20100504 Late CorrespondenceF
MADE A PART OF TAE RECORD Al
NCIL MEETING OF 4, A
OFFICE OF THE CITY bLEAK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
M
Alternative D-1, Option 3 Parking
This is the feasible alternative parking for Option 3 that adds &'�*
new parking spaces in an area already approved for aesthetic
compliance.', ,&, U k�/ .'aake
v'
5TUDIENT
PA12eIMA
Aesthetics — • Lot Lighting
7-�:' -n -q!:-
Fd
Meet the New Collision Barrier
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS ERR
PALOS ??f *?2 DRIVE EAST
BARRIER WALL ANALYSIS
en C,
444 South Flower Street - Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90071-2953
voice 213.236.0600 - fax 213.236.2700
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP www,bwslaw.com
May 3, 2010
VIA E-MAIL & Hand Delivery
Steve Wolowicz, Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Writer's Direct Dial:
(213)236-2702
Our File No:
04693-0001
ddavis@bwslaw.com
Re: Marymount Campus Modernization Plan: City Council Hearing of May 4, 2010
Dear Mayor Wolowicz, Mayor Pro -Tem Long, and Councilmembers Campbell, Misetich, and
Stern:
For the reasons set forth in this letter and in the record of these proceedings,
Marymount College requests that the City Council take the following actions at its meeting of
May 4, 2010: (1) approve the College's application for outdoor athletic facilities on the west
side of the campus; (2) reject the east side athletic field CEQA alternatives; (3) clarify or
modify the Council's direction with respect to proposed Condition of Approval No. 136
regarding outdoor campus events; and (4) acknowledge Marymount's offer to make a
contribution towards potential City traffic safety improvement to Palos Verdes Drive East
near the campus.
1. Approve Marymount's application for an athletic field and tennis courts on the
west side of the campus with the recommended additional netting and fence
heights.
Marymount appreciates the City Council's apparent willingness to reconsider its
denial of the College's application to build a multi-purpose athletic field on the western
portion of its campus. Approval of either of the College's athletic field proposals would be
fully consistent with the City Council's prior vote on March 31, 2010 to certify the project's
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in that the FEIR found that both the College's
original application for the field at the far westerly side of the campus and its alternative
application shifting the field slightly to the east (Alternative No. D-2), with the incorporation of
certain mitigation measures, would not result in any significant environmental impacts.
LA #4819-02994694 v I
MADE A PART OF T&�IIFIHE RD
NCIL MEETING OF
OFFICE OF THE CIT
CARLA MORREALE, CISRK
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 2
As indicated in the staff report for this meeting, the FEIR recommended the use of
retractable netting that could be elevated to approximately 20 feet in height to contain errant
balls. (See Mitigation Measure TR -6.) The Council has directed staff to assess the feasibility
and potential impacts of increasing the height of the netting up to 30 feet. Staff concludes at
p.13-10 of their report that "the limited use of a retractable net, at a height of 30 -feet, would
[not] result in adverse view impacts experienced from the roadway or from neighboring
properties to the north." The College's concurs with this determination based on the facts
presented in the staff report. The College further notes that because the field is actually cut
into the site, there is a 10-12 foot height difference between the surface of the field and the
surrounding "berm" on the north side of the field, and thus less than 20 feet of netting (80%
open to light and air) would actually be exposed to public view in this vicinity. The College's
architect has indicated that it is feasible for the College to provide the suggested 10
additional feet of net height. Accordingly, if desired by the City Council, the College is
prepared to accept, as a condition of approval, providing additional mitigation beyond
Measure TR -6, in the form of retractable netting along the northwestern and southwestern
corners of the athletic field.
In terms of preferred site plans, with the additional field netting, the College hopes
that the City Council would also reconsider approving Marymount's original site plan for the
athletic field and tennis courts because it does not separate or impact the instructional and
competitive use of the tennis courts as does Alternative No. D-2.' On the other hand, if the
City Council is only willing to approve the College's other submittal (Alternative No. D-2),
which proposes to shift the field further east by placing two tennis courts at the most westerly
side of the campus, then the College requests that the fencing for these tennis courts remain
at 10 feet, or if additional fence height is desired, then such additional height should be
limited to the west and south sides of the courts, which are closest to the road, and not the
entire perimeter of the courts.
2. Reject CEQA athletic field Alternative No. D-1 as environmentally inferior and
infeasible.
Marymount was surprised and disappointed to see that significant additional time and
resources were spent trying, but ultimately failing, to find a configuration for an athletic field
on the east side of campus under Alternative No. D-1 that would not result in significant new
and unavoidable environmental impacts. As stated on pages 13-6 and 13-8 of the staff
report, each of the two additional alternative field configurations studied would necessitate
placing additional parking where it would create a significant aesthetic impact to the
College's neighbors to the north. Accordingly, the City Council has no legal authority under
CEQA to recommend any of the variations on Alternative No. D-1.
See attached original field site plan and cross-sections showing difference in grade between the field
and PVDE.
LA #4819-0299-4694 v
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 3
Under CEQA, a project alternative may only be considered where it: (1) offers
substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal; and (2) may be feasibly
accomplished in a successful manner considering economic, environmental, social and
technological factors involved. (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21002, 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines
§ 15364; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.)
Because none of the three alternative site plans analyzed under Alternative No. D-1 fully
avoids significant effects on the environment based on the evidence presented by staff, the
first prong of this test is not satisfied, and therefore under CEQA, no further consideration of
these alternatives is warranted. (See Public Resources Code § 21002.1 and CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.6; see also Mann v. Community Redevelopment Agency (1991) 233
Cal.App.3d 1143, 1151 [alternative properly rejected due to lack of evidence demonstrating a
substantial environmental benefit].)
For the record, Marymount offers the following additional potential environmental
impacts as grounds to reject the two further configurations for Alternative No. D-1 analyzed in
the staff report. Marymount is compelled to do so because the staff report omits some
potentially significant issues previously raised by staff under very similar circumstances with
respect to the College's proposal to construct residence halls and an athletic building in the
same general vicinity.
• The alternatives would require construction on a man-made extreme slope,
which activity staff has previously discouraged and recommended that the
Planning Commission not support with respect to the College's application for
the residence halls.
• The alternatives would require significant grading of the extreme and natural
slope in order to construct retaining walls at heights of 30-40 feet,2 which
activity would be inconsistent with General Plan Urban Environment Element
Policy 11 [control alteration of natural terrain].
• Retaining walls with heights up to 30-40 feet running the length or width of the
field and extending down over the slope would appear to introduce a new
visual character impact far greater than the minimal intrusion of the athletic
building that staff previously recommended be pushed back 10 feet from the
top of the slope.
2 Although the staff report estimates the maximum retaining wall heights at 20-25 feet, the College's
consultants believe the resulting heights would be 30-40 feet (based on a surface elevation of the field
of about 908' or 910'.
LA #4819-0299-4694 v I
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 4
According to the College's engineering geologist, Associated Soils
Engineering, Inc., the use of retaining walls in this area would likely require a
caisson and grade beam foundation system at depths on the order of 1 to 1.5
times the height of the proposed walls. This could introduce significant new
geologic and soil issues, and these potential new construction impacts would,
at minimum, need to be evaluated for their significance due to the proximity of
the retaining walls to adjoining residential properties.
Finally, with respect to the "feasibility" prong of the CEQA-test for project alternatives,
these configurations are not feasible for the College from a practical planning standpoint or
economically. The western portion of the campus allows Marymount flexibility to alter the
configuration of the field should such future need arise. The proposed east -side
configurations offer no such flexibility, as any alteration to the field would, at minimum,
require the construction of costly new and higher retaining walls.
In terms of costs, the west -side field can be made of natural grass and is estimated to
cost less than $500,000. An athletic field on the east side of campus, according to the
College's construction management firm (Stegeman and Kastner, Inc.), would add
incremental construction costs in excess of $1.6 million to this figure due to the costs
associated with the use of synthetic turf (approx. $850,000) and the grading and extra
construction needed for a field resting on massive retaining walls that extend over a slope.3
In sum, the lack of any superior environmental benefits to an east -side field and the
infeasibility of such a plan have been readily apparently to the College since the outset of this
project, which is why the College has only applied for and is only prepared to construct an
athletic field on the west side of its campus. Marymount respectfully requests that the City
Council also accept these facts and approve the College's application to construct an athletic
field and tennis courts on the west side of campus, with the additional mitigation measures
proposed by staff.
3. Amend Proposed CUP Condition No. 136 establishing a new cap on outdoor
campus events, including religious services.
At the hearing on March 31, 2010, Marymount requested that the City Council either
reject or modify the changes being proposed by staff to CUP Condition No. 136 as it was
approved by the Planning Commission.
3 See attached Stegeman and Kastner letter dated April 30, 2010.
LA #4819-0299-4694 v1
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 5
The condition approved by the Planning Commission read as follows:
136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment, with the exception of annual graduation
ceremonies, shall be prohibited unless a Special Use Permit is obtained. Such
activities and other outdoor events should attempt to be located as far away from
residential areas as possible.
Subsequent to such approval, in their report of September 12, 2009, staff proposed to
amend the condition to establish a cap on the number of outdoor events that could take
place on campus using amplified sound pursuant to a special use permit as permitted under
the current CUP.
Here is the amendment offered by staff:
136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment for outdoor eventsshall 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 12 months (ending August 31s)
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 .
In the early morning hours of April 1, 2010, Mayor Pro -Tem Long made an omnibus
motion that attempted to address all of the College's concerns regarding the CUP. Without
explanation, the request to amend this condition was denied. This result is inconsistent with
the City Council's general position not to change existing conditions where there is no
evidence to support such changes such as the appellant's attempt to restrict the approved
campus hours of operation. Here, staff has never offered any substantive explanation as to
the need for such a cap, other than its apparent recognition there was no cap on outdoor
events. This amendment is a particularly unwarranted intrusion on campus operations due
to the fact that the City already has in place a vehicle to monitor such events in the form of
the Special Use Permit requirement.
Although the SUP process creates an added burden on the College, Marymount has
lived with this process for two decades, in part, because changes can be made
administratively by staff in a relatively prompt manner. The proposed arbitrary cap on
events, however, would require a discretionary approval and noticed public hearing before it
could be amended should the College need a add a single additional event. Accordingly, the
College requests that as part of its direction to Staff on the preparation of the final project
resolutions that these staff changes be deleted altogether or modified as set forth below
to allow a more reasonable number of events (e.g., 35 events).
LA #4819-0299-4694 v
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 6
Here is Marymount's proposed revision:
136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment for outdoor eventsshall 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 35
outdoor events that include amplified sound during the next 12 months (ending
August 31). Such activities and other outdoor events should attempt to be located as
far away from residential areas as possible.
4. Marymount supports the recommended traffic safety improvements proposed
for Palos Verdes Drive East in the vicinity of the College identified in the
Preliminary Study Report previously accepted by the City Council, and would
be willing to make a significant contribution towards the inclusion of a concrete
median barrier as part of such City project.
As a matter separate from the College's proposed campus modernization plan, the
College has reviewed the Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) Preliminary Study Report
("Report") commissioned by the City and subsequently accepted by the City Council earlier
this year. The College was at the time, and remains, supportive of the recommended safety
improvements for the segment of roadway between the College and Ganado Drive, which
include:
• Reduce the width from four lanes to two lanes.
