL
cUJ
x
rm
as U)
E
c U.
w (1)
M
0E (D E (D
E
0 Co -6 CD
coa coCY) co co 'o
CD -0 To cc co C
2 C E a) . 0 E: 2
CD a-
0._0 M- rmM
0) -0 tM
to C',
co uj LU
uj E
CL CL
(D
cc a,
¢ a < a_w < CD
CL
—0 tMo 0)
0
ccoc
0 uj 0 -0
CLCL T LO
0
LL
,i-', E o -0 a 0 Q) a a) 0) (D ID -0
a) CD :3 0
(D
D
cn cc E 0 - a5 —C
CL-QU
8 , E, cg
cts > 0 Q)
a) CD co
(D
w le co �5 =' — W
M w (D
tin 0 _0 CO x E —Q) _0 F-
Co -T T uj a) a) — — co
M a 0 co -D a w
w Cf) C> C-0 -ao) "Fn .0 -�5 a) w -W ji
2 8 co CD 0 :F; G , o
co E co Cl)
CD a) 0 > ca
CCD 2 0 =C. —0
IL Co >, a) M -t.,
cc 0- a -0 - .e0. Cc
E 2 �5 a 0 .2 AS (b (D
rm d E U) E cu :5 E cu — (D CL
co CD 0 -Fo cn 0 -0
_R M can) 0 a) 0) co ?�: 3:: o i - , 2
C-) 65 .2 (D a) .9; a) 0 C5 <
-ffi o T w i6 -6 a
U -- 0 co E = 0 -00--
a — Cc > 0� a w CL _C — a5
U- a) ' 5 a>> 0) -0 0 ::, 0 am
E Mn UJ a — CD
1-01
8
0 4) 2 G a CF.
t- —1 2 F -0 . -2 co (D
4) (D Z CD 0 (D Q. a (n — -0 CO — .0 a W 0
2
0 2 0- M :3 0 (D -0 - C> COo .
�= CL co cc CL E — cD cr,
CD 0 -0 E CD a a CO a
a 0 E CF)
- (D C: co -- " 2 -0 Ln .— 0 Cts LLJ
C'u a Co (n w -0
cc
.— a) co
d) o 3 -a a) - 2 Coo
a o 0 o
w 0 > 0
0 a CD 2 a
'n 8
a (D 0 -Fo E
-0 CD 0
cc E in < co "W 8 0 -0 Q) E .2
Cw A? o 'o = T a -0 VS E .0
C a 01 a
-0 CL a o
<D 0� w ' 4 '
a) o 0 •w 30 cu -4= E 3: Co fn
C.) CU U) wu 0 0 a j- 2 gi co cn = cu
a CD _0 CD 0 0
Cc C—O i—M -0 cr cc CO CD CD -2 !Ej a 0 — a &6 -he
CO (D = 0 cn 0
a) CD CA
> a w 0 -0 -0 0 a co
? -j 0 E cx 0 (D -a 0
cG Cl) a a
a -C cn - - M
A2 o -0 co .— 'a)-a 0) 9 CY)
aS -0 Q) aS -R 0 73 -u 2 = a)
0 2 a 49
cn CD M Cn a lu cc
Lu :2 c5 0 U) 0- =
a) .(D ,,e < a) U)
-0 C14
0 IL
0 Z5 tM co a (D
1W Cl)
0 a) a- -0 m cc
a- (D CO T 2 a_ 5 uj
w S
Cl cl
(D
AA <o.
