RPVCCA_SR_2010_03_30_02_Marymount_AppealCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,AICP,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MARCH 30,2010
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF THE MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES
EXPANSION PROJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.9 -
REVISION "E",GRADING PERMIT,VARIANCE,MINOR
EXCEPTION PERMIT,MASTER SIGN PERMIT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CASE NO.ZON2003-00317j I
30800 PALOS VEREDS DRIVE EAST
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Ara Michael Mihranian,AICP,Principal Planner.M
RECOMMENDATION
1.Adopt Resolution No.2010-_,certifying the project's Environmental Impact Report,
including Appendix D,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations;and,
2.Adopt Resolution No.2010-_,upholding the Planning Commission's conditional
approval of the proposed expansion project with the following modifications:
a.Increase the setback of the proposed Athletic Building an additional 1O-feet
from top of slope;
b.Reduce the height of the proposed Athletic Building a total of 10-feet;
c.Increase the setback buffer of the lower terrace of the east parking lot and
driveway by 261-feet;and,
d.Select Alternative No.D-2 as the preferred design for the site layout of the
athletic field and tennis courts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the onset of the City Council appeal hearing on the proposed Marymount College
Expansion Project late last year,the College requested that the Council consider,as part of
2 - 1
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
the appeal hearing, a change to its academic program to include a Bachelor of Arts degree
program in addition to its Associates of Arts degree program. In light of this request, the
City Council directed Staff to analyze the potential environmental impacts in connection
with the proposed academic program change, as well as the athletic field design
alternatives proposed by the City Council and the College to address safety concerns with
errant balls entering the public roadway.
This additional analysis was completed, in a new Appendix D. The 45-day public comment
period on the Draft Appendix D occurred between January 21, 2010 and March 8, 2010.
Based on the public comments, the City released the Final Appendix D on March 19, 2010,
which consists of the Draft Appendix D, Responses to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring
Program and Report, and the Errata.
Tonight’s meeting is to resume the Council’s review of the appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision on the proposed Marymount College Project along with the project
changes indentified in Appendix D.
BACKGROUND
On June 23, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2009-27
certifying the Project EIR, including adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable environmental
impacts (Traffic and Short-Term Construction Noise). On July 14, 2009, the Planning
Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2009-28 approving, with the conditions, the
requested planning applications (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision “E”, Grading
Permit, Variance Permit, Minor Exception Permit, and Master Sign Permit). The
Commission’s July 14th decision marked the final decision on the Project by the
Commission starting the appeal clock. The Planning Commission adopted Resolutions can
be found in the City Council Appeal Binders Volume No. 1 (transmitted to the Council in
August 2009) or on the City’s website.
On July 24, 2009, an appeal was filed by Chatten-Brown, Carstens on behalf of the
neighborhood organization Concerned Citizens Coalition / Marymount College (CCC/ME).
The appeal requests that the Council overturn the Commission’s decision on the Project for
various reasons. The letter that lists the appeal points can be found in the City Council
Appeal Binders Volume No. 1 (transmitted to the Council in August 2009) or on the City’s
website. In order to accommodate the number of anticipated speakers and issues related
to the appeal, an appeal hearing was set for Saturday, September 12, 2009.
In advance of the September 12, 2009 appeal hearing related to the Planning
Commission’s decision on the proposed Marymount College Expansion Project, the
College announced to the City its desire to offer a Bachelor of Arts degree program (BA
Program) in addition to its existing Associates of Arts degree program (AA Program). At
the September 12, 2009 public hearing, the College requested that the City Council
consider the potential change in programming while considering the appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision.
2 - 2
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
Based on the discussions at the September 12, 2009 meeting, the City Council directed
Staff to prepare the necessary environmental studies for the BA degree program proposed
by the College to assess if new environmental impacts or an increase in the severity to
previously identified impacts would occur. In response to safety concerns related to errant
balls leaving the proposed athletic field, the Council also directed Staff to perform additional
analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to Athletic Field alternatives
proposed by the College and the City Council. As such, the City’s environmental
consultants for this project, RBF Consulting, were asked to prepare the necessary
environmental studies as an appendix to the Final EIR.
The potential impacts resulting from the proposed changes discussed on September 12,
2009 (proposed BA Program and Athletic Field Alternatives) have been evaluated in
Appendix D to the Final EIR. As directed by the City Council, Appendix D was released on
January 21, 2010 for a 45-day public comment period that concluded on March 8, 2010.
As an added opportunity for the public to provide comments on the Draft Appendix D, the
City Council held a scoping meeting on February 16, 2010 to solely hear oral comments on
the analysis contained in Appendix D. Based on the CEQA guidelines, the City’s
environmental consultant prepared the Final Appendix D, which was released on March 19,
2010. The Final Appendix D encompasses the Draft Appendix D and consists of the
following added sections that are contained in the final document:
• The Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP)
• The Responses to Comments to the Draft Appendix D
• Errata to the Draft Appendix D
The Council is now being asked to resume its review of the merits of the appeal filed by the
CCC/ME as discussed in the August 18, 2009 City Council Staff Report (the original staff
report transmitted to the Council on the merits of the appeal). Additionally, the Council is
being asked to also consider the project revisions introduced at the September 12, 2009
meeting and analyzed in Appendix D as part of the appeal hearing which is considered a
De Novo hearing. Staff’s analysis on the merits of the appeal, which will be referenced at
the upcoming March 30th meeting, can be found in the August 18, 2009 and September 12,
2009 Staff Reports. These two Staff Reports were transmitted to the Council under
separate cover on March 16, 2010 and are also available on the City’s website under the
Marymount homepage. This Staff Report will focus on issues raised since the September
12, 2009 City Council meeting and primarily on the project revisions that were introduced at
that meeting.
This report and the public hearing will not focus upon or discuss the initiative petition that is
being circulated, which proposes the Marymount Specific Plan including the reintroduction
of the dormitories.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT REVISIONS
The following is a summary of the proposed project revisions resulting from the September
12th City Council meeting.
2 - 3
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
Bachelor of Arts Degree Program
The College proposes to offer a Bachelor of Arts Degree Program (BA Program), in
addition to its existing Associates of Arts Degree Program (AA Program), at the existing
campus. As of late February 2010, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC) has accredited Marymount College to offer BA degrees in three areas of study:
Business, Liberal Arts, and Media Studies. As such, the College would like to begin
offering courses to satisfy requirements for Bachelor’s of Arts degrees in the fall of 2010.
Marymount College has offered BA Degrees and MA degrees on its campus through its
partnership with Webster University (which is accredited to offer such degrees), as part of
its “Non-Traditional Program” for over a decade (see attached draft Conditions of Approval
for a definition of “Traditional” and “Non-Traditional” programs). The College’s decision to
seek its own accreditation to offer a Bachelor’s degree as part of its Traditional Degree
Program is intended to meet the needs of its students. As part of its Traditional Degree
Program Marymount College currently offers and would continue to offer Associates of Arts
and Associates of Science degrees in over 30 areas of study.
The following table outlines the degrees currently offered and those that would be offered
with the BA Program.
Existing Project With Bachelor of Arts Program
Traditional Degree Program
Associates in Arts and Sciences
(over 30 areas of study)
Associates in Arts and Sciences
(over 30 areas of study)
Bachelors of Arts
(3 areas of study – Business, Liberal Arts,
Media)
Non-Traditional Degree Program
Associates in Arts and Sciences
Bachelors in Arts and Sciences
(2 areas of study)
Masters (2 areas of study)
Bachelors in Arts and Sciences
(over 2 areas of study) Masters (2 areas of
study)
Student Enrollment
The Proposed BA Degree program will not involve changes to the 793 student enrollment
cap analyzed in the Final EIR. Additionally, no changes to the College’s
Weekend/Continuing Education Program limit of 150 students, as set forth in the 2009
adopted Planning Commission’s Conditions of Approval, are proposed. In terms of the
Traditional and Non-Traditional degree programs, the College is not proposing any change
in the maximum permitted student enrollment for its Traditional Degree Program from the
numbers studied in the EIR. The Non-Traditional Degree Program would be limited to 150
students as shown in the following Table:
2 - 4
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
Existing Project With Bachelor of Arts Program
Traditional Degree Program
793 Students (AA Program) 793 Students (combined AA and BA Programs)
Non-Traditional Degree Program
Unrestricted Enrollment 150 Students
The College forecasts the following enrollment levels beginning in Fall 2010, as outlined in
the table on the following page, for the three Bachelor’s degree programs:
Estimated Student Enrollment According to Area of Study Table
Year Business Liberal Arts Media Studies Total 4-Year
Enrollment
Fall 2010 Juniors: 17 Juniors: 10 Juniors: 18 45
Fall 2011 Juniors/Seniors: 32 Juniors/Seniors: 19 Juniors/Seniors: 34 85
Fall 2012 Juniors/Seniors: 34 Juniors/Seniors: 20 Juniors/Seniors: 36 90
According to the College, the data presented in the table above is an estimate, since the
College itself has not offered Bachelor’s degrees in recent years, and has no information or
experience upon which it can predict enrollment in these programs. However, the College
anticipates that the majority of students seeking Bachelor’s degrees would be currently
enrolled students that desire to remain at Marymount, instead of transferring to another
institution, which is the only option currently available to its Traditional Degree Program
students. As such, enrollment in and growth of the Bachelor’s degree programs would be
phased in over time. At this time, based on the above projections, it is estimated that by
2013, Marymount would have fewer than 100 upper division students pursuing a Bachelor’s
degree. This estimate would represent less than 15 percent of its current maximum
permitted Traditional Degree Program enrollment.
For purposes of the environmental analysis, the maximum enrollment considered for the BA
Program is 250 students. Since the College’s overall Traditional Degree Program of 793
students is not proposed to change, the maximum permitted enrollment for the AA Program
would be reduced each term by the current BA Program enrollment so that the combined
enrollment in the AA Program and BA Program would not exceed 793 students. To
summarize, the maximum enrollment for the AA Program is 793 students minus current BA
Program students.
It is noted that because one of the College’s underlying goals is to retain students for the
period necessary to complete a Bachelor’s degree, student enrollment may become more
evenly distributed by class year at some undefined point in the future. Admission for all first
and second year students represents admission to the College, and not to any particular
degree program. This would not change with the addition of BA Programs. Students
electing to stay at the College for a Bachelor’s degree would apply separately for admission
in their second year as would any third or fourth year transfer students. The College’s first
Bachelor’s degrees would not be conferred until Spring 2012 at the earliest. The annual
graduation ceremony awarding Bachelor’s degrees would be combined with the ceremony
2 - 5
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
awarding Associate’s degree resulting in one annual graduation ceremony.
Athletic Field Alternatives
The proposed Athletic Field Alternatives are intended, among other things, to address
concerns with errant field balls entering Palos Verdes Drive East and potential impacts to
neighboring properties. The City Council directed Staff to study the following two
alternatives:
Athletic Field Alternative No. D-1 – This Alternative was directed by the City Council and
consists of the existing athletic field remaining in its current location but enlarged to
resemble the athletic field proposed by the College at the western portion of the campus
(100 x 55 yards or 300 x 165 feet). The athletic field would be constructed at the finished
grade of the proposed parking lot analyzed in Appendix A of the FEIR, therefore, no
additional grading would be required; refer to Exhibit 2-4 in Appendix D. As with the Project
analyzed in Appendix A of the Final EIR, a 42-inch high wrought iron fence embedded
within a 42-inch high landscape hedge and a 20-foot high retractable net would be
proposed along the athletic field’s perimeter, in order to contain errant field balls from
entering the parking lot, adjacent campus buildings and neighboring properties. The fence
would be shielded from view by the proposed landscaping. Additionally, in order to
accommodate the construction of an enlarged athletic field in its existing location, the
proposed parking lot would have to be modified. Specifically, approximately 90 parking
spaces would be relocated from the eastern parking lot to a new parking lot located west of
the proposed tennis courts. The tennis courts would be relocated to the south by
approximately 15-feet to accommodate a driveway to the proposed parking area. It is
anticipated that some minor grading would be required to level the site to accommodate the
parking lot, and that parking lot lighting and landscape planters would be installed to
resemble the proposed parking throughout the campus.
Athletic Field Alternative No. D-2 – This Alternative was proposed by the College and
consists of the athletic field moving approximately 60-feet to the east (closer to the location
of the proposed tennis courts) and two of the four tennis courts would be relocated to the
west of the athletic field. No change to the size of the field is proposed (100 x 55 yards or
300 x 165 feet). The two westerly tennis courts would serve as a buffer between the
curvature of Palos Verdes Dive East and the athletic field to minimize the potential for
errant balls to enter the roadway. The playing surface of the athletic field is designed with
slope banks ranging from 20 to 34 percent (i.e., 20 percent slope for the area west of the
field, 28 percent slope for the area north of the field, and 34 percent slope for the area
south of the field) similar to the athletic field that was approved by the Planning
Commission and analyzed in Appendix A of the Final EIR. As with the Project that was
approved by the Planning Commission and analyzed in Appendix A of the Final EIR, a 42-
inch high wrought iron fence embedded within a 42-inch high landscape hedge would be
proposed along Palos Verdes Drive East, set back 3.0-feet from the property line, in order
to contain errant field balls from entering Palos Verdes Drive East. The fence would be
shielded from view by the proposed landscaping. As a result of the athletic field’s
relocation, as well as the additional buffering provided by the northerly tennis courts (see
discussion below), a retractable net is not proposed by the College for this Alternative.
2 - 6
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
To accommodate the relocated athletic field, the tennis courts would be reconfigured,
placing two on either side of the athletic field. The northerly tennis courts would serve as
an additional buffer between the athletic field and Palos Verdes Drive East and would help
contain errant field balls. The tennis courts would be enclosed with a retaining wall, fence
or combination wall/fence that would not exceed a maximum height of 10-feet, as
measured from the lowest adjacent grade on the side of the tennis courts. The size and
number of the courts would remain unchanged (four courts). Further, lighting of the tennis
courts is not proposed. The proposed chain link fence with a green or black mesh would be
80 percent open to light and air.
DISCUSSION
Recent Project Issues
As previously stated, the analysis on the merits of the appeal filed by CCC/ME can be
found in the August 18, 2009 and September 12, 2009 City Council Staff Reports that were
transmitted to the Council under separate cover. Additionally, the analysis of Staff’s
recommended modifications to the Planning Commission approved project can also be
found in these two Council Staff Reports. The following analysis is solely on the issues that
have been raised since the September 12, 2009 Council meeting, and primarily focuses on
the project revisions introduced at the September 12th meeting and analyzed in Appendix D
to the Final EIR.
Bachelor of Arts Degree Program
At the September 12, 2009 City Council meeting, the College announced its desire to offer
a Bachelor of Arts degree program (BA Program), in addition to its existing Associates of
Arts degree Program (AA Program) at its existing campus. At the time, the College
indicated that an application is pending with the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (WASC) for accreditation to offer BA Degrees in the following three areas of
study: Business, Liberal Arts, and Media Studies. Since then, the College has received
accreditation to offer BA Degrees in these three disciplines.
The potential environmental impacts relating to the proposed BA degree program were
analyzed in Appendix D to the Final EIR. According to the analysis in Appendix D, the
proposed BA Degree program is not anticipated to intensify or increase previously identified
impacts to the surrounding environment, as approved by the Planning Commission, with
the exception of the following:
• Aesthetics/Light and Glare (long-term visual character of the athletic field)
At this time, the College is not proposing a change to its athletic program with the
introduction of the BA degree program and the athletic field would continue to be used
for sporting activities as depicted in the project approved by the Planning Commission.
As such, the proposed athletic field would still require the installation and use of a
retractable net during activities involving balls to minimize errant balls from entering the
roadway. Therefore, a mitigation measure is recommended for the BA degree program,
2 - 7
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
similar to the Commission-approved project, that requires a 20-foot retractable net be
used at the athletic field for recreational activities involving balls. The retractable net is
to be lowered immediately at the end of a recreational activity and during non-play
times. Additionally, recreational activities requiring the use of the net shall be prohibited
on Sundays and legal holidays to minimize potential visual character impacts to
surrounding properties.
• Land Use (consistency with the Development Code)
At this time, the College is a member of the Athletic Association of California
Community Colleges – South Coast Conference for the following Sporting events: golf,
soccer, and tennis. Additionally, the College fields several intramural and club sports
teams during a given school year, such as basketball, softball, volleyball, lacrosse,
soccer, tennis, and flag football (taken from the Draft EIR and the College’s Project
Applications Binder). According to the analysis found in Appendix D, the introduction of
the BA degree program at Marymount College would allow the College to become a
member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletic (NAIA). Becoming a
member of the NAIA would potentially increase the number of athletic events occurring
at the College, which may result in the intensification of impacts to the surrounding
environment not originally analyzed in the project EIR. Such potential impacts may
include traffic, parking, noise, air quality, and operational. However, the College has
indicated that at this time, it can only speculate as to what changes, if any, would result
to its athletic program due to the addition of the BA program at the College. As such,
Appendix D recommends an added mitigation measure that requires the College to
submit an Athletic Associations Membership Report every July 1st to the City for review
and approval by the Community Development Director that documents the College’s
memberships with athletic associations. The purpose of this mitigation measure is to
annually evaluate the College’s athletic programs to determine if a revision to the
Conditional Use Permit is warranted if there is an increase to athletic events, such as
spectator events.
• Traffic and Circulation (traffic generation and parking capacity)
The traffic and parking operations associated with the proposed BA degree program are
analyzed in context with the impacts identified in the project EIR’s Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project Traffic & Parking Impact Analysis (September 28, 2007), and
Revised Marymount College Project Traffic & Parking Analysis (May 15, 2009). A detailed
analysis of traffic and parking for the BA degree program can be found in Appendix D. The
analysis in Appendix D assumes implementation of the proposed BA Program in addition to
the proposed expansion Project that was approved by the Planning Commission and
analyzed in Appendix A to the Final EIR (updated from the project analyzed in the Draft
EIR).
Level of Service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection
operation and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using
the intersection. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology is utilized
in this study to determine the operating LOS of the signalized study intersections; the 2000
2 - 8
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology is utilized to determine the
operating LOS of the unsignalized study intersections. Intersection LOS calculations are
determined using the Traffix software except at the Miraleste Drive/Via Colinita intersection,
which is evaluated using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS). HCS is utilized at the
Miraleste Drive/Via Colinita intersection to take into account the large median and effective
refuge area when crossing Miraleste Drive from Via Colinita known as a Two-Stage Gap
Acceptance.
To determine forecast trip generation of the proposed Project, ITE Trip Generation
published trip generation rates were used for specific land uses. ITE trip rates are based
on surveys of representative facilities throughout the United States. Forecast Project trip
generation is determined through consideration of the following Project components:
• Increase in junior college buildings through construction of 77,504 square feet and
demolition of 18,022 square feet; and
• BA Program with 250-student maximum.
Consistent with ITE, the analysis assumes the Project components consisting of the
construction and demolition of campus facilities and buildings as the ITE Junior/Community
College land use category. ITE describes the Junior/Community College land use as
including two-year junior, community, or technical colleges. ITE describes the
University/College land use as including four-year universities or colleges that may or may
not offer graduate programs. The ITE Junior/Community College and University/College
categories are assumed to include buildings serving administration and instruction, as well
as ancillary uses such as library, cafeteria, athletic facilities, etc., but no on-campus
dormitories. ITE trip rates for the Junior/Community College and University categories are
also assumed to account for trips associated with students, faculty, and support staff
(emphasis added).
Consistent with ITE, traffic generation associated with the BA Program component is
quantified through comparison of trip generation per student in BA Program versus an
Associates of Arts Degree Program (AA Program). The net increase in ITE trip generation
through the BA Program designation of some students is then added to the trip generation
identified for expansion of buildings on the campus. It is noted the ITE University land use
category does not include trip rates based on building square footage.
As for parking, the proposed BA Program is also analyzed in the context of impacts
identified in the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project Traffic & Parking Impact
Analysis (September 28, 2007), and Revised Marymount College Project Traffic & Parking
Analysis (May 15, 2009). The analysis includes review of the required parking capacity
based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.50.020,
Parking Requirements, as well as observed College-related parking counts, including
forecast demand associated with the two proposed Project components (i.e., campus
facilities and BA Program). It is noted that the RPVMC Section 17.50.020 category for
“Colleges and Universities” does not differentiate between AA and BA programs. For
analysis purposes, the “With Project” condition assumes implementation of the proposed
BA Program in addition to the proposed expansion Project identified in Appendix A to the
2 - 9
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
Final EIR.
In summary, the introduction of the BA degree program will result in an increase to traffic
and parking demands forecast to occur with the Commission-approved project (AA degree
program). In terms of traffic, the proposed project with the BA degree program is forecast
to generate 1,931 weekday trips, an increase of 295 trips (from 1,636 trips), and 888
Saturday trips, an increase of 192 trips (from 696 trips). The following mitigation measures
are carried over from the Commission-approved project and are recommended to remain to
reduce the overall project impacts to a less than significant level to the following
intersections:
• Palos Verdes Drive East/Miraleste Drive (installation of a traffic signal);
• Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South (intersection design
modifications); and
• Western Avenue (SR-213)/Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive (re-striping).
It should be noted that in terms of cumulative impacts, the impacts identified in the
Commission-approved project at the PVDS/PVDE intersection would remain with the
introduction of the BA degree program and would not be reduced to a less than significant
level because the College would only be required to contribute its fair share to the
intersection improvements. As such, the improvements would not be constructed until fully
funded and will therefore result in a significant and unavoidable traffic impact as indentified
in the project EIR. The Council will have to consider adopting a Statement of Overriding
Consideration for this traffic impact.
As for parking, the demand will increase with the implementation of the BA degree program
resulting in a forecast weekday deficiency of 56 spaces and a forecast weekend surplus of
332 parking spaces. In regards to the weekday parking deficiency, mitigation measures are
recommended, such as a Parking Management Strategy, to reduce weekday College-
related parking demands based on the annual student enrollment scale. It should be noted
that the recommended Parking Management Strategy was originally identified as a
mitigation measure in the Draft EIR. However, when the project was revised to not include
the Residence Halls, the Parking Management Strategy was no longer needed as a
mitigation measure, but it remained as a condition of approval to further minimize potential
parking impacts.
In summary, the environmental impacts associated with the proposed BA degree program
can be reduced to a less than significant level with the continued implementation of the
Commission approved mitigation measures, as recommended in Appendix D. As for the
intersection of PVDS/PVDE, in terms of cumulative impacts, this remains a significant and
unavoidable impact with the implementation of the BA degree program. As an added
measure, Staff recommends adding the mitigation measures to the conditions of approval.
2 - 10
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
Athletic Field Alternatives
In response to safety concerns in connection with the project approved by the Planning
Commission and the potential for errant balls entering the roadway from the athletic field,
the Council directed Staff to prepare an alternative that would enlarge the existing field to
the dimensions for the athletic field proposed by the College. As a result of the Council’s
direction, the College also proposed an alternative layout to the athletic field for the
Council’s consideration. Both alternatives were studied in Appendix D and are identified as
Alternative D-1, the Council directed alternative, and Alternative D-2, the College proposed
alternative.
In summary, based on the analysis contained in Appendix D for the athletic field
alternatives, Alternative D-1 was found to be infeasible. This is because the enlarged field
in its existing location would impede on access to the fire lane at the southeastern portion
of the campus. According to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD), a
maximum of 150-feet accessibility is required for all portions of exterior walls for the first
story of all buildings and this is achieved with the proposed fire lane along the southern
edge of the improvement campus. Because the potential exists that this requirement may
not be met with Alternative D-1 and that fire access cannot be provided over turf areas, this
alternative would either have to be revised to accommodate the necessary fire access or
deemed infeasible. Staff reviewed the layout for Alternative D-1 and does not believe it can
be redesigned in a manner that results in an unobstructed fire lane access without
introducing new impacts, such as additional grading and retaining wall along the southern
slope. Lastly, although the Residence Hall buildings have been removed from the project
plans, the Fire Department has indicated a need for fire access along the southern portion
of the campus, adjacent to the Faculty Building and Classroom Building. Therefore, Staff
has concluded that this alternative is no longer feasible. However, it should also be noted
that based on the environmental analysis in Appendix D, Alternative D-1 also resulted in a
significant and unavoidable impact with respect to Aesthetics/Light and Glare (long term
visual character with the relocation of the parking lot at the western portion of the campus)
and noise (long-term stationary noise at the proposed library). The remaining environmental
impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level.
As for the college proposed Alternative D-2, Appendix D concluded that there are two
potential environmental impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant level with
the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. These two impacts are
Aesthetics/Light and Glare (long-term visual character with the use of the retractable net)
and Hydrology/Water Quality (updated drainage plan to reflect the revised layout of the
athletic field and tennis courts). Although the College does not propose to use a retractable
net because the field is further setback from the roadway, Appendix D recommends as an
added safety measure to require the use of a retractable net for recreational activities
involving field balls.
It should be noted that during the public comment period on the Draft Appendix D,
questions were raised regarding the dimension standards for the proposed athletic field and
the actual dimensions for the existing athletic field. According to the Existing
Site/Demolition Plan prepared by the College for the project plans submitted to the City as
2 - 11
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
far back as 2000 (the original submittal for the project), the existing soccer field proposed to
be removed was identified by dashed lines. According to Staff’s calculations, the dashed
lines measure 220’ x 205’. However, as pointed out by the public, this plan also shows two
unlabeled field goals. According to Staff’s calculations of the distance between the field
goals shown on the Existing Site Plan and the City aerials (taken in 2002), the actual size of
the existing soccer field is measured as approximately 300’x165’. This is the same
dimension as the original athletic field proposed by the College at the western portion of the
campus, and the athletic field shown in Alternative D-1 and Alternative D-2.
In terms of dimension standards for soccer fields, there are two sets of criteria to rely on
depending on the game of play. According to the Federation International de Football
Association (FIFA), standard fields range between 100 and 130 yards (300 and 390 feet)
for length (touch line) and between 50 and 100 yards (150 and 300 feet) for width (goal
line). The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Rule 1 dimensions range
between 110 and 120 yards (330 and 360 feet) for length and between 65 and 80 yards
(195 and 240 feet) for width. Moreover, according to the NCAA Rule 1, the optimum size
for a soccer field is 120 yards by 75 yards. According to the College’s project architect (see
attached letter), “the existing field location is clearly not large enough to contain regulation-
size NCAA soccer field nor can this portion of the campus adequately contain what the
College has generally described as “closer to regulation field” such as the field originally
proposed by the College for the western portion of the campus or the modified design
analyzed in Appendix D as the College’s Alternative No. D-2.”
Staff would like to point out again that the athletic field originally proposed by the College
and proposed as Alternative D-2 measures out to be roughly the same dimensions as the
existing soccer field, which is 100 x 55 yards (300 x 165 feet).
In light of this information, the Council may wish to consider keeping the field in its current
location, as suggested by members of the public. However, Staff would like to point out
that the existing field also impedes on access to the proposed fire lane from the eastern
portion of the campus. In order to prevent the access impediment, the existing athletic field
would have to be shifted further south onto the slope, which would require grading and the
use of retaining walls. Those environmental impacts have not been analyzed. Accordingly,
Staff does not recommend that the athletic field be retained in its current location.
In summary, in order to address safety concerns, as well as fulfill the College’s objective to
place recreational uses at the western portion of the campus in close proximity to the
Athletic Building, Staff believes that the preferred layout is that which the College proposes
under Alternative D-2 with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures
and conditions of approval.
2 - 12
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
Grading Plans
The Planning Commission approved a maximum total (cut and fill) of 84,800 cubic yards of
grading consisting of a maximum cut of 56,000 cubic yards (14,200 cubic yards with 25%
shrinkage) and a maximum fill of 42,400 cubic yards. The College recently submitted
(March 5, 2010) an updated grading plan, wet-stamped by registered engineer (Matthew
Kirk), that proposes a total of 79,155 cubic yards of total grading (cut and fill) consisting of
39,255 cubic yards of cut, 39,900 cubic yards of fill, and 13,545 cubic yards of shrinkage at
15%. The updated grading plan reflects the project that was approved by the Planning
Commission and analyzed in the project EIR but with modifications to enhance the overall
grading by reducing the height of retaining walls (resulting in reduced construction costs)
and the total amount of grading approved by the Planning Commission. According to the
College, the following is a list of the major modifications made to the grading plan (see
attached letter):
• Adjusted the location of the accessible path of travel from the public right-of-way at
the intersection of Crest Drive and PVDE to the campus buildings (this includes a
terraced parking lot between PVDE and the campus buildings that is separated by a
retaining wall ranging between 2’ to 5’).
• Raised the finished surface for the athletic field by 1’ (893.0’ to 894.0’) to improve
drainage.
• Raised the finished surface for the tennis courts by 8’ from an elevation of 892.0’ to
900.0’ resulting in an overall reduction in the height of the retaining walls (from 20’ to
12 feet). The retaining walls will remain below grade with the exception of a 42”
wall/wrought iron fence on top of the retaining wall that will be visible from the street.
• Reduced the height of the retaining wall at the terraced parking lot from 4’ to 1’ in
height between parking aisles. This modification lowered the maximum height of
parking surface elevation 935.5’ to 932.54’.
• Removed the cut area at the south end of east parking lot. Grade adjusted to
maintain existing grade (902.0’ to 908.48’). Adjusted height at the Rose Garden to
enhance the drainage.
• Reduced the grade of the retaining wall south of the fire lane / pedestrian walkway
from 12’ to 6’.
It should be noted that grading plans reviewed in the planning stage are typically
considered a preliminary plan that are commonly updated or refined to reflect precise
grades in the plan check stage prior to issuance of a Grading Permit by Building and
Safety. It is during the plan check stage that the City’s Building Official, Geologist, and
Engineer review the proposed grading in relation to the recommendations listed in the
project’s geotechnical report and the Uniform Building Code. Moreover, it is during this
stage that the drainage plan is also reviewed to assure that run-off is diverted to the
appropriate catch basins and adequately flows throughout the on-site storm drain system.
It is also during the Plan Check process that the amount of grading is verified in accordance
to the grading quantities approved during the planning process. In the event a discrepancy
occurs that results in an increase to the grading, the plans are reverted to the Planning
Department for further review. In cases where the Planning Commission or City Council
approved the project grading, a revision will be processed at a duly noticed public hearing.
2 - 13
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
In a letter dated March 1, 2010 from Mr. Jim Gordon, concerns are expressed with the
degree of information shown on the preliminary grading plans in relation to information
shown in the geotechnical and soil reports. In summary, his concern is primarily focused
on the accuracy of the quantities and location of grading shown on the Preliminary Grading
Plan being reviewed by the City, as he believes the entire amount of earth movement is not
represented on the project plans. According to the Development Code and the Planning
Department’s Grading Permit application, the grading quantity calculation is the total
amount of combined earth movement (cut and fill). Earth movement is considered all raw
cuts and fills, whether under or outside the building footprint, and includes earth movement
for remedial grading (removal and recompaction) and buttressed key slopes.
In order to ensure that the grading quantities called out on the Preliminary Grading Plan
capture all proposed earth movement, including remedial grading and raw cut and fill (in
and out quantities) quantities throughout the entire site, Staff recommends amending the
Conditions of Approval to specifically state that the total amount of any earth movement
shall not exceed 79,155 cubic yards (this is the latest grading quantity proposed by the
College as of March 5, 2010). The maximum total earth movement shall include grading
under the building footprint, walkways, recreational facilities, parking lot, buttressed slopes,
and remedial grading to name a few. In the event that during the Plan Check process, the
total earth movement realized is greater than the quantity the Council has approved (aside
from an allowable 200 cubic yard margin of difference), a revised grading plan will need to
be reviewed and approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing, as indicated
in the Conditions of Approval.
Adoption of the CEQA and Planning Application Resolutions
Based on the information presented to the Council, attached are the draft CEQA and
Planning Application Resolutions that have been prepared by the City Attorney for the
Council’s review. The CEQA Resolution is based on the analysis in the EIR and the project
revisions that were analyzed in Appendix A and D of the Final EIR and accomplishes the
following:
Certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marymount College Facilities
Expansion Project that was approved by the Planning Commission, excluding the residence
halls and as amended to include including Appendix A and D to the Final EIR;
• Makes environmental findings pursuant to the Californian Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA;
• Adopts a Statement of Overriding Consideration for environmental impacts that
cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance; and,
• Adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
According to the analysis of the revised project in Appendix D, the project revisions (the
proposed BA degree program and the Athletic Field Alternative No. D-2) will not result in
new significant impacts beyond the impacts of the project that was approved by the
Planning Commission or introduce new substantial adverse effects that cannot be mitigated
2 - 14
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
to a less than significant level with mitigation measures, including mitigation measures
identified in the original EIR. The project would not result in increased impacts that cannot
be mitigated to a less than significant level, in the following areas:
• Land Use;
• Aesthetics/Light Glare
• Traffic and Circulation;
• Air Quality;
• Noise;
• Public Services and Utilities;
• Hydrology and Water Quality; and
• Biological Resources.
The overall project results in the following significant unavoidable impacts that require the
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration in order to approve the project
planning applications:
• Cumulative traffic impacts at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos
Verdes Drive South
• Short-term noise impacts associated with project construction
The Planning Application Resolution approves, with conditions, the project with the
exception of the Residence Halls. All other aspects of the proposed project are approved,
including the Athletic Building (with modifications), the Library Building, the addition to the
Student Union, the expansion of the Admissions Building, parking lot improvements,
athletic field and tennis courts, and other site buildings and improvements based on the
stated Findings of Facts.
As a reminder, action on the project must begin with the adoption of the environmental
resolution prior to the adoption of the planning application resolution. Additionally,
certification of the project EIR does not automatically translate into approval of the
proposed project (an EIR can be certified and the project denied).
If deemed acceptable, Staff recommends that the Council review and adopt the attached
CEQA Resolution, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the
Statement of Overriding Consideration, and the Planning Application Resolution with the
attached Conditions of Approval (as described in the following section).
Conditions of Approval
Attached for the Council’s review are the draft Conditions of Approval. The Conditions of
Approval are the conditions adopted by the Planning Commission with new revisions based
on information provided to the City Council during this appeal process. Staff is also
providing the Council with a redline version that depicts the revisions to the Planning
Commission approved conditions with underlines for added text and strike outs for deleted
text.
2 - 15
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
In summary, the revisions to the Commission adopted Conditions of Approval consist of the
following:
• Listing the City Council as the deciding body rather than the Planning Commission
• Renaming the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement to Community
Development Director based on the recent department name change.
• Updating the Resolution numbers and project dates
• Wordsmith edits
• Updating the Grading Quantities, including clarifying that the project grading is
based on a maximum total earth movement.
• Allowing the BA degree program with a maximum enrollment of 250 students
• Updating the Parking Management Strategy conditions to reflect the Mitigation
Measures
• Clarifying the loading space requirements per Section 17.50.050 of the RPVMC
• Closing the tennis courts between sunset and sunrise, unless a Special Use Permit
is obtained
• Requiring the installation of a mock-up for parking lot and walkway lighting prior to
installation.
• Regulating, through the Conditional Use Permit, the number and location of outdoor
events with amplified sound allowed with the approval of a Special Use Permit within
the academic year.
Staff recommends that the City Council review and adopt the attached Planning Application
Resolution, including the Conditions of Approval. However, based on a conversation with
the College’s representative, Staff would like to point out that the College may be
requesting the Council’s consideration of some modifications to the draft conditions relating
to the timing of the construction phasing and the timing of the 6-month review.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Meeting Format
Similar to the schedule for the September 12, 2009 City Council meeting, the Mayor is
going to propose that the appellant and the applicant each be given 45 minutes to give their
respective presentations plus an additional 15 minutes for rebuttals for each side. This time
can be divided amongst whomever they choose, but the total initial presentation time will be
45 minutes. The Mayor will also encourage Council members to not interrupt each side’s
presentation. Members of the public who are not part of the appellant’s or the applicant’s
initial presentations will be given 2 minutes per person to comment on the project.
Furthermore, speakers will not be allowed to “transfer” or “donate” their time to other
speakers. This is due to the anticipated number of public speakers. After the rebuttals, the
public hearing will be closed and the City Council will begin its deliberation on the appeal.
Attached is an estimated timeline for the March 30th meeting.
Continued Public Hearing
2 - 16
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
In the event that the Council is unable to complete its review of the project on March 30th,
the meeting will be continued to the next day, Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at Fred Hesse
Community Room. The meeting will begin at 7:00 pm.
Public Notice
Although the March 30th meeting is a continued public hearing, Staff notified the public of
the meeting specifically noting that the meeting will begin at 6:00 pm rather than the usual
7:00 pm start time, and the City Council adjourned the March 16th City Council meeting to
this date and time. A public notice announcing the date, time and location of the City
Council public hearing on the Project appeal was published on March 11, 2010 in the
Peninsula News and was posted on the City’s website under the Marymount College page.
Additionally, a public notice was sent to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the
project site, interested parties (including adjacent HOA’s), and list-serve subscribers.
Correspondence Received
Attached are the public correspondence letters submitted to the City since the close of the
comment period on the Draft Appendix D on March 8, 2010. The comment letters
represent both opposition to and support of the project. It is Staff’s opinion that the issues
raised in the opposition letters have been addressed in this Staff Report, the August 18,
2009 and September 12, 2009 City Council Staff Reports, previous Planning Commission
Staff Reports and/or the project EIR, including Final EIR Appendix A and D.
Availability of Appendix D
Pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, the Final Appendix D to the Final EIR was released to
the public on Friday, March 19, 2010. As previously noted, Appendix D analyzes the
potential environmental impacts in connection to the Bachelor of Arts Degree program, as
well as the Athletic Field alternatives (D-1 and D-2). The Final Appendix D encompasses
the Draft Appendix D (released on January 21, 2010), the Responses to Comments to the
Draft Appendix D, Errata to the Draft Appendix D, and the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting
Program (MMRP).
Appendix D was posted on the City’s website for public review on January 21, 2010.
Additionally, the document was made available during regular business hours at the
following locations:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Department of Planning, Building, and Code
Enforcement, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Palos Verdes Peninsula Library, Miraleste Branch, 29089 Palos Verdes Drive East,
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Palos Verdes Palos Verdes Main Library, 650 Deep Valley Drive, Rolling Hills
Estates, California 90274
Fred Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos
Verdes, California 90275
2 - 17
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – MARCH 30, 2010
Previously Transmitted Background Information
As a reminder, background information, such as the Planning Commission Staff Reports,
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, public comments (including late correspondence),
environmental documents (including the Final EIR Appendix A), and other relevant
documents relating to the proposed applications were transmitted to the City Council, under
separate cover, in advance of the August 18, 2009 meeting. The background information
was assembled in three project binders titled Marymount College 2009 City Council Appeal
Binder. Each binder includes an Index of Documents. This information has also been
provided to the newly elected Councilmen. The background information contained in the
binders is also available on the City’s website, under the August 18, 2009 City Council
heading on the Marymount College page.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Estimated Meeting Timeline
• Draft Resolution No. 2010-__ (CEQA)
• Draft Resolution No. 2010 - __ (Planning Applications)
• Draft Conditions of Approval
o Redline format
o Clean format
• August 18, 2009 and September 12, 2009 City Council Staff Reports –
transmitted to the Council under separate cover
• Final Appendix D to the EIR – Transmitted to the Council under separate cover
• FIFA and NCAA Soccer Field Dimension Standards
• College’s Architect’s Letter dated March 17, 2010 with attachments
• Public Comments
2 - 18
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MARYMOUNT EXPANSION
TIME GUIDE AND AGENDA
MARCH 30, 2010
Start time End Topic
6:00 PM 0:10 6:10 PM Standard procedures
6:10 PM 0:10 6:20 PM Description of timing and rules of procedure & behavior
6:20 PM 0:10 6:30 PM Staff Report
6:30 PM 0:10 6:40 PM Council questions of staff
6:40 PM 0:45 7:25 PM APPELLANT presentation
7:25 PM 0:15 7:40 PM Council questions of Appellant and staff
7:40 PM 0:45 8:25 PM APPLICANT presentation
8:25 PM 0:15 8:40 PM Council questions of Applicant and staff
8:40 PM 0:10 8:50 PM Break
8:50 PM 1:40 10:30 PM Speakers - 2 minutes each (estm. 50 speakers)
10:30 PM 0:15 10:45 PM Rebuttal - Appellant
10:45 PM 0:10 10:55 PM Council questions of Appellant and staff
10:55 PM 0:15 11:10 PM Rebuttal - Applicant
11:10 PM 0:10 11:20 PM Council questions of Applicant and staff
CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS
11:20 PM 0:10 11:30 PM BREAK
11:30 PM 0:30 12:00 AM Council deliberations
12:00 AM 0:30 12:30 AM Motions and votes
total hours 6:30
C:\Documents and Settings\aram\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK9BB\RPV - marymount agenda time - March 30 2010.xls3/25/201012:07 PM2 - 19
The CEQA and Planning Application Resolutions
will be transmitted to the Council and posted on the City’s website as late
correspondence before the
March 30, 2010 City Council Meeting.
2 - 20
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-28 - EXHIBIT “B”
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ZON2003-00317 (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision ‘E’,
Grading Permit, Variance, and Minor Exception Permit)
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1) The approvals granted by this Resolution shall not become effective until the
applicant and property owners submit a written affidavit that each has read,
understands and accepts all conditions of approval contained herein. Said
affidavit shall be submitted to the City no later than ninety (90) days from the date
of approval of the project by the Planning CommissionCity Council. If the
applicant and/or the property owner fail to submit the written affidavit required by
this condition within the required 90 days, this resolution approving planning case
number ZON2003-00317 (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision ‘E,’ Grading
Permit, Variance and Minor Exception Permit) shall be null and void and of no
further effect.
2) In accordance with the provisions of Fish and Game Code §711.4 and Title 14,
California Code of Regulations, §753.5, the applicant shall pay all applicable
filing fees, payable to the County of Los Angeles, for the Fish and Game
Environmental Filing Fee, including posting fees. This check shall be submitted
to the City within five (5) business days of final approval of this project. If
required, the applicant shall also pay any fine imposed by the Department of Fish
and Game.
3) Each and every mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program attached as Exhibit “C” of Resolution No. 2009-272010-XX is hereby
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, as Exhibit “B”, for planning case
number ZON2003-00317 (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision ‘E,’ Grading
Permit, Variance, and Minor Exception Permit).
4) The applicant shall fully implement and continue for as long as a college is
operated the Mitigation Monitoring Program and execute all mitigation measures
as identified and set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project
as certified in Resolution No. 2009-272010-XX.
5) Marymount College shall be responsible for implementing and ensuring
compliance with all of the Conditions of Approval stated herein. Accordingly, as
used herein, the term “applicant” shall mean Marymount College including
operators of educational and recreational programs affiliated with Marymount
College and the property upon which the Marymount College is located.
2 - 21
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 37
6) The project development shall conform to the specific standards contained in
these Conditions of Approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the
appropriate development and operational standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (“RPVMC”).
7) The project, including site layout, the building and appearances, and signage
throughout the site, must be constructed and maintained in substantial
compliance with the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning
CommissionCity Council, and stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective
date of the Notice of Decision.
8) The Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity
Development Director shall be authorized to approve minor modifications to the
approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve
substantially the same results as would strict compliance with such plans and
conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning CommissionCity Council as a revision to this
conditional use permit at a duly noticed public hearing.
9) Failure to comply with all of the Conditions of Approval will be grounds to revoke
the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in
RPVMC section 17.86.060.
10) These conditions are organized by topic type for ease of reference. Regardless
of such organization, each condition is universally applicable to the entire project
site, unless a condition clearly indicates otherwise. The conditions shall be
applicable as long as a college is operated on the property, unless otherwise
stated herein.
11) In the event that a Condition of Approval is in conflict or is inconsistent with any
Mitigation Measure for this project, the more restrictive shall govern.
12) All applicable permits required by the Department of Building and Safety shall be
obtained by the applicant prior to the commencement of any construction
activities associated with this approval.
13) If applicable, prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
pay the Environmental Excise Tax in accordance with the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (RPVMC).
14) If applicable, prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall
comply with the Affordable Housing requirements of the RPVMC.
2 - 22
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 37
15) If applicable, the applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's
Transportation Demand Management and Trip Reduction Ordinance as set forth
in RPVMC section 10.28.
16) The applicant shall be required to pay 110% of the estimated amount of the cost
of services to be provided on behalf of the City by outside consultants that have
been retained by the City to render services specifically in connection with this
project, in the form of a trust deposit account, prior to commencement of such
services (e.g. City Engineer, City Attorney, geotechnical consultants, biologist,
and landscape architect, environmental consultants, etc.). The College shall
adequately fund said trust deposit accounts prior to the commencement of
services, in amounts reasonably requested by the City, based upon an estimate
of the cost of services for the period of at least 90 days for which services are
rendered. In addition, the trust deposits shall be replenished within two weeks of
receipt of notice from the City that additional funds are needed.
17) All costs associated with plan check reviews and site inspections for the
Department of Public Works shall be incurred by the applicant through the
establishment of a trust deposit with the Director of Public Works at the time of
plan check submittal or site inspection request.
18) No later than six (6) months after the completion of each of the three
Construction Phases described herein, the Planning CommissionCity Council
shall review these Conditions of Approval at a duly noticed public hearing. As
part of said review, the Planning CommissionCity Council shall assess the
applicant’s compliance with the Conditions of Approval and the adequacy of the
conditions imposed. At that time, the City Council Planning Commission may
add, delete or modify any Conditions of Approval as evidence presented at the
hearing demonstrates are necessary and appropriate to address impacts
resulting from operation of the project. Such modifications shall not result in
substantial changes to the design of the project structures. Notice of such review
hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500’
radius of the site, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners
associations, and to the property owner in accordance the RPVMC. As part of
the review, the Planning CommissionCity Council shall consider such items, but
not limited to, the parking conditions, on-site circulation patterns, lighting,
landscaping, noise, the operation of outdoor events, the operation of the
retractable net, and the use of the athletic field and tennis courts. The Planning
CommissionCity Council may also consider other concerns raised by the public
in response to the public notice of the review hearing. The Planning
CommissionCity Council may require such subsequent additional reviews, as
deemed appropriate. This provision shall not be construed as a limitation on the
City’s ability to enforce any provision of the RPVMC regarding this project.
2 - 23
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 37
The Campus Landscape Maintenance Plan shall also be subject to a three (3)
month review as stated in Condition No. 170.
19) This approval authorizes the construction of a Facilities Expansion Plan
(Facilities Plan) for Marymount College located at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive
East. The Residence Hall buildings included in the original submittal are not
approved under these Conditions of Approval. Any significant changes to the
characteristics of the development, including, but not limited to, the introduction
of new uses or buildings, the site configuration, the size or operation of the
facilities, or other ancillary uses shall require an application for revision to this
Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the provisions stated in the RPVMC. At that
time, the Planning CommissionCity Council may direct that the Planning
Commission consider the proposed application, or it may deny the proposed
application, or it may approve the proposed application and impose such
conditions, as it deems necessary upon the proposed use resulting from
operations of the project. Further, the Commission City Council may consider all
issues relevant to the proposed change of use.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
20) Temporary construction fencing shall be installed in accordance with the
RPVMC. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant
shall submit a Temporary Construction Fence Plan, as part of the Construction
Management Plan, that identifies items including, but not limited to, the type, the
location and the time duration of construction fencing to be installed to address
health and safety issues that are related to grading or other construction
activities.
21) All on-site construction and grading activities shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction
shall occur on Sundays or Federal holidays as set forth in RPVMC unless a
special construction permit, allowing construction work on Sundays or Federal
holidays between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, is first obtained from the
Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development
Director at least 48-hours in advance of construction work. Any deviation from
this Condition shall require an amendment to these Conditions of Approval and
the approval of a Variance Permit.
22) The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials in excess of the material used for immediate
construction purposes. Such excess material includes, but is not limited to, the
2 - 24
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 37
accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, salvage
materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances, or fixtures.
23) No overnight parking or storage of vehicles associated with construction shall be
permitted in the public right-of-way during construction.
24) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall submit final
geotechnical and soils reports to the City for review and approval by the Building
Official and the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. All conditions specified in the
approved geotechnical and soils reports will be incorporated into the project.
25) The applicant shall prepare a notice to all property owners within a 500-foot
radius of the project site at least 30-days prior to the commencement of each
phase of construction. Such notice shall be sent by the City, at the expense of
the applicant, and shall include a contact (name, telephone number, and e-mail
address) in the event complaints need to be filed. A similar notice shall be visibly
posted from the right-of-way (PVDE) at the entrance to the campus. The size,
exact location, and content of such notice shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director at least 30-days prior to installation.
26) Prior to issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy for Phase Three, the
applicant shall provide a detailed as-built Classroom Student Seat Plan. Such
Plan shall substantially comply with the student seats depicted in Exhibit 4 of
Appendix A of the Final EIR and shall not exceed a maximum of 655 student
seats. A increase to the maximum number of student seats permitted herein
shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning CommissionCity Council,
at a duly noticed public hearing, and shall not result in new impacts or the
intensification of impacts identified in the Final EIR, including but not limited to
traffic, parking and noise.
27) Construction and grading activities within the public right-of-way shall be limited
to the days and hours approved by the Director of Public Works at the time of
permit issuance.
28) No on-site repair, maintenance, delivery of equipment and materials or vehicle
idling shall occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday,
nor on any Sunday or Federal holiday, unless otherwise specified in these
Conditions of Approval or a Special Construction Permit is obtained from the
City. Emergency repairs are exempt from this condition.
29) All construction activity shall not extend beyond the phasing plan identified in the
Certified Environmental Impact Report shown in Resolution No. 2009-22010-XX7
and described in Condition No. 60. Any significant changes to the construction
2 - 25
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 6 of 37
activity schedule shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development Director.
30) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the
Director of Public Works, for review and approval, a Construction Management
Plan. Said Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the proposed routes to and
from the project site for all deliveries of equipment, materials, and supplies, and
shall set forth the parking plan for construction employees, the installation of
traffic control signs at and around the project site, hours of arrival and departure
for construction workers, sound abatement measures, and street maintenance
(street cleaning and repairs). All construction related parking must be
accommodated on-site. No on-street construction related parking shall be
permitted. The queuing and idling of construction worker vehicles and
construction vehicles/equipment shall be prohibited on-site and on City streets.
Furthermore, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Haul Plan to the Public
Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
31) The applicant shall be responsible for repairs to any public streets which may be
damaged as a result of development of the project as required by the Director of
Public Works.
32) Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for each construction phase
described in these Conditions of Approval, the applicant shall film the public
roads that will be used for construction traffic to and from the project site, as
described in the City approved Construction Management Plan, to document the
pre-construction road condition. Said film, in either a DVD or CD format, shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works and shall be used to document any
roadway damage that may be associated with project construction.
33) Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit
security, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City, to cover any damage to
existing public roadways caused by project construction. The amount of such
security shall be determined by the Director of Public Works and shall not be
released until all construction related activities have been completed and after
final inspections by the City’s Building Official.
34) Prior to the release of the security to cover any damages to existing public
roadways (see above conditions), the applicant shall repair or replace all curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks that are damaged as a result of project construction, as
determined by the Director of Public Works.
2 - 26
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 7 of 37
35) All proposed driveways shall be designed in substantially the same alignment as
shown on the approved site plans, subject to final design review and approval by
the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Director of Public Works.
36) Any on-site raised and landscaped medians and textured surfaces, including
parking lot planters, shall be approved by the Director of Public Works, and by
the City Geologist in areas adjacent to or within the Building Geologic Setback
Area.
37) Handicapped access ramps shall be installed and or retrofitted in accordance
with the current standards established by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Access ramps shall be provided at all intersections and driveways.
38) All sidewalks and pathways throughout the project site shall be designed to
comply with the minimum width standards set forth in the most recent California
Disabled Accessibility Guidebook.
39) If excavation is required in any public roadway, the roadway shall be resurfaced
with an asphalt overlay to the adjacent traffic lane line to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
40) Prior to commencing any excavation or construction within the public rights-of-
way, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Director of Public
Works.
41) The project shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities
and agencies that provide public services to the property.
42) All existing easements shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly
released by the holder of the easement.
INDEMNIFICATION/INSURANCE
43) The owner of the property upon which the project is located shall hold harmless
and indemnify City, members of its City Council, boards, committees,
commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and agents
serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials,
(collectively, “Indemnitees”), from any claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost
or expense, including but not limited to death or injury to any person and injury to
any property, resulting from willful misconduct, negligent acts, errors or
omissions of the owner, the applicant, the project operator, or any of their
respective officers, employees, or agents, arising or claimed to arise, directly or
indirectly, in whole or in part, out of, in connection with, resulting from, or related
2 - 27
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 8 of 37
to the construction or the operation of the project approved by this resolution
including but not limited to the operation and use of the athletic field.
44) The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers, commissions, boards, committees and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, commissions, boards,
committee or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul this resolution or one
or more of the approvals set forth in P.C. Resolution 2009-272010-XX brought
by one or more third parties. Alternatively, at the City’s election, the City may
choose to defend itself from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside,
void or annul this resolution or one or more of the approvals set forth in this
resolution with counsel of its choosing, in which case, the applicant shall
reimburse the City for all of its costs, including attorney fees, arising from such
claim, action or proceeding. The obligations set forth in this condition include the
obligation to indemnify or reimburse the City for any attorney fees or monetary
judgments that the City becomes obligated to pay as a result of any claim, action
or proceeding within the scope of this condition.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
within the scope of this condition and the City shall cooperate in the defense of
any such claim or action.
45) The applicant shall procure and maintain in full force and effect during the
operation of the College primary general liability insurance in conjunction with
umbrella coverage, which is applicable to, and provides coverage in an amount
of at least $5 million dollars, which amount shall be increased on each fifth
anniversary of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any structure
authorized by this approval to reflect increases in the consumer price index for
the Los Angeles County area. Such insurance shall insure against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection
with the operation of the athletic field at the College as authorized by the
conditional use permit as amended by this approval. Such insurance shall name
the City and the members of its City Council, boards, committees, commissions,
officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers and agents serving as its
independent contractors in the role of City officials, as additional insureds. Said
insurance, shall be issued by an insurer that is admitted to do business in the
State of California with a Best’s rating of at least A-VII or a rating of at least A by
Standard & Poor’s, and shall comply with all of the following requirements:
(a) The coverage shall contain no limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to City, its officers, officials, employees, volunteers or agents
serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials
which are not also limitations applicable to the named insured.
2 - 28
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 9 of 37
(b) For any claims related to the operation of the athletic field, including
balls that may enter the public road right-of-way, applicant’s insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, members of its
City Council, boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees,
attorneys, volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in
the role of city or agency officials.
(c) The limits of applicant’s insurance shall apply separately to the project
site.
(d) Each insurance policy required by this condition shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be canceled except after 30-days prior
written notice by first class mail has been given to City.
(e) Each insurance policy required by this condition shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be materially modified except after 5-
business days prior written notice by first class mail has been given to
City.
(f) Each insurance policy required by this condition shall expressly waive
the insurer’s right of subrogation against City and members of its City
Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees, servants,
attorneys, volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors
in the role of city or agency officials.
(g) Copies of the endorsements and certificates required by this condition
shall be provided to the City when the insurance is first obtained and
with each renewal of the policy.
(h) No activities involving field balls at the athletic field shall be
permitted unless such general liability insurance policy is in effect and
on file with the City.
Such insurance shall likewise name the City and the members of its City Council,
boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys,
volunteers and agents serving as its independent contractors in the role of City
officials, as additional insureds. Said insurance may, at applicant’s option, be in
the form of a separate excess insurance policy and may be issued by a non-
admitted carrier so long as the insurer is authorized to do business in the State of
California with a Best’s rating of at least A-VII or a rating of at least A by
Standard & Poor’s and shall comply with all of the requirements of this Condition.
2 - 29
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 10 of 37
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
46) This approval, the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, allows for the
expansion of the existing College’s facilities (92,268 square feet of floor area)
consisting of the demolition of 18,022 square feet of existing floor area and the
construction of 61,928 square feet of new floor area, including expanding 14,916
square feet of existing buildings, the proposed development would result in a
total of 151,090 square feet of campus floor area, as outlined in the table shown
below:
47) A Square Footage Certification prepared by a registered surveyor or engineer
shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code
EnforcementCommunity Development Director, prior to a framing inspection,
indicating that the buildings, as identified in the condition herein, do not exceed
the maximum permitted gross square footages (as measured from exterior
walls).
48) A security/information booth shall be allowed to be constructed at the entry
driveway, as depicted on the site plan dated July 10, 2008approved by the City
Building
Total
Existing
Building
(SF)
Proposed
Building
Demolition
(SF)
Proposed
Building
Addition
(SF)
Total
Building
(SF)
Existing Buildings
Classroom/Academics 26,180 0 0 26,180
Auditorium/Fine Arts Studio 8,012 0 1,869 9,881
Faculty Office 7,346 0 7,455 14,801
Student Union/Bookstore/Faculty Dining 18,158 0 3,492 21,650
Administration/Admissions 9,450 0 2,100 11,550
Chapel 5,100 0 0 5,100
Buildings to be Removed
View Room/Hall 1,530 (1,530) 0 0
Maintenance/Photo Lab 2,696 (2,696) 0 0
Bookstore/Health Center 2,870 (2,870) 0 0
Arts 3,648 (3,648) 0 0
Preschool 2,998 (2,998) 0 0
Library 4,072 (4,072) 0 0
Pool Equipment 208 (208) 0 0
Subtotal Existing Buildings 92,268 (18,022) 14,916 89,162
Library 26,710 26,710
Maintenance 1,975 1,975
Athletic Building 33,243 33,243
Subtotal New Buildings 61,928 61,928
Total Square Footage 76,844 151,090
Source: Rasmussen & Associates, Proposed Master Site Plan
2 - 30
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 11 of 37
Council. This structure shall not exceed 54 square feet and a maximum height of
10-feet, as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade (935.50’) to the
highest roof ridgeline (945.50’). Architectural details, as shown on the project
plans dated July 10, 2008, shall be allowed to exceed the maximum 10-foot
height limit.
49) Building setbacks shall comply with the Institutional zoning requirements, unless
otherwise noted herein. A Setback Certification shall be prepared by a licensed
engineer and submitted to Building and Safety prior to the framing inspection on
each structure or prior to the final inspection of grading activities, whichever
occurs first.
50) The approved structures, including additions to existing structures, shall not
exceed the building heights and number of stories described as follows:
BUILDING
LOWEST
ADJACENT
FINISHED
GRADE
MAXIMUM
ROOF
RIDGELINE
MAXIMUM
HEIGHT
NUMBER
OF
STORIES
Auditorium / Fine Arts
Studio 925’ 942’ 17-feet One story
Faculty Building 912’ 940’ 28-feet Two Stories
Student Union (bookstore
and faculty dining
expansion)
910’ 940’ 30-feet Two Stories
Administration/Admissions 926’ 951’ 25-feet One story
Library Building 912’ 951’ 39-feet One story
Maintenance Building 913’ 933’ 20-feet One Story
Athletic Building 897.75’
933’ North
Elevation
(flat roof)
938.75’ South
Elevation
41-feet Two-Story
51) A Building Pad Certification shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and
submitted to Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity
Development Director and the Building Official prior to final inspection of grading
activities. A Roof Ridgeline Certification, indicating the maximum height of each
building, shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and submitted to Director of
Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development Director and
the Building Official prior to the final framing certifications for each building.
52) New or replaced flagpoles shall be permitted at a maximum height of 16-feet, as
measured from adjacent finished grade to the highest point of the flag poles.
2 - 31
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 12 of 37
BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
53) Prior to the plan check submittal of the Athletic Building, the Director of Planning,
Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development Director shall
determine that the revised Athletic Building, as proposed and acceptedapproved
by the Planning CommissionCity Council at its May 26, 2009March XX, 2010
meeting, is designed so that there is no significant view impairment of Catalina
Island from the viewing area of the property located at 3302 Narino Drive. To
accomplish this, the applicant shall install a certified silhouette for review by the
Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development
Director. In the event the Director of Planning, Building and Code
EnforcementCommunity Development Director determines that a significant view
impairment of Catalina Island exists with the redesigned Athletic Building, the
Planning CommissionCity Council shall review and reconsider the design of the
Athletic Building to reduce the view impairment at a duly noticed public hearing.
54) The applicant shall submit an Architectural Materials Board for review and
approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity
Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. The Materials Board
shall identify, at a minimum, a sample of the proposed exterior building materials,
roof tile materials, and paint colors for all new, expanded and modified structures.
Such materials shall substantially comply with the materials called out on the
project plans dated July 10, 2008approved by the City Council on March XX,
2010 including, but not limited to, the use of stoner veneer facades, stained wood
trellises, cast-stone caps, stone veneer columns, and baked enamel aluminum
windows with tinted glazing to name a few.
55) All new, expanded or modified buildings, including but not limited to the Athletic
Building, the Library, the Student Union, and the Classroom buildings shall be
finished in a muted earth-tone color, as deemed acceptable by the Director of
Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development Director
based on the review of the Materials Board.
56) The roof materials for all new, expanded or modified buildings with pitched roofs,
including but not limited to the Library, Student Union, Classrooms, shall be tile,
consisting of a muted color, as deemed acceptable by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development Director based on the
review of the Materials Board. To the extent permitted by the City’s Building
Code, the material for all flat roofs shall be a color that is compatible with the
color of the tiles used on the pitched roofs throughout the project, as deemed
acceptable by the Director of Planning, Building and Code
EnforcementCommunity Development Director.
2 - 32
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 13 of 37
57) All trash enclosure areas shall be designed with walls six (6) feet in height with
the capability of accommodating recycling bins. The enclosures shall be
consistent with the overall building design theme in color and material, and shall
include self-closing / self-latching gates. The enclosures shall integrate a solid
roof cover to screen the bins from view from all public rights-of-way and
surrounding properties. Trash enclosures shall be prohibited in all setback
areas.
58) Mechanical equipment, vents or ducts shall not be placed on roofs unless
approvals are obtained pursuant to Section 17.48.050 of the RPVMC regarding
building heights and screening from view of all public rights-of-way and
surrounding properties. This condition shall apply to all new and expanded
project buildings, including but not limited to the Athletic Building, Student Union,
and Library Building.
59) The storage of all goods, wares, merchandise, produce, janitorial supplies and
other commodities shall be permanently housed in entirely enclosed structures,
except when in transport.
CONSTRUCTION PHASING
60) This Facilities Expansion Plan approval shall remain valid as more specifically
set forth below, and shall be constructed in no more than 3 phases over a period
not to exceed eight (8) years from the date the approval becomes final:
a. Phase One (Years 1-2): Phase One includes 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 to replace demolished facilities and those buildings subject to
future construction. The planning entitlements, including grading and
building permits, for all construction described under Phase One shall
remain valid and the construction thereof shall be completed no later than
two years from the date the decision becomes final. Approvals for any
Phase One components that are not completed with the two-year period
shall lapse and become null and void unless an extension is granted by
the Planning CommissionCity Council at a duly noticed public hearing.
b. Phase Two (Years 2-5): Phase Two includes fine grading, the construction
of the new library, maintenance facility, athletic facility, athletic field, tennis
courts, outdoor pool, and additions to the faculty building and student
union. The planning entitlements, including building permits, for all
construction described under Phase Two shall remain valid and the
2 - 33
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 14 of 37
construction thereof shall be completed no later thant five (5) years from
the date the decision becomes final. Approvals for any Phase Two
components that are not completed with the five-year period shall lapse
and become null and void unless an extension is granted by the Planning
CommissionCity Council at a duly noticed public hearing.
c. Phase Three (Years 6 -8): Phase Three includes the construction of the
new fine arts building and an addition to the admissions building. The
planning entitlements, including building permits, for all construction
described under Phase Three shall remain valid and the construction
thereof shall be completed no later than eight years from the date the
decision becomes final.
d. All project buildings and improvements stated in these Conditions of
Approval shall be completed and Certificates of Occupancy issued within
eight (8) years of the final decision of the project. All elements of the
approved Facilities Plan that are not completed within the time period
stated in this Condition shall require additional review and approval
through an additional revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 9 and
additional CEQA review if required.
TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS
61) The installation and use of temporary modular buildings (consisting of several
modular segments each, as shown on the Phase One phasing site plan prepared
by Rasmussen Associates) shall be permitted until the completion of the
applicable permanent buildings or additions in Phase Two or Phase Three and in
no event longer than eight years from the issuance of the first grading or building
permit for Phase One, unless a revision to this CUP is approved. Upon the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the applicable building or addition, the
temporary modular building serving such use shall be removed from the project
site within 30-days and the site restored to a condition deemed acceptable by the
Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development
Director.
62) The permanent use of the temporary modular building shall be prohibited unless
a revision to this CUP is approved.
63) The temporary modular buildings shall not exceed 15-feet in height, as measured
from the lowest adjacent grade to the highest roof ridgeline.
64) The exterior facades for the temporary modular building facades shall be painted
a neutral color to match existing or the new structures and incorporate materials
that are similar to the proposed finish for the permanent buildings (not including
2 - 34
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 15 of 37
Palos Verdes Stone or other stone material) as deemed acceptable by the
Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development
Director.
65) The areas adjacent to the temporary modular buildings shall be landscaped to
visually screen the buildings from Palos Verdes Drive East and properties to the
south.
66) A building permit shall be obtained for applicable modular exterior improvements
(e.g., decks, stairs, facade details, etc.) from the Department of Building and
Safety.
GRADING
67) The following maximum quantities and depths of grading are approved for the
Facilities Expansion Plan, as shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan received by
the City on March 5, 2010 grading plan reviewed and approved by the Planning
CommissionCity Council at its July 14, 2009March XX, 2010 meeting:
a. Maximum Total Grading (Cut and Fill): 84,80079,155 cubic yards.
b. Maximum Cut: 39,25556,000 cubic yards (14,20013,545 cubic yards with
215% shrinkage).
c. Maximum Fill: 42,40039,900 cubic yards.
d. Maximum Depth of Cut: 25 feet.
e. Maximum Depth of Fill: 18 feet.
The maximum grading quantities shown above shall constitute total on-site earth
movement, including but not limited to, combined raw cuts and fills (outside and
under building footprints, parking lots, walkways, athletic facilities, etc.) remedial
grading, and buttressed slopes to name a few.
The Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity
Development Director shall be authorized to allow deviations to the above
grading quantities up to 200 cubic yards over the stated maximum quantities for
unforeseen circumstances or due to conditions encountered in the field provided
that such deviation or modification to the grading quantities achieve substantially
the same results as with the strict compliance with the grading plan.
Any modifications resulting in additional grading in excess of the above amounts
quantities shall require approval of an amendment to the grading permit by the
Planning CommissionCity Council at a duly noticed public hearing. This is a
balanced grading project. No import or export of earth shall be permitted, except
for fine grading materials, such as select fill.
2 - 35
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 16 of 37
Prior to the final inspection of the precise grading, the applicant shall provide the
Building Official with a certified as-built grading plan prepared and wet-stamped
by a licensed engineer. Additionally, prior to the final inspection, the applicant
shall provide the City with documentation of the location of existing or relocated
bentonite soil material. If applicable, the as-built grading plan shall identify all
revisions to the Planning CommissionCity Council’s approved grading plan.
68) Should the project require removal or delivery of earth, rock or material other
than demolition and construction debris and waste from the site or building
materials, the applicant shall first obtain City approval in the form of a revised
Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit application. Said review shall
evaluate potential impacts to the surrounding environment associated with such
export or import. If the revised grading impacts results in impacts greater than
those identified in the Certified EIR that cannot be mitigated to an insignificant
level, a Supplemental EIR shall be prepared and reviewed by the City, at the
expense of the applicant.
69) The grading plans shall identify the location of the building geologic setback line.
Limited iIrrigation shall be allowed within the geologic setback area as reviewed
and shall be approved by the City geologist pursuant to Condition Nos. 79 and
171. All water runoff in this area shall be collected and diverted to the City
approved drainage system.
70) Recommendations made by the City Geologist, the City Engineer, and the
Building and Safety Division during the ongoing review of the project shall be
incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
71) Recommendations made by the project applicant’s geologist, as modified by
comments from the City’s Geologist, shall be incorporated into the design and
construction of the project.
72) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the City’s Geologist and Building Official
shall review all applicable structural plans or design information and reports as
deemed necessary by the City’s Geologist, Building Official, or both, including but
not limited to, geotechnical reports during the Plan Check review process to
ensure that the proposed project will not threaten public health, safety, and
welfare.
73) If applicable, as determined by the City Geologist, prior to the issuance of any
grading permit, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof, shall be posted to
cover costs for any geologic hazard abatement in an amount to be determined by
the Director of Public Works. Said security shall be released after all grading
2 - 36
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 17 of 37
related activities are completed and after the approval of the as-built grading
plans by the Building Official.
74) Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permit in any phase, the
applicant shall submit to the City a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating that the
applicant or its applicable contractor has obtained a general liability insurance
policy in an amount not less than $5 million dollars per occurrence and in the
aggregate to cover awards for any death, injury, loss or damage, arising out of
the grading or construction of this project. Said insurance policy must be issued
by an insurer that is authorized to do business in the State of California with a
minimum rating of A-VII by Best’s Insurance Guide or a rating of at least A by
Standard & Poors. Such insurance shall name the City and the members of its
City Council, boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees, servants,
attorneys, volunteers and agents serving as its independent contractors in the
role of City officials, as additional insureds. A copy of this endorsement shall be
provided to the City. Said insurance shall be maintained in effect at all times
during actual project construction until the approval of the Final Certificate of
Occupancy for each Phase shall not be canceled or reduced during the grading
or construction work without providing at least thirty (30) days prior written notice
to the City. Further, the insurance shall remain in place for a minimum period of
five (5) years following final inspection and approval, but only as to the proposed
drainage system, including detention basins.
75) Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a bond, cash deposit, or other City-
approved security, shall be posted to cover the costs of grading in an amount to
be determined by the Director of Public Works. The bond, cash deposit, or other
City-approved security, at a minimum, shall be sufficient to pay for the cost of
restoring the project site to an acceptable condition, as determined by the
Building Official and the Director of Public Works, in the event that the project is
not completed and shall include, but not be limited to, stabilizing and hydro-
seeding all slopes, completing all retaining walls that are required to maintain the
slopes, installing erosion control improvements, and filling in grade depressions
or holes. Said security shall be released after all grading related activities are
completed and after the approval of the as-built grading plans by the Building
Official.
76) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide the Director of
Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development Director a
plan that demonstrates how dust generated by grading activities will be mitigated
so as to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403
and the City’s Municipal Code requirements which require watering for the
control of dust.
2 - 37
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 18 of 37
77) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a plan
indicating, to scale, clear sight triangles, which shall be maintained at the
reconfigured driveway intersection. No objects, signs, fences, walls, vegetation,
or other landscaping shall be allowed within these triangles in excess of three
feet in height.
78) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the following improvements shall be
designed in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Public Works: 1)
all provisions for surface drainage; 2) all necessary storm drain facilities
extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of
storm runoff; and 3) all water quality related improvements. Where determined
necessary by the Director of Public Works, associated utility easements shall be
dedicated to the City.
79) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall record a restricted
use covenant, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the City Geologist, that
prohibits the development of buildings or other structures and improvements
within the designated Building Geologic Setback Area as described in the
applicant’s geotechnical reports and as depicted on the site and grading plans.
