RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_12_18_01_Marymount_College_Facilities_Expansion_ProjectRANCHO PALOS VERDES
Date:
Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING
December 18,2012
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project -Extension of the Time
Period for Completion of Phase 1 (Case No.ZON2003 ...00317)
Subject Property:30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
1.Declare the Hearing Open:Mayor Brooks
2.Report of Notice Given:City Clerk Morreale
3.Staff Report &Recommendation:Deputy Community Development Director Mihranian
4.Public Testimony:
Appellants:N/A
Applicant:Marymount College
5.Council Questions:
6.Rebuttal:
7.Declare Hearing Closed:Mayor Brooks
8.Council Deliberation:
9.Council Action:
1-1
CrrvOF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:.
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
HONORABLE MAYOR &~~OUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,AICP,COMl/NITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
DECEMBER 18,2012
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION
PROJECT -EXTENSION OF THE TIME PERIOD FOR
COMPLETION OF PHASE 1 (CASE NO.ZON2003-
00317)130800 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER09.--
Ara Mihranian,Alep,Deputy Community Development Directo~
RECOMMENDATION
Extend the planning entitlements and the construction completion deadline for Phase 1 of
the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Projectfrom December 18,2012 to March 19,
2013,without prejudice to granting a further extension up to September 30,2013.
BACKGROUND
According to Condition of Approval No.60a of the College's Facilities Expansion Project
CUP approved by the City Council on June 1,2012,Phase 1 of the Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project consists of demolition of existing buildings,grading including
the installation of drainage and water quality facilities,installation of utilities,the
construction of new parking areas,athletic field,tennis courts and the installation of
temporary modular buildings.According to Condition No.60a,Phase 1 was to be
completed by September 30,2012 unless a time extension was granted by the City
Council.
On April 11,2012,the College submitted a request for a one.year extension to the.
construction completion time periods established by the 2010 CUP (see attachment).On
July 16,2012,the College submitted a supplemental letter clarifying the requested time
extension request (see attachment).Per the July 16th letter,the College is requesting the
1-2
City Council's approval of a one year time extension to complete Phase 1 and a one year
time extension to complete Phase 2.No extension to the total 3-year construction activity
or the overall 8-year construction time frame for Phases 1,2 and 3 as described in
Condition No.60d is being requested.At the September 4th City Council meeting,after
considering public testimony and relevant information particularly on the construction status
of the permanent parking lot,the Council agreed to extend the planning entitlements and
construction completion deadline for Phase 1 from September 30,2012 to December 18,
2012.The Council also that on December 18th it would consider extending the deadline for
Phase 1 up to September 30,2013 as requested by the College in its July 16,2012 letter
(see attachment)based on the construction progress of the new permanent parking lot.
DISCUSSION
On December 12,2012,the City received notice from the College that the jurisdictional
permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)needed to construct a storm drain
detention basin for the permanent parking lot was finally issued (see attachment).As a
result,the City will be issuing the grading permit so that construction on the permanent
parking lot can commence.Furthermore,the College has indicated that it intends to begin
construction within the next few weeks.
Due to the delay since the September 4 th Council meeting in obtaining the necessary
ACOE permit which the College had no control over along with the importance of
constructing an expanded permanent parking lot,City Staff is of the opinion that there is
sufficient cause for the Council to extend the time limits for Phase 1.However,similar to
the action taken at the September 4th Council meeting,Staff recommends that the City
Council extend the time limit for Phase 1 to a date that corresponds with completion of the
permanent parking lot.This would enable the City Council to monitor the College's ability
to fulfill its commitment to construct the expanded permanent parking lot and other
infrastructure improvements described in Phase 1 in the next few months before taking
action to extend Phase 1 until September 30,2013 as requested by the College.
According to the College,it is estimated that construction of the permanent parking lot will
take approximately 75 days to complete.Thus,if the College is able to commence
construction within the next few weeks as expected,completion of the permanent parking
lot should be completed or nearly completed around mid-March.Based on the College's
progress in completing the expanded permanent parking lot,the Council could then
consider extending Phase 1 for the complete one-year period to September 30,2013.
Thus,Staff recommends that that the City Council extend the planning entitlements and
the construction completion deadline for Phase 1 of the Marymount College Facilities
Expansion Project from December 18,2012 to March 19,2013 (second Council meeting in
March),without prejudice to granting a further extension up to September 30,2013.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Parking Conditions at Marymount College
Over the past few weeks the City has been notified by the public of an increase in the
number of student cars parked along Palos Verdes Drive East and Crest Road while the
temporary parking lot is barely being utilized.Staff has also been monitoring the parking
condition at the College and has observed the same situation.As such,pursuant to
Condition of Approval No.158,on November 27,2012,the City notified the College that
1-3
additional parking management strategies need to be taken to minimize student street
parking.Specifically,the College was asked to immediately prohibit student parking on
adjacent City streets through its Student Code of Conduct (see attachment).
In response to the City's November 2ih letter,the College informed the City that it is
unable to immediately implement the City's request as the College's Student Code of
Conduct typically takes several months to modify (see attached letter dated December 11,
2012).This is because the College's protocol for making amendments to its Student Code
of Conduct involves participation and approval by its staff,faculty and students.
Additionally,the Student Code of Co,:,!duct is published annually.As such,the College has
indicated that it is unable to apply the City's request for the Spring 2013 term,but will use
its best efforts to institute this requirement for the Fall 2013 term.Furthermore,in its
continued efforts to work with the City to address the student on-street parking concern,the
College is exploring additional Parking Management Strategies that could be implemented
immediately or for the Spring 2013 term,such as temporary "no parking signs"installed on
its property along the Palos Verdes Drive East right-of-way.The College indicated it will
continue placing flyers on cars parked along the public right-of-way,sending out notices to
its students about the temporary parking lot,and increasing campus security at the entry
driveway.Staff will continue to keep the Council and public apprised on this matter.
Public Notification of Tonight's Meeting
Tonight's agenda item was continued from the September 4th City Council meeting.
Although public notification is not required for an agenda item continued to a date certain,
Staff wanted to ensure that the public was aware of the tonight's agenda item.As such,on
December 3,2012,the City's website under the Marymount College homepage was
updated to include information regarding tonight's meeting and a list-serve message was
sent to Marymount College subscribers.
At this time,9 public comments have been submitted to the City supporting the College's
requested time extension (see attachment).In the event additional public comment letters
are received after the transmittal of this Staff Report,those comment letters will be
provided to the Council as late correspondence in advance of the meeting.
Submittal of Conditional Use Permit NO.9 Revision "F"
On October 29,2012,Marymount College formally submitted the anticipated Conditional
Use Permit Revision 'F'application to modify the configuration of the Council approved
athletic field and to amend certain conditions of the CUP approved by the City Council in
2010.Specifically,Marymount College will be seeking City Council approval of the
following four revisions:
•Remove the four tennis courts approved for the western portion of the campus in
order to enlarge the playing area for the proposed Athletic Field and to change the
surface material for the Athletic Field from turf grass to synthetic grass.The
proposal also changes the Council approved grading quantities requiring a revision
to the Grading Permit to allow export of earth material.
•Amend Condition No.136 to allow up to three outdoor events (including the
graduation ceremonies)with amplified sound on the Athletic Field with the approval
of a Special Use Permit.
1-4
•Amend Condition No.60 extending the time periods to complete each of the Council
approved phases up to September 30,2030 (Phase 3)but with the actual
construction time period for construction not to exceed 36 months.
•Amend Condition No.79 to more accurately reflect the limitations on structures for
primary occupancy in the identified Geologic Setback Area.
Staff recently finished the completeness review process of the application materials
submitted to the Planning Department and determined the application package incomplete
on November 27,2012.Staff intends to begin the selection process (short list)of an
environmental consultant to prepare the required environmental document to analyze the
revision proposal pursuant to the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA).Once an
environmental consultant is selected,the Council will be asked to execute a service
agreement with the respective firm.This will likely occur early next year.
The City's website was updated announcing the submittal of the Conditional Use Permit
Revision "F"application along with the issuance of a list-serve message.Some members
of the public mistook this announcement as though the Council will be considering this
request at tonight's meeting.The College's revision request will be considered at a later
time as part of a duly noticed public hearing after the appropriate environmental documents
have been completed and circulated.Staff will continue to provide the Council and the
public with updates regarding this separate proposal.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion,Staff recommends that the City Council extend the
planning entitlements and the construction completion deadline for Phase 1 to March 19,
2013,so that the Council can monitor the progress of the construction of the expanded
permanent parking lot.Staff also recommends granting the time extension without
prejudice so that the Council may consider,at a later date,granting a further extension up
to September 30,2013 as originally requested by the College.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's Recommendation, the City Council may also consider the following
alternatives:
1.Grant the College's Phase 1 time extension request until September 30,2013
(a full one year);or,
2.Deny the College's Phase 1 time extension request which would result in the
denial of the permanent parking lot approved by the City Council in April 2012.
ATTACHMENTS
•December 12,2012 ACOE Permit Letter
•December 11,2012 Letter from Marymount College responding to the City's
November 27,2012 Letter
•November 27,2012 City Letter on Parking Management Strategies
•July 16,2012 Letter from Marymount College
•April 11 ,2012 Letter from Marymount College
•Public Comment Letters
1-5
December 12,2012
ACOE Permit Letter
December 2,2012 City Council Meeting
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Time Extension Request
1-6
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O.BOX 532711
LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90053-2325
December 12,2012
Regulatory Division
J ames Reeves
Marymount College
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-6299
Dear Mr.Reeves:
I am responding to your request (Corps File No.SPL-2012-00346-SME)for a Department of
the Army permit.
Your proposed project,the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project,would result in
a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.Therefore,pursuant to
section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.1344;33 C.F.R.parts 323 and 330),your
proposed project requires a Department ofthe Army permit.The proposed work would take
place in an unnamed tributary to the Pacific Ocean within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes,Los
Angeles County,California at approximately 33.73485;-118.33561 (Exhibits 1 and 2).
I have determined construction of the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
complies with Nationwide Permit (NWP)Nos.39 (Commercial and Institutional Developments)
and 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities),if conducted as described in your application.
Specifically,you are authorized to conduct the following regulated activities:
1.Discharge dredged or fill material into a portion ofDrainage A to construct a new 2A-acre
athletic field in the westernmost portion ofthe Marymount College campus (Exhibits 3 and
4);
2.Install a 24-inch storm drain pipe and an 18-inch storm drain pipe and outlet within
Drainage A (Exhibits 3 and 4);
3.Construct an approximately 0.04-acre concrete-lined detention basin in the southernmost
portion ofDrainage A (Exhibits 3 and 4);and
4.Permanently impact approximately 0.111 acre (434 linear feet)and temporarily impact
approximately 0.04 acre (20 linear feet)of non-wetland waters of the United States
through implementation ofthe above activities.
For this NWP verification letter to be valid,you must comply with all of the terms and
conditions in Enclosure 1.Furthermore,you must comply with the following non-discretionary
Special Conditions listed below:
1-7
-2-
1.The permittee has proposed to mitigate for impacts to waters ofthe United States through
implementation ofthe draft detailed mitigation plan:"Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(HMMP)-Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project"(dated November 2012 and
prepared by Sage Environmental Group).According to the draft mitigation plan,responsible
parties would be as follows:a)Implementation:Mr.James Reeves,Marymount College;b)
Performance:Mr.James Reeves,Marymount College;c)Long-term management:Mr.James
Reeves,Marymount College.The permittee retains ultimate legal responsibility for meeting the
requirements of the final mitigation plan.Detailed mitigation objectives,performance
standards,and monitoring requirements are described in the above draft mitigation plan.Any
requirements for financial assurances and/or long-term management provisions are also
described in the above draft mitigation plan or in Special Conditions 2 and 3 below.