0
CL
e
w 0 7E
CL
c
E .e
0
>
E (D a 02
0 M (Dcc 0 A C E
r—
S -E 0
2
(D 05 '
E > 6
ID 0 10
a
C"
a
Q) V W LU (D V Co LU
0S z-
CL a'
a) 0
E E
cc a-(D 0 a-a) < Q_(D
a-
0) o tm
cm a a
:2
-- Z5-C w
OCA ca m 0
co co -0 to -0 0 w a
ca m R2 -0a) E O >a, C_D a 4) — C 0
:3 co
co =3 (D CC C Cca 3i: 0
cc 0-2 W en
a) is Cc) U) M
"05 Cc • (D 2 8
0_1 .0 v; C
a 0 -0 ® a a) 2 a)
0-'- 0 -0
E o V3 0 0 -o — w a E
w -E o a cl) a co > OS A
-0 -0 —a) 0 (n cc 2 EL o
ID (D — CC i;--
(D (D CO 45 E
w 0 (D
0 cn 42 co ca w -0
'6 ca cn :r__ ca cu
_0 a) a cc a
co w r,
_5 ca 16 a) a) CO <D CO (D
a 2 cc M
-6 -0 Lu .— :2 as -a cu Z '6
co -C C a) cc 0. CO -0 — a
(D - co a) cu a) 0
0 0 < CD
> -0 C (D
a) E cc 0 Cz E
a- co (D -a (D
0 4) w (D a a) ca cc CIS
0 cl) '5;
cu w E (v cD co
a -9 — -- - 0 0 -
co t5 a)
CIJ W (D cc ca -0 :3 0 0) (D a) Z - -ca
0 cn W a- 0� T a)
-Fa a a - CD -ELI a
,6 -0 7;5 .4 a — co CD -0
w 16 , - a) a> (n w a-
Eg- a> -a _0 a) -S c (D '
> =3 43) 0 -0 U) V) a Q a) c cn
00 75 cc > E —0 tmc LU
C,) (D = 0 a CL U)
Cc - 43) ID
a> E —5 U)
C 0 CX d5 E E CC 0- <D CL
cc ID 20
CL tL (D (D E cL
E "F_ Cc C -a -a �o -0 = a.a- o w o a-
m a C a) 0 = 0 E cm CD &A n a- w
cc .2 cc 0 ca co _0 8 a cE cu �p w 0 m w w
Z cn -, - -, (D :Z5 a co — (D 0 C M L)
-C to CD .60 0) C r
R! _0 co
0 (n a) 0) 0
0 CD a -0 0 3: Cc) QE) -0 0 — 76 CO a>
>,'Fu (D '- 0 ca M (D a) (D -0 LU 0 0
— > 0 M (1) , S .., C, U)
> 0 tm -0 -0 -0 ca co co — M (n CO
(D 0 0 /) Z - '>s o' er M
45 a, a- 0 0) 12
Q) Dov — C:L <D = ZC/) 4) 0) (D '6 - - a-
(D 0 - cn - Q) z cc 0 8 C13
-9 0 U) -0 U) cc a)
-0 �- x cU C "t6 7a5
0) a -0 a) (D 0 a a) -Z CO cc
'n -0 ca 0) < = m = -C j�, 4, c) C cc C*� 0 O .0 <
a) :3 = -6 a, - E :3 — --- coCc a) 8 .9 — 0 CD co
T cc a) -o o ca -0 In E Q) (D
0 0
2 0 a) V5 0 M a a) cc -0 > =3 .0
E r-r 0)
cn
C.� c) 0 0 - >
U� M Co cc
(1) D d- w 76
0
-0 E2 P m (D 0 a. 16 c
CD E , �� C 4? , - , —0 q 2 w E 3:
m m w w w > CO CD I cn D C - w w
Co = 0 . w _4> a> C, 0 Cc -0 C)
w =0 M'D 410=' (U 3� 45 -b F— E 5)3�: -00) <2 M 0 >1 E
�q ) C C)
tr-- 0
a CL GO CD
r M cm
a) Z5 E -a w
= .=
F- c- 8 mcg. do
cts
m CD
CL
T: -6 E
0
CL.