• In conjunction with the lane reduction, provide a two-way left turn lane.
• In conjunction with the lane reduction, provide right turn/deceleration lanes on the
southbound side, where feasible.
• Install bike lanes on both sides of the street.4
Marymount understands that during the public meetings on the draft Report some
residents actually suggested the construction of a concrete median barrier along the curve
between the College and Ganado Drive, but such an improvement was ultimately not
included in the adopted Report.
The College further understands that the City Council may have a renewed interest in
the potential inclusion of a median barrier along this segment of PVDE as part of its future
roadway safety improvement project, and the College has reviewed with interest the
feasibility analyses and cost estimates for such a median prepared by Willdan Engineering
and Adams Engineering that were included in the agenda packet.
4 See Report at p.85
LA 44819-0299-4694 v1
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 7
Of the two studies, the second median barrier option proposed in the Willdan study
appears to be the most compatible with the safety improvements that have already been
endorsed by the City Council in the Report, and also appears to be both feasible and cost-
effective. In reviewing the breakdown of Willdan's $455,400 cost estimate for this option, the
costs directly attributable to the addition of a concrete barrier (i.e., excluding the pre-existing
road narrowing, lane restriping, and drainage work) appear to be on the order of
approximately $100,000.
Marymount has had a long-standing desire to see traffic safety improvements made
to PVDE in the vicinity of the campus. To that end, the College would be prepared to
contribute up to $200,000 towards the construction of a concrete median barrier in this
segment of PVDE along with the related safety measures previously identified and approved
by the City Council in the Report if the City proceeds with such a project. If subsequently
desired by the Council, the College would be willing to confirm this offer as part of a more
formal contribution agreement.
In conclusion, Marymount appreciates the Council's consideration of the four matters
set forth in the letter, and trusts that the scheduled hearing is truly the last hearing before the
Council takes its long-awaited final action on the FEIR and requested entitlements for
Marymount's campus modernization plan.
Sincerely,
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
`�k,L
s 7/yA
DONALD M. DAVIS
Attachments: Stegeman and Kastner letter dated April 30, 2010 (alternative field costs)
cc: (Via E -Mail only)
Dr. Michael Brophy
Michael Laughlin, Psomas
Joel Rojas, Community Development Director
Ara Mihrananian, Principal Planner
Carol Lynch, City Attorney
Dave Snow, Assistant City Attorney
LA #4819-0299-4694 v1
Jig
Original
1
TEMPORARY NE FENCE
EVENT5. NETTING T 20' HIGH
WITH TELE5GOPIN6 P AT 30'
O.G.
PARTIAL 51TE FLAN
layout
jim preferred by
— • v`%iCollege
r.
l � `
1 � �
NOTE. THE FLAYING OF 5URFACE THE 5OCGER FIELD 15 DEPRE55ED
i
940
920
900
880
SOCCER FIELD
6WROUGHT IRON FENCE,` L -TEMPORARY NETTIN5 FENCE FOR
LOCATED IN 3'-6° HIGH EVENTS. NETTING WITH TELE5GOPING
GONTINUOU5 5HRUB 5GREEN. POLE5 AT 50'0.G.
ITE TION
Lb' WROUGHT IRON FENCE,
LOCATED IN 3'-b" HIGH
CONTINUOU5 5HRU5 5GREEN.
f TEMPORARY NETTING FENCE FOR
I rEVENT5. NETTING WITH TELE5GOPING
POLES AT 50'0.G.
bo'_o*
TEMPORARY NETTING FENCE
FOR EVENT5. NETTING WITH
TELE5GOPIN6 POLES AT 30'
O.G.
MAI,YMOUNT COLLEGE
",x PALOS VER -DES, CALIFORNIA
A'g . . . ,, � A., W, W"
DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
April 30, 2010
Mr. Don Davis
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Subject: Marymount College, Palos Verdes
Campus Improvement Plan Project
Dear Don:
We have made a preliminary review of the alternate athletic filed layouts proposed by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes in the Staff report for the May 4 2020 public hearing on the Appeal of the Marymount
College Facilities Expansion Project. As requested we have developed a preliminary conceptual
construction cost estimate as the incremental cost of the City proposed alternate plan D-1, Option 2,
compared to the construction cost of the athletic field in the configuration included in the FEIR. This
conceptual cost estimate address only the athletic field and does not include any costs for redesign or
additional costs to address other programmatic scope displaced by the proposed alternate design.
Our initial estimate incremental construction cost for the alternate plan D-1, Option 2 is approximately
$1,650,000. We can provide a more accurate estimate through development of additional information on
this proposed alternate, the rough order of magnitude of cost should not significantly.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ZZ44�-'�
R. Randall Fulton
Executive Vice President and Principal
26011 Ocean Park Bouievoici, Suite 3001. Santa Monica, f CA 90405 (31,0) 450-9010 FAX (310) 4,132-7580 SundKhq(a)s-and-k.,.-orr)
4733 C'habo: Dr a, ;iuix� 105: Pl :monton, Ctrl 93:569 (925)463-3/D0 FAX(925)463-3-70i andK;;.:tis-<.nd k.c-omn
"v.s-and-k.com
L IR
ks,RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: MAY 4, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
9 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz
12 Excerpt of February 2, 2010 City Council Meeting Minutes; Emails from:
Lenee Bilski; Ranjan Bajania
13 Staff Memorandum; Email from Mark Wells
Respectfully submitted,
&t&—
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday, May 3, 2010**.
MAGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20100504 additions revisions to agenda.doc
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jane Lin
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr, Dennis McLean, Kathryn Downs
DATE:
May 2, 2010
SUBJECT:
cc meeting 514110 item #9 March cash balances
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Jane,
Please help by providing answers to the following questions.
Thanks,
Steve
1. Gas Tax Fund. Dues to the state suspension of funding:
(a) Does this mean the April amount is also suspended?
Staff reply.
No, the City received its April apportionment in the amount of $49,754.98
on April 30, 2010.
(b) What is the expected total amount to be suspended and not provided
to the City?
Staff reply:
The total amount deferred from November 2009 to March 2010 was
$277,912.98.
(c) When does the City expect that these funds will be paid to the City?
Staff reply.
The City received the balance of the deferred payment on April 30, 2010.
2. AQ Management fund — were the funds from the $50,000 MSRC grant
received?
Staff reply.
The $50, 000 MSRC grant was received in February 2010.
05/04/10 1:32 PM
® ok
Received and filed the December 2009 Monthly Report of Cash Balances for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
Register of Demands
ADOPTED RESOL ON NO. 2010-07, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITYPUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCH ALOS VERDES, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLA,I�MS AND
DEMANDS AND SPECIFY G FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.
# # # \ # # . / #
REGULAR NEW BUSINESS:
Appointments to the Planning Commissi
Mayor Wolowicz introduced the item and noted th here were many well-qualified
applicants for the four positions on the Plannin om fission.
City Clerk Morreale distributed ballots. A r four rounds balloting the following four
members were appointed to the Planni Commission, eac with a four year term of
office beginning February 11, 2010 t ough February 11, 201 . Paul Tetreault, Jeff
Lewis, David Emenhiser, and Gor n Leon.
Councilman Stern moved, sep6nded by Councilman Campbell, that f e terms of office for
the new Planning Commiss' vers would begin on February 11, 2010. \
Without objection, Mayor` Wolowicz so ordered.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case Nos. SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078
(Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Vesting Parcel Map, Variance, Grading Permit, Height
Variation, and Coastal Permit), Address: 32639 Nantasket Drive, a Vacant Lot
Located on the West Side of Nantasket Drive between Beachview Drive and
Seacove Drive
City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published, no
written protests received, late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting, and
there were eight requests to speak on the item.
Councilman Stern and Mayor Wolowicz both disclosed that they were not certain if the
parties involved in this application had contributed to their past campaigns, and noted
that they could objectively participate in the decision currently before Council.
Mayor Wolowicz declared the public hearing open.
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2010
Page 4 of 10
E,
Senior Planner Schonborn provided a staff report and PowerPoint presentation for the
item. He reported that the project before Council was seeking the approval to change the
land use designation of a 1.42 -acre property from Commercial Recreational, to
Residential so that it can be subdivided into four separate residential lots and each lot
developed with its own single-family residence. He reported that the property was
located in the City's Coastal Zone, and was before the City Council because the
application package includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal
Specific Plan Amendment and a Subdivision, which all require approval by the City
Council; and noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
project as the Commission was able to make all the necessary findings for approval of
the project applications as proposed.
Council and staff discussion ensued.
RECESS AND RECONVENE:
Mayor Wolowicz called a brief recess from 9:00 P.M. to 9:10 P.M.
Dana Ireland, applicant, Rancho Palos Verdes, provided a PowerPoint presentation
regarding the redesigned Nantasket project as revised from the recommendations
provided by Council during the May 15, 2007 consideration of the project. Mr. Ireland
stated that the redesign addresses the following concerns: the creation of more open
space by providing 50-60 feet of view corridors between the proposed residential
structures; and the shifting of the placement of the homes on the lots in order to lower the
ridge heights of the homes where possible. He reported the following revisions to the
plans: the square footage of the buildable area of the project was reduced by 25%
resulting in the current project consisting of 26,013 square feet; the lot sizes grew due to
the reduction from five to four homes; the ridge heights were reduced on three of the four
homes; the measurable view impairment was less than 1 % on Lot 1 with the proposed
home; revisions to the grading plans; and, reduction of the bulk and mass of the homes.
He noted that he had no objective to the Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
David Emenhiser, President, Seabluff Homeowners Association (HOA), Rancho Palos
Verdes, stated that although some revisions were made to the plans in consideration of
the neighbor's concerns, the major issue for the Seabluff HOA is that Lot 1 has remained
practically unchanged which affects the views of four of the Seabluff homeowners. He
noted that they had concerns regarding street parking; errant golf balls from the Terranea
Resort Golf Course; size and heights of the homes not being compatible with the
neighborhood; and the mansionization of the project.
Bob Nelson, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that not one person other than the applicant
and the Planning Commission Members have spoken in favor of the project; suggested
that the zoning in the General Plan should be amended only if the amendment is in the
interest of the public; stated that the project is not compatible with the neighborhood and
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2010
Page 5 of 10
that the variances should not be granted since they should only be granted for minimum
items when they are relative to what exists in the neighborhood.
Stephanie McLachlan, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that she opposes the development
for the following reasons: her view from the second floor and front of her property will be
affected; the development is not compatible with the neighborhood; the bulk and mass of
the homes; and, issues regarding the setbacks and lot depth.
Juan -Carlos Monnaco, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that no individual person other than
the applicant has spoken in favor of the project in the last five years. He reported that he
is in opposition to the project for the following reasons: his home is the closest single
family residence to the project; the impact on his family lifestyle; the proposed 6,000
square foot homes are not compatible with the neighborhood; the ten -foot front yard
setback is too small; the view impacts to the neighboring homes especially due to the
home proposed on Lot 1; and, his opinion that the neighbors' concerns have not been
addressed by the developer.
Todd Majcher, Terranea Resort, stated that Terranea was not opposed to the
development of the property, but stated that due to the proximity of the homes to the
Terranea Golf Course, Terranea requested that they should have an Indemnity
Agreement or a Hold Harmless Agreement from the developer.