Limited irrigation in this area shall be permitted pursuant to the approval of the
City’s Geologist as stated in these Conditions of approval. Said Building
Geologic Setback Area shall be shown on all future plans.
80) Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Geology and/or Soils Engineer’s
report on the expansive properties of soils on all building sites shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City Geologist. As required in Condition No. 67,
the applicant shall provide the City with documentation of the on-site location of
bentonite soil material.
81) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an as-built geological report shall be
submitted for new structures to be founded on bedrock, and an as-built soils and
compaction report shall be submitted for new structures to be founded on fill as
well as for all engineered fill areas.
82) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant’s project geologist shall
review and approve the final plans and specifications and shall stamp and sign
such plans and specifications.
83) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, a grading plan review and geologic
report, complete with geologic map, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer.
2 - 38
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 19 of 37
84) Except as specifically authorized by these approvals, foundations shall be set in
accordance with the RPVMC and shall extend to such a depth as to be
unaffected by any creep-prone surficial soil and/or weathered bedrock. Field
review and certification by the project geologist is required.
85) All grading shall be monitored by a licensed engineering geologist and/or soils
engineer in accordance wit the applicable provisions of the RPVMC and the
recommendations of the City Engineer. Written reports, summarizing grading
activities, shall be submitted on a weekly basis to the Director of Public Works
and the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.
86) The project shall comply with all appropriate provisions of the City’s Grading
Ordinance, unless otherwise approved in these conditions of approval.
87) Grading activity on-site shall occur in accordance with all applicable City safety
standards.
88) Prior to final grading inspection by Building and Safety, the graded slopes shall
be properly planted and maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape
Plan required in Condition Nos. 164 and 165. Plant materials shall generally
include significant low ground cover to impede surface water flows.
89) Prior to final grading inspection by Building and Safety, all manufactured slopes
shall be contour-graded to achieve as natural an appearance as is feasible and
shall be less than 35%.
90) Any water features (fountains, etc.), including the detention basin, shall be lined
to prevent percolation of water into the soil. Designs for all water features shall
be included on the grading plans submitted for review by the City’s Building
Official and Geotechnical Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading permits.
91) The proposed swimming pool shall be lined and shall contain a leak detection
system, subject to review and approval by the City’s Building Official.
92) The use of on-site rock crushing, including large-scale stonecutting, shall be
prohibited with the exception of the use of a minimal number of stonecutting
saws for the final fitting and installation of the stone veneer on the building and
site walls, provided that these stonecutting saws are located immediately
adjacent to the areas where the stone veneer is being applied and as far as
possible from nearby residences.
93) Retaining walls shall be limited in height as identified on the grading plans that
are reviewed and approved by the City. Any retaining walls exceeding the
2 - 39
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 20 of 37
permitted heights shall require the processing of a revised grading permit for
review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code
EnforcementCity Council at a duly noticed public hearing as set forth in the
provisions of the Municipal Code.
UTILITIES
94) Prior to issuance of the final inspection for the project grading, all new utilities
exclusively serving the project site shall be placed underground including cable
television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All appropriate permits shall be
obtained for any such installation. Cable television, if utilized, shall connect to
the nearest trunk line at the applicant’s expense.
95) No above ground utility structure cabinets, pipes, or valves shall be constructed
within the public rights-of-way without prior approval of the Director of Public
Works. If permitted, above ground utility structure cabinets, pipes, or valves shall
not impede on the pedestrian circulation flow.
96) Use of satellite dish antenna(e) or any other antennae shall be controlled by the
provisions set forth in the RPVMC. Centralized antennae shall be used rather
than individual antennae for each building.
97) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall prepare
sewer plans in accordance with the Countywide Sewer Maintenance District.
The applicant shall be responsible for the transfer of sewer facilities to the
Countywide Sewer Maintenance District for maintenance.
98) A sewer improvement plan shall be prepared as required by the Director of
Public Works, Building Official, and the County of Los Angeles.
99) Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the
Director of Public Works, a written statement from the County Sanitation District
accepting any new facility design and/or any system upgrades with regard to
existing trunk line sewers. Said approval shall state all conditions of approval, if
any.
100) Prior to issuance of any final Certificate of Occupancy, if applicable, the applicant
shall dedicate sewer easements to the City, subject to review and approval by
the Director of Building, Planning and Code Enforcement and the Director of
Public Works with respect to the final locations and requirements of the sewer
improvements.
2 - 40
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 21 of 37
101) Sewer Improvement plans shall be approved by the County of Los Angeles, the
County Sanitation Districts, and the Director of Public Works.
102) A sewer connection fee shall be paid to the County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County prior to the issuance of a permit to connect to the sewer line.
103) Prior to the construction of any water facilities, the Director of Public Works shall
review and approve the water improvement plan. Any water facilities that cannot
be constructed below ground shall be located on the subject property and
screened from view from any public rights-of-way, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning, Building and Code
EnforcementCommunity Development Director. In addition, an easement to
California Water Service shall be dedicated prior to issuance of any grading or
building permits.
104) The project site shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities which
shall include fire hydrants of the size and type and location as determined by the
Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size
to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the development.
Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the City Engineer. Fire flow
requirements shall be determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department
and evidence of approval by the Los County Fire Department is required prior to
issuance of building permits.
105) Framing of structures shall not begin until after the Los Angeles County Fire
Department has determined that there is adequate fire fighting water and access
available to such structures.
106) The applicant shall file with the Director of Public Works an unqualified "will
serve" statement from the purveyor serving the project site indicating that water
service can be provided to meet the demands of the proposed development.
Said statement shall be dated no more than six months prior to the issuance of
the building permits for the project. Should the applicant receive a qualified "will
serve" statement from the purveyor, the City shall retain the right to require the
applicant to use an alternative water source, subject to the review and approval
of the City, or the City shall determine that the conditions of the project approval
have not been satisfied.
107) Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall file with
the Director of Public Works, a statement from the purveyor indicating that the
proposed water mains and any other required facilities will be operated by the
purveyor, and that under normal operating conditions the system will meet the
needs of the project.
2 - 41
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 22 of 37
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
108) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall submit an updated
Master Drainage Plan for the College campus and any adjacent tributary area,
including supporting documents, for review and approval by the City’s Engineer,
Building Official, and Geologist. The Plan shall demonstrate adequate storm
protection from the design storm, under existing conditions, as well as after the
construction of future drainage improvements by the City along Palos Verdes
Drive East immediately abutting the project site. The updated Master Drainage
Plan shall also include, but not be limited to, the items listed in the adopted
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the following:
• Drop inlets connecting to the proposed storm drain system shall be added
along the eastern edge of the subject site including the eastern parking area.
The added drop inlets shall extend to the rose garden.
• An on-site storm water collection system that is designed to prevent water
run-off flows from entering off-site properties, including properties on Vista del
Mar and the City-owned San Ramon Reserve (Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve)
• Identification of the final size of the detention basin.
• Sheet overflow and ponding shall be eliminated or the floors of buildings with
no openings in the foundation walls shall be elevated to at least twelve inches
above the finished pad grade
• Calculations shall be made according to the latest adopted Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works Drainage Calculation Methodologies.
109) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit for
review and approval by the Director of Public Works a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure compliance with the current California State
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations.
110) The irrigation system and area drains proposed shall be reviewed and approved
by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer, Building Official and Director of Public
Works.
111) A construction specific drainage report(s) shall be prepared demonstrating that
the grading, in conjunction with the drainage improvements, including applicable
swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, will protect all building pads from
design storms, as approved by the Building Official and the City Engineer.
2 - 42
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 23 of 37
112) All drainage swales and any other at-grade drainage facilities, including gunite,
shall be of an earth tone color, as deemed necessary by the Director of Building
Planning and Code Enforcement.
113) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and City Engineer that the design
storm can be conveyed through the site without conveying the water in a pipe
and without severely damaging the integrity of the Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). If such integrity cannot be demonstrated, the applicant
shall redesign the SUSMP to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and
City Engineer, which may require off-site flows to be diverted into a piped system
and carried though the site. .
114) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit that proposes to convey off-site
drainage through the subject property, the applicant shall execute an agreement
with the City that is satisfactory to the City Attorney agreeing to defend,
indemnify and hold the City, members of its City Council, boards, committees,
commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and agents
serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials,
(collectively, “Indemnitees”) harmless from any damage that may occur to the
subject property or to any improvements, persons or personal property located
on the subject property due to the flow of off-site storm flows that are designed,
as of the date the College’s drainage plans are approved by the City, to flow
onto, over, and through the subject property (“Claims”). The indemnity
agreement need not (i) obligate the Applicant or its successor or assigns to
defend, indemnify or hold harmless any party other than the Indemnitees, or (ii)
prohibit the Applicant or its successor or assigns from taking any action against
parties other than Indemnitees with respect to the Claims or on any other basis.
115) Prior to the acceptance and final inspection of the storm drain system, all catch
basins and public access points that crosses or abut an open channel shall be
marked with a water quality message in accordance with the SUSMP and
SWPPP.
116) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit for
approval by the City a SUSMP pursuant to the guidelines in Development
Planning for Stormwater Management – A Manual for the Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) prepared by Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works 2002 (or most current version). The SUSMP shall
include both structural and non-structural BMPs and shall comply with RWQCB
and applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits. The SUSMP shall identify how on-site flows and off-site water flows that
mix withon-site water flows are treated for pollutants prior to leaving the site. The
2 - 43
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 24 of 37
WQMP shall also include an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) that
addresses the use of grasscycling and pesticides for the lawn and landscape
areas including the athletic field.
All costs associated with the review, installation and maintenance of the SUSMP
and project related Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be the
responsibility of the applicant. If the plan requires construction of improvements,
such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works.
117) Prior to issuance of any final Certificate of Occupancy, the SUSMP Maintenance
Agreement, outlining the post-construction Best Management Practices, shall be
recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.
118) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall file any
required documents, including the Notice of Intent (NOI), and obtain all required
permits from the California RWQCB.
119) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit for
review and approval by the Director of Public Works an Erosion Control Plan.
Said Plan shall be designed in conformance with the City standards and the
requirements of the RWQCB.
120) Prior to issuance of any final Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall
implement the project in full compliance with the standard urban storm water
mitigation plan adopted by the RWQCB.
121) Prior to the approval of the SUSMP, the City’s Geotechnical Engineer shall
review and approve the Plan. In the event the City’s Geotechnical Engineer
determines that additional improvements need to be constructed, the applicant
shall revise the Plan accordingly.
122) Marymount College, or subsequent landowners, shall maintain all on-site
drainage facilities, including, but not limited to structures, pipelines, open
channels, detention and desilting basins, mechanical and natural filtering
systems, and monitoring systems. The cost of maintaining these systems shall
be based on costs estimated and developed by the applicant and approved by
the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. A bond, letter of credit or
other security acceptable to the City shall be provided to secure completion of
such drainage facilities. A bond to cover the cost of their maintenance for a
period of 2 years after completion shall also be provided to the City.
123) Subject to the agreement of Los Angeles County and if applicable, the applicant
shall turn over all eligible drainage facilities to the Los Angeles County Public
2 - 44
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 25 of 37
Works Department upon completion and acceptance of the facilities by the
County of Los Angeles.
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
124) Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall prepare and
submit to the Director of Public Works for review and approval a comprehensive
Integrated Waste Management Plan that addresses source reduction, reuse and
recycling. The Plan shall include a description of the materials that will be
generated, and measures to reduce, reuse and recycle materials, including, but
not limited to, beverage containers, food waste, office and classroom waste. The
Plan shall also incorporate grass cycling, composting, mulching and xeriscaping
in ornamental landscaped areas. It is the City’s intention for the project to meet
Local and State required diversion goals in effect at the time of operation. The
specifics of the Plan shall be addressed by the applicant at the time of review by
the Director of Public Works.
125) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, an approved Construction
and Demolition Materials Management Plan (CDMMP or the Plan) shall be
prepared and submitted to the Director of Public Works for approval. The
CDMMP shall include all deconstruction, new construction, and
alterations/additions. The CDMMP shall document how the Applicant will divert
85% of the existing on-site asphalt, base and concrete, through reuse on-site or
processing at an off-site facility for reuse. The Plan shall address the parking
lots, concrete walkways, and other underground concrete structures. The Plan
shall also identify measures to reuse or recycle building materials, including
wood, metal, and concrete block to meet the City’s diversion goal requirements
as established by the State Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939). In no
case shall the Plan propose to recycle less than the State mandated goals as
they may be amended from time to time.
126) Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy a Construction and Demolition
Materials Disposition Summary (Summary) shall be submitted to the Director of
Public Works upon completion of deconstruction and construction. The
Summary shall indicate actual recycling activities and compliance with the
diversion requirement, based on weight tags or other sufficient documentation.
127) Where possible, the site design shall incorporate for solid waste minimization, the
use of recycled building materials and the re-use of on-site demolition debris.
128) The project site design shall incorporate areas for collection of solid waste with
adequate space for separate collection of recyclables.
2 - 45
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 26 of 37
OPERATIONAL
129) Any repair work conducted in or outside the Maintenance Building that may be
visible to the public, including from the public right-of-way, shall be screened with
landscaping from public view.
130) Unless an earlier time is specified in these Conditions of Approval, campus
facilities open for student, participant, and public use shall close by 10:00 p.m.
with the exception of the Library, Auditorium, and Athletic Building which shall
close by 11:00 p.m. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the College may hold up to
six student activity events, such as dances, within a calendar year in which
campus facilities for such events may remain open until midnight provided that at
least three weeks before the event, the College provides written notice of the
special event to the Director of Planning, Building and Code
EnforcementCommunity Development Director. All such events shall also be
posted on the College’s website.
131) The following areas of the campus shall be closed for all use between sunset and
sunrise and such hours of closure shall be visibly posted in the applicable
location, unless a special use permit is obtained:
• Library Building outdoor deck
• athletic field
• tennis courts
• Athletic Facility outdoor balcony
• rose garden
132) Use of the outdoor pool shall be prohibited between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on Saturday and
Sunday, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained.
133) The delivery of goods and supplies, including food supplies, shall be limited to
the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
134) All regular truck deliveries shall use the loading docks adjacent to the student
union.
135) 24-hour campus security shall be provided, including but not limited to the
monitoring of parking lots, to ensure outdoor noise levels are kept to a minimum
and the College’s Code of Conduct, as described in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program attached to P.C. Resolution No. 2009-272010-XX, is being
adhered to. Between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday to Friday, a
2 - 46
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 27 of 37
security guard shall be on duty at the information booth located near the campus
entrance. At all other times, the campus security shall patrol the campus.
136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment for outdoor events, with the
exception of annual graduation ceremonies, shall be prohibited unless a Special
Use Permit is obtained. Prior to September 1st of each year, the College may
request an annual Special Use Permit to conduct no more than 24 outdoor
events that include amplified sound, including sporting events, graduation
ceremonies, and evening tent events, during the next twelve months (ending
August 31st) Such activities and other outdoor events shall be allowed to occur at
Chapel Circle, the plazas adjacent to the Library and the Auditorium (as shown
on the site plan approved by the City Council), and the outdoor pool area. The
Athletic Field and Tennis Courts may only be used with amplified sound for
graduation ceremonies. should attempt to be located as far away from residential
areas as possible.
137) The existing preschool shall discontinue its operation upon the demolition of the
building occupied for this use in Phase I, as described in these Conditions of
Approval. The future use of a preschool, either within an existing building or in a
new building that needs to be constructed, shall require a revision to this
Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the provisions stated in the RPVMC and the
appropriate environmental review.
138) The College shall establish a Neighborhood Advisory Committee consisting of
one representative selected by each of the following neighboring homeowner’s
associations: El Prado, San Ramon, Mira Catalina, Seacliff Hilltop, and
Mediterrania; two at-large representatives who live within 3000 feet of the
campus (one of which shall be selected by the Director of Planning, Building and
Code EnforcementCommunity Development Director and one by the College);
and a representative from City Staff (non-voting member). The Committee shall
meet, at a minimum of once every fall and spring term, to review any campus
operational and neighborhood concerns. Reports on the meetings shall be
provided to the City Council and the Planning Commission.
PROGRAMS / STUDENT ENROLLMENT
139) The use of the College campus is permitted for only the following academic and
recreational programs and related activities as further described below:
• Traditional Degree Programs
• Non-Traditional Degree Programs
• Continuing Educational Programs, such as but not limited to English as a
Second Language (ESL)
2 - 47
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 28 of 37
• Recreational Activities
• Summer Educational Programs, such as but not limited to:
o Upward Bound
o High School Courses
o International Students Taking ESL courses
The use of the campus by groups or organizations unaffiliated with the College’s
educational and recreational programs that would have more than 100
participants or visitors present on campus at one time or would occupy more than
20% of the 463 required parking spaces during such use shall require, as
applicable, a Special Use Permit or a revision to this Conditional Use Permit.
All other uses and activities on the College campus are prohibited unless
approved with a revision to this Conditional Use Permit or a Special Use Permit
is obtained, whichever is applicable based on the request.
The sub-leasing of the campus for commercial purposes that are unaffiliated with
the College is prohibited.
140) The College’s “Traditional Degree Programs” are the academic programs
(Bachelor of Arts and Associate of Arts Degrees) that offer classes primarily
during the day on weekdays (Monday to Friday). The College’s “Non-Traditional
Degree Programs” are the academic programs (Bachelor of Arts and Associate
of Arts Degrees) that offer classes, including post-secondary academic classes,
primarily during weekday evenings and on weekends (Saturday and Sunday), so
as to generally avoid overlap with the class schedules of the Traditional Degree
Programs. The Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs are referred
collectively as the “Degree Programs.”
141) The College may also provide lifelong learning programs (“Continuing Education
Programs”) such as English as a second language (ESL). For the purposes of
this Conditional Use Permit, all students in such Continuing Education Programs
will be included as part of the total full-time and part-time permitted student
enrollment for both the Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs. The
determination as to which enrollment category such students are counted
towards will be based on whether the applicable classes are primarily offered
during the weekdays (in which case the students would be classified as part of
the Traditional Degree Program enrollment) or nights/weekends (in which case
they would be classified as part of the Non-Traditional Degree Program
enrollment).
142) As used in this Conditional Use Permit, a “student” means either a “full-time
student,” which is a person enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts or Associates of Arts
2 - 48
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 29 of 37
Degree Program or a Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 12
hours of course work during the applicable Term (as defined below), or a “part-
time student,” which is a person enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts or Associates of
Arts Degree Program or Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 3
hours, but up to 11 hours, of course work during the applicable Term.
143) The campus facilities may also be used for “Summer Educational Programs.”
Summer Educational Programs are educational programs for persons generally
14 years or older such as college-credit classes for local high school students,
Upward Bound, and international students taking ESL classes along with other
educational classes and recreational activities. Persons enrolled in Summer
Educational Programs are referred to in this CUP as “participants” for the
purpose of establishing enrollment limitations.
144) The College may operate throughout the calendar year under the following
general “Term” schedule: “Fall Term” (August through December), “Winter Term”
(January), “Spring Term” (February to May) and “Summer Term” (June through
July/August).
145) The following enrollment limitations apply:
A. The maximum total permitted enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs
on campus during the Fall, Winter, and Spring Terms is 793 students (full-
time and part-time). Of these 793 students, a maximum of 250 students
shall be enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts degree program (BA Program). For
the Summer Term, if other educational or recreational programs are
concurrently offered during weekdays, the maximum total permitted
enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs must be proportionally reduced
so that the combined enrollment in all such programs (e.g., Traditional
Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs) does not exceed a
total of 600 students (full-time and part-time) and participants.
B. The maximum total permitted enrollment in Non-Traditional Degree
Programs on campus during any Term is 150 students.
C. The maximum total permitted enrollment in any combination of Traditional
Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs offered
concurrently during summer weekdays (June to August) is 600 students
and participants.
146) The College shall submit to the City an enrollment report for each Term within an
academic year for all Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs and
Summer Educational Programs no later than 30-days after a term has
commenced. Failure to submit such a report on a timely basis will constitute a
violation punishable by administrative citation per the RPVMC.
2 - 49
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 30 of 37
NOISE / MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
147) All new mechanical equipment, regardless of its location, shall be housed in
enclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level of 65 dBA CNEL at the project
site’s property lines. Mechanical equipment for food service shall incorporate
filtration systems to reduce exhaust odors.
148) Mechanical equipment shall be oriented away from any sensitive receptors such
as neighboring residences, and where applicable, must be installed with any
required acoustical shielding.
149) All hardscape surfaces, such as the parking area and walkways, shall be
properly maintained and kept clear of trash and debris. The hours of
maintenance of the project grounds shall be restricted to Mondays through
Fridays from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. Said maintenance activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and Federal
holidays listed in the RPVMC.
150) Noise levels from on-campus activities shall not exceed 65 dba CNEL at all
property lines. Within 6 months of completion of each Phase of the Facilities
Plan, as described in these conditions, the College shall provide the City with
sound test reports based on direction provided by the Director, of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement to establish compliance with this condition.
LIGHTING
151) The applicant shall prepare and submit a Lighting Plan for the project site that is
in compliance with the RPVMC. The Lighting Plan, including a Photometric Plan,
shall clearly show the location, height, number of lights, wattage and estimates of
maximum illumination on site and spill/glare at property lines for all exterior
circulation lighting, outdoor building lighting, trail and sidewalk lighting, parking lot
lighting, landscape ambiance lighting, and main entry sign lighting. The Lighting
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development Director prior to
issuance of any building permit. An as-built lighting shall be submitted to the
City prior to the issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy for each
construction phase (as described in the conditions herein).
Prior to the installation of any on-site lighting for the parking lots and walkways,
an illuminated mock-up utilizing sample light standards and bulbs shall be set-up
for review and approval by the Community Development Director to ensure
compliance with the intent of the Municipal Code.
2 - 50
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 31 of 37
152) Parking and Security lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards and shall
conform to City requirements. Fixtures shall be shielded so that only the subject
property is illuminated; there shall be no spillover onto residential properties or
halo into the night sky. A trial period of thirty (30) days from the installation of all
the project exterior lighting, including building and parking lot lighting shall be
assessed for potential impacts to the surrounding properties. At the end of the
thirty (30) day period, the Director of Planning, Building and Code
EnforcementCommunity Development Director may require additional screening
or reduction in the intensity or numbers of lights which are determined to be
excessively bright or otherwise create adverse impacts. Furthermore, said
lighting shall be reviewed as part of the six (6) month review described in
Condition No. 18.
153) No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a
building, is above the line of the eaves. If the light source or fixture is located on
a building with no eaves, or if located on a standard or pole, the light source or
fixture shall not be more than ten feet above existing grade, adjacent to the
building or pole.
154) No outdoor lighting shall be allowed for the tennis courts or the athletic field,
other than safety lighting used to illuminate the walkways and trails through the
campus. A Special Use Permit shall be obtained for the temporary use of
lighting in these areas for special events as described in Condition No. 139.
155) The light standards at the parking lot along the property line adjacent to the
properties located on San Ramon Drive shall be no higher than the top of the
existing 5-foot tall privacy wall.
156) The light standards at the east parking lot, located within the lower tier, shall be
limited to a height of 42-inches, as measured from adjacent finished grade.
PARKING
157) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, a Parking Lot Plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code
EnforcementCommunity Development Director. The Parking Lot Plan shall be
developed in conformance with the parking space dimensions and parking lot
standards set forth in RPVMC or allowed in this condition of approval, and shall
include the location of all light standards, planter boxes, directional signs and
arrows. No more than 20% of the total parking spaces shall be in the form of
compact spaces.
2 - 51
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 32 of 37
158) The applicant shall construct and maintain no fewer than 463 on-site parking
spaces consisting of 391 standard parking spaces at a minimum dimension of 9’
wide by 20’ deep and a maximum 72 compact parking spaces at a minimum
dimension of 8’ wide by 15’ deep. In addition, the applicant shall construct and
maintain off-street loading spaces pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section
17.50.050 of the RPVMC.
Prior to the completion of Phase I, as described in Condition No. 60, the
applicant shall institute, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building
and Code EnforcementCommunity Development Director and the Director of
Public Works, a Parking Management Strategies Plan to reduce College related
parking in order to minimize street parking by students and visitors by the
following values:
• 11 percent or greater for student enrollment between 744 and 793;
• 6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;
• 0 percent or greater for student enrollment of 693 or less.
. Parking Management Strategies may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• Provision of “carpool only” parking spaces
• Implementation of parking restrictions for students living in College-owned
off-campus residential housing
• Utilization of remote parking
• Provision of increased shuttle service
• Offering of financial incentives, such as providing transit passes
• Utilization of campus security to direct vehicles to available on-campus
parking during peak times (8am to noon, Monday through Friday)
• Utilization of campus security personnel to monitor street parking and
direct students and visitors to available on-campus parking spots
A Parking Management Strategy Program shall be prepared and submitted by
the Applicant for review and approval by the Community Development Director,
by July 1st of every year. Said Program shall:
• Document the prior-year’s achieved parking demand reductions;
• Identify strategies for use in the upcoming academic school year;
• Be modified on an as needed basis, as deemed necessary by the
Community Development Director.
159) Parking on the east side of the campus adjacent to the properties on San Ramon
Drive in the area marked on the site plan shall be limited to faculty and staff
2 - 52
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 33 of 37
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Parking between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is
prohibited in this area.
160) Parking at the lower terrace of the eastern parking lot in the area marked on the
site plan shall be prohibited between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. During this period
this portion of the parking lot must be closed off with the use of a chain or other
similar devise to prevent cars from parking or accessing this area.
161) Prior to the final inspection of project grading in Phase One, emergency vehicular
access shall be installed at the project site. A plan identifying such emergency
access shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the
Director of Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of any building
permit.
162) Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall prepare an
Emergency Evacuation Plan for review and approval by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development Director. Such plan
shall comply with the City’s SEMS Multihazard Functional Plan.
163) The use of grasscrete pavers shall be prohibited within the Geologic Building
Setback Area.
LANDSCAPING
164) A Landscape Plan shall be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect in
accordance with the standards set forth in RPVMC. The Landscape Plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code
EnforcementCommunity Development Director, a qualified Landscape Architect,
and an Arborist hired by the City, prior to the issuance of any building or grading
permits. The applicant shall establish a Trust Deposit account with the City prior
to the submittal of Landscape Plans to cover all costs incurred by the City in
conducting such review. The Landscape Plan shall include, at a minimum, the
plant species (Latin and common names), growth rate, and maximum height at
maturity forof all proposed trees. The Landscape Plan shall also identify the
areas to be landscaped based on the phased construction plan described in
these conditions of approval. Included in the Landscape Plan shall be a
maintenance schedule as stated in these conditions. During the Director’s
review, the Landscape Plan shall also be made available to the public for review
and input.
The Landscape Plan shall comply with the water conservation concepts, the
View Preservation Ordinance, the planting requirements, the irrigation system
design criteria, and all other requirements of the RPVMC. All new trees and
2 - 53
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 34 of 37
foliage shall not exceed 16-feet in height, as measured from grade adjacent to
the tree or foliage, except along the south slope of the campus where the height
of such new trees must be maintained at a level below the ridgeline of the
nearest structure to the tree or foliage.
Prior to the completion of Phase I, as described in Condition No. 60, the existing
eucalyptus trees located near the proposed athletic field and the existing canary
pine trees located at the existing parking lot and drop-off circle shall either be
laced, trimmed, removed or any combination thereof, as determined by the
Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development
Director to restore views of Catalina Island from the viewing area of properties to
the north, including 2925 Crest Rd.
165) The applicant shall replace any of the existing trees removed from the southern
slope and the adjacent area prior to the completion of Phase I, as described in
Condition No. 60, with 24” box trees at a 2:1 ratio, to minimize the scarring or
erosion of the southern slope that may result from the project grading. Included
in the Landscape Plan described in the above Condition No. 164, the applicant
shall indicate the existing mature trees that will be removed, the trees that will be
retained, and the location of the new replanted trees. The replacement tree
species shall be approved by the Community Development Director of Planning,
Building, and Code Enforcement and the City Arborist as part of the Landscape
Plan review and prior to the issuance of any grading permit. If any of the
retained mature trees become diseased or die, such trees shall be removed and
replaced with 24” box trees at a 2:1 ratio by the applicant within thirty days of
removal with a tree species approved by the Community Development Director of
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement and the City Arborist.
166) Where practical, landscaping shall be planted and maintained to screen the
project buildings, ancillary structures, and the project’s night lighting as seen from
surrounding properties and/or public rights-of-way, as depicted on the Landscape
Plan. Landscaping shall be planted and maintained to screen the Athletic
Building from Palos Verdes Drive East and down-slope properties.
167) All landscaping shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the City
approved Landscape plan. During project construction, the respective planting
for each phase must be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for the adjacent building or improvement area, as deemed
appropriate by the Community Development Director.
168) The area between the retaining wall along the eastern parking area and the
existing privacy wall for the adjacent properties along San Ramon Drive shall be
2 - 54
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 35 of 37
used as a landscaped buffer area and planted with trees not to exceed 16-feet in
height to provide additional screening.
169) The area between the front and street-side property lines and the required 42”
wrought iron fence/wall adjacent to the parking areas shall be landscaped and
maintained on both sides of the fence/wall.
170) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a Campus Landscape Maintenance Plan
shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code
EnforcementCommunity Development Director. At a minimum, the Campus
Landscape Plan shall be consistent with the following requirements:
• That landscape maintenance activities, including lawn mowing, are
prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through
Saturday, and on Sundays and Federal holidays.
• That the use of weed and debris blowers and parking lot sweeping shall
be prohibited before 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
or before 9:00 a.m. or after 4:00 p.m. on Saturday or at any time on
Sundays and Federal holidays.
• General identification of the irrigation hours.
• General tree pruning and trimming schedule.
The implementation of the Campus Landscape Maintenance Plan shall be
formally reviewed by the Director of Planning, Building and Code
EnforcementCommunity Development Director three (3) months after the first
day of operation of the athletic field, and shall be subsequently reviewed by the
Planning CommissionCity Council at the six (6) month review described in
Condition No. 18. At either review, the Director and/or the Planning
CommissionCity Council may determine that the Plan needs to be revised to
address potential noise impacts.
If the City receives any justified noise complaints that are caused by the
maintenance of the athletic field or campus landscape and lawn areas, as
verified by the Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity
Development Director, upon receipt of notice from the City, the College shall
respond to said verified complaint by notifying the City and implementing
corrective measures within 24 hours from the time of said notice.
The Director’s decision on any matter concerning the Campus Landscape
Maintenance Plan may be appealed to the City Council. Any violation of this
condition may result in the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
2 - 55
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 36 of 37
171) The area between the eastern parking lot and the property line (adjacent to the
City-owned San Ramon Reserve) depicted on the approved site plan shall be
landscaped with native plants that require little to no irrigation, as deemed
acceptable by the City Geologist. Such landscaping shall be reviewed and
approved by the Fire Department prior to planting for fuel modification
compliance. Such plants shall not exceed a height of 42-inches, unless the
Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementCommunity Development
Director determines that such landscaping may exceed 42-inches, but no higher
than 7-feet, in order to minimize any view impairment to the properties at 2742
and 2750 San Ramon Drive.
FENCES, WALLS, AND HEDGES
172) The applicant shall install and maintain a 42-inch tall combination wrought iron
fence and wall, finished in a stone veneer similar to the approved entry signs,
along the entire Palos Verdes Drive East frontage between the eastern property
line (adjacent to the corner of the rear property line for San Ramon) to the
northeastern corner of the tennis courts. Said fence/wall shall be setback a
minimum of 5-feet from the property line to allow this area to be landscaped,
irrigated and maintained with approved plants, not to exceed 42-inches in height,
as identified on the Landscape Plan.
173) The applicant shall construct a 6-foot tall screening wall along the College’s
eastern property line, as depicted on the approved site plan, beginning at the
southwest corner property line for Lot 26 (2742 San Ramon Drive / Tooley
property).
174) The applicant shall install and maintain a wrought iron fence, painted black, along
the westerly edge of the Athletic Field at a maximum height of 6-feet and 80%
open to light and air, as permitted with the Planning CommissionCity Council’s
approval of the Minor Exception Permit, as part of planning case number
ZON2003-00317. Said wrought iron fence shall be setback a minimum of 3-feet
from the property line to allow this area to be landscaped, irrigated and
maintained with approved plants, not to exceed 42-inches in height, as identified
on the Landscape Plan. The installation of lighting onto said fence is prohibited.
175) The applicant shall be allowed to install and maintain a retractable net at the
southwest and northwest corners of the Athletic Field, as depicted on the plans
dated December 2008 and January 2009. Said net, when extended, shall not
exceed a height of 20-feet, as measured from the lowest adjacent grade (891’)
on the Athletic Field side. The Athletic Field net shall be extended at all times
when the field is used for recreational activities involving balls and shall be
lowered at the conclusion of the recreational activity. Recreational activities
2 - 56
Resolution No. 2009-282010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 37 of 37
requiring the use of said net shall be prohibited on Sundays and the Federal
holidays listed in the RPVMC, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained.
Use of the Athletic Field shall be prohibited for activities involving baseballs, golf
balls, or other similar sized balls that cannot be adequately contained by the use
of the field net.
176) The use of chain link fencing shall be prohibited within the front and street-side
setback yards (along Palos Verdes Drive East) with the exception of the chain
link fencing for the tennis courts permitted with the Planning CommissionCity
Council’s approval of the Minor Exception Permit, as part of planning case
number ZON2003-00317.
177) The chain link fence for the tennis courts shall be no higher than 10-feet in height
(including combined retaining walls and fencing), as measured from the lowest
adjacent finished grade to the top of the fence. Said fence shall consist of a
green or black mesh that is 80% open to light and air. The installation of lighting
onto said fence is prohibited.
178) All pools and spas shall be enclosed with a minimum 5’ high fence (80% open to
light and air), with a self-closing device and a self-latching device located no
closer than 4’ above the ground.
SIGNS
179) The applicant shall be permitted to construct two entry signs, adjacent to the
driveway entrance at Palos Verdes Drive East and Crest Road, at a maximum
height of 6-feet and affixed to a stoner veneer decorative wall, as illustrated in the
project plans reviewed by the Planning CommissionCity Council on January 27,
2009March XX, 2010. The entry signs shall consists of individually mounted
brass finished letters that are reverse channel lighting (back lit).
180) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit by Building and Safety, the applicant
shall submit for review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and
Code EnforcementCommunity Development Director a Master Sign Plan that is
consistent with the sign requirements of the RPVMC. The Master Sign Plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the entry identification signs for the College, the
way-finding signs, the building signs, and other signs related to an educational
use to ensure that such signs are in compliance with the City’s Codes.
2 - 57
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-XX - EXHIBIT “B”
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ZON2003-00317 (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision ‘E’,
Grading Permit, Variance, and Minor Exception Permit)
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1) The approvals granted by this Resolution shall not become effective until the
applicant and property owners submit a written affidavit that each has read,
understands and accepts all conditions of approval contained herein. Said
affidavit shall be submitted to the City no later than ninety (90) days from the date
of approval of the project by the City Council. If the applicant and/or the property
owner fail to submit the written affidavit required by this condition within the
required 90 days, this resolution approving planning case number ZON2003-
00317 (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision ‘E,’ Grading Permit, Variance and
Minor Exception Permit) shall be null and void and of no further effect.
2) In accordance with the provisions of Fish and Game Code §711.4 and Title 14,
California Code of Regulations, §753.5, the applicant shall pay all applicable
filing fees, payable to the County of Los Angeles, for the Fish and Game
Environmental Filing Fee, including posting fees. This check shall be submitted
to the City within five (5) business days of final approval of this project. If
required, the applicant shall also pay any fine imposed by the Department of Fish
and Game.
3) Each and every mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program attached as Exhibit “C” of Resolution No. 2010-XX is hereby
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, as Exhibit “B”, for planning case
number ZON2003-00317 (Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision ‘E,’ Grading
Permit, Variance, and Minor Exception Permit).
4) The applicant shall fully implement and continue for as long as a college is
operated the Mitigation Monitoring Program and execute all mitigation measures
as identified and set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project
as certified in Resolution No. 2010-XX.
5) Marymount College shall be responsible for implementing and ensuring
compliance with all of the Conditions of Approval stated herein. Accordingly, as
used herein, the term “applicant” shall mean Marymount College including
operators of educational and recreational programs affiliated with Marymount
College and the property upon which the Marymount College is located.
2 - 58
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 37
6) The project development shall conform to the specific standards contained in
these Conditions of Approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the
appropriate development and operational standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (“RPVMC”).
7) The project, including site layout, the building and appearances, and signage
throughout the site, must be constructed and maintained in substantial
compliance with the plans reviewed and approved by the City Council, and
stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of the Notice of
Decision.
8) The Community Development Director shall be authorized to approve minor
modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with such plans
and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Council as a revision to this conditional use permit at a duly
noticed public hearing.
9) Failure to comply with all of the Conditions of Approval will be grounds to revoke
the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in
RPVMC section 17.86.060.
10) These conditions are organized by topic type for ease of reference. Regardless
of such organization, each condition is universally applicable to the entire project
site, unless a condition clearly indicates otherwise. The conditions shall be
applicable as long as a college is operated on the property, unless otherwise
stated herein.
11) In the event that a Condition of Approval is in conflict or is inconsistent with any
Mitigation Measure for this project, the more restrictive shall govern.
12) All applicable permits required by the Department of Building and Safety shall be
obtained by the applicant prior to the commencement of any construction
activities associated with this approval.
13) If applicable, prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
pay the Environmental Excise Tax in accordance with the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (RPVMC).
14) If applicable, prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall
comply with the Affordable Housing requirements of the RPVMC.
2 - 59
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 37
15) If applicable, the applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's
Transportation Demand Management and Trip Reduction Ordinance as set forth
in RPVMC section 10.28.
16) The applicant shall be required to pay 110% of the estimated amount of the cost
of services to be provided on behalf of the City by outside consultants that have
been retained by the City to render services specifically in connection with this
project, in the form of a trust deposit account, prior to commencement of such
services (e.g. City Engineer, City Attorney, geotechnical consultants, biologist,
and landscape architect, environmental consultants, etc.). The College shall
adequately fund said trust deposit accounts prior to the commencement of
services, in amounts reasonably requested by the City, based upon an estimate
of the cost of services for the period of at least 90 days for which services are
rendered. In addition, the trust deposits shall be replenished within two weeks of
receipt of notice from the City that additional funds are needed.
17) All costs associated with plan check reviews and site inspections for the
Department of Public Works shall be incurred by the applicant through the
establishment of a trust deposit with the Director of Public Works at the time of
plan check submittal or site inspection request.
18) No later than six (6) months after the completion of each of the three
Construction Phases described herein, the City Council shall review these
Conditions of Approval at a duly noticed public hearing. As part of said review,
the City Council shall assess the applicant’s compliance with the Conditions of
Approval and the adequacy of the conditions imposed. At that time, the City
Council may add, delete or modify any Conditions of Approval as evidence
presented at the hearing demonstrates are necessary and appropriate to address
impacts resulting from operation of the project. Such modifications shall not
result in substantial changes to the design of the project structures. Notice of
such review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within
a 500’ radius of the site, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners
associations, and to the property owner in accordance the RPVMC. As part of
the review, the City Council shall consider such items, but not limited to, the
parking conditions, on-site circulation patterns, lighting, landscaping, noise, the
operation of outdoor events, the operation of the retractable net, and the use of
the athletic field and tennis courts. The City Council may also consider other
concerns raised by the public in response to the public notice of the review
hearing. The City Council may require such subsequent additional reviews, as
deemed appropriate. This provision shall not be construed as a limitation on the
City’s ability to enforce any provision of the RPVMC regarding this project.
2 - 60
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 37
The Campus Landscape Maintenance Plan shall also be subject to a three (3)
month review as stated in Condition No. 170.
19) This approval authorizes the construction of a Facilities Expansion Plan
(Facilities Plan) for Marymount College located at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive
East. The Residence Hall buildings included in the original submittal are not
approved under these Conditions of Approval. Any significant changes to the
characteristics of the development, including, but not limited to, the introduction
of new uses or buildings, the site configuration, the size or operation of the
facilities, or other ancillary uses shall require an application for revision to this
Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the provisions stated in the RPVMC. At that
time, the City Council may direct that the Planning Commission consider the
proposed application, or it may deny the proposed application, or it may approve
the proposed application and impose such conditions, as it deems necessary
upon the proposed use resulting from operations of the project. Further, the City
Council may consider all issues relevant to the proposed change of use.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
20) Temporary construction fencing shall be installed in accordance with the
RPVMC. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant
shall submit a Temporary Construction Fence Plan, as part of the Construction
Management Plan, that identifies items including, but not limited to, the type, the
location and the time duration of construction fencing to be installed to address
health and safety issues that are related to grading or other construction
activities.
21) All on-site construction and grading activities shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction
shall occur on Sundays or Federal holidays as set forth in RPVMC unless a
special construction permit, allowing construction work on Sundays or Federal
holidays between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, is first obtained from the
Community Development Director at least 48-hours in advance of construction
work. Any deviation from this Condition shall require an amendment to these
Conditions of Approval and the approval of a Variance Permit.
22) The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials in excess of the material used for immediate
construction purposes. Such excess material includes, but is not limited to, the
accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, salvage
materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances, or fixtures.
2 - 61
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 37
23) No overnight parking or storage of vehicles associated with construction shall be
permitted in the public right-of-way during construction.
24) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall submit final
geotechnical and soils reports to the City for review and approval by the Building
Official and the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. All conditions specified in the
approved geotechnical and soils reports will be incorporated into the project.
25) The applicant shall prepare a notice to all property owners within a 500-foot
radius of the project site at least 30-days prior to the commencement of each
phase of construction. Such notice shall be sent by the City, at the expense of
the applicant, and shall include a contact (name, telephone number, and e-mail
address) in the event complaints need to be filed. A similar notice shall be visibly
posted from the right-of-way (PVDE) at the entrance to the campus. The size,
exact location, and content of such notice shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director at least 30-days prior to installation.
26) Prior to issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy for Phase Three, the
applicant shall provide a detailed as-built Classroom Student Seat Plan. Such
Plan shall substantially comply with the student seats depicted in Exhibit 4 of
Appendix A of the Final EIR and shall not exceed a maximum of 655 student
seats. A increase to the maximum number of student seats permitted herein
shall be subject to review and approval by the City Council, at a duly noticed
public hearing, and shall not result in new impacts or the intensification of
impacts identified in the Final EIR, including but not limited to traffic, parking and
noise.
27) Construction and grading activities within the public right-of-way shall be limited
to the days and hours approved by the Director of Public Works at the time of
permit issuance.
28) No on-site repair, maintenance, delivery of equipment and materials or vehicle
idling shall occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday,
nor on any Sunday or Federal holiday, unless otherwise specified in these
Conditions of Approval or a Special Construction Permit is obtained from the
City. Emergency repairs are exempt from this condition.
29) All construction activity shall not extend beyond the phasing plan identified in the
Certified Environmental Impact Report shown in Resolution No. 2010-XX and
described in Condition No. 60. Any significant changes to the construction activity
schedule shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Director.
2 - 62
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 6 of 37
30) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the
Director of Public Works, for review and approval, a Construction Management
Plan. Said Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the proposed routes to and
from the project site for all deliveries of equipment, materials, and supplies, and
shall set forth the parking plan for construction employees, the installation of
traffic control signs at and around the project site, hours of arrival and departure
for construction workers, sound abatement measures, and street maintenance
(street cleaning and repairs). All construction related parking must be
accommodated on-site. No on-street construction related parking shall be
permitted. The queuing and idling of construction worker vehicles and
construction vehicles/equipment shall be prohibited on-site and on City streets.
Furthermore, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Haul Plan to the Public
Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
31) The applicant shall be responsible for repairs to any public streets which may be
damaged as a result of development of the project as required by the Director of
Public Works.
32) Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for each construction phase
described in these Conditions of Approval, the applicant shall film the public
roads that will be used for construction traffic to and from the project site, as
described in the City approved Construction Management Plan, to document the
pre-construction road condition. Said film, in either a DVD or CD format, shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works and shall be used to document any
roadway damage that may be associated with project construction.
33) Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit
security, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City, to cover any damage to
existing public roadways caused by project construction. The amount of such
security shall be determined by the Director of Public Works and shall not be
released until all construction related activities have been completed and after
final inspections by the City’s Building Official.
34) Prior to the release of the security to cover any damages to existing public
roadways (see above conditions), the applicant shall repair or replace all curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks that are damaged as a result of project construction, as
determined by the Director of Public Works.
35) All proposed driveways shall be designed in substantially the same alignment as
shown on the approved site plans, subject to final design review and approval by
the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Director of Public Works.
2 - 63
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 7 of 37
36) Any on-site raised and landscaped medians and textured surfaces, including
parking lot planters, shall be approved by the Director of Public Works, and by
the City Geologist in areas adjacent to or within the Building Geologic Setback
Area.
37) Handicapped access ramps shall be installed and or retrofitted in accordance
with the current standards established by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Access ramps shall be provided at all intersections and driveways.
38) All sidewalks and pathways throughout the project site shall be designed to
comply with the minimum width standards set forth in the most recent California
Disabled Accessibility Guidebook.
39) If excavation is required in any public roadway, the roadway shall be resurfaced
with an asphalt overlay to the adjacent traffic lane line to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
40) Prior to commencing any excavation or construction within the public rights-of-
way, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Director of Public
Works.
41) The project shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities
and agencies that provide public services to the property.
42) All existing easements shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly
released by the holder of the easement.
INDEMNIFICATION/INSURANCE
43) The owner of the property upon which the project is located shall hold harmless
and indemnify City, members of its City Council, boards, committees,
commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and agents
serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials,
(collectively, “Indemnitees”), from any claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost
or expense, including but not limited to death or injury to any person and injury to
any property, resulting from willful misconduct, negligent acts, errors or
omissions of the owner, the applicant, the project operator, or any of their
respective officers, employees, or agents, arising or claimed to arise, directly or
indirectly, in whole or in part, out of, in connection with, resulting from, or related
to the construction or the operation of the project approved by this resolution
including but not limited to the operation and use of the athletic field.
2 - 64
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 8 of 37
44) The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers, commissions, boards, committees and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, commissions, boards,
committee or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul this resolution or one
or more of the approvals set forth in Resolution 2010-XX brought by one or more
third parties. Alternatively, at the City’s election, the City may choose to defend
itself from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void or annul this
resolution or one or more of the approvals set forth in this resolution with counsel
of its choosing, in which case, the applicant shall reimburse the City for all of its
costs, including attorney fees, arising from such claim, action or proceeding. The
obligations set forth in this condition include the obligation to indemnify or
reimburse the City for any attorney fees or monetary judgments that the City
becomes obligated to pay as a result of any claim, action or proceeding within
the scope of this condition.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
within the scope of this condition and the City shall cooperate in the defense of
any such claim or action.
45) The applicant shall procure and maintain in full force and effect during the
operation of the College primary general liability insurance in conjunction with
umbrella coverage, which is applicable to, and provides coverage in an amount
of at least $5 million dollars, which amount shall be increased on each fifth
anniversary of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any structure
authorized by this approval to reflect increases in the consumer price index for
the Los Angeles County area. Such insurance shall insure against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection
with the operation of the athletic field at the College as authorized by the
conditional use permit as amended by this approval. Such insurance shall name
the City and the members of its City Council, boards, committees, commissions,
officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers and agents serving as its
independent contractors in the role of City officials, as additional insureds. Said
insurance, shall be issued by an insurer that is admitted to do business in the
State of California with a Best’s rating of at least A-VII or a rating of at least A by
Standard & Poor’s, and shall comply with all of the following requirements:
(a) The coverage shall contain no limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to City, its officers, officials, employees, volunteers or agents
serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials
which are not also limitations applicable to the named insured.
(b) For any claims related to the operation of the athletic field, including
balls that may enter the public road right-of-way, applicant’s insurance
2 - 65
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 9 of 37
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, members of its
City Council, boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees,
attorneys, volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in
the role of city or agency officials.
(c) The limits of applicant’s insurance shall apply separately to the project
site.
(d) Each insurance policy required by this condition shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be canceled except after 30-days prior
written notice by first class mail has been given to City.
(e) Each insurance policy required by this condition shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be materially modified except after 5-
business days prior written notice by first class mail has been given to
City.
(f) Each insurance policy required by this condition shall expressly waive
the insurer’s right of subrogation against City and members of its City
Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees, servants,
attorneys, volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors
in the role of city or agency officials.
(g) Copies of the endorsements and certificates required by this condition
shall be provided to the City when the insurance is first obtained and
with each renewal of the policy.
(h) No activities involving field balls at the athletic field shall be
permitted unless such general liability insurance policy is in effect and
on file with the City.
Such insurance shall likewise name the City and the members of its City Council,
boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys,
volunteers and agents serving as its independent contractors in the role of City
officials, as additional insureds. Said insurance may, at applicant’s option, be in
the form of a separate excess insurance policy and may be issued by a non-
admitted carrier so long as the insurer is authorized to do business in the State of
California with a Best’s rating of at least A-VII or a rating of at least A by
Standard & Poor’s and shall comply with all of the requirements of this Condition.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
46) This approval, the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, allows for the
expansion of the existing College’s facilities (92,268 square feet of floor area)
2 - 66
consisting of the demolition of 18,022 square feet of existing floor area and the
construction of 61,928 square feet of new floor area, including expanding 14,916
square feet of existing buildings, the proposed development would result in a
total of 151,090 square feet of campus floor area, as outlined in the table shown
below:
Building
Total
Existing
Building
(SF)
Proposed
Building
Demolition
(SF)
Proposed
Building
Addition
(SF)
Total
Building
(SF)
Existing Buildings
Classroom/Academics 26,180 0 0 26,180
Auditorium/Fine Arts Studio 8,012 0 1,869 9,881
Faculty Office 7,346 0 7,455 14,801
Student Union/Bookstore/Faculty Dining 18,158 0 3,492 21,650
Administration/Admissions 9,450 0 2,100 11,550
Chapel 5,100 0 0 5,100
Buildings to be Removed
View Room/Hall 1,530 (1,530) 0 0
Maintenance/Photo Lab 2,696 (2,696) 0 0
Bookstore/Health Center 2,870 (2,870) 0 0
Arts 3,648 (3,648) 0 0
Preschool 2,998 (2,998) 0 0
Library 4,072 (4,072) 0 0
Pool Equipment 208 (208) 0 0
Subtotal Existing Buildings 92,268 (18,022) 14,916 89,162
Library 26,710 26,710
Maintenance 1,975 1,975
Athletic Building 33,243 33,243
Subtotal New Buildings 61,928 61,928
Total Square Footage 76,844 151,090
Source: Rasmussen & Associates, Proposed Master Site Plan
47) A Square Footage Certification prepared by a registered surveyor or engineer
shall be submitted to the Community Development Director, prior to a framing
inspection, indicating that the buildings, as identified in the condition herein, do
not exceed the maximum permitted gross square footages (as measured from
exterior walls).
48) A security/information booth shall be allowed to be constructed at the entry
driveway, as depicted on the site plan approved by the City Council. This
structure shall not exceed 54 square feet and a maximum height of 10-feet, as
measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade (935.50’) to the highest roof
ridgeline (945.50’). Architectural details, as shown on the project plans dated
July 10, 2008, shall be allowed to exceed the maximum 10-foot height limit.
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 10 of 37
2 - 67
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 11 of 37
49) Building setbacks shall comply with the Institutional zoning requirements, unless
otherwise noted herein. A Setback Certification shall be prepared by a licensed
engineer and submitted to Building and Safety prior to the framing inspection on
each structure or prior to the final inspection of grading activities, whichever
occurs first.
50) The approved structures, including additions to existing structures, shall not
exceed the building heights and number of stories described as follows:
BUILDING
LOWEST
ADJACENT
FINISHED
GRADE
MAXIMUM
ROOF
RIDGELINE
MAXIMUM
HEIGHT
NUMBER
OF
STORIES
Auditorium / Fine Arts
Studio 925’ 942’ 17-feet One story
Faculty Building 912’ 940’ 28-feet Two Stories
Student Union (bookstore
and faculty dining
expansion)
910’ 940’ 30-feet Two Stories
Administration/Admissions 926’ 951’ 25-feet One story
Library Building 912’ 951’ 39-feet One story
Maintenance Building 913’ 933’ 20-feet One Story
Athletic Building 897.75’
933’ North
Elevation
(flat roof)
938.75’ South
Elevation
41-feet Two-Story
51) A Building Pad Certification shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and
submitted to Community Development Director and the Building Official prior to
final inspection of grading activities. A Roof Ridgeline Certification, indicating the
maximum height of each building, shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and
submitted to Community Development Director and the Building Official prior to
the final framing certifications for each building.
52) New or replaced flagpoles shall be permitted at a maximum height of 16-feet, as
measured from adjacent finished grade to the highest point of the flag poles.
BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
53) Prior to the plan check submittal of the Athletic Building, the Community
Development Director shall determine that the revised Athletic Building, approved
by the City Council at its March XX, 2010 meeting, is designed so that there is no
2 - 68
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 12 of 37
significant view impairment of Catalina Island from the viewing area of the
property located at 3302 Narino Drive. To accomplish this, the applicant shall
install a certified silhouette for review by the Community Development Director.
In the event the Community Development Director determines that a significant
view impairment of Catalina Island exists with the redesigned Athletic Building,
the City Council shall review and reconsider the design of the Athletic Building to
reduce the view impairment at a duly noticed public hearing.
54) The applicant shall submit an Architectural Materials Board for review and
approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building
permits. The Materials Board shall identify, at a minimum, a sample of the
proposed exterior building materials, roof tile materials, and paint colors for all
new, expanded and modified structures. Such materials shall substantially
comply with the materials called out on the project plans approved by the City
Council on March XX, 2010 including, but not limited to, the use of stoner veneer
facades, stained wood trellises, cast-stone caps, stone veneer columns, and
baked enamel aluminum windows with tinted glazing to name a few.
55) All new, expanded or modified buildings, including but not limited to the Athletic
Building, the Library, the Student Union, and the Classroom buildings shall be
finished in a muted earth-tone color, as deemed acceptable by the Community
Development Director based on the review of the Materials Board.
56) The roof materials for all new, expanded or modified buildings with pitched roofs,
including but not limited to the Library, Student Union, Classrooms, shall be tile,
consisting of a muted color, as deemed acceptable by the Community
Development Director based on the review of the Materials Board. To the extent
permitted by the City’s Building Code, the material for all flat roofs shall be a
color that is compatible with the color of the tiles used on the pitched roofs
throughout the project, as deemed acceptable by the Community Development
Director.
57) All trash enclosure areas shall be designed with walls six (6) feet in height with
the capability of accommodating recycling bins. The enclosures shall be
consistent with the overall building design theme in color and material, and shall
include self-closing / self-latching gates. The enclosures shall integrate a solid
roof cover to screen the bins from view from all public rights-of-way and
surrounding properties. Trash enclosures shall be prohibited in all setback
areas.
58) Mechanical equipment, vents or ducts shall not be placed on roofs unless
approvals are obtained pursuant to Section 17.48.050 of the RPVMC regarding
building heights and screening from view of all public rights-of-way and
2 - 69
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 13 of 37
surrounding properties. This condition shall apply to all new and expanded
project buildings, including but not limited to the Athletic Building, Student Union,
and Library Building.
59) The storage of all goods, wares, merchandise, produce, janitorial supplies and
other commodities shall be permanently housed in entirely enclosed structures,
except when in transport.
CONSTRUCTION PHASING
60) This Facilities Expansion Plan approval shall remain valid as more specifically
set forth below, and shall be constructed in no more than 3 phases over a period
not to exceed eight (8) years from the date the approval becomes final:
a. Phase One (Years 1-2): Phase One includes 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 to replace demolished facilities and those buildings subject to
future construction. The planning entitlements, including grading and
building permits, for all construction described under Phase One shall
remain valid and the construction thereof shall be completed no later than
two years from the date the decision becomes final. Approvals for any
Phase One components that are not completed with the two-year period
shall lapse and become null and void unless an extension is granted by
the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing.
b. Phase Two (Years 2-5): Phase Two includes fine grading, the construction
of the new library, maintenance facility, athletic facility, , outdoor pool, and
additions to the faculty building and student union. The planning
entitlements, including building permits, for all construction described
under Phase Two shall remain valid and the construction thereof shall be
completed no later than five (5) years from the date the decision becomes
final. Approvals for any Phase Two components that are not completed
with the five-year period shall lapse and become null and void unless an
extension is granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing.
c. Phase Three (Years 6 -8): Phase Three includes the construction of the
new fine arts building and an addition to the admissions building. The
planning entitlements, including building permits, for all construction
described under Phase Three shall remain valid and the construction
thereof shall be completed no later than eight years from the date the
decision becomes final.
2 - 70
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 14 of 37
d. All project buildings and improvements stated in these Conditions of
Approval shall be completed and Certificates of Occupancy issued within
eight (8) years of the final decision of the project. All elements of the
approved Facilities Plan that are not completed within the time period
stated in this Condition shall require additional review and approval
through an additional revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 9 and
additional CEQA review if required.
TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS
61) The installation and use of temporary modular buildings (consisting of several
modular segments each, as shown on the Phase One phasing site plan prepared
by Rasmussen Associates) shall be permitted until the completion of the
applicable permanent buildings or additions in Phase Two or Phase Three and in
no event longer than eight years from the issuance of the first grading or building
permit for Phase One, unless a revision to this CUP is approved. Upon the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the applicable building or addition, the
temporary modular building serving such use shall be removed from the project
site within 30-days and the site restored to a condition deemed acceptable by the
Community Development Director.
62) The permanent use of the temporary modular building shall be prohibited unless
a revision to this CUP is approved.
63) The temporary modular buildings shall not exceed 15-feet in height, as measured
from the lowest adjacent grade to the highest roof ridgeline.
64) The exterior facades for the temporary modular building facades shall be painted
a neutral color to match existing or the new structures and incorporate materials
that are similar to the proposed finish for the permanent buildings (not including
Palos Verdes Stone or other stone material) as deemed acceptable by the
Community Development Director.
65) The areas adjacent to the temporary modular buildings shall be landscaped to
visually screen the buildings from Palos Verdes Drive East and properties to the
south.
66) A building permit shall be obtained for applicable modular exterior improvements
(e.g., decks, stairs, facade details, etc.) from the Department of Building and
Safety.
GRADING
2 - 71
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 15 of 37
67) The following maximum quantities and depths of grading are approved for the
Facilities Expansion Plan, as shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan received by
the City on March 5, 2010 reviewed and approved by the City Council at its
March XX, 2010 meeting:
a. Maximum Total Grading (Cut and Fill): 79,155 cubic yards.
b. Maximum Cut: 39,255 cubic yards (13,545 cubic yards with 15%
shrinkage).
c. Maximum Fill: 39,900 cubic yards.
d. Maximum Depth of Cut: 25 feet.
e. Maximum Depth of Fill: 18 feet.
The maximum grading quantities shown above shall constitute total on-site earth
movement, including but not limited to, combined raw cuts and fills (outside and
under building footprints, parking lots, walkways, athletic facilities, etc.) remedial
grading, and buttressed slopes to name a few.
The Community Development Director shall be authorized to allow deviations to
the above grading quantities up to 200 cubic yards over the stated maximum
quantities for unforeseen circumstances or due to conditions encountered in the
field provided that such deviation or modification to the grading quantities
achieve substantially the same results as with the strict compliance with the
grading plan.
Any modifications resulting in additional grading in excess of the above quantities
shall require approval of an amendment to the grading permit by the City Council
at a duly noticed public hearing. This is a balanced grading project. No import or
export of earth shall be permitted, except for fine grading materials, such as
select fill.
Prior to the final inspection of the precise grading, the applicant shall provide the
Building Official with a certified as-built grading plan prepared and wet-stamped
by a licensed engineer. Additionally, prior to the final inspection, the applicant
shall provide the City with documentation of the location of existing or relocated
bentonite soil material. If applicable, the as-built grading plan shall identify all
revisions to the City Council’s approved grading plan.
68) Should the project require removal or delivery of earth, rock or material other
than demolition and construction debris and waste from the site or building
materials, the applicant shall first obtain City approval in the form of a revised
Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit application. Said review shall
evaluate potential impacts to the surrounding environment associated with such
export or import. If the revised grading impacts results in impacts greater than
those identified in the Certified EIR that cannot be mitigated to an insignificant
2 - 72
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 16 of 37
level, a Supplemental EIR shall be prepared and reviewed by the City, at the
expense of the applicant.
69) The grading plans shall identify the location of the building geologic setback line.
Limited irrigation shall be allowed within the geologic setback area as reviewed
and approved by the City geologist pursuant to Condition Nos. 79 and 171. All
water runoff in this area shall be collected and diverted to the City approved
drainage system.
70) Recommendations made by the City Geologist, the City Engineer, and the
Building and Safety Division during the ongoing review of the project shall be
incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
71) Recommendations made by the project applicant’s geologist, as modified by
comments from the City’s Geologist, shall be incorporated into the design and
construction of the project.
72) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the City’s Geologist and Building Official
shall review all applicable structural plans or design information and reports as
deemed necessary by the City’s Geologist, Building Official, or both, including but
not limited to, geotechnical reports during the Plan Check review process to
ensure that the proposed project will not threaten public health, safety, and
welfare.
73) If applicable, as determined by the City Geologist, prior to the issuance of any
grading permit, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof, shall be posted to
cover costs for any geologic hazard abatement in an amount to be determined by
the Director of Public Works. Said security shall be released after all grading
related activities are completed and after the approval of the as-built grading
plans by the Building Official.
74) Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permit in any phase, the
applicant shall submit to the City a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating that the
applicant or its applicable contractor has obtained a general liability insurance
policy in an amount not less than $5 million dollars per occurrence and in the
aggregate to cover awards for any death, injury, loss or damage, arising out of
the grading or construction of this project. Said insurance policy must be issued
by an insurer that is authorized to do business in the State of California with a
minimum rating of A-VII by Best’s Insurance Guide or a rating of at least A by
Standard & Poors. Such insurance shall name the City and the members of its
City Council, boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees, servants,
attorneys, volunteers and agents serving as its independent contractors in the
role of City officials, as additional insureds. A copy of this endorsement shall be
2 - 73
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 17 of 37
provided to the City. Said insurance shall be maintained in effect at all times
during actual project construction until the approval of the Final Certificate of
Occupancy for each Phase shall not be canceled or reduced during the grading
or construction work without providing at least thirty (30) days prior written notice
to the City. Further, the insurance shall remain in place for a minimum period of
five (5) years following final inspection and approval, but only as to the proposed
drainage system, including detention basins.
75) Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a bond, cash deposit, or other City-
approved security, shall be posted to cover the costs of grading in an amount to
be determined by the Director of Public Works. The bond, cash deposit, or other
City-approved security, at a minimum, shall be sufficient to pay for the cost of
restoring the project site to an acceptable condition, as determined by the
Building Official and the Director of Public Works, in the event that the project is
not completed and shall include, but not be limited to, stabilizing and hydro-
seeding all slopes, completing all retaining walls that are required to maintain the
slopes, installing erosion control improvements, and filling in grade depressions
or holes. Said security shall be released after all grading related activities are
completed and after the approval of the as-built grading plans by the Building
Official.
76) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide the Community
Development Director a plan that demonstrates how dust generated by grading
activities will be mitigated so as to comply with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 403 and the City’s Municipal Code requirements which
require watering for the control of dust.
77) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a plan
indicating, to scale, clear sight triangles, which shall be maintained at the
reconfigured driveway intersection. No objects, signs, fences, walls, vegetation,
or other landscaping shall be allowed within these triangles in excess of three
feet in height.
78) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the following improvements shall be
designed in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Public Works: 1)
all provisions for surface drainage; 2) all necessary storm drain facilities
extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of
storm runoff; and 3) all water quality related improvements. Where determined
necessary by the Director of Public Works, associated utility easements shall be
dedicated to the City.
79) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall record a restricted
use covenant, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the City Geologist, that
2 - 74
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 18 of 37
prohibits the development of buildings or other structures and improvements
within the designated Building Geologic Setback Area as described in the
applicant’s geotechnical reports and as depicted on the site and grading plans.
Limited irrigation in this area shall be permitted pursuant to the approval of the
City’s Geologist as stated in these Conditions of approval. Said Building
Geologic Setback Area shall be shown on all future plans.
80) Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Geology and/or Soils Engineer’s
report on the expansive properties of soils on all building sites shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City Geologist. As required in Condition No. 67,
the applicant shall provide the City with documentation of the on-site location of
bentonite soil material.
81) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an as-built geological report shall be
submitted for new structures to be founded on bedrock, and an as-built soils and
compaction report shall be submitted for new structures to be founded on fill as
well as for all engineered fill areas.
82) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant’s project geologist shall
review and approve the final plans and specifications and shall stamp and sign
such plans and specifications.
83) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, a grading plan review and geologic
report, complete with geologic map, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer.
84) Except as specifically authorized by these approvals, foundations shall be set in
accordance with the RPVMC and shall extend to such a depth as to be
unaffected by any creep-prone surficial soil and/or weathered bedrock. Field
review and certification by the project geologist is required.
85) All grading shall be monitored by a licensed engineering geologist and/or soils
engineer in accordance wit the applicable provisions of the RPVMC and the
recommendations of the City Engineer. Written reports, summarizing grading
activities, shall be submitted on a weekly basis to the Director of Public Works
and the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.
86) The project shall comply with all appropriate provisions of the City’s Grading
Ordinance, unless otherwise approved in these conditions of approval.
87) Grading activity on-site shall occur in accordance with all applicable City safety
standards.
2 - 75
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 19 of 37
88) Prior to final grading inspection by Building and Safety, the graded slopes shall
be properly planted and maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape
Plan required in Condition Nos. 164 and 165. Plant materials shall generally
include significant low ground cover to impede surface water flows.
89) Prior to final grading inspection by Building and Safety, all manufactured slopes
shall be contour-graded to achieve as natural an appearance as is feasible and
shall be less than 35%.
90) Any water features (fountains, etc.), including the detention basin, shall be lined
to prevent percolation of water into the soil. Designs for all water features shall
be included on the grading plans submitted for review by the City’s Building
Official and Geotechnical Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading permits.
91) The proposed swimming pool shall be lined and shall contain a leak detection
system, subject to review and approval by the City’s Building Official.
92) The use of on-site rock crushing, including large-scale stonecutting, shall be
prohibited with the exception of the use of a minimal number of stonecutting
saws for the final fitting and installation of the stone veneer on the building and
site walls, provided that these stonecutting saws are located immediately
adjacent to the areas where the stone veneer is being applied and as far as
possible from nearby residences.
93) Retaining walls shall be limited in height as identified on the grading plans that
are reviewed and approved by the City. Any retaining walls exceeding the
permitted heights shall require the processing of a revised grading permit for
review and approval by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing as set
forth in the provisions of the Municipal Code.
UTILITIES
94) Prior to issuance of the final inspection for the project grading, all new utilities
exclusively serving the project site shall be placed underground including cable
television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All appropriate permits shall be
obtained for any such installation. Cable television, if utilized, shall connect to
the nearest trunk line at the applicant’s expense.
95) No above ground utility structure cabinets, pipes, or valves shall be constructed
within the public rights-of-way without prior approval of the Director of Public
Works. If permitted, above ground utility structure cabinets, pipes, or valves shall
not impede on the pedestrian circulation flow.
2 - 76
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 20 of 37
96) Use of satellite dish antenna(e) or any other antennae shall be controlled by the
provisions set forth in the RPVMC. Centralized antennae shall be used rather
than individual antennae for each building.
97) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall prepare
sewer plans in accordance with the Countywide Sewer Maintenance District.
The applicant shall be responsible for the transfer of sewer facilities to the
Countywide Sewer Maintenance District for maintenance.
98) A sewer improvement plan shall be prepared as required by the Director of
Public Works, Building Official, and the County of Los Angeles.
99) Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the
Director of Public Works, a written statement from the County Sanitation District
accepting any new facility design and/or any system upgrades with regard to
existing trunk line sewers. Said approval shall state all conditions of approval, if
any.
100) Prior to issuance of any final Certificate of Occupancy, if applicable, the applicant
shall dedicate sewer easements to the City, subject to review and approval by
the Director of Building, Planning and Code Enforcement and the Director of
Public Works with respect to the final locations and requirements of the sewer
improvements.
101) Sewer Improvement plans shall be approved by the County of Los Angeles, the
County Sanitation Districts, and the Director of Public Works.
102) A sewer connection fee shall be paid to the County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County prior to the issuance of a permit to connect to the sewer line.
103) Prior to the construction of any water facilities, the Director of Public Works shall
review and approve the water improvement plan. Any water facilities that cannot
be constructed below ground shall be located on the subject property and
screened from view from any public rights-of-way, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works and the Community Development Director. In addition,
an easement to California Water Service shall be dedicated prior to issuance of
any grading or building permits.
104) The project site shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities which
shall include fire hydrants of the size and type and location as determined by the
Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size
to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the development.
Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the City Engineer. Fire flow
2 - 77
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 21 of 37
requirements shall be determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department
and evidence of approval by the Los County Fire Department is required prior to
issuance of building permits.
105) Framing of structures shall not begin until after the Los Angeles County Fire
Department has determined that there is adequate fire fighting water and access
available to such structures.
106) The applicant shall file with the Director of Public Works an unqualified "will
serve" statement from the purveyor serving the project site indicating that water
service can be provided to meet the demands of the proposed development.
Said statement shall be dated no more than six months prior to the issuance of
the building permits for the project. Should the applicant receive a qualified "will
serve" statement from the purveyor, the City shall retain the right to require the
applicant to use an alternative water source, subject to the review and approval
of the City, or the City shall determine that the conditions of the project approval
have not been satisfied.
107) Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall file with
the Director of Public Works, a statement from the purveyor indicating that the
proposed water mains and any other required facilities will be operated by the
purveyor, and that under normal operating conditions the system will meet the
needs of the project.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
108) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall submit an updated
Master Drainage Plan for the College campus and any adjacent tributary area,
including supporting documents, for review and approval by the City’s Engineer,
Building Official, and Geologist. The Plan shall demonstrate adequate storm
protection from the design storm, under existing conditions, as well as after the
construction of future drainage improvements by the City along Palos Verdes
Drive East immediately abutting the project site. The updated Master Drainage
Plan shall also include, but not be limited to, the items listed in the adopted
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the following:
• Drop inlets connecting to the proposed storm drain system shall be added
along the eastern edge of the subject site including the eastern parking area.
The added drop inlets shall extend to the rose garden.
• An on-site storm water collection system that is designed to prevent water
run-off flows from entering off-site properties, including properties on Vista del
Mar and the City-owned San Ramon Reserve (Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve)
2 - 78
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 22 of 37
• Identification of the final size of the detention basin.
• Sheet overflow and ponding shall be eliminated or the floors of buildings with
no openings in the foundation walls shall be elevated to at least twelve inches
above the finished pad grade
• Calculations shall be made according to the latest adopted Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works Drainage Calculation Methodologies.
109) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit for
review and approval by the Director of Public Works a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure compliance with the current California State
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations.