Prior to or concurrent with initiating construction in waters ofthe United States,the permittee
shall submit to the Corps Regulatory Division a final mitigation plan prepared in accordance
with'the Corps'Los Angeles District Mitigation Guidelines and Monitoring Requirements,dated
April 19,2004 and the Mitigation Rule (33 C.ER.Part 332;73 FR 19670-19687 (AprillO,
2008».The fmal mitigation plan shall address the 0.111 acre of permanent impacts to waters of
the United States through the enhancement of 0.222 acre of waters of the United States.All
maps and drawings shall be in compliance with the Final Map and Drawing Standards for the
Los Angeles District Regulatory Division,dated September 21,2009
(http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/pn/SPL-RG_map-drawing-standard_fmal_w-
fig.pdf).The permittee shall complete site preparation and planting and initiate monitoring as
described in the fmal,approved mitigation plan concurrently with impacts to waters of the
United States.Your responsibility to complete the required compensatory mitigation as set forth
in this Special Condition will not be considered fulfilled until you have demonstrated
compensatory mitigation project success and have received written verification of that success
from the Corps Regulatory Division.
GIS DATA:Within following written Corps approval of the mitigation plan for General
Permits,you shall provide to this office GIS data (polygons only)depicting the boundaries of all
compensatory mitigation sites,as authorized in the final mitigation plan referenced above.All
GIS data and associated metadata shall be provided on a digital medium (CD or DVD)or via
file transfer protocol (FTP),preferably using the Environmental Systems Research Institute
(ESRI)shapefile format.GIS data for mitigation sites shall conform to the data dictionary,as
specified in the current Map and Drawing Standards for the Los Angeles District Regulatory
Division,and shall include a text file of metadata,including datum,projection,and mapper
contact information.Within 60 days following completion of compensatory mitigation
construction activities,if any deviations have occurred,you shall submit as-built GIS data
(polygons only)accompanied by a narrative description listing and explaining each deviation.
2.Prior to or concurrent with initiating construction in waters of the United States,the permittee
shall post financial assurance ("financial assurance")in a form approved by the Corps
Regulatory Division for the estimated cost of implementing the approved HMMP (including a
20%contingency to be added to the total costs).The purpose ofthis fmancial assurance is to
guarantee the successful implementation,maintenance and monitoring ofthe wetland and non-
wetland waters creation,restoration,or enhancement work.Our preferred form of financial
1-8
-3-
assurance is a Performance Bond,in which case,you shall post a Performance Bond for 120%
of the anticipated cost ofthe mitigation and monitoring associated with the project,as indicated
above.In addition,
a.The bonding company must appear on the Department of Treasury Circular 570,Companies
Holding Certificates ofAuthority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable
Reinsuring Companies.For a current list of Treasury-authorized companies,write or call
the Surety Bond Branch,Financial Management Services,Department of the Treasury,
Washington,D.C.20227;(202)874-6850 or visit the following website:
http://www.frns.treas.gov/c570/c570.html.
b.The performance bond shall be released only upon a determination by the Corps Regulatory
Division that successful mitigation has been completed.
c.Alternatively,the Corps Regulatory Division will accept an irrevocable letter of credit in the
same amount in lieu of a Performance Bond.The terms of the irrevocable letter of credit are
subject to Corps Regulatory Division approval.
d.The permittee shall clearly mark the limits ofthe workspace with flagging or similar means
to ensure mechanized equipment does not enter preserved waters ofthe United States and
riparian wetland/habitat areas shown on Exhibit 5.Adverse impacts to waters ofthe United
States beyond the Corps-approved construction footprint are not authorized.Such impacts
could result in permit suspension and revocation,administrative,civil or criminal penalties,
and/or substantial,additional,compensatory mitigation requirements.
3.The permittee shall record a Restrictive Covenant (RC),in a form approved by the Corps
Regulatory Division,which shall run with the land,obligating the permittee,its successor and
assigns to protect and maintain the 0.222-acre mitigation area (as shown in attached Exhibit 5)
as natural open space in perpetuity.The RC shall preclude establishment offuel modification
zones,paved public trails,drainage facilities,walls,maintenance access roads,and/or future
easements,except as provided in the Project Description (described herein).Further,to the
extent practicable,any such facilities outside the RC shall be sited to minimize indirect impacts
on the avoided,created,restored,and enhanced wetland and non-wetland waters ofthe United
States.Prior to its execution and within six months of issuance ofthis permit,the permittee
shall submit a draft RC to the Corps Regulatory Division for review.The permittee shall
receive written approval (by letter or e-mail)from the Corps Regulatory Division ofthis RC
prior to it being executed and recorded.No later than 30 calendar days after receiving Corps
Regulatory Division approval ofthe final draft RC,the RC shall be executed and recorded,and
a recorded copy furnished to the Corps Regulatory Division.
GIS DATA:Within 60 days following recordation,you shall provide to this office GIS data
(polygons only)depicting the RC boundaries,as authorized by the Corps.All GIS data and
associated metadata shall be provided on a digital medium (CD or DVD)or via file transfer
protocol (FTP),preferably using the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)shapefile
format.GIS data for RC sites shall conform to the data dictionary,as specified in the current
1-9
-4-
Map and Drawing Standards for the Los Angeles District Regulatory Division,and shall include
a text file of metadata,including datum,projection,and mapper contact information.
4.This Corps permit does not authorize you to take any threatened or endangered species,in
particular the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)or adversely
modify its designated critical habitat.In order to legally take a listed species,you must have
separate authorization under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(e.g.ESA section 10 pennit,
or a Biological Opinion (BO)under ESA section 7,with "incidental take"provisions with
which you must comply).Pursuant to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
correspondence dated November 28,2012 (Enclosure 2),including the required avoidance
and minimization measures,the Corps Regulatory Division has determined and the USFWS
has concurred your activity is not likely to adversely affect the above species.Your
authorization under this Corps pennit is conditional upon your compliance with all of the
requi~ed avoidance and minimization measures,which are incorporated by reference in this
pennit.Failure to comply with the required avoidance and minimization measures would
constitute non-compliance with your Corps permit.
5.Pursuant to 36 C.ER.§800.13,in the event of any discoveries during construction of either
human remains,archeological deposits,or any other type of historic property,the permittee
shall notify the Corps'Archeology staff within 24 hours (Steve Dibble at 213-452-3849 or
John Killeen at 213-452-3861).The permittee shall immediately suspend all work in any
area(s)where potential cultural resources are discovered.The pennittee shall not resume
construction in the area surrounding the potential cultural resources until the Corps
Regulatory Division re-authorizes project construction,per 36 C.ER.§800.13.
6.Within 45 calendar days of completion of authorized work in waters of the United States,the
permittee shall submit to the Corps Regulatory Division a post-project implementation memo
indicating the date authorized impacts to waters ofthe United States ceased.
This NWP verification letter is valid through December 12,2014.All NWPs will expire on
March 18,2017.It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs.A
public notice of the change(s)will be issued when any of the NWPs are modified,reissued,or
revoked.Furthennore,if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before
the date on which the relevant NWP is reissued,modified,or revoked,you will have twelve (12)
months from the date of the reissuance,modification,or revocation of the NWP to complete the
activity under the present tenns and conditions of the relevant NWP.
A preliminary jurisdictional determination (JD)has been conducted to determine the extent
of Corps geographic jurisdiction,upon which this NWP verification letter is based.A
preliminary JD is advisory in nature and is a written indication that Corps geographic jurisdiction
may be present on a particular site,but is not appealable.An approved JD is an official Corps
determination of the precisely identified limits of Corps geographic jurisdiction on a particular
site,and is appealable.Should you wish to appeal an approved JD,you may request an
administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 C.P.R.part 331.Please refer to the attached
Notification ofAppeal Process (NAP)fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA)fonn for more
information.
1-10
-5-
A NWP does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.Additionally,it does not
authorize any injury to the property,rights of others,nor does it authorize interference with any
existing or proposed Federal project.Furthermore,it does not obviate the need to obtain other
Federal,state,or local authorizations required by law.
Thank you for participating in our regulatory program.If you have any questions,please
contact Stephen Estes at 213-452-3660 or via e-mail atStephen.M.Estes@usace.anny.mil.
Please be advised that you can now comment on your experience with Regulatory Division
by accessing the Corps web-based customer survey form at:
http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mill survey.html.
UBuilding Strong and Taking Care ofPeoplel"
Sincerely,
Daniel P.Swenson,D.Env.
Chief,L.A.&San Bernardino Section
North Coast Branch
Regulatory Division
Enclosures
1-11
-6-
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NATIONWIDE PERMIT
Permit Number:SPL-2012-00346-SME
Name of Permittee:James Reeves,Marymount College
Date of Issuance:December 12,2012
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and the mitigation required by this
permit,sign this certificate,and return it to the following address:
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Los Angeles District
Regulatory Division
AT1N:CESPL-RG-SPL-2012-00346-SME
915 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles,California 90017
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by an Army
Corps of Engineers representative.If you fail to comply with this NWP,you may be subject to
permit suspension,modification,or revocation procedures as contained in 33 C.F.R.§330.5 or
enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 C.F.R.§§326.4 and 326.5.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said permit,and required mitigation was
completed in accordance with the permit condition(s).
Signature of permittee Date
1-12
1-13
·".._"_..~~'1!.~~.~:.E~.~?P.!~..~~p.~f.!~!?I!..e~t
...
"
,,,
.l'~~"~~.~:~..,l~IV<~~~.~.....'......~lil",.,.''\:t,,:'\16 'f ,..•••
tt'{!k\
-"'h.
.;-
"";':...,&~.~.',{jt -N
..,!5'....n..:..:.::..'''"._..-.~.~~....~..:..'.•.....I W~_.,'_",Q'4~'t'-~~~~~.'"....",...~.I
'i f..,~t'/lAW.'j.".';.t J~,".J
.J "',;.~
,,'..h'
....1001&
_~~'t"../
~c~·~
\'\'-_'1"~"-""..\~,\\\I?,W
4
~-~~.,,~'$Jll:W1l~'~"~
~..~.
I.,;'.'Jtr"'('~~/.~~
;16;..tt\..'I'i·:,.
'V~''
.-,
j;'
i
..~.."".::...:
~~~~
;,V\><t,f_:}·iJt_.;;
"iAll'~,.",~,-,:.'..
-'.~-:':'~('~"';':..
"-'<.1 <t
"-b"....4.-",......".~
~~'".,
V,'tq.
(...."•••...I!-.'....~....~••
i:r';:(/--..,t.,q:-<;I
~~.
'~h.
t b
...'"'\'t:.~.t:'.".
\'\'-ql'
q
'~~~;ft;,~:..
1.13Jsi"'·tI,.:....,.~
.~
'\"'~'\"-";a~_n,
t ..-"Ib •"...I ,,.;'a "l);..r"'"'\'."..,t.
4-
I •Exhibit 2:Local Vicinity Map I
Request for Concurrence of Non-jurisdiction
1
-
1
4
Mai}"mount (;of.-Faciilies Expansion P,
~..,
.-/...."
-~
~~
41
'~
''J;..
,
'\,.•...'...i..•......'._./'........•,..i
r
/'"
.1/;-".1/'.........-"'"
,,<.',ol.Rr<l<..;;l"-"~;;~~o~:c-c:--'~O'
--fil;
""~...................•.....-,~...._.-d~.,.;'~.•~.....••;.~1./rt:..'--0.';if I ,f'"..m~t,;.'-.·..~~~':~
/'t.'.E;~;~;.:::.1 (f ?]U .f Lr-L.L 1
,~I I ~
'.'Pt~.~d·~,.}ll ~!Jl (l-
f ·"or~.,;~::n-.111\,/Li I It",,;i;,~>tJg4k l¥'._.
o 80 160 320 ft
c...t.,;~.\-:>Existing Conditions
Vegetation Communities and
JUrisdictional Waters of the United States
•Photo locations
(9JurisdictionalWatel's pf9Sent onslte
..Non-wettand waters of the United States
0.20 acres.630 linear feet
Natural Communities present ansite
if"%Ruderal
1.Melrican fan palm (W3sllingtooid robl/stll)
2,Canary Island lilY (tI&-:1era cMariensisl
3.Castor bean (Ricinus COIllIlluniiS),tree toba<:co (Niootilma gIauc&).sweet fennel (Foeniculuill vllIQarel
4 Eucalyptus (Eur..aJyptus ssp.)
5 Natjye s!m.lb -Laurel Sumac (Nhus Taunnll)
6 Acacia (ACIlCW ~,l,myoporum (myoporum faetum),olive (0I&a europaell),Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle)
->1 Non-native graliatand R'Pllul Broma (Bromus diandlUs),bla<:k mustard (Bfassica Ilegro)
S,\GF ENVII'lONMFNTM.Gt~"":\iP
1
-
1
5
Marymoun~College -Facilities Expamooll ProJect
) I
G-y Lr~1 .I,(l-I -JLLJ--/'~
//
.-'"~_.
r"---7"
-~~/'
./-f
.......---./"-'.."..--'"
.,.;
'"
P
".