Dana Ireland, in rebuttal, stated that the golf safety issues were well beyond the scope of
his project, but noted that the golf consultant who performed the analysis was well aware
that there would be development at the site. He noted that he occasionally finds a golf
ball near the property line, but not where the silhouettes are located. He opined that the
project as a four home residential development was more in the public interest than a bed
and breakfast hotel would have been, because a development of that type would
increase traffic dramatically. He stated that the Terranea structures are in the 8,000 to
10,000 square foot range, the Villa Apartments are in the 30,000 square foot range, and
the Planned Unit Developments at Seabluff are at 6,500 square feet. He stated that he
has 20 foot front yard setbacks, and noted that a variance would be needed for any
development due to the existing lot depth of the property. He stated that although there
are objections regarding the view blockage due to the house on Lot 1, the house is at the
maximum allowable height of 16 feet; and commented on objections to the limited on -
street parking and errant golf balls.
Mayor Wolowicz declared the public hearing closed.
Council and staff discussion ensued regarding the following issues: property rights and
by right construction; height variations and zone changes; view impairment; the size,
bulk, and mass of the homes; quasi-judicial and discretionary decisions; and
neighborhood compatibility.
Mayor Pro Tem Long moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to adopt the staff
recommendations with the following changes to: 1) condition everything upon a further
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2010
Page 6 of 10
ten percent reduction in the square footage of the houses; 2) require a condition limiting
the invasive plant species to protect the habitat area; and, 3) require a Hold Harmless
Agreement to the City, but not to Terranea Resort.
RECESS AND RECONVENE:
Mayor Wolowicz called a brief recess from 11:11 P.M. to 11:17 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Long moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to reopen the public
hearing to allow the applicant to address the conditions included in the motion on the
floor.
Without objection, Mayor Wolowicz so ordered.
Mayor Wolowicz re -opened the public hearing
Dana Ireland, stated that the lots were not deficient in size or in the building envelope,
and that he was in agreement with the native species requirement and the Hold
Harmless Agreement with the City. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Long's question
regarding a reduction in the height of the homes on Lot Nos. 3 and 4, Mr. Ireland
stated that he would like to see the height retained since there were no objections to
the homes on those lots, and he did not want to compromise the design of those
homes.
Mayor Wolowicz declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Campbell moved to amend the motion, seconded by Councilman
Misetich, to deny the Height Variation Permits on Lot Nos. 3 and 4; and to require the
redesign of the home on Lot No. 1 to minimize view impairment from the residences in
the Seabluff community to be brought back for Council review.
Mayor Wolowicz moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Long, to split the vote on the
amendment.
Without objection, Mayor Wolowicz so ordered.
Councilman Campbell moved to amend the motion, seconded by Councilman
Misetich, to deny the Height Variation Permits on Lot Nos. 3 and 4.
The motion on the first half of the amendment, as stated above, failed on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Campbell and Misetich
NOES: Long, Stern, and Mayor Wolowicz
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2010
Page 7 of 10
Councilman Campbell moved to amend the motion, seconded by Councilman
Misetich, to require the redesign of the proposed residence on Lot No. 1 to minimize
view impairment from the residences in the Seabluff community, subject to further
review and approval by Council.
The motion on the second half of the amendment, as stated above, passed on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Campbell, Misetich, and Mayor Wolowicz
NOES: Long and Stern
ABSENT: None
City Clerk Morreale restated the motion, as amended to require the redesign of the
house on Lot No. 1, by Mayor Pro Tem Long, which was seconded by Councilman
Stern, to adopt the staff recommendations with the following changes to:
1) condition everything upon a further ten percent reduction in the square footage of
the houses; 2) require a condition to limit the invasive species on the property to
protect the habitat area; and, 3) to allow a Hold Harmless Agreement to the City, but
not to Terranea Resort.
Councilman Stern moved an amendment to the motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Long, to remove the ten percent reduction on the square footage of the homes from
the main motion.
The motion on the amendment failed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Long and Stern
NOES: Campbell, Misetich, and Mayor Wolowicz
ABSENT: None
Councilman Campbell moved an amendment to the motion, to increase the ten
percent reduction on the square footage of the homes to a fifteen percent reduction
on the square footage. The motion died for a lack of a second.
City Attorney Lynch reported that Condition No. 46 states that the landscaping within
the fifteen foot rear yard setback shall be limited to California native, so that item
would not be required in the motion; and clarified that Condition No. 45 would be
modified to state that each of the structure sizes listed would be reduced ten percent if
the motion passes; and clarified that Condition No. 12, which requires the Hold
Harmless Agreement, would be modified so that an Agreement would be required
only for the City and not the Terranea Resort.
Councilman Campbell moved to amend the motion to require a more formal
neighborhood compatibility analysis be included for the project.
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2010
Page 8 of 10
Council and staff discussion ensued regarding the process for a neighborhood
compatibility analysis.
Councilman Campbell withdrew the motion to amend.
The main motion on the floor was to adopt the staff recommendations with the
following changes: 1) to require the redesign of the house on Lot No. 1 to minimize
view impairment; 2) a ten percent reduction in the square footage of each house; and,
3) to allow a Hold Harmless Agreement to the City, but not to Terranea Resort.
The main motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Long, Misetich, Stern, and Mayor Wolowicz
NOES: Campbell
ABSENT: None
The motion included the following actions to: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-08,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CERTIFYING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; and,
2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-09, AS AMENDED, A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING CASE NOS. SUB2008-00001 AND ZON2008-00074 THRU -00078
FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, COASTAL SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT, VESTING PARCEL MAP, VARIANCE, COASTAL PERMIT,
GRADING PERMIT AND HEIGHT VARIATIONS TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING:
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL
(CR) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TWO -TO -FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE; ZONE CHANGE FROM CR TO RS -3; LAND DIVISION OF A 1.42 -ACRE LOT
INTO FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS; A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LOT
DEPTHS OF 93' INSTEAD OF 110'; HEIGHT VARIATIONS TO ALLOW THE NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOTS 3 AND 4 TO EXCEED THE 16 -FOOT
HEIGHT LIMITS; AND ALLOW A TOTAL OF 4,028 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON
FOUR NEW LOTS; ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT LOCATED 32639 NANTASKET
DRIVE, WHICH IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE BETWEEN
BEACHVIEW DRIVE AND SEACOVE DRIVE IN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE (APN
7573-014-013). Staff noted that the hearing regarding the redesign of the home on
Lot 1 would be re -noticed as a public hearing.
REGULAR NEW BUSINESS:
Management of Rentals at Founddt&park
This item was removed from the agenda, to b ught back for Council consideration at
a later date.
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2010
Page 9 of 10
From:
EduardoS [EduardoS@rpv.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, May 04, 2010 3:40 PM
To:
'Carla Morreale'
Cc:
'Teri Takaoka'
Subject: FW: May 4 CC Agenda #12:Nantasket - Interp. Review
EDUARDO SCHONBORN, AICP
SENIOR PLANNER
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
ph: 310-544-5228
fax. 310-544-5293
From: L. Bilski [mailto:ldb910@intergate.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 1:48 PM
To: Mayor Wolowicz; Long, Tom; Douglas Stern; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com; AnthonyMisetich
Cc: eduardos@rpv.com
Subject: May 4 CC Agenda #12:Nantasket - Interp. Review
May 4, 2010
Subject: Nantasket project Interpretation Review
To: Mayor Wolowicz and Council members,
While the current Staff Report notes View concerns stated in my letter of April 27th and
acknowledges that the proposed project obstructs the view, it does not take into account the 2 -degree
down -arc from the public trail nor the following city goals in reaching a conclusion that "Staff
determined that the project does not significantly impair a protected view from the aforementioned
trail" I ask you to consider these city goals and guidelines in your discussion and decisions:
A Goal of the General Plan (Page 176) states:
Because of its unique geographic form and coastal resources, these views and vistas are a significant resource
to residents and to many visitors, as they provide a rare means of experiencing the beauty of the peninsula
and the Los Angeles region. It is the responsibility of the City to preserve these views and vistas for the
public benefit
RPV Coastal Development and Design Guidelines (pg. 23)
"Horizontal views should be protected and maintained from existing public areas and
established residential areas. No structures should obstruct these views."
The silhouettes & flagging for this project indicates that the views from both public and private areas will
be obstructed if the project is built as proposed. The Staff Reports and Minutes indicate view
obstruction. But there was incomplete information regarding view analysis and the city's coastal
guidelines. The current staff report does acknowledge a protected view, but refer only to ascending the
trail. (see Front Yard photo pg. 12-40 of packet) This trail runs through Subregions 2 and 3 of the LCP.
5/4/2010
VIEWS - from existing public and private areas -
The existing Flowerfield trail is one of the access corridors (LCP Fig. 24 pg.0-6) identified in
the RPV Local Coastal Plan Environmental Impact Report (approved in 1978).
The LCP refers to access corridors as including "overlooks, viewpoints" (pg. C-7). The focal points of the view
from this trail are Santa Catalina Island and the Palos Verdes Hills. >From the Point Vicente end this Flowerfield
trail provides direct full views of the ocean and Catalina Island.(pg. 12-39 photo) From the coastal bluffs end of the
trail the view is of the terracing formations of the Peninsula's land mass. The proposed project obstructs these
protected views. According to the LCP "The Direct/Full Visibility vista, being the most valuable, should receive
the highest priority for preservation protection and enhancement" (LCP pg. C-11)
The Flowerfield trail is one of the secondary access corridors whereas
Palos Verdes Dr. So. is one of the primary access corridors within the coastal region.
( LCP Fig. 24 pg.0-6) The proposed project obstructs protected views.
The City's Coastal Specific Plan provides detailed long-range
strategies for the development of the coastal area. However, the City
felt that additional direction was needed to augment various aspects
of the planning process. Therefore, in 1981, the City adopted
Coastal Development and Design Guidelines - mainly for the two large undeveloped areas in the coastal zone
(Subregions 1 and 7). The Guidelines were not intended to be absolute standards, but firm direction from which the
design of future projects should be approached.
Continuity with the Guidelines has been strongly encouraged, but flexibility was also allowed
if the intent of the Guidelines was being met.
The topic of private views is first introduced on Page 6, where the Guidelines
discuss existing views over a site and states that "views of the ocean from
the existing residential developments should be protected and enhanced." The
protection of private views is then discussed first in terms of general design
guidelines and then subregion specific guidelines. With regards to general
guidelines, on Page 23 it states that "Horizontal views should be protected and
maintained from existing public areas and established residential areas. No
structures should obstruct these views."
(ref. City Council mtg. Agenda August 14, 2000 Staff Report on Ocean Trails)
Although the Council voted to approve this Grading Permit application, Plan Amendments, Coastal
Permit, Height Variations, etc. in spite of the view obstruction from public and private areas, the
Conditions require the reduction of each of the proposed houses by 10% in size which I would hope
includes reducing structure height not just square footage.
"Structure" means anything constructed or built, any edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work
artificially built up ( Size = length, width and height)
I support the Staff Recommendation concerning COA No. 45, but I disagree with staffs conclusion
regarding obstruction of the public's views.