110) The irrigation system and area drains proposed shall be reviewed and approved
by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer, Building Official and Director of Public
Works.
111) A construction specific drainage report(s) shall be prepared demonstrating that
the grading, in conjunction with the drainage improvements, including applicable
swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, will protect all building pads from
design storms, as approved by the Building Official and the City Engineer.
112) All drainage swales and any other at-grade drainage facilities, including gunite,
shall be of an earth tone color, as deemed necessary by the Director of Building
Planning and Code Enforcement.
113) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and City Engineer that the design
storm can be conveyed through the site without conveying the water in a pipe
and without severely damaging the integrity of the Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). If such integrity cannot be demonstrated, the applicant
shall redesign the SUSMP to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and
City Engineer, which may require off-site flows to be diverted into a piped system
and carried though the site.
114) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit that proposes to convey off-site
drainage through the subject property, the applicant shall execute an agreement
with the City that is satisfactory to the City Attorney agreeing to defend,
indemnify and hold the City, members of its City Council, boards, committees,
commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and agents
serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials,
(collectively, “Indemnitees”) harmless from any damage that may occur to the
subject property or to any improvements, persons or personal property located
on the subject property due to the flow of off-site storm flows that are designed,
2 - 79
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 23 of 37
as of the date the College’s drainage plans are approved by the City, to flow
onto, over, and through the subject property (“Claims”). The indemnity
agreement need not (i) obligate the Applicant or its successor or assigns to
defend, indemnify or hold harmless any party other than the Indemnitees, or (ii)
prohibit the Applicant or its successor or assigns from taking any action against
parties other than Indemnitees with respect to the Claims or on any other basis.
115) Prior to the acceptance and final inspection of the storm drain system, all catch
basins and public access points that crosses or abut an open channel shall be
marked with a water quality message in accordance with the SUSMP and
SWPPP.
116) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit for
approval by the City a SUSMP pursuant to the guidelines in Development
Planning for Stormwater Management – A Manual for the Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) prepared by Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works 2002 (or most current version). The SUSMP shall
include both structural and non-structural BMPs and shall comply with RWQCB
and applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits. The SUSMP shall identify how on-site flows and off-site water flows that
mix withon-site water flows are treated for pollutants prior to leaving the site. The
WQMP shall also include an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) that
addresses the use of grasscycling and pesticides for the lawn and landscape
areas including the athletic field.
All costs associated with the review, installation and maintenance of the SUSMP
and project related Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be the
responsibility of the applicant. If the plan requires construction of improvements,
such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works.
117) Prior to issuance of any final Certificate of Occupancy, the SUSMP Maintenance
Agreement, outlining the post-construction Best Management Practices, shall be
recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.
118) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall file any
required documents, including the Notice of Intent (NOI), and obtain all required
permits from the California RWQCB.
119) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit for
review and approval by the Director of Public Works an Erosion Control Plan.
Said Plan shall be designed in conformance with the City standards and the
requirements of the RWQCB.
2 - 80
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 24 of 37
120) Prior to issuance of any final Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall
implement the project in full compliance with the standard urban storm water
mitigation plan adopted by the RWQCB.
121) Prior to the approval of the SUSMP, the City’s Geotechnical Engineer shall
review and approve the Plan. In the event the City’s Geotechnical Engineer
determines that additional improvements need to be constructed, the applicant
shall revise the Plan accordingly.
122) Marymount College, or subsequent landowners, shall maintain all on-site
drainage facilities, including, but not limited to structures, pipelines, open
channels, detention and desilting basins, mechanical and natural filtering
systems, and monitoring systems. The cost of maintaining these systems shall
be based on costs estimated and developed by the applicant and approved by
the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. A bond, letter of credit or
other security acceptable to the City shall be provided to secure completion of
such drainage facilities. A bond to cover the cost of their maintenance for a
period of 2 years after completion shall also be provided to the City.
123) Subject to the agreement of Los Angeles County and if applicable, the applicant
shall turn over all eligible drainage facilities to the Los Angeles County Public
Works Department upon completion and acceptance of the facilities by the
County of Los Angeles.
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
124) Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall prepare and
submit to the Director of Public Works for review and approval a comprehensive
Integrated Waste Management Plan that addresses source reduction, reuse and
recycling. The Plan shall include a description of the materials that will be
generated, and measures to reduce, reuse and recycle materials, including, but
not limited to, beverage containers, food waste, office and classroom waste. The
Plan shall also incorporate grass cycling, composting, mulching and xeriscaping
in ornamental landscaped areas. It is the City’s intention for the project to meet
Local and State required diversion goals in effect at the time of operation. The
specifics of the Plan shall be addressed by the applicant at the time of review by
the Director of Public Works.
125) Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, an approved Construction
and Demolition Materials Management Plan (CDMMP or the Plan) shall be
prepared and submitted to the Director of Public Works for approval. The
CDMMP shall include all deconstruction, new construction, and
alterations/additions. The CDMMP shall document how the Applicant will divert
2 - 81
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 25 of 37
85% of the existing on-site asphalt, base and concrete, through reuse on-site or
processing at an off-site facility for reuse. The Plan shall address the parking
lots, concrete walkways, and other underground concrete structures. The Plan
shall also identify measures to reuse or recycle building materials, including
wood, metal, and concrete block to meet the City’s diversion goal requirements
as established by the State Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939). In no
case shall the Plan propose to recycle less than the State mandated goals as
they may be amended from time to time.
126) Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy a Construction and Demolition
Materials Disposition Summary (Summary) shall be submitted to the Director of
Public Works upon completion of deconstruction and construction. The
Summary shall indicate actual recycling activities and compliance with the
diversion requirement, based on weight tags or other sufficient documentation.
127) Where possible, the site design shall incorporate for solid waste minimization, the
use of recycled building materials and the re-use of on-site demolition debris.
128) The project site design shall incorporate areas for collection of solid waste with
adequate space for separate collection of recyclables.
OPERATIONAL
129) Any repair work conducted in or outside the Maintenance Building that may be
visible to the public, including from the public right-of-way, shall be screened with
landscaping from public view.
130) Unless an earlier time is specified in these Conditions of Approval, campus
facilities open for student, participant, and public use shall close by 10:00 p.m.
with the exception of the Library, Auditorium, and Athletic Building which shall
close by 11:00 p.m. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the College may hold up to
six student activity events, such as dances, within a calendar year in which
campus facilities for such events may remain open until midnight provided that at
least three weeks before the event, the College provides written notice of the
special event to the Community Development Director. All such events shall also
be posted on the College’s website.
131) The following areas of the campus shall be closed for all use between sunset and
sunrise and such hours of closure shall be visibly posted in the applicable
location, unless a special use permit is obtained:
• Library Building outdoor deck
• athletic field
2 - 82
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 26 of 37
• tennis courts
• Athletic Facility outdoor balcony
• rose garden
132) Use of the outdoor pool shall be prohibited between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on Saturday and
Sunday, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained.
133) The delivery of goods and supplies, including food supplies, shall be limited to
the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
134) All regular truck deliveries shall use the loading docks adjacent to the student
union.
135) 24-hour campus security shall be provided, including but not limited to the
monitoring of parking lots, to ensure outdoor noise levels are kept to a minimum
and the College’s Code of Conduct, as described in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program attached to Resolution No. 2010-XX, is being adhered to.
Between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday to Friday, a security guard shall
be on duty at the information booth located near the campus entrance. At all
other times, the campus security shall patrol the campus.
136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment for outdoor events,, shall be
prohibited unless a Special Use Permit is obtained. Prior to September 1st of
each year, the College may request an annual Special Use Permit to conduct no
more than 24 outdoor events that include amplified sound, including sporting
events, graduation ceremonies, and evening tent events, during the next twelve
months (ending August 31st) Such activities and other outdoor events shall be
allowed to occur at Chapel Circle, the plazas adjacent to the Library and the
Auditorium (as shown on the site plan approved by the City Council), and the
outdoor pool area. The Athletic Field and Tennis Courts may only be used with
amplified sound for graduation ceremonies.
137) The existing preschool shall discontinue its operation upon the demolition of the
building occupied for this use in Phase I, as described in these Conditions of
Approval. The future use of a preschool, either within an existing building or in a
new building that needs to be constructed, shall require a revision to this
Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the provisions stated in the RPVMC and the
appropriate environmental review.
138) The College shall establish a Neighborhood Advisory Committee consisting of
one representative selected by each of the following neighboring homeowner’s
associations: El Prado, San Ramon, Mira Catalina, Seacliff Hilltop, and
2 - 83
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 27 of 37
Mediterrania; two at-large representatives who live within 3000 feet of the
campus (one of which shall be selected by the Community Development Director
and one by the College); and a representative from City Staff (non-voting
member). The Committee shall meet, at a minimum of once every fall and spring
term, to review any campus operational and neighborhood concerns. Reports on
the meetings shall be provided to the City Council and the Planning Commission.
PROGRAMS / STUDENT ENROLLMENT
139) The use of the College campus is permitted for only the following academic and
recreational programs and related activities as further described below:
• Traditional Degree Programs
• Non-Traditional Degree Programs
• Continuing Educational Programs, such as but not limited to English as a
Second Language (ESL)
• Recreational Activities
• Summer Educational Programs, such as but not limited to:
o Upward Bound
o High School Courses
o International Students Taking ESL courses
The use of the campus by groups or organizations unaffiliated with the College’s
educational and recreational programs that would have more than 100
participants or visitors present on campus at one time or would occupy more than
20% of the 463 required parking spaces during such use shall require, as
applicable, a Special Use Permit or a revision to this Conditional Use Permit.
All other uses and activities on the College campus are prohibited unless
approved with a revision to this Conditional Use Permit or a Special Use Permit
is obtained, whichever is applicable based on the request.
The sub-leasing of the campus for commercial purposes that are unaffiliated with
the College is prohibited.
140) The College’s “Traditional Degree Programs” are the academic programs
(Bachelor of Arts and Associate of Arts Degrees) that offer classes primarily
during the day on weekdays (Monday to Friday). The College’s “Non-Traditional
Degree Programs” are the academic programs (Bachelor of Arts and Associate
of Arts Degrees) that offer classes, including post-secondary academic classes,
primarily during weekday evenings and on weekends (Saturday and Sunday), so
as to generally avoid overlap with the class schedules of the Traditional Degree
2 - 84
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 28 of 37
Programs. The Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs are referred
collectively as the “Degree Programs.”
141) The College may also provide lifelong learning programs (“Continuing Education
Programs”) such as English as a second language (ESL). For the purposes of
this Conditional Use Permit, all students in such Continuing Education Programs
will be included as part of the total full-time and part-time permitted student
enrollment for both the Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs. The
determination as to which enrollment category such students are counted
towards will be based on whether the applicable classes are primarily offered
during the weekdays (in which case the students would be classified as part of
the Traditional Degree Program enrollment) or nights/weekends (in which case
they would be classified as part of the Non-Traditional Degree Program
enrollment).
142) As used in this Conditional Use Permit, a “student” means either a “full-time
student,” which is a person enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts or Associates of Arts
Degree Program or a Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 12
hours of course work during the applicable Term (as defined below), or a “part-
time student,” which is a person enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts or Associates of
Arts Degree Program or Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 3
hours, but up to 11 hours, of course work during the applicable Term.
143) The campus facilities may also be used for “Summer Educational Programs.”
Summer Educational Programs are educational programs for persons generally
14 years or older such as college-credit classes for local high school students,
Upward Bound, and international students taking ESL classes along with other
educational classes and recreational activities. Persons enrolled in Summer
Educational Programs are referred to in this CUP as “participants” for the
purpose of establishing enrollment limitations.
144) The College may operate throughout the calendar year under the following
general “Term” schedule: “Fall Term” (August through December), “Winter Term”
(January), “Spring Term” (February to May) and “Summer Term” (June through
July/August).
145) The following enrollment limitations apply:
A. The maximum total permitted enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs
on campus during the Fall, Winter, and Spring Terms is 793 students (full-
time and part-time). Of these 793 students, a maximum of 250 students
shall be enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts degree program (BA Program). For
the Summer Term, if other educational or recreational programs are
2 - 85
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 29 of 37
concurrently offered during weekdays, the maximum total permitted
enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs must be proportionally reduced
so that the combined enrollment in all such programs (e.g., Traditional
Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs) does not exceed a
total of 600 students (full-time and part-time) and participants.
B. The maximum total permitted enrollment in Non-Traditional Degree
Programs on campus during any Term is 150 students.
C. The maximum total permitted enrollment in any combination of Traditional
Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs offered
concurrently during summer weekdays (June to August) is 600 students
and participants.
146) The College shall submit to the City an enrollment report for each Term within an
academic year for all Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs and
Summer Educational Programs no later than 30-days after a term has
commenced. Failure to submit such a report on a timely basis will constitute a
violation punishable by administrative citation per the RPVMC.
NOISE / MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
147) All new mechanical equipment, regardless of its location, shall be housed in
enclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level of 65 dBA CNEL at the project
site’s property lines. Mechanical equipment for food service shall incorporate
filtration systems to reduce exhaust odors.
148) Mechanical equipment shall be oriented away from any sensitive receptors such
as neighboring residences, and where applicable, must be installed with any
required acoustical shielding.
149) All hardscape surfaces, such as the parking area and walkways, shall be
properly maintained and kept clear of trash and debris. The hours of
maintenance of the project grounds shall be restricted to Mondays through
Fridays from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. Said maintenance activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and Federal
holidays listed in the RPVMC.
150) Noise levels from on-campus activities shall not exceed 65 dba CNEL at all
property lines. Within 6 months of completion of each Phase of the Facilities
Plan, as described in these conditions, the College shall provide the City with
sound test reports based on direction provided by the Director, of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement to establish compliance with this condition.
LIGHTING
2 - 86
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 30 of 37
151) The applicant shall prepare and submit a Lighting Plan for the project site that is
in compliance with the RPVMC. The Lighting Plan, including a Photometric Plan,
shall clearly show the location, height, number of lights, wattage and estimates of
maximum illumination on site and spill/glare at property lines for all exterior
circulation lighting, outdoor building lighting, trail and sidewalk lighting, parking lot
lighting, landscape ambiance lighting, and main entry sign lighting. The Lighting
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development
Director prior to issuance of any building permit. An as-built lighting shall be
submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy
for each construction phase (as described in the conditions herein).
Prior to the installation of any on-site lighting for the parking lots and walkways,
an illuminated mock-up utilizing sample light standards and bulbs shall be set-up
for review and approval by the Community Development Director to ensure
compliance with the intent of the Municipal Code.
152) Parking and Security lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards and shall
conform to City requirements. Fixtures shall be shielded so that only the subject
property is illuminated; there shall be no spillover onto residential properties or
halo into the night sky. A trial period of thirty (30) days from the installation of all
the project exterior lighting, including building and parking lot lighting shall be
assessed for potential impacts to the surrounding properties. At the end of the
thirty (30) day period, the Community Development Director may require
additional screening or reduction in the intensity or numbers of lights which are
determined to be excessively bright or otherwise create adverse impacts.
Furthermore, said lighting shall be reviewed as part of the six (6) month review
described in Condition No. 18.
153) No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a
building, is above the line of the eaves. If the light source or fixture is located on
a building with no eaves, or if located on a standard or pole, the light source or
fixture shall not be more than ten feet above existing grade, adjacent to the
building or pole.
154) No outdoor lighting shall be allowed for the tennis courts or the athletic field,
other than safety lighting used to illuminate the walkways and trails through the
campus. A Special Use Permit shall be obtained for the temporary use of
lighting in these areas for special events as described in Condition No. 139.
155) The light standards at the parking lot along the property line adjacent to the
properties located on San Ramon Drive shall be no higher than the top of the
existing 5-foot tall privacy wall.
2 - 87
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 31 of 37
156) The light standards at the east parking lot, located within the lower tier, shall be
limited to a height of 42-inches, as measured from adjacent finished grade.
PARKING
157) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, a Parking Lot Plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the Community Development Director. The Parking Lot Plan
shall be developed in conformance with the parking space dimensions and
parking lot standards set forth in RPVMC or allowed in this condition of approval,
and shall include the location of all light standards, planter boxes, directional
signs and arrows. No more than 20% of the total parking spaces shall be in the
form of compact spaces.
158) The applicant shall construct and maintain no fewer than 463 on-site parking
spaces consisting of 391 standard parking spaces at a minimum dimension of 9’
wide by 20’ deep and a maximum 72 compact parking spaces at a minimum
dimension of 8’ wide by 15’ deep. In addition, the applicant shall construct and
maintain off-street loading spaces pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section
17.50.050 of the RPVMC.
Prior to the completion of Phase I, as described in Condition No. 60, the
applicant shall institute, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director and the Director of Public Works, a Parking Management Strategies
Plan to reduce College related parking in order to minimize street parking by
students and visitors by the following values:
• 11 percent or greater for student enrollment between 744 and 793;
• 6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;
• 0 percent or greater for student enrollment of 693 or less.
Parking Management Strategies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Provision of “carpool only” parking spaces
• Implementation of parking restrictions for students living in College-owned
off-campus residential housing
• Utilization of remote parking
• Provision of increased shuttle service
• Offering of financial incentives, such as providing transit passes
• Utilization of campus security to direct vehicles to available on-campus
parking during peak times (8am to noon, Monday through Friday)
• Utilization of campus security personnel to monitor street parking and
direct students and visitors to available on-campus parking spots
2 - 88
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 32 of 37
A Parking Management Strategy Program shall be prepared and submitted by
the Applicant for review and approval by the Community Development Director,
by July 1st of every year. Said Program shall:
• Document the prior-year’s achieved parking demand reductions;
• Identify strategies for use in the upcoming academic school year;
• Be modified on an as needed basis, as deemed necessary by the
Community Development Director.
159) Parking on the east side of the campus adjacent to the properties on San Ramon
Drive in the area marked on the site plan shall be limited to faculty and staff
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Parking between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is
prohibited in this area.
160) Parking at the lower terrace of the eastern parking lot in the area marked on the
site plan shall be prohibited between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. During this period
this portion of the parking lot must be closed off with the use of a chain or other
similar devise to prevent cars from parking or accessing this area.
161) Prior to the final inspection of project grading in Phase One, emergency vehicular
access shall be installed at the project site. A plan identifying such emergency
access shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the
Director of Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of any building
permit.
162) Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall prepare an
Emergency Evacuation Plan for review and approval by the Community
Development Director. Such plan shall comply with the City’s SEMS Multihazard
Functional Plan.
163) The use of grasscrete pavers shall be prohibited within the Geologic Building
Setback Area.
LANDSCAPING
164) A Landscape Plan shall be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect in
accordance with the standards set forth in RPVMC. The Landscape Plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director, a qualified
Landscape Architect, and an Arborist hired by the City, prior to the issuance of
any building or grading permits. The applicant shall establish a Trust Deposit
account with the City prior to the submittal of Landscape Plans to cover all costs
incurred by the City in conducting such review. The Landscape Plan shall
2 - 89
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 33 of 37
include, at a minimum, the plant species (Latin and common names), growth
rate, and maximum height at maturity for all proposed trees. The Landscape
Plan shall also identify the areas to be landscaped based on the phased
construction plan described in these conditions of approval. Included in the
Landscape Plan shall be a maintenance schedule as stated in these conditions.
During the Director’s review, the Landscape Plan shall also be made available to
the public for review and input.
The Landscape Plan shall comply with the water conservation concepts, the
View Preservation Ordinance, the planting requirements, the irrigation system
design criteria, and all other requirements of the RPVMC. All new trees and
foliage shall not exceed 16-feet in height, as measured from grade adjacent to
the tree or foliage, except along the south slope of the campus where the height
of such new trees must be maintained at a level below the ridgeline of the
nearest structure to the tree or foliage.
Prior to the completion of Phase I, as described in Condition No. 60, the existing
eucalyptus trees located near the proposed athletic field and the existing canary
pine trees located at the existing parking lot and drop-off circle shall either be
laced, trimmed, removed or any combination thereof, as determined by the
Community Development Director to restore views of Catalina Island from the
viewing area of properties to the north, including 2925 Crest Rd.
165) The applicant shall replace any of the existing trees removed from the southern
slope and the adjacent area prior to the completion of Phase I, as described in
Condition No. 60, with 24” box trees at a 2:1 ratio, to minimize the scarring or
erosion of the southern slope that may result from the project grading. Included
in the Landscape Plan described in the above Condition No. 164, the applicant
shall indicate the existing mature trees that will be removed, the trees that will be
retained, and the location of the new replanted trees. The replacement tree
species shall be approved by the Community Development Director and the City
Arborist as part of the Landscape Plan review and prior to the issuance of any
grading permit. If any of the retained mature trees become diseased or die, such
trees shall be removed and replaced with 24” box trees at a 2:1 ratio by the
applicant within thirty days of removal with a tree species approved by the
Community Development Director and the City Arborist.
166) Where practical, landscaping shall be planted and maintained to screen the
project buildings, ancillary structures, and the project’s night lighting as seen from
surrounding properties and/or public rights-of-way, as depicted on the Landscape
Plan. Landscaping shall be planted and maintained to screen the Athletic
Building from Palos Verdes Drive East and down-slope properties.
2 - 90
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 34 of 37
167) All landscaping shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the City
approved Landscape plan. During project construction, the respective planting
for each phase must be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for the adjacent building or improvement area, as deemed
appropriate by the Community Development Director.
168) The area between the retaining wall along the eastern parking area and the
existing privacy wall for the adjacent properties along San Ramon Drive shall be
used as a landscaped buffer area and planted with trees not to exceed 16-feet in
height to provide additional screening.
169) The area between the front and street-side property lines and the required 42”
wrought iron fence/wall adjacent to the parking areas shall be landscaped and
maintained on both sides of the fence/wall.
170) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a Campus Landscape Maintenance Plan
shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. At a
minimum, the Campus Landscape Plan shall be consistent with the following
requirements:
• That landscape maintenance activities, including lawn mowing, are
prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through
Saturday, and on Sundays and Federal holidays.
• That the use of weed and debris blowers and parking lot sweeping shall
be prohibited before 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
or before 9:00 a.m. or after 4:00 p.m. on Saturday or at any time on
Sundays and Federal holidays.
• General identification of the irrigation hours.
• General tree pruning and trimming schedule.
The implementation of the Campus Landscape Maintenance Plan shall be
formally reviewed by the Community Development Director three (3) months after
the first day of operation of the athletic field, and shall be subsequently reviewed
by the City Council at the six (6) month review described in Condition No. 18. At
either review, the Director and/or the City Council may determine that the Plan
needs to be revised to address potential noise impacts.
If the City receives any justified noise complaints that are caused by the
maintenance of the athletic field or campus landscape and lawn areas, as
verified by the Community Development Director, upon receipt of notice from the
2 - 91
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 35 of 37
City, the College shall respond to said verified complaint by notifying the City and
implementing corrective measures within 24 hours from the time of said notice.
The Director’s decision on any matter concerning the Campus Landscape
Maintenance Plan may be appealed to the City Council. Any violation of this
condition may result in the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
171) The area between the eastern parking lot and the property line (adjacent to the
City-owned San Ramon Reserve) depicted on the approved site plan shall be
landscaped with native plants that require little to no irrigation, as deemed
acceptable by the City Geologist. Such landscaping shall be reviewed and
approved by the Fire Department prior to planting for fuel modification
compliance. Such plants shall not exceed a height of 42-inches, unless the
Community Development Director determines that such landscaping may exceed
42-inches, but no higher than 7-feet, in order to minimize any view impairment to
the properties at 2742 and 2750 San Ramon Drive.
FENCES, WALLS, AND HEDGES
172) The applicant shall install and maintain a 42-inch tall combination wrought iron
fence and wall, finished in a stone veneer similar to the approved entry signs,
along the entire Palos Verdes Drive East frontage between the eastern property
line (adjacent to the corner of the rear property line for San Ramon) to the
northeastern corner of the tennis courts. Said fence/wall shall be setback a
minimum of 5-feet from the property line to allow this area to be landscaped,
irrigated and maintained with approved plants, not to exceed 42-inches in height,
as identified on the Landscape Plan.
173) The applicant shall construct a 6-foot tall screening wall along the College’s
eastern property line, as depicted on the approved site plan, beginning at the
southwest corner property line for Lot 26 (2742 San Ramon Drive / Tooley
property).
174) The applicant shall install and maintain a wrought iron fence, painted black, along
the westerly edge of the Athletic Field at a maximum height of 6-feet and 80%
open to light and air, as permitted with the City Council’s approval of the Minor
Exception Permit, as part of planning case number ZON2003-00317. Said
wrought iron fence shall be setback a minimum of 3-feet from the property line to
allow this area to be landscaped, irrigated and maintained with approved plants,
not to exceed 42-inches in height, as identified on the Landscape Plan. The
installation of lighting onto said fence is prohibited.
175) The applicant shall be allowed to install and maintain a retractable net at the
southwest and northwest corners of the Athletic Field, as depicted on the plans
2 - 92
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 36 of 37
dated December 2008 and January 2009. Said net, when extended, shall not
exceed a height of 20-feet, as measured from the lowest adjacent grade (891’)
on the Athletic Field side. The Athletic Field net shall be extended at all times
when the field is used for recreational activities involving balls and shall be
lowered at the conclusion of the recreational activity. Recreational activities
requiring the use of said net shall be prohibited on Sundays and the Federal
holidays listed in the RPVMC, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained.
Use of the Athletic Field shall be prohibited for activities involving baseballs, golf
balls, or other similar sized balls that cannot be adequately contained by the use
of the field net.
176) The use of chain link fencing shall be prohibited within the front and street-side
setback yards (along Palos Verdes Drive East) with the exception of the chain
link fencing for the tennis courts permitted with the City Council’s approval of the
Minor Exception Permit, as part of planning case number ZON2003-00317.
177) The chain link fence for the tennis courts shall be no higher than 10-feet in height
(including combined retaining walls and fencing), as measured from the lowest
adjacent finished grade to the top of the fence. Said fence shall consist of a
green or black mesh that is 80% open to light and air. The installation of lighting
onto said fence is prohibited.
178) All pools and spas shall be enclosed with a minimum 5’ high fence (80% open to
light and air), with a self-closing device and a self-latching device located no
closer than 4’ above the ground.
SIGNS
179) The applicant shall be permitted to construct two entry signs, adjacent to the
driveway entrance at Palos Verdes Drive East and Crest Road, at a maximum
height of 6-feet and affixed to a stoner veneer decorative wall, as illustrated in the
project plans reviewed by the City Council on March XX, 2010. The entry signs
shall consists of individually mounted brass finished letters that are reverse
channel lighting (back lit).
180) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit by Building and Safety, the applicant
shall submit for review and approval by the Community Development Director a
Master Sign Plan that is consistent with the sign requirements of the RPVMC.
The Master Sign Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the entry identification
signs for the College, the way-finding signs, the building signs, and other signs
2 - 93
Resolution No. 2010-XX
Exhibit B
Page 37 of 37
2 - 94
2 - 95
2 - 96
Laws of
the Game
2009/2010
Authorised by the International Football Association Board.
This booklet may not be reproduced or translated in whole
or in part in any manner without the permission of FIFA.
Published by Federation Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20,8044 Zurich,Switzerland
2 - 97
NOTES ON THE LAWS OF THE GAME
Modifications
Subject to the agreement of the member association concerned and provided
the principles of these Laws are maintained,the Laws may be modified in
their application for matches for players of under 16 years of age,for women
footballers,for veteran footballers (over 35 years of age)and for players with
disabilities.
Any or all of the following modifications are permissible:
•size of the field of play
•size,weight and material of the ball
•width between the goalposts and height of the crossbar from the ground
•duration of the periods of play
•substitutions
Further modifications are only allowed with the consent of the International
Football Association Board.
Male and Female
References to the male gender in the Laws of the Game in respect of referees,
assistant referees,players and officials are for simplification and apply to both
men and women.
Key
A single line in the left-hand margin indicates new Law changes.
3
2 - 98
CONTENTS S
Page Law
6 1 -The field of play
13 2 -The ball
15 3 -The number of players
18 4 -The players'equipment
21 5 -The referee
25 6 -The assistant referees
26 7 -The duration of the match
27 8 -The start and restart of play
29 9 -The ball in and out of play
30 10 -The method of scoring
31 11 -Offside
32 12 -Fouls and misconduct
36 13 -Free kicks
40 14 -The penalty kick
44 15 -The throw-in
46 16 -The goal kick
48 17 -The corner kick
50 Procedures to determine the winner of a match
or home-and-away
52 The technical area
53 The fourth official and the reserve assistant referee
55 Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and
guidelines for referees
130 Rules of the International Football Association Board
2 - 99
6 LAW 1 -THE FIELD OF PLAY
Field Surface
Matches may be played on natural or artificial surfaces,according to the rules
of the competition.
The colour of artificial surfaces must be green.
Where artificial surfaces are used in either competition matches between
representative teams of member associations affiliated to FIFA or international
club competition matches,the surface must meet the requirements of the FIFA
Quality Concept for Football Turf or the International Artificial Turf Standard,
unless special dispensation is given by FIFA.
Field Markings
The field of play must be rectangular and marked with lines.These lines belong
to the areas of which they are boundaries.
The two longer boundary lines are called touch lines.The two shorter lines are
called goal lines.
The field of play is divided into two halves by a halfway line,which joins the
midpoints of the two touch lines.
The centre mark is indicated at the midpoint of the halfway line.A circle with a
radius of 9.15 m (10 yds)is marked around it.
Marks may be made off the field of play,9.15 m (10 yds)from the corner
arc and at right angles to the goal lines and the touch lines,to ensure that
defending players retreat this distance when a corner kick is being taken.
2 - 100
Dimensions
The length of the touch line must be greater than the length of the goal line.
Length (touch line):minimum 90 m (100 yds)
maximum 120 m (130 yds)
Width (goal line)minimum 45 m (50 yds)
maximum 90 m (100 yds)
All lines must be of the same width,which must be not more than
12 cm (5 ins).
International Matches
Length:minimum 100 m (110 yds)
maximum 110 m (120 yds)
Width:minimum 64m (70 yds)
maximum 75 m (80 yds)
The Goal Area
Two lines are drawn at right angles to the goal line,5.5 m (6 yds)from the
inside of each goalpost.These lines extend into the field of play for a distance
of 5.5 m (6 yds)and are joined by a line drawn parallel with the goal line.The
area bounded by these lines and the goal line is the goal area.
7
2 - 101
8 LAW 1 -THE FIELD OF PLAY
The Penalty Area
Two lines are drawn at right angles to the goal line,16.5 m (18 yds)from the
inside of each goalpost.These lines extend into the field of play for a distance
of 16.5 m (18 yds)and are joined by a line drawn parallel with the goal line.
The area bounded by these lines and the goal line is the penalty area.
Within each penalty area,a penalty mark is made 11 m (12 yds)from the
midpoint between the goalposts and equidistant to them.
An arc of a circle with a radius of 9.15 m (10 yds)from the centre of each
penalty mark is drawn outside the penalty area.
Flagposts
A flagpost,not less than 1.5 m (5 ft)high,with a non-pointed top and a flag
must be placed at each corner.
Flagposts may also be placed at each end of the halfway line,not less than 1 m
(1 yd)outside the touch line.
The Corner Arc
A quarter circle with a radius of 1 m (1 yd)from each corner flagpost is drawn
inside the field of play.
2 - 102
9
Goals
A goal must be placed on the centre of each goal line.
A goal consists of two upright posts equidistant from the corner flagposts and
joined at the top by a horizontal crossbar.The goalposts and crossbar must
be made of wood,metal or other approved material.They may be square,
rectangular,round or elliptical in shape and must not be dangerous to players.
The distance between the posts is 7.32 m (8 yds)and the distance from the
lower edge of the crossbar to the ground is 2.44 m (8 ft).
Both goalposts and the crossbar have the same width and depth,which
do not exceed 12 cm (5 ins).The goal lines must be of the same width as
the goalposts and the crossbar.Nets may be attached to the goals and the
ground behind the goal,provided that they are properly supported and do not
interfere with the goalkeeper.
The goalposts and crossbars must be white.
Safety
Goals must be anchored securely to the ground.Portable goals may only be
used if they satisfy this requirement.
-~.-i \
t 1 Iii
II \J --.\
2 - 103
10 LAW 1 -THE FIELD OF PLAY
The Field of Play
GOAL LINE
GOAL AREA
•PENALTY MARK
PENALTY ARC
HALFWAY LINE
PENALTY AREA •
CORNER FLAGPOST
(compulsory)
OPTIONAL MARK
Corner Flagpost
Flag to be not less than
1.5 m/S ft high with a
non-pointed top
GOAL LINE CORNER ARC
Lines to be not more
than 12 cm/S ins
wide
Corner fJagpost is compulsory
2 - 104
11
Metric Measurements
'(..'()'()'
16.5m 7.32m S.5m
Minimum45m
165m
5.5
.15m
11m
•
Width:
Maximum 90m
9.15m
Imperial Measurements
~E ):4O):
18 yds 8 yds 6 yds
18 yds
Mi imu 50 d
o yds
•
r_-;:::==I:12=d:5:;-_~
6 yds
Width:
Maximum 100 ds
10 yds
2 - 105
9
RULE 1
The Field of Play
1.1 Dimensions
1.1.1 The field of play shall be rectangular, the width of which shall not
exceed the length.
1.1.2 The width shall not be more than 80 yards [73.15m] nor less than
65 yards [59.44m] and the length shall not be more than 120 yards
[109.73m] nor less than 110 yards [100.58m]; however, fields of less
than minimal dimensions may be used by prior written mutual consent
of the competing institutions. The optimum size is 75 yards [68.58m] by
120 yards [109.73m].
New facilities shall be a minimum of 70 yards [64.01m] in width by
115 yards [105.15m] in length.
It is the responsibility of the home team to notify the visiting team,
before the date of the game, of any changes in field dimensions (e.g.,
greater or lesser than minimal requirements), playing surface (e.g., from
grass to artificial or vice versa) or location of the playing site. Further, it
is recommended that teams agree on field dimensions before confirming
contests or signing game contracts.
Note: Rule 1.1.2 is an administrative rule and may be altered by prior written
mutual consent.
PENALTY—The game shall not begin and the referee shall file a report
with the governing sports authority. (see page 8)
A.R. 1.1.2. Is it legal to conduct a collegiate soccer game in an indoor facility?
RULING: Yes, provided the dimensions are in compliance with Rule 1.1.2 and
an outdoor facility is not available.
1.2 Boundary Lines
The field shall be marked with distinctive lines, in accordance with the
diagram on page 10, the longer boundary lines being called the touch lines
and the shorter the goal lines. The home team is responsible for the proper
marking of the field.
2 - 106
10 Rule 1 / The Field oF Play
2 - 107
Rule 1 / The Field oF Play 11
The lines shall meet at the corners; that is, the goal lines shall extend
completely across the field of play, including the area between the goal
posts, and the touch lines shall extend the entire length of the field.
PENALTY—The game shall not begin and the referee shall file a report
with the governing sports authority. (see page 8)
1.3 Field Markings and Measurements
All lines, which are part of the areas they define, shall be the same width
and measure not less than 4 inches [10.16cm] in width nor more than 5
inches [12.7cm] in width.
Measurements shall be taken from the outside of the line to the outside of
the line with which it interfaces. However, when measuring the width of the
goal and penalty areas, the measurements shall be taken from the inside of
the goal post to the outside of the six- and 18-yard lines, respectively.
In the case of a field that is playable but on which, during the course of the
game, the lines and markings have become invisible due to snow or other
such conditions, the lines and markings shall be assumed to be present and
decisions rendered accordingly.
All lines shall be clearly marked but may not be of a form (e.g., grooves,
curbs or other items) that could prove dangerous to players. Further, during
the regular season, painted logos or other noncommercial field markings are
at the discretion of the host institution.
A.R. 1.3. May an institution place markings of a commercial nature on the field?
RULING: No.
1.4 Halfway Line, Center Circle
A halfway line shall be marked out across the field of play. The center of
the field shall be indicated by a suitable mark, and a circle with a 10-yard
[9.14m] radius shall be marked around it.
PENALTY—The game shall not begin and the referee shall file a report
with the governing sports authority. (see page 8)
1.5 Goal Area
At each end of the field of play, two lines shall be drawn at right angles
to the goal line, 6 yards [5.49m] from the inside of each goal post. These
shall extend into the field of play for a distance of 6 yards [5.49m] and shall
2 - 108
12 Rule 1 / The Field oF Play
be joined by a line drawn parallel with the goal line. Each of the spaces
enclosed by these lines and the goal line shall be called a goal area.
PENALTY—The game shall not begin and the referee shall file a report
with the governing sports authority. (see page 8)
1.6 Penalty Area
At each end of the field of play, two lines shall be drawn at right angles
to the goal line, 18 yards [16.46m] from the inside of each goal post. These
shall extend into the field of play for a distance of 18 yards [16.46m] and
shall be joined by a line drawn parallel with the goal line. Each of the spaces
enclosed by these lines and the goal line shall be called the penalty area.
At each end of the field, a 2-foot [60.96cm] line or 9-inch [22.86cm]
spot shall be placed at a point 12 yards [10.97m] from the midpoint of, and
parallel to, the goal line. The line shall extend 1 foot [30.48cm] on either
side of the undrawn center line. The spot shall be situated at a point 12 yards
[10.97m] from the midpoint of, and parallel to, the goal line. The spot shall
extend 4½ inches on either side of the undrawn center line. The penalty kick
may be taken from any position on this line or spot.
Using the center of this penalty-kick line or spot, describe a 10-yard
[9.14m] arc outside the penalty area and closing on the penalty area line.
This is the restraining line for penalty kicks.
PENALTY—The game shall not begin and the referee shall file a report
with the governing sports authority. (see page 8)
1.7 Corner Area, Hash Mark
From each corner, a quarter circle, having a radius of 1 yard [.914m], shall
be drawn inside the field of play. In addition, a hash mark 1 yard [.914m]
in length, situated 6 inches beyond (but not touching) the field of play and
11 yards [10.05m] from the touch line shall be marked perpendicular to the
goal line at each corner of the field. (see Plan of Field, page 10)
PENALTY—The game shall not begin and the referee shall file a report
with the governing sports authority. (see page 8)
1.8 Corner Flags
A flag on a post not less than 5 feet [1.53m] high and having a nonpointed
top shall be placed at each corner; a similar flagpost may be placed opposite
2 - 109
Rule 1 / The Field oF Play 13
the halfway line on each side of the field of play, at least 1 yard [.914m]
outside the touch line.
The staff or post shall be approximately 1½ inches [3.81cm] thick and
may be either round or square. The corner flag may not be removed for
any purpose during the game. The flag shall be of some bright color, easily
distinguishable from the surroundings, and shall be about 2 feet [60.96cm]
long by 1 foot [30.48cm] wide and securely fastened to the post or staff.
The flagpost shall be implanted in the ground or shall rise from a pylon
that measures not more than 8 inches [20.32cm] across at its base, providing
the post itself rises directly above the center of the intersection of the touch
line and goal line.
A.R. 1.8. Upon inspecting the field, the referee discovers the absence of corner
flags on the corner flagposts. RULING: The home team shall obtain appropriate
flags for the corner flagposts. If unsuccessful, the game shall begin and the
referee shall file a report with the governing sports authority. (see page 8)
1.9 Goals
The goals shall be anchored, secured or counterweighted. The goal posts,
which shall be superimposed on goal lines of the same width and depth,
shall consist of two wooden or metal posts, equidistant from the corner
flags and 8 yards [7.32m] apart (inside measurement), joined by a horizontal
crossbar of similar material, the lower edge of which shall be 8 feet [2.44m]
from the ground.
The width or diameter of the goal posts and crossbar shall not be less
than 4 inches [10.16cm] nor more than 5 inches [12.7cm]. The posts and
crossbar may be square, rectangular, round or elliptical in shape, and shall
be painted white.
In addition, no markings other than a single manufacturer’s identification/
logo of appropriate size may appear on the goal posts or the crossbar.
PENALTY—The game shall not begin and the referee shall file a report
with the governing sports authority. (see page 8)
A.R. 1.9.a. The goal line is 4 inches wide and the depth of the goal post is 2
inches RULING: Illegal. The goal line and goal post shall be the same width
and depth.
A.R. 1.9.b. Goal posts are 5 inches in depth and the goal line 4 inches in width.
RULING: Illegal. The goal posts and goal line shall be the same dimensions.
2 - 110
14 Rule 1 / The Field oF Play
1.10 Goal Nets
Nets shall be attached to the uprights and crossbars and secured behind
each goal.
The goal nets shall be properly and firmly secured and put in order before
every match, and care taken that there are no holes or possible openings for
the escape of the ball. The nets shall be properly supported so that the top
of the net will extend backward on a level with the crossbar for a distance
of about 2 feet [.609m].
Nets may be multicolored; however, no markings other than a single
manufacturer’s identification/logo of appropriate size may appear on the
net. Further, banners may not be hung from the goals or nets and the
nets shall not be lettered, nor reflect school names, logos, slogans or any
commercial design.
PENALTY—The game shall not begin and the referee shall file a report
with the governing sports authority. (see page 8)
1.11 Displaced Crossbar, Goal Post
If any part of the goal becomes displaced during the game, play shall be
suspended, and every effort shall be made to repair or replace the goal. If,
in the referee’s opinion, it cannot be repaired to its original condition within
a reasonable period of time, the game shall be suspended. When the goal is
repaired or replaced, the referee shall restart the game by dropping the ball
where it was when play was suspended; or, if the ball was inside the goal
area, it shall be dropped at the nearest point outside the goal area.
1.12 Coaching and Team Areas
1.12.1 There shall be a coaching and team area. Team benches shall be on
the same side of the field, separated by a 10-yard neutral zone, and shall
be at least 10 feet [3.05m] (whenever possible) from the touch line.
1.12.2 Each coaching and team area shall be marked parallel to the touch
line and situated at least 10 feet [3.05m] from the touch line and
extending 20 yards [18.29m] from the five-yard neutral zone measured
from the halfway line in both directions.
Note: Rule 1.12.2 is an administrative rule and may be altered by prior written
mutual consent.
2 - 111
Rule 1 / The Field oF Play 15
PENALTY—The game shall begin but the coach shall be reminded that
in the future, proper markings are to be provided, and
the referee shall file a report with the governing sports
authority. (see page 8)
1.12.3 A member of the coaching staff who is part of the official traveling
party and is listed on the game roster, is permitted to view the game from
the press box or other areas, provided a press box or other suitable area
is available and there is no communication, in any way, with other bench
personnel in the coaching and team areas. Exception: Communication
and/or contact is permitted during halftime, overtime intervals and/or
any time the staff member returns to the coaching and team areas.
1.13 Photographers’ Line.
There shall be a designated photographers’ area. (see Plan of Field, page
10)
Note: Rule 1.13 is an administrative rule and may be altered by prior written
mutual consent.
1.14 Scorekeeper’s/Timekeeper’s Table
If not using a press box for timekeeping, it is recommended that the
scorekeeper’s/timekeeper’s table be placed on the same side of the field as
the team benches, situated equidistant between the two team benches and at
least 10 feet [3.05m] (whenever possible) from the touch lines.
Note: Rule 1.14 is an administrative rule and may be altered by prior written
mutual consent.
1.15 Spectator Restraining Line
It is recommended that a rope, fence or some form of demarcation be used
to keep spectators a minimum of 20 feet [6.10m] (whenever possible) away
from the touch lines and goal lines.
Note: Rule 1.15 is an administrative rule and may be altered by prior written
mutual consent.
1.16 Scoreboard and Clock
It is recommended that an electronically controlled clock and scoreboard,
which can be seen by spectators and both benches, be provided and
maintained in proper working order. (see Rule 6.3)
2 - 112
16 Rule 1 / The Field oF Play
Note: Rule 1.16 is an administrative rule and may be altered by prior written
mutual consent.
1.17 Lighting
The field should be uniformly and adequately lighted. Lighting engineers
should be placed in charge of this important factor when planning new
installations. For information on recommended specifications for lighting,
contact the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 120 Wall
Street, 17th Floor, New York, New York 10005; telephone 212/248-5000.
According to the NCAA Broadcasting Manual, the target light of NCAA
championships for television broadcasting should be a range of 125 to 150
maintained vertical foot candles. The minimum levels should read 125-foot
candles.
1.18 Grading, Slope of Field
The rules of conduct in the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Soccer Rules
do not specify, nor do they legislate matters pertaining to the slope
or grading of playing facilities. The rules specify only maximum and
minimum dimensions of fields constructed after September 1995. New
field construction minimum dimensions are 115 yards (length) by 70
yards (width). The following guidelines appear to be generally accepted
standards for new facilities: A field with no greater than a two percent
slope at the declining edges of the touchlines, provided that the outer lines
of demarcation do not abut with hazardous curbing or boundary materials,
is considered preferable. Architectural engineers should be consulted with
reference to the actual height references that pertain to grading percentages
or broken back construction.
2 - 113
RASM~SSH:&ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Planning
Interiors
March 17,2010
By E-Mail and U.S.Mail
Ara Mihranian,AICP
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391
Re:Responses to Comments:Marymount College Campus Modernization Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report,AppendiX D
Dear Mr.Mihranian
On behalf of Marymount College,I am submitting these responses to certain requests
for information made by you in your e-mail of March 12,2010 as well as responses to certain
statements made by Lois Karp and James Gordon during the public comment period on
Appendix 0 to the Marymount College Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)with respect to
the analysis of the alternative location for the proposed athletic field requested by the City
Council (Alternative No.0-1)and the preliminary grading and drainage plans.
1.Responses to comments on Athletic Field Alternative No.D-1.
a.The site of the existing athletic field is not sufficient to meet current
NCAA regulations for a new soccer field nor is it suitable for even the enhanced size of
the field currently proposed by the College for the western portion of the campus.
To begin,in your e-mail you asked for "an explanation as to why the field is shown on
the existing site plan ...differently than what is physically being used:The "plan"that you are
referring to was originally prepared in 2004 and labeled "Existing Site/Demolition Plan:As
indicated by the label,its intended purpose was to show existing improvements on the campus
that were proposed for removal or reconfiguration.A full copy of that plan (with some minor
revisions from 2005)is attached as Attachment 1.Specifically,the plan indicates the
generalized location of the existing sports field and further indicates that the field is "to be
removed."As you are aware,City staff and RBF included a modified version of this plan as
Exhibit 3-3 in the Draft and Final EIR (FEIR)at page 3-1 to depict the location of the existing
campus facilities - a use for which the plan is perfectly appropriate.
246 SOUTH MltlS ROAD
VEIHUilA.CAUfORtHA 93003
805 644-7341 805 64s.!:)0J31
FAX 805 644-6082
2 - 114
RASMUSSEN &ASSOCIATES
Ara Mihranian,AICP
March 17,2010
Page 2
As far as I am aware,the College has never made any affirmative representation that
the generalized depiction of the field area in what became FEIR Exhibit 3-3 is either to scale or
for that matter reflective of how the field is being utilized for any particular activity.In fact,the
discussion as to the existing campus operations beginning at page 3-12 of the FEI R,including
the summary of all sports activities occurring on campus,makes no mention of Exhibit 3-3.This
is not surprising because the current recreation area serves multiple uses for the College,and
there are no permanent field lines.In short,the information in the FEIR regarding the general
location of the current sports area is and always has been fully accurate.
Your request for assistance in responding to the numerous comments made by Lois
Karp and James Gordon with respect to the site and use of the existing sports field is also
somewhat puzzling because their statements appear to have little to do with the analysis in
Appendix D,and the numerous errors in what appear to be "strawman"arguments are very
obvious.
For example,in the first page of his letter to the City Council dated February 17,(sic)
2009,Mr.Gordon correctly notes that the College has never made any representations
regarding whether the field was a "regUlation"field.Based on their letters,Ms.Karp and Mr.
Gordon apparently have taken it upon themselves to sign Marymount College up for
membership in the Federation International de Football Association (FIFA),a Swiss-based
international sports organization,since they each claim the existing field area "fully meets"
FIFA's minimum regulations for a soccer field,which,according to Mr.Gordon,is 100 yards
(300 feet)by 50 yards (150 feet).
According to the College's Athletic Director,Greg Narleski,the College is not a member
of FIFA,and its soccer teams do not play under FIFA rules.Curiously,in his February 17,2010
letter,Mr.Gordon did review National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)regulations for
football fields,but,nevertheless,elected to present FIFA regulations with respect to the alleged
proper size of a soccer field.Under current NCAA rules,which are readily available,new
soccer field construction minimum dimensions are 115 yards (345 feet)long by 70 yards (210
feet)wide.(See Attachment 2.)The existing field location is clearly not large enough to contain
a regulation-size NCAA soccer field nor can this portion of the campus even adequately contain
what the College has generally described as a "closer to regulation field"such as the field
originally proposed by the College for the western portion of the campus or the modified design
analyzed in Appendix D as the College's Alternative No.D-2.
I have prepared a scaled site plan (Attachment 3)that superimposes a field identical in
size to what the College has proposed for the western portion of the campus (Le.,300 feet by
165 feet)to demonstrate the site constraints in the eastern portion of the campus.As is readily
apparent,this location would place the southeastern corner of the field on a neighboring
property and the southwesterly corner would cascade down the slope.The northerly portion of
the field would come within 10 feet of the existing classroom building.In addition,if the field
were sited more in a clockwise direction to the east and further north as is depicted Exhibit 2-4
2 - 115
RASMUSSEN &ASSOCIATES
Ara Mihranian,AICP
March 17,2010
Page 3
of Appendix D,which diagram was prepared by City staff and RBF,significant retaining walls
would need to be constructed along the easterly property line,which was not mentioned in the
analysis of Appendix D nor by Mr.Gordon or Ms.Karp.
Finally,I would also like to remind the City that the enhanced field size desired by the
College is just one of many reasons why the College proposed,and the City's Planning
Commission endorsed,the relocation of the athletic field to the western portion of the campus.
These reasons include,in addition to the points noted below,proximity to the new Athletic
BUilding and a more pedestrian friendly and aesthetically pleasing parking configuration and
campus layout.
b.Neither Appendix 0 nor the College's comments on the document
referenced any potential physical impediment between the Library and the athletic field
location analyzed in Alternative No.0-.1.
With respect to Mr.Gordon's comments about possible confusion (allegedly by City staff
and RBF)as to whether the location of the new Library would be an "impediment"to retaining
the athletic field in the eastern portion of the campus because Exhibit 2-4 used an older site
plan for a base map,I see nothing in Appendix D that would support this statement and you
(along with RBF)would appear to be in the best position to clarify your understanding of the
analysis.Among other negative new impacts found to result from the implementation of
Alternative No.0-1 (e.g.,potentially significant impact to soil stability),the analysis in Appendix
D identified a significant new visual impact arising from this alternative due to the need to
relocate a substantial amount of additional parking (over 90 spaces)to the western portion of
the campus.Marymount's comments simply noted that the field (whether configured as in
Exhibit 2-4 or as in Attachment 3)would be in close "proximity"to the Library with respect to
noise and that there would be a need to separate the field from other campus facilities through
the use of protective netting,which was consistent with the analysis in Appendix D.
1.The athletic field location in Alternative No.0-1 would create
a significant pUblic safety hazard.
The only "impediment"issue raised by the College with respect to Alternative No.0-1,
and one of the main reasons why the College has never recommended placing the field closer
to the existing or proposed academic facilities,is because the location would interfere with the
fire lane proposed to run south of and parallel to Cecilia Hall.The applicable fire regulations
require fire department access no more than 150 feet from any side of a building.This intrusion
into the area where the fire lane is to be located is accurately depicted in Exhibit 2-4 of
Appendix D,and can also be seen in Attachment 3.
On page 14 of one his letters (entitled "Appendix D:Alternative D-1),Mr.Gordon
incorrectly states that the "proposed 'Fire Lane'access was only deemed necessary due to the
proposed Residence Halls."What Mr.Gordon has failed to take into consideration is that there
2 - 116
RASMUSSEN &ASSOCIATES
Ara Mihranian,AICP
March 17,2010
Page 4
is an existing fire lane and access south of the Student Union and faculty building that will no
longer exist due to the elimination of the driveway and parking lot in that area,as well as the
construction of the new Athletic BUilding.Therefore,required fire access can only be provided
from the fire lane proposed in the College's site plan that was approved by the Planning
Commission.
2.Retaining the athletic field "as-is"and "where-is"is not a
responsible alternative according to the City's geologist and environmental consultant.
On the same page 14 of the letter referenced above,Mr.Gordon asserts that "Retention
of the existing Castle field in place at its present location and elevation 'as-is'does not ...
introduce any new problematic drainage or irrigation issues,"and goes on to characterize this
purported alternative as "the responsible solution ...,which guarantees significant environmental
benefits."This layperson's opinion is extremely troubling not only because it is wholly
unsubstantiated by any data or evidence,but also because it is completely contrary to the
expert opinion of the City's geologist and RBF,each of whom has recommended against
continued irrigation of the existing field area (or the use of grasscrete if the area is a parking lot)
due to potential soil erosion and slope stability issues.(See Appendix 0 at 3.6-2:"Adverse
surface drainage associated with the ...athletic field proposed under Alternative 0-1 could
promote accelerated soil erosion,which could lead to surficial slope failures."Given that the
College's geotechnical consultant is of a sirnilar opinion with respect to the potential impacts of
Alternative No.0-1,the unanimity of professional judgment must control.
c.City Staff's prior recommendation to shift additional parking spaces
onto the site of the current sports field area would conflict with Alternative No.0-1,and
based on the analysis in Appendix 0,would further increase the significant and
unmitigated environmental impacts of Alternative No.0-1.
In preparing these responses,I also realized that your recommendation to the City
Council set forth in the staff report for the City Council's August 18,2009 meeting to establish a
261-foot parking area setback from the property line of two San Ramon residences to the most
easterly parking spaces requires the use of the entire location of the current sports field area.
As such,it is clearly inconsistent with Alternative No.0-1.Indeed,if this same recommendation
is made In the staff report for the City Council's March 30 hearing,and further consideration is
given to Alternative No.0-1,your report must acknOWledge that rather than the significant
aesthetic impact associated with the relocation of at least 90 spaces to the western portion of
the campus found in AppendiX 0,an additional 30 or more spaces would likely have to be
relocated,thus increasing the significance of this identified and unmitigated impact by at least
an additional 33 percent.
2 - 117
RASMUSSEN &ASSOCIATES
Ara Mihranian,AICP
March 17,2010
Page 5
2.Responses to comments on preliminary drainage and grading plans.
MK Engineering Group has been retained by the College to provide civil engineering
services for the project.To date,they have updated the preliminary grading/drainage plan'
initially prepared by the civil engineering firm MAC.Design Associates.MK Engineering will be
the engineer of record for the construction drawing,permitting and construction phases of the
project.They were retained because of their close proximity to the site and their ability to
provide on-call and on-site support during grading activities.Mr.Gordon's statement that the
current preliminary grading plan has been supplied by the architectural firm of Rasmussen and
Associates and generated by "a new drafting source"is misleading.All work done in the
preparation of the preliminary drainage and grading plans has been done by registered civil
engineering firms working as consultants for Rasmussen &Associates.
With respect to Mr.Gordon's comments that certain exhibits in the soil's report do not
match the current site plan base map,this is simply a matter of the site plan being more current.
Thus,for example,the Library,the basic footprint of which has not changed,has not been
updated in the soil's report.It is very typical in a lengthy EIR process not to update exhibits.
More to the point,as noted above,the precise distance between the Library and the athletic
field analyzed in Allemative No.D-1 had absolutely no impact on the analysis or findings in
Appendix D of the FEIR.
It is not clear as to the extent to which City staff was aware of Mr.Gordon's repeated
attempts to directly contact various state officials and project consultants (inclUding the City's
own consultants),but we have asked Associated Soils Engineering (ASE)to provide a response
to the storm drain alignment question raised by Mr.Gordon in his letter to the California Board
for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors dated January 12,2010.Here is ASE's
response:
"It was stated by ASE that 'Most of the drain line will be within the shear key backfill
before ex1ending into the natural slope and ultimately into the detention basin.'The
original alignment was located across the natural slope below (south of)the proposed
shear key.The City reviewers objected to this location and the alignment was altered to
the location along the top of slope from the existing classrooms to the existing chapel
before transitioning to the slope and ultimately into the retention basin.While there are
no grades listed on the Latest Grading Plan,it is likely that the drain pipe itself will be
within the bedrock beneath the shear key backfill,prior to the alignment moving into the
natural slope.Provided the trench is adequately shored or 'laid back'during excavation
and pipeline placement,and is subsequently adequately backfilled,the proposed storm
drain will not adversely affect the slope stability of the improvements above the slope."
2 - 118
RASMUSSEN &ASSOCIATES
Ara Mihranian,AICP
March 17,2010
Page 6
Mr.Gordon's purported "concerns"over information "shown to the Planning Commission
and Public"in the preliminary drainage and grading plan,which has subsequently been
updated,are baseless.This is because the current preliminary drainage and grading plan
remains consistent with the plan analyzed in the FEIR.The current preliminary drainage and
grading plan has been updated from the previously submitted MAC.Design Associates plan in
the following areas to minimize parking lot slopes,provide better positive drainage and lower the
height of retaining walls while maintaining the drainage patterns and balanced grading condition
analyzed in the FEIR.While it is not practical to list every elevation difference in the grading
plan,the following list depicts the major adjustments to accomplish these enhanced features:
•Adjusted location of accessible path of travel from pUblic right of way at
intersection of Crest Drive and PV North to campus buildings though NE parking
lot.
•Raised the athletic field 1 foot (field ridge 893.0 to 894 .0)to allow for positive
drainage.
•Raised the tennis courts 8 feet from elevation 892.0 to elevation 900.0.This
elevation was adjusted to minimize the height of retaining walls (from 20 feet to
12 feet),which walls are actually be/ow grade because of the slope.
On Page 5 of his comment letter on Appendix D,Mr.Gordon has prepared a "home
made"visual simulation that purports to show a substantial above-grade wall at the location of
the tennis courts.The tennis court retaining walls will be below the grade of the street,and only
a 42"wall/wrought iron fence will be visible from the street regardless of the height of the
retaining wall.
•Terraced NW parking lot with maximum 4 foot retaining wall (decreasing to l'in
height)between parking aisies.This modification lowered the maximum height
of parking surface elevation from 935.5'to 932.54'.
•Removed cut area at south end of east parking lot.Grade adjusted to maintain
existing grade (902.0'to 908.48').Adjusted height at Rose Garden and open
space to allow for positive drainage away from property line and slope.
•Adjusted grade at retaining wall south of fire department access/pedestrian walk.
Retaining wall height reduced from 12 feet to 6 feet above finished grade.
In short,all of these adjustments were done to achieve environmental benefits.
Moreover,it is quite nonnal for preliminary drainage grading plans to change as the project is
developed into construction documents.What do not change,and are not changing here,are
the design criteria and conditions established during the planning process and Ultimately
enforced during the plan check process.Every decision made by the civil engineer while
2 - 119
RASMUSSEN &ASSOCIATES
Ara Mihranian,AICP
March 17,2010
Page 7
developing the construction documents will be checked to be in compliance with the design
criteria and conditions established during the planning process.
Finally,at your request,an exhibit has been submitted to graphically dipict the cut and
fills areas on the site,which is the first time I have ever received such a request during the
environmental review process.All exhibits have been wet-stamped by a licensed engineer.
As always,please let me know if you need any further information.
Yours truly,
RASMUSSEN &ASSOCIATES
~'AI~AP
Principal
Attachments:
1.2004 Demolition Plan
2.NCAA Soccer Rules
3.Site Plan with Overlay of Proposed Western Campus Athletic Field
cc:Dr.Michael Brophy
2 - 120
~~Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii
1111111111111111
illillillllil iii
\
\'CfAiA"~'\\~[)J~V--oRI
2 - 121
RULE 1 Attachment 2
The Field of Play
1.1 Dimensions
1.1.1 The field of play shall be rectangular,the width of which shall not
exceed the length.
1.1.2 The width shall not be more than 80 yards [73.I5m]nor less than
65 yards [59.44m]and the length shall not be more than 120 yards
[109.73m]nor less than 110 yards [100.58m];however,fields of less
than minimal dimensions may be used by prior written mutual consent
of the competing institutions.The optimum size is 75 yards [68.58m]by
120 yards [109.73m].
New facilities shall be a minimum of 70 yards [64.0Im]in width by
115 yards [105.I5m]in length.
It is the responsibility of the home team to notify the visiting team,
before the date of the game,of any changes in field dimensions (e.g.,
greater or lesser than minimal requirements),playing surface (e.g.,from
grass to artificial or vice versa)or location of the playing site.Further,it
is recommended that teams agree on field dimensions before confirming
contests or signing game contracts.
Note:Rule 1.1.2 is an administrative rule and may be altered by prior written
mutual consent..
PENALTY-The game shall not begin and the referee shall file a report
with the governing sports authority.(see page 8)
A.R.1.1.2.Is it legal to conduct a collegiate soccer game in an indoor facility?
RULING:Yes,provided the dimensions are in compliance with Rule 1.1.2 and
an outdoor facility is not available.
1.2 Boundary Lines
The field shall be marked with distinctive lines,in accordance with the
diagram on page 10,the longer boundary lines being called the touch lines
and the shorter the goal lines.The home team is responsible for the proper
marking of the field.
9
2 - 122
10
PLAN OF FIELD
HASH MAR K ---""1
:....-.44 YDS.(40.23m)- ----9:
I L<.aJ'tt,l$.!
1 ~--(tll;>9mr--~6YDSI J
I 10YOO,I ->Hl'i~i:J {549m)'I~,",,"(1646m}~~~+-:[7.3;Qn4---)ol •:
HASHMAnI<
(1 \'1l.1.S!14mlIn lel1\lth bOrCllO
fIC<1J linc;11 ydc;110.Q.5 m l((.J'l'I
touCh HM;fOCalecl.a1 each
~Qmer of 1id;l)
TOUCH
UN!'
PENAI.TY KICK
LINE 2 fT.
(60.96<:m\
bR spot 9"
lJlAMEfER
(22.86cm)
f'ENALTV ]<ICK
LINE 2 FT:
(60.96om)
ORSPOT9'
DIAMETER
(22.860m)
"\./~.
A T -.r -.r6 YOS.CORNER~I GOAL I AREA Jifl491n)FLAG
18 YnS.1ZYD$;~'ll.0'S7rn)(1B.46rn)
I 10YOS-·'
..(9.1411~
TOUCH
LINE
COACHING
AND TEAM
AREA
20 YDS.
(18.2901)
,:.
HALFWAY
UNE FLAC CIRCLE 10 FT.t
(optional;1 yd.~_..:.H;;.A=L:..fII\.:.:I.:..:AY::'-_+-__~'~'_-If-_..:::L1.:.:N:.:;;E'--_-I(3.050»10 YDS.
[.914m)from (9.I;I5m)
touch line.10 YDS.(S.14m)"
bolh sides)RADIUS t
COACHING
AND TEAM
AREA
20YDS.
(18.29m)
•.:.
SPECTATOn
RESTRAINING
LINE 20FT
(6.12m)from
touch In",(both
sid ••)
~.~CORNER
20 H.FLAG
(6.12m)
j
I_.~.....I CORNF.R
I--.flAG I OOALAREA I CORNER
rLAG CORNFR
•FEET
{t.!l3m)
I'Me,For marking purposes,!he
mS;:lf;Urement of any !rn~Int~rtadng
lh11h tiny other line ruus!be lroum
from the outside ofthe line to the
oulsidH ot the uitlr.-r llm~.
~k -_.~-..8 YARDS (7.S'm)._---.l~.,,
8 F~ET
(?44m),
~
•5YDS.It"I 5YD"tAAEAHADIUSI(4'57 )1-<----·lIASH MARKS -'-~(4 5r~')1 YD.(.914m)~. m ~e;r1'.t('Illl21.l)fjtool ti YDS..m 'f-___'...°"""....1 (b.4Drn)_------'(--
rHOTOGRArHEp.S'UNE --,---.--...----.-.-20ft.·1-
(bohind each goal)'f (6.12m)
SPECTATOR LINE ---
(behind each goal)
2 - 123
1
\
\
I
I
I
HAAGflI&.:2OIO RASMUSSEN'ASSOCIATES
o
o
o
o
o
,
\
A achment 3
1 ,,~I I,I,I
I I
I I
I ,
I I,,
lIC..<"U,!'.!lQ"
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CALIFORNIA ~r~hll',,'hr.
""~""l"!lI"t_n",.
2 - 124
-----Original Message-----
From:bubba32@cox.net [mailto:bubba32@cox.net]
Sent:Thursday,March 25,2010 10:58 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Staff Report Comments on Alternative D-1 and other related
subjects on Appeal
Gentlemen
In response to the receipt today of the March 30,2010 Staff report
(without attachments)I would like to share with you some relevant
rebuttal points and additional concerns with the current EIR Appeal,as
follows.
with regard to the Staff Report -Noise at the Library,I had already
included a rebuttal to that charade:There is existing noise now at
that location to begin with,and the Library design in the Eastern side
does not have any openings other than a balcony which is not subject to
noise that those occupying don't want or find annoying.This kind of
noise is an internal Marymount problem they have lived with in the
Classroom building for 30+years,if any,to the College itself,not
outsiders.The Library entrance is located on the opposite side from
the field and away from any significant noise issue as is the balcony
(East
side)behind Closed doors.If that is considered significant noise then
so should the same noise emanating from the proposed D-2 location be
similarly a problem.
To the second point,aesthetics light and glare,that is another
charade because if that were true,then there should be no parking
allowed anyway at this Western site to begin with.Why does the new
College-proposed western parking get a "pass"for these same issues
while at the same time the alternate additional parking comes under
fire.Double standard.
You may be interested (attached)in two review items:The History of
the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans,and the Calculation of
Shear Key Grading Quantities that have been Omitted/ignored.Both are
Excel compatible files.The latter shows an omission of 130,000 Cubic
Yards of On-site grading over and above what has so far been disclosed
and that was never revealed to the Public,Planning Commission or to
the City Council.The Council members have never even received the Plan
itself (January 6,2010 Plan)that they are supposed to be deciding
upon this Tuesday evening.
More info:The Marymount plan and related ads state "at no taxpayer
expense"which is false as you know from contacts with the City Clerk
because the City must foot the ballot bill for that Initiative which
allegedly grants the College all those favors.
And,with respect to your brilliant question about when do those
facilities come on-line,it is now obvious that for some sustained
period of time the College will not have ANY field because in Phase I
they must grade the parking lots and that would cause a loss of the
existing field unless the CC mandates retention.Then,if the
Initiative passes,that field is totally gone for parking but the
2 - 125
College (Condition 60)will not build the new athletic field until
Phase II -if that plan holds.
If not,and they try to do it in Phase I,there is a long delay before
the parking at the east side can be constructed because of the special
and extensive shoring excavation preparations needed and additional
time-consuming process of such shoring,etc.It goes on and on.
"Lake Brophy"is created by a temporary road across the excavated
Athletic Building/Pool hole which will be at about elevation 899',
whereas the "Aswan Dam"aka the temporary road will be at about
elevation 911'.No drainage for the pool is shown now,and no drainage
(temporary)is shown to keep this "Lake Brophy":from forming in wet
weather.That is an obvious and dangerous goof.
The "Aswan Dam"is shown in Appendix A as Exhibit 3.7a in this Phase I
diagram.It is similarly in gross error because the Construction
staging area depicted in this diagram sits directly atop Cross Section
A -A'a remedial grading area of about 25'in depth and 100+feet in
width and length.Great systems engineering.This is one reason that I
have questioned the redaction of DEIR Exhibit 3-8 which would reveal
the required tasks and provide a reasoned planning basis (Pert Network)
which would give confidence -and some transparency -to the real
sequencing of activities required to be performed.This is the same
kind of information used by Turner for Terranea planning and
management.Why has this not been provided here,even in its basic
form?One obvious reason is that it would have to show the remedial
grading,all 130,000 Cubic Yards,and that might be embarrassing.Let's
deal with that later,in "Plan Check".
What we have,instead is lots of College funding for the pretty
brochures and misleading PR but very little attention to the real nuts
and bolts design problems.
Jim
2 - 126
Lynn Morton
30820 Casilina Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
March 22,2010
Mayor Stefan Wolowicz
Mayor Pro Tempore Thomas D.Long
Councilman Brian Campbell
Councilman Douglas W.Stem
Councilman Anthony M.Misetich
City ofRancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
Marymount College Expansion
Dear Sirs:
I strongly oppose the Marymount College expansion project.It is too long,too
large,unsafe and incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes.
I live in the Mira Catalina neighborhood and I enjoy the peaceful,country feel
that living in Rancho Palos Verdes provides.The Marymount Expansion Project will
place eight years ofnoise,dust,construction and trucks in my neighborhood.This is
unacceptable.
I urge the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to protect our beautiful,quiet
neighborhood.I support the CCCIME appeal.Our quality of life will be destroyed if
Marymount College proceeds with this project.
Sincerely,
J/rn rJ1~
Lynn Morton
2 - 127
LAW OFFICES OF
WILLIAM W.BURNS
15720 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD,SUITE IA
LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA 95030
TELEPHONE (40B)395-2226
FACSIMILE (406)395-6460
March 19,2010
Mr.and Mrs.Marc Harris
2750 San Ramon Drive
Rancho Palos Verde,CA 90275
RE:MARYMOUNT COLLEGE APPLICATION
Dear Marc and Erin:
RECEIVED
MAR 222010
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
You have asked me to review your rights with regard to the Application for expansion
by Marymount College.As a former Deputy City Attorney responsible for land use and
zoning matters,as well as,being an Attorney in private practice for over twenty five (25)
years dealing with litigation and Trial in real property related matters,I am well versed in
the law related to the Application of Marymount.Thus,even though I have
not had the opportunity to review all aspects of the legal problems created by the
Application,I can render a preliminary opinion.
You purchased your home at 2750 San Ramon Drive in good faith relying upon the fact
that the City of Rancho Palos Verde was dedicated to the quality of life.Each of you
live and work in your home which has a swimming pool,spa,and large patio that backs
up to the Marymount property.From your property,you have an expansive view of the
ocean and Catalina Island.At present you have very little interference with the
enjoyment of your property by Marymount College.
If the Council approves the Marymount Application,the quality of life that you now
enjoy in your home will be destroyed.In addition,the monetary value of your property
will be destroyed.The many negatives of the proposed project including an eight (8)
year period to construct the project with extended hours of construction,extensive
grading and earth moving,the increase of students and faculty,cars parked at your back
fence at all hours of the day and night will surely destroy all enjoyment of your home.
It appears that it will be necessary for the Council to grant many variances for the College
to have its way.If the Council takes such action for the benefit of the college,it will be
giving to the College while taking from you.However,if the Council decides to approve
the Application and destroys your property rights,you may have several actions.This
2 - 128
MARCH 19,2010
PAGE 2
could be an inverse condemnation of your property for the benefit of the College.
In addition,you may have rights that can be explored in Federal Court for the damage
you suffer in a civil rights action (Federal Civil Rights Act 42 USC Section 1983).
This has been a preliminary analysis of the problem.Please keep me advised.I shall
Prepare a thorough analysis upon your request.
SinC~..//~r~,//,-;;-_----
/,/"William W.B s
WWB:ep
2 - 129
Friday,March 19,2010
Ara Mihranian
Principal Planner
City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
RE:Letters to the city council re:Marymount Expansion
Dear Mr.Mihranian and the City Council:
RECEIVED
MAR 222010
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
We live at 2750 San Ramon Dr.and would like to continue to state for the record that we are staunchly opposed to the
current plans for the Eastern parking lot and the 8 year building schedule.