<{i
':I:.,.--"".D.~....---__.~
q),,'l-\(h'J "J!...~-..------.'----------~--c --10 ".--..,f:r~t ---l.....
I L \.."r'-'l_~j j.e i
(
-:_---"'1'[-
f'..,if;!
.i II ~.e:~e:d
'-'j "~to jlJf>Sdlc!>tl<l8lIwater:;;
'I
.J"~
Ii\$~j(~r,t:lt the:prWc~i A{Hii1rr.
~anr.1-a$$o\'::Ji,jt{;~1 :nff~~e·
tstorm dtctH~e;oct~!$<U-:..;.>tnd
~Na{kw.a1'-Hf't tQ~t ·n ft~
toe(marn:w:~'~}~S Of c-M ~~V-.A:>US
\J :J ~il&3I ~1:V*jfl",."""1'M:Jm a
f1"iINr;"'.t."'(H of .~8 ·f~.he:s .at the tnwt
slfHCtl,JH'!:to a 1!1>~~lt""t)llfp Of -~~~~at
~~.:'..eoc ~:~'t'11a:f \i:>tO>
"
,
i
f
Jllrisdlctlon.1 Waters Impacts (per area)
';l'Permanent Impacts to 'NoUS acres linear feet
Athletic Field 0.08 373
EnefgY Dissipater 0.001 10
Detention Basin O.O~60
-,.,.",~--------_.,-.._"..•._-~~~"
TOTAL 0.111 443
•E.1'.\",\'i"\i Developed Condition
Permanent Impacts to Jurlsdctional Waters
of the United States
o 80 160 320ft
SAGt FNVIIK>NMFN1AI GROIIP
1
-
1
6
MARYMOUNTCOLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
;'........
~,':
["._-
tJ
I;I
ill]}
~u~=~H!I
@J]F .....,.....,:r..
i\;~:j
,..
r"""""1I......
'"
\
:':
\.~
",
---.......i./
/
/
/
Proposed
MlII9 ilt'Cin/l",,,,,,
...111"0 ..11(1:1101111
t-aalUtilC
\-\/
--.
\
\
','I
I
-;:/.J:I .~JI~....(:.,J ",l._.__..'I """~"'.j
"'''::''':-;'-;...,.i~:!):...........II .....;:.
~• J j~J:'..f"~Il,i:,Il'"r"i..::,L'.I :I ......_.,~
\.,.(,\. I
\,",I
.'....,....~./
'..,/
[~1.-1L':~:!r
...:..~
P;.opnllo.'J--·...
MlllglllQn .rn
Wfthm ..ml/lltmy
Fu.uur.B
I_..-!
--.::..,."",,\"
--~~
//----.,~,/.
..-<.:>
,.-/
.iF ...•
..)--I
L...--r,...r'"';.
:L ..("I r.JLl_J
/
C;l.I~IlIl!J IIUIlI SHU':'I"'"
flI.11UtrA
PIOOOS~d
M,liU.lllttJI4r<lla
,..,llm,.,KI.liJOllU
.'/!"""'.'
.-
..__.~~"~c:"·--:-=:..:..::.:::::::::
\,
'i
i'/<'I-'~
• I -\
I
'-~
J'tolll/l'o(ld f)lIlhIJlllOn a,uu,
,/
i",",.~.,
;·11·:.•-!•.•.:
'''.
.-::(-'"I;._-;:~}~:~\--~--J r-~
,._",f \I \./'--'-'---'i
l
'-'-.~!~.!k.._,,j:'__:':
l'..,I~i
\u
II.
\
\:..../
PIlI!lm.lId SlIlftrl Dr.sUl
()UUt'ldll~1 EIl.H...,;"Oi$'lJalltr
;,,
h
;:
I'~d•~
"d;;
I!
~!i~~j:
,I...
":!
,I•IIIi
ii~I.
I''Ii!
Habitat mitigation consisting of:
Feature A:0.22 acres (300 linear feet)of native riparian and transitional plant
species consisting of coast live oak (Quercusagrifolia),arroyo willow (Salix
lasio/epis),coyote brush (Baccharis pillilaris),mulefat (Baceharis salieifolia),coastal
goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii),and lupine (Lupine sp.).
Features Band C:0.11 acres (560 linear feet)consisting of coyote brush (Baecharis
pillilaris),mulefat (Baccharis salieifolia).
E1--\..;,\'i·\--S Mitigation Areas
Location Map
HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN
1
-
1
7
A licant:James Reeves,Ma mount Colle e
Attached is:
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of Permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of Permission)
PERMIT DENIAL
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
X PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Date:12/12/2012
See Section below
A
B
C
D
E
SECTION I -The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/cecw/pages/reg materials.aspx or Corps regulations
at 33 CFR art 331.
A:INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT:You may accept or object to the permit.
•ACCEPT:If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer
for final authorization.If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is
authorized.Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its
entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the permit,including its terms and conditions,and approvedjurisdictional
determinations associated with the permit.
•OBJECT:If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,you may
request that the permit be modified accordingly.You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to
the district engineer.Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this
notice,or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit inthe future.Upon receipt of your letter,the district
engineer will evaluate your objections and may:(a)modify the permit to address all of your concerns,(b)modify the
permit to address some of your objections,or (c)not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be
issued as previously written.After evaluating your objections,the district engineer will send you a proffered permit
for your reconsideration,as indicated in Section B below.
B:PROFFERED PERMIT:You may accept or appeal the permit
•ACCEPT:If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer
for final authorization.If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is
authorized.Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its
entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the permit,including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional
determinations associated with the permit.
•APPEAL:If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions
therein,you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer.This form must be received by the
division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C:PERMIT DENIAL:You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section II ofthis form and sending the form to the division engineer.This form must be received
by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D:APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION:You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
•ACCEPT:You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD.Failure to notify the Corps within 60
days of the date of this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal
the approved ID.
•APPEAL:If you disagree with the approved JD,you may appeal the approved ID under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer.
This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
1-18
E:PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION:You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD.The preliminary JD is not appealable.If you wish,you may request an approved JD (which may be
appealed),by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.Also,you may provide new information for further
consideration by the Corps to re-evaluate the JD.
SECTION II -REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS:(Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to
an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements.You may attach additional information to this form to clarify
where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record,the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting,and any supplemental information that the review
officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record.Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new
information or analyses to the record.However,you may provide additional information to clarify the location of
information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process
appeal process you may contact:you may also contact:
Stephen M.Estes Thomas J.Cavanaugh
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Review Officer,
Regulatory Division,Los Angeles District U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
915 Wilshire Boulevard South Pacific Division
Los Angeles,California 90017 1455 Market Street,2052B
Phone:(213)452-3660 Fax:(213)452-4196 San Francisco,California 94103-1399
Email:stephen.m.estes@usace.army.mil Phone:(415)503-6574 Fax: (415)503-6646
Email:thomas.i.cavanaugh(a)usace.armv.mi 1
RIGHT OF ENTRY:Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel,and any
government consultants,to conduct investigations of the project site during the course ofthe appeal process.You will
be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation,and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Signature of appellant or agent.
Date:Telephone number:
1-19
Enclosure 1:NATIONWIDE PERMIT (NWP)NUMBERS 39 (COMMERCIAL AND
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS)AND 43 (STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES).
TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
1.NWP 39:Commercial and Institutional Developments.
Your activity is authorized under NWP 39 subject to the following terms:
Discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal waters of the United States for the construction or
expansion of commercial and institutional building foundations and building pads and attendant features that are
necessary for the use and maintenance of the structures.Attendant features may include,but are not limited to,
roads,parking lots,garages,yards,utility lines,storm water management facilities,and recreation facilities such
as playgrounds and playing fields.Examples of commercial developments include retail stores,industrial
facilities,restaurants,business parks,and shopping centers.Examples of institutional developments include
schools,fire stations,government office buildings,judicial buildings,public works buildings,libraries,
hospitals,and places of worship.The construction of new golf courses,new ski areas,or oil and gas wells is
not authorized by this NWP.The discharge must not cause the loss of greater than t/2-acre of non-tidal waters
of the United States,including the loss of no more than 300 linear feet of stream bed,unless for intermittent and
ephemeral stream beds this 300-linear-foot limit is waived in writing by the district engineer (DE).This NWP
does not authorize discharges into non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters.Notification:The permittee must
submit a pre-construction notification (PCN)to the DE prior to commencing the activity (see General Condition
31).(Sections 10 and 404).
2.NWP 43:Stormwater Management Facilities.
Your activity is authorized under NWP 43 subject to the following terms:
Discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal waters of the United States for the construction and
maintenance of stormwater management facilities,including the excavation of stormwater ponds/facilities,
detention basins,and retention basins;the installation and maintenance of water control structures,outfall
structures and emergency spillways;and the maintenance dredging of existing stormwater management
ponds/facilities and detention and retention basins.The discharge must not cause the loss of greater than 1/2-
acre of non-tidal waters of the United States,including the loss of no more than 300 linear feet of stream bed,
unless for intermittent and ephemeral stream beds this 300-linear-foot limit is waived in writing by the DE.
This NWP does not authorize discharges into non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters.This NWP does not
authorize discharges of dredged or fill material for the construction of new stormwater management facilities in
perennial streams. Notification:For the construction of new stormwater management facilities,or the
expansion of existing stormwater management facilities,the permittee must submit a PCN to the DE prior to
commencing the activity (see General Condition 31).Maintenance activities do not require a PCN if they are
limited to restoring the original design capacities of the stormwater management facility.(Section 404).
Note:To qualify for NWP authorization,the prospective permittee must comply with the following General
Conditions,as appropriate,in addition to any regional or case-specific conditions imposed by the division
engineer or DE.Prospective permittees should contact the appropriate Corps district office to determine if
regional conditions have been imposed on an NWP.Prospective permittees should also contact the appropriate
1-20
Corps district office to determine the status of Clean Water Act section 401 water quality certification and/or
Coastal Zone Management Act consistency for an NWP.
3.Nationwide Permit General Conditions:
The following General Conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by an NWP to be valid:
1.Navigation.
(a)No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation.
(b)Any safety lights and signals prescribed by the U.S.Coast Guard,through regulations or otherwise,
must be installed and maintained at the permittee's expense on authorized facilities in navigable waters
of the United States.
(c)The 'permittee understands and agrees that,if future operations by the United States require the
removal,relocation,or other alteration,of the structure or work herein authorized,or if,in the opinion of
the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative,said structure or work shall cause
unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters,the permittee will be required,
upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers,to remove,relocate,or alter the structural work or
obstructions caused thereby,without expense to the United States.No claim shall be made against the
United States on account of any such removal or alteration.
2.Aquatic Life Movements.No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of
those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody,including those species that normally migrate
through the area,unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water.All permanent and
temporary crossings of waterbodies shall be suitably culverted,bridged,or otherwise designed and
constructed to maintain low flows to sustain the movement of those aquatic species.
3.Spawning Areas.Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the
maximum extent practicable.Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g.,through excavation,
fill,or downstream smothering by substantial turbidity)of an important spawning area are not
authorized.
4.Migratory Bird Breeding Areas.Activities in waters of the United States that serve as breeding areas for
migratory birds must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
5.Shellfish Beds.No activity may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations,unless the activity
is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWPs 4 and 48,or is a shellfish
seeding or habitat restoration activity authorized by NWP 27.