Finally, what about the requirement to redesign the proposed house on Lot No. 1 to
minimize view impairment? ( Any request to make the size of any residence larger or taller, shall
require approval of a revision to the Grading Permit and/or the applicable Height Variation permit by the
City Council.) When will that Public Hearing be held?
Thank you for all you do for RPV!
L. Bilski
5/4/2010
From:
EduardoS [EduardoS@rpv.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, May 04, 2010 8:34 AM
To:
'Carla Morreale'
Cc:
'Teri Takaoka'
Subject:
FW: NANTASKET - APN 7573-014-013 - 32639 Nantasket Dr.
Eduardo Schonborn, aicp
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
ph: 310-544-5228
fax: 310-544-5293
-----Original Message -----
From: Joel Rojas [mailto:joelr@rpv.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:06 AM
To: eduardos@rpv.com
Subject: FW: NANTASKET - APN 7573-014-013 - 32639 Nantasket Dr.
-----Original Message -----
From: Len6e Bilski [mailto:lenee910@intergate.com]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:09 PM
To: Nelsongang@aol.com
Cc: bipin.bajania@bt.com; jcmonnaco@gmail.com; joelr@rpv.com;
EMENHISER@aol.com; pc@rpv.com; bipinbajania@yahoo.com;
Ranjan_Bajania@ahm.honda.com; jrait@cox.net
Subject: Re:NANTASKET - APN 7573-014-013 - 32639 Nantasket Dr.
on 4/29 Bob Nelson wrote:
"Dana was to meet with I thought 3 identified Beachview homeowners to
compare his original plan and new plan to illustrate minimization of
view destruction. Then suddenly I was told the main affected homeowner
(Monnoco) had been omitted from Dana's must contact list!! But now
that Dana has a lot for sale with approved plans, I expect these
contacts are also water under the bridge. (In the past Dana has
claimed he couldn't contact those he was supposed to, including me -
they didn't answer door, phone, etc..) "
MY Suggestion: LOOK AT THE VIDEO OF THE FEB. 2,2010 COUNCIL MTG.
to verify.
from DRAFT Minutes "Councilman Campbell moved to amend the motion,
seconded by Councilman Misetich, to require the redesign of the
proposed residence on Lot No.l to minimize view impairment from the
residences in the Seabluff community, subject to further review and
approval by Council.
The motion on the second half of the amendment, as stated above,
passed. . (3-2)"
and "City Attorney Lynch reported that Condition No. 46 states that
the landscaping within the fifteen foot rear yard setback shall be
limited to California native, so that item would not be required in
the motion; and clarified that Condition No. 45 would be modified to
f a- I
state that each of the structure sizes listed would be reduced ten
percent if the motion passes; and clarified that Condition No. 12,
which requires the Hold Harmless Agreement, would be modified so that
an Agreement would be required
only for the City and not the Terranea Resort."
AND "Staff noted that the hearing regarding the redesign of the home on
Lot 1 would be re -noticed as a public hearing."
ref .
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2010 Agendas/MeetingDate-
2010-03-16/RPVCCA DM_2010_03_16_02_Draft_Mins_20100202.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
From:
EduardoS [EduardoS@rpv.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, May 04, 2010 8:34 AM
To:
'Carla Morreale'
Cc:
'Teri Takaoka'
Subject:
FW: NANTASKET - APN 7573-014-013 - 32639 Nantasket Dr.
Eduardo Schonborn, aicp
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
ph: 310-544-5228
fax: 310-544-5293
-----Original Message -----
From: Joel Rojas [mailto:joelr@rpv.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:07 AM
To: eduardos@rpv.com
Subject: FW: NANTASKET - APN 7573-014-013 - 32639 Nantasket Dr.
-----Original Message -----
From: Ranjan_Bajania@ahm.honda.com[mailto:Ranjan_Bajania@ahm.honda.com]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:32 PM
To: Len6e Bilski
Cc: bipinbajania@yahoo.com; bipin.bajania@bt.com; EMENHISER@aol.com;
jcmonnaco@gmail.com; joelr@rpv.com; jrait@cox.net; Nelsongang@aol.com;
pc@rpv.com
Subject: Re:NANTASKET - APN 7573-014-013 - 32639 Nantasket Dr.
Hi Lenee,
That's what I found also on Feb 02 meeting minutes...
Here is the cut & paste of this part from the minute...
Draft City Council Minutes
February 2, 2010
Page 8
The motion included the following actions to: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.
2010-08,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CERTIFYING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; and,
2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-09, AS AMENDED, A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING CASE NOS. SUB2008-00001 AND ZON2008-00074 THRU -00078
FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, COASTAL SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT, VESTING PARCEL MAP, VARIANCE, COASTAL PERMIT,
GRADING PERMIT AND HEIGHT VARIATIONS TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING:
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL
(CR) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TWO -TO -FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE; ZONE CHANGE FROM CR TO RS -3; LAND DIVISION OF A 1.42 -ACRE LOT
INTO FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS; A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LOT
DEPTHS OF 93' INSTEAD OF 1101; HEIGHT VARIATIONS TO ALLOW THE NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOTS 3 AND 4 TO EXCEED THE 16 -FOOT
HEIGHT LIMITS; AND ALLOW A TOTAL OF 4,028 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON
FOUR NEW LOTS; ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT LOCATED 32639 NANTASKET
DRIVE, WHICH IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE BETWEEN
of 3 lep-
BEACHVIEW DRIVE AND SEACOVE DRIVE IN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE (APN
7573-014-013). Staff noted that the hearing regarding the redesign of the
home on
Lot 1 would be re -noticed as a public hearing.
Thanks
Ranjan
Len6e Bilski
<1enee910@interga
te.com>
To
Nelsongang@aol.com
04/30/2010 03:09 cc
PM bipin.bajania@bt.com,
jcmonnaco@gmail.com, joelr@rpv.com,
EMENHISER@aol.com, pc@rpv.com,
bipinbajania@yahoo.com,
Ranjan_Bajania@ahm.honda.com,
jrait@cox.net
Subject
Re:NANTASKET - APN 7573-014-013 -
32639 Nantasket Dr.
on 4/29 Bob Nelson wrote:
"Dana was to meet with I thought 3 identified Beachview homeowners to
compare his original plan and new plan to illustrate minimization of
view destruction. Then suddenly I was told the main affected homeowner
(Monnoco) had been omitted from Dana's must contact list!! But now
that Dana has a lot for sale with approved plans, I expect these
contacts are also water under the bridge. (In the past Dana has
claimed he couldn't contact those he was supposed to, including me -
they didn't answer door, phone, etc..) "
MY Suggestion: LOOK AT THE VIDEO OF THE FEB. 2,2010 COUNCIL MTG.
to verify.
from DRAFT Minutes "Councilman Campbell moved to amend the motion,
seconded by Councilman Misetich, to require the redesign of the
proposed residence on Lot No.1 to minimize view impairment from the
residences in the Seabluff community, subject to further review and
approval by Council.
The motion on the second half of the amendment, as stated above,
passed. . (3-2)"
and "City Attorney Lynch reported that Condition No. 46 states that
the landscaping within the fifteen foot rear yard setback shall be
limited to California native, so that item would not be required in
the motion; and clarified that Condition No. 45 would be modified to
state that each of the structure sizes listed would be reduced ten
percent if the motion passes; and clarified that Condition No. 12,
which requires the Hold Harmless Agreement, would be modified so that
wig
an Agreement would be required
only for the City and not the Terranea Resort."
AND "Staff noted that the hearing regarding the redesign of the home on
Lot 1 would be re -noticed as a public hearing."
ref .
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2010_Agendas/MeetingDate-
2010-03-16/RPVCCA DM_2010_03_16_02_Draft_Mins_20100202.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
CITYOF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DATE: MAY 4, 2010
SUBJECT: MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION
PROJECT — UPDATE ON ATHLETIC FIELD
ALTERNATIVES
Since the transmittal of the May 4, 2010 City Council Staff Report, additional information is
being provided to the Council for consideration this evening for the following topics:
Updated Grading Information for Alternative D-1 Option Nos. 1 and 2
Clarification of Alternative D-2 Grading Quantities
Estimated Construction Costs for the Roadway Median Barrier
Updated Grading Information for Alternative D-1 Option Nos. 1 and 2 - East Campus
Athletic Field
As described in the May 4th Staff Report, Staff identified two options for reconfiguring the
layout of the athletic field originally depicted in Alternative D-1 to avoid the nearby proposed
fire access lane. To obtain better accuracy on the grading calculations estimated by Staff
for both options, Staff requested that the City Engineer review the proposed options
developed by Staff. According to the City Engineer (see attached Memo), the estimated
additional grading associated with Option No. 1 would be approximately 10,000 cubic yards
rather than the 3,000 cubic yards cited in the May 4th Staff Report, and the height of the
proposed retaining wall would be approximately 30 -feet rather than 20 -feet. As for Option
No. 2, the estimated additional grading would involve 12,000 cubic yards rather than the
4,000 cubic yards cited in the May 4th Staff Report (incorrectly shown as 3,000 cubic yards
in the original Matrix), and the height of the proposed retaining wall would be 38 -feet rather
than 25 -feet. Attached to this Memo is an updated Matrix that reflects the City Engineer's
estimated calculations for Alternative D-1 Option Nos. 1 and 2.
Staff would like to point out that it would not typically support the extent of the grading
needed to accommodate the proposed athletic field options for Alternative D-1 because the
earth movement quantities and heights of the retaining walls would typically be considered
excessive. However, given the Council's desire to further consider athletic field options,
/of- 9 13
Staff identified these alternatives as potential options because the estimated grading
quantities are within the grading quantities analyzed in the Draft EIR. Moreover, the
grading required for both options would generally be within the limits of the disturbed slope
area resulting from the remedial grading approved by the City Council at its March 31St
meeting. However, while the grading quantities associated with these two options are
within the scope analyzed in the Draft EIR, the visual impacts that could result from the
construction of retaining walls ranging between 30 -feet and 38 -feet were not analyzed in
the Draft EIR. Given that the Draft EIR concluded that the Residence Halls, which were
situated at the top of the current southern slope would result in significant and unavoidable
impacts to the site's visual character, Staff believes that an environmental analysis of the
retaining walls on the south slope would result in a similar finding of a significant and
unavoidable impact in regards to visual character. This additional CEQA analysis would
likely require re -circulation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Section 15088.5.A.1.
In summary, while Appendix D-1 Option Nos. 1 and 2 are feasible options, if the City
Council would like to further pursue these options, additional CEQA analysis and EIR
circulation would be necessary.
In addition to the above, the City Council received an email from Mr. Jim Gordon on May 2,
2010 proposing an "Option No. 3" to Alternative D-1. Essentially, Mr. Gordon is proposing
to retain the athletic field on the flat portion of the site at a finished grade elevation of
approximately 910' with the southwest corner extending over the south slope. A retaining
wall of approximately 20 -feet would be needed to support the backfill for the portion of the
athletic field extending onto the south slope. In regards to the parking spaces impacted by
this option at the east portion of the campus, Mr. Gordon is proposing that the parking lot
proposed between the athletic building and the tennis courts be expanded by shifting the
tennis courts further to the west (in the location of the athletic field approved by the
Planning Commission). This is intended to mitigate visual character impacts resulting from
the construction of a new parking lot at the west portion of the campus. Staff would like to
point out that the tennis court under this option would be placed closer to the curvature of
the roadway requiring a 20 -foot fence (rather than 10 -feet) to help contain errant tennis
balls. Similar to the Staff identified options for D-1, this alternative would also require
further environmental review along with a statement of overriding considerations to address
the 20 -foot retaining wall to accommodate the athletic field on the east side of the campus.