Eastern Parking Lot:While Marymount College and their Architect have been somewhat accommodating at attempting to
lessen the impact of a parking lot being built right next to our house (Increasing the setback to 80 feet versus 261 feet as
recommended by the planning commission),we still feel,strongly,that a parking lot will have several significant negative
effects and frankly,are perplexed as to the decision to build anything in the Eastern area at all.
8 Year Building schedule:Marymount has stated that the reason they need an 8 year building schedule is to raise funding
for the project.Why should the residents bear the brunt of the negative impacts if Marymount has neither the funding,
financing or capital to complete the project in a normal amount of time?They recommended 8 years with the dorms in
their expansion plans and now without them,they still need 8 years?
Let us look at Terranea for a sanity check:
Terranea:A 102-acre project is comprised of a 400,000 sq ft.,360 room hotel that features 135,000 sq.ft.of
indoor and outdoor meeting and event space as well as 50 casitas,32 villas and 20 bungalow units.Resort
amenities include a 25,000 sq.ft.Spa including a Fitness and Wellnes Center,Spa Cafe and two club rooms,one
of which is situated on the bluff overlooking the ocean.Turner also managed the associated sitework that includes
1,000,000 cubic yards of earthwork,a 1,075 vehicle parking area,the nine-hole Links at Terranea golf course and
nine distinct water features,including the 5,000 sq.ft.main resort pool.
Marymount proposed:Demolition of 18,022 square feet of existing floor area and the construction of 61,928
square feet of new floor area,including expanding 14,916 square feet of eXisting buildings.The approved
development would result in a total of 151,090 square feet of campus floor.The approved improvements will
require approximately 79,200 cubic yards of earth movement (combined cut and fill)to prepare the site for
construction.
So,Terranea is a significantly larger development.
New York,N.Y.,July 6,2009 -Turner Construction Company,the nations leading general builder,has completed
the $480 million Terranea Resort project in Rancho Palos Verdes,Calif.in 23 months,18 days ahead of
schedule.Turner served as the manager of preconstruction and construction services for the resort on behalf of
owner/developer Los Angeles-based Lowe Enterprises..
http://www.turnerconstruction.com/corporate/content.asp?d=6734&p=6567
Does the city council feel that it is fair to the residents to suffer through 8 years of construction in order to assist a non tax
paying institution find capital in this economy?
Property Value Degradation Guaranteed:
•Even without the Dorms,8 years of construction &construction staging
•Significantly increased noise
•Extreme Loss of privacy
•Parking lot is in view corridor regardless of screening
As a tax paying resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and believer in the RPV General Plan,I would ask the city to do the
following:
2 - 130
1:Require Marymount to adhere to the planning commission's recommendation of a 261 foot setback for the Eastern
parking lot.
2:Require a project completion date of no more than 2 years.
FYI a copy of a letter from our attorney
March 19,2010
Mr.and Mrs.Marc Harris
2750 San Ramon Drive
Rancho Palos Verde,CA 90275
RE:MARYMOUNT COLLEGE APPLICATION
Dear Marc and Erin:
You have asked me to review your rights with regard to the Application for expansion by Marymount College.As a former
Deputy City Attorney responsible for land use and zoning matters,as well as,being an Attorney in private practice for over
twenty five (25)years dealing with litigation and Trial in real property related matters,I am well versed in the law related to
the Application of Marymount.Thus,even though I have not had the opportunity to review all aspects of the legal problems
created by the Application,I can render a preliminary opinion.
You purchased your home at 2750 San Ramon Drive in good faith relying upon the fact that the City of Rancho Palos Verde
was dedicated to the quality of life.Each of you live and work in your home which has a swimming pool,spa,and large
patio that backs up to the Marymount property.From your property,you have an expansive view of the ocean and Catalina
Island.At present you have very little interference with the enjoyment of your property by Marymount College.
If the Council approves the Marymount Application,the quality oflife that you now enjoy in your home will be destroyed.
In addition,the monetary value of your property will be destroyed.The many negatives of the proposed project including an
eight (8)year period to construct the project with extended hours of construction,extensive grading and earth moving,the
increase of students and faculty,cars parked at your back fence at all hours of the day and night will surely destroy all
enjoyment of your home.
It appears that it will be necessary for the Council to grant many variances for the College to have its way.If the Council
takes such action for the benefit of the college,it will be giving to the College while taking from you.However,if the
Council decides to approve the Application and destroys your property rights,you may have several actions.This could be
an inverse condemnation of your property for the benefit of the College.In addition,you may have rights that can be
explored in Federal Court for the damage you suffer in a civil rights action (Federal Civil Rights Act 42 USC Section 1983).
This has been a preliminary analysis of the problem.Please keep me advised.I shall prepare a thorough analysis upon your
request.
Sincerely,
William W.Bums
WWB:ep
Thank You,
Marc &Erin Harris
2750 San Ramon Dr
2 - 131
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Wednesday,March 24,20108:36 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Marymount Expansion Project
Importance:High
From:The Shepherds [mailto:ntb4@cox.net]
sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 11:19 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Marymount Expansion Project
Importance:High
Mayor and Members of the Council,
My husband and I support the CCC!ME appeal.Please strongly consider its merits.
Thanks for your time.
Ava Shepherd
Dianora Dr
3/25/2010
Page 1 of 1
2 - 132
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Wednesday,March 24,20108:39 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:joelr@rpv.com
Subject:FW:(no subject)
From:LGASSETT@aol.com [mailto:LGASSETT@aol.com]
sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 8:49 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:(no subject)
I go through this intersection at least twice a day and am very concerned about all the traffic.I hope you will
have plenty of on-campus parking.
Thank you,
Linda Gassett
3/25/2010 2 - 133
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Wednesday,March 24,201010:35 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:joelr@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Appeal
From:sheri423@verizon.net [mailto:sheri423@verizon.net]
sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 8:51 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Appeal
I support the CCC/ME Appeal.
Sheri Sprague
Mira Catalina
3/25/2010
Page 1 of 1
2 - 134
Ara M
From:Garolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Wednesday.March 24,201010:35 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:joelr@rpv.com
Subject:FW:GeG/ME appeal
From:Pop_Betty [mailto:Pop_Betty@lacoe.edu]
sent:Wednesday,March 24,2010 8:42 AM
To:'cc@rpv.com'
Subject:CCC/ME appeal
I am in support of support the CCC/ME appeal.
Please don't destroy our neighborhood!!.
3/25/2010
Page 1 of 1
2 - 135
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Wednesday, March 24,201011:00 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:joelr@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Marymount effort to override the planning commission
From:Earle Robinson [mailto:earle.robinson@cox.net]
sent:Wednesday,March 24,2010 10:57 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Marymount effort to override the planning commission
We support the CCC/ME appeal.We feel that Marymount College's effort to override the planning commission by
a public vote undermines the work of the commission and will fight it.We believe the scale of their project will
undermine the residential quality and value of the community surrounding its campus.
Anita and Earle Robinson
Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.Residents
3/25/2010 2 - 136
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Wednesday,March 24,2010 11:13 AM
'AraM'
joelr@rpv.com
FW:Marymount Proposal
-----Original Message-----
From:jwaters70@cox.net [mailto:jwaters70@cox.net]
Sent:Wednesday,March 24,2010 11:06 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Marymount Proposal
Dear City council members,
My wife and I strongly support the appeal of the CCC/ME in the matter regarding the plans
of Marymount College.
Jim and Sue Waters
3251 Deluna Dr.,RPV
1
2 - 137
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Wednesday,March 24,20104:09 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Marymount Expansion ErR -Agenda Item March 30,2010 Council Meeting
From:Marilee Smith [mailto:marasmith@cox.net]
Sent:Wednesday,March 24,2010 2:57 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Marymount ·Expansion EIR -Agenda Item March 30,2010 Council Meeting
The noise,dust,and traffic congestion accompanying an eight year construction cycle is the equivalent,
to us,of a permanent blight on our neighborhood!
Please,for the sake of our sanity,reject the BIR.
Thank You,
Robert and Marilee Smith
31205 Ganado Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
3/25/2010 2 - 138
Page 1 of 3
Ara M
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 6:05 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Marymount Expansion Appeal-March 30th -YOUR RESPONSE IS IMPORTANT!
Attachments:3-30-10 FLYER.DOC
From:art smith [mailto:rpvart1@yahoo.com]
sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 5:56 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Fw:Marymount Expansion Appeal -March 30th -YOUR RESPONSE IS IMPORTANT!
I support the eee/appeal.
take care
A.Smith
-----Forwarded Message ----
From:Alicia <ms.mania@cox.net>
To:Sheri Sprague <ssprague423@verizon.net>;fimi zerounian <flzerounian@gmail.com>;Vicki Fredrickson
<vickifred@adelphia.net>;earle.robinson@cox.net;rpvart1@yahoo.com;windarraranch@yahoo.com;Betty Pop
<BettyPop@cox.net>;LGASSETT@aol.com;rnfarley@cox.net;"Waters,Jim"<jwaters70@cox.net>;
aehrenclou@cox.net
sent:Tue,March 23,2010 5:15:59 PM
Subject:Fw:Marymount Expansion Appeal -March 30th -YOUR RESPONSE IS IMPORTANT!
I support CCCme apeall
Begin forwarded message:
From:"Mira Catalina HOA"<miracatalinahoa@cox.net>
Date:March 23,2010 11 :52:23 AM PDT
To:Subject:Marymount Expansion Appeal -March 30th -YOUR RESPONSE IS
IMPORTANT!
Hi Neighbors:
If you wish to support the CCC/ME and the majority of the Mira
Catalina residents in the current appeal effort,please email the
City Council at cc@rpv.com.A simple statement that
you support the CCCIME a~al would suffice.O-ven the
attached file for more information.
3/25/2010 2 - 139
Page 2 of 3
If you can send the email today it will make it into the agenda packet,
if not,it will still be submitted to the Council but as late
correspondence.
Do not think that because of Marymount's desire to place the project
on the Nov ballot and by-pass our city code requirements,the
General Plan,and City Council authority,that this appeal hearing
doesn't matter.On the contrary,it is even more important to continue
with the appeal effort.What happens with the appeal is critical to
what happens after November,whether their efforts fail or not.
Thanks
Begin forwarded message:
>From:"Mira Catalina HOA"<miracatalinahoa@cox.net>
>Date:March 23,2010 11 :52:23 AM PDT
>To:Subject:Marymount Expansion Appeal -March 30th -YOUR
>RESPONSE IS IMPORTANT!
>
>
>
>Hi Dianora Residents:
>
>
>
>If you wish to support the CCC/ME and the majority of the Mira
>Catalina residents in the current appeal effort,please email the
>City Council at cc@rpv.com.A simple statement that you support
>the CCC/ME appeal would suffice.Open the attached file for more
>information.
>
>
>
>If you can send the email today it will make it into the agenda
>packet,if not,it will still be submitted to the Council but as
>late correspondence.
>
>
>
>Do not think that because of Marymount's desire to place the
>project on the Nov ballot and by-pass our city code requirements,
>the General Plan,and City Council authority,that this appeal
>hearing doesn't matter.On the contrary,it is even more important
3/25/2010 2 - 140
>to continue with the appeal effort.What happens with the appeal
>is critical to what happens after November,whether their efforts
>fail or not.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
3/25/2010
Page 30f3
2 - 141
Concerned Citizens'Coalition/Marymount College Expansion /CCC/ME
ALERT!IMPORTANT MEETING!
TUES.NIGHT MARCH 30TH 6 PM HESSE PARK
CCC/ME APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION ON MARYMOUNT EXPANSION TO BE
HEARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL
Tell the City Council that our neighborhood is the subject of a hostile
take over by Marymount College.Marymount's proposed Initiative is
"Blackmail"don't let the City Council giveaway our neighborhood to
appease Marymount!
Our quality of life is being ruined!!!
•Variances and Cup's gave away all our protections under the building codes
and the General Plan -Follow the code -No variances
•8-years of construction is unacceptable.The Code is 1-year
•Increased hours of operation to 11 PM unacceptable-this is a residential
neighborhood!
•Parking is short 410 spaces-means more parking on our streets
•44'high athletic building is not compatible with our single-family homes -44'
height is not per code even in an institutional zone
•Don't grade the south-facing slope-geologists determined it had in adequate
soil stability
•NO excessive grading -the size &shape of this site is too small for all the
proposed improvements.Going from 92,000 Sq.Ft.to 210,000 sq.ft on only 13
buildable acres -Outrageous!
•Approve the Alternative Plan of a Living &Academic Campus-this is the only
WIN WIN SOLUTION!
•Reject the EIR
THE CITY COUNCIL NEEDS YOUR INPUT.This is your last Chance!
SEND LETTERS or EMAILSTO:cc@rpv.com
Call 10 friends or neighbors and ask them to do the same
2 - 142
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,201012:04 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Marymount Expansion
From:Alicia [mailto:ms.mania@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,201012:00 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Marymount Expansion
I am appalled at Marymount's attempt to circumvent the City Council by going directly to the voters.
As a neighboring homeowner,I am most concerned about the geological stability of the surrounding area and
P.v.Dr.East as a result of the excessive grading intended.Driving up the switchbacks is scary enough without the
unnecessary disruption Marymount construction would cause.
Alicia Maniatakis
310377-0201
3/25/2010 2 - 143
Dwight Hanger
2938 Vista Del Mar
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA
March 22,2010
RE:Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project -March 30,2010 City Council
Honorable Mayor,Council Members,City Manager &Staff:
I have spent my consulting career solving problems.I believe we have been mired down
in the thousands of pages of details and can't see the forest for the trees.
Staff took a 60,000 foot global,or total earth view,when they said that the Alternative 3
-split campus was not environmentally superior.They never analyzed the details!
Let's take a 10,000 foot view:you have 2 sites,A &B.Splitting work between them,
you still have the same impact to the earth.However,OUR CONCERN is what is in our
jurisdiction &neighborhood ofRPV and Alternative 3 is environmentally superior
because of the following:
1.Removal of 41 foot high,unsightly Athletic building as seen in your rendering
and silhouettes (copies of which are attached).
2.Leaves the soccer field where it is,thereby:eliminating safety hazards on PVDE,
unsightly poles and netting,&sound amplification from the sunken bowl.
3.Reduces weekend noise and traffic caused by the athletic facilities.
4.Significantly reduces cubic yards of cut &fill-not just down to 84,400 cubic
yards but probably down to 30,000 cubic yards.
5.Eliminates the need for remedial grading and the removal ofthe mature trees
holding the soil and hiding the massive buildings.
6.Reduces square footage of the expansion by 60%.
7.Reduces construction time to about 3.5 years maximum.
8.Provides more space for adequate campus parking to meet City code.
9.Reduces chances of earth movement,hydrology damage,etc.
10.Reduces construction noise,traffic,dust,dirt,rocks in street,and damage to our
infrastructure.
11.Reduces the ongoing environmental light,glare,PVDE safety hazards and traffic.
Please tell me how this is not environmentally superior for RPV!
We have a semi-rural,quiet,low light,minimal road infrastructure environment.
Alternative 3 maintains that for us.
The PV Dr.East location gives Marymount the Academic expansion that is wants.
The PV Dr.North location gets the Athletic Facilities and Residents.The PV Dr.North
location is far superior because it is:
1.Not in the middle of a semi-rural,residential area with multi-million dollar homes
2.Has a four lane street to accommodate the traffic volume
1 2 - 144
3.Not significantly impacting neighbors
4.Consistent with current &future Marymount plans of two or more locations.
They do not have sufficient land to place all of their activities at the RPV
property.Therefore,they will continue to have multiple locations.
The staff &Planning Commission tried to accommodate Marymount,but that is not their
problem to solve.That is not your problem to solve!It is Marymount's problem.
You must look after RPV!
How can anyone in their right mind say that Alternative 3 is not superior for RPV?
I beg you to "Approve only those elements within RPV consistent with Alternative 3,as
your legal council said you could on page 13-14 of August 18,2009 Staff Report".
In closing,I am one of the people that look up at Marymount from the south.
1.Contrary to what Mr.Davis says,I do exist.
2.Contrary to what Mr.Davis says,even though I have an ocean view,I do care
about the view from the front of my house.Believe it or not,we have windows in
the front.
Respectfully,
Dwight Hanger
2938 Vista Del Mar
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Attachments:
1.Rendering of Athletic Building:DSCN 1272 v2
2.Silhouettes of Athletic Building:DSCN 1315,1278,1279
3.Silhouettes of two Dorms:DSCN 1314,1274,1289,1331
2
2 - 145
2 - 146
2 - 147
2 - 148
2 - 149
2 - 150
2 - 151
2 - 152
2 - 153
2 - 154
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,201012:24 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Marymount Expansion
Page 1 of 2
3/25/2010 2 - 155
3/25/2010
Page 2 of2
MQrymount thi,s i~
t~em by ..
ntinu~their
lilstt'ong messQge .
2 - 156
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Tuesday,March 23,20101:08 PM
'Ara M'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:Appeal
-----Original Message-----
From:Alice Patterson [mailto:alicepatterson@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 12:56 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Appeal
Please take note that my husband Neal and I support the CCC/ME appeal.
Alice Patterson
3130 Dianora Dr.
RPV
1 2 - 157
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 1:09 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Marymount Expansion
From:Ann Ehrenclou [mailto:aehrenclou@cox.net]
sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 12:45 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Marymount Expansion
As a resident since 1965,I voted for the incorporation of Rancho Palos Verdes,as described in the
General Plan:
"IT SHALL BE THE GOAL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES THROUGH PROPER LAND USE PLANNING AND
REGULATIONS,TO PROVIDE FOR A QUIET AND
SERENE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITH A MINIMUM OF RESTRICTION ON CITIZEN ACTIVITY."
In other sections,of the General Plan other policies state:
"Review the location and site design of future institutional uses very carefully to ensure their
compatibility with adjacent sites."
"Regulate land use so that there is a minimal degree of noise impact on adjacent land uses."
"Allow new development to only occur where adequate infrastructure systems reasonably can be
provided."
The proposed expansion of Marymount College is in direct violation of the goal stated in the General
Plan as well as the policies stated above and other policies as well:
-an athletic building is not compatible with the adjacent sites nor minimal degree of noise impact
nor increased traffic
-proposed hours of operation of the library do not provide for a quiet and serene residential
community nor minimal degree of noise impact
-8 years of construction certainly violate the idea of a quiet and serene community and noise impact
-the construction of dorms is not compatible with adjacent sites and potentially quite noisy plus
.bringing increased traffic
-the proposed relocation soccer field will be neither compatible nor quiet and will certainly bring
increased traffic
There are many other concerns such as safety and grading in unstable areas.
Students are temporary.Homeowners are long term and we are the ones who pay the taxes.It seems
fitting that those of us who live in close proximity and who will be affected by increased traffic,
increased hours of operation,years of construction,dorms,gyms,and playing fields should have their
right to live in a "quiet and serene"residential neighborhood ..
Marymount should be allowed to upgrade their academic facilities.However,to add recreational
3/25/2010 2 - 158
Page 2of2
facilities and dormitories is incompatible with the neighborhood.The existing infrastructure cannot
safely accommodate the increase in traffic that would be a result of these additions.
Sincerely,
Ann Ehrenclou
3234 Deluna Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA
3/223/2010
3/25/2010 2 - 159
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Tuesday,March 23,20102:10 PM
'Ara M'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:Marymount expansion
-----Original Message-----
From:The Farley's [mailto:rnfarley@cox.netl
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 1:58 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Marymount expansion
Kindly be advised of our concern about the expansion program at Marymount.
We live in Miraleste and know the impact of traffic on Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes
Drive East will be great.Also young drivers are a concern as more than one student has
driven up Via Colinita and had an accident because the were driving at the speed of the Le
Mans Grand Prix!They knocked out our gas light,etc.Expanding the campus as we've read
in the papers is not compatible with the residential environment we treasure and will
definitely decrease property values.
Sincerely,
Bob &Shirley Farley
1 2 - 160
Concerned Citizens'Coalition/Marymount College Expansion I CCCIME
ALERT!IMPORTANT MEETING!
TUES.NIGHT MARCH 30TH 6 PM HESSE PARK
CCC/ME APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION ON MARYMOUNT EXPANSION TO BE
HEARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL
Tell the City Council that our neighborhood is the subject of a hostile
take over by Marvmount College.Marymount's proposed Initiative is
"Blackmail"don't let the City Council giveaway our neighborhood to
appease Marymount!
Our quality of life is being ruined!!!
•Variances and Cup's gave away all our protections under the building codes
and the General Plan -Follow the code -No variances
•8-years of construction is unacceptable.The Code is 1-year
•Increased hours of operation to 11 PM unacceptable-this is a residential
neighborhood!
•Parking is short 410 spaces-means more parking on our streets
•44'high athletic building is not compatible with our single-family homes -44'
height is not per code even in an institutional zone
•Don't grade the south-facing slope-geologists determined it had in adequate
soil stability
•NO excessive grading -the size &shape of this site is too small for all the
proposed improvements.Going from 92,000 Sq.Ft.to 210,000 sq.ft on only 13
buildable acres -Outrageous!
•Approve the Alternative Plan of a Living &Academic Campus-this is the only
WIN WIN SOLUTION!
•Reject the EIR
THE CITY COUNCIL NEEDS YOUR INPUT.This is your last Chance!
SEND LETTERS or EMAILSTO:cc@rpv.com
Call 10 friends or neighbors and ask them to do the same
2 - 161
Page 1 of 3
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,20106:05 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
SUbject:FW:Marymount Expansion Appeal-March 30th -YOUR RESPONSE IS IMPORTANT!
Attachments:3-30-10 FLYER.DOC
From:art smith [mailto:rpvart1@yahoo.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 5:56 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Fw:Marymount Expansion Appeal-March 30th -YOUR RESPONSE IS IMPORTANT!
I support the ccc/appeal.
take care
A.Smith
-----Forwarded Message ----
From:Alicia <ms.mania@cox.net>
To:Sheri Sprague <ssprague423@verizon.net>;fimi zerounian <flzerounian@gmail.com>;Vicki Fredrickson
<vickifred@adelphia.net>;earle.robinson@cox.net;rpvart1@yahoo.com;windarraranch@yahoo.com;Betty Pop
<BettyPop@cox.net>;LGASSElT@aol.com;rnfarley@cox.net;"Waters,Jim"<jwaters70@cox.net>;
aehrenclou@cox.net
Sent:Tue,March 23,2010 5:15:59 PM
Subject:Fw:Marymount Expansion Appeal-March 30th -YOUR RESPONSE IS IMPORTANT!
I support CCCme apeall
Begin forwarded message:
From:"Mira Catalina HOA"<miracatalinahoa@cox.net>
Date:March 23,2010 11 :52:23 AM PDT
To:Subject:Marymount Expansion Appeal -March 30th -YOUR RESPONSE IS
IMPORTANTI
Hi Neighbors:
If you wish to support the CCC/ME and the majority of the Mira
Catalina residents in the current appeal effort,please email the
City Council at cc@rpv.com.A simple statement that
you support the CCCIME appeal would suffice.Open the
attached file for more information.
3/25/2010 2 - 162
Page 2 of 3
If you can send the email today it will make it into the agenda packet,
if not,it will still be submitted to the Council but as late
correspondence.
Do not think that because of Marymount's desire to place the project
on the Nov ballot and by-pass our city code requirements,the
General Plan,and City Council authority,that this appeal hearing
doesn't matter.On the contrary,it is even more important to continue
with the appeal effort.What happens with the appeal is critical to
what happens after November,whether their efforts fail or not.
Thanks
Begin forwarded message:
>From:"Mira Catalina HOA"<miracatalinahoa@cox.net>
>Date:March 23,2010 11 :52:23 AM PDT
>To:Subject:Marymount Expansion Appeal -March 30th -YOUR
>RESPONSE IS IMPORTANT!
>
>
>
>Hi Dianora Residents:
>
>
>
>If you wish to support the CCC/ME and the majority of the Mira
>Catalina residents in the current appeal effort,please email the
>City Council at cc@rpv.com.A simple statement that you support
>the CCCIME appeal would suffice.Open the attached file for more
>information.
>
>
>
>If you can send the email today it will make it into the agenda
>packet,if not,it will still be submitted to the Council but as
>late correspondence.
>
>
>
>Do not think that because of Marymount's desire to place the
>project on the Nov ballot and by-pass our city code requirements,
>the General Plan,and City Council authority,that this appeal
>hearing doesn't matter.On the contrary,it is even more important
3/25/2010 2 - 163
>to continue with the appeal effort.What happens with the appeal
>is critical to what happens after November,whether their efforts
>fail or not.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
3/25/2010
Page 3 of 3
2 - 164
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ara
bubba32@cox.net
Tuesday,March 23,2010 8:48 AM
aram@rpv.com
8 files on disk to be delivered
I will be coming by this morning with a booklet (7 copies)for the City Council package.
I will also bring by a CD with 8 files,as follows;
1.word letter September9 Comments to Joel -deals with Marymount delays 2.Image 075
Excel file display of delays &progress since May 2000 to March 30,2010 3.PreSchool
Closure letter 4.Letter to Melissa Pamer,DB,real cause of EIR delays 5.Word file
Quandary4 Geotechnical information 6.Retaining Walls detail &Summary:Excel file 7.Word
file;The fallacy of Grading Quantities 8.The Project is Infeasible (as presently
approved)Word file
The disk may initially come up as a blank picture,but simply close it and bring it up
again by using the nComputer "site of Windows and it will show these 8 files.
Thanks.
Jim
1 2 - 165
JAMES B.GORDON
3538 Bendigo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-6202
Mr.Joel Rojas
Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275 -5391 September 17,2008
Subject:Comments to the Planning Commission regarding the September 9,
2008 Hearing of the Maryrnount College Facilities Expansion Project:"A
Review of the Bidding"
Joel:
On March 18,2008,I participated in a meeting with City Attorney Lynch
David Snow (speakerphone),Marymount College Facilities Expansion
Planning Department Project Manager Ara Mihranian,City Manager Carolyn
Lynch,Lois Karp of CCCjME,George Zugsmith and Attorney,Ann Mortimer.
This meeting had been suggested by a number of City Council members and
had as its topic,an updating of the status of the Marymount Facilities
Expansion Project,especially with respect to the timely completion of the EIR
under CEQA and other Permitting Guidelines.
The results of that meeting were that we had passed the CEQA time limit
(February 2008)but were continuing diligently toward completion of the
Final EIR by REF.Certain estimates as to that completion date were
mentioned and that there had been considerable comments still needing
answers.
In a letter from the College on March 28,2008,a new set of "updated plans"
were introduced,including the introduction of Temporary Modular Trailers.
The dates printed on these new Plans was October 2007.As a result of
questions raised by the City,on April 25,2008,the College's Project Manager,
Michael Laughlin responded with requested clarifications.Included in these
were that the Temporary Trailers,or at least some of them,would be retained
through the 93rd of 96 months of the Project.
Subsequently,in response to a status question by Councilman Peter Gardiner,
the Planning Department issued a "Read and File"response dated July 15,
2008 and scheduled for reporting at City Council meetings of July 15 and
AugustS,2008.
ljPagc
2 - 166
In light of the increasing time needed to complete the Final EIR,City Staff
suggested a modification to the previous processing schedule to review the
project EIR and project applications concurrently.The rationale also given
was that such (concurrent)processing schedules was not new to the City in
that previous major projects,such as the Terranea Hotel Resort,were
processed this way.
There are at least four misconceptions with that history and advice.First,the
previous cases cited were uncontested EIR's.That is not the case here.
Second,this EIR presents a viable and separable option/Alternative which the
other projects cited did not have.Third,whereas the other cases cited offered
compelling reasons (Commercial/Tax revenues)for the City to issue a vote of
Overriding Consideration for those aspects of the projects that were otherwise
deemed to incur significant and otherwise un-mitigatable impacts.Fourth,
these other projects did not so closely impact residential neighborhoods or
land use established patterns that radically altered existing use..
In this case there is an overriding requirement to deal with the issues as they
arise and allow for appropriate Public Comment in sequence before the
Permitting (CUP)process begins.
In preparing for the subsequent Planning Commission meeting of September
9,2008,City Staff offered the Commission a choice of processing options,
including Concurrent or sequential approaches as well as a suggested time
line based upon the anticipated release of the Final EIR.In his "Rebuttal"
statement near the conclusion of the Public Hearing,Marymount Attorney
Donald M.Davis remarked that (and I paraphrase here)he and the College
had come to this meeting under the (mis)impression that the subject of the
meeting was to have been the "Changes"recently being proposed by the
College.As noted,those are late changes,submitted by the College.Changes
deserving of Public review.Changes that the College itself has requested be
included in the Final EIR.
Given that purpose,i.e.the discussion and presentation of these latest
August/September 2008 "Changes"to Marymount's Facilities Expansion
Project,it would appear that Dr.Brophy's subsequent comments regarding
the urgency of concluding the EIR and CUP permitting processes
simultaneously (concurrently),should be kept in context of the College's own
actions in this regard.The College,as a direct consequence of its own late
submitted changes and its own insistence that such changes be incorporated
into the Final EIR,is fully responsible for costly delays that have been
continuing through September of 2008!
As you know,Dr.Brophy wrote the City a letter on July 15th 2008 that
presented his concerns about "delays"in the EIR that were/are costing the
21Page
2 - 167
College $250,000 per month in added Construction Costs for their Project.
My own internal Financial Construction Cost projections confirm within a
very close tolerance that amount of added monthly Construction Costs.
Nonetheless,that letter of the 15th ,and the repeated statement by Dr.Brophy
on September 9th at the Hearing,should be placed in the appropriate context.
As you may recall,I have provided the City with information disclosing that
the College has been and continues to be responsible for many previous
significant delays now totaling in excess of $28 Million in Construction Cost
increases using the College's own alleged figures.
Further,by insisting that the current batch of (August/September 2008)
changes be entered into the ElR findings,the College is responsible for such
delays as this latest set of changes might cause for the ElR to take them into
consideration.So,it is clearly the College,and not the City or REF that has
been a continuing source of ElR delay."Do as I say,not as I do"for instance.
The College has stated that they are starting to lose patience with the process.
But it is their process!The College has been the driving factor causing delay!
They have stated that they are the ones who have so far "allowed"such delays
to continue (failure to provide information,RPVletter of March 1,2006).
Given that the College itself is and has been the real source of such current
and past delays,such feigned intolerance appears to be completely uncalled
for.The College needs to be held to account for its own missteps and
continuing series of late changes that it has asked to be included in the final
ElR.There is no respect given by the College,in these statements,that the
Public has a right under CEQA to be allowed to have an appropriate and
separate hearing and time for response.Such a situation and circumstance as
presented by the College to the City at this hearing in September 2008 is
simply intolerable and inappropriate.
There is an obvious need for public comments regarding the latest series of
changes by the College and such comments should address the significant
issues regarding Mitigation Measures and requirements of the DElR (GEOS
2,and Exhibit 3-8,for example)that are specifically violated/omitted by
changed aspects of the August/September College 2008 plans.Further,the
College has yet to adequately address important issues regarding Phasing
(including but not limited to DElR Exhibit 3-8)which are very significant
omissions that must be addressed..
The entire subject of Hydrology now has been voided by many aspects of
Marymount's latest changed (site)plans.Mitigation GEO 2 is hash;totally
violated by the September 2008 drainage Site plan.
31Pagc
2 - 168
Statements made at the Hearing by Scott Boydston regarding the Modular
Structures in front of the Faculty Building as being obscured by the (existing)
trees on the brow of the hill are demonstrably false and self-serving.To verify
this,simply take a look at the latest site demolition plan.Those trees are the
first to go!Read the Plan!This is clearly presented for all to see where the
proposed excavation and re-compaction areas (including those mature trees)
that are part of Phase 1.Such trees as presently exist are to be removed
immediately as part of the grading and excavation plan.
There is no clear documentation presently provided in the Staff Report or in
Marymount's newest 25 page Project Description (August 2008)of the latest
total seating capacity being included or how it has been derived.For example,
although the Library plan now shows a 126 person capacity presentation
room,there are no seats shown in the adjacent Computer Room that is nearly
as large.This is an omission that requires documentation regarding the added
seating therein.Such seating capacity is a key and necessary ingredient for
use in calculations related to Code-required parking capacity.
Architect Scott Boydston is also on record with the City (mis)explaining the
seating capacity of the Gymnasium.In written statements to the City,his
calculations show a 144 seating capacity based upon what he calls
"architectural"standards of 31"per space.City standards (see St.John Fisher
Staff Report,page 4)require that such (bench)seating capacity be calculated
at 18"per person,not 31".The difference is substantial.I have also provided
the City with documentation from Bleacher seating manufacturers that show
a capacity of between 420 to over 500 persons in the (latest)80'X 20'space
shown for bleachers in the drawings.This represents a significant and as yet
unidentified variance from Architect Boydston's figures.
Another annoying,but perhaps less important "error",that has continued for
years on the drawings for the Library,is the incorrect (switched/reversed)
labeling of the East and West Elevation views.Is anybody listening.This
defect,if you will,has long been commented upon for correction to no avail.
Perhaps this is an annoyance at worst,but another example of the College's
failure to correct some very obvious mistakes.
Given the recent Peninsula News Opinion statement of September 18,2008,
"Dorms Don't Belong at Marymount",and subsequent Comments and the
College's September 25th advertisement,I would like to comment on some of
the more important aspects of moving both the dorms and Athletic Facility off
this campus.
With regard to the Advertisement statements,there are a number of "facts"
that the College has chosen to omit or misstate.
4lPagt'
2 - 169
•The number of 2-year Colleges (U.S.)is 1,641.Marymount College is a self-
defined 2-year private liberal arts (community)college.There are 641 such
private,2-year Colleges in the U.S.Of those 641 Colleges,3 offer "guaranteed
on-campus housing (today).They are;Clemens College,Suffield,Connecticut
(I used to live in Suffield),Lincoln College,Lincoln,Illinois,and Marymount
College,Rancho Palos Verdes,California.(Source:collegesearch.collegeboard.com
9/25/2008)Translation:Marymount College already has on-campus dorms!
And they have had them for years!
•Marymount College is not a Community College according to its own 2002
publication sent to the RPV Community entitled "Marymount College,A Place
We Call Home".In that booklet,Marymount asks,rhetorically,"Why does
Marymount College need on-site residences when other two-year colleges
don't have on-campus residences for their students?"The answer;"Though
Marymount is a two-year college,we are not a community college."
"The mission of a community college,which is a public institution,is vastly
different from Marymount's.A community college serves students in the
surrounding area and is funded by tax dollars.Tuition is modest.Though a
diverse student body is often desired,it is not always achieved.Community
colleges generally reflect the social and cultural composition of the immediate
communities they serve."
"On the other hand,Marymount,one of the few private two-year institutions
of higher learning on the West Coast,specifically prepares students in the
Catholic tradition 'to develop a shared understanding of the common
humanity among diverse national and social backgrounds.'We achieve this
through recruitment efforts that extend.far beyond the immediate
community,even far beyond this country's borders.We have students from
more than 25 states and nations."
From the above,it would appear that Marymount's reference (in the ad)to
1,100 American Community Colleges across the nation is virtually irrelevant,
if not intentionally misleading.Of the 1,012 public 2-year Colleges in this
country,330 offer "available housing".However,of those 1,012 total,only 20
offer "Guaranteed,on-campus housing".Of these select 20,only one is in
California,College of the Siskiyous in Weed,California.And they list
themselves as having,as does Marymount College currently,a "Commuter
Campus."
None of the above information is new or unknown to Marymount.Thus,the
repetition of such irrelevant statistics and misinformation is troublesome.On
September 27 and October 10,2002,I personally wrote (attached)to the
51 P a g ('
2 - 170
College Director of Public Relations to express my concerns with the
"Misrepresentations Contained in Marymount's College Residence PR
Booklet".That booklet was sent to the RPV Community and copies of my
response were sent to Project Planner Ara Mihranian and the RPV Planning
Commissioners at that time.
•It is an interesting historical fact,however,that the City of RPV approved a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)in September 1975 for the College to operate at
its current (then new)location.That Approval was for a "private,liberal arts,
Community College".Obviously,the terms "private"and "Community
College"are essentially mutually exclusive.
•In recent times,especially as now presented in Marymount's August 2008
(Revised)Project Description (25 pages),it appears that the College is re-
inventing its mission and status as an institution.Notwithstanding its own
Corporation Charter as a California non-profit educational institution,as
amended and filed February 27,1968,the College and its Board of Trustees
have apparently adopted a new "mission."
•As stated on page 9,of the August 2008 Project Description (Revised),"The
College's Board of Trustees and administration have determined that
Maryrnount's religious as well as educational mission is severely limited by
the current size,condition and types offacilities present on the campus."
•"In order to more efficiently,effectively and safely serve its student
population and fulfill its religious and educational mission,Marymount's
students need and deserve the types of facilities they would find at other
liberal arts colleges;"
•The problem with this new emphasis on "religious"mission is that it simply
had not previously been stated and did not exist since the governing board of
Nuns Amended the College's Corporation purposes in February 1968.
•The apparent purpose of the College to now place such emphasis on their
alleged religious mission is nothing more than to back up its already
threatened lawsuit against the City of RPV based upon current U.S.Religious
Freedom laws unless its Project is approved by the City.
•As shown in my 2002 letters and more recently in September 2008,
Maryrnount College is perfectly aware and informed of this dichotomy
regarding religious vs.educational missions.I have provided the City and
Planning Commission with multiple copies of this history and purpose of
Maryrnount College as exists in the Records of the California Department of
Corporations.
61 P a g ('
2 - 171
•Nothing in those presentations,statements or otherwise should or can be
construed to deny the College's Catholic heritage or traditions.That is not the
point.The point is summarized in Articles Second,Third and Eighth of their
California Non-Profit Corporation document.
•"The specific and primary purpose for which this corporation is organized is
to establish,conduct and maintain an educational institution of collegiate
grade.."(Article Second)
•"This corporation shall be an educational institution of collegiate grade,
within the State of California,not conducted for profit,and is organized
pursuant to the General Nonprofit Corporation Law of the State of
California."(Article Third)
•"This College shall be open,and equal privileges accorded alike,regardless of
nationality,race or religious belief,to those persons who otherwise possess
the required qualifications for entrance."(Article Eighth)
• A second,if not quite equally important point of dispute is embedded in
Marymount's assumptions that its "students deserve the (same)types of
facilities they would find at other liberal arts colleges"The problem is that the
qualifier (two-year Junior)is omitted in front of "liberal arts colleges".
•As shown in the comparison Excel spreadsheet Exhibit showing Marymount
(and Dean College)compared against small 4-year Colleges,Junior Colleges
don't ordinarily have anything like the facilities of 4-year colleges,even small
ones.Nor do they favorably compare on an academic basis with such colleges.
•One of the most dramatic comparisons is Library (titles)size.Dean and
Marymount College have an average of 30-32 titles in their respective
libraries.This compares with an average of 219 titles for four-year colleges.
Junior Colleges are simply not a hotbed of Research which drives Library Title
SIze.
•Another unfavorable comparison relates to the differing rates of student
turnover.A Junior College,such as Marymount,by its very nature,has an
enormously higher rate of turnover than 4-year colleges.In the most recent
year that NCES reporting is available,Marymount College graduated only
28%of its entering freshman class.
•Only about 50-60%of entering students return for their sophomore (2nd)
year.This compares with an 85%average retention for the 4-year sample,
whose graduation percentage is significantly higher as well.Thus,by
comparison,the function of a Junior College administration is to focus more
on recruitment than on academics for survival than their 4-year counterparts.
71Pagc
2 - 172
The NCES data suggests that Marymount also needs to recruit sophomore
students as well in order to make up a total graduating class of 148 in this
example of which only 110 original freshmen (28%of 395)graduate.
•Such rapid student turnover in Junior Colleges is reflective of many factors;
not all of which are under the direct control of the Junior College itself.
Students choose Junior Colleges for different reasons that markedly differ
from those selecting 4-year colleges.
•In many cases,only a limited number of accredited courses are still needed by
the entering freshman to continue into a four-year college.Once obtained,
that student then typically transfers to another college of choice and does not
graduate with an Associate Degree.
• A second and not insubstantial difference that distinguishes Junior College
students from their 4-year counterparts are their respective GPA/SAT scores.
Such scores are reflective of High School Performance levels.In short,Junior
Colleges rarely get the prime students to begin with.This is a
key measure of College (4-year)success according to the (referenced)studies
by UCLA Professor Ken Astin et al.Such scores at the Junior College level are,
by definition,significantly lower than those of 4-year college entrants.(Excel
Comparison file)
•Returning now to the second item of Marymount's advertisement,traffic and
noise,these subjects ..have not been completed and are still subject to
substantial and unanswered comments that are eagerly awaited in the Final
EIR,yet to be submitted.
•Suffice it to say;both of these subjects (noise and traffic)are far from
complete.In fact,the Noise mitigation in Section 5.5 has been found to have
been fatally flawed by (Marymount)assumptions of having non-opening
dorm windows for the analysis.Such non-opening windows are banned by
Fire Department regulations,a fact brought out in (unanswered)comments
and in the September 9th,2008 Planning Commission hearing.
•With respect to traffic,there also remain many problematical and as yet
unanswered questions and concerns.Additional Community concerns have
also recently been raised by the latest (September 9,2008)statements
presented by College Attorney Don Davis,that the City should bear the cost
of a new Traffic Signal at PV Drive East and Miraleste Drive due,at least in
part,to the added traffic foreseen and encouraged by the College for increased
utilization of the new campus by the Community.The recently-released Fehr
81Pagc
2 - 173
&Peers Traffic Study has found additional problems as well that are not
encompassed by the referenced DEIR Section 5.3 quoted by Marymount.
•With respect to Marymount's claim that its 45 foot high dorm walls and
Library heights are comparable to other RPV (private)structures,seems odd
since the Municipal Building Code limits heights to a normal 16'level,and a
variance is required to construct any such outsized new or combined
buildings.The idea that Marymount's surrounding neighbors typically have
such 45'height characteristics is unfounded.
•An in-depth "Massing"review of the "Before"vs."After"condition of
Marymount's Facilities Expansion Project demonstrates that,across the
board,the typical sizes of Marymount's new and/or Combined buildings
would be nearly three times that now on the current campus.
•The next questionable statement in the advertisement claims that "the new
plan would simply reconfigure these (existing athletic)facilities)and simply
construct a building that would merely place some activities indoors.
•This is overly simplistic and very misleading.Construction of the proposed
Athletic Facility requires demolition of at least 162 existing parking spaces
that otherwise would remain.The current number of parking spaces is
already deficient by 216 spaces.Thus,the College (11/01/2007)has filed a
Parking Setback Variance Application seeking relief from other Code
requirements.This impact of a New Athletic Building is not mentioned.
•The new Athletic Facility includes a nearly 500 bleacher seating capacity
basketball court within its designated 80'X 20'seating space.
•The College's architect,Scott Boydston,has officially informed the City,upon
being questioned,that the gymnasium seating capacity was 144 persons based
on an architectural standard of 31"per space.The City Municipal Code,on the
other hand and of which Architect Boydston seems to have overlooked is
18"per space.
•Commercial Bleacher seating for the specified Gymnasium seating area is
actually rated at between 460 and 480 spaces.This rather dramatic increase
factor has yet to be accounted for in the quoted DEIR Section 3-14.
•The statement (advertisement)that "The College has worked with community
members to significantly improve landscaping that will dramatically screen
campus improvements from street views."Is interesting because such
"improvements"were only just recently revealed to the public on September
9,2008.This is entirely new information,previously not revealed to the
Public.
911'agc
2 - 174
•The (included)allegation that such new landscaping had been "worked"with
community members,such members as may have collaborated are not
revealed and remain unknown to myself and many others at this time.
Moreover,"landscaping"and screening are only Marymount-perceived
concerns that avoid the basic issue of introducing dorms for youthful students
on a permanent basis within an established residential neighborhood.
•What is important and not properly revealed is that the College,has
introduced many changes well after the CEQA Public Comment Period that
ended on January 4,2008.Thus,a number of important issues remain at
issue and un-asked because these late-blooming changes have yet to be re-
circulated for Public Comment.That is an important problem in a process
designed to encourage and respond to Public input.
•The statement (advertisement)that "Two-thirds of the campus remains open
space,and will serve as a LEEDS Certified sustainability demonstration
project"ignores the fundamental site that is unsuited for the uses and
purpose intended.Such a Finding of site suitability is a requirement under the
City Municipal Code,without which the Permitting Process cannot be
approved.It should also be noted that at least one of these landscaping
improvements is infeasible (at Ganado and PV Drive East)due to the
requirement for residents to see downhill traffic (from Marymount).
•Because of the natural terrain and recently-discovered Geologic instabilities
on the Marymount Campus site (June 2003),much of the (gross)26 acres is
not available for development.Taking into account required Code setbacks,
geologic terrain limitations and Geologic unsuitability,perhaps just over 12
acres is realistically suitable for development.
•Perhaps the most notable aspect omitted from Marymount's Advertisement is
the fact that their Project envisions changing a Day Campus,or Commuter
Campus into a true Residential Campus and full-time operation.Such "Sea
Change"transforming a CommuterjDay campus to residential,full time day
and night plus weekend operation is never mentioned!
•Such a radical campus transformation is unprecedented and Marymount
College has been unable to cite a single instance where an established Day
College located within a residential community has accomplished such a
change in use.To suggest otherwise,as amply implied by the ad,does a
disservice to this community's intelligence and is both incorrect and
disingenuous.Such a move would be precedent-setting.It has not happened
before and Marymount has never come up with any such example.
lOjPage
2 - 175
•As demonstrated in the accompanying Marymount Claims summary
statements (given to the Chamber of Commerce,but without the Rebuttals),
most colleges that Marymount has cited as having dorms,are not comparable
to Marymount's situation.Many of them (list)are actually 4-year Colleges.
For example,Dean College (Franklin,Massachusetts)did not introduce
dorms onto a Day Campus in a residential neighborhood.Both Dean College
and its surrounding residential neighborhood developed together,since its
founding in 1865,on a "pristine"100 acre campus site,over many years.
•The idea of turning a 40 hour a week campus into a 24/7 continuous
day/night and weekend operation within an established residential
neighborhood is nothing short of crazy,not to mention un-precedented!
•It is also notable that nearly all of the expressed major concerns of this
community neighborhood have been virtually ignored by the College.There
has been no meeting held with neighborhood representatives since October
14,2000.The idea that "landscaping,et cetera"is a problem reflects a
simplistic and self-centered approach to the real community concerns that
need to be suitably addressed instead.
•The resultant "Academic Campus"facilities proposed by the Project would
then easily be able to pass the Findings that the site is suited by shape and
size for the use intended.The questions regarding Land Use would simply
disappear.The need for Variances for Steep Slopes and less than a 12.5 Factor
of Safety,would no longer apply.The entire Parking scheme would become
viable without the associated destruction of 162 parking spaces to make way
for the Athletic Facility.There would be plenty of room and parking available
for the Preschool as well.
Marymount's proposed introduction of residential dormitories
within a pre-existing residential community is unprecedented.To
date,the College has failed to produce a single example of such a
disruptive change.There exists a systemic reason that of the 1641 Junior
Colleges listed in the United States,only two comparable Junior Colleges offer
"guaranteed,on-campus housing for freshmen"(not including Marymount's
own bogus claims to having a residential campus in a small town and
guaranteed on-campus housing for freshmen).Both of those real Junior
Colleges,Dean College in Massachusetts (founded 1859)and Spartanburg
Methodist Junior College (founded 1901)in South Carolina,each have at least
100 acre campuses.The College has never provided an example of
any U S College that has successfully introduced,de novo,
dormitories onto a pre-existing Day Campus located within a
I11Pagc
2 - 176
surrounding residential comm.unity.Marymount's Facilities
Expansion Project attempts to do just that,a completely un-
precedented transformation!
1.Presently,Marymount College falsely claims to offer
"guaranteed,on-campus housing for freshmen".And the College has
knowingly been doing this for many years under the prestigious offices of the
CollegeBoard.That is the guarantee published by Marymount to prospective
applicants as contained in The College Board College Handbook (2001
through 2008 editions)and Peterson's Colleges &Universities online data.In
fact,Marymount cannot legitimately offer "on-campus housing for freshmen"
at its "Residential campus in a small town".(Note:San Pedro is a subset of the
City of Los Angeles,not a small town)
Conta<:t.3666 Kearny Villa Rood Suite 100
San Diego.CA 92123-1995
•Private two-year junior and liberal arts college affiliated with Roman
Catholic church
•Residential campus in large lown
•Application priority date 511;no deadline.
•$675 pcr-cred.it.hour charge
•$12,000 average llCed based financial aid pack:lge for freshmen
General.Founded in 1933.Regionally accredited.Only 2.)'car private
college in the 5 Pacific states specializing in the Iiber31 art.~and U'aIlsfer to
4'year institutions.EnroDment:905 degree-~eking undergraduates;2 non-
degree seeking students.Degrees:188 associate awarded.Location:30
miles from Los Angeles.Calendar:Semester,limited summer session.
Faculty:87 toLal,49%full-time;31%have terminal degrees;8%minority;
52%women,
Student profile.90S degree-seeking undergraduates,100%enrolled in a
tr.\JlS(er prognun.397 enrolled as first·time,first·year studentS,49 trans-
ferred in from other institutions.
Part-tUM:
Out·or·stale:
Womm:
AfricanAm~
"..2"
53~'0;,
Asian Amelian:
Hispanic American.:
Inlmlational:
,..
"..11..
Most popUlar majors.LibcrJ.l ans IClO%.
Computing on campus.60 worksl::ations in library.compuler center.
Domlilories linked (0 campus network.Commuter studenlS can connect to
campus network.E-m::ail accountS for ::all studenlS.helpline available.
Student U1e.Freshman orientation:M:uuiatory.S75 fee.Preregistration
for classes offcred_Program includes placement testing.advising.registra-
tion and introduction (0 services available on campus and in the local area.
Housing:Ouarantetrl on-campus for freshmen.Apartments available.
Housing available through volunteers in the community.S400 paMiaJIy reo
f?ndable deposit.ActhiUes:Choral groups,dance,dnl.ma,film society,mu-
sl:al theater.student gov~mment.student newspaper,TV slation,campus
minim)',MOVE (Mary mount Opponunities for Volunteer Experience).glo-
bal awareness program.peer counselors,African American Sludems Asso-
ciation,Asian Club,Hawaiian Club,Young DemocratS,Alpha Delta Chi.
Athletics.NJCAA.Intercollegiate:Golf,tennis.Intramural:Basketball,
golf,skiing.soccer.softball,swimming.table lennis.tennis.volleyball.
Student services.Adult student services.alcohol/substance abuse coun.
seling.campus ministries,career counsding.student employment services,
financial aid counseling.health services,penonal counseling.Physically
disabled:Services for hearins impaired.Learning disabled:Limited ser·
vices available.Transfer:Special ad\·iser.orientation.pre-admiuion tran-
script evaluation for new students.Tf':J.I\sfer center.ltansfc:r adviser,college
fairs on campus for students transfemnc 10 4.year colleges.
Contact.E-mail:admisl>ions@marymoUntpv.cdu
Phone:(310)377-5501 ext.208 Fax:(310)265-Q962
Nina Lococo,Dean of Admissions
Marymounr College
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
R8Jlcbo Palos Verdes.CA 90275-6299
Transfer oul .92%of students enrolled in (he transfer program go on to
4·year colleges.CoUeges most students transferred to 1999:Loyola
Muymount University.Univenity of Southern California.University of
California at,~~8cles.Pepperdine University.Univmi[)'of San Diego.
2.The EIR study should consider the fact Marymount College's
stated student population was recently 905 full and part-time
students.(Exhibit 2)This figure is important in scoping the adequacy of
parking facilities and traffic impacts entering and emanating from the
College.The current (average)allowed student population is 750 under the
previous Conditional Use Permit (CUP).However,the College has stated that
certain exceptions and flexibility in making that calculation increase this
limitation to 793.The total of fall and spring semesters populations are
averaged to create the actual figure subject to this limitation and therefore,
under current "restrictions"such a figure for the Fall semester is and has been
possible..
12 I ]I a g L'
2 - 177
3-Marymount proposes to permanently site (annually
renewed)250 virtually unsupervised new freshman students on
the PV East site in two dormitories.This youthful (18-19 year old)
segment of the population is typically/statistically among the most dangerous
in terms of traffic deaths.No account of the potential traffic patterns for the
proposed new on-campus students (24/7)has yet been conducted or
recognized by College Officials.(The Kaku Parking Study notes only two days,
Wednesday and Thursday,February 21 and 22,2001 -7:00 AM-TOO PM)
Therefore,the ErR needs to address this "full time"student presence impact,
both on traffic as well as required parking.It should be noted that the College
plan includes few additional staff or faculty personnel living on campus,and
most of those planned are not slated to supervise the new on-campus dorm
students.After hours,inexperienced students will transit PV Drive East.
4-PV Drive East is a dangerous,narrow,winding and
sometimes steep artery,upon which local residents are forced to
depend.The impact of adding students onto a Day campus affects a large
residentential population,far greater than just those within 500'of the
proposed expansion.Going South from Miraleste Plaza to Marymount,the
(average)speed limits are approximately 25 MPH and this section is posted as
being unsuitable for bicycles.Continuing south from the College down the
"switchback section"is also two lane after the road narrows at a dangerous
"choke point"at the intersection of Ganado Drive.This is an especially
dangerous intersection for residents exiting the many interior streets.Going
downhill on PV Drive East,the (at that point)four lane roadway is divided
into a right turn lane only (10 MPH)and a left continuation lane posted at 30
MPH.The sharp curve on the down hill side as well as another such sharp
turn coming up hill severely limits exiting Ganado traffic visibility when
attempting a turn from Ganado to PV Drive East.Further,the right hand turn
lane is a potentially deadly factor in that unfamiliar traffic sometimes does
not turn right,as required,but goes straight through.Such situations are
not turn right,as required,but goes straight through.Such situations are
potentially deadly for traffic leaving Ganado under the presumption that the
downhill,right turn only,driver will in fact effect a turn and not proceed
straight into the (drivers)side of the exiting vehicle.Add the PV
East/Ganado intersection to the study sites.Thus,the proposed
dormitories create new and significant,full-time,around-the clock
jeopardy to our safety.This is a situation that does not presently exist and
represents a virtually unprecedented and inappropriate imposition on our
community.
131 P jj g L'
2 - 178
5.However,an overriding concern for the EIR to keep in
view is the apparent lack of candor and truthfulness regarding
these matters from the Board of Trustees.Because of their failure to
identify so many obvious new safety issues I find it difficult to consider the
truthfulness of any of the Boards'statements.Such lack of candor and
forthrightness can also be shown by College statements regarding the
Preschool which has not been shown to have any reserved space on site for a
future location subsequent to publication of the May 2006,et seq.site plans.
6.Parking requirements are another example of misleading
half-truths and incomplete staff work.The Kaku Study of May 1,2001,
provides several examples.With data gathered approximately one year ago,
this study does offer insight into how real data can be presented in a
potentially misleading fashion.At the time of the data sampling,Marymount
apparently had 724 (average of Fall and Spring semesters)full and part time
degree seeking students.Assuming that is a correct figure,the study goes on
to cite the present "CUP"student "limitation"of 750 students,and certain
flexibilities of that limitation which allow for a "maximum"such student
population of 793.Both such figures are not absolutes,but are known to the
College to represent averages of fall and spring semester student populations.
The failure of the Kaku study to understand that 793,for example,is not the
actual upper limit for a single semester population,limits and undermines its
conclusions.Instead,an actual 905 students (published and recognized by
Marymount as aforementioned),leads Kaku to an inappropriate conclusion
that only 440 spaces of parking are sufficient under the proposed expansion
plan.It is claimed that such spaces will eliminate on-street parking and that is
provably wrong.
7.Actual data for both days of the Kaku study suggest that far
greater parking spaces are appropriate to accommodate the
number of cars expected under the proposed expansion.Such
current studies are not adjusted for future expansion impacts.As shown in
the study data,the actual number of spaces available in the parking lot are
never completely filled,even when there are excess cars parked on the street.
In other words,student/visitor parking is never 100%efficient.Although on-
site parking spaces are still available,from 9:00 to 10:00 AM,for example
(Wednesday,February 21,2001 data),14 cars are added to the street parking
while there is still space for them on site,and the lot is only 94%full.And
another 32 cars are added to on-street parking by 11:00 when seven on-site
spaces are still available (97%full).The obvious conclusion from the Kaku
study is that to actually keep a targeted number of cars on-site,you need to
provide more than 100%of the desired number in terms of actual spaces.
Based on a 94%"efficiency"factor,to accommodate the (observed)peak of
14 1 P age
2 - 179
323 student/visitor cars,344 parking spaces are required.This is actually a
very conservative value based on the data.Since the empirical data was
obtained based upon an enrollment of 724,scaling that to the 793
"maximum"allowed limit under the CUP,indicates that 377 spaces would be
necessary,not 323.To provide for the actual 905 students that Marymount
has acknowledged,the required student/visitor spaces are 430.Adding in the
current (minimum)70 faculty/staff spaces brings the total required parking
to at least 500 spaces,and that is most likely understated also because there
presently appear to be only limited if any parking provisions (per Code)for
Service vehicles under the new plan.Also,it is probable that additional on-
site staff (+27)will be required as well.No incremental parking provisions
have (admittedly)been made for the new athletic and academic facilities
which more than doubles the present square footage on site.
8.The claimed "benefit"of lower peak-commuter hour traffic
(with on-site dormitories)is misleading.The offsite Marymount
students,presently sited at the Navy facility (on PV Drive North,East of
Western)and in San Pedro at 24th Street,travel to Marymount College in a
direction counter to the residents'direction of commuter traffic flow.Thus the
claimed reduction in commuter hour traffic attributable (as a benefit to the
community by Marymount)to the proposed expansion is virtually negligible.
Nor has such commuter hour traffic been a specific subject of resident's
concern since it has not been additive to the local residents commuter flow.
9.There are significant and unrecognized negative impacts
attributable to the imposition of 250 freshman in on-campus
dorms at this site.Such negative factors as traffic and related safety issues
have been,at best,downplayed and minimized by College officials and their
public relations releases to the community.Additional study is needed to
consider the "twenty four hour,seven day a week"(24/7)presence
of a high-density youthful student population.Local services are a
significant distance away,particularly considering the steep,narrow and
winding roads leading to 7/11's,Pizza and other restaurants,supermarkets,
movies,retail and drug stores,and the like.
10.What kind of integrity allows Marymount College to boast to
prospective students that it already offers (existing)"guaranteed on-campus
housing for freshmen"?What kind of integrity allows Marymount College to
state that it currently has a student enrollment of "905 degree-seeking
undergraduates",(and nearly that number the year before)despite an agreed
enrollment cap of 750?What kind of integrity allows the Board to postulate
that only a positive impact will accrue when such fictitiously-claimed on-
campus housing is actually constructed as proposed?What kind of self-
serving (integrity)allows Marymount College to publicly disregard the
15 II)age
2 - 180
obvious dangers that such a new and virtually unprecedented full-time
youthful two-year college student population imposes at the expense of this
community's safety?Why is it not even mentioned?Be wary of accepting
Marymount data and statements without first fully validating their
claims.
11.Marymount College has been a valuable and valued resource within
the Palos Verdes Community for thirty-three years on its present site;thirty-
three years without on-campus housing.And Marymount College can well
continue to be a valuable resource to this community WITHOUT such
unprecedented on-campus dormitories.The College and its Trustees must
abandon their demonstrated conspiracy of misinformation and denial of the
facts.The Trustees must,instead,replace stone-walling with truthful,full
disclosure regarding on-campus housing and its real dangers and related
consequences to our community.
12.The EIR should investigate recent statements by a City
consultant that "the fault under the San Ramon Canyon with the
problems runs up and over to the main school property..this fault is
Y shaped and definitely extends under the school prOperty."
161!)age
2 - 181
FaR,pr.-~
~
•••••••••I .1.,.•••0 0 ••••It ••••••~I~_,_.I I I •J •T .lIh ,••••0 ••••1., • 0 ••0 , 0 0 •01 •••, 0 .,• 0 • ,.1.,•••••••••,I •••, • 0 •••,Inryillpount CQUf1:C Exp;lnlfon EIR Tlmcllne
of.I I ••, I It ••I I I J •1 ,, , t •I • L J I •I • 1 It •••1 I I •,• I •,•••I ,J •I , ,It •••I 1 I •,, , I 1 •,•I I I •I I ,•••••I ,I •I I , I ••••I I I ••I •••,••, ,1 _
______.~2000 "2001 ~2002 M2003 ~2004 "2005 "2006 "2007 "2008 "2009 "2010
-t---"ev-e-n-,/7""-:tlvit•
~ICC(/M[Appo31 Filed
IIPC Hea,ln
olKHea"n
PC Hurl"
PC HUrln
a£.lpC Hei!l~n8 moved 10 April 14
PC Hearln
6 CC "eitlll!comments A endblO
-17 CC AoPtllll Helrlnlt Sel
PC Hea,lnlt on F[IA
CC Appul Postponed to Sept.12
CCC!M£Ahern'IM"CcJllelte eh'lI11el
PC HurlnR'0'.8rophv delav Itlter
College files fOf 8A I u ........
CC Approval<onsultanl Contti!ct
~.5 rCollege Fl5 Entitlement Hearln
4B MI/ymounl COUt'l1 loll (IRlllM
49 A(",,,I at ,(onl..11_"1 fIR Won "OCtet'
50 IIl1f Com ...,nt It"P'I"M 1'''11.''1101I OWy
CECA ·Clock Nnl out
21 SnowlettertoMa mount 1'-1
12 DEIR Comment Period Clotes
10 I Publl'Hurlnl Dr.ft EIA
IID£IA Commenu Received ftom ABF
name Commlslon HtJfl!!i _
AIlSllOnteS to Ql.lestlonl
PC Heat1nlt
t21RevIw!d APDIIt,Uon Deemed complete
I£.Colle I wbmft,red'ned I.n,
L1 CoNelll wbmltl new Dlln.
The CoUege submltulaceholdllr e
CcJI~lle recelv"Tltl'to NI.....U1nd I"',
The Collell wlthdtlw5 'PDltcatlon
6 lJolnt CC/PC SeoDI""SISIIan
iJEIR Consultant RBF ..I#.ct~
InltlJl ScoDlnll Siliion
E meetl with Trustees
~lEIR ApPUcltlon RllCelved
1 IAoollcatlon Sllned
l4lnTemll(ll'llrv~Modul3r BulldlnlS
16 Colte e lubmlts New Plln';~2:~_t1hm
~.Dr.8ro h "Oela·Lettlr
2S St3ff Rel:>Ort to CC fe:EIR
!3..CIt GeoID lsi I provel new plan
14 CEaA bulns·Notice of Prepariltlon
1"ICollelte failure to proceed CEQ.A suspen,
16 CoJlue Plan Revised t9..!.l!!"...-..
t New Collelle Plans 1",
~~Clockre'lllltlld .._."
19 OEIR comollted
51 [Cee/ME Appnl fMtd with City Appeal2 - 182
---._--~---
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
PALOS VERDES,CALIFORNIA
Office of the President
March 5,2010
Ms.Madonna Deek
1111 Via Francisca Avenue
San Pedro,CA 90732
Dear Ms.Deek,
Marymount College will be suspending operations of our Preschool effective
June 30,2010.While the preschool continues to enjoy a great reputation,it has
not been able to sustain its business model.We are writing to all of the Preschool
families now so that you have plenty of time to make alternate plans for the fall
of2010.
This has been one of the most difficult decisions the College has ever made,so
please be in touch with any and all questions regarding this loss.We will consider
how best to envision a future Preschool within the context of our new building
program and our four-year degrees.
Regards,
.".,;".~'~-.~;:...;~.-;-.
Michael S.Brophy,Ph.D.,M.FA
President
Marymount College
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-6299 •Tel.(310)377-5501 •Fax (310)265-06-12
mbrophy@marymountpv.cdu •www.marymountpv.edll
2 - 183
Melissa Pamer melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com
Ashley Racliff aratcliff@pvnews.com
We read a recent article in your publication regarding Marymount College's ambitious,
but perhaps futile,plan to take their expansion proposal to voters.Regardless of the
outcome,there is an element to this story that needs to be exposed.
On Saturday,March 6,2010 pre-school parents received a letter signed by the
president of the college,Michael Brophy,notifying us that all pre-school operations will
be suspended as of June 30,2010.
While we were aware of the expansion project,we were completely blindsided by this
letter.It was a bit disheartening to receive the letter in the fashion it was delivered given
the fact the president himself had a child who graduated from the program last year.No
compassion was shown.No courtesy was given to the parents (or staff)alerting us of
the possibility this was unfolding.There was never any formal mention that the pre-
school,which is one of the crown jewels of the area,was shutting down.
There was simply no real explanation in the letter as to why the operations were being
suspended.We are dismayed by how this was handled and strongly believe that the
administration owed us a lot more than sending something akin to a "pink slip."Brophy
cites in his letter that the pre-school "has not been able to sustain its business
modeL"It is ironic that he cites that as the reason since their main campus has not
been a thriving business model either.Enrollment has dropped and college personnel
were furloughed before the school year started in September 2009.
Idle talk led us to believe the pre-school would be relocated but never closed.
Nonetheless,no one received any formal review or updates as to what was happening
behind closed doors.
The pre-school opened in September 1976 serving as a vehicle for the College Lab
School on campus by providing training in the fields of Early Childhood Education as
well as Psychology.Some of our teachers have been there for 23 years ....is this how
you treat your people?They were owed more than that for their loyalty,dedication and
unwavering commitment to the parents,their children and the extended community.
If the college expects steadfast support from the community to allow the expansion to
move forward,then genuine consideration should have been extended to the parents
and staff who make up the community.
Thank you for your time and I hope that you find some interest or angle to this story that
can be relayed to your readers.
Kind regards,
Marymount College's Pre-School Parents
2 - 184
Quandary
Dilemma,Pickle,Predicament
Bottom Line First (BLF)
February 15,2010
....~.~~:~~~~:.
'\.
"
",:"
The colored site plan above represents the extent ofgrading that the College has proposed
to complete within 3 months in Phase I
In Dr.Brophy's letter (Phasing)to the City dated October 30,2006,he
requested that the previous plan be "Phased"to allow the College to continue
in operation instead of shutting down (previous plans)for 18 -24 months.
~,
I .-0"
I,
''''IOScalo f/ilJlRONf.lf1lTAlIMoACT REPORT
DAI:'I ~MA'lYMOUIH ClllLEG.E rACIunES EXpmSIQN I'ROJECT
I~~Construction Pflasing Diagrams
O~··~,,~,.~".~-ElhtbJl3-7a
This is DEIR Exhibit 3-7afor Phase I which omits any south slope grading
llPage
2 - 185
The October 2007 DEIR Section 5.6 (Geology)describes a broad swath of
remedial grading across the south slope of the College.This extensive grading
was deemed necessary for "soil stability.Other than the description and
reference,it was never revealed to the Planning Commission or Public.
I \\1 \..,:"'..,~.loll (_~~.~1'~/~'~'~~~~-g'-~--~_._~~~~~.~l~~/
en Ho+-ri
EXlsnNG FACULlY BLDG.
EFE=924.0
DEIR Public Review Draft .October 2007 5.6-20 Geology and Soils
-.
5.6.4.3 UNSTABLE GEOLOGIC UNlTS
SLOPE STABILITY
o DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD BE LOCATED ON A
GEOLOGIC UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS UNSTABLE OR THAT WOULD,AS A
RESULT OF THE PROJECT,BECOME UNSTABLE.
Impact Analysis:As stated above,the geologic structure (i.e.,orientation)of weak bedding planes
within the bedrock is both neutral (i.e.favorable)to adverse along portions of the southwest-facing
slope.13 More specifically,the results of ASE's (2005)slope stability analyses indicate that the
uppermost portions of the natural and overlying man-made fill soils along the top of the slope,
along the southern side of the Project area (i.e.,the area adjacent to the proposed Residence
Halls),does not possess an adequate factor-of-safety against failure.
21Page
2 - 186
"Consequently,ASE has recommended incorporation of soil buttresses along the upper portions of
the slope,which would provide the necessary factor of safety of 1.5 for static and 1.15 pseudo
static conditions."
"The Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (March 13,2007)depicts a laterally extensive
buttressed slope along the southwest facing natural slope at the southeast corner of the Project
site.Proposed keyway excavations for the buttress fills,which are associated with creating more
stable slopes along the southerly margin of the Project site,would not require shoring."
The biggest problem with the DEIR statement (above)is with respect to the
(non-existent)new March 13,2007 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan.
Such a Geotechnical Plan of this date was never provided to the Planning
Commission or to the Public because it does not exist.
If you take the time to research the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan of
this date (above)you will find that it consists only of an architectural site plan
and supporting,non-geotechnical,Cross Sections.
As far as ASE and the City Geologists are concerned,this referenced Plan does
not exist at all because there is a void between Reference Letters #'s 4 
(2005/2008)with no mention of any 2007 Geotechnical Plan with any "shear
key"as referred to in the DEIR.
31Page
2 - 187
LIST OF REFERENCES
1.Associated Soils Engineering,Inc.,2008,Second Response to City of Rancho
Palos Verdes Geotechnical Report Review Checklist dated October 21,2008,
Re:Latest Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan and Proposed Masler Site
Plan for the Proposed Marymount College Improvements,30800 Palos Verdes
Drive East,Rancho Palos Verdes,California,Project No.08-5470-4,dated
November 4.
2.Associated Soils Engineering,inc.,2008,Response to City of Rancho Palos
Verdes Geotechnical Report Review Checklist dated September 21,2008,Re:
Latest Preliminary Grading and Dreinage Plan and Proposed Masler Site Plan for
the Proposed Marymount College Improvements,30800 Palos Verdes Drive
Easl,Rancho Palos Verdes,California,Project No.08-5470-4,dated October 14.
3.Zeiser Kling Consultants,Inc.2008,"Geotechnical Review Sheet,Marymount
College,30800 Palos Verdes Drive East,Rancho Palos Verdes Califomia,"dated
September 16~.
4.Associated Soils Engineering,Inc.,2008,Geotechnical Review of Ihe Latest
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan and Proposed Master Site Plan for the
Proposed Marymount College Improvements,30800 Palos Verdes Drive East,
Rancho Palos Vereles,California,Project No.08-5470-4,daled August 29.
5.Zeiser Kling Consullants,Inc.2005,"Geotechnical Review Sheet,Marymount
College,30800 Palos Verdes Drive East,Rancho Palos Verdes California,"dated
September 8~.
6.Associated Soils Engineering,Inc.,2005,"Geotechnical Response 10 City of
Rancho Palos Verdes Review Sheet for Proposed Marymount College
tmprovements,dated June 22,2005,City of Rancho Palos Verdes,Cal~ornia,"
dated july 19~(PN 02-5470-2).
7.Associated Soils Engineering,Inc.,2005,"Updated Preliminary Grading Plan
Review for Proposed Marymount College Improvements,City of Rancho Palos
Verdes,Califomia,"dated May 10~(PN 02-5470-2).