e
0
M.r
UJ
E
>
r- LL
w
as
75
E 0 (D 0 co a)
E Z
0 -Fa 0 E c 0
0 E'R t --ffi= (D Ca
0) co cn 0 O)r
8 tm 2 2 L
CL cc .2 2 2 E w ca
(D < cc CL y cc
0- Z5 ag) 0).2 0
O '7=
c co
Zw
—0 Co
4) 0 E
UJ Ca E
S
ZZ 0
CL SCL
0 >,
< CD < R a < a) a_a)
CL CL
ca CO
—0 —0 CDL -2 m 6 m
=3
0 ;E
CL a- C-) 0 CL
0 in CD
_0 0 w 0 0 w w -0 :E _0 cy):= CD -0
z ff COD JD -0 0 a)
0 a- Ca -S2 ca Cc
i w ca
r
E co 0.
Z5 >1 Im :3 E U) 0 a)
a. C-0 -0 — 0 0 (D (a
- cc a) CD 2 C--
a) :3 0- V5 = ca 0 a cp
a- u) 2 a cn 4-- 4) -
L tm CU n ca 0
C, 6 CEL 00 0 0
CL (D a) -0 -0 o
r
E : <
0 co Fu 0
0 cL E M 0 :3 ao) 0 Za '8 :2 c
CL a) CD , co
cm
t6 — , CD a) Cc CL) > 0
Cj -ra Lu -0, < a) -D cl 2 C_D 0
0 CO
C) 0
co ill
C=p (a ca cn In M CO 0
C: M M > -0 cm Co (_D a) CL
=3 =Gi -x i::! 0 M -- c rn
(D a> CL CL 0� Lo >,
Cc 2 0 E ca a) CL (D
E E CC 'CO cu -X-C CU -0
CDa) to W CD 0 -Z6
CD 0 0) tm U) 7N SO -0 co o _0
-a CL w (D
C', 0--a m co co 0 co w i- E a) 9 Q)
Z5 0 0 a> cu
w cc 0 cc c-u
CU Cc a)
cu m a
=(D 8 as 0 0 C7,
CD -Co CL c q
- -, -o cm
0 - -a CL a -SR Aa? (D CO
a 4) - - = E -a
-0 CD a -0 Cc CD CL > Q)
:= > = J--
E co oa w CZ 0 G co -0 C2 ID cc
-0 2: cc —
> a) :5O C — - -a C.9 - -0 - Iwo A—g
ca 0' co CL ca cm a w Q) a 0 0 Z5
E 0 a- - E cp— M ::. w a 0 - E —0 co — Co M—
O w -0 C.) < 0 cy C3 a) iff .2 0 CD
CM CD w 3:
CY) a> E Z6
w E CL q CO (D co —0 0 Cc U)
a- :2i -0 — CD fn m ow Q) -o
m CU - C-- — a — a 0 -0
cc a) w C: Q) a c C�-15 =
op E
12 C) rn o ,- -5 E cc 3� o - w 0 -0
(D 0 - a) E (D >, a) W o cc :3 0 -
0 12 c-) .0 E =3 c ca
0 CD CL _) - -E M rn c.) CL a E
a- ca co -0 -= CM = >1— -
So' E NJ w w E w 2 o w- -,5- 2 w
(D cc -0
w 0 0 C7,
- — P CO > RD - w w a- C;
0 , ;�, a
82 E - 0 w — cO E2 25 —0 tLO W 5 -0 -zg -0 a ca 4-) .-
. CO w E 0- g! �p .0 -0 CL ii: o
a) G; m a) a P-, a (D CL n :3 (D Co D..5 cc 4)
0 M 0 w < w
E Q M 0 0 .2 E c a) CD
E co Z (0 -0 2 . �E 0 CD -0
c) 2 E - -0 0 0
cu — _3 cj < 0
16 r- CL _0 (n as .9-- w q E
0 co .w o cf) 0- c < .2 F= Z5 -0 'C; a)
ID 0 =3 U) Cf) C S2 E
-2 U) > c
cc 4i :9�
" :;:. -0 0 co 'a co (D ca -0 x CD
cc U) -0 0 UJ -0 C�— (D
a) a) < co D�
�5 E M _0 I -
—0 0
J2 "ib 0 a � G 0
a
.59 =3 CD
IX6 < = 0 CL (_D 00 E a- C'a
mcg 8 0 0
LU
L9 (D cli
A2
a U) 0 C/)
CL
0
C:
0
C
CL
cw uo
0) 0
E e
r- :te
c U.