Clarification of Alternative D-2 Grading Quantities
On April 29th, the City Council received an email from Mr. Jim Gordon asserting that the
May 4th City Council Staff Report and attached Matrix contained errors with respect to
Alternative D-2 for grading and retaining walls, specifically with the statement "no change"
for the proposed grading and retaining walls. Staff would like to clarify that the matrix was
intended to summarize the alternatives described in the May 4th Staff Report (from what
was originally presented to the Council at the March 30th meeting) and to identify the trade-
offs for each alternative. Since there has been no change to the grading plans for the
College's proposed Alternative D-2 since the March 30th Council meeting, grading is shown
as "no change."
It should be noted that the grading plan reviewed by the Council at the March 30th and 31St
meetings, has the athletic field and tennis courts plotted according to the Planning
Commission's approval. That is with the athletic field to the west (near the curvature of
PVDE) and the four tennis courts to the east (near the proposed parking lot and athletic
building). At this time, a final grading plan has not been prepared for any of the
alternatives, including Alternative D-2, because the Council has not approved a specific
configuration for the athletic field. Anticipating that a final grading plan will need to be
prepared based on, among other things, the Council's action on the athletic field
alternatives, a condition of approval will be added to ensure that the grading quantities
noted in the final Grading Plan do not exceed the grading quantity approved by the City
Council without further review and approval by the City Council at a duly noticed public
hearing.
Estimated Construction Costs for the Roadway Median Barrier
The May 4th Staff Report provided an estimate of construction costs (ranging between
$455,000 and $857,000) for the median barrier that was based on two engineering reports
(Adams Engineering and Willdan Engineering). Since the estimated costs cited in the May
4th Staff Report are much higher than the cost (approximately $250,000) conveyed at the
April 6th Council meeting, Councilman Long requested an explanation from Staff in advance
of the May 4th meeting.
According to the City's Senior Engineer, Nicole Jules, the estimated construction costs
stated in the May 4th Staff Report for a PVDE median barrier wall are much higher than
what was presented at the April 6th meeting because the figures initially given to the
Council were very preliminary and did not factor all the engineeriny costs associated with
such a project. As such, the estimated costs attached to the May 4 h Staff Report provided
by both Willdan Engineering and Adams Engineering are estimates based on actual field
conditions, engineering judgment and construction methods. Additionally, the Willdan and
Adams reports indicate that the necessary length of the median barrier would be 1000
linear feet, whereas Staff initially thought the linear distance to be approximately 300 linear
feet. This is because without an engineering report Staff did not realize that the median
barrier would have to extend the entire length of the roadway curvature. Furthermore, Staff
did not consider construction costs involving drainage improvements that would become
necessary with the construction of a median barrier.
Based on the estimated construction costs included in the engineering reports, Staff
believes that the following are cost saving opportunities:
competitive bidding for the soft costs (35% for engineering, inspection and
construction management)
competitive bidding for construction costs
In addition to the above, Staff has also identified the following elements for each
engineering proposal where additional cost saving opportunities may exist:
Willdan Engineering - $455,400.00
• Eliminating the 2" overlay as recommended because PVDE is scheduled for
resurfacing during FY11-12 and this portion can be resurfaced during that time.
This results in a cost savings of $54,000
• Retaining the 10% contingency
The 35% for design and construction management can be reasonably reduced
through competitive solicitation of professional services. A reduction of 15% is
reasonable and could result in a cost savings of $62,799.50
Based on the above the total potential savings is estimated to be approximately
$117,403.25, for a total estimated projected cost of $337,996.75.
Adams Engineering - $857,175.00
• The unit rate used for the Type 60 barrier wall was incorrectly based on a cost of
$465 per linear foot. The actual value that should have been used is $125 per
linear foot resulting in a line item cost of $125,000. This results in a cost savings
of $340,000.
Based on the above the total potential savings for the Adams Engineering Report is
estimated to be approximately $340,000, for a total projected cost of $517,175.00
Accounting for the cost savings described above, the construction cost for constructing the
median barrier is estimated to range between approximately $338,000 and $517,000. Staff
would like to emphasize that the dollar amounts indicated are estimates based on reports
from two engineering firms and the actual construction cost for the median barrier will not
be realized until the bidding process is conducted. At that time, if the City Council wishes
to move forward with the construction of the median barrier in the location identified in the
Willdan and Adams reports, then the City Council will be asked to approve a contract with
the selected contractor and formally approve the construction of the median barrier.
Rancho Palos Verdes
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ara Mihranian, Principal Planner
CC: Joel Rojas, Director of Building, Planning and Code Enforcement
FROM: Frederick (Rick) Jones Jr.; P.E., L.S., City Engineer
VIA: E-mail, only.
DATE: May 3, 2010
SUBJECT: Marymount —Athletic Field Alternatives
(.BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to a request from Ara Mihranian, I have reviewed two alternate athletic field design
locations forwarded to me labeled "Alternative D-1 Option No. 1" and "Alternative D-1 Option
No. 2". Both design alternatives place the athletic fields at the southeast corner of the
campus. Option No. 1 shows the field to lay length wise in a northwesterly to southeasterly
orientation. Option No. 2 shows the field to lay length wise in a southwesterly to northeasterly
orientation. Both options place the fields on a portion of the site currently shown as a
combination of proposed parking lot, open space/landscaping features, and hillside fill slope.
II. DISCUSSION:
The feasibility of these options, although subject to detailed Geotechnical review, currently
depict an engineered fill slope in the same area as the optional retaining wall construction.
The presence of an engineered fill slope would normally indicate feasibility of retaining wall
construction in the same vicinity.
The retaining wall solutions may be the most desirable construction as fill slope construction
(only) would likely cause the bottom toe of the slope to begin close to Palos Verdes Drive
East, 50 to 60 feet further down the existing approximately 4.5:1 slope.
The grading quantities and retaining wall heights are as shown on the next page.
0
Marymount — Athletic Field Alternatives
May 23, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Option No. 1
Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of grading
A maximum 30 -foot tall retaining wall
Option No. 2
Approximately 12,000 cubic yards of grading
A maximum 38 -foot tall retaining wall
The alternative designs depict vertical retaining walls. Battered retaining walls that are laid
back as well staggered retaining walls may also be suitable construction techniques and would
also be subject to geotechnical review.
III. ATTACHMENTS:
Scanned copies of worksheets.
mil
Field Dimensions
Grading
Retaining Walls
Surface Material
Retractable Net
Tennis Court Fencing
Perimeter Fencing
Parking
CEQA — Noise Impacts
100 x 55 yards
(300 x 165 feet)
Approximately 10,000
3,000 cubic yards of
additional grading*
302 -0 -foot maximum
height
Synthetic Turf
20 -feet
10 -feet
42 -inches
Relocation of 40 parking
spaces to the western
portion of campus
Mitigated
100 x 55 yards
(300 x 165 feet)
Approximately 12,000
3,099 cubic yards of
additional grading*
382 -foot maximum
height
Synthetic Turf
20 -feet
10 -feet
42 -inches
Relocation of 63 parking
spaces to the western
portion of campus
Mitigated
CEQA —Visual Impacts Significant and Significant and
(parking and retaining Unavoidable Unavoidable
walls
* The additional grading quantities do not exceed the grading quantities evaluated in the Draft EIR.
100 x 55 yards
(300 x 165 feet)
No Change
(as presented to the Council at its
March 30 meeting and as
No Change
Natural Turf
30 -feet
20 -feet
6 -feet
No Change
Mitigated
Mitigated
From:
Mark R Wells [mtwells@pacbell.net]
Sent:
Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:27 AM
To:
RPV City Council; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Item 13 of the May 4, 2010 City Council Meeting Agenda
Sirs,
I am writing with comments to Agenda Item 13 of the May 4, 2010 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting.
I will support the best judgement of the majority of the members voting with regards to the approval, placement,
and mitigation of the large athletic field proposed in The Marymount College Facilitied Expansion Project.
I would prefer that some sort of physical division between the opposing lane or lanes along the curvature of Palos
Verdes Drive East, from just west of the entrance to Marymount College to a point'above' the intersection of Palos
Verdes Drive East at Ganado.
If many type of divisions available, our city has two examples within its boundaries that my provide options to use
on that curve.
Along Hawthrone Blvd. between Palos Verdes Drive North and Silver spur there is a curbed median filled with
trees that probably prevent vehicles crossing into opposing lanes.
Crenshaw Blvd. between the two roadbeds has a much more concrete type of barrier.
I would prefer a barrier similar to the one along Crenshaw but I can also consider the beauty and view benefits of
creating natural barriers that have trunks large enough to stop most vehicles from going into opposing lanes.
I strongly feel that the expenses of providing any barrier should be shared between the residents of Rancho Palos
Verdes with tax revenue and Marymount College.
I would hope that any provision approving the construction of a large field on the western side of the Marymount
Campus would contain a requirement that no use of such a field be allowed until a physical barrier is completed
between the opposing lanes of Palos Verdes Drive East in the vacinity mentioned earlier in this Email.
I can also support a elongation of the permanent fencing on the sides or ends of the large field and any tennis
courts.
I now consider any extension of the height of the supporting poles and the retractable netting to be something that
could lead to view issues, cost problems, and feasibility.
I have no plans to speak on this issue at tonight's meeting.
Thank you.
Mark Wells
1858 Trudie Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
5/4/2010
K---�RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: MAY 3, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, May 4, 2010 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
11 Emails from: Marcus and Marie O'Brien; Emad and Erica Khaleeli
13 Emails from: Robert and Joan Barry; Jim Gordon; Email and letter from
Donald M. Davis
RespectfullYslubmitted,
Carla Morreale
From: Marcus [marcus_ob@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:55 AM
To: CC@rpv.com
Subject: Do not revise Side -yard Setbacks for Pre -Incorporation Lots
Dear City Council:
This letter concerns Planning Case No. ZON2007-0037, specifically the proposed revisions
to the requirements concerning the Side -Yard Setbacks for Pre -Incorporation Lots in the
city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
As a homeowner on the verge of completing our own addition/remodel project, we are
intimately aware of the City's zoning requirements. Fortunately, our goals were modest
and the City's requirements were flexible enough to make our dream home possible.
An increase in the Side -Yard Setback requirements such as that proposed in Case No.
ZON2007-0037, would have severely restricted our options and may have forced us to add a
second story to our home. In turn, this would have greatly complicated our project
necessitating a Height Variation Application and a Neighborhood Compatibility Review.
We are concerned that with the new requirements, when our neighbors decide to remodel or
build new homes, they will opt to add more second story additions. It is clear that these
new setbacks will negatively impact the future development within the City. With more
second story additions in our neighborhood, it will impede our privacy, light and views.
We respectfully request that the City not revise the Side -Yard Setbacks for Pre -
Incorporation Lots.