8.Associated Soils Engineering,Inc.,2003,"Updated Preliminary Grading Plan
Review and Geotechnical Response to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Review
Sheet for Proposed Marymount College Improvements,City of Rancho Palos
Verdes,Califomia,"dated June 30"(PN 02-5470-1).
9.Zeiser Kling Consultants,tne.2003/'Geotechnical Review Sheet,Marymount
College,30800 Palos Verdes Drive East,Rancho Palos Verdes California,"dated
May 12~.
10.Associated Soils Engineering,Inc.,2002,"Preliminary Grading Plan Review and
Geotechnical Response to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Review Sheet for
Proposed Marymounl College Improvements,City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
California,"dated June 28~(PN 02-5470).
<8IA".
'?...
OilS ENGINEERING,INC.
Marymount College
Project No.08-5470-4
May 19.2009
Page 3
The actual Plan referenced in the DEIR
Drainage Plan CASE's Reference Letter
incorporates the referenced May 2005
41 P age
is the Preliminary Grading and
#6 of July 19,2005)which
ASE soil buttress shear key
2 - 188
recommendations.ASE's date stamp on these Geotechnical Plates I &II IS
July 19,2005.These plans were not included in the 2007 DEIR or later.
EARTHWORK
1000 C.Y.
37000 C,Y.
o es.
37000 C.Y.
~
63000 c.r.
16000 C.Y.
47000 C.Y.
ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANlIT~S'
DUE TO THE PRELIMINARY NATURE:Of THES=:PLANS,QUANTITIES MAY VARY
AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS WAY REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS TO COMPENSATE
FOR SlIBSfO(NCE,LOSSES DUE TO CLEARING /'IND GRUBBING OPERA.T10NS,
SiTE SPECIFICS,ETC.DURING F!Nftl,GRADING PLAN PREPARATfON,PARKING LOT
GRADES \'l1lL BE HELD AT OR NEAR mE PROPOSED ElEVAnONS SHOWN HEREON
AflO FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS WILL BE VARIED TO BALANCE EARTHWORK ON-SITE ..
~fMSANKMENT
66000 C,Y.36000 C.Y.SITE GRADING
lOSS DUE TO
CLEARING &:GRUBSING;
SUBTOTAL
SHRINKAGE 0 257.;
TOTAl
EXPORT",10,COO C.Y.
(1)ESTIMATED QUANTITIES SHOWN ABOVE ARE GRID SURFACE VOLU~ES COMPUTED
FROM EXISTING GROUND ELtvAllONS TO THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN
ON THIS PlAN.
(2)CLEARING AND GRU8al~JG OPERATIONS ARE ASSUMED TO RESULT IN A lOSSor0.15'OVER THE GRADED AREP...
(3)THE SHRINKAGE FACTOR OF 2S%APf'UED TO THE EXCAVATiON QUANTlTY ts
ASSUMED.
(4-)fOR ruE PURPOSE Of THESE EAATHWORK CALCULATIONS,THE PAVEMENT
SilWCruRAl SECTION AND BUILDING FOUNDATIONS ARE ASSUMED TO BE 1.0'.
(S)ESTIMATED QUAI-.'TITiES DO ~~OT INCLUDE EXCAVATION FOR UTILITY &:STORM DRAIN TREt-:CHES
(6)lJAXIMUl.l DEPTH OF CUT ,.25'
(7)MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF flLL '"18'
This is the actual "Baseline"Preliminary Grading &Drainage Plan referred to by the
Geologist in the DEIR Section 5.6 Geology.This isfrom "Plate 1"of that Geotechnical site
plan which discloses the extensive shear key but was never shown to the Planning
Commission or Public.Plate I:ASE Date Stamp July 19,2005
\\~)'\{f~~~~~.c;~~I~-':'''';,~=::E~~~~,,<,
'-yi
SIPage
2 - 189
EARTHWORK
The Earthwork Summary below isfrom the ''Architectural''Version ofthe March 13,2007
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan.It does not display the referenced soil buttress
shear key described in DEIR Section 5.6.
VtRDts ~-~~::~----o-S1
ABBREVIATIONS
1000 c.Y..'000 C.I'.
.!!!!!!!Q..E::!
51000 CoY.
o CoY.
~
~
571lOO c.Y.
~
81000 c.Y.
~
51000 C.T.
(,)~~~~~GlIIO~~~e:o
O~""'s~.
(2)~~~c:i:9~~~ME ,o\$SUIoIED TO R£SUI.T "A l.OSS
(3)1l'lE ~FACTO!!:OF 2M'N'PUEO 10 ThlE DCoIIVAnOH ou.o.tnm'IS""""'.
(.)~~Of~ES~~=-"~ls~~A'i1r~T1.0',
(5)~TID 0I.WffiT1[S 00 HOT ~UO[UCAVATICN I"OIl UTIl.m'.Ill $'fOFllol CAAlN TFlE/'ICHES.
(t)"'AAOW~O£PTH OF"cur ..25"
(7)IoI,o\XIloilN IiElCiHT OF tllL -1~'
(51 ~.o.s';u~~~~~5~~RGK~OONS,O'VtR!XCAv...\'lON
"""""'""'"..,,,
~..CAlJ9llltOCl:
"""""--,,""
""""~~o~
""~
iL-':'-:'::::'~-=--------------
Note only was the shear key omitted from the site plan (Plate 1),it was not
shown by the omitted Geotechnical Cross Sections (Plate II)as well.
.L"I
1 ".~1
a
A -----._......-
~::
Plate II,Cross Section D -D':ASE Date Stamp July 19,2005
The "Architectural"grading plans,masquerading as Geotechnical Plans,are
in the City file listed as "grading-plans-may-2oo7.pdf'file size is 2,656 KB
and that file includes three sheets;The Site Plan overview,a Cross Section
and a "Slope Analysis"page illustrating "Man Made Fill Slopes to be removed
during demolition".No grading quantities are shown.No soil buttress shear
key is shown.None of those affected areas involve the existing soccer field.
The question now arises as to the current requirement for this soil buttress
61Page
2 - 190
shear key.
That subject was clearly described in ASE's May 19,2009 letter of Transmittal
to the College and City wherein they stated that "The removal of the student
housing has created a revision to the slope configuration east of the Chapel.
The previously proposed shear key (50 feet wide by 5 feet deep)is still
considered adequate for slope stability and has been moved up the slope as
shown in the Geotechnical Map,Plate I and in the revised Cross Sections,
Plate II."
Thus,if the reVlSlOn only affects the "previously proposed shear key"
configuration to the east of the Chapel,then why was the shear key
descriptor noted on Plate I removed or redacted,and why from both
previously displayed areas on that Map?
7!Page
2 - 191
That the shear key soil buttress is still applicable has been further
demonstrated by the most recent submittal of a new Preliminary Grading and
Drainage Plan dated January 6,2010 and received by the City on January 15,
2010 by an entirely new set of Engineers.
,PRELIMINARY GRADING &
DRAINAGE PLAN
revisions
Checlted:LCIConsutt.No:322.00J
RASMUSSEN a ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Planning
Interiors
248 South Wills Road
Ventura.California 93003
(805)6H-7347
The latest and greatly revised Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan was submitted to
the City on January 15,2010 by the Architecturalfirm ofRasmussen &Associates
s tIll
ENIJINlmUlNG GIlOUJ'
3H21 S.UARUOR SLvn.SUl1'E 100
SANTA ANA,CA 9270,1
RECENED
JAN 15 2010
IV'oNN1NG,llUllDlNG AND
CODE ENFORCEl\tENl
This latest Plan was created by a new Engineering firm,MK Engineering Group replacing MAC
Design Associates
81Page
2 - 192
I believe that it is significant that Associated Soils Engineering (ASE)is no
longer involved with providing geotechnical (grading quantities)information
for Marymount.ASE has a long history on this project dating back to 2002
(Reference Letter #10)I believe that they were required to respond on very
short notice (4 days)to "approve"the "remedial grading"that the College
insisted on introducing to the PC at the last minute after withdrawing dorms
from their plans.ASE responded in 4 days,from the 15th to the 19th ,2009.
That is not enough time to do a thorough job and ASE botched it with the
Drainage flows running uphill that I had protested to them,the City and the
City Geologist.The latter were unfazed and responded that this possible error
would be "fixed"in "Plan Check".But ASE did get caught.And they knew it.
That goof was fixed in this latest January 6,2010 new (architectural)
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan---by a new set of engineers!They
didn't wait until "Plan Check"!
However,as of the current Staff Report for the February 16,2010 meeting,it
has been reported that;
"At the September 12th meeting,a concern was raised by the public that the grading plans do
not accurately reflect the amount of earth movement needed to accommodate the construction
of the project approved by the Planning Commission (that is currently under appeal).
Specifically,concerns were expressed with the quantity of the requested remedial grading
presented to the Commission during its deliberations on the project.Staff has requested,and
the College has agreed,to provide the City with grading plans that have been updated to
reflect the Commission's decision.Moreover,the College will be providing the City with a
break-down of the quantities of earth movement for the areas under the proposed building
footprint and the areas outside the bUilding footprint,as requested in the City's grading
applications.This information will be provided to the Council at the time the appeal hearing is
resumed."
This is misleading,for several reasons,because on October 6,2009,Dr.
Brophy wrote to the City stating that
"In preparing this analysis,Marymount has addressed every question posed by City staff in Mr.Mihranian's
e-mail of September 18,2009,and then some."
Dr.Brophy's claim is untrue and unfulfilled because the College did not in fact
provide or address every question posed ("and then some")by Mr.
Mihranian's e-mail of September 18,2009 (selection below),specifically the
request for grading information regarding "a concern raised by the public that
the grading plans do not accurately reflect the amount of earth movement
needed to accommodate the construction of the project approved by the
Planning Commission".
91Page
2 - 193
4Illily"to racklre~pubJk:CQ[i1t1Jel,ltliJE$ltTjjng (remedial).~radlfl!t:?.ta!tr.fJt1.yes!i'thf1lthe,C9lt:ge submita detailed
b.lll,f1~-dllIimo.lfue P~Q;;;e(I el'it'thW1:lrk fOJ areastintl~r"",~Oj)_Mi~dtl1l;l an<!01J(,SIQe of \fl~.bUllal~~pflnt
il)!l!t,tdlng.parlqhll .lot's,wafkw<lY~;tl"rn:Jls r;orpts,atbletic·fjekf 'Sl]d"!)~pm]e:ill'«lmpQn!ll1l&ThIs mformation
Shot/fa tie pr"pared and wet-stamped by a licensed engineer,
The current Quandary is created by the recent submission of a new Site
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan by Rasmussen &Associates and
created by another and previously unknown third party,MK Engineering
Group,dated January 6,2010,and delivered to the City on January 15,2010.
No transmittal letter was provided/acknowledged by Staff for this recent
document.
As such,the Council has not been informed of this development except for a
Reference (above)in the latest Staff Report that;
"Specifically,concerns were expressed with the quantity of the requested remedial grading
presented to the Commission during its deliberations on the project.Staff has requested,and
the College has agreed,to provide the City with grading plans that have been updated to
reflect the Commission's decision."(Remedial grading issues raised by the Public)
And further that;
"the College will be providing the City with a break-down of the quantities of earth movement
for the areas under the proposed building footprint and the areas outside the building footprint,
as requested in the City's grading applications.This information will be provided to the Council
at the time the appeal hearing is resumed."
That Appeal Hearing date is now slated for March 30,2010,6 months after
Dr.Brophy stated that;
UMarymount has addressed every question posed by City staff in Mr.Mihranian's e-mail of
September 18,2009,and then some.'
In other words,essential data that is normally required by the City as a matter
of course and Code,has not been submitted by the College nor has the
grading detail information been submitted that the College claimed was
previously addressed.It will be six months late if provided by that appeal
date!
This is extremely troubling because the new grading Plan submitted does not
address any of the grading quantity issues raised by the public as a concern
and in fact ostensibly omits remedial grading (Tennis Courts)previously
presented to the Council and referred to (above).But it does change virtually
every grading dimension from the previously approved plan of July 14,2009
in the FEIR and Appendix A.It incorporates other new issues and problems
as well.
10 I P age
2 - 194
The January 2010 Plan omits any remedial grading depiction for the Tennis
Courts along Cross Section line C-C'and Athletic Building (D -D')shown in
the previously approved plan submitted and approved by ASE and the City
Geologist as relating to the areas south of the proposed new Athletic Building
(Plate II,Cross Section D -D').No previously-approved remedial grading is
shown for the Tennis Courts area (Boring Test Hole B-2)or the Athletic
Building soil buttress shear key area.
This Site Plan submitted by the College also introduces includes a brand new
"Note"referencing the requirement that this new plan (must)comply with the
recommendations of the Soils Report by Associated Soils Engineering (ASE)
of May 10,2005.Of course,that is a "good thing".
NOTES
1.GRAlJING SHALL CONFORM TO THE cnr OF RANCHO PALqs
VERDES GRAlJING REQUIREMENTS,THE UNIFORM BUILDING i,
CODE,AND THE RECOMMfNDAnONS OF THE SOILS REPOR:T
NO.05-5470-2 BY ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING INC!,
IDATEDM4Y10,2005.!
I
2.SEE ARCHITECrS PLAN FOR SITE LAYOUT.
J.AREA OF SITE IS 24.57 ACRES.
4.THE PROPOSED DET£N7l0N BASIN Will BE DESIGNED TO
M41NTAIN PRE-DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF LEVELS.
I
This is the included Note that refers to the Shear Key by Reference to the ASE
Recommendations ofMay 10,2005.
That report is in the List of References,#7,in ASE's transmittal letter dated
May 19,2009 which confirms and incorporates by reference the soil buttress
shear key grading (on the south slope below the Tennis Courts,Parking and
Pool areas,Athletic Facility and Student Union Buildings)that otherwise is
not shown on this latest site plan.The shear key soil buttress is alive and well,
although unseen in this most recent Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan.
The major significance of this latest "Architectural"Site Plan (January 2010)
is that it reaffirms,by specific reference,to the shear key that had somehow
been "lost"in the previous grading plans.The "Recommendations of the Soils
Report No.05-5470-2 by Associated Soils Engineering dated May 10,2005"is
the exact same reference cited by the author of the DEIR Geology Section 5.6.
ll!Page
2 - 195
This is a reaffirmation and confirmation that the shear key and its associated
additional grading is still in force and should not be neglected when
calculating excavation and embankment quantities.
In other words,although there has been no change to the shear key
configuration West of the Chapel,that descriptor had been removed from
both ends of this wide swath of excavation area on Plate I of the Geotechnical
Map of May 15,2009 submitted by ASE to the Planning Commission.
What may be the meaning of the reaffirmation of the shear key (in writing)
but its removal from the Site Plan?
Why have new engineers been brought on board that have never previously
provided geotechnical nformation?New source of information now appears
without any explanation.Is this because ASE was no longer willing to bet its
reputation on complying with unreasonable requests from Marymount on
short notice?
Was this a preemptive response to the September 18,2009 City request to
provide "wet stamped"grading quantities by licensed engineers?Was an
October 6,2009 date too short of a notice?ASE had already been "burned"by
responding in great haste (4 days)to Marymount's previous hurry-up
assignment.Since ASE and MAC Designs had all along been including
Earthwork quantities in their Plans,those figures should have been readily
available,assuming that they had always been included.
,~.::;:!>
-";'.:.-
::...:.i .~;~,'
-_:~.i".:
--f-I~-
s,
;'..:;.,;-~,..-.;'-:-:""--.'..
~k~~~;;~::;::!:f:l,~~¢'-a
_ _ _'-.p '.:......~::;~::;::-:~-i.,.f£'i;:..:..._",--!~;~-_:....-;;~:-..~~.'-~."~~--.-.-.'\~;:.'~'.:"'.:..."".:.~_'~',-\.
This is Staffs presentation to the City COllncil datedAllgllst 18,2009 oj "Remedial Grading
qllantities"that was never supported by documents from the College or Geologists
121Page
2 - 196
For the first time in public,Staffs presentation (during the initial Appeal
Hearing to the City Council)displayed a previously unknown fact;the Tennis
courts required "remedial grading".That was news because there had been an
assumption that non-habitable site features such as parking,walkways,etc.
did not require geotechnical stabilization.As shown below,however,the Test
Boring "B-2"discovered severe geotechnical problems in the Tennis Court
area that requires significant remedial grading in addition to the basic
excavation needed to lower the existing site to the playing surface.
;"
".,
.."-.".......
:"\'',",'.',.'.~..'~;,:i{i:::,:'~~I ,,:_~~.-'~.~~
:,".,..-
'.",I...
"-'.."."',
.".
'..~""'"
':,,:",,...:
1:..,'.-.'
""'j.'"I _.
···....,~7~7~~:'·',::tif.
~~Mi....f~.;::"';:'~i!,:iw 'j~,
':'J!ifl'"
.:-,'"
_._..:".•"·"'"t o •••••
.". .'".~
.~.~.;~:
'~..",t ,
.::",',..'.'.....\30RIN b n fl-~."
"'1:01"".:'
.;:'""
.:",....
,.t,
-.";.
..:.l.i......
,V',",
:~....
,.
This remedial grading Cross Section has remained llllchanged since itfirst appeared in the July
19'h,2005 Geotechnical Site Plan,Plate II.
Second,since these newest two "players"(Rasmussen &MK Designs)have no
background in the geotechnical arena,they have apparently covered their
bases with that "Note"referring to ASE's May 10,2005 "Recommendations"
which are in fact referring to the shear key itself.This is the same reference
incorporated by the third party geologist author of the DEIR Geology Section.
L_I
t'.o2O'!
:~i9$;;')".~,;~~
~~~-..-4
•
~:."--
,.ot
,,
!
•
......_..0 ......
The same kind of remedial grading is also specifiedfor the area in front and behind the new
Athletic Building
13!Page
2 - 197
Both of the above Cross Sections and Geotechnical site Plan had not been
made available to The Planning Commission or Public before the release of
the listed Reference documents in ASE's May 19 th ,2009 transmittal letter.
This grading feature has not been eliminated,just moved up the hill,as ASE
stated,in the area East of the Chapel.That added grading shown is 18,000
Cubic Yards,not broken down into excavation and embankment.This grading
was never previously revealed to the Public and was disguised by DEIR
Exhibits 3.7a and 3-8,which disclosed no slope grading in Phase I or any
slope excavation tasks.
Such an omission is especially troubling when reviewing page 3 of the March
13,2007 architectural set of Plans which is the "Slope Analysis"Site Plan that
discloses extensive site grading in the slope areas to remove and re-compact
"man-made"fill areas along the south slope.The Phase I site Diagram was
created by none other than Rasmussen &Associates and included the
notation that no pad grading was to be done for Residence Halls.
".-
",,'-.
1 ;,.."
\.
I '."I '...'.....I ...".....I ,~,~'~..'.:;:..~~.r_~"':'1::':;:.--;.,~._;"..~".'....."'7.'•.'.';;~~:'.~,~,,.---::c---,,-.,----,---.,-:---_=_
The College and Planning Staffwere well aware from the DEIR that the "Man-Made fill Slopes to
be removed"011 the south slopes would be excavated and re-graded
14 I P age
2 - 198
Despite this clear knowledge,the DEIR falsely portrayed the Phase I work to
virtually exclude any excavation or re-grading of the south slopes;
:;
._-'..'
,-
.-----
••
".~,"...".-.....'-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
I MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACIUTJES EXPANSION PROJECT~~~~"."",,~..----=cc.::.on::.:S:.::lr-=U:.:CI.:.:iOc:.:n..:.-P.:::ha:::s::.:in:.!!g-=D:.:ia:.;g~ra:.:m~s
ErhibIl3·1.
The lightly dotted area notes "Location offuture Residence Halls No Pad G1'Oding Required"
Phase t Description ConstructiDn Task
PHASE I (YEAR 1 [ANTICIPATED 2008])
Remove:Tennls and Handball Courts...:.~Remove:West a-nd"Sooth'Parklng Lots..
Remove Buildings:View RoomlHaU;-Site Demolltlon
Maintenance/Photo Lab;Bookstorel Health i ~
=~:S~;:=:~~~!_lt_sO_h'_~_~_!:id_~~·.~.~~:~~~.f~-;Ro~!~_~r~~~-!J;__'_"_''--~f ~~~~-~.~~_-_-_'_'-_'_"1-;
Fino Orade:Residence Halls (No Building Fine Grading i....
._~~•...______._~.----.:__J...~.•.,l..
RevegetatetLandsc::ape:New Building Hyd dl "I
Pads..rosee ng I ! - ;
.CO!!!SJ~e.t;_~!~i!'.lnCLW~II&~__,=-·._.-_:~a.!~'?ri!Y_~.m h •.1 __i__~~_-..'~~'..=r
~:~:;~:,~~~~~.g~~~;~~:t~~.!lve._.._.Curbs,P.vlng and Striping f .,~.,_~.:I
Construct Now EastIWest Parking Lot _
Extonsions..~u~_~~__~~~~~~nd.~~!1~~__'1'."'.'_iii'..__.'.
--·-Conslruct:-'AthJetlc-Fleid-and·Tennl.Fine Grade.Landscape.i-...'
CourU..Tonnls Court ConsUuctIon I
PHASE II (YEARS 2 TO 4 [ANTICIPATED 2009 TO 2012])
Exhibit 3-8 callsfor "Rough Grade/Establish Building Pads:All New Buildings"and does not
reveal any excClvation/re-compaction in the entire shear key area
15 I P age
2 - 199
This same omission was also carried over to the FEIRIAppendix A Exhibit 3-
7a,shown below.Where is the soil buttress shear key grading?Also note the
designated "Construction Staging Area"where extensive remedial grading is
to be completed in Phase I.This is infeasible and misleading.Note the
infeasible location of the temporary staging area designated.It sits right atop
one of the largest remedial grading areas of all,shown in Cross Section A-A'.
!;HE F\.AN ~PHA!.!':I (YEAR I)
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
!IEIDl _._._-
ffi ClJ-_·-
\J7 0---
Note the absence of any south slope grading for the required soil buttress shear key.
Compare this depiction to the actual plan illustrated in the following.
The three exhibits above are contradictory and have never been resolved.The
Extreme Slope diagram explicitly calls for grading of the man-made fill areas
on the south slopes.The Exhibit 3-7a Phase I diagram by Rasmussen &
Associates disclaims any Pad Grading that Exhibit 3-8 calls out for "Rough
Grading".Such obvious contradictions and confusion have not been resolved.
Now seen with the assistance of the Geotechnical Site Plans,there has always
been remedial grading projected for this site.
The amount of such grading has never disclosed and it is very symptomatic
now that the College has decided to withhold the requested grading
16 I P age
2 - 200
information (September 18,2009 request)until six months after the College
President stated in writing that this information had already been provided,
and "then some".
.,-_._.'
lr..::'.~_,........_0:.
:.-:;:..-,;;;:;,;.;::
~.-.sg ;:'-#
..::.---~........._---.
..--_..._--~._-..-_.~....-_.........~~~,~~------
...__.....-._..,.....-.=:::::=---:.;:'~:-•
--.
This is the actual area that the Marymount's geniuses are expecting the Public to believe
that they will successfully grade within three months in Phase If Never saw this before?
The main concern here is that the College may be trying to cover up the
massive amount of undisclosed excavation and emplacement always required
by emplacement of the extensive shear key across the south slope.The cat,so
to speak,was let out of the bag by Staffs undocumented presentation because
those new grading figures had never before been included in the grading
numbers publicly displayed!To date,they are the only detail figures given out.
That is a theory based on the huge extent of that required grading never
properly disclosed.It has not gone away today as documented by both ASE's
transmittal letter statement and Rasmussen &Associates "Notes"referral to
ASE's May 10,2005 recommendations.The shear key has simply been moved
upslope East of the Chapel and remains unchanged West of the Chapel.No
17 I P age
2 - 201
explanation has yet been provided as to why the shear key descriptor was
redacted from the most current Geotechnical Map
I think that the behavior of the parties to this charade are highly suspect and
questionable.Many questions remain today.
Questions
•Why were the long-standing authors (ASE &M.A.C.Design
Associates)of geotechnical data removed?
•Why will it take over 6 months (if ever)to provide the required "wet
stamped"grading quantities when the College President stated in
writing that all requested information "and then some",had been
provided by October 6,2009?
•What are the quantities associated with the shear key?Particularly the
quantities associated with the shear key that is unaffected West of the
Chapel?
•The new grading Plan inexplicably raises the proposed Tennis Courts
Finished Surface (FS)by 9'.No required shear key grading is shown.
Raising the FS actually INCREASES total grading because the entire
area must first be excavated to place the shear key,then re compacted
(embankment)to the higher level.This amounts to an INCREASE in
grading of 9,300 cubic yards of embankment.
So that is a big problem.I think the College,Staff and the Geologists are in a
Quandary,in a "Pickle"of their own making,and worse.
•The College's latest plan of January 2010,transcends and seriously
amends the City's stated requirement to provide validated grading
quantities.It is significantly different from the Approved July 14,2009
plan.No explanations have yet been forthcoming about why it has been
provided.There is no documentation in the file given to the City Council
to date that relates to a City request.
•The Plan omits Tennis Courts (and all other such previously required
shear key grading)remedial grading (separate from the basic grading
needed to build the courts at their finish grade (FG)level).It shows only
architectural characterizations,not geotechnical grading features.No
cross sections.That is a key omission.
181Page
2 - 202
•The proposed remedial grading below the Faculty addition and Rose
Garden areas appear only as 2-dimensional areas,but without specific
quantities or supporting cross sections.No remedial (as opposed to
basic)grading is shown for the Gymnasium or Tennis Court areas,etc.
•It is reasonable to ask,Why?
This latest and as yet unacknowledged plan also adds a number of new
features including retaining walls;among these is a 9'High,240'Long Tennis
court retaining wall along the east side of the soccer field.This is in addition
to the present 240'long wall,now rising (variously)16'(TW 917.04'),14'and
11'above the newly raised playing surface at elevation 901'(FS).
The courts are also raised 9'higher than shown in previous plans and
Visualizations.Perhaps this is a misguided effort to reduce grading.That will
fail because the remedial grading comes first and then the excavated material
is reconstituted back again to the Finished Grade level.Raising the Tennis
Court's Finished Surface (FS)actually increases,rather than decreases
grading quantities.That is,of course,unless you plan to omit that remedial
grading necessary per Cross Section C-C'.
//"-~/~'.\_'w " ":7'~,..../.p'_.""'V')----."--~~--54 .':"/.._~'..<~,-,~.,\.'.>--:.__...:.~.,38:.,·T7.IH 1w '
.,---•/",/./-'.,."',---..'",90100 rs ",.1"'',/" _;.-;'r-.//.-9f!!;2904 rs1w.--••,",~~89U;rrx '__•
/.>.::X/"..--'7'---='-"1m:oor'-T -----j'I'r~---J I
90l TW·;'::';.-Jl/lO.',,'1.04--""('''J II
81.-40.'1f··!...-/JJX SLOPE ,iW1-.rr lF l .I~'~:L",~,,-)-,'.-'.,.q --r-'h-iJ~1";;/i ",.'891::-~~j---:-40'I '.11-
1
~'a~",I~1',\
::I /'/';'1 /"/'I I I L:.-.:::L',x ' 'I'L.,.J.:"-
if I I --L.\_'\'..1 '~/~~'/"'{.,~---J'j
,1'1/:~u.
(,T :~
I':1,.9X ~,\.~I I '.j ",/-/ijl,h,''~i /'I ------a.-
/::l'i 1_''_._(_L(/'\\_.~,
'.I 1 \ / I V -.-,
"I:"-.1 ........'
i I •I I (-=-'~.goo.In·~".....
This is the latest January 2010 version of the Soccer Field and Revised Tennis Courts
The Courts now have a second retaining wall adjacent to the soccer field,have no Fencing shown
and haue been raised 9'in eleuationfrom the previous ''Approved''plan
19 I P age
2 - 203
Nor is there any Tennis Court Fence shown in these new plans as would be
normally required.Why is this fencing missing?"TF"cannot be "Top of
Fence",at least not in the elevation shown (892.37')which is below the
Finished Surface (FS)of the courts (900.29')which was raised 9'above the
prior approved (FEIR,Appendix A)version.
Tennis anyone?
This latest site plan incarnation does not comport with previous "Visual
Simulations"provided by the college,including the failure to show any
fencing,increased playing surface elevation and a big new N/S Tennis Court
retaining Wall.
This latest Plan also raises the soccer field Finish Grade by 2'(to 892-40')
from the Baseline Plan (07/19/2005)reviewed by ASE.In so doing,the latest
plan also adds another two retaining walls at the Southwest corner of the
Soccer Field to prevent that corner from falling off onto PV Drive East.As
shown,these new walls are extremely close to the Property Line (PL)and
raise concerns about setbacks.
"fj'6iJ!..,
'""-<>W 6 -
20 I P age
2 - 204
(Above)This is a detail ofthe Southwest Corner of the Revised Soccer field as contained in the
latest JanuQ/'y 2010 Site Plan.The field has been raised by 1 'from the approved plan and 2'above
the elevation shown in the July 19,2005 plan.Because the field has been raised,there is a new
retaining corner wall with Top of Wall (TW)at 904-5'rising above Top of Fence (TF)at 891-4'.
The elevations shown on this new and revised plan for that corner set of new
retaining walls,indicates that the Top of Wall (TW)is 1/2'above the field
surface and 6.5'above Top of Fence (TF).Throughout this Plan,there is a
consistent misuse of "TF"which typically is below the elevation of the
structure or surface it is supposed to rise above.Thus,there is no restraining
fence at this SW/W corner new retaining wall to prevent players from
inadvertently running over that corner "cliff'down onto the street below.
•It is the City's responsibility to require the College to timely submit a
new Grading Application compliant with City Code and the approved
grading plan shown in the FEIR and as approved by the Planning
Commission.
•The completely revamped January 2010 site plan delivered to the City
January 15th,has not yet been documented or explained by College
officials as to the basis for submitting it with all the significant new
changes incorporated that were never shown,much less approved.
•Nor does this submittal provide the requested grading detail quantities,
has not been "wet stamped"by a licensed engineer or authenticated by a
licensed Geologist.
•No signed Grading Application has yet been provided by the College
since Dr.McFadden's Application dated November 11,2004!Why?
Such Application itself automatically must disclose grading quantities
both underneath structures/buildings and not under such structures -
for both excavation and embankment.Pretty basic omission.Or is all of
this simply a minor detail to be handled later in "Plan Check?"
•The scheduled Appeal Hearing now is to be based on a new and
unapproved "Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan that has not been
provided to the City Council and Public in advance.Why?The Appeal
was based on the previously approved plan.The new (reduced)
quantities (or any detailed grading quantities)have not been verified as
required by the City in September 18,2009.Why?
•The issue is that there is something seriously wrong.And not just a
small discrepancy.
21 I P age
2 - 205
RETAINING WALLS WORKSHEET:REV 6:FEBRUARY 7.2010
Wall May 15,2009 Site Plan EX Gr.EX.Gr.FG FG TW TW -Mid Section Avg.Ht TW TW Section Avg.Ht Totals/Avg.
Ref.#No.Retaining Wall Description Nor W 5 or E Nor W 5 or E Nor W 5 or E Length above FG Mid End Length above FG Wall 1
1 1 North/South Tennis Wall 907.0 906.0 893.0 893.0 916.5 916.5 159.0 23.5 913.5 913.5 81.0 20.5 22.0
2 Added Wall below FG 2.0 2.0
3 Added Excavation below FG 7.8 7.5
4 Total Height of Wall 25.5 22.5 24.0
5 Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft./lineal ft of wall)683.3 482.5
6 Back Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.Wall 162.6 126.6 289.1
7 Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal It.31.3 22.6
8 Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall section 4,981.0 1,827.2 6,808.2
9 Cubic Yds.Concrete per lineal ft.of this Wall 4.3 3.4 3.8
10 Cubic Yds.Concrete section otWell 677.2 276.0 953.2
11 ...'~:.~":;:;WoiiI IIr::IIo:iI."~-."',
12 2 North/South -West Pool Wall 914.0 909.3 897.8 897.8 922.8 916.8 93.0 25.0
13 Added Wall below FG 2.0
14 Added Excavation below FG 8.9.
15 Total Heighl of Wall 27.0 _.....:-.,-.:.J
16 Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft.llineal ft of waUl 862,0
17 Back Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.Wall 182.3
18 Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal h.38.7 North/South Tennis Wall
19 Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall section 3,596.9
20 Cubic Yds.Concrete per lineal ft.of this Wall 5.2
21 CubicYds.Concrete section of Wall 480.8 ~~-
~":I~~1-"'3-t"'P-oo""I""N'-o-rt'-h""W"""'al'-l---------+-9-1-5.-0-+-91-9-.0-1-8-97-.-8 +-8-9-7.-8+-9-2-2.-8+-92-2-.8-1-8-2-.0--1--2-5-.1---l ~~;'!1'-':"*'~'iJi '"'-
24 Added Wall below FG 2.0 _~.R d"".w ..~
25 Added Excavation below FG 8.9 t ',:•~~;!~~~~UUJ.!!iJ~
26 Total Height 01 Wall 27.1 \ - .'J1 ;.tii:i,ij,$B
•=!I~••'27 Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft./lineal ft of wall)863.2 I A.. I •
28 Back Excavation Quantily per lineal ft.Wall 182.9'../,C~~",.
29 Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.38.7 ...
30 ·Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation perWatJ section 3,177.1 i;;".=sdl:lll:~___
31 Cubic Yds.Concrete per lineal ft.of this Wall 5.2 Pool North Wall and Pool West Wall
32 Cubic Yds.Concrete section of Wall 424.0
33
34 4 Gymnasium North Wall 920.0 923.0 897.8 897.8 922.8 923.0 128.0 25.0
35 Added Wall below FG 2.0
36 Added Excavation below FG 8.9
37 Total Height of Wall 27.0
38 Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft./lineal ft of wall)862.0
39 Back Excavation Quantity per lineal f1.Wali 182.3
40 Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.38.7 2 - 206
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
'Cubic Yds.Wall Excal/alion per Wall section 4,950.5
Cubic Yds.Concrele per tineal fl.of this Wall 5.0
Cubic Yds.Concrete section of Wall 640.0
Wall EX Gr.EX.Gr.FG FG TW TW-Mid Section Avg.Ht
No.Retaining Wall Description NorW S or E NorW S or E NorW S or E Length above FG
5 Gymnasium East Wall 923.0 910.0 897.8 897.8 923.0 911.8 96.0 19.6
Added Wall below FG 2.0
Added Excavation below FG 8.3
Total Height of Wall 21.6
Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft.llineal ft of wall)592.4
Back Excavation Quantity per lineal ft Walt 116.9
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal fl 26.3
·Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall section 2,522.1
Cubic Yds.Concrete per lineal ft.of this Wall 3.3
Cubic Yds.Concrete section of Wall 320.0
6 EIW Tennis Court Wall 904.0 906.0 901.0 901.0 909.0
917.0 60.0 12.0
Added Wall below FG 2.0
Added Excavation below FG 7.1
Total Height of Wall 14.0
Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft.llineal ft of wall)418.9
Back Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.Wall 49.3
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.17.3
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall section 1,040.3
Cubic Yds.Concrete per lineal ft.of this Wall 1.2
Cubic Yds.Concrete section of Wall 72.7
7 N/S Tennis Court Wall 904.0 899.0 899.0 892.4 909.0 909.0 60.0 13.3
Added Wall below FG 1.5
Added Excavation below FG 6.8
Total Height of Wall 14.8
Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.lt.llineal ft of wall)428.0
Back Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.Wall 55.0
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.17.9
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall section 1,073.4
Cubic Yds.Concrele per lineal ft.of this Wall 1.3
Cubic Yds.Concrete section of Wall 77.8
8 EIW Soccer Field Wall NWest Corner 899.0 904.0 891.4 891.4 904.5 904.5 35.0 13.1
Added Wall below FG 2.0
Added Excavation below FG 8.5
Total Height of Wall 15.1
Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft./lineal ft of wall)468.0
Back Excavation Quantity per lineal (t.Wall 57.0
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.19.4
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall section 680.5 2 - 207
~Cubic Yds.Concrele per lineal ft.of this Wall
~Cubic Yds,Concrete section of Wall
Continued on Page Three at Ref.Line 89
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
Wall EX Gr.EX.Gr.FG FG TW TW-Mid Section Avg.Ht
No.Retaining Wall Description NorW S or E NorW S or E NorW 5 or E Length above FG
9 N/S Soccer Field Wall:Corner-N/S portion 904.0 904.0 891.4 891.4 904.5 904.5 40.0 13.1
Added Wall below FG 2.0
Added Excavation below FG 8.5
Total Height of Wall 15.1
Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft.llineal ft of wall)255.7
Bacl<Excavation Quantity per lineal It.Wall 57.0
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal fl.11.6
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall section 463.2
Cubic Yds.Concrele per lineal ft.of this Wall 1.3
Cubic Yds.Concrele section of Wall 51.9
10 EIW Chapel Circle Walkway Wall 905.0 905.2 905.0 905.2 914.3 915.0 565.0 9.6
Added Wall below FG 1.0
Added Excavation below FG 3.5
Tolal Height of Wall 10.6
Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft.llineal ft of wall)119.6
Back Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.Walt 27.9
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.5.5
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall section 3,085.7
Cubic Yds.Concrete per lineal ft.of this Wall 1.0
Cubic Yds.Concrete section of Wall 560.8
11 N/S East Pkg.Lot Wall 919.5 910.0 906.0 905.2 916.5 908.0 260.0 6.6
Added Wall below FG 1.0
Added Excavation below FG 4.5
Total Height of Wall 7.6
Basic Excavation Quanlily (sq.ft./lineal ft of wall)72.9
Back Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.Wall 14.6
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.0.5
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall section 140.9
Cubic Yds.Concrete per lineal ft.of this Wall 0.7
Cubic Yds.Concrete section of Wall 173.3
12 EIW Athletic Facility to Chapel Circle Wall 910.0 910.0 909.7 903.0 914.3 914.3 51.0 8.0
Added Wall below FG 1.0 ~Added Excavation below FG 4.5
Total Height of Wall 9.0 ~~...
Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft.llineal ft of wall)47.2 2 - 208
'5;~~-Back Excavalion Quantity per lineal ft.Wali 20.2 -...If
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.0.7 ...
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall section 38.2
.''.~Cubic Yds.Concrete per lineal ft.of this Wall 0.7
Cubic Yds.Concrete section of Wall 38.0 ENJ Athletic Faciiity to Chapel Circle Wall
Continued to Summary on Page 4 al Ref.line #134
13 New N/S Lower (Second)Tennis Wall 904.0 896.0 892.4 892.4 909.0 901.0 270.0 12.6
Added Wall below FG 1.0
Added Excavation below FG 4.5
Total Heighl of Wall 13.6
Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.fL.llineal ft of wall)199.5
Back Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.Wall 23.3
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.0.9
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall secHon 232.6
Cubic Yds.Concrete per lineal ft.of this Wall 1.3
Cubic Yds.Concrete section of Wall 350.0
14 Faculty Addition:Flanking Walls 918.0 918.0 913.2 912.6 927.4 927.4 56.0 14.5
Added Wall below FG 1.0
Added Excavation below FG 4.5
Total Height of Wall 15.5
Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft.llineal ft of wall)129.9
Back Excavat10n QuanUty per lineal ft.Walt 30.0
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.Ll
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall section 62.1
Cubic Yds.Concrete per lineal It.of this Wall 1.6
Cubic Yds.Concrete section of Wall 87.1
Wall EX Gr.EX.Gr.FG FG TW TW·Mid Section Avg.Ht I I
No.Retaining Wall Description NorW SorE NorW SorE NorW S or E Length above FG I I
SUM Summary •Walls 1 through 9 +13 &14 ------>Major 1,160.0 18.6 weighted Walls 1 through 9
I Walls 10,11 &12 ......••..........·>Minor 876.0 8.6 Iweighted Walls 10 throu!
lineal feet of all walls -~>Total 2,036.0 14.3 <••••Wtd.Avg.Wall Height I
Cubic Yds.Concrete all walls Total Cubic Yards Concrete·····>4,177.2 27,809.6 <----Excavation Total all walls
Athletic Bldg Cubic Yards Concrete·····>2,312.4 14,246.6 <----Excavation Gym Walls unless shored
Other RW's Cubic Yards Concrete·····>1,864.8 13,563.0 <----Excavation Other Retaining Walls
Cantilever Type Retaining Walls as depicted are dimenbsioned according to Type 1B Cantilever Concrete Retaining Walls by the Nevada Dept.of Transportation
Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft.llineal ft of wall)is based on the total width multiplied by the tolal depth of the wall including overexcavation as inserted inlo an existing surface.
The Back excavation Quantily per lineal ft.of wall is the lotal Herighl of the wall plus deplh of base squared times 50%.This represenls a 1:1 fill ratio which is conservative here (2:1 Ratio shown in Geotechnical Pial
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
2 - 209
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
Retaining Walls Cement Truckloads @ 10 CY /Ioad ..__.....>417.7
Retaining Wall Concrete Costs @ $125jCubic Yard ..-...-._--->$522,149
Wall REVISED Per January 15,2010 Plan EX Gr.EX.Gr.FG FG TW TW-Mid Section Avg.Ht TW TW Section Avg.Ht Totals/Avg.
No.Retaining Wall Description NorW SorE NorW SorE NorW 5 or E length above FG Mid End Length above FG WaUl
14 North/South Tennis Wall (Alternate Wall 1)907.0 906.0 899.0 899.0 917.0 915.0 159.0 18.0 915.0 902.0 81.0 16.0 17.0
Added Wall below FG 2.0 2.0
Added Excavation below FG 7.8 7.5
Talai Height of Wall 20.0 18.0 19.0
Basic Excavation Quantity (sq.ft.llineal ft of wall)498.7 410.1
Back Excavation Quantity per lineal fl.Wal!100.0 81.0 181.0
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation Quantity per lineal ft.22.2 18.2
Cubic Yds.Wall Excavation per Wall secllon 3,525.8 1,473.4 4,999.1
Cubic Yds.Concrete per lineal It.of this Wall 2.8 2.2 2.5
Cubic Yds.Concrete section of Wall 437.5 177.0 614.5
2 - 210
Quandary
Dilemma,Pickle,Predicament
Bottom Line First (BLF)
~:~~==--=-.==-
·~~'1€-1J?E':r;-;'-M
M:s...---.-'~--·
:=:=~:::--::=:..:::.':;.:--
February 15,2010
.".'
.:-------~~~~3------------------------------'
The colored site plan above represents the extent ofgrading that the College has proposed
to complete within 3 months in Phase I
In Dr.Brophy's letter (Phasing)to the City dated October 30,2006,he
requested that the previous plan be "Phased"to allow the College to continue
in operation instead of shutting down (previous plans)for 18 -24 months.
I·:':I
I
__.....'........""'S._II.;oP.
lIo<.k>o1>EJoVlAON"E)llAl~'REPORT
MA.:n'MOUNT WllffiEr.\Cll.lTIES EXP»lS1OIl PllOJE<:T~I I)Construction Phasing Diagrams
",,_...,·..a I ....~--llhlbll J.71
This is DEIR Exhibit 3-7afor Phase I which omits any south slope grading
IIPage
2 - 211
-.
The October 2007 DEIR Section 5.6 (Geology)describes a broad swath of
remedial grading across the south slope of the College.This extensive grading
was deemed necessary for "soil stability.Other than the description and
reference,it was never revealed to the Planning Commission or Public.
I \II \"".'~,~.'..:.-:':....'.:.-..~.M>~•.-••_.-
:~EXISTING"~I STUDENT UNION
.EFE-924.D
910.7FG ~_.fO .7
--';7'~.~~---~.:'!f.~.~
~t-...;.:o;;"'-:'-
--.:::.--~-~.--
''''-,-~..~._--st:OPE--..~
K -.....-..!!~OSED~~RlCEY511 50 -:::::.~-___,()---------.......'._----------:;---,,'-----/"~.--->-.----:~......--~,/"/,,/...~-:-_-+--_.-.../~,......-~~,......-//".--~/-----_._~--~~~~~~.1'0 "~(ITM~-._._..~::;::.----;../>~~__~---J.C PMEllLBlJIoIOff.A.PfUII'./.............:....::"":-------/~..-~-_.-__l1'-'J.J.N~",,,,,,~n~,,~~~~;-;2~;f~~===-~~-
~,~~fi:~5 ~~----=-~
The dolled area denotes the continuous "Proposed Sheor Key 50'WX 5.0'D on the south slope
below the Pool area extending across the Student Union,Chapel and existing Faculty Building:All
ofthe area between the lower part ofthis shear key lip (north of)to and including the facility above
must be excavated and re-graded.This depiction was not shown to the Planning Commission.
DEIR Public Review Draft .October 2007 5.6-20 Geology and Soils
5.6.4.3 UNSTABLE GEOLOGIC UNITS
SLOPE STABILITY
o DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD BE LOCATED ON A
GEOLOGIC UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS UNSTABLE OR THAT WOULD,AS A
RESULT OF THE PROJECT,BECOME UNSTABLE.
Impact Analysis:As stated above.the geologic structure (i.e ..orientation)of weak bedding planes
within the bedrock is both neutral (i.e.favorable)to adverse along portions of the southwest-facing
slope.13 More specifically.the results of ASE's (2005)slope stability analyses indicate that the
uppermost portions of the natural and overlying man-made fill soils along the top of the slope,
along the southern side of the Project area (i.e.,the area adjacent to the proposed Residence
Halls),does not possess an adequate factor·of·safety against failure.
21Page
2 - 212
'Consequently,ASE has recommended incorporation of soil buttresses along the upper portions of
the slope,which would provide the necessary factor of safety of 1.5 for static and 1.15 pseudo
static conditions."
"The Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (March 13,2007)depicts a laterally extensive
buttressed slope along the southwest facing natural slope at the southeast corner of the Project
site.Proposed keyway excavations for the buttress fills, which are associated with creating more
stable slopes along the southerly margin of the Project site,would not require shoring"
The biggest problem with the DEIR statement (above)is with respect to the
(non-existent)new March 13,2007 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan.
Such a Geotechnical Plan of this date was never provided to the Planning
Commission or to the Public because it does not exist.
If you take the time to research the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan of
this date (above)you will find that it consists only of an architectural site plan
and supporting,non-geotechnical,Cross Sections.
As far as ASE and the City Geologists are concerned,this referenced Plan does
not exist at all because there is a void between Reference Letters #'s 4 
(2005/2008)with no mention of any 2007 Geotechnical Plan with any "shear
key"as referred to in the DEIR.
31Page
2 - 213
LIST OF REFERENCES
1.Associated Soils Engineering,Inc.,2008,Second Response to City of Rancho
Palos Verdes Geotechnicai Report Review Checklist dated October 21,2008,
Re:Latest Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan and Proposed Master Site
Plan for the Proposed Marymount College Improvements,30800 Palos Verdes
Drive East,Rancho Palos Verdes,California,Project No.08-5470-4,dated
November 4.
2.Associated Soils Engineering,inc.,2008,Response to City of Rancho Palos
Verdes Geotechnical Report Review Checklist dated September 21,2008,Re:
Latest Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan and Proposed Master Site Plan for
the Proposed Marymount College Improvements,30800 Palos Verdes Drive
East,Rancho Palos Verdes,California,Project No.08-5470-4,dated October 14.
3.Zeiser Kling Consultanls,Inc.2008,"Geolechnical Review Sheet,Marymounl
College,30800 Palos Verdes Drive East,Rancho Palos Verdes California," dated
September 15~.
4.Associaled Soils Engineering,Inc.,2008,Geotechnical Review of the Latest
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan and Proposed Masler Site Plan for the
Proposed Marymount College Improvements,30800 Paios Verdes Drive East,
Rancho Palos Verdes,California,Project No.08-5470-4,dated August 29.
5.Zeiser Kling Consultants,Inc.2005,"Geolechnical Review Sheet,Marymount
College,30800 Palos Verdes Drive East,Rancho Palos Verdes California,"dated
Seplember 8~.
5.Associated Soils Engineering,Inc.,2005,"Geotechnical Response 10 City of
Rancho Palos Verdes Review Sheet for Proposed Marymount College
Improvements,dated June 22,2005,City of Rancho Palos Verdes,California,"
dated July 19~(PN 02-5470-2).
7.Associated Soils Engineering,Inc.,2005,"Updated Preliminary Grading Plan
Review for Proposed Marymount College Improvemenls,City of Rancho Palos
Verdes,California,"daled May 10~(PN 02-5470-2).
8.Associated Soils Engineering,Inc.,2003,"Updated Preliminary Grading Plan
Review and Geotechnical Response to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Review
Sheet for Proposed Marymount College Improvements,City of Rancho Palos
Verdes,California,"dated June 30~(PN 02-5470-1).
9.Zeiser Kling Consultants,Inc.2003,"Geotechnical Review Sheet,Marymount
College,30800 Palos Verdes Drive East,Rancho Palos Verdes California,"dated
May 12'h
10.Associated Soils Engineering.Inc.,2002,"Preliminary Grading Plan Review and
Geotechnical Response to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Review Sheet for
Proposed Marymounl College Improvemenls,Cily of Rancho Palos Verdes,
California,"dated June 28~(PN 02-5470).
¥nl.
~Marymount College~Project No.08-5470-4
OILS ENGINEERING.INC.
The actual Plan referenced in the DEIR
Drainage Plan CASE's Reference Letter
incorporates the referenced May 2005
41Page
May 19.2009
Page 3
is the Preliminary Grading and
#6 of July 19,2005)which
ASE soil buttress shear key
2 - 214
recommendations.ASE's date stamp on these Geotechnical Plates I &II IS
July 19,2005.These plans were not included in the 2007 DEIR or later.
EARTHWORK
t:STl~lEO DRTHWORK OlJANlI!1£S'
DUE TO THE PREUI.I1NARY N"iURE cr THES::PLANS.QUANlTilES MAY 'tAR'(
AND PROFOS(D rlEVAnONS WAY RroUIRE ADJUST'~IENT5 TO COMPENSATE
FOR SUBSIOrnCE.lOSSES DlIt TO ClEARING AND GRUB5lNG OPERATIONS,
SITE SPEcmcs,ETC.DURING FlNA1 GRADING PlAN PREPARATION,PARKING LO'!"
GRADES WIll e~HE:.!>AT OR tF..AP.Tl-lE PROPOSED ElEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON
AND FINISH FLOOR El£'/AilONS W1U BE VARIED TO 8Ai.ANCE EARTHWORK ON-SITE ..
SITE GRADING
LQSS DUE TO
ClEARING '"CRWSLo.:C:
SUBTOTAl
SHRlW<ACE 0 2~;
TOTAl
EXPORT'"'10.000 C.Y.
~
66000 c.y,
~
S3000 c.r.
-16000 C,Y.
47000 c.r.
ft.lBJJfKMENT
35000 C.Y.
1000 C.Y.
37000 C.'!"
o ex.
37000 C,Y.
(~)ESTIMATED OUANTlTlES SHO'/l'H ABOVE ARE GRID SliRfACE VOLU!JES COUPUTED
fRmA EXISTING GRQU:-lD El.:."VAllONS TO THE PROPOSED ElEVATlO~'S SHOWN
ON THIS PLAN.
(2)ClEARING.&.NO GRUeBI~IG QFERlJIONS ARE ASSUMED TO RESULT IN A LOSSor0.15'OVER THE CRAD£I)AREA.
(3)"THE SHRINKAGE FACTOR OF 25:;Af'?UED TO THE EXCAVATION QUANTlTY IS
ASSUMEO.
(<4-)FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE URTHWORK CALCULATIONS,THE PAVE.'\4ENT
STRUCWR/;l.SECilON AND BUILDiNG FOUNDATIONS ARE ASSUMED TO BE 1,0',
(5)ESTIMATED QUAt>.'!ITiES DO NOT INCLUDE EXCAVATION fOR unurr &STORM'DRAIN TREI'CHES,
(6)MAXIMUM DEPTrl OF CUT.25'
(7)MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF'nLL •18'
This is the actual "Baseline"Preliminary Grading &Drainage Plan referred to by the
Geologist in the DEIR Section 5.6 Geology.This isfrom "Plate I"ofthat Geotechnical site
plan which discloses the extensive shear key but was never shown to the Planning
Commission or Public.Plate I:ASE Date Stamp July 19,2005
~~i~im~/fl .\~)''1)\ \~I "{#..~
SIPage
2 - 215
The Earthwork Summary below isfrom the "Architectural"Version of the March 13,2007
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan.It does not display the referenced soil buttress
shear key described in DEIR Section 5.6.
VtRDts ~~>='-"'51
EARTHWORK DRIVE V'
t.ClWl!HG
"'''''"""»No.Jig
2.stt Me
3.NltA Of
4.nit PIIC....~
En,,,.,...
~......2
~.,i';!
r.4Tt SlCKO.:z..:I
ABBREVIATIONS
""""'""""""""'&0000 C.Y.~c.r.
~1oooC.Y.
51000 C.Y."1000 C.'I'.
~~
87000 C.Y.MOOO C.Y.
_\&000 C.Y.~
~51oooc:r.
(I)~~~~::fH~~=~C:D
001 n.s !'VoN.
(2)~~~~~lXlNS I<M.~TO R£SULT 1'1 A lOSS
(3)M !iHlIltIICI«r.ocTOJII OF ~N'!'U£lI TO TIt[[XC,WATlOH 0UlXTlTT'IS.....,.
(4)~":i~~~~ci;;·~::~"'~ir,.o"
(5)~tm QUAoNlJll(S DO HOT IHClUOE £llC,t,.Y>,llCH FOR IJl1.ITY II STQRlIl CIIlHn TIl£ttCM[$.
(6)1Wlll'U"(I[PO<OF CUT ..~.
(1)lWO"'UW HEIGHT Of'Fl.l -III'
(a)~O!l~~ai~.~~~ClJl.AllONS.IMREXCAVAllON
£ST1MATEO ~QUNfTIfICS:
M TO lH£PltEUIIiIWf'F ""TUR£or THESE 1'1".&I>;5.QWHTItIES ,,"'I'V~
Nit!PAOPOS£tI £UV~noteS ,"",,'I'IltoOlRE ~TO COYPalSA.lE
rOil SU8SIDEHCE,lOSSES DUE TO Cl.ENlINC #10 GItUfI!lINC OPUlJ\TlONS.
SITE SP£ClI'rCS,nc.!lVIlIHG rtrW.CIWlIttG P\..AN PRl7..IMTlOH.PAAldNG L01
c;R.ID£S '11I1I.I.8E MElD "'I'OR NEAll l1'IE PROPOSED £UVATK)HS SHOWN IlEllEOH
NlO f1S1SIl F'L00fl EUVA110tiS Wl\.l iI[V,oArED TO 9A!.ANCE fAIffi1'/I'ORK ON-SOL
srrt G~NeW,,,,,.ro
CL£I,RIt:C It CAUBlllHG:
S\J!lTOT.>l
(M1IDlCAVAl1ON'
SU'TOT~
Sl"~.1~ll::
TOf~
IL-'::":::::'::~----------------
Note only was the shear key omitted from the site plan (Plate 1),it was not
shown by the omitted Geotechnical Cross Sections (Plate II)as well.
L..II"·20 I
-"-7'1,.------~-~-::::':?~
........,...
"
-,,
.'--
•
Plate II,Cross Section D -D':ASE Date Stamp July 19,2005
The "Architectural"grading plans,masquerading as Geotechnical Plans,are
in the City file listed as "grading-plans-may-2oo7.pdf'file size is 2,656 KB
and that file includes three sheets;The Site Plan overview,a Cross Section
and a "Slope Analysis"page illustrating "Man Made Fill Slopes to be removed
during demolition".No grading quantities are shown.No soil buttress shear
key is shown.None of those affected areas involve the existing soccer field.
The question now arises as to the current requirement for this soil buttress
61Page
2 - 216
shear key.
That subject was clearly described in ASE's May 19,2009 letter of Transmittal
to the College and City wherein they stated that "The removal of the student
housing has created a revision to the slope configuration east of the Chapel.
The previously proposed shear key (50 feet wide by 5 feet deep)is still
considered adequate for slope stability and has been moved up the slope as
shown in the Geotechnical Map,Plate I and in the revised Cross Sections,
Plate II."
Thus,if the reVISIOn only affects the "previously proposed shear key"
configuration to the east of the Chapel,then why was the shear key
descriptor noted on Plate I removed or redacted,and why from both
previously displayed areas on that Map?
7!Page
2 - 217
That the shear key soil buttress is still applicable has been further
demonstrated by the most recent submittal of a new Preliminary Grading and
Drainage Plan dated January 6,2010 and received by the City on January 15,
2010 by an entirely new set of Engineers.
,PRELIMINARY GRADING &
ORAl NAGE PUIN
RASMUSSEN I ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Planning
Interiors
248 South "lIl1s Road
Ventura,California 93003
(aOS)6H-7 34 7
The latest and greatly revised Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan was submitted to
the City on January 15,2010 by the Architecturalfirm ofRasmussen &Associates
s III,
ENGINIIIIRING mlOUI>
3621 S.U.utBOR BLVII.SUITE 100
SA.NTAANA.CA 51704
RECEIVED
JAN 15 ,om
P\...flNNlNG.llU!lOING AND
cOOt:~EMENT
This latest Plan was created by a new Engineering firm,MK Engineering Group ,'eplacing MAC
Design Associates
81Page
2 - 218
I believe that it is significant that Associated Soils Engineering (ASE)is no
longer involved with providing geotechnical (grading quantities)information
for Marymount.ASE has a long history on this project dating back to 2002
(Reference Letter #10)I believe that they were required to respond on very
short notice (4 days)to "approve"the "remedial grading"that the College
insisted on introducing to the PC at the last minute after withdrawing dorms
from their plans.ASE responded in 4 days,from the 15th to the 19th ,2009.
That is not enough time to do a thorough job and ASE botched it with the
Drainage flows running uphill that I had protested to them,the City and the
City Geologist.The latter were unfazed and responded that this possible error
would be "fixed"in "Plan Check".But ASE did get caught.And they knew it.
That goof was fixed in this latest January 6,2010 new (architectural)
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan---by a new set of engineers!They
didn't wait until "Plan Check"!
However,as of the current Staff Report for the February 16,2010 meeting,it
has been reported that;
"At the September 12th meeting.a concern was raised by the public that the grading plans do
not accurately reflect the amount of earth movement needed to accommodate the construction
of the project approved by the Planning Commission (that is currently under appeal).
Specifically,concerns were expressed with the quantity of the requested remedial grading
presented to the Commission during its deliberations on the project.Staff has requested.and
the College has agreed,to provide the City with grading plans that have been updated to
reflect the Commission's decision.Moreover,the College will be providing the City with a
break-down of the quantities of earth movement for the areas under the proposed building
footprint and the areas outside the building footprint,as requested in the City's grading
applications.This information will be provided to the Council at the time the appeal hearing is
resumed."
This is misleading,for several reasons,because on October 6,2009,Dr.
Brophy wrote to the City stating that
"In preparing this analysis.Maryrnount has addressed every question posed by City slaff in Mr.Mihranian's
e-mail of September 18.2009.and then some.•
Dr.Brophy's claim is untrue and unfulfilled because the College did not in fact
provide or address every question posed ("and then some")by Mr.
Mihranian's e-mail of September 18,2009 (selection below),specifically the
request for grading information regarding "a concern raised by the public that
the grading plans do not accurately reflect the amount of earth movement
needed to accommodate the construction of the project approved by the
Planning Commission".
91 P age
2 - 219
L<I~P)'"to ~d\fre$p\il:)J19 c'Q{i1(11¢llts regardjng (~rnediaO fJilliillj~;$tiilffeq!Je$~thattha~JleileSUlJm!ta OEltalied
~~a~~~llo1'll1e p~.p~e(l~.rthWQf{(fOf ateas.tJnder"!'l.ot1J!~il(jing arid"olJ.l$lge of the QUII"i~~.P{IJlt
In¢l!djng..p~g (ol{>,.\~ljIw<lYWiq,J:lIJls~,atlJletidekj.'ilng"othllr proJool«lmpOne11ls,This mformaliQn
shol:lldtJe pr.epared an.d wet-stamped by a IiceJlsedengioeer.
The current Quandary is created by the recent submission of a new Site
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan by Rasmussen &Associates and
created by another and previously unknown third party,MK Engineering
Group,dated January 6,2010,and delivered to the City on January 15,2010.
No transmittal letter was provided/acknowledged by Staff for this recent
document.
As such,the Council has not been informed of this development except for a
Reference (above)in the latest Staff Report that;
"Specifically,concems were expressed with the quantity of the requested remedial grading
presented to the Commission during its deliberations on the project.Staff has requested,and
the College has agreed,to provide the City with grading plans that have been updated to
reflect the Commission's decision."(Remedial grading issues raised by the Public)
And further that;
"the College will be providing the City with a break-down of the quantities of earth movement
for the areas under the proposed building footprint and the areas outside the building footprint,
as requested in the City's grading applications.This information will be provided to the Council
at the time the appeal hearing is resumed."
That Appeal Hearing date is now slated for March 30,2010,6 months after
Dr.Brophy stated that;
"Marymount has addressed every question posed by City staff in Mr.Mihranian's e-mail of
September 18,2009,and then some.'
In other words,essential data that is normally required by the City as a matter
of course and Code,has not been submitted by the College nor has the
grading detail information been submitted that the College claimed was
previously addressed.It will be six months late if provided by that appeal
date!
This is extremely troubling because the new grading Plan submitted does not
address any of the grading quantity issues raised by the public as a concern
and in fact ostensibly omits remedial grading (Tennis Courts)previously
presented to the Council and referred to (above).But it does change virtually
every grading dimension from the previously approved plan of July 14,2009
in the FEIR and Appendix A.It incorporates other new issues and problems
as well.
10 I P age
2 - 220
The January 2010 Plan omits any remedial grading depiction for the Tennis
Courts along Cross Section line C-C'and Athletic Building (D -D')shown in
the previously approved plan submitted and approved by ASE and the City
Geologist as relating to the areas south of the proposed new Athletic Building
(Plate II,Cross Section D -D').No previously-approved remedial grading is
shown for the Tennis Courts area (Boring Test Hole B-2)or the Athletic
Building soil buttress shear key area.
This Site Plan submitted by the College also introduces includes a brand new
"Note"referencing the requirement that this new plan (must)comply with the
recommendations of the Soils Report by Associated Soils Engineering (ASE)
of May 10,2005.Of course,that is a "good thing".
NOTES
1.GRADING SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF RANCHO PAL~S
VERDES GRADING REQUIREMENTS,THE UNIFORM BUILDING I
COD£,AND THE RECOMMfNDA110NS OF THE SOILS R£PO~T
NO.05-5470-2 BY ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING INC!,
IDATEDU4Y10,2005.!
2.SEE ARCHITECT'S PlAN FOR SITE LAYOUT.
J.AREA OF SITE IS 24.57 ACRES.
4.THE PROPOSED D£T£NT10N BASIN WILL BE DESIGNED TO
U41NTAIN PRE-DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF LEVELS.
I
This is the included Note that refers to the Shear Key by Reference to the ASE
Recommendations ofMay 10,2005.
That report is in the List of References,#7,in ASE's transmittal letter dated
May 19,2009 which confirms and incorporates by reference the soil buttress
shear key grading (on the south slope below the Tennis Courts,Parking and
Pool areas,Athletic Facility and Student Union Buildings)that otherwise is
not shown on this latest site plan.The shear key soil buttress is alive and well,
although unseen in this most recent Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan.
The major significance of this latest "Architectural"Site Plan (January 2010)
is that it reaffirms,by specific reference,to the shear key that had somehow
been "lost"in the previous grading plans.The "Recommendations of the Soils
Report No.05-5470-2 by Associated Soils Engineering dated May 10,2005"is
the exact same reference cited by the author of the DEIR Geology Section 5.6.
lllPage
2 - 221
This is a reaffirmation and confirmation that the shear key and its associated
additional grading is still in force and should not be neglected when
calculating excavation and embankment quantities.
In other words,although there has been no change to the shear key
configuration West of the Chapel,that descriptor had been removed from
both ends of this wide swath of excavation area on Plate I of the Geotechnical
Map of May 15,2009 submitted by ASE to the Planning Commission.
What may be the meaning of the reaffirmation of the shear key (in writing)
but its removal from the Site Plan?
Why have new engineers been brought on board that have never previously
provided geotechnical information?New source of information now appears
without any explanation.Is this because ASE was no longer willing to bet its
reputation on complying with unreasonable requests from Marymount on
short notice?
Was this a preemptive response to the September 18,2009 City request to
provide "wet stamped"grading quantities by licensed engineers?Was an
October 6,2009 date too short of a notice?ASE had already been "burned"by
responding in great haste (4 days)to Marymount's previous hurry-up
assignment.Since ASE and MAC Designs had all along been including
Earthwork quantities in their Plans,those figures should have been readily
available,assuming that they had always been included.
•q;(,.
"-$:>-'-~~...~-.,,'\
~/~/~~~H,~~u<S1 '"""
ir ~~/'"f'~~~':',i'=--"~~1i§.:~
~~y._~.....:,;....-"".1-'~',_\.
This is Staffs presentation to the City Council dated August 18,2009 of "Remedial Gmding
quantities"that was never supported by documents from the College or'Geologists
12 I P age
2 - 222
For the first time in public,Staffs presentation (during the initial Appeal
Hearing to the City Council)displayed a previously unknown fact;the Tennis
courts required "remedial grading".That was news because there had been an
assumption that non-habitable site features such as parking,walkways,etc.
did not require geotechnical stabilization.As shown below,however,the Test
Boring "B-2"discovered severe geotechnical problems in the Tennis Court
area that requires significant remedial grading in addition to the basic
excavation needed to lower the existing site to the playing surface.
.:.,..":l$"
:.-;
"I .
':"
~.,-.~.
~.'.'
, :'.'".J_••::~•
..'".....t ~.'
.·"ORI1'IG."B'~.'"'l'.07 ·.r
..!
,...-'..':.
,I'',.:..i:..
".,;..,
,/!.
.!.
I
~...,. .
."...
~-,
:~,.'
:'.'#!-'
J.;..,',".
",~.;c',:'';~:':,~",~>:;,~~::
.!'.>-<:','.:~,.....:;';
..:';:.~.\-::"';".::.i ..";'.'.., "•...;..':~
.'. ..i '..;".';.'.,,~.:~'"I • ,.•':'."•.:";:':••••,...:;.
.:",:.;.....~:)...:~':.,.·-,i~.'·".:.:-.":...~;.:">~.",..:".:"...<.....,:{};,....•..:,,'.!••'•.' ,..'.:'.''., .";.",.."'-r,"'"i.",.•" .,",'.,. ,
This /'emedial grading Cross Section has remained unchanged since itfi/'st appeared in the July
19'h,2005 Geotechnical Site Plan,Plate II.
Second,since these newest two "players"(Rasmussen &MK Designs)have no
background in the geotechnical arena,they have apparently covered their
bases with that "Note"referring to ASE's May 10,2005 "Recommendations"
which are in fact referring to the shear key itself.This is the same reference
incorporated by the third party geologist author of the DEIR Geology Section.
.l~I
I l'.at II!
"
-_.::',"
/&,
M
.---_""'-0._--------------..__.
The same kind ofl'emedialgrading is also specifiedfor the area infront and behind the new
Athletic Building
13IPage
2 - 223
Both of the above Cross Sections and Geotechnical site Plan had not been
made available to The Planning Commission or Public before the release of
the listed Reference documents in ASE's May 19 th ,2009 transmittal letter.
This grading feature has not been eliminated,just moved up the hill,as ASE
stated,in the area East of the Chapel.That added grading shown is 18,000
Cubic Yards,not broken down into excavation and embankment.This grading
was never previously revealed to the Public and was disguised by DEIR
Exhibits 3.7a and 3-8,which disclosed no slope grading in Phase I or any
slope excavation tasks.
Such an omission is especially troubling when reviewing page 3 of the March
13,2007 architectural set of Plans which is the "Slope Analysis"Site Plan that
discloses extensive site grading in the slope areas to remove and re-compact
"man-made"fill areas along the south slope.The Phase I site Diagram was
created by none other than Rasmussen &Associates and included the
notation that no pad grading was to be done for Residence Halls.
\.
I",;..'1-_._.~,~:..I ......."1 -,.~,~.
____________-'-"-,_.__--0:-'~~...".'-'-~...-.....:;~.,;.~~'.~..:'-:¥........,.7.·~··~·..·7':.j;·:..h
The College and Planning Staff were well awarefrom the DEIR that the "Man-Madefill Slopes to
be removed"on the south slopes would be excavated and re-graded
14 I P age
2 - 224
Despite this clear knowledge,the DEIR falsely portrayed the Phase I work to
virtually exclude any excavation or re-grading ofthe south slopes;
......·~~t~":'i-,~_'<:'~;-.
--.~~r;'~~~'~;~~-:~->~~~':;;''''
:..~.-
j_.-i~;~:.o.
i :L
.".".....
.',..
1101 to Sc:a\e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MARYMOUNT COUEGE fACILITIES EXPANSlON PROJECT~I ~~"""",.~",,_...-..:.c..:.on.:.:;s..:.tr..:.uc..:.t.:.:;io..:.n..:.p..:.h..:.as..:.i..:.no"-...:.D.:.:;ia",O.:.:;ra..:.m.:.:.s
Exhibl\3-7a
The lightly dotted area notes "Location offuture Residence Halls No Pad Grading Required"
Phase I Description Construction Task -
PHASE I (YEAR 1 [ANTICIPATED 2008])
~..
,
i
i '.
!,
ICurbs.Paving and Striping f
"FineGrade.i..andscape~------f--~-·I1111 ...-'-'----;
Tennis Court ConstructIon !
PHASE II (YEARS 2 TO 4 [ANTICIPATED 2009 TO 2012])
Exhibit 3-8 calls for "Rough Grade/Establish Building Pads:All New Buildings"and does /lot
reveal any excauation/re-compaction in the entire shear key area
151Page
2 - 225
This same omission was also carried over to the FEIR/Appendix A Exhibit 3-
7a,shown below.Where is the soil buttress shear key grading?Also note the
designated "Construction Staging Area"where extensive remedial grading is
to be completed in Phase I.This is infeasible and misleading.Note the
infeasible location of the temporary staging area designated.It sits right atop
one of the largest remedial grading areas of all,shown in Cross Section A -A'.
$IT'I:"Pl.AN •PHASE t ('(EAR IJ
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
!Eiill-._-.0'1----EB 0'1---
~',,__R"~M~~HH '""~!?':""fS~
Note the absence of any south slope grading for the required soil buttress shear key.
Compare this depiction to the actual plan illustrated in the following.
The three exhibits above are contradictory and have never been resolved.The
Extreme Slope diagram explicitly calls for grading of the man-made fill areas
on the south slopes.The Exhibit 3-7a Phase I diagram by Rasmussen &
Associates disclaims any Pad Grading that Exhibit 3-8 calls out for "Rough
Grading".Such obvious contradictions and confusion have not been resolved.
Now seen with the assistance of the Geotechnical Site Plans,there has always
been remedial grading projected for this site.
The amount of such grading has never disclosed and it is very symptomatic
now that the College has decided to withhold the requested grading
16 I P age
2 - 226
information (September 18,2009 request)until six months after the College
President stated in writing that this information had already been provided,
and "then some".
.?'J=-.::.::..-=N:....--:~'=-..