w
as
O c 0CL a co a wCL a_
0
is 0 *r_- co ca -0 C: CO CD
13 '05 E > CL a 2 a- a) > - a > .G
E 2 a, ':= w 2 's; =
c�. 2 E ca CL:= 0 m:9 -0 o 0 CL a) 0 C�- 0
c00(D ":5; = ��cn c OL W >
Cl) 0-U) E C L
a) ca a)
0
o 0
0 cD E Z5 ca a> a 0
.2 0)_c) a) cm_a c Z5
0 3: D 3: Z 3�
E- 0 2 0 C .0 0 2 0 .9
D -2 •o 0 0 T m -0 0 0 2 —
S -0 i5 CL —.— a— i5 CL -0 i5 =)
-0
:3 :3
CL m w LU a_ CL
cu
.0
ca
0 w
ooh 0 CL LLJ o
0 .2 CL
:3 — E
O 'E E a- 0 "E
8 CD _0 .1 C.) -0 -0
CD o cl — 0 a cc$ Go
CL c_) CL 0- 00 uj
mor
(Q CD W a) a) Q> as a) 70a)
w
0 C =CD a w 0 w 0 0 .2 0 0 a CO > _c_- -C a
U) cu Z cu 0 -0
-- — -
us "w o
C-0
—
.2 .2 E CD
-S
Cc — 0 o E > 0
E - -a -N E --.I-
a) CD .5g (D CL E a) >1 co — (D -2 _w E (—D
-5 E co C.) A2 U) -0 Cc — a) a) j5
a 0 CL.— - =
(D cc a) a) 0 1D -0
-0 C) co :C:- (D CD a w E E 0 3 CD Cn
16 — o Tcu — a)
0 CU a ca t:�
0
0 43) Q) a)
0 4?
A2 -c- C: w cl
�;: E 4) Co C:: 2 -0 0 0
,5- o t w ca
(D (D — M =3 ,0 — — w C'o — (D
E 0 a) 0 w C,
= -C- -0 0 CL-0
a) 0 -- a) x a) co
CL o c - -5 w co a> 4) E co _0 a) U)
C.) w co
CJ
E
C> cr -2 CD-
LO _O (D
C 0 -0 a> w U a- -0 =3
T —0 Ew w — a = 0 E -0 CD w ca
V5 cc E :3 E -5 E > -0 — 0 w
--ffi 4) CL 0 4=- a — 0 _0
cc co � 0 (D 0 w 0 0)
CD 0 :3 cu
cj -0 cc C6 c —
0) OL-�e (1) U) co
— a 0 -0 2 c — :'
zo w 0 0 w o -0 E
J--
a) 6.9 8 ca 0 0 0 cn cG E -0 (D (D CD
w w w 16 -r) w — 0 C) ca 0 CO -a
C 0 CD a _(,D " .0 m M w
CL C-)
E 0 0
8 :e 0 —W cu
-2 > w —0 cm 0
0 0 t.2 co CL a)
-o 2 (D "U CL Cn a) w
C,) — = 0 (D -= _0 a)
w CO -�e 2 w cL '0 0 M E cD "W (D
= 0 cn Cc a) -"6
CD C6 8 w 0 a 8 0) m
0 MF-- E rL !E 16 c� cl
w cm 2 -
(1) — 0 FO -0
-0 cm w ca 0 0 cc w
.20 -s; 2 U) E cL=
Co (D 'Z5 tM -0 W 0 -0
0) a —0
OE
-0 -0 C 0 0 cu E -On 0 0 w w
- C.) CD u
E E >, E a) CC CO CC >1 (D E (D
w CD w a -0 co CL w a 0 (D
a) U) -0 -5 0 w m 0 0 'D CL > CD
-0 Co 6 0 tm >, 0) — 0 — w• 0 M a E -c6