Warmest Regards,
Marcus & Marie O'Brien
28040 Ella Road
RPV, CA 90275
From: Kit Fox [kitf@rpv.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:24 PM
To: 'Teri Takaoka'
Subject: FW: Side yard set back issue
Teri:
Late Correspondence for Item No. 11.
Kit Fox, mcp
Associate Planner
Citt, of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
T: (310) 5445228
F: (310) 5445293
B kiti@rpv.com
From: Erica Buck [mailto:ericarunrn@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:20 PM
To: kitf@rpv.com
Subject: Side yard set back issue
May 3, 2010
Emad and Erica Khaleeli
6121 Monero Drive
Ramcho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
We request that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes not revise the Side Yard Setback requirements for interior lots
as proposed by Planning Case No. ZON2007-0037.
An increase in the Side -Yard Setback requirements such as proposed in Case No. ZON2007-0037, would
unreasonably restrict the use of residents property. We feel that the existing Side Yard Setbacks are sufficient
and will maintain our beautiful neighborhoods.
Side -Yard Setbacks are especially critical in single story neighborhoods where flexibility is essential to resolve
space needs on the existing level. When our neighbors decide to remodel or build new homes, they will opt to
add more second story additions reducing privacy, impacting scenic views and destroying the continuity of
single story neighborhoods. It is clear that these new setbacks will negatively impact the future
development within the City.
We respectfully request that the City not revise the Side -Yard Setbacks for Pre -incorporation Lots.
Thank you for you time.
Sincerely,
Emad and Erica Khaleeli
5/3/2010
From: itsthebarrys@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:48 PM
To: CC@rpv.com
Subject: Marymount Soccer Field
Importance: High
To: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
From: Robert and Joan Barry
RE: Safety Issues concerning Marymount Soccer Field
Dear Mayor Wolowicz and Council Members:
It is our opinion that safety barriers in Palos Verdes Dr. East would be a hazard in
themselves, as well as unsightly. If the Marymount soccer field is built adjacent to the
road, there must be other measures to provide safety to the drivers. However, we feel
that the alternate site for the field is the best solution, regardless of Attorney Don
Davis, Marymount's land use counsel, declaring that if they can't have the field where
they want it they do not want it all. We feel that this was a ploy to not only get their
own way but also to discredit the City and its residents, and give them (Marymount) more
ammunition to get their initiative passed.
Please continue your good work.
Robert and Joan Barry
30770 Ganado Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
From:
bubba32@cox.net
Sent:
Sunday, May 02, 2010 1:29 PM
To:
cc@rpv.com
Cc:
aram@rpv.com
Subject:
Soccer Field Revised Alternative D-1, Option 3 Field Location
Attachments: Soccer Field Revised Alternative D-1 solution.doc
Soccer Field
Revised Alternati...
To The Mayor and Council members
Attached is a Feasible revised Field Location for your consideration this coming Tuesday
evening.
I believe it presents a fully feasible and responsive answer to the issues of safety and
aesthetic impacts previously discussed. This is a new and responsive proposal that removes
prior objections raised by Staff regarding their earlier Appendix D Alternative Location
D-1. I believe that the included illustrations and examples contained in this new
presentation have significant merit, are fully feasible and represent an environmentally
superior alternative choice.
Jim Gordon
b
From: bubba32@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:11 PM
To: aram@rpv.com
Cc: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Athletic Field Alternatives Matrix
Ara
On page 14 of the May 4, 2010 Staff Report is a Matrix of Alternatives which, I believe, contains
significant errors for the "Alternative D-2" for Grading and Retaining Walls.
"No Change" is shown for this column boxes for grading and Retaining Walls.
As I have previously submitted to the City Council, in my letter "Grading Plans Configuration
Control" I have pointed out that this Alternative D-2 changes grading quantities significantly in the
following ways;
1. The Tennis Courts are at the same elevation as the field (891.4' vs. the March 15, 2010 Preliminary
Grading & Drainage Plan of 900.29'/901' - average elevation 900.645' that is 8.145' Higher than the
Approved Tennis court elevation and thus not shown correctly in the prior approved Visualizations,
2. The Field elevation is at the previously approved elevation at 891.4' (edges) and averages 1' lower
in elevation (for Alternative D-2).
3. The Tennis court area is 120'X 240' or 28,800 sq ft and X 8.145' more feet of digging is 234,576
cubic feet of excavation, which translates to 8,688 Cubic Yards of additional (D-2) excavation for the
Tennis Courts.
4. The field itself is 300 X 165' and measures 320 X 185' with sideline areas. The D-2 field is shown at
F lower and that translates into 2,192 Cubic Yards of added excavation such that
5. The Total added excavation (compared with the March 15, 2010 Preliminary Grading & Drainage
Plan) is 10,880 Cubic Yards.
6. Based on the convention of on-site grading and a 25% effective compaction rate, the Total on-site
grading is increased by 19,041 cubic Yards (10,880 X 1.75) = 19,041 CY)
Retaining Walls:
These change significantly as well from the latest Plans;
1. The S/W corner set of retaining walls (March 15, 2010 Plan) are eliminated.
2. The new and as yet unapproved new N/S Retaining wall ( 901.4' TW) along the Northeaster side of
the Field is eliminated.
3. The previous large Retaining wall along the Northeastern side of the Tennis Courts is increased
from 914.04' TW to 916.5' TW as shown in the May 15, 2009 Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan
that was approved..
4. The previous N?W corner retaining walls for the soccer field are removed and replaced by
5. 3 Tennis Court retaining walls as follows.
a.) A N/S wall is added at the N/W corner of the revised field
4/29/2010 ca .0 f- Is
b.) An short E/W retaining wall is added at the North End of the Western Courts
c. A new Tennis Court Wall is added along the western 2/3rds of the Western Tennis Courts.
6. The proposed 30' high retractable net'is now 10' above prior reviewed and approved heights, as is
the new 20' high Tennis Court fencing (Western Courts only?) This is above the levels shown in prior
approved visualizations.
The added/changed Retaining walls do change the grading quantities, but that amount has not yet been
estimated. The removal of the Corner Retaining wall at the N/W corner of the prior field location is a
benefit in that it was very close to the roadway and required special protective measures in order to
excavate safely.
Jim Gordon
4/29/2010
Soccer Field Revised Alternate D-1 "Option 3" Field Location
The graphic below provides a Feasible Field location as Alternative D-1 —
"Option 3" for review and consideration during the May 4, 2010, City Council
Hearing.
The Revised location of the field —same identical size as proposed for the
western site along PVD E, is reconfigured and shown below; It does provide a
required Fire Lane access, and minimizes the added retaining walls and any
added excavation/fill.
W
This revised field location adds two retaining walls (red) at the S/W corner at elevation 909'. The
field would be graded at nearly that same elevation and require minimal added grading quantities.
I I P a g e
aM
• The existing field location is shown below; The proposed Option 3 location
shifts this field away from the South Shore Landslide area to the West and
South. Note the erroneous field location (dotted lines square) shown from the
Rasmussen site Plan Sheet Ai.
• Compare this existing field location with the Appendix D location proposed
initially by Staff (below) as Exhibit 2-4.
21 Page
• This is Exhibit 2-4 from Appendix D, showing the initial location proposed
by Staff of the soccer field — far bottom right. It has since been amended in
the May 4, 2010 Staff Report. There is no Fire Lane Access.
gGpS r
AS pit NE. . EP`aT
svrl
:.��
a
r
SA
Note the proximity of this relocated field to the Eastern Property line
31 Page
• Because of this relocation closer to and along the east side of the campus
and to the South Shore Landslide below, the area was then deemed to pose
an increased drainage danger to the South Shore Landslide.
• That is NOT the case with Option 3 (previous illustration) because that
field location moves the existing field AWAY from and further away from
the South Shore Landslide area. It also does NOT require a new and
lengthy retaining wall along the eastern border as this Staff location has
required.
• This Appendix D (initial Plan) also (incongruously) created an
unsustainable new Parking area at the exact location of the proposed field
along PVDE, as shown below: This is no longer necessary.
The above depiction is not necessary or appropriate and a feasible
alternative has been prepared forAlternative D-1, Option 3.
41 Page
This is the proposed Option 3 revised parking -Example only: As needed, additional
Parking spaces can be added to the West and South: This example adds 66 displaced
parking spaces
• No longer would the revised parking present any negative aesthetic
impacts. As demonstrated below, this issue has already been deemed to
present no significant impacts.
This lighting would continue to also apply to the extended parking areas shown above.
51 Page
• The tennis courts would be moved westward, but remain at their
previously visualized and approved elevation. This shifted location would
also reduce the visual impact of the proposed Tennis Court East retaining
wall — shown below; the large Retaining wall would be much lower as a
result.
This is one of the proposed giant Tennis Court Retaining Walls that would be reduced or removed
by placement of additional parking spaces on grade along PV Drive East to the West of the
proposed swimming pool and Athletic Building. This is in the same area where the Pre -School is
now located.
• Selection and Council Approval of Alternative D-1 Option 3 would also
eliminate four retaining walls as shown (in red) below:
This illustration is taken from the unapproved March 5, 2010 Preliminary Grading and
Drainage Plan
6Page
vim
• Any possible concern that might be expressed by the College regarding the
proposed new corner walls in Alternative D-1, Option 3, (also Options 1 & 2)
are groundless and have previously been addressed by the College itself (as
shown in the following Illustration from the page L-2 of the College's
Landscaping Plan foor the proposed 2 Residence Halls of 45' in height and
over 800' in length, should give the lie to concerns for any new 20' high and
70' long new retaining walls to allow construction of a revised playing field
relocated slightly to achieve many other objectives including the paramount
issue of Safety.
SEC�roN '
This is Marymount College's answer to any objectionable aesthetic impacts
of their two large Residence Halls 45' in height and over 800' in length.
• The key point at issue is that retention of the field as proposed in Alternative
D-1, Option 3, is that there would be no need to grade the proposed new field
alongside PVDE. There would be no need for any 15' roadway as proposed by
the Staff in Appendix D. The proposed field area would not be paved over. It
would not present any objectionable new aesthetic impacts from the
neighbors' point of view, especially since it would eliminate noise, safety
issues and other distraction factors from this Project.
• With regard to the "synthetic vs. natural turf" issue, the Alternative D-1,
Option 3 moves the field AWAY from the south shore landslide area,
implements engineered drainage and PREVENTS any drainage spillover onto
any steep slopes as required by DEIR Section 5.6 "5.6.4.3 UNSTABLE
GEOLOGIC UNITS SLOPE STABILITY" on page 5.6-20.
• The Option 3 moves the field AWAY from the South Shore Landslide area,
and MINIMIZES new grading at that location with the field retained at near
existing elevation levels. Additional grading is minimized both at this location
and at the PVDE location because that grading becomes no longer necessary.
71 Page _
• The City Geologist is also on record as stating that the proposed "D-2"
Location of a new field near PUDE, would also have drainage issues, even
though that field had included engineered drainage as well.
• This feasible Option 3 does not introduce any new drainage issues that have
not already been successfully in place for over 32 years.
• Therefore, if the "synthetic Turf' is to be a requirement, rather than a wished -
for improvement at the Alternative D-1 Options site locations, a fair
comparison against the D-2 site should also demand synthetic turf as well.