6.Suitable Material.No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g.,trash,debris,car bodies,asphalt,etc.).
Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see
section 307 of the Clean Water Act).
1-21
7.Water Supply Intakes.No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake,except
where the activity is for the repair or improvement of public water supply intake structures or adjacent
bank stabilization.
8.Adverse Effects From Impoundments.If the activity creates an impoundment of water,adverse effects
to the aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water,and/or restricting its flow must be
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
9.Management of Water Flows.To the maximum extent practicable,the pre-construction course,
condition,capacity,and location of open waters must be maintained for each activity,including stream
channelization and storm water management activities,except as provided below.The activity must be
constructed to withstand expected high flows.The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of
normal or high flows,unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage high
flows.The activity may alter the pre-construction course,condition,capacity,and location of open
waters if it benefits the aquatic environment (e.g.,stream restoration or relocation activities).
10.Fills Within 1DO-Year Floodplains.The activity must comply with applicable FEMA-approved state or
local floodplain management requirements.
11.Equipment.Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on mats,or other
measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.
12.Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls.Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and
maintained in effective operating condition during construction,and all exposed soil and other fills,as
well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line,must be permanently stabilized at
the earliest practicable date.Permittees are encouraged to perform work within waters of the United
States during periods oflow-flow or no-flow.
13.Removal of Temporary Fills.Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas
returned to pre-construction elevations.The affected areas must be re-vegetated,as appropriate.
14.Proper Maintenance.Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained,including
maintenance to ensure public safety and compliance with applicable NWP general conditions,as well as
any activity-specific conditions added by the DE to an NWP authorization.
15.Single and Complete Project.The activity must be a single and complete project.The same NWP
cannot be used more than once for the same single and complete project.
16.Wild and Scenic Rivers.No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River
System,or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river"for possible inclusion in the
system while the river is in an official study status,unless the appropriate Federal agency with direct
management responsibility for such river,has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not
adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status.Information on Wild and Scenic
Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management agency responsible for the
designated Wild and Scenic River or study river (e.g.,National Park Service,U.S.Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS».
1-22
17.Tribal Rights.No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights,including,but not limited
to,reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights.
18.Endangered Species.
(a)No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to directly or indirectly jeopardize the
continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation,as
identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA),or which will directly or indirectly destroy
or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species.No activity is authorized under any NWP which
"may affect"a listed species or critical habitat,unless section 7 consultation addressing the effects of the
proposed activity has been completed.
(b)Federal agencies should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements ofthe
ESA.Federal permittees must provide the DE with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate
compliance with those requirements.The DE will review the documentation and determine whether it is
sufficient to address ESA compliance for the NWP activity,or whether additional ESA consultation is
necessary.
(c)Non-federal permittees must submit a PCN to the DE if any listed species or designated critical
habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project,or ifthe project is located in designated
critical habitat,and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the DE that the requirements of
the ESA have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized.For activities that might affect Federally-
listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat,the PCN must include the name(s)
of the endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed work or that utilize the
designated critical habitat that might be affected by the proposed work.The DE will determine whether
the proposed activity "may affect"or will have "no effect"to listed species and designated critical
habitat and will notify the non-Federal applicant of the Corps'determination within 45 days of receipt of
a complete PCN.In cases where the non-Federal applicant has identified listed species or critical habitat
that might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project,and has so notified the Corps,the applicant
shall not begin work until the Corps has provided notification the proposed activities will have "no
effect"on listed species or critical habitat,or until section 7 consultation has been completed.If the
non-Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days,the applicant must still wait for
notification from the Corps.
(d)As a result of formal or informal consultation with the USFWS or NMFS the DE may add species-
specific regional endangered species conditions to the NWPs.
(e)Authorization of an activity by a NWP does not authorize the "take"of a threatened or endangered
species as defined under the ESA.In the absence of separate authorization (e.g.,an ESA section 10
Permit,a Biological Opinion with "incidental take"provisions,etc.)from the USFWS or the NMFS,the
ESA prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take a listed species,where
"take"means to harass,harm,pursue,hunt,shoot,wound,kill,trap,capture,or collect,or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct.The word "harm"in the definition of "take"means an act which actually
kills or injures wildlife.Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where
1-23
it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,including
breeding,feeding or sheltering.
(f)Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be
obtained directly from the offices ofthe USFWS and NMFS or their internet pages at
http://www.fws.gov/or http://www.fws.gov/ipac and http://'vvww.noaa.gov/fisheries.html,respectively.
19.Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles.The permittee is responsible for obtaining any "take"
permits required under the USFWS'regulations governing compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.The permittee should contact the appropriate local
office of the USFWS to determine if such "take"permits are required for a particular activity.
20.Historic Properties.
(a)In cases where the DE determines that the activity may affect properties listed,or eligible for listing,
in the National Register of Historic Places,the activity is not authorized,until the requirements of
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)have been satisfied.
(b)Federal permittees should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of
section 106 of the NHPA.Federal permittees must provide the DE with the appropriate documentation
to demonstrate compliance with those requirements.The DE will review the documentation and
determine whether it is sufficient to address section 106 compliance for the NWP activity,or whether
additional section 106 consultation is necessary.
(c)Non-federal permittees must submit a PCN to the DE if the authorized activity may have the
potential to cause effects to any historic properties listed on,determined to be eligible for listing on,or
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,including previously
unidentified properties.For such activities,the pre-construction notification must state which historic
properties may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the
historic properties or the potential for the presence of historic properties.Assistance regarding
information on the location of or potential for the presence of historic resources can be sought from the
State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer,as appropriate,and the
National Register of Historic Places (see 33 C.F.R.§330.4(g)).When reviewing PCNs,DEs will
comply with the current procedures for addressing the requirements of section 106 of the NHPA.The
DE shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry out appropriate identification efforts,which
may include background research,consultation,oral history interviews,sample field investigation,and
field survey.Based on the information submitted and these efforts,the DE shall determine whether the
proposed activity has the potential to cause an effect on the historic properties.Where the non-Federal
applicant has identified historic properties on which the activity may have the potential to cause effects
and so notified the Corps,the non-Federal applicant shall not begin the activity until notified by the DE
either that the activity has no potential to cause effects or that consultation under section 106 of the
NHPA has been completed.
(d)The DE will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days of receipt of a complete PCN whether
NHPA section 106 consultation is required.Section 106 consultation is not required when the Corps
determines that the activity does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties (see 36
1-24
C.F.R.§800.3('1)).IfNHPA section 106 consultation is required and will occur,the DE will notify the
non-Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin work until section 106 consultation is completed.If
the non-Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days,the applicant must still wait
for notification from the Corps.
(e)Prospective permittees should be aware that section 110k of the NHPA (16 U.S.C.470h-2(k))
prevents the Corps from granting a permit or other assistance to an applicant who,with intent to avoid
the requirements of section 106 ofthe NHPA,has intentionally significantly adversely affected a
historic property to which the permit would relate,or having legal power to prevent it,allowed such
significant adverse effect to occur,unless the Corps,after consultation with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP),determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the
adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant.If circumstances justify granting the assistance,the
Corps is required to notify the ACHP and provide documentation specifying the circumstances,the
degree of damage to the integrity of any historic properties affected,and proposed mitigation.This
documentation must include any views obtained from the applicant,SHPO/THPO,appropriate Indian
tribes if the undertaking occurs on or affects historic properties on tribal lands or affects properties of
interest to those tribes,and other parties known to have a legitimate interest in the impacts to the
permitted activity on historic properties.
21.Discovery of Previously Unknown Remains and Artifacts.If you discover any previously unknown
historic,cultural or archeological remains and artifacts while accomplishing the activity authorized by
this permit,you must immediately notify the DE of what you have found,and to the maximum extent
practicable,avoid construction activities that may affect the remains and artifacts until the required
coordination has been completed.The DE will initiate the Federal,Tribal and state coordination
required to determine if the items or remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places.
22.Designated Critical Resource Waters.Critical resource waters include,NOAA-managed marine
sanctuaries and marine monuments,and National Estuarine Research Reserves.The DE may designate,
after notice and opportunity for public comment,additional waters officially designated by a state as
having particular environmental or ecological significance,such as outstanding national resource waters
or state natural heritage sites.The DE may also designate additional critical resource waters after notice
and opportunity for public comment
(a)Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not authorized byNWPs 7,
12, 14,16,17,21,29,31,35,39,40,42,43,44,49,50,51,and 52 for any activity within,or directly
affecting,critical resource waters,including wetlands adjacent to such waters~
(b)For NWPs 3,8,10,13,15,18,19,22,23,25,27,28,30,33,34,36,37,and 38,notification is
required in accordance with General Condition 31,for any activity proposed in the designated critical
resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters.The DE may authorize activities under
these NWPs only after it is determined that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more
than minimal.
23.Mitigation.The DE will consider the following factors when determining appropriate and practicable
mitigation necessary to ensure that adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal:
1-25
(a)The activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects,both temporary
and permanent,to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e.,
on site).
(b)Mitigation in all its forms (avoiding,minimizing,rectifying,reducing,or compensating for resource
losses)will be required to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic
environment are minimal.
(c)Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required for all wetland losses that
exceed lIlO-acre and require a PCN,unless the DE determines in writing that either some other form of
mitigation would be more environmentally appropriate or the adverse effects of the proposed activity are
minimal,and provides a project-specific waiver of this requirement.For wetland losses of lIIO-acre or
less that require a PCN,the DE may determine on a case-by-case basis that compensatory mitigation is
required'to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment.
Compensatory mitigation projects provided to offset losses of aquatic resources must comply with the
applicable provisions of33 C.F.R.part 332.
(1)The prospective permittee is responsible for proposing an appropriate compensatory
mitigation option if compensatory mitigation is necessary to ensure that the activity results in
minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment.
(2)Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are
reduced,wetland restoration should be the first compensatory mitigation option considered.
(3)If permittee-responsible mitigation is the proposed option,the prospective permittee is
responsible for submitting a mitigation plan.A conceptual or detailed mitigation plan may
be used by the DE to make the decision on the NWP verification request,but a final
mitigation plan that addresses the applicable requirements of33 C.F.R.§332.4(c)(2)-(14)
must be approved by the DE before the permittee begins work in waters of the United States,
unless the DE determines that prior approval of the final mitigation plan is not practicable or
not necessary to ensure timely completion of the required compensatory mitigation (see 33
C.F.R.§332.3(k)(3)).
(4)If mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program credits are the proposed option,the mitigation plan
only needs to address the baseline conditions at the impact site and the number of credits to
be provided.
(5)Compensatory mitigation requirements (e.g.,resource type and amount to be provided as
compensatory mitigation,site protection,ecological performance standards,monitoring
requirements)may be addressed through conditions added to the NWP authorization,instead
of components of a compensatory mitigation plan.
(d)For losses of streams or other open waters that require pre-construction notification,the DE may
require compensatory mitigation,such as stream rehabilitation,enhancement,or preservation,to ensure
that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment.
1-26
(e)Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses allowed by the acreage
limits of the NWPs.For example,if an NWP has an acreage limit of I/2-acre,it cannot be used to
authorize any project resulting in the loss of greater than I/2-acre of waters of the United States,even if
compensatory mitigation is provided that replaces or restores some ofthe lost waters.However,
compensatory mitigation can and should be used,as necessary,to ensure that a project already meeting
the established acreage limits also satisfies the minimal impact requirement associated with the NWPs.
(f)Compensatory mitigation plans for projects in or near streams or other open waters will normally
include a requirement for the restoration or establishment,maintenance,and legal protection (e.g.,
conservation easements)of riparian areas next to open waters.In some cases,riparian areas may be the
only compensatory mitigation required.Riparian areas should consist of native species.The width of
the required riparian area will address documented water quality or aquatic habitat loss concerns.