.,~=:::J=~~..;'~:-:-
'"::'::--."-'"--'''
;o;'.::..."';.."':O:'';:;'':"..r.:':'''_.....~......_--~..__...-"._--
,.,--~.....
~'~..::...~.:..=.~::-..::-_..-
...--_.....-._........-
::.~::;}'~~:..;_.
,w,
This is the actual area that the Marymount's geniuses are expecting the Public to believe
that they will successfully grade within three months in Phase If Never saw this before?
The main concern here is that the College may be trying to cover up the
massive amount of undisclosed excavation and emplacement always required
by emplacement of the extensive shear key across the south slope.The cat,so
to speak,was let out of the bag by Staffs undocumented presentation because
those new grading figures had never before been included in the grading
numbers publicly displayed!To date,they are the only detail figures given out.
That is a theory based on the huge extent of that required grading never
properly disclosed.It has not gone away today as documented by both ASE's
transmittal letter statement and Rasmussen &Associates "Notes"referral to
ASE's May 10,2005 recommendations.The shear key has simply been moved
upslope East of the Chapel and remains unchanged West of the Chapel.No
17 I P age
2 - 227
explanation has yet been proyjded as to why the shear key descriptor was
redacted from the most current Geotechnical Map
I think that the behayjor of the parties to this charade are highly suspect and
questionable.Many questions remain today.
Questions
•Why were the long-standing authors (ASE &MAC.Design
Associates)of geotechnical data removed?
•Why will it take over 6 months (if ever)to proyjde the required "wet
stamped"grading quantities when the College President stated in
writing that all requested information "and then some",had been
proyjded by October 6,2009?
•What are the quantities associated with the shear key?Particularly the
quantities associated with the shear key that is unaffected West of the
Chapel?
•The new grading Plan inexplicably raises the proposed Tennis Courts
Finished Surface (FS)by 9'.No required shear key grading is shown.
Raising the FS actually INCREASES total grading because the entire
area must first be excavated to place the shear key,then re compacted
(embankment)to the higher level.This amounts to an INCREASE in
grading of 9,300 cubic yards of embankment.
So that is a big problem.I think the College,Staff and the Geologists are in a
Quandary,in a "Pickle"of their own making,and worse.
•The College's latest plan of January 2010,transcends and seriously
amends the City's stated requirement to proyjde validated grading
quantities.It is significantly different from the Approved July 14,2009
plan.No explanations have yet been forthcoming about why it has been
proyjded.There is no documentation in the file given to the City Council
to date that relates to a City request.
•The Plan omits Tennis Courts (and all other such preyjously required
shear key grading)remedial grading (separate from the basic grading
needed to build the courts at their finish grade (FG)level).It shows only
architectural characterizations,not geotechnical grading features.No
cross sections.That is a key omission.
18 I P age
2 - 228
•The proposed remedial grading below the Faculty addition and Rose
Garden areas appear only as 2-dimensional areas,but without specific
quantities or supporting cross sections.No remedial (as opposed to
basic)grading is shown for the Gymnasium or Tennis Court areas,etc.
•It is reasonable to ask,Why?
This latest and as yet unacknowledged plan also adds a number of new
features including retaining walls;among these is a 9'High,240'Long Tennis
court retaining wall along the east side of the soccer field.This is in addition
to the present 240'long wall,now rising (variously)16'(TW 917.04'),14'and
11'above the newly raised playing surface at elevation 901'(FS).
The courts are also raised 9'higher than shown in previous plans and
Visualizations.Perhaps this is a misguided effort to reduce grading.That will
fail because the remedial grading comes first and then the excavated material
is reconstituted back again to the Finished Grade level.Raising the Tennis
Court's Finished Surface (FS)actually increases,rather than decreases
grading quantities.That is,of course,unless you plan to omit that remedial
grading necessary per Cross Section C --C'.
'",."7 '~"\~'0'..-<:~._-:/",//./;:'//,-f',...,.---'.._.~---"~-,"..--.-,,_1J8.~
:~~;~;··/>}:i.2:,i :'..::~~"'~;;;;:Tw".~.9~i:~~".'.,
'/:~;>,:/:/9'..../~!-=-=.;:.::~~"T ~\89~-JI'
,• •.t.",'IIH I '--"L"J I
::40TH'/l /(spO,.I .I~'~,Ll~;:(''_'_ ' _-+~.j~2+,,~~J~'-T
;.-'..'-.'~1.-I .\I"I -',1-1 1,,;89240 I FG ~-l FG '.1-1 I a..
r:.I fi I ;"./i -11 r I . .t -j I L:-.=:L '..x·'·L..l:
if I I L \\.1'u -.J ,"""'Z_,r\=;---'1
'1.,/:-~\+:-(..~~I :<_.)1.9?:~,,'~
/}.~I I /~'/\;-
/::J it..-,_(_£"\_~"".,I \111/-,-,
,I '."'-.'-----I .,I .
,I I I I I:'~'~.9OfJ.lrJ '...-./.
This is the latest January 2010 version of the Soccer Field and Revised Tennis Courts
The Courts now have a second retaining wall adjacent to the soccer field,have no Fencing shown
and have been raised g'in elevation from the previous "Approved"plan
19 I P age
2 - 229
Nor is there any Tennis Court Fence shown in these new plans as would be
normally required.Why is this fencing missing?"TF"cannot be "Top of
Fence",at least not in the elevation shown (892.37')which is below the
Finished Surface (FS)of the courts (900.29')which was raised 9'above the
prior approved (FEIR,Appendix A)version.
Tennis anyone?
This latest site plan incarnation does not comport with previous "Visual
Simulations"provided by the college,including the failure to show any
fencing,increased playing surface elevation and a big new N/S Tennis Court
retaining Wall.
This latest Plan also raises the soccer field Finish Grade by 2'(to 892-40')
from the Baseline Plan (07/19/2005)reviewed by ASE.In so doing,the latest
plan also adds another two retaining walls at the Southwest corner of the
Soccer Field to prevent that corner from falling off onto PV Drive East.As
shown,these new walls are extremely close to the Property Line (PL)and
raise concerns about setbacks.
20 I P age
2 - 230
(Above)This is a detail of the Southwest Corner of the Revised Soccer field as contained in the
latest January 2010 Site Plan.Thefield has been raised by l'from the approved plan and 2'above
the elevation shown in the July 19,2005 plan.Because the field has been raised,there is a new
retaining corner wallwith Top of Wall (TW)at 904-5'rising above Top ofFence (TF)at 891-4'.
The elevations shown on this new and revised plan for that corner set of new
retaining walls,indicates that the Top of Wall (TW)is 112'above the field
surface and 6.5'above Top of Fence (TF).Throughout this Plan,there is a
consistent misuse of "TF"which typically is below the elevation of the
structure or surface it is supposed to rise above.Thus,there is no restraining
fence at this SW/W corner new retaining wall to prevent players from
inadvertently running over that corner "cliff'down onto the street below.
•It is the City's responsibility to require the College to timely submit a
new Grading Application compliant with City Code and the approved
grading plan shown in the FEIR and as approved by the Planning
Commission.
•The completely revamped January 2010 site plan delivered to the City
January 15th,has not yet been documented or explained by College
officials as to the basis for submitting it with all the significant new
changes incorporated that were never shown,much less approved.
•Nor does this submittal provide the requested grading detail quantities,
has not been "wet stamped"by a licensed engineer or authenticated by a
licensed Geologist.
•No signed Grading Application has yet been provided by the College
since Dr.McFadden's Application dated November 11,2004!Why?
Such Application itself automatically must disclose grading quantities
both underneath structures/buildings and not under such structures -
for both excavation and embankment.Pretty basic omission.Or is all of
this simply a minor detail to be handled later in "Plan Check?"
•The scheduled Appeal Hearing now is to be based on a new and
unapproved "Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan that has not been
provided to the City Council and Public in advance.Why?The Appeal
was based on the previously approved plan.The new (reduced)
quantities (or any detailed grading quantities)have not been verified as
required by the City in September 18,2009.Why?
•The issue is that there is something seriously wrong.And not just a
small discrepancy.
211 P age
2 - 231
James B.Gordon
3538 Bendigo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
Ara Michael Mihranian,Principal Planner
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391 Tuesday March 9,2010
Subject:The Fallacy of Staffs August 18,2009 Grading and Drainage Plan
Ara',
I would like to draw your attention to what I believe is a serious problem with
the current state of information regarding grading quantities for the
Marymount Expansion Project.This is a concern of long standing,having
been presented to the City by my e-mail of May 23,2009 and others.
"In general,"Grading"is extremely confusing and poorly defined {deferred}.
The new Exhibit 1,Revised {Preliminary Grading and Drainage }Plan {of May
15,2009}Staff Report page 5,shows two new and previously undisclosed
areas of remedial grading {grading of slopes less than 35 degrees.This is new.
This is ADDED grading not required by the Project itself.To the extent that
demolition and re-compaction of unstable,man-made ("Manufactured")fill
areas is required,there is no requirement to re-contour slopes to less than 35
degrees."
"It is unreasonable to require any such remedial grading as necessary for a
pedestrian walkway (unless the slope is already so fragile that this is needed)
Fire Access no longer needed (for Residence Halls now removed)"or to
support a Rose Garden.What (appears)to be going on here is totally cosmetic
and thus not a requirement for this (Revised)Project and cannot be justified
for a grading permit."This is evidence of a very fragile geology on this site.
"Speaking of grading,there is now a complete and total lack of transparency
or accountability with regard to grading quantities.These must be stipulated
llPage
2 - 232
both by Phase as well as purpose."{In order to allow intelligent trade-offs by
decision-makers}."
Further,in this respect,The Staff Report of February 16,2010 recounts the
genesis of these grading quantity concerns,yet lets slip that the delivery of
this information has been delayed until such time as the appeal hearing is
resumed.That is strange because Dr.Brophy had previously stated {October
6,2008}that all such issues had been addressed "and then some."
Grading Plans
At the September 12th meeting,a concern was raised by the public that the grading plans do
not accurately reflect the amount of earth movement needed to accommodate the construction
of the project approved by the Planning Commission (that is currently under appeal).
Specifically,concerns were expressed with the quantity of the requested remedial grading
presented to the Commission during its deliberations on the project.Staff has requested,and
the College has agreed,to provide the City with grading plans that have been updated to
reflect the Commission's decision.Moreover,the College will be providing the City with a
break-down of the quantities of earth movement for the areas under the proposed building
footprint and the areas outside the building footprint,as requested in the City's grading
applications.This information will be provided to the Council at the time the appeal hearing is
resumed.{emphasis added}
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT -DRAFT APPENDIX D
CITY COUNCIL MEMO -FEBRUARY 16,2010 page 15-8
Therefore and inexplicitly,the City has not received any properly documented
grading quantities despite Dr.Brophy's October 6,2009 written assurance
that he had "addressed every question posed by the City in Mr.Mihranian's e-
mail of September 18,2009,and then some."
That request included a requirement that the College submit (as part of
information required for Appendix D)"a detailed breakdown of the proposed
earthwork for areas under each building and outside of the building footprint
including parking lots,walkways,tennis courts,athletic field and other
project components.This information should be prepared and wet-stamped
by a licensed engineer."This is the information normally required for any
Grading Application and,as such,this information has not been updated by
the College since Dr.McFadden signed an Application dated 11/10/2004.
Furthermore,Staff comments in the February 16,2010 Hearing also indicate
that the College also failed to provide the Exhibit requested of the Alternate
21Page
2 - 233
Athletic Field Location;{where has this deficiency been noted?}
•Based on the Council's direction,the College is to prepare an exhibit (site plan)
showing a regulation size athletic field in the approximate location of the
existing field.It is suggested that the College refer to the exhibit prepared by
Staff and transmitted to the College and the Council on September 11,2009
(this exhibit is also available on the City's website}.
In his brief "Rebuttal"statements to the Council during the Hearing of
February 16,2010,Dr.Brophy responded to allegations that the College had
been responsible for submitting "Late"changes that de-stabilized the
continuity of the EIR process.In essence,he made the point that any such
changes were either based upon reasonable concessions by the College to
neighbors concerns or as a direct response to City-required requests.He did
not mention the College's past failure to comply with such requests from
March 1,2006 through May 31,2007 when the CEQA "clock""was stopped
for non-delivery of key information needed to move ahead with the EIR.
Nor did Dr.Brophy address the above-listed failures to provide information
directly applicable to these hearings as clearly stipulated by the City.What
also should concern City Planners is that information that was submitted
January 15,2010,in the form of an entirely new and revised "Preliminary
Grading &Drainage Plan",prepared by completely new authors,without the
required "wet stamps"by licensed engineers and without including any
grading quantities or Geotechnical information in the form of Cross Sections.
Why was this significant fact not mentioned or otherwise disclosed by Staff,
either in Appendix D,released January 27,2010,or in the subsequent Staff
Report for the meeting.
The reasons behind these failures to provide grading and other information
can only be speculated upon at this time,but a close examination of Staffs
August 18,2009 Grading and Drainage Plan,may yield a possible clue.
•The following Diagram was prepared and shown by Staff to the City
Council during the brief August 18,2009 Appeal Hearing that was
thereafter postponed and continued to September 12,2009.The
information provided in this presentation is troubling for a number of
fundamental reasons.
•First,the site plan is not a "Geotechnical Map"as would normally be
expected when presenting geotechnical information.Such "Map"
typically shows the test borings (7 in this case)that had been drilled by
the Geologists and used as the basis for their geotechnical
31Page
2 - 234
~",
.-'.
,.-;.;.
;:..._:..
"'.........
f~.".,-'
'<lOt
.>.
,~
'.:.:'
recommendations.The May 10,2005 Recommendations of Associated
Soils Engineering (ASE)are significantly absent in this presentation and
site plan.
•Second the plan data shown by Staff was not generated by the College,
ASE or the City Geologist,or at least such documentation has not been
shown to date or has otherwise been overlooked;in the latter case,I will
apologize for that oversight if such is proven to be true.
•Third,this is an "Architectural"site Plan which does not include
important Cross Sections through the areas of grading at issue.In fact,
there has never been a previous geotechnical concern for the Rose
Garden grading that was expressed in the referenced May 10,2005 ASE
recommendations.Why now?Fragile geology again?
•Fourth,the quantities are questionable as well as undocumented.For
example,the Project now requires "Balanced on-site grading"in that
excavated material must be placed back on site as "embankment"."Cut
and Fill"must be balanced with no exported material as had previously
been the case in the 2004 Grading Application.In Staff's Presentation,
there is no definition as to what the stated quantities represent;"Cut",
or "Fill"or a combination.As such these quantities are functionally
useless for decision-making.
•Fifth,the quantities,especially the amount shown for the Tennis Courts,
are greatly in error,for two important reasons,the first is shown below;
~,.,;':;,".,';;;-';:~:1!l':-
,"5ORINC,"6-2.''
''1:0,:'1.i_...",.'''',
;,...~r~~~"'-~';"..~"~-~~~~4':?:~'~/:'~~~I:.~'.'.:_-~~."-":'~J.~.:;'.~~,<~..:f"
As shown in Cross Section C-C'above.grading for the Tennis courts consists oftwo parts;
The Basic grading -green,and the true remedial grading -red.
•The second reason that the Tennis Courts grading errs is more obvious
and straight forward.The Courts are located on an existing area whose
41Page
2 - 235
\.
calculated average grade is 900.2'in elevation.The area of these four
courts is 120'Wide by 240'in length.The "approved"July 14,2009
Grading Plans show that the finished grade (FG)of the Courts is at
elevation 892.5'(average)with an assumed "over-excavation of at least
another l'for surface improvements.Thus,the amount of excavation
needed would be;120 X 240 =28,800 square ft.X 8-7'depth =250,560
cubic ft.divided by 27 cu.Ft.per cubic yard =9,280 Cubic yards of
excavation,not including the appropriate "Fill"or embankment which
adds back a net of another 6,960 Cubic Yards (including shrinkage)per
Earthwork grading ground rules.That is 16,240 total-not 7,500!
•The Staff Presentation shows a total (undefined)quantity of only 7,500
Cubic Yards which by any measure is incorrect and way too low.
•Perhaps of greater importance is the omission by Staff of the underlying
(red)remedial grading required that has not been counted that extends
well beyond the "footprint"of the Courts themselves.
•Staffs questionable and undocumented Grading &Drainage Plan
numbers for the Tennis Courts,South Slope and Rose Garden,shown
below raise important issues about disclosure and source documents;
..:..':-~~-.~~..
""""•The circled locations and grading quantities identified (as Remedial
Grading)are not based upon available or disclosed sources then or
SIPage
2 - 236
since from the College or its representatives.
•The three "remedial"grading areas shown by Staff total 32,000 Cubic
Yards of Grading (not broken down into excavation/embankment),as
follows;
7,500 Cubic Yards Tennis Courts
18,000 Cubic Yards South slope area
7,000 Cubic Yards Rose Garden slope area
32,500 Cubic Yards Total
•If Tennis Courts grading quantities are any guide,that 32,500 figure
will more than DOUBLE!
•The City does not have any Grading Application signed by the Current
President.The most recent such Grading Application is dated
11/10/2004 and signed by then-President Thomas McFadden.
CONTRACTORS PLEASE READ AND lNITIAL.
I UNDERSTANDttlat a Cltybuelneas ncense Is reqofred for aU work performed In the
City of Rancho Palos Verd&8.ThIs Ilcen99 Is obtainable from the ely's.Finance
Dapl'UtJ'nent prior to obtaIning a building permit from the BuildIng and Safety DMslon.
1J!/1/
~.l/Ilctt..L
Signature ofll!lndowper
Dated:/Ilk)Ic1
I f
Staff Sill""""':_~_
Date Received:_
•The disclosure of 7,500 Cubic Yards of Remedial Grading for the Tennis
Courts is deceptive because this grading had been in place but hidden
from public view since the original Geotechnical Map Plate I Baseline
grading plans reviewed by ASE of July 19,2005.
•That same Cross Section also discloses the geotechnical requirement for
extensive "back-excavation"(red)behind the proposed retaining walles)
given the Class C nature of the soils present.
•Grading quantities for both excavation and embankment are not
delineated and have likely not been accounted for in the Summary of
grading quantities included in Planning Commission reviews.
•The oblong circled area of the upper south slope area of 18,000 Cubic
Yards (total?)of (remedial)grading is nothing new except for the
disclosure of grading quantities -as yet unsubstantiated by the College.
This "soil buttress shear key"grading has always been a component of
61Page
2 - 237
site grading as has been shown and clearly notated on that July 19,2005
Geotechnical site Map.But that Map was never disclosed.
•The updated 05/15/2009 Geotechnical Map (Plate I)version now has
those notations redacted!Why?The shear key itself is still there and
ASE's transmittal letter confirms that the Shear Key remains unchanged
West of the Chapel,while the Shear key East of the Chapel has been
retained but moved uphill.
•Such previously undisclosed grading that had not been part of the
reviews by the Public or PC for its review of the EIR,raises serious
questions about transparency that still needs to be addressed today.
•DEIR Exhibit 3-7a and Exhibit 3-8 as well as subsequent versions of
these exhibits in Appendix A,have never disclosed any grading along
the full extent of the south slope area (below the dotted line).This is
new and unverified information.
/
..;.~
......-
I,
I
i J-;;;;;,;;._=._=-="..,.-~~~~~~~--~~~~-
...,,_(ll'.'IlOfNOC".Al """"I Jlr!"OPt
~celll&"olO.ITlJiIXl'lU/SlCll""JKIEI~Construction Phasing Diagrams
EdIIlIlIHI
DEIR Exhibit 3-7a displays no grading in Phase I for Residence Halls or anything
else below the dotted line area along the south slope area
•The circled area of the August 18,2009 Staff Presentation is grossly
indiscriminate because the southern area of the existing soccer field is
improperly included and has been shown to contain a separate and
additional 8,000 Cubic Yards of new excavation below field level.
•The entire presentation does not provide any comprehensive
documentation for all the proposed grading,Gust three selected
7!Page
2 - 238
components)nor does it show the "balanced on site"nature of the
totality of "cut"and "fill"quantities as required by Project description.
•This Staff presentation,and the lack of any documentation from the
Applicant,was seriously questioned to Staff on August 21,2009,giving
examples of an incomplete grading breakdown.
•Bye-mail of September 18,2009,Staff made a direct and responsive
requirement of the Applicant to provide authenticated,"wet stamped"
grading detail information.
In addition 10 the above,City Staff requests that the CoUegeprtlvide.expanded or additional information thal is not
listed atiOve thatwUl assisUhe City and lIie environmental consultants irr better-understanding the 4·year pr.ogram
an.d"ih pteparing the envirohmental analysis expeditiously.as dir.ected by 1M City Council.
,.~~~y,10 add~~:p.ublic ·ct)fT1m$ntsre~arding (remeaial),gradi~;~taff ~eq~es!S that the~G?~ege sUbm.it a detailed
b~k-d¢l(fn"Of the ~rroposed elirthWork far areas uni:ler ~9tlJ~rji~lng aJid.outsit;le of the budOing fooipnnl
ioC1uding pariqhg Jots,·\v3[k\.V3YS,-t'Pncis COlJrts,athletit fjelc;l 'BryQ other projeGt-comPOn~nts.This information
shOUld be prepared and wet-stamped by a licensed engineer,
As ajway~,City Staff is a'iClilable to participate in a meeting or corlfe(~nce call witll lhe College's team to address
the,a.Qrive ·r~u$Sts and questKms.
Aira-
Ara Michael Mihranian
PrIncipal Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne BlVd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310,,44-,293 (fax)
arorn@r,Q\{,COll]
'W'NV'.P.ii!Q~y'~rd£;l$.com/r::pv
Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail?
10/16/2009
9-18
•By letter of October 6,2009,Marymount President Dr.Michael Brophy
wrote "In preparing this analysis,Marymount has addressed every
question posed by City staff in Mr.Mihranian's e-mail of September 18,
2009,and then some."
•That detailed grading information has not been included in the current
Appendix D information.
IN SUMMARY
Such questionable Staff Presentation information coupled with the complete
lack of College provided/required supporting and authenticated grading
SIPage
2 - 239
documentation bears on the issue that this Project Review has not been fully
transparent in vital respects and that any further approvals by the City should
await proper and complete receipt of all such required data from the College.
James B.Gordon
91Page
2 - 240
The Project is Infeasible -as presently designed
•As presently proposed and approved by the PC,the Revised Project is
"infeasible"
•This is because Phase I excavation of the Athletic Facility would cause the
Student Union Building to collapse into the excavated area unless ..
•Costly and time-consuming "soldier pile"shoring is emplaced prior to
excavation commencing
•An example of this extensive preparation work is shown in Bay City
Geology's website at http://baycitygeology.com/photos.html
•The process illustrated is similar but more extensive than the 6 month
shoring work on PV Drive West.There are three sides,not one.
•Replacement of planned parking in the western side of the campus
cannot progress until this Building site area is first protected
• A portion of the Western side of the Student Union adjacent to the
Athletic Building must be removed to allow excavation and may force
closure of that facility for the duration.
•The confluence of the College's Phasing requirements together with the
existing physical excavation circumstances and limitations,precludes the
successful implementation of the current plan.
•City Planning Staff have reviewed these circumstances and concur with
this requirement for shoring,including the Library and Faculty addition
prior to Phase II construction of those facilities
•However,Staff has stated they will "fix"this in "Plan Check"
•We respectfully disagree because it is the Applicant's responsibility to
provide a feasible design and process,not the City's
•Moreover,since if the project is approved as-is,and the Applicant moves
forward,the City will be in an awkward position of "error"potentially
requiring compensation to the Applicant for "detrimental reliance"
•This is not a far-fetched possibility:It has already happened with the
College's Variance Request for front,street-side parking;
•"Each such site plan ..submitted by the College since 2000 ..was accepted by the City
without comment as to this setback other than discussions with and direction to the
College to include a landscaped buffer of at least 10 feet.As such,the College justifiably
and detrimentally relied on these submittals when preparing more detailed development
plans for its proposed improvements."
llPage
2 - 241
•"As such,the College justifiably and detrimentally relied on these submittals when
preparing more detailed development plans for its proposed improvements."
•"the College has invested tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of time on
construction-related plans,which may need to be significantly revised if relief is not
granted.Accordingly,the College believes that this prolonged period of reliance on what
now appears to have been an erroneous administrative determination or oversight,at
minimum,constitutes an additional special circumstance that supports the College's
request for a variance."
•It would be informative to find out why and who has the responsibility
for significant omissions in this plan,including,but not limited to the
requirement to partially demolish a portion of the Western side of the
Student Union prior to pad grading of the Athletic building?
•Why,for example,has the College or City not come forward with this late
discovery?Where have the College's experts been?Waiting to sue the
City later?
•CCC/ME has pointed out the generic nature of the extensive remedial
reinforcing necessary as similar to work performed along Palos Verdes
Drive West.
•That work has taken over six months in the performance phase along and
did not involve all of the 26 steps shown on Bay City Geology's website at
http://baycitygeology.comllphotos.html that will be required for the
Athletic Building excavation and pad preparation.Take a look for
yourself!
•Long term interruption of access to this College site would have serious if
not fatal consequences for the survival of the College
•As presently planned,Phase I involves demolition of selected existing
buildings now adding the Student Union portion,plus
•The excavation and embankment for all new parking plus excavation of
building pads and completion of drainage facilities
•Unlike Terranea,this site presently is occupied and all work required
must carefully retain key existing facilities in operation or provide
temporary replacements
•The site presents challenging solutions in order to assure continued
access and operation despite extensive renovations.
2!Page
2 - 242
•Simultaneous construction of the new parking facilities with the
excavation of the proposed Athletic Building requires special shoring -
previously overlooked,before excavation can commence.
•This process of additional shoring,combined with the partial de-
construction of the existing Student Union building (west side)will "cost"
additional time and functionality beyond Phase I.
•The "findings"that allow this very large and associated retaining walls to
the North and East,are improper on their face,since approved plans
entail excavation in Phase I and construction in Phase II.
•Therefore,City Code quoted by Staff,requires not only that retaining
walls be "within"the building "footprint",but they must also be an
"integral"part of such building as well.That is not the case here with the
Athletic Building.
•Excavation for the Athletic Facility and nearby Pool area,cannot begin
immediately without prior protection from soil collapse of the Student
Union Building to the East and North.
•This can be seen in Cross Section D -D'(below);
1·.2lI'
•
•And also in the "Architectural"Cross Section Circle E/2 (next page)the
adjacent parking area to the west must await successful completion of the
required shoring before commencing backfill and re-compaction work
behind the pool area's western retaining wall ..
31Page
2 - 243
•In order to construct the Athletic Facility,there first must be complete
shoring of the West,North and East sides with "H"beams placed in
drilled holes.These are then cemented in place with frangible concrete
that allows successive removal of the excavated material as retaining
cross members are emplaced,with periodic placement of soil anchors at
designated interval levels.This process is shown in more photographic
display on the referenced website.
•The point at issue is that there is now a well-known process that must
first be carefully engineered,then implemented which will cause serious
foreseeable problems for the College's physical operation at this site
during a prolonged and unsustainable absence.That was the point of Dr.
Brophy's October 30,2006 letter.
•Another and related concern and issue is funding for this effort.In May
2009,despite the voluntary removal of the $30 Million of Residence
Halls,Dr.Brophy requested retention of an 8-year time frame in order to
obtain funding.If this limitation is still correct,then it would follow that
this project will be further delayed and the entitlements granted would be
jeopardized.That is simply a practical "infeasibility"concern.
•The more important concern is that this project,for lack of adequate
funding may start and never finish.That is the Sunrise Assisted Living
Center syndrome for which this City has no practical answer.The only
provision is for restoration to a "safe"condition,and by barring entry to
the site,it would be rendered "safe"just like the Sunrise Center is today.
41Page
2 - 244
Page 1 of 1
Ara M
From:Gary Mattingly [garymattingly@cox.net)
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 10:34 AM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Marymount
I am against approval of the Marymount EIR for the following reasons:
1.I am a long time resident,voter and taxpayer in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
2.I moved to RPV from Manhattan Beach to enjoy the rural feeling of RPV with limited commercial and
institutional activity.
3.Marymount wants to build a high density apartment house for over 250 young people directly across the
street from my house.
4.Although I have no concern with Marymount wanting to update their existing facilities I object to them
running an institution until 11"00 at night in a quiet residential neighborhood.
5.Why is it necessary to have eight years of construction when Terranea was built in less than two years.
3/25/2010 2 - 245
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Tuesday,March 23,201011:37 AM
'Ara M'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:Appeal of Marymount Expansion
-----Original Message-----
From:justtrisports@cox.net [mailto:justtrisports@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 11:30 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Appeal of Marymount Expansion
To my elected City Council Members:
I support the CCC-ME appeal coming up on March 30th.
I do not understand why Marymount Palos Verdes should bypass you and'our cities ordinances
with regards to their "expansion."
I hope that you this voter's opinion into account when considering the appeal.
Sincerely,
Pauline L.White
3147 Dianora Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-6200
1
2 - 246
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Tuesday,March 23,2010 11:37 AM
'Ara M'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:Appeal of Marymount Expansion
-----Original Message-----
From:hgnplwhite@cox.net [mailto:hgnplwhite@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 11:29 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Appeal of Marymount Expansion
To my elected City Council Members:
I support the CCC-ME appeal coming up on March 30th.
I do not understand why Marymount Palos Verdes should bypass you and our cities ordinances
with regards to their "expansion."
I hope that you this voter's opinion into account when considering the appeal.
Sincerely,
Harold G.White
3147 Dianora Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-6200
1
2 - 247
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Tuesday,March 23,201011:37 AM
'Ara M'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:the appeal on March 30th
-----Original Message-----
From:Kim White [mailto:tri4kim@cox.netl
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 11:27 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:the appeal on March 30th
To my elected City council Members:
I support the CCC-ME appeal coming up on March 30th.
I do not understand why Marymount Palos Verdes should bypass you and our cities ordinances
with regards to their "expansion."
I hope that you this voter's opinion into account when considering the appeal.
Sincerely,
Kim M.White
3147 Dianora Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-6200
1 2 - 248
Page 1 of 2
AraM
From:Gregory Lash [glash@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 11 :50 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Appeal of Planning Commision Decision of Marymoun Expansion 130March10 CC Hearing
Dear Council member's:
I am writing in support of the CCCIME Appeal of the Planning Commission Ruling on the
Marymount Expansion,and ask that you reject that decision by not Certifying the FEIR.My
comments are in two parts,first are my objections to Findings the Commission made,and
second are my experiences of living on San Ramon Drive -Along the East border of the
College property.
1)In Certifying the EIR,the Planning Commission found "Overriding Considerations"in
connection with the Project.Significant Impacts were Identified,but ruled to be acceptable
and outweighed by the benefits the project afforded.The PC was willing to accept the adverse
impacts due to perceived benefits,such as College Facilities being available to the public,
(community meetings or recreational).Other Overriding Considerations involve "Furtherance
of the City's General Plan","Improving the Appearance of the College,"and helping the
"College fulfill it's Mission."It should be known that the Site's Library,Cafeteria,Field,and
Meeting Rooms are available to the public now,and the other considerations are of little
consolation to residents impacted by this huge expansion.In fact,the single biggest benefit
for local residents,and the only one worthy of an "Overriding Consideration,"was the Pre-
School.That is gone due to the expansion,to make way for a Gymnasium.I feel the
Commission erred when sighting these considerations as outweighing impacts on residents.
Finding were also made,in the Land use Section,that state local residents would not be
impacted by an 8 year construction period,hundreds of tons of imported concrete,&or by on
site Constructions Trailers.
Further,Findings were made that the site was adequate in size and shape,however I don't
believe this to be the case.A good percentage of the property is unusable,due to steep
slopes and the site's close proximity to the South Shores Landslide.The project is "under-
parked"according to the City Codes,even using the most favorable (to the College)of the
various methodologies,by 200 -400 spaces.
Due to Student parking on City streets,parking on San Ramon Drive requires a Permit.
Residents are inconvenienced and risk getting ticketed,as the Marymount Property is so
under-parked ..The obvious conclusion is that less Buildings would mean more parking.The
proposed Athletic field is close to PV Drive East -dangerously close -as already noted by the
City Council and Planning Commission.The Size and Shape of the Site is NOT adequate for
the Project.Finally,on the Proposed Grading during the Project,the Planning Commission
made the necessary findings,but Marymount has made changes to the proposed grading
AFTER the last Hearing -the PC did not have the correct information when making their
Findings!.
2)My Wife & I purchased on San Ramon Drive in 2001.We inquired as to the Hours 1
3/25/2010 2 - 249
Page 2of2
Student Body 1 plans of Marymount College while considering the home.We also consulted
many potential Neighbors on SRD.Longtime residents told us the College maintained a
sound buffer and no student parking was allowed near the San Ramon border after 5:00p.
This had been observed for 16 years,and was considered a "Covenant"by many.Research
into the CUP that allows the college to operate in an area zoned residential,showed only
daytime operations.In Expansion Hearings with the City,Marymount insisted it no intentions
of becoming a 4 year School.
This EIR allows Marymount to break that covenant,remove buffers and park cars directly
against the border wall along the entire length.It further allows operations until 11 :OOpm,at
which time students will walk to these cars &leave.Marymount has honored the buffer since
it's original CUP was written in 1975....a CUP that San Ramon Drive residents helped
negotiate with the College.
As City Councilmen,I hope you'll consider the totality of what the College is trying to do.This
Expansion will go beyond the point of diminishing returns for the City.Under this EIR,the
College can now continue without the Code required Parking,construct a 44 foot high building,
create an 8 year construction zone,grade where no grading is necessary,and conduct full
operations until 11 :OOpm.Marymount can and should continue to operate as they currently
do.They should be allowed to remodel their buildings,upgrade their library,and infrastructure
as needed.That would be a fair compromise,in view of the property's major Land Use
conflict with our City'Codes.
In their latest Multi-media Marketing blitz,inwhich their intent is clearly to mis-inform voters,
Marymount is claiming to be the "Crown Jewel"of RPV.We already have a Crown Jewel,and
that is the City Charter,which protects ALL residents'quality of life,enhances open spaces,
limits bUilding heights and high density dwellings.
Gregory Lash
Vivienne Nixon-Lash
2829 San Ramon Drive
RPV,CA 90275
3/25/2010 2 - 250
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
Ara
bubba32@cox.net
Saturday,March 20,201012:32 PM
aram@rpv.com
cc@rpv.com
Appendix 0 Final March 2010 Comments page 7-27,Paragraph 4.
I believe there are an umber of false or troubled statements in the above reference
response to comments on Alternative D-l.
(Response to Comment of Lois Karp,Letter 4)
1.)"4.9 This Comment presents arguments in support of Alternative D-l (i.e.,potential
avoidance of safety,noise,and geological impacts).True
"It is noted,however,Alternative D-l requires (and proposes)a retractable net in order
to mitigate potential safety impacts involving errant balls."False.
There are no safety impacts that require such nets at this location at present -there are
nets that are not retractable but errant balls do not pose any such safety concerns now.
The response quoted refers to such nets at the proposed location at the western side of
the campus,not the existing eastern field location.
2.)"Alternative D-l would result in long-term noise impacts,as discussed in Appendix D
Section 3.5,Noise,and Response No.3.9 regarding Alternative D-l aesthetic and athletic
field noise impacts."Half truth.
Such impacts are discussed but these impacts impact the College primarily and are
unchanged with respect to the single adjoining neighbor.It is therefore misleading to
conclude that re-location of the existing field would reduce noise impacts elsewhere
closer to many additional noise receptors.The statement is self-serving.
3.)"As discussed in Appendix D Section 3.6,Geology and Soils,the grading for
Alternative D-l,including the quantities of cut and fill,would generally remain the same
or less than the grading analyzed in the Final Appendix A to the EIR with the exception of
minor modifications to the fine grades.The athletic field would be constructed at the
finished grade of the proposed parking lot analyzed in Final Appendix A."
As noted in another Comment letter,the statement above is deceptive because it relates to
an approved Grading &Drainage Plan that has not been implemented.To state that there is
no grading impact or savings (8,000 CY of excavation)violates common sense in that a.)no
such imaginary grading has taken place and may not be necessary if the field remains where
it is,as-is.and b.)the referenced "Approved"Plan has already been superceded by a
newer and different plan that apparently is now the subject for this forthcoming review.
In any case,there is a valid savings of excavation vs.the actual site as it is now and
that should be recognized.There is the additional savings of more excavation not needed
at the western part of the College should this existing field be retained.That concept
has not been recognized in the Response and should be included.
4.)"Potential geological impacts were concluded to be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.Specifically,in order to ensure that potential slope stability
and land sliding impacts involving the proposed western parking lot and athletic field
would not occur,Alternative D-l would be subject to compliance with Mitigation Measure
HYD-3,which requires an updated Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan.Given that the
proposed location of the athletic field is considered a potentially significant impact to
slope stability,"
The above logic is absurd.The HYD-3 mitigation and concerns are referenced to the
assumption that the area in question -specifically the field -would be re-graded
approximately 5'lower.If the field is untouched,those concerns do not apply because
none of the projected impacts to runoff or stability of the South-facing slope would
apply.This field has been in existence for 32+years and has not caused any such
1 2 - 251
problems.Only to the extent that re grading -excavation,change in location -would the
quoted mitigation measures apply.
5.)"Mitigation Measure HYD-3 also requires that synthetic turf and appropriate drainage
catch basins be provided for the athletic field.Potential impacts associated with slope
stability would be further reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1,which
requires compliance with geographical report recommendations,and Mitigation Measure
GEO-2,which prohibits runoff and irrigation from the western parking lot and modified
athletic field from draining onto the adjacent south-facing slope or South Shores
Landslide."
The quoted sections above simply do not apply to a retention of the existing field without
any grading required or change in location to cause the above quoted problems.There is no
such requirement that a perfectly safe field be converted to artificial turf.The above is
simply not applicable and misleading.
6.)"This Comment also communicates the existing athletic field is regulation size.
Regulation size fields are minimum 50 by 100 yards,according to the FIFA Field of Play
(Law 1).As verified by City Staff,the existing field is 56 by 100 yards."
The above is a true statement.However Marymount's architect provided misleading
information regarding the size of the existing field:'
'Need to Improve Existing Field Conditions
"As shown on the attached existing conditions plan,the playing area is below any size
standard for reasonable play.In addition,the field and existing netting are adjacent to
a residence on Vista Del Mar.The existing field is currently irrigated and does not have
engineered drainage that allows for water to be directed away from the adjoining
properties and slope below,and this condition was identified as an item for needed
improvement in the master plan process."
That is a false statement!It has been within or beyond such standards for 32 years!
Although it is true that it does not have engineered drainage,none has proven necessary.
The referenced "condition"was only referenced in the Master Plan process after it was to
be used for Residence Halls and a Rose garden excavated to about 5'lower than at present.
Without such excavation,no such new drainage is necessary.The assumptions are distinctly
different and void the statements by the College.
7.)"FIFA requirements (typically used for AYSO games)for standard fields range between
100 yards and 130 yards for length (touch line)and between 50 yards and 100 yards for
width (goal line).The NCAA Rule 1 dimensions range between 110 yards and 120 yards for
length and between 65 yards and 80 yards for width.According to NCAA Rule 1,the optimum
size is 120 by 75 yards."
NCAA Rule 1 is not applicable because the College has no plans for NCAA Rule 1 games or
association.Dr.Brophy states the College has no such plans,and that any future
association with NAIA is "speculative".
"Athletic Programs (October 6,2009:Dr.Michael Brophy to Ara Mihranian)
With respect to athletic programs,if Marymount becomes accredited by WASC as a limited
four-year institution,then this would be just one of several requirements that would have
to be met before the College could even apply for membership in the National Association
of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA),which is the organization the College would most
likely join in order to have its students participate in any intercollegiate sports.As
such,any such changes remain speculative."
Dr.Brophy further comments and alleges that:
"The College has reviewed the requirements for joining the NAIA's Golden State Athletic
Conference,which consists of small Christian Colleges in the Southern California region.
Marymount does not envision itself joining this conference because such membership would
require a minimum number of sports teams and the College simply does not have at the
present time and does not foresee having in the future the requisite number of teams in
the applicable sports to participate in this conference.Given the modest scope and size
of new athletic facilities under the Approved Project (e.g.,one outdoor field and one
2 2 - 252
indoor gym -each with limited seating),the limited number of club sports the College
currently offers under the same permitted enrollment,the fact that over the last four
years the College has yet to host more than 100 spectators at any home game or scrimmage
for its most popular sport (soccer),and that athletic events (much like the College's
much better attended cultural events)occur during non-peak hours,the possibility of any
significant impacts from any future participation in intercollegiate athletics is remote
and speculative.Accordingly,Marymount suggests that if the City has any lingering
concerns regarding such potential activities that it simply require Marymount to advise
the City if it does become a member of the NAIA (or any similar organization),so that the
City can review the applicable facts and circumstances at such time and determine whether
any modification would need to be made to the College's CUP."(pages 7 &8)
7.)With respect "COMMENT LETTER 5
James Gordon
February 17,2010
"5.1 This Comment accurately communicates the existing athletic field is regulation size.
Regulation size fields are minimum 50 by 100 yards,according to the FIFA Field of Play.
As verified by City Staff,the existing field is approximately 56 by 100 yards."
This again establishes that the existing field is fully regulation size and that the
College's representative's statements are false."
"The NCAA Rule 1 dimensions range between 110 yards and 120 yards for length and between
65 yards and 80 yards for width.According to NCAA Rule 1,the optimum size is 120 by 75
yards."
The above line of reasoning now introduces a new and inappropriate condition,the NCAA
Rule 1 dimensions.They are inappropriate and not applicable because there is a).No NCAA
intercollegiate play anticipated,and that NAIA play is not presently contemplated and is
only "speculative"at this time.There is c.)No reference to the field Dimensions
preferred by NAIA.Why is this missing and the NCAA 1 reference inserted?
8.)"Notwithstanding,Appendix D Exhibit 2-4,Athletic Field Alternative No.1 Site Plan,
depicts the Alternative D-1 proposed athletic field layout that was identified by City
Staff in response to the City Council's direction.Alternative D-1 was prepared by Staff
based on the dimensions of the field proposed by the College at the western portion of the
campus;with the attempt to minimize the proposed uses at this site.Accordingly,the
Alternative D-1 athletic field layout was appropriately analyzed in Appendix D and remains
the City-designated alternative."
Fact:The soccer field size proposed for the western part of the campus site is 300'X
168'.That is in excess of the minimum size that was requested to be evaluated by the City
Council.As shown in the dimensions given for retaining the existing field,that site can
also accommodate an increased width by minor modification moving it slightly to the
west.Further,the proposed western soccer field provides significantly reduced sideline
spectator and coaching/team areas compared with the existing Castle field.It is therefore
not a significant improvement worthy of adding approximately 29,000 Cubic Yard of added
excavation that is required and can be avoided by retention at the current location.
9.)"3.10 This Comment communicates Alternative D-1 would remove the fire lane proposed
along the southeasterly portion of the College,in order to accommodate the enlarged
athletic field.The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD)was contacted,in order to
evaluate the potential for emergency vehicle access constraints to the southeast portion
of the Campus .2 According to the LACFD,a maximum of 150 feet accessibility is required
for all portions of the exterior walls for the first story of all buildings.Because,the
potential exists that this minimum requirement is not met by the Alternative D-1 site
layout and the fire access cannot be provided through turf areas,the Alternative either
would need to be revised to accommodate the necessary fire access,or if such a revision
is not possible,this Alternative could be deemed infeasible.
If the above standard is literally applied,the project itself does not comply at present.
Access to the North side of the Classroom Building and administration building,plus a
portion of the new Library,does not comply.The parking area that would be retained at
the east parking lot would provide 150'emergency vehicle access to a portion of the south
side of the Classroom building.
3 2 - 253
Appropriate access to the Student Union and proposed Athletic building would still be
available within the designated distance specified.The present security booth with
reduced width would block direct access to the Chapel Circle area for vehicles that
require a 26'width.That constraint is now to be further reviewed by the Fire Department
in Plan Check and the retention of the existing field access should similarly be
addressed.Telephone calls to obtain such information are not determinant of actual on-
site reviews of final plans,and are not an appropriate way to determine such key
limitations.It is inconsistent to call for this and not for the security booth
interference.
The primary purpose [is to provide fire hose coverage that would be satisfied by
placement of hydrants at strategic locations,also TBD in the planning.
"Accordingly,Page 3.8-1 of Draft Appendix D is revised in Final Appendix D,as follows:
"However,in order to accommodate the enlarged athletic field as presently designed,
Alternative D-1 would require site plan changes to provide the required fire lane that is
a necessary ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic and emergency response
issues.Unless the site plan was redesigned to provide required fire access,Alternative
D-1 would conflict with Los Angeles County Fire Department General and Institutional
Requirements regarding accessibility,and would be deemed infeasible for that reason."
Given the above,the existing College itself is not in compliance as it stands.This is
not a real limitation without further processing in Plan Check.
The above is a reference to an "enlarged field"that is not required,appropriate or
necessary.The Council direction -according to the records published,was to evaluate a
regulation size field,not an enlarged field !This is a regulation size field that does
not need to be enlarged beyond what is available as -is.
In summation,it appears that the process and statements included here are less than
convincing and that the existing field should be retained as-is where is because to do so
will avoid substantial amounts of unnecessary grading which will offer favorable
environmental benefits.Reference to pre-existing grading documents without attention to
real grading issues -that have changed since July 14,2009 -is misleading when
evaluating the alternatives associated with a real retention involving no new grading at
all.You must include any "savings"associated with that option to properly relate the
pros and cons of this real alternative.There has been no reference (other than zero)to
the relative grading quantity impacts of retention vs.digging up at another location
which is not a good alternative given the benefits involved.
Jim Gordon
4 2 - 254
Dr.Dennis McLeod
3348 Corinna Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-6212
21 March 2010
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
To the Distinguished Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
I am writing you with specific regard to the proposed Marymount College (MMC)
Facilities Expansion Project.I have been involved for over two years in this
matter as a concerned and impacted resident of the city.I have expressed my
concerns and view a number of times,and wish to take this opportunity to
summarize my input to the City Council regarding this matter.
Let me begin with a question.MMC has announced they will transform from a
two-year college to a four-year college for fall 2010.Is this permitted without
action by the city under the current CUP (meaning what is in place now,not the
requested CUPs)?I ask this,as it is clear that a four-year college is a very
different thing in many ways from the current two-year college.
Now I will be candid:MMC has turned this entire application and plan for
expansion into a complete circus.MMC has been irresponsible,completely
ignoring most of the "neighbors"who would suffer great quality of life and
financial loss if their absurd plans are allowed to proceed.Let my give you an
example of the hypocritical approach with which MMC and it's board of trustees
seems to operate.MMC President Michael Brophy recently sent a letter to the
"neighbors"of MMC regarding a sound event in September.This letter talks
about a fund raising event.But more significantly,he states:"We want to
maintain the quality of life here in the neighborhood ....".The actions of MMC,it's
president,board of trustees,legal firm(s),PR firm(s),and others paid by or
contributing to MMC have acted completely contrary to this.It is absolutely clear
that MMC plans to do anything possible to get it's original unacceptable project
approved.They have exhibited complete disregard for the neighbors of the
college,and have ignored repeated requests for modifications.When staff has
made them,MMC has refused them.For example,they insist on moving the
athletic field to the winding part of PV Drive East where is a major danger,
serious noise and view problem,and destroys the character of the area.Why?
To make room for the dorms they want no matter how they get it (via the City
Council,legal action,a ballot measure,...).
2 - 255
As a consequence of this,I believe it is all the more important to carefully
address the impacts of the proposed project,and issue strong constraints
to limit what MMC can do.For example,it is now clear they want to rent out
their proposed new athletic field facilities.This is totally unacceptable.It would
virtually destroy the nature of the semi-rural area in which the MMC property is
located.
In my previous letters,I have adumbrated my objections to this project.In
summary,but not exhaustively,I am seriously impacted by and strongly object to:
•The development of a soccer field and tennis courts in the area
immediately surrounded by PV Drive East
•The size and height of the proposed new athletic facility
•The inadequacy of parking
•The very major sound impact (during construction,and "forever")-that
has not been properly addressed
•The change to a four-year college without approval
•Any renting or leasing of any facilities for money by MMC
•Any other use of the property other than an educational two year college
There is no way that any "over-riding"consideration makes sense in light of these
extremely negative,long-term disastrous impacts.
A critical major problem here in this entire process has been that the impact on
many residents/properties (such as mine)that would be greatly impacted -
has been ignored and I do not understand why.Perhaps it is because my
property is not physically immediately adjacent to MMC.That matters not -what
matters is the extremely negative impact this project would have on me and
residents in my area.Please represent me and the other "neighbors"of MMC.
Please do not allow unreasonable,outlandish development for a decade that
would destroy the enjoyment of my home and the area.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Dennis McLeod
2 - 256
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Monday,March 22,2010 7:58 AM
'AraM'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:
-----Original Message-----
From:gensar@cox.net [mailto:gensar@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,March 22,2010 5:13 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:
I am very concerned about the future of our neighborhood.If the
Marymount expansion is approved,this whole side of the "Hill"will suffer.
We do not need a four year college,we had one years ago and it folded.It may sound fine
to people who'do not have to live near it.The traffic,and
accidents,has increased.The students drive very fast and have caused
some very tragic accidents.
Any grading on the south-facing slope is dangerous,this area is not stable.
Please see to it that this expansion is denied.
Peggy Ekberg
30802 Ganado
1 2 - 257
Page 1 of 2
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,March 22,2010 8:08 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Marymount expansion
From:Les Brown [mailto:les.photo@yahoo.com]
sent:Sunday,March 21,2010 8:48 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Marymount expansion
City Council,
I continue to be amazed that the Marymount College Expansion is still being considered.I also cannot
believe that Marymount College will ignore the City Council by aiming to put the decision as a ballot
initiative.Placing the decision on the ballot for residents that will not be affected by this expansion.
Why would residents living away from the college even care,and understand the effect on those living
near the college.
To have Sue Soldoff state in the PV Peninsula News that "There is a small,vocal minority of people that
are in the immediate neighborhood (of)Marymount ...that have prevented and waylaid and delayed
this project coming to fruition.We decided that it (should)be determined by the residents in the
city."Is unbelieveable.It's obvious that those in the immediate area do not want the project.Yes,
those that are AFFECTED by this decision with the construction and variance to building codes,and
increased hours of construction,and increased traffic,and increased parking,students now living on
campus,and additional drivers speeding on the hill SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THOSE LIVING NEAR THE
AREA.With the number of speeding/driving accidents around the hill,and having students passing
cars while on PV Drive East,adding more students,and having them living on campus would just
increase the traffic,and result in more accidents.Long term effects from this proposal are negative.
Those living around Marymount are definitely opposed to the project being approved.The rest of the
city could care less,unless they were being affected this way,and they would change their vote.If
they were living near Marymount,would they want this expansion??
I hope the City Council can terminate this project once and for and prior to this going on the ballot.
Allowing this project to be approved through a vote overrides the decisions made by the City Council,
and why not then vote for everything and disband the City Council since it seems it's not needed.I tell
you why,because the City Council is needed to share views,and listen to views of all those in the area,
and to make certain those that are most affected by decisions,even if it's the minority,are heard and
allowed to give input for the decisions.Please do not appease Marymount College by folding to their
3/25/2010 2 - 258
unacceptable tactics.
Thank you}
Leslie Brown
RPV Resident
3/25/2010
Page 2of2
2 - 259
Page 1 of 2
Ara M
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,March 22,2010 9:38 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Marymount
From:Dorothea Marshall [mailto:djmrpv@yahoo.com]
sent:Thursday,March 18,2010 10:46 PM
To:cc@rpv,com
Cc:George Zugsmith;Lois and Jack Karp
Subject:Marymount
RPV City Council:Messrs.Wolowicz,Long,Campbell,Misetich and Stem,
The Marymount proponents are defining the immediate neighborhood residents as "obstructionists".
Actually the proponents (Dr.Brophy,the trustees and sraff)are "bullies".The mammoth expansion
project has hit a new low by attempting to circumvent the City Council and the RPV City Codes by
filing for a November ballot initiative.
It is true that many RPV residents are unaware of the impact the Marymount expansion will have on the
city.The initiative will establish a precedent that will permit any wealthy property owner to obtain their
desire via the initiative,i.e.Mr.Trump and Mr.York.
The increased traffic and noise pollution will impact the immediate neighborhoods of
PV Dr.E.for many years.In addition to cement trucks and trucks hauling building supplies there will be
will be an increased number of young drivers using the narrow,winding and poorly lit roads of both PV
Dr.E.,PV Dr.S.,Crenshaw and Hawthorne Blvd.
Since Marymount is isolated,the students will seek entertainment and shopping on Western Ave.and
the Peninsula Center.Recently a resident suffered permanent injury at PV Dr.E.and Ganado when a
Marymount student driver hit her 'car at excessive speed.A Marymount student driver died when he
crashed his vehicle on PV Dr.E.at Ganado.A Marymount professor was killed by a teenage driver on
Hawthorne Blvd.Haven't the residents and Marymount suffered enough tragedy?
For too many years Marymount hs used delay,deception,last minute filings,and requests for variances
that far exceed the City Codes to operate a year round campus (and now a pre-school)24/7.The City
Council should know that the residents favor modernizing the Marymount campus along with the
continued use and expansion of the existing location at PV Dr.N.
The process has gone on a long time because of Marymount's delays in supplying needed and requested
information to the City.The City Council should reject the EIR.
Regards,Dorie Marshall (RPV resident)
3/25/2010 2 - 260
3/25/2010
Page 2 of2
2 - 261
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Monday,March 22,2010 11 :29 AM
'AraM'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:Marymount College
-----Original Message-----
From:Mary Ann Dillin [mailto:mdiI14@aol.coml
Sent:Monday,March 22,2010 11:25 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Marymount College
Dear City Council Members,
I have followed the Planning Commission's meetings and the City Council's
meetings concerning Marymount College.I am earnestly asking you not to
approve the latest DEIR and the original EIR.I am dumbfounded that all the
reports on the impact came back as "less than significant"!
1.Marymount doesn't need to move their soccer field!It affects fewer
people in the current location and doesn't open a pandora's box!Noise,
errant balls,lights,unsightly nets,possible land movement from tons of
soil being moved,etc ...According to the continual ads that Marymount is
running in the paper,they are "opening up their campus to the public".
Special programs and educational opportunities will be available to
residents.What about their impact?Where will they park?Or what is the
impact if Marymount expands once again their athletic program and has
competitions at the field since they are now a "four year college"?If you
allow for the soccer field and tennis courts,it allows for the severe
grading along the whole slope and also keeps the rest of "their plan"intact
which we now know was always their goal!!!!!!!!!!!The college has played
games with the Planning commission and I believe now with the City Council
and the community.
2.I worry about land stabilization.The geologists determined that the
south facing slope has inadequate soil stability.I live on Hightide and I
got a geological report on my property when I bought the house.The three
houses above me and the two houses to either side of me,including my house
are on an ancient landslide.You only have to look at the Portuguese Bend
landslide to see that ancient landslides can become active again if they are
disturbed.I see what is happening in the Tarapaca Canyon presently and I
worry about all the dirt being moved with the project at Marymount and the
time frame that is included.All of our hills are stressed.Why ask fore
trouble?Who pays if it creates a slide -knocks our P.V.Dr.East?I
have Trump's 18th hole below me.Look what happened with that!I worry
about the sewage from the College.The sewage pipes and drains are
documented as being stressed that run under Palos Verdes Drive East into our
neighborhood.If you add students,friends,outside field participants,
workers,etc.,what is their impact and who pays for the new sewage pipes in
the near future.We,the residents do,not a non-profit college!!!
3.Marymount has an alternative solutions to all of this.They can have a
split campus and use the property that they got for FREE from our
government.Many others petitioned for that property but Marymount won out.
The college stated that they would use it for housing and athletic
facilities.So let them do all of this there.You do not have to give them
permission to destroy our quiet neighborhood!! ! !
1 2 - 262
4.Marymount hasn't followed anyone's plan but their own!They have lied
to the community and our city multiple times throughout this process always
changing things right before meetings.Important grading documents were
never given to.the planning commission before their vote -other less
damning grading documents were put in their place.Hence,the commission
voted on incorrect information.The college will take "their plan"to the
Nov.ballot no matter what you all say because they won't stop until they
have their whole plan which includes the dorms.They don't want to alter
anything even though staff has recommended they do so.It is an "in your
face"to the whole community to usurp our city government.Please deny the
EIR.With luck from the rest of the hill,we can stop Marymount from
ramming down their plan at our expense this Nov.showing the rest of the
developers watching this very closely that we care for our rights as
citizens of RPV.
Please stand up for us!
Sincerely,
Mary Ann Dillin
2 2 - 263
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
For the current
2009.doc (32 K...
bubba32@cox.net
Monday,March 22,2010 11:40 AM
aram@rpv.com
Marymount Enrollment information
For the current 2009.doc;DrMcfaddensrebutalccworkshop1-31-06[1].doc
DrMcfaddensrebuta
Iccworkshopl-...
Ara
Do you have the recent enrollments for the College for the most recent four years?
I have attached a copy of the public information (including Dr.Brophy's October 6,2009
letter)that shows the current enrollment -2009 -2010 is now 518 students.The National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES)shows enrollment for 2008 was 575.
Dr.McFadden on January 31,2006 raised concerns about the College's viability (attached)
when the college suffered a lower than "normal"freshman enrollment level of 369 vs.
about 400.That year the total enrollment was 675 (2005-2006)
The data I have for 2006 -2007 is 609.
I assume the NCES 575 was for 2007-2008,but wanted to confirm that,or is it different.
I don't have the 2008 -2009 figure.
In any case,the College enrollment is at 518 for 2009-2010 (Brophy Oct.6,2009)which is
77%of the "exigency"level for the College survival according to Dr.McFadden
That is a grave concern for this College to survive in any configuration.
Thanks,look forward to the correct reported data.
Jim Gordon
Jim Gordon
1 2 - 264
For the current 2009-2010 academic year,Marymount anticipates that enrollment will be
approximately 518 students,and yet the number of faculty and staff is approximately 200
persons.
By way of example,in 2004-2005 when Marymount's annual enrollment was approximately 705
students,as disclosed in the EIR,the College employed around 215 full-and part-time faculty
and staff.
Marymount College
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East,Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-
6299
General information:(310)377-5501
Website:www.marymountpv.edu
Type:2-year,Private not-for-profit
Awards ofIered:Associate's degree
Campus setting:Suburb:Large
Campus housing:Yes
Student population:575 (all undergraduate)
Student-to-faculty ratio:10 to 1
FALL 2008
TOTAL ENROLLMENT (ALL UNDERGRADUATE)
Undergraduate transfer-in enrollment 5
575
1.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)Home Page,a part
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)collects,analyzes and makes
available
2 - 265
Dr.Mc Fadden's closing rebuttal at the City Council/Planning Commission
Workshop of January 31!2006 (transcribed from video of the meeting)
(Start @ 4:52.30,end 4:54.35)
"I'll say this -I think with some passion since it's something I live with every day
and certainly for last few years.People have asked about whether this is really a
significant issue for Marymount College since Marymount is doing so
wonderfully well.(re:Commissioner Perestram @ 4:25.52,"Needs vs.Wants")
Here are some facts:
declared financial exigenc in 1994.
that the Board feared
We have a enrollment CAP of 750 and we have not
come close to that CAP in the last several years.This past fall we usually count
on bringing in 400 new students.We brou ht in I think 369,I am not ositive of
that number but its ve close.
A 100 years ago literally 100 years ago the premiere Maymount College was
established in Tarry Town,New York.It is closing in two years for financial
exigency.Marymount College in Tarry Town,New York.
I don't know those figures but Harbor College recently passed a Bond for $300
Million and EI Camino ot even more -not quite sure of those figure.
Some Additional Data
•"Marymount moved to its present campus a decade ago,it had 116
students and was on the brink of financial ruin.Its fortunes began turning
around in the late 1970's but as enrollment grew,so did problems with the
neighborhood."(With Dormitories on a 47 acre campus!)(Los Angeles Times,
June 1985)
•In 1994 LA Times Article ''Two Marymount Students Shot &Killed in
carjacking"
•Also,Article PV News "Two Marymount Basketball Players guilty of raping
coed and sentenced"
•Also,2004 (crime)March 13,200:Attempted Murder:Daily Breeze Friday,
March 19,2004,"20 year-old Tyler Lord of Malibu ..turned himself in to
Sheriff's Deputies."William Shambaugh,22,was in critical condition at
County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center."Lord,a student at Marymount
College,reportedly shot Shambaugh at 8:00 PM March 12 at a house in
2 - 266
the 30700 block of Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes.The
college is a block away."
•Daily Breeze:Sunday,November 5,2006:"Construction Costs Continue
to get harder to Nail down:"Terranea Resort:$200 Mil 2003:$400 Mil Oct.
2006)
•April 7,2007:PV News:"Reeves ..have witnessed a decrease in nuns on
the faculty.""(nuns as trustees)"Their number has declined fairly
dramatically over time."
•Saturday,July 7,2007,PV News "Developer calls off contract for Senior
Project"
•PV News,Thursday,March 13,2003 "Marymount to Reassess Its Plans"
•"We anticipate that building will commence in 2003,with all construction
scheduled for completion within 18 to 24 months".4/16/04 Marymount
Community/Improvement Project:Continued to September 2004.
(http://www.marymountpv.edu/improvementProject.asp)
•"The Revised Plans include "An available site on campus for the future
location of the Marymount Preschool"3/12/2007:
(http://www.marymountpv.edu/friends/2006QA.asp)
•Neighbor's Views:"..none of our neighbor's views will be obstructed."
2 - 267
Dr.Mc Fadden's closing rebuttal at the City Council/Planning Commission
Workshop of January 31!2006 (transcribed from video of the meeting)
(Start @ 4:52.30,end 4:54.35)
"I'll say this -I think with some passion since it's something I live with every day
and certainly for last few years.People have asked about whether this is really a
significant issue for Marymount College since Marymount is doing so
wonderfully well.(re:Commissioner Perestram @ 4:25.52,"Needs vs.Wants")
Here are some facts:
declared financial exigenc in 1994.
that the Board feared
We have a enrollment CAP of 750 an.d we have not
come close to that CAP in the last several years.This past fall we usually count
on bringing in 400 new students.We brou ht in I think 369,I am not ositive of
that number but its ve close.
A 100 years ago literally 100 years ago the premiere Maymount College was
established in Tarry Town,New York.It is closing in two years for financial
exigency.Marymount College in Tarry Town,New York.
I don't know those figures but Harbor College recently passed a Bond for $300
Million and EI Camino ot even more -not quite sure of those figure.
Some Additional Data
•"Marymount moved to its present campus a decade ago,it had 116
students and was on the brink of financial ruin.Its fortunes began turning
around in the late 1970's but as enrollment grew,so did problems with the
neighborhood."(With Dormitories on a 47 acre campus!)(Los Angeles Times,
June 1985)
•In 1994 LA Times Article "Two Marymount Students Shot &Killed in
carjacking"
•Also,Article PV News "Two Marymount Basketball Players guilty of raping
coed and sentenced".
•Also,2004 (crime)March 13,200:Attempted Murder:Daily Breeze Friday,
March 19,2004,"20 year-old Tyler Lord of Malibu ..turned himself in to
Sheriff's Deputies."William Shambaugh,22,was in critical condition at
County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center."Lord,a student at Marymount
College,reportedly shot Shambaugh at 8:00 PM March 12 at a house in
2 - 268
the 30700 block of Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes.The
college is a block away."
•Daily Breeze:Sunday,November 5,2006:"Construction Costs Continue
to get harder to Nail down:"Terranea Resort:$200 Mil 2003:$400 Mil Oct.
2006)
•April 7,2007:PV News:"Reeves ..have witnessed a decrease in nuns on
the faculty.""(nuns as trustees)"Their number has declined fairly
dramatically over time."
•Saturday,July 7,2007,PV News "Developer calls off contract for Senior
Project"
•PV News,Thursday,March 13,2003 "Marymount to Reassess Its Plans"
•"We anticipate.that building will commence in 2003,with all construction
scheduled for completion within 18 to 24 months".4/16/04 Marymount
Community/lmprovement Project:Continued to September 2004.
(http://www.marymountpv.edu/improvementProject.asp)
•"The Revised Plans include "An available site on campus for the future
location of the Marymount Preschool"3/12/2007:
(http://www.marymountpv.edu/friends/2006QA.asp)
•Neighbor's Views:"..none of our neighbor's views will be obstructed."
2 - 269
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ara
bubba32@cox.net
Monday,March 22,2010 12:56 PM
aram@rpv.com
Response to Comment Letter 26
The Appendix D Final Report contains Responses to Comment Letters.Comment Letter 26
addressed some common-sense observations about actual traffic observed at the College
driveway site at a time when the College enrollment was 658 students,212 (assumed)
Staff/Faculty.
The RBF Consultant refused to use that information because it was too low by not including
on-street traffic generated by the College students who did not park on campus.
Instead,the Consultant used an even lower and highly-skewed traffic generation factor
(1.2 trips per day)and another synthetic factor for University Students (ITE category
550).
As a very simple sanity check,let's assume that the driveway 24 hour counts for the then
658 students and 212 Faculty Staff,were at least (minimally)representative of student
behaviors at Marymount College.Of the 2,439 Weekday trips,79%took place during the Peak
Hours studied which is the fundamental reason and objective of any Traffic study -Peak
Hour.
If,however,you substitute the JC *Code 540)trip generation factor (as was done here)
for now ALL of the 1,008 occupants of the College at that time (not just the 658 +212,
but 793 +215 =1,008)you only get 1,209 Weekday trips total of which only 484 take place
in the Peak Hours studied.So you get half the unadjusted actual trips with only 21%in
Peak times.That is a bad factor that does not begin to fairly represent real traffic at
Marymount.
If you apply the University Student factor,this is not much better (all 1008
students/faculty of 1008)you achieve 846 Peak Weekday trips which is about 34%of the
observed (empirical)Peak trips counted {before upward adjustments for the additional on-
street parking traffic and the "missing"135 students.
Both of these artificial factors are way too low and project about 60%of Weekday traffic
after the peak Hour Periods that end at 6:00 PM.
They do not pass any reasonable "sanity check"test.Fehr &Peers recommended priority be
given to actual (empirical data)in their September 6,2008 review and this is a prime
example of where such is totally appropriate.
The study does a grave injustice to reality because,at the present level of 518 students,
and appropriately reduced Faculty/Staff that Dr.Brophy has described,there is still a
continuing overflow of cars on the local streets despite the claimed efforts of the
College to get parking off the streets.With an increase from 518 students &related
Faculty/Staff levels,the problem will be magnified many times greater than the existing
292 parking deficiency now,before any spaces or new facilities are added typo draw RPV
residents onto campus.
Thus,the Response to comments for Letter 26 (26.1)are not only inadequate,they are not
top be believed or relied upon for reasonable decision-making.
Jim Gordon
1 2 - 270
2 - 271
2 - 272
2 - 273
2 - 274
2 - 275
2 - 276
2 - 277
2 - 278
2 - 279
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,March 22,2010 5:54 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Marymounts Expansion Program
From:jmaniataki@aol.com [mailto:jmaniataki@aol.com]
sent:Monday,March 22,2010 5:44 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Marymounts Expansion Program
Gentlemen:
Without going into all the points that have been raised in the various meetings,letters and hearings against the
expansion program I would respectively like to add my name to those who are against the extensive grading and
expansions that is being purposed by the school.My main concern is the San Ramon and Terrapacca slide area
which is located 200 ft from the purposed grading area without an in depth EIR.
John Maniatakis
3218 Corinna Dr.
RPV.
3/25/2010 2 - 280
Mrs.Vicki Hanger
President
SeacliffHilltop HOA
March 21,2010
RE:City Council Meeting March 30,20 I0 -Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Honorable Mayor,Council Members and City Staff:
SeacliffHilltop HOA,located on Vista Del Mar,has participated in this long process by attending
Planning Commission meetings,reading very lengthy and detailed EIR documents,and trying to
understand claims that adverse impacts are mitigated,writing letters articulating our concerns to the
Planning Commission and City Council.We have held several meetings as a group and have participated
with and support CCC/ME.
In the spirit of compromise with the college,we support the split campus solution.In this we agree with
CCC/ME.
Over many years we have demonstrated a sincere spirit of peaceful coexistence with Marymount College.
We have not complained about their amplified sound events,noise,light emanating from the campus,
overflow of parking onto PVDE,or people speeding to and from the campus.This doesn't mean that
these things do not matter.
We can support improvements to their academic facilities.
1.It is OK to demolish old academic buildings and build new ones.
2.We support the new library.
3.We will endure a reasonable amount of construction time,but 8 years is unreasonable.
4.We do not want residence halls,or the athletic facility on the RPV campus.We don't believe
that PVDE can support such expansion.It is primarily a winding,two-lane street without
bike lanes,sidewalks or street lights.It connects to numerous residential streets and private
driveways.The switch back part ofPVDE is particularly dangerous when it is dark or foggy.
We know the athletic facility will bring added traffic,street parking,and noise to our
neighborhood.This will be especially troublesome on the weekends when we are trying to
relax in peace and quiet.
Our development has no buffer between the college and our homes except the land where the college
wants to build the athletic facility and eventually the residence halls.Even without the residence halls,
during the 8 years of construction we will have the unappealing views of construction equipment,
building materials and temporary modular buildings.However,Marymount stated at the April 14,2009
Planning Commission meeting,that they would fight another day to get the residence halls.Now with the
proposed initiative for the November ballot,we know their true intentions.
What we are asking of the City Council:
I.Do not allow the remedial grading for the extreme slope.It is supporting a parking lot
now and is held in place by very mature trees that would be replaced.
1
2 - 281
2.Do not approve the athletic building.
3.Do not approve moving the soccer field near PVDE.
4.Make sure the geology and hydrology is complete and proves the stability of the hillside
while protecting from mudslides.
5.Significantly shorten the construction time,by at least one-half.
6.Maintain the open space as it is a buffer between our properties and college.
In order to approve the Statement of Overriding Considerations you have to believe the benefits outweigh
the harm to the community.The college claims benefits for the RPV residents that are not needed.We
have a good public library nearby and plenty of opportunity to attend athletic and cultural events:.
Marymount exists for the benefit of its students which can be achieved with the split campus
.alternative.
As guardians of our city's General Plan,we are asking you to protect our neighborhoods.We have
worked hard and sacrificed to secure a quality oflife for our families.
Sincerely,
Vicki Hanger
2938 Vista Del Mar
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
2
2 - 282
Page 1 of 2
AraM
From:Mark R Wells [mtwells@pacbell.net]
Sent:Tuesday,March 09,201011:18 PM
To:RPV City Council
Cc:Ara Mihranian
Subject:Why proceed with Marymount at this time?
Greetings,
The March 30 Public Hearing concerning the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
still appears to be on the agenda for the City Council.
It is my feeling that since a proposed initiative was announced at the March 2 meeting,there
are more important city issues that should be addresses rather than spending time,effort,and
expenses conducting more Public Hearing on this topic.
The initiative process has begun with the proposed end result be that most of the decisions the
City Council would make on the Project would actually be done by voters,if the initiative
passes.
Since it appears that Marymount's Administration and supporters are fully backing having the
the initiative spell out what will be at the campus,I do not see any reason for you,city staff,
and the public to deal with these issues while the initiative process,supported by
representatives of Marymount go through.
I think that at your next meeting or at the March 30 meeting,a motion should be placed and
adopted to continue all matters relating to the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
into abeyance until the initiative matter is resolved.
There is a timeframe for the proposed measure to qualify to be placed on the November ballot.
During the timeframe from March 2 2010 to the June deadline date to determine whether the
proposed initiative qualifies for the ballot,I see no reason to deal with issues that may
ultimately be out of your control or decision-making powers.
If the proposed ballot measure fails to qualify to be put on the ballot,then the Public Hearing
can 'go forward at that time towards the City Council making motions and taking votes they
won't necessarily have if the measure makes it onto the ballot and subsequently receives
enough votes for approval.
If the proposed measure qualifies for the November ballot and the measure is voted down,the
Council could then have the Public Hearing which would eventually have the Council make
motions and vote on those motions.
If the proposed measure qualifies for the November ballot and is approved by voters,then all
the activities the Council might do,after March 2,2010 become moot,as far as what is under
consideration at this time.
3/25/2010 2 - 283
Page 2of2
I also think that if the proposed ballot measure qualifies to be on the ballot and is approved of
by the voters,CCC/ME and possibly others in the community might file documentation to
challenge the initiative.
I think the persons representing Marymount who allowed the proposed ballot initiative to get
even to this very early stage,have made their attempt known that they wish to take the
decision-making matters for the Project out of the hands of our City Council members.I truly
believe that our City Council members should place the whole issue on hold until either the
ballot measure does not qualify to be placed on the ballot or the ballot measure ultimately fails
in November.
I am also quite troubled about the section of the proposed initiative that deals with municiple
codes and the rights of enforcement of those codes.
It appears that the initiative also takes away the issue of the number of parking spaces the
code calls for throughout our city and make a special application for Marymount that is would
not have to follow those codes,with or without a variance.
www.eastrpv.blogspot.comis my primary blog for the Marymount issues.
Thank you for reading this long Email
Mark Wells
1858 Trudie Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-241-0599
3/25/2010 2 - 284
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ara
bubba32@cox.net
Thursday,March 11,20106:31 PM
aram@rpv.com
Appeal Hearing Notice
I received the Appeal Hearing notice Wednesday dated March 11,2010.
That Notice of Appeal refers to a Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan earthwork quantity
of 79,200 Cubic Yards.Is that correct?That Plan has been prepared by new authors -
Rasmussen &Associates &MK Engineering,That plan was not wet stamped and did not include
grading quantities.It did include new retaining walls and raised the level of the soccer
field and tennis courts.It appeared to omit the Tennis Court Fencing as well.will there
be new visualizations for these changes?
The newest plan also does not provide any Cross Section information unlike all previous
Preliminary Grading &Drainage Plans.It also does not seem to account for the soil
buttress shear key that the 19 May 2009 ASE letter confirmed was still in place West of
the Chapel but moved up the hill East of the Chapel.The new Plan does include a "Note"
stating that the May 10,2005 ASE Recommendations be complied with.I believe these refer
to the shear key.Is that correct?
Is this Appeal Hearing supposed to address that Preliminary Grading &Drainage Plan or the
one approved by the PC and the related quantities of Earthwork stated to be 84,800 Cubic
Yards?
If the former is to be the subject of the Appeal Hearing,would you please provide the
transmittal letter that describes where and when it came from.
The Staff Report for the February 16,2010 Hearing mentioned that the College would be
providing the requested wet-stamped grading detail quantities at the Appeal.
When will that data be provided to the Public?Before or after the March 30th Appeal
Hearing?
When will the College provide the requested Exhibit showing the current location of the
existing soccer field?
Dr.Brophy had stated in his October 6,2009 letter to you that all issues raised by you
in the September 18,2009 e-mail "had been addressed"by the College "and then some".
At least one of those issues covered the detail grading quantities which so far has not
been revealed.Is this correct?
Jim Gordon
1 2 - 285
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,March 15,20107:55 AM
To:'Ara M'
Subject:FW:A poll about traffic signals
Hi Ara-
FYI
-cp
From:Mark R Wells [mailto:mtwells@pacbell.net]
Sent:Friday,March 12,2010 6:24 PM
To:RPV City Council;Dr Michael Brophy;Richard Brunner;Pat Carroll;Jon Cartwright;Traffic Safety
Commission;Planning Commission;G.Cornell;Jim Gordon;Barry Hildebrand;Peter Lacombe;Steve LaPine;Mike
Logan;Jim O'Donnell;Tom Redfield;April Sandel;Don Shults;Lucie Thorsen;Rob Thorsen;Richard Wagoner;
Terri Wells;Jim Welstead
Cc:Carolyn Lehr;Leah Marinkovich;Pam Mitchel;Siamak Motahari;Melissa Pamer;Ashley Ratcliff;Joel Rojas;
Josh Stecker;Gordon Teuber
Subject:A poll about traffic signals
Good day to all.
I would appreciate it very much if all of you,your neighbors,friends who regularly use the intersection
the poll was created for,and others would take a minute or so to answer a poll question on one of my
blogs.
I have been wondering for some time about whether folks who know about or regularly use the
intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East really want traffic signals at that
intersection,or not.
Here is the link to the poll:
http://eastrpv.blogspot.com/
You are also most welcome to leave comments on the blog as to why you feel or think the way you do,
about this matter.
The poll is not scientific and it is anonymous.
Thank you for reading this and participating in the poll.
Mark Wells
Rancho Palos Verdes
3/25/2010 2 - 286
Page 1 of 1
Ara M
From:carolynn@rpv.com
Sent:Monday,March 15,20102:01 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Cc:Joel Rojas;Carolynn Petru
Subject:Fw:Marymount
Sent from my BlackBerry®smartphone with SprintS peed
From:Christopher Ball <christopher.ball@cox.net>
Date:Mon,15 Mar 2010 12:54:20 -0700
To:<cc@rpv.com>
Subject:Marymount
City Council,
I remain appalled that the Marymount Expansion plan is still alive.I am even more
dismayed that the college is attempting to circumvent the City Council governance
entirely by putting forth the matter to city residents as a ballot initiative.
The recent article in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News regarding the Expansion
mentions a poll that was conducted on behalf of Marymount in April 2006 and
November 2008.Apparently,78%and 80%,respectively,of the residents approve
the project.I am not surprised by this result since probably 99%of the residents
are not impacted whatsoever by what Marymount does.In fact,I doubt that many
of those responding could describe with certainty the location of the college.
However,the small percentage of residents that will be impacted will be affected
significantly.
In the article,Sue Soldoff stated "There is a small,vocal minority of people that are
in the immediate neighborhood [of]Marymount...that have prevented and waylaid
and delayed this project coming to fruition.We decided that it [should]be
determined by the residents in the city."Those people who would have to suffer
through construction and the long-term aftereffects (e.g.more traffic,more noise,
etc.)are,without question,adamantly opposed to the project getting approved.I
am sure that the rest of the city could care less.
I sincerely hope that the City Council can terminate this project once and for all prior
to the matter going to a ballot.Allowing this project to get approved through a vote
will greatly diminish the role and purpose of the City Council.
Regards,
Christopher Ball
RPV Resident
3/25/2010 2 - 287
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:psjense@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday,March 16,20101:28 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:marymount
Dear Aram,we are residents of 2702 San Ramon Drive,we absolutely oppose these massive plan of 4 year
school for marymount.The staff at Marymount have caused so much pain and stress for us,since when the
residential area should be used for such huge traffic.we would have never bought our property if we knew this
before.It is unsafe for our children and elderly to have this type of traffic in our semi quiet neighborhood.Dr .Steve
and parvin Jensen
3/25/2010 2 - 288
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
ColoredTennisCourt
sCross Secti ...
Ara
bubba32@cox.net
Thursday,March 18,20102:50 PM
aram@rpv.com
Your clarification call re;Letter to Geologist author D.Scott Magorien
ColoredTennisCourtsCross Section.jpg
Thank you for your call yesterday to clarify some issues raised in my comment letter to D.
Scott Magorien,the author of the DEIR Geology Section 5.6.
My purpose was not to dispute the contents of the analysis presented,only to dispute that
it was presented at all.The referenced depiction of the soil buttress shear key was not
provided,as suggested by the contents,to the Public or Planning Commission.
There is no such thing as a March 13,2007 Geotechnical Map that shows this wide swatch of
required remedial grading across more than 1,000'of the south-facing slope of Marymount's
site.
There are no geotechnical reviews or documents in the Reference letters provided as an
attachment to Associated Soils Engineering's May 19th,2009 letter of transmittal.Thus
the statement that this (phantom)depiction -never shown and does not exist,cannot
possibly be the basis to conclude that In now commenting upon the above subject,I have
concerns with certain Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)Section 5.6.4 IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES statements,specifically that;
"The level of geotechnical and landform information presented by the College's
geotechnical consultant (ASE)and Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (March 13,2007)
is adequate to analyze the potential Project effects on earth resources and landforms,and
to determine appropriate mitigation measures."
Public Review Draft ~
Geology and Soils
October 2007 5.6-15
Since this was not shown to the Planning Commission and Public,the level of geotechnical
and landform information is not adequate to analyze the potential Project effects on earth
resources.{below from your page 23}
Other (real)geotechnical documents may be adequate for you,ASE and the City Geologist to
assure that the proper geology issues have been reviewed and understood,but because the
real July 19th,2005 ASE-Approved Plate I Geotechnical Map was never before May 26,2009
shown to the public or Planning Commission,means,simply,that there was substantial
confusion regarding the true meaning of "remedial grading"which from the onset of this
EIR process had always meant the wide swath of the soil buttress shear key 50'wide by 5'
deep and clearly marked in that approved July 19th,2005 Geotechnical Map,Plate I.
The confusion I am referring to took place after the removal of the Residence Halls and
the College's wish to add cosmetic grading in the area of the proposed Rose Garden.That
is a completely separate issue from the remedial grading required by ASE's May 10,2005
recommendations.The Rose Garden "remedial grading"was never a required grading issue of
record.
As I explained to you during our conversation,I have grave concerns that this entire
amount of (still)required true remedial grading has been exempted from the quantities of
earthwork quoted in the College's various "Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans"(there
are many of them).
1 2 - 289
My concern arises from an evaluation of your August 18/2009 presentation of Grading given
to the City council that includes undocumented and un referenced sources for the amounts
of grading (three areas)depicted thereon.
A key example relates to the 7/500 Cubic Yards of Earthwork for the Tennis Courts.As you
know,this is an area shown in Cross Section C -C'in Plate II of the real Geotechnical
Map.The four tennis courts have underlying remedial grading shown in the cross section
(attached)colored green for the basic excavation down to the finish grade of the courts,
as well as significant additional remedial grading (shown in red)below the retaining
walls and court surface and extending beyond the courts to the shear key.
As you also know,in 2007/the convention regarding grading no longer provided for export
of material offsite and required balanced on-site grading.Thus material that is excavated
must be retained on site and counted again as "fill".There is an arbitrary convention of
a 25%shrinkage factor that also is required for these calculations.
Thus when you excavate the courts from an average elevation of 900.2'/down to the finish
grade level of 892/5'/plus add another foot to allow sub=grade topping,you have 8.7'of
excavation over 28/800 sq.ft of area which yields 250/560 cubic ft.of excavation or
9/280 Cubic Yards of Excavation.With fill,that totals 16/240 Cubic Yards of earthwork
based on the balanced on-site convention.
But wait!That is only the amount for the "green"or basic excavation area.You still must
add the red or remedial grading into the equation.When you do this,and total it all up/
you now have something like 48/000 Cubic Yards of Earthwork where the Presentation shows
only 7/500 Cubic Yards.That is a terrific discrepancy,and one that will further become
evident when the rest of the 1/000 ft.long swath is excavated and re-constructed -in 8"
lifts,no less.
My concern has increased with the unannounced delivery of a new Grading Plan in January
2010 that so far as I know has no relevance or City requirement,plus it has new authors
and unexplained changes,including virtually all of the grading dimensions as well as a
huge new 240'+retaining wall below the newly 9'raised level of the tennis courts.The
College was required to provide grading QUANTITIES in your September 18/2009 e-mail,not
an entirely new Grading Plan that markedly differs from the approved July 14/2009 Grading
Plan.
There is no validation -wet stamped by registered professional engineers or land
surveyors as your letter stipulated.What is the purpose of this latest Grading Plan other
than to further confuse and muddy the Appeal Hearing now scheduled for March 30/2010?
Why has this undocumented and non-validated new plan been abruptly inserted into this
ongoing process?Of course,one reason is that the July 14/2009 approved grading plan was
infeasible for technical reasons which I had provided to you/ASE and the City Geologist
in two letters in December 2009.Not only does water not flow uphill as shown in those
plans,it cannot reasonably be dug into the area below the proposed remedial grading as
referenced in the 10 May 2005 ASE set of recommendations who only foresaw about a 4'deep
drain line excavation.To now have a 20'plus drain line running across the top of the
slope area from one side to past the Chapel Circle,is not only a mistake,but a lousy
plan to boot.
I have grave doubts that the College will be able or willing to supply up--front and
validated grading quantities totaling only in the 80/000 CY area before or during the
Appeal.Your Staff report states that these will be provided by the time of the Appeal.Is
that still true?
In any case,I am dismayed that none of the EIR analyses so far have made any reference to
the grading quantities associated with various options that might be made,especially
those that concern building a new soccer field.That is a significant amount of excavation
that can potentially be avoided greater than 200/000 CY of excavation alone,that should
be brought into focus in your evaluations.
As we already have determined,excavation for the proposed Athletic Building cannot
proceed until and unless adequate shoring measures -similar to those at the PV Drive West
site,are employed at additional costs and time for engineering,etc.That means that the
associated revisions to the parking along the pool area and to the north of the pool and
2 2 - 290
Athletic Building will similarly be delayed as well.It is also uncertain as to how the
partial demolition of the Student Union west side will close that facility down until the
actual construction of the new Athletic Facility is complete.Not having a safe and
operational Student Union building would seriously impair the continued operation of the
college,it would make these existing plans infeasible.
I do understand your statement that this Athletic Building still does not conform to
Staff's recommendations and therefore may not get approval by the City Council unless
properly modified to comply.
Jim
3 2 - 291
-,
.....
"
.;...:
"".;.
......
",..
"
......0;.
.,"~.
·'f ..
"
........:...-,;"
.'
.
,~.~~"":;',,....--'"~~~,:,:,:,,
;
"
"
......
.....
.''j
"'"
.'.}
.'
.'
t",'
"
."
"
:'
t
J
........
.".,
..i'
.-
~t·,;
;'..
.'••w
\J.~',,'
'.
•··f .....
.r .:::7
•.......t,.;of...~~..;(".....'k.:......;...
............,,~..._-
•t'.:....~',.....
.,•'.:'
..........~.-~..
•- •-.'••.•'£~.
..;'':.......-..
",.-"0 If ..
.~..._~
'~..",-
'.
"
,,......~......~"...
.':t '
•..:-,.:'.'.'.......'~,":....
....,~:i :.••~..•.•
•••p ...
..~.."'.'~.':0-.•..~~
.'.....~..
2 - 292
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ara
bubba32@cox.net
Tuesday,March 09,2010 9:27 AM
aram@rpv.com
Questioned Data for Staff Presentation of August 18,2009
In reviewing grading quantity information for the Marymount Expansion,I have taken a
further in-depth look at the Staff's 18 August 2009 "Grading and Drainage Plan"which
outlines three circled areas,denoting each with designated grading quantities -
unspecified as to "cut"or "fill"or both.
I cannot find any supporting information supplied by the College or by ASE,Rasmussen or
others that support these figures.
Apparently your request to the College for detailed grading quantities of September 18,
2009 has gone unanswered despite Dr.Brophy's statement October 6th,2009 that the College
had addressed all those issues and then some.
The February 16,2010 Staff report states that the College will now provide detail"wet-
stamped grading quantities at the time of the Appeal hearing.
As I have also discovered,the College did not provide the requested Exhibit for Appendix
DE that shows the existing soccer field.That is a significant omission in this review
because it was subsequently discovered that this existing field is of regulation size and
does not need to be relocated.
But my biggest concern is that the grading quantities shown,with no supporting backup
sources,are significantly and provably in gross error,particularly in light of ASE's May
15,2009 statement that the soil buttress shear key West of the Chapel area remains as
previously described and that the shear key East of the Chapel is simply moved up hill.
That statement re-affirms the significant extra grading under the tennis courts that is
shown in Cross Section C -C'of the Plate II Geotechnical Map,unchanged in both the May
15,2009 and July 19,2005 versions.
If you simply calculate the amount of "Basic"excavation at the site of the proposed
tennis courts,at an average elevation of 900.2',and recognize the finished grade in the
July 14,2009 Grading Plans (FG 892.5')plus another foot lower for "over excavation"
(total 8.7')to allow for sub-grade work,the amount of excavation alone is 9,280 Cubic
Yards.Since the Project requires a balanced grading on-site,the equivalent "fill"
(discounted for shrinkage)is an additional 6,960 cubic yards,or a total of 16,240 Cubic
Yards of grading,not 7,500 as shown in the Presentation.
As also shown in the Cross Section,this "Basic"amount of grading is just for the
difference between existing grade and Finish Grade.It does not account for the much
larger amount of excavation and re-compaction required to comply with the May 10,2005 ASE
recommendations to perform extensive real remedial grading below the FG of the Tennis
courts -e.g.the soil buttress shear key.This additional amount of excavation and
compacted fill is extensive and unaccounted for by the figures presented in the Grading &
Drainage Plan of August 18,2009.
Can you provide the supporting information that contributed to the figures shown in that
Presentation?Have I correctly or incorrectly addressed the true grading quantities for
the Tennis Courts?Do you now have a transmittal letter for the January 15,2010 new
Rasmussen &Associates Preliminary Grading &Drainage Plan?That Plan does not contain any
remedial grading for the shear key as far as can be seen.Is this acceptable?Do you have
any reasons why ASE is no longer providing grading information after so many years?Why
has M.A.C.Design Associates also withdrawn from also originating these grading documents?
I am very concerned that these matters are now being deferred or possibly stonewalled by
the College -especially since the College President,in his letter to you of October 6,
1 2 - 293
2009,stated that all your issues of your September 18,2009 e-mail request had been
addressed by the College "and then some."Certainly not the grading quantities issues.
Something is not right here.
Jim Gordon
2 2 - 294
RECEIPT OF COUNCILMAN PRESENTATION NOTEBOOKS RESPECTING
CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION/MARYMOUNT EXPANSION,INC.
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
I,,state that on March 23,2010,I received
seven (7)presentation notebooks from James Gordon,Secretary of
Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion Inc.,respecting the
City Council Meeting to hear this appeal,presently calendared for March
30,2010.
I further state that I am employed by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and
that I am an authorized person to receive this information for disbursement
to each City Councilman,the City Attorney and Staff.
These statements are made upon my personal knowledge.
DATED,M.~.23,201~
Ignature
RECEIVED
MAR 23 20E
PlANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
~NUPf1L.,7LAl1tJ~
Title
2 - 295
RECEIPT OF COUNCILMAN PRESENTATION NOTEBOOKS RESPECTING
CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION/MARYMOUNT EXPANSION,INC.
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
I,,state that on March 23,2010,I received
se.eli (7)pres9Rtati9R r:1ote bookirfrom James Gordon,Secretary of
Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion Inc.,respecting the
City Council Meeting to hear this appeal,presently calendared for March
30,2010.
I further state that I am employed by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and
that I am an authorized person to receive this information for disbursement
to each City Councilman,the City Attorney and Staff.
These statements are made upon my personal knowledge.
DATED:March 23,2010 's:--.t~~======-----
RECEIVED
MAR 23 2010
PlANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
2 - 296
-~.
l _.J
Appeal of the Marymount
Expansion flRevised Project JJ
to the Rancho Palos Verdes City
Council
March 30,2010
By the Coalition of Concerned
Citizens/Marymount Expansion
CCC/ME,Inc .
.~>1j:..~"Ii'...''','
"\';!::":.I~'o,.:,.:(":~"':"·';'",-.',,'_;.'~;.
.1',
2 - 297
M.;rympount College Ellpanslon EIR T1meUne,., , , • , •,.I.l·,•••••••••,••••••••••••1••••••••••••1•••••••,••••,•••••••••••J.I ••••••••••••1••••••••••••,••••,••~~.1.~t 1
, • , I •,••1,11 J •I • , I I •••t., , ,,• ,•,•••1,,,•I • ,•••••1,, , • , I ••••••1,,J •I I , I I ••1.1,,,••I ,•••••1', ,••I ,•••,.1,I 1 • I ,, I ,• I '1'•••••,I ••,.1,••,
~
"2010"2009"2008"2007"2006"2005"2004"2003"2002
Dr.Thomas Mcfadden,Marymount Prlsldent
"2001"2000..
-
,~.--"'''-._,
,-
,-._,--..---
,~._.
-,,-
'u_.-
2111Stalf RellOrt toCC II;IIR
21 lOr.Broph\l·Of!I .....lel1er
;2IPC Hearln.on FEIR
I!DEIR Comments Recervad frem RBF
"Temponrv"Modullr 8ulldlnu
21!SrKlW lette,to Marvmounl
Colle.e FtS Entltleml!nt Hurln,
R,"sllonses 10 Questl""s
111New ColleRe Plans
;61pc Hurln.moved 10 ADrlI14
PC Hurlnl
:B jPC Hei"ln.
PC Hearln,
C~GeoloRlst IDDfOIIel rwtW Dian
PC Hurln
Tnffk Comm/slon Heinn
u I CoIleRe submits new Illlni
10 ICollege submits redesigned plans
'Cofll!!lll receive'Title to New lind
IThe CoII'"Re wbmlts pletehold,",
Joint CCIPC S,coDlng Session
Too Colll!!ll.lI wlthdrilws loplbtlon
lnltlil Scopln.Senlon
fiR Cons"lunt RBF selected
CCC/ME meets with Trusteu
Uc.atlonSftn!d
fiR A1Jptlcitlon Received
PC Hearln,
11PCHearin
'ME Ap!?!!il flied
'CC A!lpe.1 PostDOt\ed 10 Se~.12
CoIItRe fites lor SA
121Revlsed Aoollcatlon [).Iemlld comolete
141CEQA be!d""Hotll:e orPflP!nllon
CoIIl!l!e blh,rre to proceed CEQA w
CCApprllVil!-Consultanl Contrlct
,6lCCHearlnl commenh AIlPendr.O
471CCApl'eil Heilrlnlt Sflt
48 M.rymoullt Cog lottlilt Tlm.
49 A<tuaI CIfy,C<lnwltallllllt WOft I'f'otres.
26ICoIIeJte submits New Pllns.Modullrs
2210IIR Comment Pfi10d CIo541s
CEQA "Clock runsout
16 [COnege Plnn Rmsed to I yellS
I>PC Hearln •Of.Bro h "II letle'
o CCC!ME Alternatives,ColieRe chlnRts
18 CEQA EIR Cloc~restarted
19 DEIR completed
w Il'ublie H....r1nR Or.ft IIR
1(",1 Evenl/Actlvl
;0 "Sf C<l1lt",entlltlpON.Prel*...lIon Delay
111 CCC/MEAptl ..1fUtll wflh AoPlllIl
2 - 298
i..---,
___J
Presentation Subjects
Parking ~"Ae',":
San Ramon/Covenants i ":~;~~'!
Grading:ii.c""::',>,I;
ConstructIOn
Athletic Building
Soccer Field ~
Modular BuildIngs ..
Affordable Housing ~f.
EIR U
~'"\
Overriding Considerations ~':-;~Ai"i:.";
CUP .····e-·..t;.:;'_.'.-
Hours 8~f6peration
General Plan I U
Alternative #3 ~~;:
«
~-,
1
lA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lOA
11
12
2 - 299
MM POSITION
PARKING (1)
FACTS
---.J
CCC/ME POSITION
maintains it will have +1 unused
parking spaces despite existing
deficiency of 292 spaces
(Appendix D-page 84 Table 3.3-36)
offering to add only 120 parking
spots - a total of 463 (which is 410
spaces under parked by Code)
initiative deletes this requirement
I
.;
..,('.,"'-....-.....::-"'~-<:"""-~~"......."".....,.~•..:s.......--..-'-"r...."','".,,~.,r;;;;;;;'1 .f',,-::__,_'..:'<"O.,,''i'>','.f J P --.,~
".• 1 to ~••
Site is under parked -RPVMC
§17.50.020 requires 410 additional
parking spaces
Exhibit 1-RPVMC §17.50.020,Table
SOMA (Code requires 873 parking
spots)
The revised project provides no
parking
1)for public use of facilities
2)for more intensive use of the
campus
3)for bleacher and assembly
seating in athletic complex by public
and students
Exhibit 2 -Parking Code
spreadsheet
COMPLY WITH RPVMC TO
ELIMINATE ON STREET PARKING
Site is presently under parked by
292 spaces
Revised project should only be
approved with additional parking is
added
CC required St.John Fisher to
exceed Code
MM should also be required to
comply with Code
Hold MM to their promise of no on
street parking
If athletic complex not built parking
codes are met
2 - 300
r
'.
..._--.,.-:J
Exhibit 1
RPVMC Parking Code
17.50.020
I he't'il.1 .,j"]t:lh.!l"~'.ll."\..:r~k ....l .I111.'nl1;'j';'J;1:1111
"\l"'~Nt....'.1.t,T'\'...t1~·'C"'~'l'IfCl~Il.\IIl,)"u~.....ItT"I"I~:.1,0,1'R1:~O/l.n ~YlCl!t>;l.
l;OJ.l~!I~$JGI(S
t COM"m~ES
Arlit VOlJ CUItR~"r
(OOItI..G ~OR',II,)i'tl:ll '"I'I(OJh··..I.J..",..~U"Uf.
Eoler EIl1:..,i Addrass
+'d
.'0"',",".,"..All 01 Til!t!17 Sl.ma
',-1',~11,-,"'.c.,,',A~~U
,"~Q ".I,'~~,~.,""''I'''''''''''':''
.\,\~II.l'e I~w~r~,'·50
•how ::>O:ll:~
~"~_""~"C""'I ",-~.,..,,,••·,_·c ..,......:...,..,._.,'.\.,.",~,l."""~"d.,...l'.".,
..~~.t,'"•,~.,t.·,t.".~,,"'."f>-'.~,.",••"••,~.',~,.HI .'"'~'.~•.•I ,r.,t',J;>·'~.:,",',..'J",'II ~"...
"".,..,,,,,,••Il ..,..;,~\.J .,.,.',',w''''''11",..,.,......,..,.-<~;.,0<>"-.""'.t "I"'",'1,"'',""".',.,.....,~.,'••••
.",~'~""»,:I~.u.""'.;..l~:...•l'<o :..,...",.,-,.,,","'"'~"<I:'C''~'''I •.l~~.·'',..,~.:•.1.••,,,,,......·'·,1
.~".,.....,,.,.,,')'.,1 ~(;or""'.,\(l'"....'~._-,.;c:,..~·,••'-;Jr...._,.,~~~~"C,...tY""_"'~J.''''''l,-~...:•.1'
1 space for every 100 square feet of water surface plus 1
space for eeen employee.with e minimum of 10 spaces
3 spaces for each courtTennis,I1andball and racquetoall facilities
Medical and Heallil Facilities
Convalescent homes,nursing homes.~lornes for the aged:rest 1 space for every 4 beds
homes and sarlltariurns
Swimming pools
Denlal and medIcal clinics and offices
Hcspilais
Vetennary 110spltals arlO elin;C5
Assembly
Auditoriums.theaters,churches,clubs and stadiums
1 space for every 250 square feet oj gross floor area
1 space for every 2.patient beds
1 space for t:vel Y 250 feet of gross floor al ea
1 space for every 3 permanent saats;or 1 space lor every 50
square feel of assembly area.whichever is greater (18 linear
1!1Ghes of bench shal!be conSidered 1 seat)
Mo([uarie~dno illneral homes 1 space for eac!l hearS8 piuS 1 space for every 2 employees
pluS 1 space for every 1 SO square feet of assembly area
Educational Uses
i-
·Colleges and universities j1 space for every 2 full-time regularly enrolled students plus
11 space for every 5 student seats plus 1 space for every 2
;employees/faculty
2 - 301
Exhibit 2
--;--.;
CODE·REQUIRED PARKING SPACES:REYISED PRO.JEC'l':IIIARYMOUNT EXPANSION
PER TABLE 50-A:RPY CODE 17.:50.020 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Code·Required
Category Quantity Requires..Parking
Educational Uses Spaces
Enrolled Students 793 1 space per Z students 397
Student Seats 655 1 space per every 5 seats 131
Employees/Faculty ZZ2 1 space per Zemployeeslfaculty 111
Sub-Total 639
Assembly
Bleacher Seating:Athletic Facility 500 linear feet 1 seat per 1.5 linear feet =333 seats
1 space per 3 scats =111 spaces 111
Athletic Facility:Assembly Area 4,200 sq ft 1 space per every 50 sq.ft.84
Sub-Total 195
Recreation
Swimming Pool 2,700 sq.ft 1 space per every 100 sq.ft.area 27
Tennis Courts 4 3 spaces per court 12
Sub-Total 39
Total Required Spaces:873
Nmnber of Spaces Provided"463
Overall Surplus/(Deficiency)l"'n .j
"Includes 9 spaces per ADA and amended UnifOlm Building Code
6
"
2 - 302
SAN RAMON COVENANTS (1A)
,......_...C~J
Initiative ignores CUP's
MM POSITION FACTS CC(;/ME POSITION
Wants to depart from both 1975 1975 CUP provided that RETAIN BOTH CUP'S TO PRESERVE
&1990 CUP's MM driveway be limited to INTENT Appendix 0 stated in error that
faculty and staff use only setback was increased
and only until 6 pm
~
__I .....=:;'~"
It "I
FACULTY J
"AND STAFF A~!!PARKING ONLYf ~~R BEYOND ;
THIS POINT ~<'~;.lr
lJ t :'~s:::::?e,';::~
Eastern parking lot-
wants buffer zone to be 80'
Also provided that no
parking spaces exist
against the San Ramon
wall
Exhibit 3 -1975 CUP's
(carried forward to 1990)
Exhibit 4 -Resolution 73-
75 -staff recommends
that the buffer zone be
increased to 261'
Staff rpt dtd 8/18/09 (ref
13-30)increase in buffer
zone to 261 feet
Exhibit 5 -photo of
setback now
THE SETBACK WAS REDUCED not
increased
Both CUP's stated in part,
.....the requested use of the location
proposed will not:
a.Adversely affect the health,peace,
comfort,or welfare of persons residing ...in
the surrounding area ..."
b.Be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment or valuation of property ...
c.Jeopardize,endanger or otherwise
constitute a menace to the public health,
safety or general welfare,by nature of its
use ..u"
2 - 303
,-..1_..}
Exhibit 3
A.C'"
DX!',,"BI~l'-:'4-~"""'-:-
1.
2.
3.
~1/"-'
the Director of 1'lann1o\l shall review and approve all final
plans.'
The service road adjacent to the San Ramon properties shall be
cloSG at Palos Verdes Prive East,and that a siqn "faculty only·
be placed at _st entrance at the approach to service road from
the front parking lot.
A qrlLpe stake or simila"fence s!>all be erected along "he prope"ty
line :from Palos Verdes llrive East to the first lug"planter area
(approlWziilta1y ~feet)•
IS:>
The two planter areas at the parkin']circl.e shall be planted with
additional :bUffer plantings;plantin911 shall not be trilzlmed UP'
from tbe 9ro~.'
S.Additional planting shall be installed'around the corner of
Court .3 with the __nt of that portion of fencing on Court:U
nearest the property 11ne to provide a five foot planting area
betwe.n that court and tho propertY line.
6.Windsc:>:eenll,a lllinilwlll of six feet in height t shall be installed
and lIIllintained on the southeast sides of courts 13 and 4 and tha--
northeast end of Court U.
7.The hours of play on Court t3 shall be limited to week days
only,from 9 a.lI\.to 4.30 1'.111.
8.The courts shall not be lighted.
9.The fen~and other apparatus shall he removeCi f:rcm the training
court.
10.OSlo of the parkin..eire1e on the east side of the'campus shall
be restricted to faelUty an4 staff only."
,.
2 - 304
--,
---'E:J C:J r-J ,r-~f,_...
Exhibit 4:1975 Resolution 75-73
RESO.LUTION Il~.75-73 •
/
A RESOLUTION or.THE C.IT¥_COUMCIL OF THE
CITY or R.'\NCHO P.=\Los"·vfR0£S GRANTING ;..
CO~DITrONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COLLEGE
1/'11..w.not adversely affect..;
WREREns,Mnrymounc Palos Veraes College ha~reques~ed A con-
ditional use per~it ~o operate a non-profit,private two-year liberal
arts co~~unlr.y col!~q€de 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East,wich the
only impro'Jc!n~nt.!:i being internl:il rehabilitation to create academic
and offic~facilities,exterior painting,mechanical and electrical
repairs,and landscaping;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Advisory Committee of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes has recommended its a~proval;and
WHEREAS.after notice required by the City's Zoning Ordinance,
a public hc~ring was duly held on the requested conditional use per-
mit on August 19,1975,at which time all incerested persons were
given a full opportunity to be heard and to present e',idencej
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RA~CHO PALOS
VERDES DOES rlEREBY FINO,DETERMINE:,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLm"S:
persons..in the
surrounding area
valuation of
c.Jeopa~di~e,enda~~~~or otherwi~e const.itute a menace to
:--ttlc-p"1ib"'tYc-h·e-a1:'=:h·~-·9·a·fe·t9Ot yenei."a,J:-we.l~by t:he nature
of its use or by its clionteJe;and
Section 1.That,given the conditions contained herein and ~
applying he.r.eto,th~requested use at the locat.lon proposed willr-lf)ot:\1
the health peac''.".Adversely atf'edfCh~.an"li."'P';;ce.comfort,o'c weil~"re~O,e l••'~gg....person3 Ie3i-d.J.~!WQ::k:1Dg in che sur=oundinc;o.reb.,
;.bec~use the factors whicn present potential conflict withBedt .this finding,specifically the t.ennis courts,the abut.ting..e r.mental teD circular parking area,a.nd th~most nC!'~therly ~riveway
••access,have been dUly prescr.l.bed for 1.n £:xh.1.b1.t."A"ofpropertthisResolution;or
"b.Be materially detr~ment~l to the use,enjoyment or v~lu-
J .~A...oL.p'1':'opeft¥i·of:;ottt:er persons located in t.he vicinityeopard.ze endan"'g of the site,foe the same reasons expcessed in ta)above,
I 'er.;nd because the use is not:materially differant.from t.he
;present activities;or
..the public"
~~~--oc ;R adequate
2 - 305
.,
~
~'.U,co..a
+oJ
Q)
V')
r 'b.O
C.-~
~
Lf)co
0....
+oJ b.O.-..a c.-.-..c +oJxVl.-
UJ X
UJ
C
0
E
CO
0:::
L C
CO
V')
•,'
2 - 306
GRADING (2)
r·'--...,•-~"--";-__J ""_.--'L~,.J ~-·i
.-
MM POSITION FACTS CCC/ME POSITION
in latest grading plan ASE recommends PC decision cannot be upheld
dtd 1/6/10 claims requirements for buttress because the ASE documents and
79,200 sq.ft.(without shear key stabilization geotechnical maps were not
dorms)but no across the south facing provided to the PC or the public
documentation exists slope
The actual grading exceeds 100,000
Exhibit 6 -ASE cu yards excluding dorms
documentation dtd
5/10/05 MM did not disclose excavation
quantities to PC or planning
Exhibit 7 -Actual grading department as requested on 9/18/09
per
PC saw Exhibit - 8 grading The ONLY grading application on file
plan ONLY is dtd 11/10/04 and is outdated
Earth work quantities in
geotechnical maps should
include retaining walls --
but did not
No grading quantities
specified by MM as req.
by RPV on 9-18-09
2 - 307
,....,...~-..
• J
Exhibit 6
Geologist's Recommendations of May 10 ,2005
Co
LOG •
UpOolC 01 P,(llll'llll;.lf\<GI::I1.1I(\9 Pt,1n ll~v,n'll
Prop~scd Marymount Co!lcfje ImprOVarnellt'iO
(;n'l of Ranc..no Polos Verdes,CalilcrnHl
FOR
Gent]r:!TlIlc\
AI 'Iocr requesl,ASSOCI"h.HJ SOIlS Ef\(J,net::II19.Inc (A::'EI h."cc..rnplr,totl ::l :O'N'/>f,j -"If"
Updallad Grao:l:ng Plans fO(Ull!proposed Imllr(N~rnt:llls Tne Ul-s.ctIl~Gr-.ol!'U PI....,c:llec
August 2~.2004.was pre~l:lfatJ tty rvtAC U8:>.9n r,SSOcIBtO:>A copy Ofllll::pl)I',:>enr.lc~e\l
herein ;JS PI::lIl\l \This repon Ims Decn plCPOfCtl b<lSp.d on tll'lla preSemOOl11 lh~Icfur"ln~!lI.l
rcplJtl~.Com:luslOl1s all<.!rflcommuntlaliOlu prosented In me referElI1Ced rccU'I..'(J'1I~""
3ppllwbla CXCc:plll!';SlJperseded Mrcln
Subjer.:
.;:.~~.
UPDATED PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN REVIEW
-OR PROPOSED MARYMOUNT COlLEGE IMPROVEMENTS,
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CALIFORNIA.
~.,',.~"r-\,\(\'I \
1/11Ai
i .
l I I.XI:of II<C
l '.;I1111ll~.1 IJNIOI1
.,EIT \1~4.()
~!Ilt.'U·..a ~'
-'1 I ~~!Jl!J:O __-.923;Eh',+,r!*\ClI,I ~t.-.L.-,_f."C
::::"~--..o::::---
•
~~L3°~~~~t~~~~~~2~~AII;t~,~~J_..:
~\';.~--/"o~"910.7FG ....v~[II'O'/~."""''''''.""".
...},_"-:-0 ,.'"N.CdO fJ/../~
.~.,Et1ljllJrr;:;II'I(,IlJ~1\1<1,:0,iG-::J5
~.~~.',.=_."'~.v ""Project No C~·5..\7\i·::
~~l'
~=:..........""__ _Marymount Colloont~~-,/~--:>0600 Palos VCHJO!l 01 IVu J:::':lI,1
:7"'::\.'-....".--~-Rclncho P310s Vcrt,Jes.CnlorOIn13 !J{)275·6209
lit.".."'"'~-......_....~..~':-0........._Altef'lhor,~~c TnOlnas M Mer ;>(lU<:!....S T D
~,.,,_~~~.:::s:::__:60,"0
\"---~:'';.""._",~",.~~///
'.'~~O ,..~Pr1)ElEl<lT1OJ'f BASIj,j..TQ/MAII1TAJ""
/-'.,~REo-,",OPMa,r...RUNGFF1:EV!:t.S:'AC'fUIjt'
,,;',,'\):it[".NIlQ!'l BASJIL""1lI:.DElE 'JI.!I.lfiO",,;::~QPI"",!.OES~.•"'-..'..~.\."-.,'"---,.--.
~'~~'\:~:<~<:::'~--..-._--:::::.:;::";"~\0:"',\\....._..........__"-,,.'--""","".""'~.,..,-\.",",\\•._,.~___./..----_.__~-,,'1""=
""\',\\,\....,,\,\"._.•-_......-.-""'"--.-_,•.-/'C=';\'",>,,"~-'..--
2 - 308
.~.:,"
/",.L-. ;
I ]"
""
~:;!;;".,...,,<,i ,~t!:t~:iIH~):ii~}~mi!~i~n~h;::;~,
~:,:,'-I:"_';..'h .rl ;,.~".
.~.<
,<.
;e
h
I',.
/
0 i:i·g'I ;,...1_i!1I
i
;Is
!t
i§
:$
/~,
.<Ofb.O
C
0-
"'0ro
~
19-
OJ
V)
ro..c
Cl.-ro
:::l
+oJ
U«
I
,........
.,+oJ
0-
.0
0-..cx
UJ
2 - 309
-'-,'
Exhibit 8
DEIR Exhibit 3-7a Phase I -No Shear key
grading shown on south slope
-----1,------------:,--
,---I I
I I---_.-._---
,
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
!
-'1
I
I
I
I
I
;
j
~.>,..,~.
-.--"".".
,......."",,"-
,'.,,,,,,
"*-<--~
~:c~
"
-r--
",-
:'j
I----------~
I
I
I
I
,,--_::_..
---:......";:<,,--:;'-W···-t··~----"·1::.\'r-----,~:--~;:.".';~-~~.,~
3;,:?~'~t(';'
,
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
5DUIU Ra5rtlUS~~n &Asso~'~le~S~pternU~f 11 ~OO7
Clot 10 Scale ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
~~MARY MOUtH COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPAflSIOI,PROJECT
I~~Construction Phasing Diagrams
"o"1>"~<"·<l "",••,.".".""Coat;Cfurrrrr-tunT.ei I led
_.'._,Exhlbil3·7a
dI1ZET1S/lVlJfvr1l0Uli[t:;,pan~ion.Jnc
::CC/[vlf.,inc
2 - 310
r·-~
t
MM POSITION FACTS
--~
CONSTRUCTION (3)
CCC/ME POSITION
~...-,-'l
In 2004,MM said that the
entire project would be
completed between 18-
24 months
Exhibit 9 -MM statement
dorms removed from
project
INITIATIVE RETURNS
DORMS TO THE PROJECT
Dr Brophy now claims that
8 years are needed for
project because time is
required to raise money
Initiative states no
construction time limit
RPVMC §17.86.070 -Any
project permit shall be
valid for 1 year.CC is
authorized to extend for 1
year if hardship
Exhibit 10-
RPVMC §17.86.070
EIR stated that
construction noise will be
"significant and
unavoidable"It is
avoidable per Alternative
#3
On 9/4/08 Dr.Brophy said,
"...we have all the money
now to build and complete
this project..."
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TIME SHOULD BE 2 YRS
MAXIMUM
Terranea was completed in under two years
Surrounding residents should not be subjected to
the hardships of dust,dirt, noise,truck traffic for 8
years --for the benefit of MM
INITIATIVE WILL PERMIT UNLIMITED
CONSTRUCTION TIME
~---.....-..."..
2 - 311
i '
[J
,
I
.',.'
"-..L
co 2
c (;'
.2 '-j
'"
(
\\)
.'
1
'1
~
1
,I
'I
,.
,
1
I,,
en
+oJ.-
..0.-..c
X
UJ
2 - 312
r-....
"
Exhibit 10 }'of Ranchu Palos Vt:rJes,Caliti.)rnia p
Wil,,1 w<,)ukl 'j<.l'"tiM:10 seM All of Tille:17
CITY
DEPARTMENT:!FORMS
I Send i
ARE YOU CURRENT
LOOKING FOR 1 1010ICS a PROJECTS
COIolMISSIOHS
&cOhlMmi:ES
Enter Email Address
AGENOAS,
llTAFf REPORTS &.Vloeos
::iellJ 1I'1'$.:l~J:1 "111::1 JPnm
HEWS a.
...FORMATfONCityCode17.86.070
Expiration of Permit upon nonuse
•
•
DtSQI:JVIr.!l rille II 11 CnJ/J:cr;1 96 Sact'Ol'"070
·11.86.070 Eltplfat)OIl of po/mit upon noml1C.-
~<AU of IItJe 17 chapter 86
<<N~Searcl1
A Allr pl:nrul 01"apPIlJlldl gramall.'r.;)€1 Ill,.Tal.,17 shall bct:Lotlll:!'luN iin;J ~'Otj lJnhtS$Ille l:Ij:pl,cant c,:)11"",'l.'ll ..es u~trIO!
nl'rmllll:(l use Wllnll'lll1e Iinle perrnl1le<.lllv SIK.1tOil 17 .l.lo 070((illll ttll~cl1apler unless unot~r Plovlslon or tnlS hila or a prc~ISlon
substantial flardsllip,delays beyond tile control oTUle-applicant,or otller goOd cause,tile nnal "1'1"""",\,!u""y '""'"u,,\,!"1<"
permit or approval may extend tllis period one time for up to an additional one Ilundred eigllty calendar days.
C.Witll the exception of permits or approvals approved in conjunction with a parcel map or tract map,any development permit
application initially approved by tile planning commission or city council pursuant to Title 17 of this Code,Including approvals
granted by the city council on appeal,shall be valid for one year from the date of final action on the permit or approval.All such
permits shall be null and void after that time unless the applicant has commenced upon the use,as that phrase is defined in
Section 17.86.070(A)of tllis c11apter.Upon a showing of SUbstantial hardship.delays beyond the control of the applicant or other
good cause,ttle planning commission or city council may extend this period one time for up to one additional year.The expiration
of permits approved in conjunction with a parcel map or tract map pursuant to Tille 16 of this Code sllall be coincidental with the
expiration of the parcel map or tract map.
D.Any development permit application deemed null and VOId by tillS section may be reissued by the director provldfld the following
occurs:
.1,
e"pll3uon or 1f16 pal"CC,lJ1apunracr Hli'
D A'IV lJeVt:IOI!Hlent OIl'!l,'1 ;:'l.'p[l(;."Jll\:'lu'l!I,mICO m,J;..101:!vc;d t.~h)·~~I!':">tl ,r,ill I..''''~~U''':tlY (I\e u""...Iu'\.0'"~'<.lI..'U II",!ol.uw",~
<)o;c..r~
,1111 (:".li'iloJ~1\..,,,,Uc\:,l IllJl.:J.:Cl 11"1 uc.lIlJOl:'v U:o',"Ig il,111\'"ppr::>v...:!III"""
•Tllo o:M.!wt;I0p"lCnl P\.:ru"l 3PI-1I';.,1",..111,'"fl'11 0':,,"rll-,ll ;;llU ve ...·<"/,'.")0,,,u·""..w'"y"".."•.;;
:J ;..{Ill:',;I u ,,,·h,llfll.~~·~JiI'IlI.\I~pl'~<.l'I'~l\l~oJ I~~';"'Il":I'.u :.1';11 :'~PI 1....-,~·"l,W ...:\""U 11 "i'~H..;.I"":,,(.I 0';.1 J;;t'4 ;'1>.1It ..
~IiU;i
(itlze~1~,.ii/I:.;!VITlount :~,q.;..-lil~i(;'li ':';'
..:lv/f.n,
2 - 313
,.---'r
'.
~,----
.~-'
ATHLETIC BUILDING (4)
~_..l ,~
MM POSITION I FACTS CCC/ME POSITION
45'high on ridge overlooking PVDE REMOVE ATHLETIC BUILDING
FROM REVISED PROJECT
The building should not be
approved because no additional
Staff recommendation 10'back from I parking has been provided for
slope &10'lower away from slope public use
Did not follow staff recommendation
MM would only move l'back and
partially reduce roof 4'
(before initiative)
Initiative designates no movement
thus building on extreme slope
Exhibit 11 •Staff report 8/18/09 (ref
13·29)building on top edge of slope
deteriorates the visual character of
the south facing slope
(PC did not adopt)
Athletic building can be built on PV
North property
IF BUILDING APPROVED
Adopt staff recommendation which
significantly reduces visibility and
view blockage for neighbors
2 - 314
.-....r--..~--J j r---·;
'--"-
Exhibit 11
TO:
FROM:
r,~
CITY OF.RANCHO FALos \ltROES
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS.AICP,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Recommendations
Staff
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AUGUST 18,2009
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF THE MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES
EXPANSION PROJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.9 -
REVISION "E",GRADING PERMIT,VARIANCE,MINOR
EXCEPTION PERMIT.MASTER SIGN PERMIT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CASE NO.ZON2003.{)0317)I
30800 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RECOMMENDATION
n -.
Uphold the Planning Commission's conditional approval ofthe proposed expansion project
with the following modifications:
1.Reduce the footprint of the proposed Athletic Building an additional 1O-feet from
top of slope;
2.Reduce the height of the proposed Athletic Building a total of 10-feet;and,
3.Increase the setback buffer of the lower terrace of the east parking lot.
......,'''J''':",J _.,"~---,.••••:;,_.-••••••;:1_••_•••••_••••_••••;:1 •'-,..-'--'0'.-,;,--.,.
and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable environmental
impacts (Traffic and Short-Term Construction Noise).On July 14,2009.the Planning
Commission adopted P.C,Resolution No.2009-28 approving,with the conditions,the
requested planning applications (Conditional Use Permit No.9 Revision ~E",Grading
Permit,Variance Permit.Minor Exception Permit.and Master Sign Permit).The
Commission's July 14 th decision marKed the finat decision on the Project by the
Commission starting the appeal clock.
,_..1":".:.)'!I.;!._,'(; _,,~.,;,I.
,t'l .i'I.JI •••·
:"~.';"
:.~• I ,,:~I'
13-2
2 - 315
MM POSITION
SOCCER FIELD (5)
FACTS
"__J ...~-'
CCC/ME POSITION
--"',-"....
J
Wants to move next to PVDE
Initiative intended mUltiple field
uses include golf.baseball,etc.
Present soccer field exceeds
regulation size (295'x 148')than the
proposed field and has more room
for spectators
Present field is quieter for
neighbors
New location will have more noise &
safety Impacts
Exhibit 12 •soccer field diagram
Resolution #2009·28,condition #175
-field cannot be used on SundllYS
Dorms have been removed·no
need to change location of soccer
field
SOCCER FIELD REMAIN IN
PRESENT LOCATION
Will save approx.29,500 cu.yards of
grading
Will eliminate need for 20'nets and
varienced retaining walls
Will eliminate safety issue re balls
landing on PVDE
Condition #175 removed by initiative
Initiative -use of field for other
sports makes nets inadequate &
increases safety risks
2 - 316
,;
• 1
,
,J
i .
i '
,.
l •
,.
• I
N
M
+oJ.-..c.-...cx
UJ
.,
l',,:
2 - 317
"
-'-"
MODULAR BUILDINGS (6)
MM POSITION FACTS CCC/ME POSITION
no other location
considered for 5
modulars on ridge
above south facing
slope
Plans show there is sufficient room
to move modulars on the north side
of the faculty building
Exhibit 13 -partial site plan
Staff suggests trees should be
boxed and be returned after
grading.
MODULARS BY FACULTY BUILDING BE MOVED
TO THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE FACULTY
BUILDING WHICH WOULD CONCEAL THEM FROM
SIGHT
We agree with staff recommendation of trees to be
boxed and be returned after grading.
Need landscape screening.Use boxed trees.
<LA....
"""DE
BUILDI
7ir----"T"=·"
/;'''''.'"'1600\o'I1'~'~:::'::":::"::::':::'?_;"'1 C
",,/-,--,.,
.../~
?:---
?----'::~9 1\U#l.L i gI \\it
Modulars (14,000 sq.ft.)on ridge above south
facing slope creates significant negative visual
impact view corridor
~/Ie'-'''/"'------'-'--'-"-"---"'-"I '\f ~t1 AOMINISTRATION II ("j .;
BUILDING
The project will be 224,000 sq.ft.
Initiative deletes condition that
modulars be "temporary"and adds
14,000 sq.ft.permanently to the
project
Large pine trees now screen MM
buildings where modulars are to be
placed.It took 40 yrs.to grow trees
so that buildings are not visible.
What MM refused to
box existing tall trees
to be used for
screening and
instead,wants to
replace existing trees
with 24"trees
2 - 318
r
i
I
,'I
l~
:'.,, I
! '
'"'0 l"\-;
OJ
-I-'ro
U
0-OJ
0::
"V)I
l j OOr;
Cr1.-
'"'0-.-
:J
CO
~ro )\.-,:J .,
),:../,///
'"'0 '\:,,/'"",/
0 ~',.
~~~.
~\.m ;~~.1 or-!\.
L
-------,
,,,,,,,,,,
II
II,I:,,
"I,
I,,
i·'7\..
\.
':,.,
;:;
2 - 319
AFFORDABLE HOUSING (7)
___J ..
MM POSITION FACTS CCC/ME POSITION
claims affordable housing not Affordable housing is required MM adding more than 10,000 sq.ft.
required because less than 30 where 30 new fulltime or partime
additional employees will be added jobs are created OR more than
10,000 sq.ft of space will be created
MM said "'"non-approval of or converted
residence halls "'the resulting
revised project will be exempt from
providing any affordable units"Exhibit-15 RPV Code 17.11.140 Comply with code
(emphasis added)
Exhibit -14 MM letter dated
April 24,2009
2 - 320
Exhibit 14
r .
Ara Mihranian,Principal Planner
April 24,2009
Page 4
:-.J __;
•••....i
.,
opportunities would be one full-time and one part-time security position and four or five
total custodial and maintenance personnel.
Non-approval of the Residence Halls will result in the loss of the 10 low income
housing units that the College proposed to construct,and the resulting revised project
will be exempt from providing any affordable units or in-lieu fees under RPVMC section
17.11.140.8.3 [projects that would create less than ten employment opportunities for
persons of low or very low income].
The College anticipates providing further comments on these documents to the
City by next week.
Sincerely,
C;:~Am~:LLP
DONALD M.DAVIS
,Ii i.,:1'1<\.':'.r\I(J'<,~,J:,;
,\-:.:""
2 - 321
"
Exhibit 15
....-.-.--,
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes.California
L:
Page I of
'-~-.J r--...._...J
",,"..-,-'··l'''...~.r .•••
_n""'".......tlI.HU ..~lO.....l>~.v..~....I \,,,..
".,.~I ...,..l·.'.~Q'~'"•<.u",~"rr~H I.::,.,.....•r/~r"Q"~"'r..,,,~~....,,,.'.'.'."~'('~"...
'om
<,No....$e;trc;ll
1111 I~U
Enter Email Address
A1lolTiUe:17 Sand
17.11.140 -Affordable housing requirements for nonresidential projects.
A.
Applicability.The requirements of this section shall apply to all applications for construction, expansion or
intensification of nonresidential uses,including,but not limited to,applications for commercial projects,golf
courses,private clubs and institutional developments.Applications to which this section applies include,but
are not limited to,applications for a tentative tract map,parcel map,conditional use permit,coastal permit,
building permit or other development entitlement whereby more than thirty new full-time and/or part-time jobs
are created in the city;or more than ten thousand square feet of space will be created or
converted.This requirement shall apply to any jobs or space created or converted
within any twelve-month period.
:~.ll":,;ll:;I ..,:;(n.".,"r:;11'·,I ..
~.;,1 ...
2 - 322
'-
•.••"1
EIR (8)
.,-.........~._J ~....4 I
MMPOSITION
claims EIR is adequate and be
approved
Setting I-Beams
,.\
removed dorms before official vote
by PC
(Initiative puts dorms back)
FACTS
Geology &hydrology "mitigations"
were deferred
Operational nighttime noise impact
if allowed to operate until 11 pm
"Temporary"construction noise is
"significant and unavoidable"
Remedial grading (shear key was
not fully disclosed to the PC or
public)
DEIR phasing was not corrected or
updated for changes in the EIR '
The parking "mitigations"ignore the
Parking Code and are also
inconsistent with the St.John
Fisher CC decision (requiring more
parking than Code)
CCC/ME POSITION
The EIR analysis and mitigations of
the impacts is deficient and
"deferred mitigations"are illegal
under CEQA
PC went beyond EIR operational
hours,which were later then those
considered in the EIR
Choosing the "feasible"
living/academic campus alternative
eliminates the impacts of nighttime
and construction noise
Removal of TR5,TR6 and TR7
rendered traffic "mitigations"
unenforceable
45'buildings are inconsistent with
surrounding homes or compatible
with Code
Remove dorms from EIR before
vote -MM "took them off the table"
2 - 323
~
---.~-.
~--'.-"l
-J 1__,,1
--].,-.~
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (9)
MMPOSITION FACTS CCC/ME POSITION
Necessary to approve project Exhibit 16 -Statement of overriding 1)The facilities being added that
considerations might be used by the public already
exist on the current campus
2)The more intensive use of the
campus is a negative impact to RPV
3)Much more public parking must
be added
4)Setbacks of 25'required by Code
reduced to 10'by variance-
(St.John Fisher increased setbacks
voluntarily for neighbors)
2 - 324
,-..~
"l'•
,,,._----..,
<-.--1 =:J o c::::.;"-
.I
Exhibit 16 EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following Slatement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the
approval of lhe Revised Project.
The Planning Commission finds that the economic,social and other benefits of the
Revised Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts
identified in the EIR and in the record,some of which have been eliminated or reduced
in severity to the degree feasibie through modifications to the originally proposed
Project.In making this finding,the Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of
the Revised Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to
accept those adverse impacts. The Planning Commission finds that each one of the
following benefits of the Revised Project,independent of the other benefits,would
warrant approval of the Revised Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental
impacts of the Revised Project.
A.The Revised Project provides new,expanded,and enhanced facilities that
could be used for community meeting space,in furtherance of General Plan
Socia/Cultural Policy 3.
B.The Revised Project provides new and expanded recreational facilities,
including the new athletic field.in furtherance of General Plan Socio/Cultural
Policy 4.
C.The Revised Project wili upgrade on-site drainage and flood control systems,
thus reducing the likelihood to site instability as a result of flood water sheet
flowing across the property.
D.The Revised Project will enable the College to upgrade its facilities to belter
provide higher education opportunities to the public.
E.The Revised Project Increases the landscaped setback along Palos Verdes
Drive East,thus enhancing the appearance of the campus from the public
right-of-way.
F.The Revised Project will assist the College in its ability to altract and retain
students,which in turn will help maintain existing jobs,including the
opportunities for highly trained workers like professors and faculty.
'_ild!ill\i!l \Jl '.:';}ll-":'>...;;rll::'L'
~!t'1'L'q':.II\::\r'.(11uL.:(n ::~!-,~,''":i,:''Ci
,~,(':l'..n;::l:'
2 - 325
MM POSITION
claimed they agreed with CUP &
resolution 2009-28 (conditions of
approval)
Initiative ignores CUP conditions
..(',~w
•.__."~.Ioo.U";'i-__ol~~,......
I.~~'=..::L..-:.::=.~..."":::,~:~::.,..._.._---..__.._--...-...........-.
~.t..""t..:~-=--..="a:~=-it::'=.=:::....
....JuL.~"""""_Ol..~•.'=-.,..................&0.01.0 -.u ....1-00....olUl.(,='="'"..::::."~'-""'-""-"',i •.__~~.._...
I -..11 ..."'__"'..,.....__.)___ru....-"".U..._,~___•-.v
UM
•,"
I._••&1&1.-.I.I..._la .........._u ..~
.....-...---_-..-11 ............_......,_u.
'T.__<tl!~.r .._n-..u ...U>o/......_...,.
~.-.If,r-t I ••,...
I.__.u_...~.
J.::..~otuaMU ....VaWat
u.::-~.:::u"":l~..--.,_.-.
CUP (10)
FACTS
#24 submittal of all geotechnical &
Soils reports until a grading permit
is needed
#62 permanent use of modulars
prohibited --initiative makes
modulars permanent
#67 grading quantities are
substantially understated
#80 report on expansive soils
#93 "any retaining walls ...requires
revised grading permit"
#130 hours of operation
#132 pool hours of operations 6 am
--10 pm
#158 parking spaces total 463 ----
which is 410 short of Code
#175 retractable nets/soccer field
-j :.-:~:=::J L__i
CCC/ME POSITION
Deferred mitigations -illegal under
CEQA -the public is unaware of
geotechnical problems &solutions
No parking for the additional 14,000
sq.ft.
Project has excess of grading which
is against the General Plan
Deferred mitigation
Variances were not approved
Library,auditorium,athletic building
until 11 pm &pool hours are
unacceptable to surrounding
residential neighborhoods
Mitigation of parking unacceptable,
FOLLOW THE CODE
No workable mitigation
2 - 326
r--.'
HOURS OF OPERAliON (10A)
..._J .
L _J j ,
MM POSITION
needs extended hours until
11 pm for athletic complex,
auditorium and library
pool 6:00 am until 10 pm
/~"EL CAMINO
".,,".,>COLLEGE
FACTS
ELCAMINO
gym -Mon &Wed - 8 am to 6:40 pm
Tue &Thr·8 am to 2 pm
Fri,Sat,Sun -closed
library -Mon &Thr -7:30 am to 9 pm
Fri -7:30 am to 4:30 pm
Sat -9:30 am to 2:30 pm
Exhibit 17 -EI Camino website info
HARBOR COLLEGE
library -Mon &Thr - 8 am to 8:30 pm
Fri &Sat until 2:00 pm
Sun·closed
Exhibit 18 -Harbor College website info
PV LIBRARY
Main branch -Mon-Thr 10 am to 8 pm
Fri,Sat,Sun until 5 pm
Miraleste •Mon -Fri 11 am to 6 pm
Sat -until 5 pm
Sunday closed
Exhibit 19 -PV Library website info
CCC/ME POSITION
ALL FACILITIES CLOSED
BY 8:00 pm
MM is surrounded by
homes unlike other
facilities
The EIR did not study traffic
noise at 6:00 am or 10:00
pm,
How can traffic noise
"drown out"pool noise?
USC
library •
Mon -Thr close 10 pm
Sat &Sun -until 5 pm
UCLA
Mon -Thr close 11 pm
Fri -close 6 pm
Sat -closed
Sun -close 6 pm
2 - 327
Exhibit 17
"::J .-
-...- •..1
,.
EI Camino College
Library Hours
of Operation:
Mon-Thursday
7:30 AM -9:00 PM
Friday
7:30 AM -4:30 PM
Saturday
9:30 AM -2:30 PM
Closed Sunday
V"'Il'~""",,,.....,,..'6•
•a.n,j bwk VQuo;:hf:T$.
tal ticki.'ls,,.:bilt!care
nderSl<mdiog colkgc
md aclldcmic iuue:iI.
~l\llible students lUlU
ject IIren.
vices Ccnler,Rooms
6no·;1ol6li.
I [n Lhe Student Ser-
iO lun.10 4:30 p.m.,
;On ll.m.Lo 1:00 p.m.
IjIlukp'$sryjrr!j/£ns.
ho !lIlV,..cIJmplelect 11
:/1)portunilil$\0 fin..!
Ill,summer llnUlclll'
\I:ompreh,msive job
lI:lIn:h fur jobs in the
~d to uplore online
:nl IlpplK-alions,ilnd
~ilies 101"sludcnl$in
<ie'lis Ih",oppurtuni·
iOh:mships lite ",">0
:r ""J.ll!rien«s which
,require only II 1l!W
I1mer 5e>lSion.So:e
ljb;p#!t1xnj!llm!~II
.1 in wrilmK rCliunlcs
inlervinYs.Rellume
k intc....i<lw appoint-
;h sem..stcr.Individ·
it on :l tellular basis.
w:~llIl\iu.a.J:siull.PQ.l::
,Cllmenl ~rvices [or
na tC$QUfC<'>$•lutor
rials,individwalited
""0 lllXot!IIl computeT
denls.AU LRC ~rv·
bfory ~rvicc hours.
!tawjnQ m"llibrilLYl
10 ho!lping stlllknlS,
k'\~their lIC'lldcm;';'
\i1ChinR lind leaTning
l!'$Ihrough Ih.:lr use
rm"'eticHl,and lUll)-
IllVo.'lJ provid"s illdividwit~Co~pul"r.;....istoo in~truC;io;I'In
bask rtadin)lllod bicic li),lllh.Sludtnl$ma),rtRisier for the courK
Academic Slralegies labed lAS labcdl or plUtidplJle in II IlOn,cr"d,
it drup-in study progrant.Enlering stu J.enls will bo!i Ilyen II ding,
nustit'plllt:ernentlcst lind II ~r:iUnnl p lin of ';lud\"Roth Al;lIUl!m
ic Slrutel,:I"":I and urop-in ~Ludent.s will It proviJetl with lIL"l.'C5S 10
...arious :;ohwllfc IUlurial ilppliL'atwus..
The LRC '!\ltorial ProRrtLm ILibrnry ~West Wing,upper I..",ell
offers freil drup·in lutoring for over 40 subjcct$Including,bUl nOl
Hmit"d to,Enlliish,ESL,Muthemlltk~,Chemistry,F.conomlcs.
UU.'lill"~..'i,Biology,Music,IL1ld foreil:lI ItLilJ.lUlllles.All tuturinll,
whelher loclltl-u in the LRC or in SlItdlih.-lt.lClltions IIwund lhe L'UI-
lege.is provlded by hillbly Lnuncd.nulion1l11)'e<:rtiliL-d tUlor~.'l'he
curronl tuloring schedule i~posted in the LellfllinS Ccnler un!!UI
the following :lile:h1tp'''www eli:pmjnQ fflIJ/[lbmryDrclllJlorJl\ll.
Tht"LelJfltlllg Center lLlbrury .Wi:lit Willg,IIp?:r Icv.:ll hOIl~'
es .:tn txte:nsive OlWill·ntDLerials colleclion Ihllt supplenu:nts
instruclhm in milny llcildemic disciplints.The mc!dlK,m4Icrrllls
collection includts nudio :l.Od video IllpeS,rocks,diSllr1lal.lule.J
skele:tom,hwn:m aon\omy mode:l~,maps,lert 0UI1e:rillJi.IIrt,Inll
llluch mort,Equipment is niso IlvuiJablc for viewing vld~Ilntl
t:~aling L"Opit"S of audio r..'COrdings
Ubrary
Tho:SchllucrmaI\libnuy is tin o:x<"lllJelll fucilily wilh '"()l"e lhun
120,000 volwne5 and hllndrcd~of ncwspapcrl und pcrilldit:lls,
milking il the research ccnkr of CtImpus.
During the fall IlIld ~rinll sernest<!r"the libTlIrY is Opell hom
7:30 a.Ol.to ';:1:00 p.m.,Monduy through 'l'hurs.da)',fwm 7:30 ".nl.
104:30 p.m.uri FritlllY and from 9:30 ll,m,10 2::W p.m.Saturda)'.
The willier lind summer SC$sion hours vll.fY IplcllJiC call1he libntry
for thcse hours).Tit.:library i~clost'd whtn c~IIrc DOlin kl'
sion.
Malcriuls IIrt'groupt.>(J throllt\houl lht'Illeillllo:s for "'tlSy use ,n
Rder",ncc and Reserve/Periodical Rooms as wdlas in lhl!lIeno:rlll
colleclion book slucks.Open slilcks Itrt mulnwln<'d to give slU-
denls direcl access to lIil book~.The Reserve Room contWns mate'
rial required for some lluppJem.:nlllry ,lIl;Signm<Jnls lmd:l colleelioll
nf lexlbonkR ineluding lhe Book Depot.
Th'"tld",renc.:and PllriodiClll Hnoms provide matcriliis lor
rcsearch.Compulers arc availablt:10 support librury rCkurch ylu
,)nlin~<1ulU~5 and W~h llCCCIOS-Online book ClIluioga ute [UCllt-
L-d thrllugbQut th",library.The J.ibrlllY Mc:dID.'ll:chllOIOSY Center
IS localc.J ;n the Ew.l Wini:basemenl and luoyidcs l'Ompulcrs (or
'Won.[proc<:$sinl:,sClUIrun&.lind wllb access.
It fine of 25 cenlS 1I1lu,)'is charlled for nverd"e clrcul:ll;ng bQoki.
with II maximum of $5 fllr hardcover Will 53 f()l"[ltiperbu<.·k.A
thr=..:1ay srace period is Illlowcd al the:cod o(each sen\e:f>ler.~l
books arc charged lit tbe talc of the COSI of ltte book plus $IU pro'
ceuiJlg fee.
The fllcility W;I:S Ihe l.ibnuy of Congrt'ss classificution systtm,
"be library lobby is frequenlly u~liS lI.n 3CIjullcl atl llall",ry,
Uisphlying works by lItI:lt lUtisls..
{•r:.asl Wing_bllsc
Icr (odlit)'Ihal pro-
r~1 usc drop-in l:om·
Uy ncIWMk.t:r:!Wi,,·
~ss III a yariety of
Special Resource C8nlar
The nli.~on of lh~HI Camino ColleGe Special Resource Co:nler
ISRCI is lu facllit:ltc actlllemk SUl:C.:ss for ~tutlcllllwilh wSlllJllllleJ
by providinG L"qual"'L"t:l.'SS 10 o:<.Ju~-.ttiouul opportul1llio:s in un 'DIe'
grillcU campus :!<lUlug.
Studl.'nts with disubilil;1.'l;lire un int~llrill und vitul plIrt nC tho:El
2oo9-201D El CamJno College Catalog
.,yti 'Oi::)f J(,;l:-'11<'"
.r';'."Iri~~cu,I~
Ivi
".,:1)':'',j i
2 - 328
,~~r .-....r ~.--.-...-.-,-_....,.~--~~~~~.-~.-
Exhibit 18
Los Angeles Harbor College
Baxter Library
*****
State Ballot Measures:Pros and Cons
Presented by the League of Women Voters
On Tuesday,October 28th from II:lOam to 12:45pm,the
Baxter Library will hosllhe League of WOlnelO Voters of Palos
Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro.The League's speakers will present
unbiased explanations or tile state ballot measures voters will face on
November 4th 2008.The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan
political organization that encourages informed and active participa-
lion in government.League speakers will present unbiased explana-
tions of tht:measures along with arguments made by the propon~nts
and opponents.
The presentation will take place in the library's c1assrooml
computer lab.[fyou'd like to bring a whole class.please call x447 I.
Have a Question?Ask Your Librarian Online
Students,faculty and staff at Harbor College can now receive assis-
tance from reference librarians at Ba.xter Library .even if they cannot visit
the library in p~rson.And the Iihrarians are available anytime orthe day or
night
Anyolle who needs help finding information may submit questions
through a link on the library's web site,Questions are answered by smff at
the Baxter Library or by any librarian participating in our worldwide net-
work of reference librarians,
LIBRARY
HOURS
Monday 8 am to 8:30 pm
Tuesday 8 am [0 8:30 pm
Wednesday 8 am [0 8:30 pm
Thursday 8 am to 8:30 pm
Friday 8 am to 2:00 pm
Saturday 9 am [0 I:00 pm
Sunday Closed
Monday 8 am to 8:30 pm
Friday 8 am to 2:00 pm
LIBRARY
HOURS
Wednesday 8 am to 8:30 pm
Tuesday 8 am to 8:30 pm
Saturday 9 am to I :00 pm
Sunday Closed
Thursday 8 am to 8:30 pm
",....-.....
"";~I.!i_I,~Jl ,Jf '.,-:r:~":'nl'_'U
",:~_·:,~,·r;-,,·,HI0U111_:1;'i.~I'J,i
,:~\...c,lVIi:.,:1,(
2 - 329
L r-
GENERAL PLAN (11)
~"~::J r --.--..J
MM POSITION
claims compatible use with
surrounding residential
neighborhoods
FACTS
General Plan,institutional activity --Policy 6
"...review the location and site design of future
institutional uses very carefully to ensure their
compatibility with adjacent sites ..."
Natural environmental elements RM2
extreme slope"...regulate use,development
and alteration of land in extreme slope areas ...
grading requiring cut -slopes and
embankments are potential instigators of
landslides ..."
Educational activity .-Policy 1
"...Iocate schools ...buffer zones ...away from
residential ...provide adequate parking ..."
Revised grading plan elevations of tennis courts
are 9'higher and may block view corridors
CCC/ME POSITION
39'-45'high buildings not
compatible with surrounding
neighborhoods
24/7 activities are incompatible
with surrounding homes
PC made Findings to not disturb
south facing slope
south facing slope is completely
re-graded
Do not disturb (grade)on south
facing slope
Construction,fencing,will create
blight in view corridor -PVE
Need visuals or silhouettes to
insure were that view corridors
are not obstructed
2 - 330
~
------,
-~••!CJ r"~'
L_~
"--,
J
ALTERNATIVE #3 -SPLIT CAMPUS PLAN (12)
MM POSITION
claims site to small •••
BUT ...
Exhibit 20 •letter dtd 8/27/07 states
there is 1.4M sq.ft.buildable land
Exhibit 22,22(a),22(b),22(c)-
selective pgs from Fed.Govt.
Application for PVDNlWestern land
and justification of why the land was
needed
MM wanted alternative to be
disregarded
FACTS
MM's project manager stated that
alternative site has 1.4M sq.ft.of
buildable space and 15.7 acres
In 1998,MM applied to US Dept
Education stating that the land was
needed for dorms,athletic building
and other buildings.
Exhibit 21-U.S.Navy Report stating
that no mitigations required
~'I',
-;""'-~~.'.""..J.'~>",It '
.-,,~'i:.'.'-::~~.,y',l {o
,'fl.~!••.,..,~...i G ~iI~'~~._~~~",,~flY>'\_~.•:-~~...."r.'-"'r-.'*~.i\..-'}'"
CCC/ME POSITION
APPROVE FEASIBLE ALTERNATiVE
The alternative was determined to
be feasible in the EIR
Would mitigate:
1)parking issues.
2)reduce traffic.
3)shortened construction
4)reduce safety concerns
5)would eliminate incompatible
building heights
RPV has the obligation to approve
parts that are environmentally best
forRPV
Agree with MM and city Attorney
(Lynch)that feasible and reasonable
alternatives per CEQA that reduce
environmental impacts must be
adopted
2 - 331
[-~
_.'-j
r~~~v ":
L_.•_-,..J --~
PSOMAS
Exhibit 20:1.4 Million sq.ft.building area at PV
North site
August 27,2007
Ara Michael Mihranlan,AiCP
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Palol;J Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275·5391
Re:ZON2005-Q0396 Marymount College Modemlmtlon Plan:Support Information
for Seo.7.3 of the Marymount ADEIR ..PV North ZonIng InformatJon
Dear Ara:
Psornas conducted independent City of Los Angeles zoning research to provide c1arfflcaUon on
the procasa that would be requIred to Implement the SpUt Campus Alternative dlscussac11n the
ADElA.The foUowlng Information is provtdad for your use aQ WEtli 8S RBPfii use;
Marymount College currenUy ha6 USB at approXimately 11.4 aerea at 1SQ2001522 W.Palos
Verdes Drive North (also referred to a tha?V Nonh she).A copy of the site plan of the units
currently on the site is attached tor reference,along with a copy of the City of Los Angeles
ZonIng summary tor the elte.The efte 'S curnmUy Improved with SS townhcimes.The current City
of Los Angeles zonlng 1&AD&-1XL This Is tow density multt-tamlly rSlildentfalzOl18 which·
aflows lor Dna unltfor every 6.000 square feal of lot araB.It is basically a duplex zona
which reqUires a mJnlmum 12.000 square foot lot on Whloh 2 units can'be bUilt.This translates
to about 82 units permitted on the slle.
11.4 acres x 43,560 (sq.tt.per acre)divided by 6.000 =82 units
The -1Xl"Umltshelght to no mora than 30'(two stories),and the Iloor area to no more than 3:1.
This means that the tolsl enclosed building area would be limited to:
f t.4 acrea l(43,560 (sq.ft per acre)x 3 =1,489,762 square fe_et.
11.4 acres x 43,560 (sq.ft.per acre)x g --1,489,752 square feat.
'_'.,.l~:'.!U::~I'~,;fl::''::';"C'.
l:·(~:1 I:,.\·:'tJ~""['·~;_':,.-(n~'.,'II [,
:t
'I4WWN1~eM,""",
\~r..c...M;tIai.C4!lmJ.ISli
3111!6U7CO
31ll!OUl71 r~
.~--
2 - 332
c-:~
Exhibit 21
=--:J ---':::::J L'=
"Therefore,no mitigation measures are
required in order to implement the proposed
action."
~~lt~~~~-:;"t!i:~D~l~!,1 .L ,':,_~4 "J ,i"-,;..~~_..."'-~~".......-...~--..
.5.3 """'tJNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES TO OFFSET THOSE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Implementation of the proposed action would not result in any significant Wlavoidable
adverse environmental effects.Transfer of ownership from the Navy to Marymount College.
would result in no effects to the physical environment.Features incorporated into building
design for construction of the ancillary buildings as well as conformance with the Uniform
Building Code would reduce the potential for significant impacts resulting from project
implementation.Therefore,no mitigation measures are required in order to implement the
proposed action.
j,~-;-vn})';('.;1'11...:'
"';'!::"':".~(,I,'.li()li,l\,i!~~l
1\
2 - 333
r--
L.
.~
Exhibit 22
--j --J L ~J ....,
"'''''m''~'~.'.." .
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
t ......'PALOS V£I\P£S,CALIfORNIA
Application for Public Benefit Transfer
of
Surplus Federal Real Property
for
Educational Uses
1.APPLICANT
A.Legal Name and Address:
Marymount College,Palos Verdes,California
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-6299
B.Organization Legal Status:
A California non-profit corporation cf.Exhibit #l.B (1)and #I.B (2)
C.Legal Authority to Acquire and Hold Real Property:
cf.Exhibit #I.C (1)Articles of Incorporation,J lily 7,1948;section (d).
_C';ll,~I'''::1 ,),,p.,....-·~:!cij
'...~II~I::'!1 ,'..I'''O';I/:.i,,'-L ,;...,l:·l_~,;,"I!':
'_\':.it ;'i
2 - 334
,..--.,(
_._'"--~.,
-,~=:J [-:~
-~-'
Exhibit 22a
"The College needs to offer appropriate student
h 0 U sing ..i nord er.tQJ;;.Q nlP~te for stu.ctfnt:;"$2,300,000,Wl e requIred with a total cost of approximately
VI.JUSTIFICATION I PROO 'F OF NEED FOR THE PROpmny REQUESTED
Marymoum Coll~ge attracts students from rhroughout the United States and abroau.As with almost all
U.S.colleges and universities.students and their familic:s from beyond cummuting distance expect tht:
institution to provide safe and appropriate student housing --especially for l;'eshmcn ,rnd sophomores,
But Marymounl has not been able to do this since our relocation to our present campus in 1972 where
we do nOt have the space to construct housing for 475 -500 srudents.Before the present academic year.
students were living in four 0 ..live different apartment buildings in San Pedro.The buildings were 1111
located on residential sU'ects;they hact no recreational space,no computer iucilities.auo no study or
instmctionai space.The buildings were several miles aparL.P~rhaps most signifkantly,till:
contigw'ation of the apartment buildings and their isolation from c:ach other made the L:stllhlishment ora
campus conununity impossible.
1n addition,our stud~nt housing capacity wag inadequate.Before leasing the property being sought,our
eapacily was 315 students in residence.With a student body of 750,of whom approximately 475 -500
live beyond commuting dislance,we could not proViJL~College-span.sored housing for the great majority
of our retunling sophomore students.
The College needs to offer our students appropriate College-sponsored housing in order to provide them
lhe opportunity for the total academic and interpersonal college experience that students and their
parents expect,and lo ~nsure thal Marymount can effectively compete for students with the other
colleges and universities in the area which do offer such college-sponsored housing.The academic
benefits of the proposeJ transfer will be significant.Students living at the site will be able to tnke some
of their classes there.They will also have a computer lab with Imcmet connection for research and
preparation of academic repons.Quiet study areas will also be available.Finally,the interaction with
faculty living at the site will be a distinct aeademic advantage.
The proposed l1w-se's offic~/examining room.the exercise room with nautilus equipment,th~laundry
facility,cafeteria and lounge area will directly contribute to students'health and welfare.
Some of the public benefit which would accrue through the use of the propelty for rhe purposes
described are:
Ci.jl.\-'I)'S/!\.i ...,r '!ll.n,l:l
r·:-.!
.'
2 - 335
~.-=r-"~"!;1::'"-'.~.,,~r~-"'!l ~--c-.•..,=~.,----,~.~_.~.......~:----;r
Exhibit 22b
(f,C!
,11•1!,,,.
O3OEl193 2D3 /
684,2&1J1 (...ft)
PAGE 793·GR'ID J6
PAGE 794·GRID Ae
PJWE 793 -GRID Jl·PAt:aEf794 -aRID A7
74421lO"'"
'PARTlllON OF THE RANCHO
LOS PALOS VERDES
DCC2373 CF41 MAP226
None
PTH
2ll'
0308193
03/0212007
PARCEL PROFILE REPORT
City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
N
W~I/.-E;'f'
S
Addm·tlbgg,llnrpanodoo
PlN_
Moo (caJou'ollld~
Thomas Brothers Grid:
AssnI5Ol'Parcel Number.
Tract
Map Reference:81...,
Lot
Arb (Lot CUI Rsfenlncel:
Mop Sheet
II~Jillll.DS_~cm
~~~J~~
GeaeraIlZild Zonlng_os
@®ll fTI A.RA
~~.AggBE.U1;··::·:
m~'*~~~'~~"~ORTH~A!:"9!'ve~D~~DR.
l~vtp",-oS VERDES ORmr'!;,O~V~~~R
.lS1 •.W.pAlOS Y~ES.DR.
~~9.i1v~~s ci~:~50fN~:l\T>""".1:"N.'GAEfEV sr.:';=••'w.~IjI.pS.~~~QR •
_
_If!.'~I...........""~M~fJJ~J"l
i\;
Tract:PARmlON OF THE RANCHO LOS PALOS VERIlfiSllng:RO&-.1XL
Block:Nonlt Coalitlcn of COnC0.j"ilE€onoral Plan:Low ResldontiaJ
LocPTH (011:it;:I'./Hdr\':T'lOLl!il f-,.;·:.;i"F:....;I.,':"\(.
Arb:26
L .-,I !)!:\---r--=fi
u \\J uit=r=Jit:::ij,...;i ~pl;I.Oll"eRo ES oil
pl;l.09 "e"oES 0"
The environmentally superior alternative is
the Academic/Living Campus Alternative
ZIMAS INTERNET 0310212007 city of Loa Angol..Department of City Planning
COl I \ \!\"\1:::::::""\=::x PU r.:~!l!IMIittttt §Wi III9IiJ I
2 - 336
.-.""r--..r~~~~"';-""""-"'!:-'"~'::'l '(f""--""~1IlI$/!!'.:lIlI ~:M_~":->I ~~~r=:""':=0::-:--":---r--.-..
ALTERNATIVE #3 -SPLIT CAMPUS PLAN (12)CONTINUED
MM POSITION FACTS
Rolling Hills Prep operating there
now
Less grading required as the land is
flat ...resulting in shorter
construction period &less cost
Residential property is more distant
from homes vs.Crest Rd site where
homes surround MM
The impacts are less at the alternate
site
Exhibit 23,23(a),23(b)-transcript of
City Atty.(Snow)dtd 6/23/09 -EIR
can include alternative which are
outside the jurisdiction of RPV
CCC/ME POSITION
Exhibit -,24,24(a),24(b),letter from
City Attorney (Snow)No
comparison was done between PVN I Exhibit 25 -"side by side"grading
and PVDE/Crest Road site as stated analysis
bvcitv a
2 - 337
..--~
L._c~-.J ..-.....,
---"~__J
Exhibit 23a
"My opinion is that we would need
to look at the impact regardless of
jurisdiction for that Alternative and
to correctly balance the impact if
that Alternative were constructed
against the Alternative impact
associated with the Project."
Asst.City Attorney
David Snow
PC Hearing 6-23-2009
seeking to expand or update in Rancho Palos Verdes,and that for reasons
of analysis and to ensme that there were enough Alternatives analyzed so
that the overall Alternatives analysis would pass legal muster,the
determination was (55:21)that it was feasible enough to warrant review in a
Draft EIR (to obtain)solicitation of comments from the College,the public,
anyone else to that Draft EIR process (55:34).",'711is is not the WHOLE
7'UUTH;111C lcttt'I-;n question never so $lated the lnll'!Josc W(lS snlC'!y to
Himply Q71QlY;I,..e the alternatipl?s.F1.lI·t'lW1·it stated T.'ery dear/!!l!la"the
iSSllP nfjurisdil:tioll was settled and nut (I /'('QSOI1 in make ihis Alternative
"iqfcusiblc".Sre ach.fO/Jenrl-stnteml'lIt on pag€'J.(~;8-:9J
"Fast forward to where we are today (55:36)The question is does this
Commission have the authority to adopt that Alternative,to implement it?
(55:42)And now we're talking about feasibility for approval or adoption of
that Alternative.As I've stated before,the Commission doesn't have the
authority,the Land Use authority to approve the things in Los Angeles,
number one;number two,the Draft EIR concluded that Alternative 3 was
not environmentally superior,it concluded that in Rancho Palos Verdes the
impact would be reduced from the Project (56:14)but in Los Angeles the
impacts would be increased and,taking into account all of those impacts
the conclusion was that Alternative 3 was not environmentally superior to
the Project (56:30)"
"I understand there is a dispute (as to)whether the Commission should be
considering only the impacts in Rancho Palos Verdes or the entirety of the
Alternative -my opinion is that we would need to look at the impact
regardless of jurisdiction for that Alternative and to correctly balance the
impact if tbat Alternative were constructed against the Alternative impact
associated with the Project (56:49):{NOTTi:Thi.'ohjccti1JC comparison or
'<elativf'imp(lcl.~W(Jf'l7('lIe,.cOl1dlictrd h.lI thr>PJR t}1'fhl'P/tIIl11inU
Commission.rV('/1 t!lCH/9h fhe .'m('oliel"is Oil I'eeupi II~:~(a(in.(1 thai it has
hren onul!//.cd/·
(57:05)"So with respect to that,this is not the environmentally preferred
alternative.The third point I would like to make is the Revised Project has
been analy.ed in the Final EIR Appendix A,reaches the conclusions that
there are sip;nificant unmitigatable impacts,short-term construction
2 - 338
.-'-"1 •I.~L ...1 -'
Exhibit 23b
"You have the authority to only
approve those elements in Rancho
Palos Verdes that are consistent
with Alternative 3."
Asst.City Attorney
David Snow
at the 6-23-2009
Planning Commission
Hearing
(Noise)and cumulative Traffic on P V Drive East and PV Drive South.
Alternative 3 reaches the same conclusion,so if you adopted Alternative 3
yOll would end up with the same unmitigatable impacts of short-term
construction (noise)and cumulative Traffic impact at Palos Verdes Drive
east and Palos Verdes Dr.ve South.
The final thing that I would point out,the thing that has been stated
repeatedly (57:49)for myself in writing and here at the Commission
meetings,if the Commission wanted to take what Alternative 3 looks like,
they have the complete authority,depending upon how they view the
findings,to approve only those elements in Rancho Palos Verdes that are
included in Alternative 3."
"So,although you don't have the aothority to adopt Alternative 3,you have
the authority to only approve the parts in Rancho Palos Verdes that are
consistent with Alternative 3 (58:27).And that's something for the
Commission to look at the findings and (if)that's the direction they want to
go,there is a vehicle to do that -it's simply not adoption of Alternative 3
(58:39)OK"
Chair Lewis:"OK.Any follow-up?"
Commissioner Knight:IIThere was also a statement of Overriding
Consideration that's related to this (Alternative).If you can just clarify this
also.'"
Asst.Attorney Snow:"Sure (58:54)The speaker suggested (that)before the
Commission could adopt a statement of overriding Consideration it first
has to adopt all feasible mitigation measures and or Alternatives that would
eliminatc or minimize (59:06)the impacts associated with the Project.
(59:10)So that is something that would have to occur first;I think our
opinion is that there are mitigation measures that have been adopted that
minimize the two remaining significant unmitigatable impacts,that there is
nothing left that is feasible that would eliminate those;that we've met the
prerequisites -tbat would move us to the Statement of Overriding
Consideration where we know what our (remaining)unmitigatible impacts
are and for the Commission to decide whether there are benefits that
2 - 339
[-
Exhibit 24:
,--T'
Donald M.Davis,Esq.
Burke,Williams &Sorensen,LLP
December 7,2007
Page 7
Alternatives
....._...1
--_.~:':..=3 L .:J
With respect to the alternatives incorporated into the Draft ElR.City staff believes
that each of the alternatives meets most of the objectives of the project,while at the
same rime reducing one or more of the adverse impacts thal the Project would have.
The College specifically qucslion~d the source of Alternative 3,the Living
Campus/Academic Campus Alternative and alleges that it is included for "political
purposes."As discussed in the Draft EIR this alternative would reduce a nwnbcr of
impacts that the project would have in the City,and fully acknowledges that there
would be increases in impacts at the Palos Verdes North site in the City of Los
Angeles.Regardless oftbe source of the suggested alternative,the fact remains thai it
would reduce impacts at the project site,is feasible given the College's conttol over
the Palos Verdes north site -even though entitlements would be needed through the
City of Los Angeles to implement the alternative.The fact thai entitlement would be
needed for the aJtemauve is not substantially different lhan the entitlements that the
College is presently seeking for the proposed project in Rancho Palos Verdes.The
fact that entitlements would be necessary for an alternative dots not render an
alternative infeasible,as discussed below.
The letter also asks that lhe alternatives analysis discuss the benefits of the proposed
project,however,the purposes DC an altcm.uives analysis is co consider opcions 10
minimize or avoid environmental impacts.As such,the alternatives analysis does not
focus on environmental benefits of the project or related activities,other tIum to
compare the alternatives to the proposed project to detennine whether the altemative
would have greater,equivalent or less impact than the project.
It is not the City's practice to seek an applicant's prior approval of alternatives that
are included in an EIR because ultimately it is the City,as the lead agency.llult is
responsible for ensuring that the Ern.includes a reasonable range of allernative as
required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.Nonetheless,the City invited the
College to identify any feasible alternatives for potential inclusion in the Draft ErR..
but the College did not propose any additional alternatives for consideration.
It appears that one of the College's main points of comention regarding indecision of
the Living Campus/Academic Campus alternative is the fact that il is partially an o££-
site alternative.The fact \hat the Palos Verdes North site is outside of the City'S
2 - 340
c-
Exhibit 24a J
Continued
--,
I
Donald M.Davis,Esq.
Burke,Williams &Sort:llsen,LLP
December 7.2007
Page 8
jurisdiction is only one of many factors that must be coosidc=red when considering
whether to analyze an alternative in a Draft EDt The City also took into
consideration the fact that the property is presently controlled by the College,and is
being used liS a part oflhe College's CUIreI\t operations.This situation is lUllike other
si[uations where an applicant does not have control ovcr a property,or the property
can't be used for the imendcd uses.Here Ihe 5it~is alr~ady being used for residenlial
purposes in conjunclion with lhe College.Inclusion of a site oUlSide of the City's
jurisdiction iii appropriate in Otis case,as the California Supreme Court has
acknowledged in Citizem'of Golt!ill J.-'a1/ey v.80Qi'd of Supervisors of SallttJ
Barbara COUfliy (1990)52 Cal.3d 553.In footnote 7 of that decision the Court states
the following::
"We emphasizc lhnt,as with site ownership,jurisdiclional borders are
simply a factor to be taken into account and do nOl establish an
ironclad limit on the scope of r¢llSOnable ultemntivi:S."(Ill,at 576,
n.7.)
In Go/era Valley,the Coun upheld the County's detormination that an alternative
outside of Lbo County's jurisdiction was not a feasible alternalivc,however the faelS
surrounding the College's project are vastly differenl from Lhe:facts in GO/e/II Valley.
Here,the:College has act'ual usc of and interest in the property outside of the City's
jurisdiction,whereas in GoleUl Vulley,the applicant had neither use of nor interest in
the alternate site proposcd by project opponents.(ld.al 575-76.)
The comments ulso cite to AI Lunioll BOllt Shop,l"c.1'.Huard of Hllrbor
Comm;s)'ioners of the eiry uf LIJIIg Beuell (1993)18 Cal.AppAth 729 for the
proposition that off-site altemativc:s can be found [0 be iltfeasibl~.We do not
disagree with that principle,but find that it is inapplicable in this case where the
cxtra-jurisdietionnl propeny is currently used by the College in furtherance of its
institutional mission and objectives.
Additionally,the fact that the Palos Verdes North property may n(lt allow cenain uses
by right IS nol a sufficient ground to deem an alLemative infeasible.By thai measure,
the Project itself,which requires discretionary approvals from the City,would be
infeasible.Tilt:California Supreme Court has noted thaI "the mere fact that an
alternative may require u legislative enactment dOe:>nOI necessarily justify its
-,
---'r-J __.,1.
2 - 341
..,
.J -~--,
"--'::::-_J
Exhibit 24b}
Continued
Donald M.Davis,Esq.
Burke,Williams &Sorensen,LLP
December 7,2007
Page 9
exclusion from the EIR.[citations omitted):it may not be appropriate,for example,to
disregard an otherwise reasonable alternative which requires some fonn of
implementing legislation [citations omined)such as a zoning amendment or
conditional use pellDit."(Goleta Valley,silpra,52 Cal.3d at 573.)Tbis logic also
applies to the College's assemon that the alternative is infeasible because it would
require an approval from the Department of Education in order to obtain fmancing for
development of the Palos Verdes North property.
In addition to the foregoing,the Draft EIR concludes that the Living
Campus/Academic Campus meets many.but not all of the objectives.Thw;staff
believes it is an appropriate alternative for inclusion in the Draft EIR.
In arguing that thc Living Campus/Academic Campus alternative should be excluded,
the Comments argue the College uses at the Palos Verdes North property would be
incompatible with surroWlding land uses.However,if use of the Palos Verdes North
property for the living campus uses would be incompatible with "oil refineries and
the nation's busiest and most polluted harbor area,"we question why the City afLos
Angeles slates the property for low-density multi-family residential development and
why the existing residential uses the College has on that Property are not compatible
with surrounding uses.
Finally,the Living Campus/Academic Campns alternative would result in reduced
impacts in the areas of Land Use and Planning,AestheticslLight and Glare,Noise,
Geology and Soils,and Biological Resources at the Campus site,although there may
be increases in the levels of impact at the Palos Verdes North site in the City of Los
Angeles.In light of the reductions in impacts at the existing Campus,which is the
Project site,the alternative is appropriately considered.
Staff helieves that it is important to include the Living Campus/Academic Campus
alternative in the Draft Em.in order to meet CEQA's requirement to analyze a range
of reasonable alternatives.We notc that this issue was raised to the College several
times with express invitations to propose any other feasible alternatives that the
College believed should be analyzed in lhe EIR.However,the City did not receive
any requests or recommendations from the College regarding any o[her feasible
allematives to be analyzed in the Draft EIR.
2 - 342
~
Exhibit 24b J
Continued
Donald M.Davis.Esq.
Burke,Williams &Sorensen,LLP
December 7,2007
Page 9
exclusion from the EIR [citations omitted];it may not be appropriate,for example.to
disregard an otherwise reasonable alternative which requires some Conn of
implementing legislation [citations omitted]such as a zoning amendment or
conditional use permit."(Goleta Valley,supra,S2 CaJ.3d at 573.)This logic also
applies to the College's assemon that the alternative is infeasible because it would
require an approval from the Department of Education in order to obtain fmancing for
development ofthe Palos Verdes North property.
In addition to the foregoing.the Draft EIR concludes that the Living
Campus/Academic Campus meets many,but not all of the objectives.Thus staff
believes it is an appropriate alternative for inclusion in the Draft ElR.
In arguing th:1t the Living Campus/Academic Campus alternative should be excluded,
the Conunents argue the College uses at the Palos Verdes North property wouJd be
incompatible with surrounding land uses.However,if use of the Palos Verdes North
property for the living campus uses would be incompatible with "oil refineries and
the nation's busiest and most polluted harbor area,"we question why the City of Los
Angeles slales the property for low-density multi·family residential development and
why the existing residential uses the College has on that PropeI1y are not compatible
with surrounding uses.
FinaUy,Ihe Living Campus/Academic Campus alternative would result in reduced
impacts in the arens of Land Use and Planning,AestheticslLight and Glare,Noise,
Geology and Soils,and Biological Resources at the Campus sile,although there may
be increases in the levels of impact at the Palos Verdes North site in the City of Los
Angeles.In light of the reductions in impacts at the existing Campus,which is the
Project site,the alternative is appropriately considered.
Staff believes thai it is important 10 include the Living Campus/Academic Campus
alternative in the Draft EIR in order to meet CEQA's requirement to analyze a range
of reasonable alternatives.We note that this issue was raised to the ColJege several
times with express invitations to propose any other feasible alternatives that the
College believed should be analyzed in the ErR..However,the City did not receive
any requests or recommendations from the College regarding any other feasible
alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIR.
~---,
--'L :-~_1
2 - 343
Exhibit 25
Grading for the Revised Project,100%at RPV Site =84,800 cy:
If the Reasonable Alternative is approved,Total Grading can be
reduced to 29,000 cy:12,000 cy at RPV &17,000 cy at PV North
(;HA lll:"(;('0:'11'0:-;J<:'-.:'l'S A ='I J)(~l .AS'!'l'!'l]<;S
~lARYi\I()l~Nrl'EXPA~RIOXPHO.JE<'"1'
Pru.i~~t Revised Project Alternative Project Construction
at rv Easl site at PV 1\nrlh site Avg Depth Phase Duration
Ref.Ex.pansion Componenl Footprillt sq 11.Avg.Depth Cubil;Yards Cubic Yards CubH:Yards C'ublc Yards at Silt:Months'
0 Site Del})olitions 18,022 """""I 3
I R~sidenct'Haiis .250 capacity 32,199 14·4 17,200 •0 0 3,578 3·0 '"0
2 Athletic Facility 21,751 16.1 13,OuO 13,000 "2,416 3·D "14
3 Soccer Field (new)64,350 12·4 29,500 29,500 "0 existing I 3
4 Library 26,710 4.0 4,O()()4,000 4.000 "4.0 "14
5 Tennis Courts 28,800 7·5 8,000 8,000 0 3.::WO 3.0 I 3
0 Walkway 21,6:W 10·7 8,6110 8.600 "1.602 2.0 I ,
7 East Pa rking Lot 45,000 6.6 11,000 11,000 0 3.333 2.0 1 7
8 West/Central Parking Lots 46,75u 3·1 5,::l°O 5,3°0 5,::1°0 "3 .,I 3..-
9 Remedial Grading 8.775 20.0 0 0,500 ~st'd 0 0 0.0 1 3
10 Faculty Addition 4.°38 6.7 1,000 1.000 1.000 (I 6.("14
11 Admin.Addition 2,100 3·2 250 250 25°0 .,.2 "7
12 Student Union Addition 1,496 5·4 ~WU JOo 300 0 5A "14
13 Maintenance Building 1,360 2,0 100 100 100 0 2.0 "14
'4 Pool 8,000 1')~,3,600 3,600 0 ::1.600 J2.1 "2
15 PreSchool on Campus 3·000 0.0 "0 333 0 3·0 "2
10 Fillt'Al'ts 1,869 2,2 15°15°150 (j 2.2 IJj 7
17 I Totals 3 17,828 8-4 102,000 91,300 11,433 17·729 29,.162 I,ll III 28
18 Revised Project Quantity Total (omits Remedial Grading)84.800 ~Exhibit 3·8 ex dorms
19 "Specified:April ~N,2009 Pn·lim.Grading &Drainage Plan C.V.P.Rc\'.CCl11struclion Phasing
20 I Schedule'
21 I
2 - 344
SUMMARY:
-DENY THIS PROJECT WITH PREJUDICE
-THE ALTERNATIVE 3 IS FEASIBLE-ADOPT ALTERNATIVE #3
-RESTORE PARKING TO FULL CODE ADD 410 SPACES
-CUP-DOES NOT SAFEGUARD PROTECTIONS FOR SURROUNDING
HOMES
RESTORE &INCREASE THE SETBACKS
11 PM FOR LIBRARY,AUDITORIUM,ATHLETIC BUILDING &
6 AM -10 PM FOR POOL ARE NOT IN KEEPING WITH A
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD-UNREASONABLE
-INCORPORATE PREVIOUS CUP SAFEGUARDS FOR SAN RAMON
PROPERTIES
-EIR IS NOT ADEQUATE AS TO GRADING &DEFERRED
MITIGATIONS-DO NOT CERTIFY THE EIR
-DORMS WERE REMOVED FROM THE PROJECT -DO NOT INCLUDE
THAT AREA OF THE PARCEL IN THE EIR APROVAL
_GRADING QUANTITIES ARE UNDER STATED BY APPROXIMATELY
100,000 CU.YDS.-DO NOT APPROVE EXCESSIVE GRADING
-8 YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION UNACCEPTABLE -24-MONTHS
LIKE TERRANEA
-ATHLETIC BUILDING DESTROYS THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE
SOUTH FACING SLOPE AND VIEW CORRIDOR ON PVDE
-SOCCER FIELD IS REGULATION SIZE &MUST REMAIN WHERE IT
IS -PLACEMENT NEAR PVDE IS A SAFETY HAZARD FOR
RESIDENTS
-MODULAR BUILDINGS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON RIDGE
ABOVE THE SOUTH FACING SLOPE
_AFFORDABLE HOUSING -MARYMOUNT MUST COMPLY WITH CITY
CODES AND ARE SUBJECT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
-REMOVE THE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
DO NOT ALLOW SIGNIFICANT &UNAVOIDABLE
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
. I
[1
. 1
1_.
r I
I
~.
..
r •
,,..2 - 345
MORE INSTENSIVE USE OF THE CAMPUS IS A NEGATIVE TO
THE SURROUNDING HOMES
MEETING ROOMS &PLAYING FIELD ALREADY EXIST
•DO NOT VIOLATE THE GENERAL PLAN WITH A HIGH DENSITY
PROJECT IN A LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD
•DO NOT VIOLATE THE GENERAL PLAN BY ALLOWING
DETERIATION OF CORRIDOR VIEWS AND DESTRUCTION ON THE
SOUTH FACING SLOPE rl
,I
I
I
L
L
L
!
I.
L2 - 346
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY
COUNCIL RESPECTING THE MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
TIlLePl-lONH:(J (0)J IU040
FACSIMILE:(310)314-8050
CHATTEN-BROWN &CARSTENS
2601 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD
SUITE20S
SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90405
www.cbcearthlaw.com
July 24,2009
E·MI\IL.~~t'~,t~D
JUL 24 2009
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT :J
n
I ,
The Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion,Inc.("CCC/ME")
opposes the Planning Commission's July 14,2009 approval of the Maryrnount College
Facilities Expansion Project (the "Expansion Project"or "Project"),Notice of Decision,
and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)and hereby appeals them.We
appeal both the certification of the EIR and the entitlements.We have extensively
detailed the violations of the City's Municipal Code and the California Environmental
Quality Act that would occur with the Planning Corrunission's approval of the Project.
New impacts have been created by modifications to the Project as it was undergoing
Planning Commission review that have not been analyzed and mitigated as·they must be.
We incorporate our previous correspondence by reference,and our prior letters are
attached.In sum,the Project cannot be approved because the Living Campus/Academic
Campus (Split Campus)Alternative,Alternative 3,is feasible and would reduce
significant impacts in the City of Ranc.ho Palos Verdes.
A statement of overriding considerations cannot be approved because of the
feasibility of this alternative that would reduce impacts and because the benefits to the
City of the Project do not outweigh its significant impacts.The proposed project would
violate the Municipal Code because the required findings for its variances and CUP
cannot be substantiated.The environmental impact report (EIR)for the Project does not
meet minimum adequacy standards under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)because it fails to sufficiently analyze and mitigate various impacts detailed
below.The proposed Project should be rejected entirely.If it is to be considered further,
it must be on the basis of a legally sufficient EIR.
I.The Split Campus Alternative is Feasible and Environmentally Superior.
The Split Campus Alternative,Alternative # 3 in the EIR,is a feasible,
environmentally superior alternative to Marymounr s proposal,which originally included
not just the dorms but athletic buildings as well,and currently still includes athletic
buildings and fields.CCC/ME member James Gordon,in a comment letter on the DEIR,
L
l
,
i
L
I
\
l.
l2 - 347
Notice of Appeal
July 24,2009
Page 2 of 10
rebutted the College's various claims of infeasibility of this alternative.(FEIR,Comment
Letter 20.)He supplemented this comment letter with an email and letter on February 17,
2009 to Planning Commissioner Lewis.
Mr.Gordon's letter correctly pointed out that "jurisdictional borders are simply a
factor to be taken into account and do not establish an ironclad limit on the scope of
reasonable alternatives."(citing Citizens a/Goleta Valley v.Board a/Supervisors (1990)
52 Ca1.3d 553.)Since numerous exceptions to land use restrictions are required to place
the dorms and athletic facilities on the Academic campus site,the fact that the PV North
site would require a change in zoning or a CUP does not make the alternative infeasible.
Rolling Hills Prep School (RHP)has constructed a campus adjacent to the PV
North site,which opened in February 2007.Marymount College has a unique and
synergistic opportunity to combine with Rolling Hills Prep in constructing a mutually
beneficial sports facility at their PV Drive North location.
Marymount has claimed that the PV North site is not economically viable.
Contrary to this claim,its application to the US Department of Education included
financial records showing the economic feasibility of implementing and operating school
facilities at the site.(FErR,Gordon Comment 20.1,p.4 of comment.)
The College has claimed that there are seismic constraints.However,the
geologically constrained area is in addition to the 11.4 acres of property west of New
Jersey Street,it is 2 acres east of New Jersey Street.(FEIR,Gordon Comment 20.1,p.6
of comment.)
The size of the PV North site does not constrain development either.According to
Project Manager Laughlin,there is room to construct 1.4 million square feet offacilities
on 11.4 acres of this site.(Feb.17,2009 Gordon Letter,p.6.)
As Assistant City Attorney David Snow stated in his December 7,2007 letter to
Donald Davis,
"...As discussed in the Draft EIR,this alternative would reduce a number of
impacts that the project would have in the City ....[T]he fact remains that it
would reduce impacts at the project site,is feasible given the College's control
over the Palos Verdes north site-even though entitlements would be needed
through the City of Los Angeles to implement the alternative ..."
(Snow Letter,p.7.)
n
r
. I
I .
L
,
L
f',
L
L2 - 348
Notice of Appeal
July 24,2009
Page 3 of 10
Although Mr.Snow stated in a letter to this firm dated June 19,2009 that
Alternative 3 was fully considered by the Planning Commission and that it is not
environmentally superior to the proposed project,he did not state that it was infeasible.
His opinion that under Alternative 3 "the short term construction noise would
remain significant"is misleading because the DEIR states "the noise impacts at the
Living Campus would occur similar to the proposed Project,although to a lesser degree.
(DEIR,p.7-22.)Thus,Alternative 3 does eliminate short term construction noise with
regard to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and offers a reduction of this impact even
within the City of Los Angeles.Mr.Snow states that short term construction impacts in
the City of Los Angeles would be significant,but the evidence does not support that
assessment,since the residential neighborhood in Rancho Palos Verdes would be much
more severely impacted by construction noise than would residences in Los Angeles,
which are further from the potential construction activity.
The November 2002 Environmental Assessment for the Disposal of the Palos
Verdes Honsing Property by the US Navy that dealt primarily with the impacts
associated with the transfer of properties,also reviewed and determined the likely
effects of redevelopment and found no significant impacts of such redevelopment
would occnr.This Assessment was based on substantial evidence but Mr.Snow's
opinion that significant impacts will occur with construction at the PV North site is not.
II.A Statement of Overriding Considerations Cannot Be Approved.
Even if the EIR were adequate,and it is not,the Project can not be approved
because a statement of overriding considerations cannot be factually substantiated.There
are one or more feasible alternatives to the Project and mitigation measures that would
reduce impacts that have not been adopted.The Split Campus Alternative -Alternative #
3-is feasible and environmentally superior to the proposed project.
Any potential benefits to the City from the Project are not outweighed by its
significant impacts.Marymount pays no taxes,and therefore there is no economic benefit
to the City from its expansion while the additional activity at Marymount results in
additional costs to the City in public services such as fire and sheriff services.
As discussed,the benefit cited by RPV are related to additional recreational facilities
and community meeting space so the public/private distinction may not bear of the
benefits they identify.Marymount already had meeting rooms and an athletic field so
there is no additional benefit from approval of the Project.
,
i
I J
n
. 1
\:
r
I
,
!
L.
.-
,-
l2 - 349
Notice of Appeal
July 24,2009
Page 4 of 10
m.The CUP,Variance,and Grading Permit Findings are Not Supportable.
City staff prepared a table (a copy of which is attached)showing how the findings
required to support a CUP and variance can and cannot be made for various portions of
the proposed Project.This table is not con-ect that findings can be made that the Project
(with its athletic field,tennis courts,athletic building,parking lots,and miscellaneous site
grading)is "necessary for the primary use of Jot",that it minimizes disturbance to natural
and finished contours,minimizes disturbance to biological resources,confonns to grading
criteria,and does not allow grading in excess of pennissible criteria.Therefore,findings
for a grading pennit or a remedial grading pennit cannot be made.Variance findings that
there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances,that it is necessary for preservation
and enjoyment of a property right,and that it is not material detrimental to public welfare
or injurious to property cannot be met with regard to the athletic field net.In any case,
no new CUP,variances,or other discretionary permits should be granted while
Marymount remains in violation of its previously granted CUP.
Maryrnount has revised its cun-ent plans for the site by removing the proposed
residence halls before the Planning Commission could formally vote (although,as
discussed below,these changes are not reflected in the EIR analysis),and now requests a
remedial grading pennit for the area that had previously been proposed as the location for
the residence halls.
Specific findings must be made to allow approval of a remedial grading pennit.
(RPVMC 17.76.040(F)(l)However,the requested remedial grading (82,000 cubic yards)
is excessive and unnecessary to provide slope stability,and therefore the pennit should
not have been approved.There was no concern for the stability of this hillside,without
development,mentioned until Marymount decided to eliminate the residence halls to
ensure Planning Commission approval of the project.The clear intent of Marymount's
request for a remedial grading permit is to ready the site for a future residence halls
project.
The EIR must analyze the growth inducing impact of the proposed remedial
grading at the area that was previously proposed for the residence halls.The remedial
grading would make future construction in this area easier,in pati by removing the hurdle
of obtaining an extreme slope permit.
If a remedial grading permit is granted (which would remediate the College's past
unpennitted activities)it should only be granted on the condition that the remediated area
may not be the site of any future development,and perhaps that it be placed in a
conservation easement.
,I
I
L
1'
L
,.
L
C'
L
I
I
L
L2 - 350
Notice of Appeal
July 24,2009
Page50flO
IV.The EIR's Analysis and Mitigation oflmpacts is Deficient
A.Geotechnical and Hydrological Impacts
Geology and hydrology studies for the Expansion Project must be completed and
circulated.The extensive grading necessary for the Project must be addressed in those
reports.Additionally,analysis of geotechnical and hydrological impacts is inadequate
because:
The public has not been sufficiently involved in the review of the newly proposed
"Remedial Grading."
The new Library location is far fTom the deeonstrueted area shown in Exhibit 3.3.
•No endangered structures are shown for the East Parking area on the existing
soccer field where the new "Rose Garden"is to be sited.
The revised quantities of grading (Condition 67)are suspect and have not been
thoroughly reviewed.
•The recent move of the Athletic Facility by one foot actually creates added grading
quantities not yet analyzed.
The construction phasing time periods were created based on a previous iteration
of the Project.The current time table must be analyzed.
The DEIR,Sections 5.6 and 5.7 stipulate that there are potentially significant
impacts unless these aspects are mitigated.When will these impacts be mitigated
and what remedies are there?
•With Phase I now extended to a full 24 months,it appears that the intended GEO
and HYD mitigations have a reprieve far longer than three months.
•It also appears that the only sanction for failing to complete HYD-3 is to not issue
a Building Permit.This is not a real sanction since such Permit may not be
necessary for many more months.
B.Noise Impacts
Construction Noise:Construction noise impacts were found to be signific!yu and
unavoidable.These so-called "temporary impacts"are scheduled to continue for eight
years.This is not an "unavoidable"impact because the Project can be rejected or the
construction schedule can be significantly shortened.There has been no attempt to cut
down on the 8-year period of construction.Marymount has claimed that the eight year
~J
n
,.,
! '
LJ
u
,,
I
L
,
I,..
L2 - 351
Notice of Appeal
July 24,2009
Page 6 of 10
construction period is necessary,even though residence halls are no longer included in the
Project,to allow them to raise funds to support the Project.
This is particularly objectionable given that in September 2008,Dr.Brophy
represented to the community at an open house that Marymount already had all of the
necessary funds for the Project.Marymount should not be allowed to impose this impact
upon the quiet,residential community surrounding it for such a long period of time.This
significant impact could feasibly be reduced by a mitigation measure limiting the length
of the construction period.
Operational Noise:Pennitting,the library,student union and athletic complex to
operate until II p.m.creates unacceptable nighttime noise impacts.Other colleges in the
area have been required to follow much less impactful hours of operation:El Camino
Community College library closes at 9 p.m.and its gymnasium at 6 p.m.week nights and
5 p.m.on Fridays and Saturdays;Harbor Community College library closes at 8:30 p.m.;
the Palos Verdes main library closes at 9 p.m.;and the Palos Verdes Library,Miraleste
branch closes at 6 p.m.
Additionally,the City has failed to implement a noise control ordinance as
required by its own General Plan.This failure allows potential "short term"noise
impacts of the Project to go unmitigated.The EIR bases its entire analysis of noise
impacts on whether the Project "continuous noise level"would exceed the community
noise exposure level (CNEL)of 65 decibels,but does not acknowledge the significance
of single event (non-continuous)noise such as a door slam,car alarm activation,engine
startup,or radio that it states "may result in peak noise instances of 73 elBA Lmax"
(DEIR,p.5.5-30).Parking lot noise will be a significant impact since residences are
within 35 feet.
C.Aesthetic Impacts
The City has a unique view preservation ordinance that necessitates
acknowledgement of the significant aesthetic and view impacts created by the Project.
The EIR has failed to acknowledge the significant aesthetic impacts the Project would
have.The Living Campus/Academic Campus alternative is feasibk and would reduce
,'-"-.'--'-
the~imp.acts.The project is incompatible with the surrounding homes since its 39-45
foot high buildings do not belong next to single family homes.
I J
.,
,
L.
I
L
L2 - 352
Notice of Appeal
July 24,2009
Page 7 of 10
D.Traffic Impacts
1.Safety Hazards:The EIR fails to analyze the safety hazard of
extending operating hours at Marymount until 11 p.m.CCCIME have presented
documentation of several accidents Marymount students have caused in the residential
neighborhood surrounding the campus,including a fatal May 2009 crash.CCCIME has
also presented statistical information from the National Highway Safety Board,insurance
companies and the California Highway Patrol on the increased rate of traffic accidents in
drivers age 16-20.The extended hours of operation present unacceptable safety hazards
because Marymount students will be driving at night,making the winding roads
surrounding the campus even more dangerous for tbem and for tbe community residents
driving on those streets that they may hit.
2.Traffic Mitigation.The increase in traffic of 65%caused by the
Project (without the Residence Halls)is a significant increase which had been subject to
mitigation through measures TR-5,TR-6 and TR-7,but these measures are vague and
unenforceable because they are left "to the satisfaction"of City staff.Without effective,
enforceable mitigation,these impacts remain significant.
Under traffic mitigation measure TR-6 for Cumulative Conditions (listed as TR-9
in tbe DEIR,p.5.3-93),tbe City will have to pay up to 87%of the cost ofreconfiguration
of the intersection ofPV Drive East/PV Drive Soutb if the ProjeCt is approved.There is
no evidence that the City has any program for upgrading this intersection,nor is there any
explanation for why tbe City should incur this cost.This significant,unavoidable impact
can be avoided by denying tbe Project approval.
3.Parking:The outdated Parking Table 34 contained in tbe EIR's
Appendix A utilizes data from 2005 when Maryrnount was limited to parking facilities
with only 343 spaces and a set of campus buildings totaling 92,000 square feet.The
parking ratio tbus derived (0.57 parked cars/student/faculty member)was too low and not
appropriate for an expanded set of revitalized and new facilities which would add nearly
60,000 square feet.of building space.The parking demand ratio should be updated.
The analysis of student seats which is used to calculate the required number of
parking spaces is also inadequate.There are 78 student seats unaccounted in the parking
analysis,but included in the Library's Architectural Plan.
-\
,.,
I
l.
,
L.
L.
L
r
L2 - 353
Notice of Appeal
July 24,2009
Page 8 of10
E.Growth Inducing Impacts
CEQA requires analysis of a project's potential growth inducing impacts,however,
the EIR for the Marymount Expansion Project failed to do so.The Project includes
10,000 square feet of new institutional space,which will allow for additional students in
the future.The EIR is required to analyze this Project's potential to spur such growth in
the future,
F.Deferred Mitigation
CEQA prohibits the use of deferred mitigation measures for project impacts,
Mitigation measures must be analyzed for efficacy prior to project approval.The
following are improperly deferred mitigation measures:
•Mitigation of impacts to the EI Segundo Blue Butterfly is improperly
deferred to a post approval habitat assessment.The Assistant City
Attorney's June 19,2009 letter stated that its "typical host plant is absent
from the site"but he does not aclmowledge that the EIR stated the "ashy-
leaf buckwheat could be another host plant for this species"(DEIR,p.5.9-
5),that"12 plants were observed growing on the road cut above Palos
Verdes Drive East,"and that there were "three individual plants in the
western drainage"(DEIR,p.5,9-13.)Deferring focused surveys for the EI
Segundo Blue Butterfly and fonnulating mitigation under such
circumstances violates CEQA.(San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v,
County a/Merced (2007)149 Cal.App.4 th 645,669-670.)The California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)is not listed among the
organizations consulted in preparation ofthe EIR (DEIR,p.9-1),but
CEQA requires that it be consulted about sensitive species including but not
limited to the EI Segundo Blue Butterfly prior to celtification of the EIR.
•Jurisdictional delineation of wetlands and riparian habitat is
improperly defelTed until after project approval.The DEIR stated
"Although no water was present on the surface of either of the drainage
channels,they may be determined to be under the jurisdiction of the
USACE and/or CDFG."(DEIR,p.5.9-3.)Even without water,if the
drainages are intermittent streams,they must be delineated and mitigation
for impacts to them developed no"v,not deferred.The CDFG and the Army
Corps of Engineers are not listed among the organizations consulted in
preparation of the EIR (DEIR,p,9-1),but CEQA requires that they be
consulted prior to certification of the ElR.
, 1
,.,
,!,
.)
,,,
,,
i 1
u
lJ
!''I, I
I I
L
n
(
L
L,
I '
I
c.
2 - 354
Notice of Appeal
July 24,2009
Page 9 of 10
•Mitigation for the Project's potentially significant flooding and
runoff impacts is defelTed to a post approval storm drain plan and
stormwater quality management plan;
•The ErR lists several suggestions of mitigation measures for the
Project's significant parking impacts but fails to require any specific
measure or analyze the ability of the proposed measures to reduce traffic
and parking impacts to a less than significant level.
G.Enforcement of Mitigation Measures Must Be Ensured Through the
Neighborhood Advisory Committee.
CCCIME should be included as a permanent member of the Neighborhood
Advisory Committee that is included as a mitigati on measure for the Project to review
issues which may arise respecting this project and the operation of Marymount following
construction including noise and traffic problems.CCC/ME has spent many hours
reviewing aIr of the documentation regarding the Project and has acquired an in depth
understanding of the Project that would make them an asset to the Committee.
Additionally,City filing fees should be waived if it becomes necessary to bring an
issue to the City Council,or Marymount should be required to pay the fees,when the
Neighborhood Advisory Committee needs to bring unresolved issues to the City.The
necessity for the payment of fees will serve as a barrier to the implementation of the
mitigation measure requiring this Committee and "chill"the residents ability to address
Issues.
•1
r •
L.
V.Recirculation of the EIR is Required.
Significant new information about the Expansion Project was presented in the
Revised Site Plan contained in the FErR.The Revised Site Plan introduced the use of
numerous "temporary"modular buildings on-site (and within view of everyone using
Palos Verdes Drive East),for as long as 8 years.This is a significant change to the
Project that could have significant visual impacts that were not analyzed in the BIR.The
Draft ErR must be revised to include this and several other Project changes and
recirculated for public comment.
r 1
L
r
L
L.
I
i
I ..•
2 - 355
Notice of Appeal
July 24,2009
Page 10 of 10
VI.Reliance on the Existing EIR for Future Residence Halls Project
Would be Improper.
This EIR should be revised to exclude the dorms because Marymount removed the
residence halls from the site plan for the Project that was approved by the Planning
Commission.However,the residence halls were analyzed in the EIR for the Expansion
Project.Thus,the dorms must be removed from the EIR's analysis and Marymount
would be required to prepare a new environmental review document if it seeks to
resurrect the residence halls in a future approval.
CONCLUSION
Although CCCIME has never been against the remodeling of the current
Marymount campus or the addition of a library,CCCIME does oppose the Project at the
intensity it is proposed and without adequate environmental review.Marymount has
failed to work with the residential community that surrounds its campus to find a mutually
agreeable remodeling Project.Therefore,we request that you consider our comments and
deny the Project altogether,or only allow it to go forward on the basis oflegally adequate
environmental analysis and mitigation.
For all of these reasons,we appeal the Planning Commission's approval of
planning entitlements,as well as the certification of the EIR,for the Expansion Project.
We reserve the right to amend this appeal with additional information.
~~/',~f"$5i;;%2=--......< -
Douglas Carstens
Amy Minteer
Attachments:Table of findings
Chatten-Brown and Carstens Letters to Planning Commission dated March
25,2009,April 10,2009,and May 4,2009
'·1
• 1
,.
I '
L
f 1
L
L
,.,
j
2 - 356
CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION/MARYMOUNT EXPANSION (CCC/ME)
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE (MM)HISTORY &EXPANSION
PROJECT-TIME LINE
Applicant:
Lead Agency:
Interested Party:
2000
2003
2004
Marymount College,Palos Verdes
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
CCC/ME,Inc.
Presents expansion plan to public
JUNE 2000 CEQA begins with Notice of Preparation (NOP)
MM withdraws project -CEQA not completed
APRI L MM receives title to 11 acres of Navy surplus land
from the Dept.of Education located at Palos Verdes Drive North &Western
Ave.,San Pedro (City of Los Angeles)represents to Federal Government it
needs land for student housing,athletic complex,health center,etc ....to
date nothing
• 1
!
2005
2006
2007
2008
MAY
AUG
NOV
DEC
JAN
MAR
OCT
MAY
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
APR
JUL
JUL
MM Submits redesigned Plan
Plans (Application)Deemed Complete'
NOP
Scooping Session
Public Workshop between RPV &MM
3/1/06 EIR suspended-CEQA clock stopped (by mutual agreement
between MM and RPV)**
MM advises RPV by letter changing 18 Mos.projects to 96 Mos.project
(three Phases)
5/31/07 EIR resumes-CEQA clock re-started (15 mo.
delay)
DEIR Circulated
DEIR Hearing
DEIR Hearing on Traffic
1/4/08 Comment Period on DEIR closes
2/21/08 CEQA clock runs out***
MM Letter to RPV adding 14,000 Square Feet of temporary modular
buildings (trailers)for library,health center,etc.(MM advised temporaries to
be in place 93-96 mos.)
Drawing of temporary modulars,new construction road &moving of staging
area submitted to City
Staff Report to City Council reveals changes
modulars;staging area;construction road;&Concurrent Running of the
Application &the EIR with Public hearings on application starting before
EIR Final
1
,.
r
l.
I
L
L
2 - 357
2009
AUG
SEPT
OCT 28
DEC 9
JAN
JAN
MAR
MAR
MAY 26
JUN 9
JUN 23
JUL14
SEPT 13
CCC/ME objects to Staff Report at RPV City Council
CCC/ME presents our Alternative Plan and Objects to material changes
In the project made after comment period closed
Planning Commission Meeting-Final EIR,Variance &grading Permit
Planning Commission meeting-EIR,CUP &variances
Traffic &safety Commission Meeting
Planning Commission Meeting-CUP,Variances,Grading &minor
exception permit
Planning Commission Meeting -Cancelled
Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission Meeting-Decision
Appeal to City Council -Not Heard
•Plans were deemed complete by Default -MM declared under CEQA that the staff took too long to
review the plans
••There was a 15 month hiatus because MM did not submit necessary information to complete the EIR
i.e.geology,hydrology etc .
•••CEQA ran out and after the fact the RPV City Attorney said that doesn't matter because there are no
legal penalties in CEQA
MARYMOUNT FACILITES FACTS
MM was placed on site of old Catholic Girls School,operates under a CUP
as 2yr.Liberal Arts Community college.
The surrounding homes were there before Marymount (6 homeowner's assoc.+large number of homes
not in an association)
College enrollment capped (1990)at 794(average number for Spring &Fall semesters)no mention of
other Winter,Summe~and/or weekends
College campus 25 acres (about 13 acres buildable)
Changing use of property to from 8-5 commuter campus to 24/7 operation
College square footage increasing from approx.92,000 to 210,000
..
r 1
I
I j
u
Addition of two dorms for 252 students,Athletic complex,new library,etc.
14,000 sq.ft.of modulars,new construction road &moving of staging area added after DEIR comment L.
period
2004-Was granted Fed.Govt.land for purpose of dorms,athletic facilities,health center etc.-MM has
made no improvements
Entire project needs variances -not one building can be built without a variance or CUP
College promises to move all parking off the street (site more than 200 parking spaces short)
2
L2 - 358
GGG/ME has proposed an Alternative in the EIR;split campus;"academic campus"located in RPVand
"living campus"(dorms,athletic complex,health center etc.)on land obtained from the Fed.Govt.land
located in Los Angeles
MM threatening RPV with 1)ARUPLA ;2)Delays in processing;3)GEQA clock;4)not being treated
equally (trying to compare themselves to the Trump Golf Gourse project or the Lowes Resort project)
3
I
, J
"1
I
. 1
I
L
!.
"
I
L
,
L2 - 359
History Marymount Site(25 acres)
19??-1975 The site is the home of a Catholic Elementary Schools for 80 girls
1960 Marymount College moves to Palos Verdes on Hawthorne Blvd.145 acres
1975 Marymount College Sells Hawthorne Blvd.site to the Salvation Army
moves to its present location
Projected enrollment of 250-275 full time students with 75 car parking on-
site parking and no on-street parking,per Dr.Woods,Marymount President.
Rancho Palos Verdes approves a Conditional Use Permit.
1975-1985 Student enrollment expands to 650.
Tennis Courts added -neighbors sue;results:tennis courts remain,no night
lighting and no evening tennis lessons permitted.
Student parking and traffic a becomes major problem with cars blocking
drive-ways;speeding cars and traffic accidents on PV Dr.East.
Soccer Field graded with no permits!neighbors complain!City gives after
the fact permit because no structures are involved
Neighbors send petition to RPV City Council declaring college to be a
nuisance and asking for reduced enrollment,limited hours of operation,
reduce noise and to confine parking to the campus.
Resulting Changes:
Parking Permits for residents only on San Ramon Drive;
87 additional parking spaces created on campus;
Shrubbery planted behind homes;
Wind screen put on tennis courts;
College President stated,"There is no need for a cap on enrollment,
because 650 students was Marymount's limit."
Marymount asks for dorms for students to live with Nuns.-got permit never
built
Late 1980's
Marymount adds Volleyball Courts behind houses on San Ramon Drive
without permit
Neighbors complain to RPV and the courts were abandoned
Neighbors complain of loud speaker noise,loud music and loud &frequent
noise from PE classes and soccer games.Nothing has been done to
eliminate
these problems.
,,
·,,
I '
· I
·I
,
I.
L
r
L..
i,
L2 - 360
1990 Marymount applied for permit to build new student lounge;
After many Public Hearings the project is approved &a Conditional Use
Permit revised to include:
53 additional off-street parking spaces
Landscape plan
Lighting plan
Special Use Permit required for events using Amplified Sound
CAP on Enrollment at 750 Students (750 Full-time students plus 20 part-
time students for fall and spring semesters with a margin for difference of
3%)
Newspaper article,Peninsula News "Two Marymount Basketball players
guilty of raping coed and sentenced"
1994 Newspaper article,Los Angeles Times ''Two Marymount Students Shot &
Killed in carjacking"
1996 Marymount meets with RPV planning Department to outline permit
requirements to add dormitories for 380 students and indoor athletic building.
1997 Newspaper article,Daily Breeze "Party's Over"-neighbors of Marymount
student apartments in San Pedro complain of drunken parties,trash in the
streets,use of profane language and students racing vehicles up and down
the streets
Local Homeowner's association objects to Special Use Amplified Sound
Permit Application,City grants permit
Marymount expands to 852 students
Homeowners ask city to enforce CUP 750 student enrollment cap;
City refuses interpreting the CUP to exempt from the enrollment cap the 150
students attending "Week-end college."
1998 Marymount gets the former Navy housing on PV Drive North for dormitories;
86 two bedroom units sleeping 344 people
Homeowners object to Amplified Sound Permit Application.City grants
permit.
1999 Dr.Mc Fadden speaks at Mediterrania Homeowners meeting and shows
drawing of proposed addition to the campus:
3 Dorms for 270 Students
New gymnasium
New administration building
Addition to existing building
Moving of the tennis courts and soccer field to land along PV drive East
Some part of project to begin summer 1999
>.',
J
I..
L
2 - 361
-----Original Message-~---
From:bubba32@cox.net [mailto:bubba32@cox.netJ
Sent,Thursday,March 25,2010 10,58 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Staff Report Comments on Alternative D-1 and other related
subjects on Appeal
Gentlemen
In response to the receipt today of the March 30,2010 Staff report
(without attachments)I would like to share with you some relevant
rebuttal points and additional concerns with the current EIR Appeal,as
follows.
With regard to the Staff Report -Noise at the Library,I had already
included a rebuttal to that charade:There is existing noise now at
that location to begin with,and the Library design in the Eastern side
does not have any openings other than a balcony which is not subject to
noise that those occupying donlt want or find annoying.This kind of
noise is an internal Marymount problem they have lived with in the
Classroom building for 30+years,if any,to the College itself,not
outsiders.The Library entrance is located on the opposite side from
the field and away from any significant noise issue as is the balcony
(East
side)behind Closed doors.If that is considered significant noise then
so should the same noise emanating from the proposed D-2 location be
similarly a problem.
To the second point,aesthetics light and glare,that is another
charade because if that were true,then there should be no parking
allowed anyway at this Western site to begin with.Why does the new
College-proposed western parking get a I1passl!for these same issues
while at the same time the alternate additional parking comes under
fire.Double standard.
You may be interested (attached)in two review items:The History of
the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans,and the Calculation of
Shear Key Grading Quantities that have been Omitted/ignored.Both are
Excel compatible files.The latter shows an omission of 130,000 Cubic
Yards of On-site grading over and above what has so far been disclosed
and that was never revealed to the PUblic,Planning Commission or to
the City Council.The Council members have never even received the Plan
itself (January 6,2010 Plan)that they are supposed to be deciding
upon this Tuesday evening.
More info:The Marymount plan and related ads state Hat no taxpayer
expense"which is false as you know from contacts with the City Clerk
because the City must foot the ballot bill for that Initiative which
allegedly grants the College all those favors.
And,with respect to your brilliant question about when do those
facilities come on~line,it is now obvious that for some sustained
period of time the College will not have ANY field because in Phase I
they must grade the parking lots and that would cause a loss of the
existing field unless the CC mandates retention.Then,if the
Initiative passes,that field is totally gone for parking but the
2 - 362
College (Condition 60)will not build the new athletic field until
Phase II -if that plan holds.
If not,and they try to do it in Phase I,there is a long delay before
the parking at the east side can be constructed because of the special
and extensive shoring excavation preparations needed and additional
time-consuming process of such shoring,etc.It goes on and OD.
IILake Brophyn is created by a temporary road across the excavated
Athletic Building/Pool hole which will be at about elevation 899',
whereas the "Aswan Dam ll aka the temporary road will be at about
elevation 911 1 •No drainage for the pool is shown now,and no drainage
(temporary)is shown to keep this "Lake Brophyll:from forming in wet
weather.That is an obvious and dangerous goof.
The liAs wan Damn is shown in Appendix A as Exhibit 3.7a in this Phase I
diagram.It is similarly in gross error because the Construction
staging area depicted in this diagram sits directly atop Cross Section
A -AI a remedial grading area of about 25'in depth and 100+feet in
width and length.Great systems engineering.This is one reason that I
have questioned the redaction of DEIR Exhibit 3-8 which would reveal
the required tasks and provide a reasoned planning basis (Pert Network)
which would give confidence -and some transparency -to the real
sequencing of activities required to be performed.This is the same
kind of information used by Turner for Terranea planning and
management.Why has this not been provided here,even in its basic
form?One obvious reason is that it would have to show the remedial
grading,all 130,000 Cubic Yards,and that might be embarrassing.Let's
deal with that later,in rrPlan Check".
What we have,instead is lots of College funding for the pretty
brochures and misleading PR but very little attention to the real nuts
and bolts design problems.
Jim
2 - 363
The Project is Infeasible -as presently designed
f'XI5TIN<:;
5WOENT
LOU"."
I ;c::--;dII \I
I.
i
•As presently proposed and approved by the PC,the Revised Project is
"infeasible"
•This is because Phase I excavation of the Athletic Facility would cause the
Student Union Building to collapse into the excavated area unless ..
1\\pt\'II \ \~~~,~\~.~~,~.~'-r'~;;.=~,~<.
.EXISTlN0
FACiJl...TT'O!"FICE
~_,/=\i =L '"1E~;X;'---<lE':;r'B".--;=:IL-l
'~~~~"~'~'~~,',-lm;".,=--,~.
EXISTING>
KITCtlEl-V
I-++--r---~L*.~i ~n~-_=00«>'m-..+.:g~~~...-..k~~~~t ~
•Costly and time-consuming "soldier pile"shoring must be emplaced prior
to excavation commencing;
T~"'f">'ory Shorin~for I'>l"l..i"ll G"",i"H.evel.Bel",,-~lf'<'t:I O~f'd\;"2 of]
r
Setting I-Beams
.,
.,.
rcmf'O'>r'f lib>ring r",I\vking Gorage 2·r.c.clf Below Strrn Grode 1'>8<I 00
Bay City Geology,Inc.:zsoo Neilson W~y #210
Sanbl Monka,CA 900405
(310)429-6681
ConstnJctloo crt ~n GariJge 2-LeveIs BeloW Street Gfade.
Tempornry SOOrIng:I..fleams,ne-Bads,1\Rakers
l!Page
2 - 364
•An example of this extensive preparation work is shown in Bay City
Geology's website at http://baycitygeology.com/photos.html
•The process illustrated is similar but more extensive than the 6 month
shoring work on PV Drive West.There are three sides to shore up,not
one.
-Construction of Subterranean Garage 2-Levels Below Street Grade.
Temporary Shoring:I-Beams,Tie-Backs,&Rakers
Rebar for Columns Set and Waterproofing for
Retaining Wall Being Placed
21Page
2 - 365
•Replacement of planned parking in the western side of the campus
cannot progress until this Building site area is first protected
BBC
J-H-+-+-1--+-+H-l90(
STUDENT
UNION
I I---r-l--r-I ·--1-1 -t I -I'•1--i--H.~--1 I I I I t I I I I I
•The confluence of the College's Phasing requirements together with the
existing physical excavation circumstances and limitations,precludes the
successful implementation of the current plan.
etll"".l.·Uf'lI~
FlU.
0tW ~1"'-v.J.H~lsh 3~-
o H~TWa~pa'li(}..ftniS/,B~e..-
5\~,~l\V_tJ - \ -~Lol'l(;Y'lk~'l'AVtOD ~11~;:~j.~
_1\\1 urAl1IlJr AR9r(+5')ol<'e.Y<'"
• A portion of the Western side of the Student Union adjacent to the
Athletic Building must be removed to allow excavation and may force
closure of that facility for the duration.
%-,----.~--?--':::-~/-
31Page
2 - 366
•City Planning Staff have reviewed these circumstances and concur with
this requirement for shoring,including the Library and Faculty addition
prior to Phase II construction of those facilities
•However,Staff has stated they will "fix"this in "Plan Check"
•We respectfully disagree because it is the Applicant's responsibility to
provide a feasible design and process,not the City's
•Moreover,since if the project is approved as-is,and the Applicant moves
forward,the City will be in an awkward position of "error"potentially
requiring compensation to the Applicant for "detrimental reliance"
•This is not a far-fetched possibility:It has already happened with the
College's Variance Request for front,street-side parking;
•"Each such site plan ..submitted by the College since 2000 ..was accepted by the City
without comment as to this setback other than discussions with and direction to the
College to include a landscaped buffer of at least 10 feet.As such,the College justifiably
and detrimentally relied on these submittals when preparing more detailed development
plans for its proposed improvements."
•"As such,the College justifiably and detrimentally relied on these submittals when
preparing more detailed development plans for its proposed improvements."
•"the College has invested tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of time on
construction-related plans,which may need to be significantly revised if relief is not
granted.Accordingly,the College believes that this prolonged period of reliance on what
now appears to have been an erroneous administrative determination or oversight,at
minimum,constitutes an additional special circumstance that supports the College's
request for a variance."
•It would be informative to find out why and who has the responsibility
for significant omissions in this plan,including,but not limited to the
41Page
2 - 367
requirement to partially demolish a portion of the Western side of the
Student Union prior to pad grading of the Athletic building?
•Why,for example,has the College or City not come forward with this late
discovery?Where have the College's experts been?Waiting to sue the
City later?
•Nearby residents impacted directly by the College have pointed out the
generic nature of the extensive remedial reinforcing necessary as similar
to work performed along Palos Verdes Drive West.
1';'[:,'ri'"~,-"i"ili'~;-:~;,=~
~,."liV 01'.:..;,•,.'",••••
L'~1f'>'.~..\'."'.
•That work has taken over six months in the performance phase along and
did not involve all of the 26 steps shown on Bay City Geology's website at
http://baycitygeology.com//photos.html that will be required for the
Athletic Building excavation and pad preparation.Take a look for
yourself!
•Long term interruption of access to this College site would have serious if
not fatal consequences for the survival of the College
51Page
2 - 368
•As presently planned,Phase I involves demolition of selected existing
buildings now adding the Student Union portion,plus
•The excavation and embankment for all new parking plus excavation of
building pads and completion of drainage facilities
•Unlike Terranea,this site presently is occupied and all work required
must carefully retain key existing facilities in operation or provide
temporary replacements
..-_.._"
~••_".",..""-C.
;:;-"..:-.iill ~=.....~~
•g£;:'Ef.lJa:.~~~~;;-..~_.........-_..._-"".
,..;-~-:t."""'''''''-'~'';''"~~'i......-.-~.*_..,-_......__.-..--_........
"'---",",.~
":;"~"":':l'f,-:::....~~'---'-"'-
•The site presents challenging solutions in order to assure continued
access and operation despite extensive renovations.
•Simultaneous construction of the new parking facilities with the
excavation of the proposed Athletic Building requires special shoring -
previously overlooked,before excavation can commence.
•This process of additional shoring,combined with the partial de-
construction of the existing Student Union building (west side)will "cost"
additional time and functionality beyond Phase I.
•The "findings"that allow this very large and associated retaining walls to
the North and East,are improper on their face,since approved plans
61Page
2 - 369
entail excavation in Phase I and construction in Phase II,not
simultaneously as an "integral"part of the building itself per Code.
•Therefore,City Code quoted by Staff,requires not only that retaining
walls be "within"the building "footprint",but they must also be an
"integral"part of such building as well.That is not the case here with the
Athletic Building.
•Excavation for the Athletic Facility and nearby Pool area,cannot begin
immediately without prior protection from soil collapse of the Student
Union Building to the East and North.
•This can be seen in Cross Section D -D'(below);
,L.I
\Na !
.'~'.:'..
"
"!'f
""":"----:.:::=""'---,
!'".t
•--.........
•And also in the "Architectural"Cross Section Circle E/2 (next page)the
adjacent parking area to the west must await successful completion of the
required shoring before commencing backfill and re-compaction work
behind the pool area's western retaining wall.
•In order to construct the Athletic Facility,there first must be complete
shoring of the West,North and East sides with "H"beams placed in
71Page
2 - 370
o
40r
60
84 36
time frame t:onst.months
Sale of SP Apts '
$2.5 M -4%
drilled holes.These are then cemented in place with frangible concrete
that allows successive removal of the excavated material as retaining
cross members are emplaced,with periodic placement of soil anchors at
designated interval levels.This process is shown in more photographic
display on the referenced website.
-,a
-l...
.'.......,
"""'"",',To.~\i •
•The point at issue is that there is now a well-known process that must
first be carefully engineered,then implemented which will cause serious
foreseeable problems for the College's physical operation at this site
during a prolonged and unsustainable absence.That was the point of Dr.
Brophy's October 30,2006 letter.By July 2008,the Project looked like;
$65,506,000 'Etm._
Project as of July 2008 '100 '
Trustee
i Donations
$2 M -3%
2 ,121,0925 .ft.new c6nstructic!'n
1 J1JJ~~'~'#"b:®4Q4tii4~s.:i
o 20,000 40,000 60,000 80.000 100.000 120.000
'·--1
i
i
i
i
140,000 i
_J
•In May 2009,despite the College voluntarily removed Residence Halls a
savings of $30 Million according to Dr.Brophy.Yet,the College insisted
8!Page
2 - 371
on retention of an 8-year time frame in order to obtain (lowered)
funding.If this limitation is still correct,then it would follow that this
project will be further delayed and the entitlements granted would be
jeopardized.That is simply a practical "infeasibility"concern.
$35,506,000
."Revised"Project*-RPV only
f_
j ","----_..._-
i 100 ;.,,
I ...-
so f'
2
1
i ,i ;i :
61 928 s .ft.new cons ructilm
o 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
•The more important concern is that this project,for lack of adequate
funding may start and never finish.That is the Sunrise Assisted Living
Center syndrome for which this City has no practical answer.The only
provision is for restoration to a "safe"condition,and by barring entry to
the site,it would be rendered "safe"just like the Sunrise Center is today...
91Page
2 - 372
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Carol W.Lynch [CLynch@rwglaw.com]
Thursday,March 25,2010 1:22 PM
aram@rpv.com
FW:The Project is infeasible as presently approved
The Project is InfeasiblepicsR1.doc
The Project is
InfeasibiepicsR ...
-----Original Message-----
From'bubba32@cox.net [mailto,bubba32@cox.netj
Sent,Thursday,March 25,2010 11,30 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:The Project is infeasible as presently
To the City Council
approved
I am providing you herewith (Compatible illustrated Word document attachment)a review of
the daunting excavation process necessary to prepare the building pad site for the
proposed Athletic Building and associated pool area.
I believe this information is important for your review this coming Tuesday evening,March
30,2020
Jim Gordon
NOTICE:This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information.If
you are not the intended recipient of this communication,or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient,please advise the
sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
copying or disclosing the contents.Thank you.
1
2 - 373