• No additional Safety-related netting would be required, just a revision to the
existing fencing on the West, with addition of protective fencing near the N/E
side adjacent to the residual parking there.
• Sideline capacity and available areas behind the goals would be maintained or
improved as compared with the proposed "D-2" arrangement. Plan.
• An overall savings of balanced on-site grading of approximately 35,000 Cubic
Yards would be realized, resulting in reduced Environmental and Cost
impacts.
• Safety issues would be eliminated, especially for the College's use of the field
(as is now the case) for Lacrosse activities.
• No new 30' High retractable nets would be needed. No new 20' high Tennis
Court Fencing would be required.
• No new and costly Crash Barrier would be required.
• With the recently disclosed February 2010 association by the College with the
National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), a new Safety concern
has been added to those previously considered for the Field locations near
PUDE.
• For some years now, the College has been successfully promoting a relatively
new sport of Lacrosse. This sport presents significant new and added dangers
from the type of ball used and the equipment used by the players to throw this
as a potentially dangerous missile that could easily escape the field areas to
the North, South and Western sides. The Council Members will each be
presented with an official Lacrosse Ball for their consideration of the related
dangers imposed by such field use.
• As a record of Marymount's Lacrosse team efforts, the following illustration is
a page taken from their Spring, 2009 Alumni Publication TODAY.
81 Page
►mom
MARYMOUNT LACROSSE CLUB IN SOUTHWESTERN CONFERENCE
The Marymount Lacrosse Club finished a great season this year competing in the Southwestern
Lacrosse Conference, which is comprised of 20 teams — all (except Marymount) from four-year
institutions.
Of Marymountis 18 players, W had never played lacrosse before this season.The team spent fall
training learning the rules of the game and competing in a -tournament at Nola University. Players
practiced three days a week as well as many Saturdays, to sharpen their stick skills.They met once
a month to discuss team soucture, recruitment and school outreach. By spring, the members of the
team had grown close and were ready for the challenging season awaiting them. Although the team
did not produce a winning season this year, they stayed together and fought hard every game. All
members of the team kept their spirits high and learned valuable lessons from each match.The team
earned a great deal of respect in the league for competing so well against four-year institutions.
The last game of the season proved the most memorable. With several injuries, the team was short
five players going into the match. Seven new "players" were recruited at the last minute by scouring
the residence hags. When students heard the lacrosse team needed help, tay literally dropped what
they were doing and hopped on the team bus. In only two hours, the recruits teamed the rules of
the game, were given their equlipment and suited up to lead Marymount to an amazingly close 9-7
defeat by Cal State Channel Islands. Way to go Lacrosse Club!
As illustrated, the long Lacrosse throwing sticks provide the ability to send the Lacrosse
balls long distances.
91 Page
• The planned and extensive Barrier Wall necessitated by the location of any
new playing field adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) is a significant
and costly new development that can be entirely avoided with the selection of
the Alternative D -i, Option 3.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
BARRIER WALL ANALYSIS
Note that this extensive new Barrier does not completely cover the Northern danger area
where a protected left turn lane into Casalina Drive is required.
• Recent experience has demonstrated that the proposed barrier wall will
obstruct those cars exiting Casalina Drive and turning left ont PUDE going
North. I personally witnessed a. screaming motorcycle coming uphill anround
that sharp curve that would have been obscured from view of the left -turning
Casalina resident.
10IPage
*/"
• The proposed barrier is not foolproof and does not prevent accidents caused
by errant balls. It merely serves to avoid head-on collisions and introduces
significant new dangers as well by obstructing the view of left turning
Casalina residents exiting onto PUDE going north..
• The proposed Alternative D-1, Option 3, is both feasible and environmentally
preferable to the remaining options and locations.
Adoption by the City Council of Alternative D-1, Option 3,
above, is requested, is fully feasible and provides significant
environmental benefits.
(The following Transcript is from the November 4, 2009 City Council Meeting with
Video Times as noted)
Councilman Stern: Well I guess my question and you may have answered it
and didn't understand, if they say they won't build it, even if it comes in that
that's an alternative that would lessen environmental impact where does that
leave us?
City Attorngy Luch: Well it could, again it, I'm assuming for the moment that
it is equal or greater environmental impact, it's not a problem because you're
not required to approve something that has more impact. But if in fact this
other alternative will have less impact, then the Council may be obligated, in
fact, to approve that alternative. So, I don't know because I don't know what
the environmental study will say exactly.
Councilman Stern: Are we obligated to (3:51:26) do the least environmental
impact solution?
City Attorney Lynch: Typically, the City is required to try to implement the
environmental solution that has the least environmental impacts that are
reasonably feasible to implement. There is always, (um) if it is not reasonably
feasible, then the answer is no. The question is, are there reasonably
foreseeable environmental impacts that can be mitigated through an
alternative project.
Councilman Stern: Thank you. (3:51:53)
111 Page
IAI W_ e
Marymount Counsel Donald M. Davis: (4:01:39) "CEQA only requires you to
review (a) reasonable range of alternatives that would significantly and
substantially reduce impacts." (4:01:46)
Section 21002 of the Public Resources Code adopts the policy that proposed projects
should not be approved "if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen ... significant environmental effects...."
"The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the
state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed
if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures
required by this division are intended to assist public agencies
in systematically identifying both the significant effects of
proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects. The Legislature further finds and declares
that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions
make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation
measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or
more significant effects thereof."
James B. Gordon
121 Page
/S®�15
From: Davis, Donald M. [DDavis@bwslaw.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:00 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Cc: Michael Brophy; Michael Laughlin; Scott Boydstun; Randall Fulton; Joel Rojas; Ara M; Carol W. Lynch;
David Snow
Subject: Marymount College Comment Letter - City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Attachments: Scan001.PDF
<<Scan001.PDF>>
Dear Mayor Wolowicz, Mayor Pro -Tem Long, and Councilmembers Campbell, Misetich, and Stern:
As set froth in the attached letter, Marymount College requests that the City Council take the following actions at its meeting of
May 4, 2010: (1) approve the College's application for outdoor athletic facilities on the west side of the campus; (2) reject the
east side athletic field CEQA alternatives; (3) clarify or modify the Council's direction with respect to proposed Condition of
Approval No. 136 regarding outdoor campus events; and (4) acknowledge Marymount's offer to make a contribution towards
potential City traffic safety improvement to Palos Verdes Drive East near the campus.
On behalf of the College, I look forward to discussing these matter further at the scheduled hearing.
Donald M. Davis
Partner
t dd ?tdt tsk aOW$:P SLiN. fid V
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
444 South Flower Street
Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213-236-0600 phone
213-236-2700 fax
213-236-2702 direct
www.bwslaw.com
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee. The information
transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this
email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the
designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US
IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (213) 236-0600.
5/3/2010 / o T `% 151
444 South Fiower Street - Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 9007 1-2953
voice 213.236.0600 - fax 213.236.2700
BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP www.bwslaw.com
May 3, 2010
VIA E-MAIL, & Hand Delivery
Writer's Direct Dial:
(213) 236.2702
Our File No:
04693-0001
ddavis@bwslaw.com
Steve Wolowicz, Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Re: Marymount Campus Modernization Plan: City Council Hearing of May 4, 2010
Dear Mayor Wolowicz, Mayor Pro -Tem Long, and Councilmembers Campbell, Misetich, and
Stern:
For the reasons set forth in this letter and in the record of these proceedings,
Marymount College requests that the City Council take the following actions at its meeting of
May 4, 2010: (1) approve the College's application for outdoor athletic facilities on the west
side of the campus; (2) reject the east side athletic field CEQA alternatives; (3) clarify or
modify the Council's direction with respect to proposed Condition of Approval No. 136
regarding outdoor campus events; and (4) acknowledge Marymount's offer to make a
contribution towards potential City traffic safety improvement to Palos Verdes Drive East
near the campus.
1. Approve Marymount's application for an athletic field and tennis courts on the
west side of the campus with the recommended additional netting and fence
heights.
Marymount appreciates the City Council's apparent willingness to reconsider its
denial of the College's application to build a multi-purpose athletic field on the western
portion of its campus. Approval of either of the College's athletic field proposals would be
fully consistent with the City Council's prior vote on March 31, 2010 to certify the project's
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in that the FEIR found that both the College's
original application for the field at the far westerly side of the campus and its alternative
application shifting the field slightly to the east (Alternative No. D-2), with the incorporation of
certain mitigation measures, would not result in any significant environmental impacts.
LA #4819-0299-4694 v I
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 2
As indicated in the staff report for this meeting, the FEIR recommended the use of
retractable netting that could be elevated to approximately 20 feet in height to contain errant
balls. (See Mitigation Measure TR -6.) The Council has directed staff to assess the feasibility
and potential impacts of increasing the height of the netting up to 30 feet. Staff concludes at
p.13-10 of their report that "the limited use of a retractable net, at a height of 30 -feet, would
[not] result in adverse view impacts experienced from the roadway or from neighboring
properties to the north." The College's concurs with this determination based on the facts
presented in the staff report. The College further notes that because the field is actually cut
into the site, there is a 10-12 foot height difference between the surface of the field and the
surrounding "berm" on the north side of the field, and thus less than 20 feet of netting (80%
open to light and air) would actually be exposed to public view in this vicinity. The College's
architect has indicated that it is feasible for the College to provide the suggested 10
additional feet of net height. Accordingly, if desired by the City Council, the College is
prepared to accept, as a condition of approval, providing additional mitigation beyond
Measure TR -6, in the form of retractable netting along the northwestern and southwestern
corners of the athletic field.
In terms of preferred site plans, with the additional field netting, the College hopes
that the City Council would also reconsider approving Marymount's original site plan for the
athletic field and tennis courts because it does not separate or impact the instructional and
competitive use of the tennis courts as does Alternative No. D-2.' On the other hand, if the
City Council is only willing to approve the College's other submittal (Alternative No. D-2),
which proposes to shift the field further east by placing two tennis courts at the most westerly
side of the campus, then the College requests that the fencing for these tennis courts remain
at 10 feet, or if additional fence height is desired, then such additional height should be
limited to the west and south sides of the courts, which are closest to the road, and not the
entire perimeter of the courts.
2. Reject CEQA athletic field Alternative No. D -'E as environmentally inferior and
infeasible.
Marymount was surprised and disappointed to see that significant additional time and
resources were spent trying, but ultimately failing, to find a configuration for an athletic field
on the east side of campus under Alternative No. D-1 that would not result in significant new
and unavoidable environmental impacts. As stated on pages 13-6 and 13-8 of the staff
report, each of the two additional alternative field configurations studied would necessitate
placing additional parking where it would create a significant aesthetic impact to the
College's neighbors to the north. Accordingly, the City Council has no legal authority under
CEQA to recommend any of the variations on Alternative No. D-1.
See attached original field site plan and cross-sections showing difference in grade between the field
and PVDE.
LA #4819-0299-4694 v l
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 3
Under CEQA, a project alternative may only be considered where it: (1) offers
substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal; and (2) may be feasibly
accomplished in a successful manner considering economic, environmental, social and
technological factors involved. (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21002, 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines
§ 15364; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 565.)