Normally,the riparian area will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream,but the DE may require
slightly wider riparian areas to address documented water quality or habitat loss concerns.If it is not
possible to establish a riparian area on both sides of a stream,or if the waterbody is a lake or coastal
waters,then restoring or establishing a riparian area along a single bank or shoreline may be sufficient.
Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site,the DE will determine the appropriate
compensatory mitigation (e.g.,riparian areas and/or wetlands compensation)based on what is best for
the aquatic environment on a watershed basis.In cases where riparian areas are determined to be the
most appropriate form of compensatory mitigation,the DE may waive or reduce the requirement to
provide wetland compensatory mitigation for wetland losses.
(g)Permittees may propose the use of mitigation banks,in-lieu fee programs,or separate permittee-
responsible mitigation.For activities resulting in the loss of marine or estuarine resources,permittee-
responsible compensatory mitigation may be environmentally preferable if there are no mitigation banks
or in-lieu fee programs in the area that have marine or estuarine credits available for sale or transfer to
the permittee.For permittee-responsible mitigation,the special conditions of the NWP verification must
clearly indicate the party or parties responsible for the implementation and performance of the
compensatory mitigation project,and,if required,its long-term management.
(h)Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are permanently adversely
affected,such as the conversion of a forested or scrub-shrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland in a
permanently maintained utility line right-of-way,mitigation may be required to reduce the adverse
effects of the project to the minimal level.
24.Safety ofImpoundment Structures.To ensure that all impoundment structures are safely designed,the
DE may require non-Federal applicants to demonstrate that the structures comply with established state
dam safety criteria or have been designed by qualified persons.The DE may also require documentation
that the design has been independently reviewed by similarly qualified persons,and appropriate
modifications made to ensure safety.
25.Water Quality.Where States and authorized Tribes,or EPA where applicable,have not previously
certified compliance of an NWP with CWA section 401,individual 401 Water Quality Certification
must be obtained or waived (see 33 C.F.R.§330.4(c)).The DE or State or Tribe may require additional
1-27
water quality management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result in more than
minimal degradation of water quality.
26.Coastal Zone Management.In coastal states where an NWP has not previously received a state coastal
zone management consistency concurrence,an individual state coastal zone management consistency
concurrence must be obtained,or a presumption of concurrence must occur (see 33 C.F.R.§330.4(d)).
The DE or a State may require additional measures to ensure that the authorized activity is consistent
with state coastal zone management requirements.
27.Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions.The activity must comply with any regional conditions that
may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 C.F.R.§330.4(e))and with any case specific
conditions added by the Corps or by the state,Indian Tribe,or U.S.EPA in its section 401 Water
Quality Certification,or by the state in its Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination.
28.Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits.The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project
is prohibited,except when the acreage loss of waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does
not exceed the acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit.For example,if a road
crossing over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14,with associated bank stabilization authorized by
NWP 13,the maximum acreage loss of waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed
I/3-acre.
29.Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications.Ifthe permittee sells the property associated with a NWP
verification,the permittee may transfer the NWP verification to the new owner by submitting a letter to
the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer.A copy ofthe NWP verification must be
attached to the letter,and the letter must contain the following statement and signature:
"When the structures or work authorized by this NWP are still in existence at the time the property is
transferred,the terms and conditions of this NWP,including any special conditions,will continue to be
binding on the new owner(s)of the property.To validate the transfer of this NWP and the associated
liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions,have the transferee sign and date
below."
(Transferee)
(Date)
30.Compliance Certification.Each permittee who receives an NWP verification letter from the Corps must
provide a signed certification documenting completion of the authorized activity and any required
compensatory mitigation.The success of any required permittee-responsible mitigation,including the
achievement of ecological performance standards,will be addressed separately by the DE.The Corps
will provide the permittee the certification document with the NWP verification letter.The certification
document will include:
1-28
(a)A statement that the authorized work was done in accordance with the NWP authorization,including
any general,regional,or activity-specific conditions;
(b)A statement that the implementation of any required compensatory mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.If credits from a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program are used
to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements,the certification must include the documentation
required by 33 C.F.R.§332.3(1)(3)to confirm that the permittee secured the appropriate number and
resource type of credits;and
(c)The signature of the permittee certifying the completion of the work and mitigation.
31.PCN.
(a)Timing.Where required by the terms of the NWP,the prospective permittee must notify the DE by
submitting a PCN as early as possible.The DE must determine if the PCN is complete within 30
calendar days of the date of receipt and,if the PCN is determined to be incomplete,notify the
prospective permittee within that 30 day period to request the additional information necessary to make
the PCN complete.The request must specify the information needed to make the PCN complete.As a
general rule,DEs will request additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once.
However,if the prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested inforrnation,then the DE will
notify the prospective permittee that the PCN is still incomplete and the PCN review process will not
commence until all of the requested information has been received by the DE.The prospective
permittee shall not begin the activity until either:
(1)He or she is notified in writing by the DE that the activity may proceed under the NWP with
any special conditions imposed by the DE or division engineer;or
(2)45 calendar days have passed from the DE's receipt of the complete PCN and the prospective
permittee has not received written notice from the DE or division engineer.However,if the
permittee was required to notify the Corps pursuant to General Condition 18 that listed species or
critical habitat might be affected or in the vicinity of the project,or to notify the Corps pursuant
to General Condition 20 that the activity may have the potential to cause effects to historic
properties,the permittee cannot begin the activity until receiving written notification from the
Corps that there is "no effect"on listed species or "no potential to cause effects"on historic
properties,or that any consultation required under Section 7 of the ESA (see 33 C.F.R.§
330.4(f))and/or section 106 of the NHPA (see 33 C.F.R.§330.4(g))has been completed.Also,
work cannot begin under NWPs 21,49,or 50 until the permittee has received written approval
from the Corps.If the proposed activity requires a written waiver to exceed specified limits of
an NWP,the permittee may not begin the activity until the DE issues the waiver.If the DE or
division engineer notifies the permittee in writing that an individual permit is required within 45
calendar days of receipt of a complete PCN,the permittee cannot begin the activity until an
individual permit has been obtained.Subsequently,the permittee's right to proceed under the
NWP may be modified,suspended,or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set forth in
33 C.F.R.§330.5(d)(2).
(b)Contents of PCN:The PCN must be in writing and include the following information:
1-29
(1)Name,address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee;
(2)Location of the proposed project;
(3)A description of the proposed project;the project's purpose;direct and indirect adverse
environmental effects the project would cause,including the anticipated amotmt ofloss of water
of the United States expected to result from the NWP activity,in acres,linear feet,or other
appropriate unit of measure;any other NWP(s),regional general permit(s),or individual
permit(s)used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related
activity.The description should be sufficiently detailed to allow the DE to determine that the
adverse effects of the project will be minimal and to determine the need for compensatory
mitigation.Sketches should be provided when necessary to show that the activity complies with
the terms of the NWP.Sketches usually clarify the project and when provided results in a
quicker decision.Sketches should contain sufficient detail to provide an illustrative description
of the proposed activity (e.g.,a conceptual plan);but do not need to be detailed engineering
plans);
(4)The PCN must include a delineation of wetlands,other special aquatic sites,and other
waters,such as lakes and ponds,and perennial,intermittent,and ephemeral streams,on the
project site.Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method
required by the Corps.The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and
other waters on the project site,but there may be a delay if the Corps does the delineation,
especially if the project site is large or contains many waters of the United States.Furthermore,
the 45-day period will not start until the delineation has been submitted to or completed by the
Corps,as appropriate;
(5)If the proposed activity will result in the loss of greater than 1/1 O-acre of wetlands and a PCN
is required,the prospective permittee must submit a statement describing how the mitigation
requirement will be satisfied,or explaining why the adverse effects are minimal and why
compensatory mitigation should not be required.As an alternative,the prospective permittee
may submit a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan;
(6)If any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the
project,or ifthe project is located in designated critical habitat,for non-Federal applicants the
PCN must include the name(s)of those endangered or threatened species that might be affected
by the proposed work or utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the
proposed work.Federal applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with
the ESA;and
(7)For an activity that may affect a historic property listed on,determined to be eligible for
listing on,or potentially eligible for listing on,the National Register of Historic Places,for non-
Federal applicants the PCN must state which historic property may be affected by the proposed
work or include a vicinity map indicating the location ofthe historic property.Federal applicants
must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with section 106 of the NHPA.
1-30
(c)Fonn ofPCN:The standard individual permit application form (Form ENG 4345)may be used,but
the completed application form must clearly indicate that it is a PCN and must include all ofthe
infonnation required in paragraphs (b)(l)through (7)of this general condition.A letter containing the
required information may also be used.
(d)Agency Coordination:
(1)The DE will consider any comments from Federal and state agencies concerning the
proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs and the need for
mitigation to reduce the proj ect's adverse environmental effects to a minimal level.
(2)For all NWP activities that require pre-construction notification and result in the loss of
greater than I!2-acre of waters of the United States,for NWP 21,29,39,40,42,43,44,50,51,
and 52 activities that require pre-construction notification and will result in the loss of greater
than 300 linear feet of intermittent and ephemeral stream bed,and for all NWP 48 activities that
require a PCN,the DE will immediately provide (e.g.,via e-mail,facsimile transmission,
overnight mail,or other expeditious manner)a copy of the complete PCN to the appropriate
Federal or state offices (USFWS,state natural resource or water quality agency,EPA,State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)or Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO),and,if
appropriate,the NMFS).With the exception ofNWP 37,these agencies will have 10 calendar
days from the date the material is transmitted to telephone or fax the DE notice that they intend
to provide substantive,site-specific comments.The comments must explain why the agency
believes the adverse effects will be more than minimal.If so contacted by an agency,the DE
will wait an additional 15 calendar days before making a decision on the PCN.The DE will
fully consider agency comments received within the specified time frame concerning the
proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs,including the need
for mitigation to ensure the net adverse environmental effects to the aquatic environment of the
proposed activity are minimal.The DE will provide no response to the resource agency,except
as provided below.The DE will indicate in the administrative record associated with each pre-
construction notification that the resource agencies'concerns were considered.For NWP 37,the
emergency watershed protection and rehabilitation activity may proceed immediately in cases
where there is an unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of property or economic
hardship will occur.The DE will consider any comments received to decide whether the NWP
37 authorization should be modified,suspended,or revoked in accordance with the procedures at
33 C.F.R.§330.5.
(3)In cases of where the prospective permittee is not a Federal agency,the DE will provide a
response to NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat conservation
recommendations,as required by section 305(b)(4)(B)of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
(4)Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps with either electronic files or multiple copies
ofPCNs to expedite agency coordination.
4.Regional Conditions for the Los Angeles District:
1-31
In accordance with General Condition Number 27,"Regional and Case-by-Case Conditions,"the following
Regional Conditions,as added by the Division Engineer,must be met in order for an authorization by any NWP
to be valid:
1.For all activities in waters of the U.S.that are suitable habitat for federally listed fish species,the
permittee shall design all road crossings to ensure that the passage and/or spawning of fish is not
hindered.In these areas,the permittee shall employ bridge designs that span the stream or river,
including pier-or pile-supported spans,or designs that use a bottomless arch culvert with a natural
stream bed,unless determined to be impracticable by the Corps.
2.NWP 3,7,12-15,17-19,21,23,25,29,35,36,or 39-46,48-52 cannot be used to authorize structures,
work,and/or the discharge of dredged or fill material that would result in the "loss"of wetlands,
mudflats,vegetated shallows or riffle and pool complexes as defined at 40 C.F.R.part 230.40-45.The
definition of "loss"for this regional condition is the same as the defmition of "loss of waters of the
United States"used for the NWP Program.Furthermore,this regional condition applies only within the
State of Arizona and within the Mojave and Sonoran (Colorado)desert regions of California.The desert
regions in California are limited to four USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)accounting units (Lower
Colorado -150301,Northern Mojave-180902,Southern Mojave-181001,and Salton Sea-181002).
3.When a PCN is required,the appropriate Corps District shall be notified in accordance with General
Condition 31 using either the South Pacific Division PCN Checklist or a signed application form (ENG
Form 4345)with an attachment providing information on compliance with all of the General and
Regional Conditions.The PCN Checklist and application form are available at:
http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory.In addition,the PCN shall include:
a.A written statement describing how the activity has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse
effects,both temporary and permanent,to waters ofthe United States;
b.Drawings,including plan and cross-section views,clearly depicting the location, size and
dimensions of the proposed activity as well as the location of delineated waters of the United States
on the site.The drawings shall contain a title block,legend and scale,amount (in cubic yards)and
area (in acres)offill in Corps jurisdiction,including both permanent and temporary fills/structures.
The ordinary high water mark or,if tidal waters,the mean high water mark and high tide line,should
be shown (in feet),based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)or other appropriate
referenced elevation.All drawings for projects located within the boundaries of the Los Angeles
District shall comply with the most current version of the Map and Drawing Standards for the Los
Angeles District Regulatory Division (available on the Los Angeles District Regulatory Division
website at:www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/);and
c.Numbered and dated pre-project color photographs showing a representative sample of waters
proposed to be impacted on the project site,and all waters proposed to be avoided on and
immediately adjacent to the project site.The compass angle and position of each photograph shall
be documented on the plan-view drawing required in subpart b of this regional condition.
4.Submission of a PCN pursuant to General Condition 31 and Regional Condition 3 shall be required for
1-32
all regulated activities in the following locations:
a.All perennial waterbodies and special aquatic sites within the State of Arizona and within the
Mojave and Sonoran (Colorado)desert regions of California,excluding the Colorado River in
Arizona from Davis Dam to River Mile 261 (northern boundary of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe
Reservation).The desert region in California is limited to four USGS HUC accounting units (Lower
Colorado -150301,Northern Mojave-l 80902,Southern Mojave-18l00l,and Salton Sea-18l002).
b.All areas designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)by the Pacific Fishery Management Council
(i.e.,all tidally influenced areas -Federal Register dated March 12,2007 (72 F.R.11092)),in which
case the PCN shall include an EFH assessment and extent of proposed impacts to EFH.Examples of
EFH habitat assessments can be found at:http://www.swr.noaa.gov/efh.htm.
c.All watersheds in the Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles and Ventura counties bounded by
Calleguas Creek on the west,by Highway 101 on the north and east,and by Sunset Boulevard and
Pacific Ocean on the south.
d.The Santa Clara River watershed in Los Angeles and Ventura counties,including but not limited to
Aliso Canyon,Agua Dulce Canyon,Sand Canyon,Bouquet Canyon,Mint Canyon,South Fork of
the Santa Clara River,San Francisquito Canyon,Castaic Creek,Piru Creek,Sespe Creek and the
main-stem of the Santa Clara River.
5.Individual Permits shall be required for all discharges offill material in jurisdictional vernal pools,with
the exception that discharges for the purpose of restoration,enhancement,management or scientific
study of vernal pools may be authorized under NWPs 5,6,and 27 with the submission of a PCN in
accordance with General Condition 31 and Regional Condition 3.
6.Individual Permits shall be required in Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek watersheds in Riverside
County for new permanent fills in perennial and intermittent watercourses otherwise authorized under
NWPs 29,39,42 and 43,and in ephemeral watercourses for these NWPs for projects that impact greater
than 0.1 acre of waters of the United States.In addition,when NWP 14 is used in conjunction with
residential,commercial,or industrial developments the 0.1 acre limit would also apply.
7.Individual Permits (Standard Individual Permit or 404 Letter of Permission)shall be required in San
Luis Obispo Creek and Santa Rosa Creek in San Luis Obispo County for bank stabilization projects,and
in Gaviota Creek,Mission Creek and Carpinteria Creek in Santa Barbara County for bank stabilization
projects and grade control structures.
8.In conjunction with the Los Angeles District's Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs)for the San
Diego Creek Watershed and San Juan Creek/Western San Mateo Creek Watersheds in Orange County,
California,the Corps'Division Engineer,through his discretionary authority has revoked the use of the
following26selectedNWPswithintheseSAMPwatersheds:03,07,12,13,14,16,17,18,19,21,25,
27,29,31,33,39,40,41,42,43,44,46,49,and 50.Consequently,these NWPs are no longer available
in those watersheds to authorize impacts to waters ofthe United States from discharges of dredged or fill
material under the Corps'Clean Water Act section 404 authority.
1-33
9.Any requests to waive the 300 linear foot limitation for intermittent and ephemeral streams for NWPs
29,39,40 and 42,43, 44,51 and 52 or to waive the 500 linear foot limitation along the bank for NWP
13,must include the following:
a.A narrative description of the stream.This should include known information on:volume and
duration of flow;the approximate length,width,and depth of the waterbody and characters observed
associated with an Ordinary High Water Mark (e.g.bed and bank,wrack line,or scour marks);a
description of the adjacent vegetation community and a statement regarding the wetland status of the
associated vegetation community (Le.wetland,non-wetland);surrounding land use;water quality;issues
related to cumulative impacts in the watershed,and;any other relevant information.
b.An analysis of the proposed impacts to the waterbody in accordance with General Condition 31 and
Regional Condition 3;
c.MeasUres taken to avoid and minimize losses,including other methods of constructing the proposed
project;and
d.A compensatory mitigation plan describing how the unavoidable losses are proposed to be
compensated,in accordance with 33 C.F.R.part 332.
10.The permittee shall complete the construction of any compensatory mitigation required by special
condition(s)of the NWP verification before or concurrent with commencement of construction ofthe
authorized activity,except when specifically determined to be impracticable by the Corps.When
mitigation involves use of a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program,the permittee shall submit proof of
payment to the Corps prior to commencement of construction of the authorized activity.
5.Further Information:
1.Congressional Authorities:You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above
pursuant to:
()Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.403).
(X)Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.c.1344).
()Section 103 of the Marine Protection,Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C.1413).
2.Limits of this authorization.
(a)This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal,state,or local authorizations required by
law.
(b)This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
(c)This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
(d)This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
3.Limits of Federal Liability.In issuing this permit,the Federal Government does not assume any liability
1-34
for the following:
(a)Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted
activities or from natural causes.
(b)Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities tmdertaken
by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest.
(c)Damages to persons,property,or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by
the activity authorized by this permit.
(d)Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
(e)Damage claims associated with any future modification,suspension,or revocation of this permit.
4.Reliance on Applicant's Data:The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary
to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
5.Re-evaluation of Permit Decision.This office may re-evaluate its decision on this permit at any time the
circumstances warrant.Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include,but are not limited to,the
following:
(a)You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
(b)The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false,
incomplete,or inaccurate (See 4 above).
(c)Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original
public interest decision.
Such a re-evaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension,
modification,and revocation procedures contained in 33 C.F.R.§330.5 or enforcement procedures such
as those contained in 33 C.F.R.§§326.4 and 326.5.The referenced enforcement procedures provide for
the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your
permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate.You will be required to pay for any
corrective measure ordered by this office,and if you fail to comply with such directive,this office may
in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 C.F.R.§§209.170)accomplish the corrective
measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost.
6.This letter of verification is valid for a period not to exceed two years unless the NWP is modified,
reissued,revoked,or expires before that time.
7.You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the
terms and conditions of this permit.You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the
permitted activity,although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with
General Condition 29.Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire
1-35
to abandon it without a good faith transfer,you must obtain a modification of this permit from this
office,which may require restoration of the area.
8.You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed
necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished with the terms and conditions of your
permit.
1-36
December 11,2012
Letter from Marymount College
December 2,2012 City Council Meeting
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Time Extension Request
1-37
444 South Flower Street Suite 2400
Los Angeles,Californi21 90071-2953
voice 2 13236.0600 -fax 213.236.2700
www.bwslaw.com
Direct No,:213.236.2702
Our File No.:04693-0005
ddavis@bwslaw.com
December 11,2012
VIA U.S MAIL &E-MAIL
Joel Rojas,Director
Ara Mihranian,Deputy Director
Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391
Re:Marymount College:Status of Temporary Lot and Request for Additional
Parking Management Strategies Regarding Legal Street Parking on Palos
Verdes Drive East
Dear Messrs.Rojas and Mihranian:
I write in response to your letter to Marymount College of November 27.2012,and in
furtherance of the prior telephone call we had on November 20,2012,and our subsequent
telephone call on December 4,2012 regarding this matter.
To begin,the College concurs with your assessment that the construction of the
temporary parking lot has provided sufficient additional capacity for the College's operations as
demonstrated by the significant reduction in street parking during the current semester and the
general availability of space in the temporary lot even when drivers opt to park on Palos Verdes
Drive East instead of using campus parking.This transformation also serves to reinforce
Marymount's long-held opinion that the ultimate solution to student street parking is the
construction of the expanded on campus permanent parking improvements.
With respect to the instant issue,however,our telephone call of November 20,2012 was
the first time in many weeks that City staff expressed any concerns regarding the number of
vehicles parked on the street near campus (estimated to be 10-20 vehicles}.1 Prior to that date,
the College had not received any recent calls or notes from neighbors expressing concerns
related to street parking.We understand from your email of December 10,2012,that staff had
apparently received about six calls from residents In the Mira Catalina neighborhood who
overlook the campus and the street,which calls,in part,prompted this discussion.
1 Your letter refers to "student"vehicles.While the College agrees that some of the vehicles do appear to
belong to students,others appear to be visitors to the campus for any number of activities or purposes,
including local residents,and,according to campus security,some of the vehicles belong to non-College
visitors.
LA #4846-4188-3666 v1
Los Angeles Inland Empire Oakland -Orange County Palm Desert ~.Silicon Valley -Ventura County1-38
Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian
December 11,2012
Page 2
In response to your comments about the slight increase in street parking as the
semester progressed during our November 20 phone call,the College pledged to redouble its
monitoring efforts,including placing flyers on cars advising visitors that parking is available on
campus,including in the temporary lot.There was some "mention"of including a provision in
Marymount's Student Code of Conduct to require use of on campus parking by students,but
absolutely no discussion took place on the timing of such a measure.Accordingly,Marymount
was surprised to receive your letter the following week requesting that the College "immediately
prohibit ~tudent parking on adjacent City streets through its Student Code of Conduct."
As I stated during our follow up phone calion December 4,2012,Marymount will
propose an amendment to its Student Code of Conduct that will require students to use on
campus parking once the City-approved permanent parking improvements are completed,but
such an amendment requires a process that cannot be implemented within the "immediate"time
period requested.Because street parking is a lawful activity,in order for the College to
establish a rule that restricts such lawful conduct the College must first engage in an interactive
process that includes faculty and student involvement The Code of Conduct is published on an
annual basis before the fall Semester.Amendments to the Code are generally initiated during
the spring semester and are handled through the Dean's office.Like the City's own municipal
code adoption process,interested parties such as faculty and student groups must be given
notice of any proposed Code of Conduct changes and provided an opportunity to submit
comments.Marymount will initiate such an amendment process this spring and will use its best
efforts to obtain approval of the proposed amendment to its Code of Conduct before the fall
semester begins in August 2013.
Since receipt of your letter,the College has directed its campus security staff to more
vigorously monitor street parking during peak hours.These efforts will include speaking to
drivers who are observed parking on the street and placing flyers on vehicles to serve notice
that there is parking available on campus,particularly in the temporary tot.Prior to the start of
the spring semester in January,the College will again send out notices to students encouraging
the use of on campus parking in various formats (hard copies,electronically,and posting at
residential facilities).
Marymount anticipates that there will be reduced student demand for street parking
during the 2013 spring semester because enrollment will be lower than in the fall.Nevertheless,
the College will continue to monitor the issue,consult with City staff,and review and adjust its
parking policies in 2013 as needed.
LA #4846-4188-3666 v1
1-39
Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian
December 11,2012
Page 3
To end on a positive note,Marymount has received assurance that the Army Corps of
Engineers will issue the College's permit this week,thus clearing the way for the start of
construction of the permanent on campus parking improvements,which Marymount is poised to
commence if the City Council grants Marymount the requested time extension for its Phase I
improvements at its meeting on December 18.
Sincerely,
~:U~IAMS &:2L'LLP
DONALD M.DAVIS
DMD:lr
cc:(Via e-mail only)
Dr.Michael Brophy,President,Marymount College
Jim Reeves,Vice President,Marymount College
Carol Lynch,City Attorney
LA #4846·4188·3666 v1
1-40
November 27,2012
City Letter on Parking Management Strategies
December 2,2012 City Council Meeting
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Time Extension Request
1-41
CITYOF
November 27,2012
Via Email and U.S.Mail
Marymount College
Dr.Michael Brophy
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COHMUNITY DEVELOIJfV1ENT DErw;nMENT
Subject;Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project -Implementation of the
Parking Management Strategies
Dear Dr.Brophy,
On July 18,2012,the College provided the City with its Parking ManagementStrategies
(Strategies)for the 2012/2013 academic year.Pursuant to the Strate.gi.es and Council
directive,the College was required to provide an operable temporary parking lot to help
minimize student street parking until the College completes construction of the
expanded permanent parking lot approved by the City CounCil on April 17,2012.The
temporaryp,arking lot has been in operation since the first day of cl,asses on August 27,
2012.
At the September 4,2012 City Council meeting,Staff reported to the Council that based
on two days of fteld observations,the temporary parkiJ1g lot was being utilized resulting.
in a reduction in the number of observed student cars parked on the surrounding streets
(approximately 5~6 cars).While this was lauded asa success,because Staff's
assessment was based on only two~days of field visits,Slaffinformed the Council that it
would continue to monitor tMe parking condition at the College and,if needed,direct the
CoUege to make any appropriate adjUstments to the implemented Strategies under the
authority given to the Community Development Director pursuant to Condition No.158.
Some time after September 4th ,Staff noticed a substantial increase in the number of
student cars (approximately 25~30 cars)parked along Palos Verdes Drive East and
Crest Road.As a result,City Staff contacted the College and was informed that
beginning Monday,September 24,2012,students were required to have a parking
permit,at a cost of $10.00 for the fall semester,in order to park on campus.Apparently,
this action was prompting more students to park on the street.Aware of the City's
concern regarding this matter,the College informed the City that it would stop requiring
students to have a parking permit for use of the temporary parking lot and that the
College would place flyers on the student cars parked on the street advising them that
they can park witMout a permit at the temporary parking lot.While the number of cars
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD i I~ANCI-IO PALOS VEIlDES.c.t>..9027S·S391
PLANNIN(~&CODE ENFORCLfV1EN r DIVISION (310)$44-5228 /BUILDING &SAFETY DIVISION (310)2()5-7800 I DEPT F/\X (310)b44-5293
[-MAIL PLMNIN(,@FWV(;Ofvl/WWWPI\LOSVEROESCOfvl/H!JV 1-42
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE -PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
NOVEMBER 27,2012
PAGE 2
on the street declined some,recent field observations reveal that the temporary parking
lot is barely being utilized while 10-20 student cars are continuing to park along Palos
Verdes Drive East and Crest Road on a daily basis.
The success of the tempora'd;'parking lot to minimize street parking as required by the
City Council on September 4l appears to be short lived.As a result,Staff believes that
additional Parking Management Strategies need to be taken to minimize the street
parking as called for in Condition of Approval No.158.As such,pursuant to Condition
of Approval No.158,the City is asking that the College immediately prohibit student
parkIng on adjacent City streets through its Student Code of Conduct.Specifically,the
City is requesting that the College notify all its students,particularly those who continue.
to park on local City streets that they are violating the rules of the College and subject to
disciplinary action through the College's Code of Conduct.Moreover,in order to avoid
this similar situation from occurring in the semesters to come,the City is requesting that
starting from the first day of classes for the Spring 2013 term,that the College no longer
charge a fee for on-campus permit parking or that such a fee be embedded in the
overall tuition fee rather than being a discretionary fee.
This additional Parking Management Strategy was originally mentioned at the
September 27,2012 Neighborhood Advisory Committee meeting,as well as during a
recent conference call with the College's representatives on November 20,2012.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or Ara Mihranian,
at 310-544-5228 or via email atjoelr@rpv.comoraram@rpv.com.
c.Mayor Misetich and Members of the City Council
Don Davis,Marymount College Legal Counsel
Jim Reeves,Vice-President,Marymount College
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Carol Lynch,City Attorney
David Snow,Assistant City Attorney
Ara Mihranian,Community Development Director
1-43
July 16,2012
Marymount College Letter
December 2,2012 City Council Meeting
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Time Extension Request
1-44
444 South Flower Street .Suite 2400
Los Angeles.California 90071-2953
voice 213.236.0600 -fax 213.236.2700
www.bwslaw.com
Direct No.:213.236.2702
Our File No.:04693·0001
ddavis@bwslaw.com
July 16,2012
By E-Mail and U.S.Mail
Joel Rojas,Director
Ara Mihranian,Deputy Director
Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391
Re:Marymount College:Request for a One Year Extension on the Construction
Completion Time Periods for Phases One and Two of Condition No.60 of
Revision "E"to CUP No.9
Dear Messrs.Rojas and Mihranian:
I write to clarify the scope of Maryrnount College's request for an extension of the
construction completion deadlines under Condition of Approval No.60 to Revision liE"to CUP
NO.9 as set forth in the College's application letter of April 11,2012.In that application,the
College inadvertently requested that the construction completion dates for all three phases of
the campus master plan be extended by one year The request should have been limited to only
Phases One and Two,because,as staff has corre.ctly noted,there is no general one-year
extension available for Phase Three because that phase of work extends to the outside
completion date established under the CUP (Le.,eight years)and an extension of that date
would require a formal amendment to the CUP.Accordingly,the requested extension is to allow
the construction of the improvements included under Phase One to be completed by September
30,2013,and the improvements included under Phase Two to be completed by no later than six
years from the final approval date of Revision "E"to CUP NO.9.
Marymount would also like to make one other clarification to its original extension
application,and that is with respect to the date of the completion of the additional parking
spaces that are included as part of the Phase One improvements.At the time of our
application,the College was reasonably optimistic that such work would be completed by
September 30,2012 absent "unforeseen circumstances beyond Marymount's control [that
would]prevent the timely commencement or completion of such work."As City staff and the
City Council are now aware,Marymount's applications with the California Department of Fish
and Game and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers in order to construct certain storm water
detention facilities in the drainage swale that may be under the jurisdiction of these agencies are
still pending.Although the College beHeves that the approvals or waivers for the proposed work
should be forthcoming,the delay has been very frustrating,particularly because representatives
of these agencies have generally acknowledged that there are no sensitive plant,fish or wildlife
LA #4821·9064·0911 v3
Los Angeles -Inland Empire -Marin County -Oakland -Orange County -Palm Desert -Silicon Valley-Ventura County1-45
BLJI'KE.WILLIAMS L~SCWF NSEN,I_LP
Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian
July 16,2012
Page 2
resources in the work area and as such,the timing of the agency approvals/waivers appears to
have nothing to do with the scope or significance of the proposed work and everything to do
with internal agency operations and their limited personnel and resources to process such
applications.Despite this delay,Marymount remains committed to commencing work on the
additional parking improvements at the earliest opportunity even if that means that some of the
work takes place during the academic year rather than this summer as previously anticipated.
Nevertheless,because Marymount may not have this work completed by September 30,2012,
the College respectfully requests that these improvements also be included as part of the
overall request for a one year extension on the completion dates of the Phase One
improvements.
As always,please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions
regarding this clarification of Marymount's construction extension request under Condition of
Approval No.60(a)and (b).
Sincerely,
BURKE,WILLIAMS &SORENSEN,LLP
~71}~/!!J2,
DONALD M.DAVIS
DMD:ir
cc:(Via e-mail only)
Dr.Michael Brophy,President,Marymount College
Jim Reeves,Vice President,Marymount College
Carol Lynch,City Attorney
Anette Jensen,Stegeman and Kastner,Inc.
Jim Hanafin,Rasmussen &Associates
LA #4821-9064-0911 v3
1-46
April 11 ,2012
Marymount College Letter
December 2,2012 City Council Meeting
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Time Extension Request
1-47
BLJJ<KE.WILLIAMS &SOI~ENSEN,LU'
444 South Flower Street <Suite 2400
Los Angeles,California 90071-2953
voice 213.2360600 -fax 213236,2700
www.bwslaw.com
April 11 ,2012
Direct No,:213.236,2702
Our File No,:04693·0001
ddavis@bwslaw.com
Joel Rojas,Director
Ara Mihranian,Deputy Director
Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391
,Re:Marymount College:Request for a One Year Extension on the Construction Completion
Time Periods of Condition No.60 of Revision liE"to CUP No.9
Dear Messrs.Rojas and Mihranian:
This letter serves as a request on behalf of Marymount College for a one year extension
on the construction completion time periods for the three phases of the College's facilities
expansion plan approved by the City Council on June 1,2010 as Revision liE"to CUP No.9.
This request is made pursuant to Condition of Approval No.60 and Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code section 17.60.070,which authorizes such a one year extension on permit time
limits by the City Council upon a showing of substantial hardship and other good cause.The
reasons justifying this extension request are set forth below.
The City Council's approval of Revision UE"in June of 2010 came in the midst of the
country's worst economic recession in decades.1 This unfortunate timing presented numerous
challenges to Marymount because not only has fundraising been difficult in recent years in and
of itself due to the economic downturn,but donors were also reluctant to make commitments
until the College had the entitlements in hand.In addition,the initial improvements in Phase
One (e.g.,parking and infrastructure)present a unique fundraising challenge because they are
not the kind of legacy items that major donors are typically inclined to support.For example,
Marymount was able to identify donors early on for facilities such as the proposed new library,
but the library cannot proceed until the grading work is done and the parking lot improvements
are in place.Accordingly,funds for these improvements have had to be raised through multiple
smaller donations,which take additional time and effort to gather.
While Marymount has put considerable efforts into its fund raising campaign for the RPV
campus improvements,the College has simultaneously faced a number of other immediate
1 See for example AB 203 (codified in part as Government Code section 66452.23),which was
approved by the Legislature in 2011.The bill granted an automatic two year extension on all
pending but unexpired subdivision approvals U[i]n order to permit cities,.•to preserve
development applications that are set to expire and that cannot be processed presently due to
prevailing adverse economic conditions in the construction industry...:'
Los Angeles -Inland Empire -Marin County -Oakland-Orange County -Palm Desert -Silicon Valley -Ventura County1-48
BURKE.WILLIAMS E:.SORENSEN.LLP
Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian
April 11 ,2012
Page 2
needs.For example,Marymount also needed to make upgrades to the electrical,gas and
plumbing infrastructure at the RPV campus before it commenced the facilities expansion
improvements.That work has now been approved by the City and should be commencing
soon,but the estimated total cost of the work (approximately $2.5 million)has turned out to
exceed virtually all of the other pending Phase One improvements combined.
Marymount has also had to address its current student housing needs.This has
required the College to expend funds on making temporary improvements to its existing
resid~ntiaI facilities in San Pedro in response to unprecedented enrollment increases in the past
two ye.ars while simUltaneously preparing an application to the City of Los Angeles in order to
ultimately expand these facilities over a 20-year period.
Subsequent to the City's approval of CUP Revision "E",Marymount also received a
donation that enabled it to establish new academic facilities in an existing office building located
at 430 West 6th Street in San Pedro (the Marymount "Waterfront Campus").The availability and
use of thIs facility reduces academic facility demands at the RPV campus,which facilities are
not scheduled to be upgraded until the latter phases of the approved RPV campus master plan.
While the donations for this Waterfront Campus facility were generous,they did not by any
means cover all of the costs needed to ready this new facility for student use.
Despite all ofthese concurrent demands on limite.d College resources,Marymount has
submitted plans for and is prepared to construct all of the additional parking spaces required
under the CUP.If the plans are timely approved by the City Council,the additfonal parking
should be completed before September 30,2012 -the .current deadline under Condition of
Approval No.60(a).Marymount is also prepared to start construction on the relocated athletic
field that is also part of the Phase One improvements.However;because Marymount is
requesting a modification to the site plan to allow the field to I;>e regUlation size for certain
intercollegiate sports,it is not known when the City Council will be in a position to act on the
revised site plan,and as such,Marymount is concerned that this work may not be completed
before the current September 30,2012 deadline.The College is also not in a financial position
to commence work on the proposed reconfiguration of the northern campus parking lots this
summer,and so a one year extension is,at niinimum,clearly needed for those improvements.
Marymount has made every possible effort to meet the time frames for completing all of
the improvements proposed under Phase One,but for the reasons described,it is clear that all
such work cannot be completed by September 30,2012.Accordingly,good cause exists for the
City Council to grant the requested one year extension with respect to the relocation of the
athletic field and the remaining approved parking lot reconfiguration and expansion work.(For
clarity,Marymount is not requesting an extension to provide the additional 120 parking spaces
required under Condition of Approval No.158 unless the City Council does not approve the
proposed plans on April 17 or shortly thereafter,or other unforeseen circumstances beyond
Marymount's control prevent the timely commencement or completion of such work.)
LA #4821-9064-0911 v2
1-49
Bur,KE,WrU.lAMS [~SORENSEN.UP
Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian
April 11,2012
Page 3
The requested one year extension will also allow sufficient time for the City to process
Marymount's pending application for a revision to its CUP that would allow the College greater
flexibility as to the timing of the start of construction for the Phase Two and Phase Three
improvements (but without changing the existing 36-month limitation on total construction time).
In sum,for the reasons set forth above,Marymount respectfully requests that the City
Council grant a one year extension for Marymount College to complete the Phase One
improvements in Condition of ApprovaI60(a)(other than the provision of 120 additional parking
spaces),and that the completion dates for the Phase Two and Phase Three improvements
listed under Condition of ApprovaI60(b)and (c)be similarly extended by one year.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this time
extension request.
Sincerely,
BURKE,WILLIAMS &SORENSEN,LLP
DONALD M.DAVIS
DMD:ir
cc:(Via e-mail only)
Dr.Michael Brophy,President,Marymount College
Jim Reeves,Vice President,Marymount College
Carol Lynch,City Attorney
Anette Jensen,Stegeman and Kastner,Inc.
Jim Hanafin,Rasmussen &Associates
LA #4821-9064-0911 v2
1-50
Public Comment Letters
December 2,2012 City Council Meeting
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Time Extension Request
1-51
December 6,2012
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic and Councilmembers Knight,
Campbell and Misetich;
I am writing to urge you to approve a one-year extension of Marymount College's project entitlements
to allow for the completion of the college's parking lot and athletic field.
I am a Marymount College sophomore.I grew up in Rancho .Palos Verdes and attended Soleado
Elementary,'Ridgecrest Middle School and Peninsula High School.At Marymount,I am a student leader
and this year I am the president of the Marymount Events Team,which plans student activities.I want
you to know that Marymount students need a field for intercollegiate soccer and lacrosse but we also
need space for intramurals and exercise,which will be lost when the new parking lot is constructed on
the site of the current sports field.
I plan to receive my bachelor's and master's degrees at Marymount and the hope of an athletic field
completed before the end of my junior year is so important to me.Please support the time extension to
get this done.
Sincerely,
Cory Intagliata
27521 Fawnskin Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
c.c.Michael S.Brophy,President,Marymount College
RECEIVED
nEe 0 72012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
1-52
Page 1 of 1
Ara Mihranian
From:Carolynn Petru
Sent:Friday,December 07,20123:54 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:Joel Rojas
Subject:FW:Marymount Parking Lot/Athletic Fields
Attachments:MM_Letter.docx
From:Don [mailto:dreeves895@aol.com]
Sent:Friday,December 07,20129:24 AM
To:CC
Subject:Marymount Parking Lot!Athletic Fields
Good Morning
Attached is my formal letter supporting the 1-year extension of Marymount's Project entitlements.
However,my thoughts are actually stronger in that the incessant c(k)arping by opponents about the
college often borders on more than a strong dislike of the students.I would challenge these folks to
compare their own community service and volunteerism with that of the student body.Nevertheless,
regardless of one's personal feelings about the college or the administration,I would urge you to make
the future of our youth your #1 priority.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Don Reeves
6424 Via Canada,RPV,CA 90275
310-833-6561
dreeves895@aol.com
12/10/2012 1-53
Error!Reference source not found.
6;1.2'1,Via Canada.Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275.Phone:~·H()-8:·m-(j561 •dreeves895@aol.com
Date:12/07/2012
••
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic and Councilmembers
Knight,Campbell and Misetich;
I am writing to urge you to approve a one-year extension of Marymount College's project entitlements
to allow for the completion of the college's parking lot and athletic field.
As a member of the Palos Verdes Sunset Rotary Club and advisor to the college's Rotaract Club,I
have direct and weekly experience with students.The Rotaractors are a group of enthusiastic
students who have learned business leadership skills while providing community service to local,
national and regional projects.This club,however,is not the only service club on campus that
participates in community service projects.I have had the opportunity to lead many outstanding
students for the past 6 years.
In my view,Marymount College provides an outstanding education and its students deserve an
athletic field to support intercollegiate sports and health and well ness activities.
Sincerely,
6424 Via Canada
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
1-54
December 6,2012
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic and Councilmembers Knight,
Campbell and Misetich;
FRAM Soccer Club is writing to express our support and to urge you to approve a one-year extension of
the current eptitlements to allow Marymount College to complete the building of a new parking lot and
athletic field on their campus in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Marymount College has been a big supporter of FRAM and youth sports within our community,
allowing FRAM to use their existing,limited field space when we have been unable to gain access to the
PVPUSD fields we use due to school and field closures,summer school construction projects and field
maintenance.Also,the building of this field will help alleviate some of the pressure from the increasing
demand on the Peninsula for high-quality,regulation size playing fields by both youth sports and adult
community groups.
FRAM Soccer Club is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to promoting youth soccer in our
community.Founded in 1972,our Palos Verdes Peninsula based club has over 550 current youth players,
and over the past 40 years we have provided a safe,fun,competitive enviromnent for thousands of
Rancho Palos Verdes and South Bay children to become not just better soccer players,but also
outstanding leaders,teammates,friends,students and citizens.FRAM relies on the support of our local
partners,including Marymount College,to continue to succeed and provide unique youth athletic
opportunities to area families.
Sincerely,
Harry W.Bruni
President
Fram Soccer Club
c.c.Dr.Michael S.Brophy,President,Marymount College
FRAMSK
P.O.Box 3142,Palos Verdes Peninsula,CA 90274
www·framsoccer.com
1-55
Page 1 of 1
Ara Mihranian
From:Carolynn Petru
Sent:Thursday,December 06,20122:03 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:Joel Rojas
Subject:FW:Marymount College --one-year extension
From:DeDe Hicks [mailto:dede@volctr-sobay.org]
Sent:Thursday,December 06,2012 1:59 PM
To:CC
Cc:'Michael Brophy'
Subject:Marymount College --one-year extension
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic and Councilmembers Knight,
Campbell and Misetich;
I am writing to urge you to approve a one-year extension of Marymount College's project entitlements
to allow for the completion of the college's parking lot and athletic field.
I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes since before the city was founded.I am proud to have a college
located in my home community and have supported the college in its development from a two-year
college to a four-year institution offering bachelor's degrees.The college and its students offer a great
benefit to our community including local service projects and a Cultural Arts Program with speakers,
concerts,plays,art shows and other enriching experiences.
Allowing the necessary time for the college to complete the permanent parking lot and athletic field will
benefit both this fine college and our community.
Sincerely,
De De Hicks
32859 Seagate Drive #108
Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.90275
c.c.Michael S.Brophy,President,Marymount College
12/10/2012 1-56
Dora M.de la Rosa
27600 Warrior Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)541-8006
dmdelarosa3@verizon.net
December 6,2012
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic and Councilmembers
Knight,Campbell and Misetich:
First of all,thank you for your service to our city.I write today to urge you to approve a one-
year extension of Marymount College's project entitlements to allow for the completion ofthe
college's parking lot and athletic field.As you know,the approval from the Army Corps of
Engineers has delayed this project.Marymount College is committed to completing this work
as soon as possible.
As you may know,I have long been an advocate for the educational success of our children.My
service on the school board demonstrated to me that our educational institutions are the
jewels of our community and contribute greatly to the wonderful quality of life we enjoy on the
Peninsula.I see tremendous value to our community in extending the Marymount property
entitlements afforded by you,our Council.Our entire community will benefit from the athletic
field and the parking lot will ensure that students,staff,faculty and visitors to the college have
a safe and convenient location to park.I have been encouraged this past year by the greater
cooperation between the City and Marymount College,as well as with the school district.I
remain convinced that working together we can accomplish great things on behalf of our
children,students and the community at large.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Dora M.de la Rosa
cc:Michael S.Brophy,President,Marymount College
1-57
Page 1 of2
Ara Mihranian
From:Carolynn Petru
Sent:Thursday,December 06,201212:02 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:Joel Rojas
Subject:FW:Marymount College Entitlement Extension
From:Jim Herrera [mailto:piersonproperties@cox.net]
Sent:Thursday,December 06,201211:47 AM
To:CC
Subject:Marymount College Entitlement Extension
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
30940 Hawthorne Blvd,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Date:December 12,2012
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic and Councilmembers Knight,
Campbell and Misetich:
I am writing to urge you to approve a one-year extension of Marymount College's project entitlements
to allow for the completion of the college's parking lot and athletic field.
My son Spencer is a freshman at Marymount College and we are long-term residents of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
Marymount College has been a major partner of the community for decades,and the College is vital to
many local businesses,thus more than worthy of this extension.
I am a member of the Palos Verdes Chamber Legislative Affairs Committee and am aware of the need
for additional athletic fields on the Peninsula.I want my son,and his fellow classmates,to have the
opportunity to enjoy recreational pursuits at the college's RPV Campus.
By providing the college an extension on these entitlements,additional parking,and a new field wilt
soon be accessible to students and the community.
In my view,Marymount College provides an outstanding education,and its students deserve an athletic
field to support intercollegiate sports and health and well ness activities.
Please approve this Entitlement extension request.
Sincerely,
Jim Herrera
6519 Beachview Dr.
12/10/2012 1-58
Page 2 of2
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
c.c.Michael S.Brophy,President,Marymount College
_____Information from ESET Smart Security,version of virus signature database 7773
(20121206)__
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
12110/2012 1-59
December 10,2012
City Couneil
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Dear Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic,Couneilmember Campbell,Couneilmember Knight,and
Couneilmember Misetich,
I am writing to urge you to approve a one-year extension of Marymount College's project entitlements to
allow for the completion of the college's parking lot and athletic field.
As the President and CEO of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce,I have the opportunity to
work closely with the college's leadership.I am pleased with the college's developments and believe their
success provides increased opportunities for learning for its students,our local residents and the business
community.
Students and our community are in need of additional athletic facilities and the new Marymount field will
help to fill that void.Please allow Marymount College suffieient time to complete its planned faeility
improvements.Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~~t/up(J/
Eileen HU~p
President and CEO
Cc:Michael S.Brophy,President,Marymount College
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager,City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce &Visitors'Center
707 Silver Spur Road,Suite 100 •Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274
310.377.8111 *310.377.0614 fax *www.palosverdeschamber.com
1-60
Page 1 of 1
Ara Mihranian
From:Nelsongang [nelsongang@aol.com]
Sent:Monday,December 10,2012 10:25 AM
To:Ara Mihranian
Subject:Yr Email:DEC 18,2012 CC MEETING-MARYMOUNTPH.1 TIME EXTENSION REQUEST
Ara,
Writing as a private citizen,not a RPV PC commissioner,I favor granting this extension.
Marymount for years has enabled students from RPV and all over the world obtain a
highly valued,excellent collegiate education.As a community we should support
these requests of our neighbor.
Bob Nelson
310-544-4632
12/10/2012 1-61