o E — CL (n cu 0) .— , cn — c = 0. — - E
-.r-- 0 -0 CD -0 w W 0 0� a E
W 0 0 :E (D (I -a Ca 0 W E =3 CC - E .0 49 :3
cc 0 4) -,f;; COU _-o
(D 2 — (D C.) 6- (CDT. c-, 0) (D CD
2 0 cu -r; " o
-Mi = L> cu An 0 w W" a — o V) Z CU -0
-6 E w 0 (_D _0 CC 0 — Co > L;--
(D W — ,- 2 - .— .9� a ("D 0 = CL a) (D
(n :L�- 0 m -a 0 C,) co 0 0 w a 6 w -0 0
0 -0 w — E 0 -- o =
< E 0 0 CL cn a' a) - E CL -0
ci -0 -2 j,- a) 0 " 't J,>�.2 MI) .2 o) m
cn a) ca w a E 0- a> (D z cc, .2 CT 2 w
o 0 2 9) U) *
-0 ca 8 -0 E — — w 2 (D _co 73 cc cl O� D-
o E =1 CD CL i-: Cr
— c w Cld
Co 0� -0 .2 (D 16
CL a) = (D "U CD
-C 2 w _0 co —0 N
M 0 CO U) Zo a- w a_
Willl.".-01: MCO Z
to Cl) CO U)
a. (D
CL
-TIZLJI?
� -6 E
0
e
Q,-
w 0
CL
x
c LU
E gD
>
r_ U-
UJ 0
CD
2
7E)
0 0 Cc0
.0 (D Vs C 0
E :m > 0 .0
:2 E a cn .2) E a) C CO zas
0 Ca .
ca ' ca 0�]6
:� CD CD CL CD -0 a
(D a> Cn W =
(D M: Cn CcD> 2 wa C (D
0CL m 0 :3 _ ca0
Co CL Q 0 of 2
LL
Z _0 Z _0
Z5 OL6ca a) a)
Ci w
E E
-0 (D
O - o)-0
(D a 0 a 0
Cx UO •
a 0
(n (D cu '5 L) A C a _0 Co
a-
m LU m LU m
—0 Z5 8 C-0
E A--CU — h-- C) E
0 tm C (D
< CD F- — .9 .2 7( 0 0) C- CID Q W
LU E a_ -0 0 ca C CL
CM 0 2 I
0 Ca -23>w, E E
U)
-0
:3 CL 00 >, = (D LL- T
0')
0 -Z5 z 0 ca 0-
Ce) 0 CD
w [u- C13 70 q> 0 C w .7 0 w w a = 0 0) a) CD
w CD C6>, IDC 0 0 Co >1= a) 0 a -0 > -0
Cn — 45 'ED Ca 0) Co M
Co cc ca ca a- (D
0� C)
(D -x N N 0 4a
Cn - -o o- C -= •= = U) 0 (D 0
M Co Q) -0 CL 0 0 Cn Cn w 0
"a Uih 0 Co .(D
—0 E _0 E cc 0>
a) I_D 8 - 0 .4 = 0
�- :5 0 M a
V5 0 < Co j:: Cn CO a) E 0 0) a)
tr-- (D (n (D ca m
(D 0 0 0 CD (D — C6 = 0 0 - 0 - Q) .9 CO (D
E 0 — 12 Me cc, a)
(n Cn LU cc E Co
a) CD w C) 0 LLJ E E (D -0 Co Y)
>% >1 Cr
a) -0 �5 U) (D CD
w (D — C" 0 0
= 2: -0 0 G> (n C/) U) 0) co -0 0 0 .r-- W
M = 0 = -0 -0 rn 0 a CD
O ca -C- co L) ta W < Co w 0 w - C
CG — W _6 = >,LU 00 :E :2 w — .2 (D CD 3:
ca Cc a) LL — — 0 a -0 CO :3
CD a) :3 a a) 8 CD o > M a M 0
V; -a w 0 -5 — ca wu 5� 2 — �6 — CD
ca a Cn tm x .7 W a) U)
ca 0 U) m
-Z6 0 - Q) O) o (n -C-- LL
Z 0 tm U) (D — a) CD
(D
Ca CO 0 C-- w -0 CL W . Ci o CO
= Cn
:2 EL m — :4.- -0 CU 0 0) a) •ca a)
a> C "S :D C) E cO rn OL
E -—Z� U)
CD 0 a CY) 0 M
Z5 4= j�: M ,, " >D 0 W CD c
CL U- (D t;-_ CD'O a) (D m ca
c. 'd E -C/) Cl) (D 0 C tA Ca —0 Q- CD 0 C 4: !E a)
ca (n a) a_ Q C/) tm -9-- 0 E E — a- ca IE5 12 15 — (D ui C-0
CO ZD C m r— .— cc a Ca IL a) 0
ca CQ a 16 *E a < — Co =, '— :3
w a >% E = - o -- F= _0 a) —0
q Co q 2 m 0 w E W ca -0 :3
0) ca CL —
a- 0
o
Lu
ca
(D >1 CD :3 - CU a- a- Cn - in OZ (D
o a 0) > tt� 2E ' s
�R -0 — 15 CO 0) C
Ca -01 2
cc$ Co V5 a) ca 0 0 CD E Ca 0-
0 0 m CF :5 a-
(D -L- — 0 0 ar, a) W (D CD 0-
(D ca a)
m a) 0
0 (D (D CL < Mn CD
= 8. 0�4;
(D =3 — E E -W
(D 0 _0 w CD < ca w -C o 0 = w -a :3
E CD LU a Ca =3 = CD a) a M 0) w
ca 0 -0 0) 0 -C Co a) a)
CC CU (D 0 — -C - = ca
> 0 =3 =3 — ca 2 — = E �� ca -- = -0
0 0 CL C CL E Ce >
> u (D 2 Im -0 - 42) Ca _0 -0
T -0 _0 -0 m 0 :5 a a- 0 ca Z a) CD 0
CD 8- a>) OLo .2 0 0 a) Cu Cl • — -0
(D u) .2 -0 cD > 0 Z (D 0 .- Cn Cn 0) 0 0 C L) Ca
CD wo C — CO (D (D ca . :3 :m
LU Ca E 0 8 Co 2 2 .- m _0
=3 IE 2 _0 Cu = CS 0- cc 0 E -0 03
F0 CL. 0� E -01
0 0) 0 An C14
Ca *= Fu 2 0
= (D = 0-
CO) < w c, E 0 t:,) , o
CL U) Cr Cu U) CL U-
0 Cu ax
CD 0 0 CD 0 'cc
CO 04
CL Fm ml fn m w
CL
t $ ■
CL e
«
// �
CL §
§ f 2
f \ §
■
/ L §
&
k 2
\
o
/
/
E
\
\� 3
�
«
E U) a (D
= a2 £
53 02 -
e - a® S 0
� k / n 0
/ @ -
ca - _
% E » (D
(D CL
§ =Ca 2f % -Z
,n = E7 [ a
p $ E22a
Rye = a :
/ Ek > >
E
0 (D
0 .-
/ 0 CD
RcnkE %
( 2k / \ [
W 2 - EQ
. me \ § 2 £
(D E C
a2d § Em
% q ® Q. § f
a 7 / e ��
. 2bb ± e0
22 % k / ®
co
a ca. E $
Ea)0CD E
k / � / kkcn
c
. 0 -
C') & - o
cr § § m § \ § 7
(D co CO c
f
CL
u » . <