Because none of the three alternative site plans analyzed under Alternative No. D-1 fully
avoids significant effects on the environment based on the evidence presented by staff, the
first prong of this test is not satisfied, and therefore under CEQA, no further consideration of
these alternatives is warranted. (See Public Resources Code § 21002.1 and CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.6; see also Mann v. Community Redevelopment Agency (1991) 233
Cal,App.3d 1143, 1151 [alternative properly rejected due to lack of evidence demonstrating a
substantial environmental benefit].)
For the record, Marymount offers the following additional potential environmental
impacts as grounds to reject the two further configurations for Alternative No. D-1 analyzed in
the staff report. Marymount is compelled to do so because the staff report omits some
potentially significant issues previously raised by staff under very similar circumstances with
respect to the College's proposal to construct residence halls and an athletic building in the
same general vicinity.
• The alternatives would require construction on a man-made extreme slope,
which activity staff has previously discouraged and recommended that the
Planning Commission not support with respect to the College's application for
the residence halls.
• The alternatives would require significant grading of the extreme and natural
slope in order to construct retaining walls at heights of 30-40 feet,2 which
activity would be inconsistent with General Plan Urban Environment Element
Policy 11 [control alteration of natural terrain).
• Retaining walls with heights up to 30-40 feet running the length or width of the
field and extending down over the slope would appear to introduce a new
visual character impact far greater than the minimal intrusion of the athletic
building that staff previously recommended be pushed back 10 feet from the
top of the slope.
2 Although the staff report estimates the maximum retaining wall heights at 20-25 feet, the College's
consultants believe the resulting heights would be 30-40 feet (based on a surface elevation of the field
of about 908' or 910'.
LA #4819-0299-4694 v I
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LL?
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 4
According to the College's engineering geologist, Associated Soils
Engineering, Inc., the use of retaining walls in this area would likely require a
caisson and grade beam foundation system at depths on the order of 1 to 1.5
times the height of the proposed walls. This could introduce significant new
geologic and soil issues, and these potential new construction impacts would,
at minimum, need to be evaluated for their significance due to the proximity of
the retaining walls to adjoining residential properties.
Finally, with respect to the "feasibility" prong of the CEQA-test for project alternatives,
these configurations are not feasible for the College from a practical planning standpoint or
economically. The western portion of the campus allows Marymount flexibility to alter the
configuration of the field should such future need arise. The proposed east -side
configurations offer no such flexibility, as any alteration to the field would, at minimum,
require the construction of costly new and higher retaining walls.
In terms of costs, the west -side field can be made of natural grass and is estimated to
cost less than $500,000. An athletic field on the east side of campus, according to the
College's construction management firm (Stegeman and Kastner, Inc.), would add
incremental construction costs in excess of $1.6 million to this figure due to the costs
associated with the use of synthetic turf (approx. $850,000) and the grading and extra
construction needed for a field resting on massive retaining walls that extend over a slope.'
In sum, the lack of any superior environmental benefits to an east -side field and the
infeasibility of such a plan have been readily apparently to the College since the outset of this
project, which is why the College has only applied for and is only prepared to construct an
athletic field on the west side of its campus. Marymount respectfully requests that the City
Council also accept these facts and approve the College's application to construct an athletic
field and tennis courts on the west side of campus, with the additional mitigation measures
proposed by staff.
3. Amend Proposed CUP Condition No. 136 establishing a new cap on outdoor
campus events, including religious services.
At the hearing on March 31, 2010, Marymount requested that the City Council either
reject or modify the changes being proposed by staff to CUP Condition No. 136 as it was
approved by the Planning Commission.
3 See attached Stegeman and Kastner letter dated April 30, 2010.
LA 114819-0299-4694 vl
BURKL, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 5
The condition approved by the Planning Commission read as follows:
136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment, with the exception of annual graduation
ceremonies, shall be prohibited unless a Special Use Permit is obtained. Such
activities and other outdoor events should attempt to be located as far away from
residential areas as possible.
Subsequent to such approval, in their report of September 12, 2009, staff proposed to
amend the condition to establish a cap on the number of outdoor events that could take
place on campus using amplified sound pursuant to a special use permit as permitted under
the current CUP.
Here is the amendment offered by staff:
136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment for outdoor eventsshalI 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 12 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 .
In the early morning hours of April 1, 2010, Mayor Pro -Tem Long made an omnibus
motion that attempted to address all of the College's concerns regarding the CUP. Without
explanation, the request to amend this condition was denied. This result is inconsistent with
the City Council's general position not to change existing conditions where there is no
evidence to support such changes such as the appellant's attempt to restrict the approved
campus hours of operation. Here, staff has never offered any substantive explanation as to
the need for such a cap, other than its apparent recognition there was no cap on outdoor
events. This amendment is a particularly unwarranted intrusion on campus operations due
to the fact that the City already has in place a vehicle to monitor such events in the form of
the Special Use Permit requirement.
Although the SUP process creates an added burden on the College, Marymount has
lived with this process for two decades, in part, because changes can be made
administratively by staff in a relatively prompt manner. The proposed arbitrary cap on
events, however, would require a discretionary approval and noticed public hearing before it
could be amended should the College need a add a single additional event. Accordingly, the
College requests that as part of its direction to Staff on the preparation of the final project
resolutions that these staff changes be deleted altogether or modified as set forth below
to allow a more reasonable number of events (e.g., 35 events),
LA 114819-0299-4694 v]
� �� ,,
BURKE, WILUAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 6
Here is Marymount's proposed revision:
136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment for outdoor eventsshall be prohibited
unless a Special Use Permit is obtained. Prior to September 1s' of each year, the
College may request an annual Special Use Permit to conduct no more than 35
outdoor events that include amplified sound during the next 12 months (ending
August 31). Such activities and other outdoor events should attempt to be located as
far away from residential areas as possible.
4. Marymount supports the recommended traffic safety improvements proposed
for Palos Verdes Drive East in the vicinity of the College identified in the
Preliminary Study Report previously accepted by the City Council, and would
be willing to make a significant contribution towards the inclusion of a concrete
median barrier as part of such City project.
As a matter separate from the College's proposed campus modernization plan, the
College has reviewed the Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) Preliminary Study Report
("Report") commissioned by the City and subsequently accepted by the City Council earlier
this year. The College was at the time, and remains, supportive of the recommended safety
improvements for the segment of roadway between the College and Ganado Drive, which
include:
• Reduce the width from four lanes to two lanes.
• In conjunction with the lane reduction, provide a two-way left turn lane.
• In conjunction with the lane reduction, provide right turn/deceleration lanes on the
southbound side, where feasible.
• Install bike lanes on both sides of the street.4
Marymount understands that during the public meetings on the draft Report some
residents actually suggested the construction of a concrete median barrier along the curve
between the College and Ganado Drive, but such an improvement was ultimately not
included in the adopted Report.
The College further understands that the City Council may have a renewed interest in
the potential inclusion of a median barrier along this segment of PVDE as part of its future
roadway safety improvement project, and the College has reviewed with interest the
feasibility analyses and cost estimates for such a median prepared by.Willdan Engineering
and Adams Engineering that were included in the agenda packet.
4 See Report at p.85
LA 04819.0299-4694 v 1 7 &� P
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Marymount College Comments
City Council Meeting of May 4, 2010
Page 7
Of the two studies, the second median barrier option proposed in the Willdan study
appears to be the most compatible with the safety improvements that have already been
endorsed by the City Council in the Report, and also appears to be both feasible and cost-
effective. In reviewing the breakdown of Willdan's $455,400 cost estimate for this option, the
costs directly attributable to the addition of a concrete barrier (i.e., excluding the pre-existing
road narrowing, lane restriping, and drainage work) appear to be on the order of
approximately $100,000.
Marymount has had a long-standing desire to see traffic safety improvements made
to PVDE in the vicinity of the campus. To that end, the College would be prepared to
contribute up to $200,000 towards the construction of a concrete median barrier in this
segment of PVDE along with the related safety measures previously identified and approved
by the City Council in the Report if the City proceeds with such a project. If subsequently
desired by the Council, the College would be willing to confirm this offer as part of a more
formal contribution agreement.
in conclusion, Marymount appreciates the Council's consideration of the four matters
set forth in the letter, and trusts that the scheduled hearing is truly the last hearing before the
Council takes its long-awaited final action on the FEIR and requested entitlements for
Marymount's campus modernization plan.
Sincerely,
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
6,1S
DONALD M. DAVIS
Attachments: Stegeman and Kastner letter dated April 30, 2010 (alternative field costs)
cc: (Via E -Mail only)
Dr. Michael Brophy
Michael Laughlin, Psomas
Joel Rojas, Community Development Director
Ara Mihrananian, Principal Planner
Carol Lynch, City Attorney
Dave Snow, Assistant City Attorney
LA #4819-0299-4694 v 1
® /!
J •r rr
3` iit •" �� ��
4 n: is
06
• : a � tll �
Mill
Vii: , .....
w
O i Q
:,;
"i':
Tit
p• ry
lu
lu
t •(�-_ w
�i»i�==•
�,I;i.l i ILL z � �j � cilli, ,=i � .Z• �p �.I t is
it
if=s h Z 1.' F•; -T u. ie i,:
m
1
{
> `'li? = i i• .:
.. fi,.i f i i�4€Kii:f: � Q`x� � � � � '::iiii:;. :�• u:
;�! •lii� r �. V V � \ ..J y;?u � T V � O : �::r. �3 i ; ::
- �:a:if::'i�, fit: � � ' �'�:•';� ' i F:i ;[
C7 a C5 O
it:
Q
N O00 fp � �y tT1 .SY
LA Cl 00 00 ;„ a
W1.
LW
0 0" o a : Q
d' N O
07 O7 01 W ; ail f�� =•F : V
G
i1.
i x,ss5M
d0 N .... 0 000 S00
Ot Qi Cf 00 00
y4yomwwl aInd
DEVELOPMENU, P -OJE CI AND CGNST.R3CT10N MANAGEMENT
Apd130, 2010
Mr. Don Davis
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Subject: Marymount College, Palos Verdes
Campus Improvement Plan Project
Dear Don:
We have made a preliminary review of the alternate athletic tiled layouts proposed by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes M the Staff report for the May 4 2020 public hearing on the Appeal of the Marymount
College Facilities Expansion Project. As requested we have developed a preliminary conceptual
construction cost estimate as the incremental cost of the City proposed alternate plan D-1, Option 2,
compared to the construction cost of the athletic field in the configuration included in the FEIR. This
conceptual cost estimate address only the athletic field and does not include any costs for redesign or
additional costs to address other programmatic scope displaced by the proposed afiemate design.
Our initial estimate incremental construction cost for the alternate plan D-1, Option 2 is approximately
$1,650,000. We can provide a more accurate estimate through development of additional information on
this proposed alternate, the rough order of magnitude of cost should not significantly.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
R. Randall Fulton
Executive Vice President and Principal
2601 Oc; an F'r:ak Suite 300 Sui> n f-Ainic;r, CA 904U-51 (3 3%) 4,150-9010 PAX (31 0) raj;? =tiht1 Scin iKh
471.13 :;C. .;;r:c:::iaitG . yl rIE•;a,CtnIC't. CA4.. $g �,�... . 6• . 7an F,:i.;,,•�,,.taf>; wi10's.,.;r•�:K:�;��:�x:;..,•;,7U-k.cc��;: