20141202 Late CorrespondenceRECEIVED FROM a.Wn !ilJ?(d01\ ,,~\1:,
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD ATTHE:
COUNCIL MEETING OF 1).. / :i.. / 1+
CFP!CE o~ rn~ O!TY GLERK
QAf'll,.A .M§fi~E!AbE. CJrY CLERK
Subject: Marymount -City to Resume Processing the Atheltic Field Reconfiguration Project
cm TO RESUME PROCESSING THE ATHLETIC FIELD RECONFIGURATION PROJECT
On September 9, 2014, the City recelved a letter from Mr. Davis, legal counsel for Marymount ca11romia University,
requesting the City resume processing Marymount's application to reconfigure the 2010-Coundl approved Athletic
Reid (CUP No. 9 Revision "E"). The processing of the application was placed on hold in February 2014 at the request
of the University to allow additional time to respond to questions pertaining to the netting raised at the January 21,
2014 City Council meeting on the Draft MND . The September 9th letter includes new/additional Information regarding
the application request, such as requesting to Install permanent netting rather than retractable netting and the offer
to Install a mock·up of the proposed netting.
Oick here to view the September 9, 2014 letter from Mr. Davis
Staff is reviewing the submitted information and developing a tentative processing schedule which will posted on the
City's website within the next few weeks.
Inqui ries should be directed to Ara Mihranian , Project Planner, at 310-544·5228 or via email at aram@rgv .. com
~ ·-'~ . ..... ,
11/24/2.014
1. You already Did!
RESOLUTION NO. 201G-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CfTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES TAKING A UNANIMOUS POSmON IN OPPOSITION TO THE
MARYMOUNT INrnATIVE CERTIFIED FOR THE NOVElmER 2. 2010
BALLOT.
Whereas, the Marymount Initiative, a voter eponsored lnltiallva pniparad
by Marymount College, a private liberal arts college, waa aubmlttsd ID the City
Clerk on Tuesday March 2, 2010:
Whereas, Iha City recognizes the right of the votera to use the Initiative
proce18 when it is used to advance the public health. l8f8ly and welfare:
Whlnaa, on June 3, 2010, the City Clerk certified that aufllctant
signatures on pellol'8 Md been oblalned to quaHfy the Initiative for a special
election:
Wheran, the City Council, at a public meeting on June 15, 2010, Ofdered
a special election to be held on the Initiative and consolidated the special election
with the November 2. 2010 election;
Whereas, on June 15, 2010, the City Council received a report on lhe
differences between the Marymount lnltlatlve and the City Council-approved plan
for the expansion of the M8fYm)Ont campus. That evening. the City Council
received additional staff reports, presentations, updates and extensive public
comments thereon:
Whereas, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on June 15,
2010, to cons5derwhether or not to take a-position on the MaiYmount measure in
light of the difrerences between the Marymount~sponsored Initiative and the
Marymount plan approved by the City Council and the effects of each upon the
community;
0) The Initiative wauld return tM Alhletlc Field to ... original location
sixty fMt farther to the w.t, rwmovtng th• bufr9r.
E) The lnlllallve Ellml...._ CondHlona lmpoMd to Minimize Neptlve
Coll9equencn Of the Pro)ect on the Rnldenta. In order to protect the
residents of the City, the City Council imposed conditions to mitigate
negative impacta of the Marymount expansion plan. Soma of the
mitigation measures are modified or eliminated by the lnlliatlve, to the
harm of the residents of the City.
C!tV to Resume Processing of the Athietl(
Field Reconfiguration Proiect 2
5.City's General Plan Policy No. 14
prohibits encroachment on scenic views
4124/2014
5.4.2 The City's General Plan includes the followmg policies: "Urban
Environment Element lnstitutiona.I Activity Policy No. 6 -Review the loca.tion and site
design of future lnstib.ltional uses very carefully to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses ;
Urba n Environment Element Residential Activity Policy No. 14-Prohibit encroachment oo
existing scenic views reas onab ly expected by neighboring resid en1s; Uman Environmen t
Element Residential Activity Policy No . 15-Enforce height controls to further lessen the
possibility fOI' view obstructions ; Urban Environment Element Reaeational ActMly Polley
No . 11 -Encourage publ.le use of institutional reaeation raclllties wh ere possible .•
5.4 .3 The conditions placed on the use of the netting, including the limitation
on hours of use and the retractable nature of the netting , support the General Plan policies
cited in the previous finding .
5.4.4 The proposed athletic field net and tennis court fencing are not
contrary to the General Plan . This finding can be made.
C :ty iO Resurne Processing of thti AthlPt1c
Field Reconfornration ProJett 6
6. "The site is of adequate size to accommodate an
athletic field .. provided that it is moved further to the
east, with two tennis courts on either side, because a
field so configured, would not result in safety impacts."
li24/2
2.1.9 The athletic field and tennis courts are set into the grade thus reducing
their visibility from neighboring properties and from the public roadway. Although the
retaining walls for these facilities exceed the height limits established by the Development
Code , the additional Grading Permit findings can be made , as discussed below, to warrant
approval of the facilities.
2.1.10 The City Council finds that the site is of adequate size to
accommodate an athletic field in addition to the other components of the project, provided
that it is moved further to the east, with two tennis courts on either side, because a field so
configured, would not result in safety impacts on Palos Verdes Drive East.
1229056.4
C1tv to Re'.ume Procec;smg of the Ath1et1
Resolution No. 2010-42
Page 6 of 31
7.CUP Condition 7 requires compliance
with the approved ''D-2'' Athletic Field Plan
6) The project development shall conform to the specific standards contained in
these Conditions of Approval or , if not addressed herein, shall conform to the
appropriate devetopment and operational standards of the Rancho Palos Ven:tes
Municipal Code \RPVMC1.
7) The project. inciuding stte layout, the building and appurtenances, and signage
throughout the site , must be constructed and maintained in substantial
compliance with the plans reviewed and approved by the City Council , on March
31 , 2010 and May 4, 2010 (Athletic Field Altemative 0-2}, and stamped
APPROVED by the City with the effective date of the Notice of Decision . Prior to
any submittal to Building and Safety. the applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Director a complete set of the revised plans (such as , but not
limited to , architectural , grading, landscaping, and lighting plans) that reftect the
Council's final decision.
,..AA'T lAL. ~Ile P\.Al"
S£JrrLE> 1•.eo·-c•
~ .......... ,~.._....:..,..
.. *' !A/20
~COlLEGE f.\CUTIES EXPANS IOfl PRO.ECT
1
& ll.\CHEl.O.Ol'AAl$OEGA!f-.W ·a~-•o
'-'-'·· i =--Athletic Field Altematlve ID. D·2 Detai led Site ,._
, EtillllllH
Cirv [O Resun1e Processing of the A.thlt~[ic
l=!efd f~cconffgdr.at~o ··: Proje~:.t g
8.Marymount defaulted on their Approved
Athletic Field entitlement and it is gone now
Don Davis said "notwithstanding the
expiration of Phase 1, the applicant has
the ability to construct an athletic field if
the currently requested CUP amendment
is approved by the City Council."
On May 7, 2013 City Attorney Carol
Lynch Rejected Marymount's
arguments that their application of
October 12, 2012, provides the ability to
construct an athletic field despite
project-imposed (Condition 60a) time
limits. (Lapsed September 30, 2013!)
It is important to note that on September 30, 2013, Phase 1 of the Marymount Facilities
Expansion project approved by the City Council in June 2010 expired. Phase 1 included,
among other things, the construction of a new athletic field. The current application to
reconfigure the 2010 approved athletic field was submitted to the City in October 2012,
prior to the expiration of Phase 1. Thus, notwithstanding the expiration of Phase 1, the
applicant has the ability to construct an athletic field if the currently requested CUP
amendment is approved by the City Council. ·
.l..-41 2~/.20.i.4 C'.tv to Resurne Proct::s·-:infl of the A.thietlC
Fieid •.:teconfigurat;o11 Pro!ect
9.Testimony to City Council regarding Errant Balls in
his yard April 17, 2012 refutes Application
• Staff is also well aware of testimony given on April 17, 2012 by
neighbor Mike DeNardo, (to Council member Jim Knight), that
his real life experience with the adjacent Castle Field use by
Marymount students resulted in "enough soccer and lacrosse
balls that could fill this Room":
JUST
SAY
NO!
[]
• This direct evidence contradicts the anecdotal review
conducted in rhe IS MND (Errant Balls ) that seeks to
demonstrate otherwise -
• Just take a look at the trees and Nets protecting Mike 's home
(righ t ) from the invas ion of all those room-filling errant balls -
1!/ 24. 2014 ..:lty to Resume: Processing of the Athletic
Field Reconf1£1.uration Pro1ect
_Q
10.Mitigation Measures AES-5 and TR-9 are not
replaced (as CEQA requires) with equivalent or more
stringent measures in th~--~:~ised Field As:ation . .;:"·~·,~ 'n •
lilloltyml;)Ont c~a.g* Fit,1ttl~ &p~n•ion PJot-tl .............-.
En .. ·ira11memallmp.c1 A•JWl1 ~ il&-__ -----------
Wil'9ii'U\~,.
4
-... _,..... -.. ........ ---~
.. .._. .. ~, J
•11t.ta. O.U. RenWI' .. ~
hr.M •M ~> lk .;'Oi l>
1ty to Re~ume.: Proce--:.c,1ng of the Athlet1
F1elct Reconfiguration Pro1ect
"
-... .....tlllf~ --~
ltft.otutlo111*'.l01~
Emfo;rt •
j;";
W..l')'ITI OU llLCol}eg• F•cllhlcS E1.p•11sl o 11 Pro~f
Env1r o 11mel\lal ltnoo1(.'.r R&pa l1
....... Vt..i ... lttllUld~~ ---......... 1'.11.lv ~'
MtlpU~ Mor11tt111ac-.i Anpor1:1rtff'locram
"I
11. BONUS! has Marymount
August 26, 2010
without ANY Athletic Field
Athletics • since
~~ ~
Men's Soccer Schedule --Thl..ol'1.A'"f,.l.6&:tl fll'lbrt-fllGdk'~r-t~
MOl".Al..lol.Dil ~lll~Uf'M"ffS•t'r
l'r: Sc'" .~~ ~SQUl/~~it,mer114
s.t~llrl\ (J ~nCkttp(hmlf,,..,CdleiJt
~~ S.pl l.4iJ~ @ W1ilwri lf'~\Oolll \J~t~
5~~-l&u. ft\J1~rOU1'1.Mef"S«V
luH Sept Jttl ~...,.'foll(WO>.l!JA......-ii('f
TNin. S.p~ lln! ~~"'~
5',ir:t~pl.J6th t.l..-,.1u"'-"'"il
!wl Oct l/1{! f!t £mD,.,..~ ~W'~. AZ
~r.Ocl-lt.'VI It ~I S.f.11 a. Uti...er\o'f\i
7hl.in.On l.tth ~lftv.\)fGfG1.F-.-.~1f!tSl.)l(A}
s.t Ocl l3nJ ~~t~~(.Qol~J.I
-""""' (l~t ~teUnN ~lol.Jl(O'I.
t:r1Ckt ~ ~U'llwr-..tro1.trnt11Ui
--l-00~
?:00.om
7 OOpm
5.31111"11
Jt-.:lptr>
'""'"'
.;.;30:~
'""""
7:00pni
!:OO~m
ll.OOMn
""'""'
'""pm
lOOpt'\
100~11'r
2014-2015
MEN'S SOCCER SCHEDULE
.. ,.., llMSlERlii COU.K.t:
\CAi..f':
\/~~..,.,.
~\
-.. ~
c:.i.uF(RM !l 4TI:
~---=
~SlATE
~~~
~ ~" -.iTMIU.
.,.,
~--""""'
"" """""' -"""" '2..l
""'"""' ,_._,
L l -2
""'""'"
_ _....
""""'" -"'""'
-.:;iJ ... --
W•-O
"""""" -"""'
w ..
~ ......
~ .........
"'"" ~~
~~il-. \.1a1 irn.:r:-.
,;l ._
"""'
..,,.,
CAL PAC
been playing NAIA
to the Present day
"'14'015
WOMEN'S SOCCER SCHEDULE -...,, -
."Jt~a~
~SQ.·~~
""""""" ....
~~~~ ,=-
OIOl.A~.":Jil#.1
~'""'°"';.,~Mil.'!);
U~llf'~f
··~ fttt ~.:.£Q-()loiflollon0
(:'
ll··~~._..all.MC)~n'
~·)
~~~1.::...:.s ,
I ~
llllOll.t:lb'.lu.LG~,
o~~~
"""" -
--=-~ ....., --
w ?• --
u• ---~
""' ---~
"'.!.---
~:.~
w>•
~--·=-
~~~
'ilCALF )
'1.IF i
"""""
ACOO
~
.......,.,
;( CAtPAC
GAIETOSE
""5C>Ell.LEO
""'
L1-2
:.--
~
11/24/2014 .... o Resume Procec;~1ng of the Athlet1
Fi~ld P.econf1gurC,t1on Pro1e 1.2
Marymount Athletic Field Expansion Project
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
fragments between the L.A. airport and Palos Verdes, the airport is the largest remaining site
where the species is found. Per recent communications with Richard Arnold (El Segundo Blue
Butterfly lO(a)l(a) Permitted Biologist), neither ashy-leafed nor California buckwheat provide
suitable habitat for the butterfly. Given the lack of suitable host plants within the project site,
this species is considered to have a low potential to occur.
Monarch butterflies may use the eucalyptus trees onsite for perching; however, given the low
number of trees, sparse canopy cover, and location on an unprotected hill, the trees do not
provide the protected wooded habitat required of overwintering/roosting sites. Coastal One
occurrence (CNDDB Occurrence 338) is tracked approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the project
site; however, the roost site was lost when trees were removed circa 1985. TI1e potential for
monarchs to breed onsite is low, given that the species is dependent on milkweed plants
(Asclepias spp.), upon which they lay their eggs. No milkweed species were observed onsite
during the site reconnaissance survey. Given the lack of suitable roosting/ overwintering
habitat and a lack of host plants within the project site, this species is considered to have a low
potential to occur.
Native birds protected by the FGC and MBTA are expected to nest within non-native and
native vegetafion onsite. The proposed project would include removal of non-native and
native vegetation including a small grove of eucalyptus trees at the southeast comer of the
athletic field. Potential direct impacts (loss of inctividuals) could occur to birds nesting onsite if
the disturbance/ clearance of nesting habitat occurs during the breeding/ nesting season. In
addition, indirect impacts such as construction noise, dust, and other human disturbances may
deter breeding/nesting behaviors if construction occurs during the breeding/nesting season.
A 30-foot high retractable net would be installed along the north, west, and south sides of the
field. The athletic field would be below grade and the netting would extend 13 to 22 feet above
the grade of the slope surrounding the athletic field and would be erected when there is a
possibility of errant balls or objects leaving the field during use. When not erected, the netting
would be enclosed in storage containers. When fully extended, the netting would have holes
approximately 1.5 square inches in size and would. be of a moderately heavy gauge so that it is
visible when erected. The field would not have _exterior lighting so nets would be used
exclusively during daylight hours. Given that the netting would be visible to wildlife, would
be used intermittently only during daylight hours and would be completely contained when
not in use, the netting is not expected to entangle wildlife.
Based on the discussion above, the project would have a potentially significant impact on
nesting birds. Mitigation Measure BI0-2 from the previously Certified FEIR requires that a pre-
construction nesting bird survey be conducted prior to the onset of construction activities
(including vegetation removal) onsite. Although the project is not expected to impact special
status species, BI0-1 from the previously Certified FEIR requires that a general preconstruction
survey must be conducted and must focus on sensitive species with potential to occur onsite,
specifically butterflies. The proposed project's potential impact related to special status species
would be incrementally greater than those of the approved project studied in the Certified
FEIR, due to the slightly larger area of disturbance and removal of non-native trees, and would
be potentially significant. However, like the approved project, impacts would be less than
significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1 from the Certified EIR and
Mitigation Measw·e BI0-2 from the Certified FEIR as modified below.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
55
Marymount Athletic Field Expansion Project
Comments and Concerns with the Revised Draft
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on RPV's Letter to President Michael Brophy of March 8, 2013,
initiation of any EIR Review Process is inappropriate based upon 1.)
Marymount's continued failure to comply with required information
submittals as listed, and 2.) the lapse of Phase I components post
September 30, 2013, described in Condition No. 60a, "those uncompleted
items become null and void and cannot be completed as part of the
following phase. (August 2, 2011 City Council Staff Report)
1. There is no Field to modify. There is no Master Plan remaining.
Start over, a single element of an overall plan cannot be broken into
bite-sized pieces for isolated environmental review (Orinda, et
sec.).
2. Marymount President Brophy, in an exchange with Councilman
Doug Stern on the evening of March 30, 2010, acknowledged that
the modified (approved) field is actually safer than the one
Marymount proposed and would accept if it came to a denial of any
field.
llPage
PARTIAL 511C PLAN
SC.ALE• 1"•60'-0'
Source: Rasmussen & Associates, September 28, 2009.
I
i
t
I
)
\
\
\
I
\
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE PROGRAM• EIR APPENDIX D ~ Athletic Field Alternatlve No. D·2 Detailed Site Plan
CDN•ULTINQ
Exhlblt21
21Page
March 30, 2010 City Council Hearing
Councilman Doug Stern asks Marymount President Michael Brophy,
which Field is safer?
(Video Log times in parentheses)
Councilman Stem: (03:36:37) "Now let me try again. Does Marymount have a
view as to whether the original (field) location -the one that sites the athletic
field closest to PV Drive East -is safer than the modified plans which would move
it an additional 60' -the one we saw most recently?"
Dr. Brophy: "In the second plan there is no need for netting." (03:37:11)
Councilman Stem: (03:37:25) "Would you have a view if we said we move it 60'
away from PV Drive East and require netting have a view as that is a safer
outcome than you have proposed in your original plan? (03:37:42)
Dr. Brophy: I think that you would find after 2 hours (of PC hearing time) you get
to the place where that would need to happen, if an appeal would be denied, the
answer is yes." (03:37:55)
And that is what was approved in Resolutions 2010-41 & 2010-421
• On May 7, 201 3 the City Council was asked to approve and
initiate a Professional Services Agreement without disclosure
that Marymount had failed to provide the required grading
information associated with the Master Plan Phasing: 11 The
College's January 25, 2013 submittal raised a concern with the
proposed grading as it relates to the Campus Master Plan as a
whole." Specially, the proposal to export 17,625 cubic yards of
earth, which, according to the approved grading plan was to be
31Page
repurposed on-site for the Campus Master Plan, raised the
question as to how this revision affects the overall project." ,
and any justification or basic rationale for importing/exporting
grading materials contrary to Condition 67 has not been
provided by the 15/MND, contrary to CEQA.
• The Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Rincon
Consultants, is premised upon Marymount College's
Application for a Revised Athletic Field Dated October 29, 2012
as prepared by Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development
and approved by RPV City Manager Carolyn Lehr in the May 7,
201 3 Staff Report.
• On page 2-42, thereof, the Service Agreement states that
"Marymount seeks the following three revisions to its current
Conditional Use Permit .. "
• FACT: Marymount actually sought four Revisions, not three!
41Page
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting
May7, 2013
Th is is a significant change
MAJqMQUNT COLLEGE CA15PUS MASTER PL.AN
PROPOSED REV1819NS TO TttE PLANS FOR THE ATHLETIC FIELD
AND A REQUEST FOR EXIENBIONS OF THE APPROVAL PERIODS
FOR THE REMAINING APPROVED FACILITIES ALONG WITH
OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS
JO THE llARYMOUNJ CUP
(Propoud Rev191on "F" lo CUP No. t)
You cannot Un-ring this Bell!
IDlmlllllillllD
MwymounlCcllege II _king lour-1 lo Ila IU18ftl C'"1dilionll UM Permit
No 9 rcuP") •PPfCMld by .,.. Cly In 2UTD .. Rrmlon "E"" ID Ille CUP. Fllll,
Mlrymounl Is P-'"11 lo remoYI lhll lour lsnnll COUlll opproved lot Ille wetlam
por1lon ol lhe -In Ofder lo -rge lhe ploying .... """" rnulti-iMJrpooe ·--r-Flold"l onc1 to -. ""' 1U11aco '"""'"" o1 ""' -F1oJc1 rram "'"""' -to oynthollc turf. second. Mlryn10lllll ls ~ 1n --l lo
CUP ~ o1 Applavll No 138 lo -up lo 11n1 ovon1t (indUOlng 1J!W1U811on
........-) wilh omplifiod IO<ll1d on lhe -Flokl under llt onnull Speoill lJle
Ponnll TNnl, Morymount 1a ~ 11111 "'" amo Plf1odo or lho opproYlls 1o -iah-1JClstingllcililieland_lhe_llJll'fO'l9d __
Conditloo ol App<ovll No. 80 bo revised lllhough lhe actual overlll C0111truction time
period l'orlle c:onotrucllon-wil 1111111in II lhlfly·llx(36)-Flnllly, Mllymount
Is niquntlng I millon lo l1o WMllng ol Condition ol Approvol No 711 to fllOl9
acantoly -lho llrnilotion on ltnJClurel tor prlmlry occtlP"lley In lhl -
<leologlc Selbld< AIM
• Specifically, (the missing revision requested is) "Marymount is
requesting that the time periods of the approvals to demolish
certain existing facilities and construct the new approved
facilities under Condition of Approval 60 (a) be revised .. as
Phase One B .. (that) includes demolition of existing buildings,
further grading .. and .. the .. athletic field. that shall be completed
no later than September 30, 2020."
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting _______ ... .,... • .....,...,..... Ma 7 2013 _ .... _ ... ________ y '
._ ..... ,.... ......................... -.... ,,.
--~~--.. ~~ ................... ..... ·-:-.:=:=:.= .. --·· This is a Significant Change .......... _ ............. ..... . ,.,.,_ ....... ~_... .... ~..---............. .............. ._ ... ,... ..... _.. __
_____ ltft:J_.........., .. ~----
"~ "-D9 11w-~, "-CIN IL.._ __ ., __
..... ~ .. B..!IUCU~ .. -..... ~ .... --..... --.
New proposed Phase One
A and Phase One B ........ _
o -~ ..
.. ••
IO ..
IO
"°
... ... ... ...
• Phase One B extends two years beyond the 8 year end date
approved in 2010. The Library completion date (new Phase
Two) is shifted by 1 3 years and Athletic Building completion
date (new Phase Three) is moved by 1 8 years to (respectively)
Sf Page
September 30, 2025 and 2030. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) is inappropriate as it fails to address the
overall project environmental impacts.
• A subsequent Application, submitted January 25, 2013 by
Marymount College, removed this re-Phasing request. A later
letter from Don Davis to RPV Staff dated February 27, 2013 (on
pages 3 & 4) acknowledged that the College fully intends to
proceed with (Phase 2 and 3) entitlements "regardless of any
actions taken or not taken by the City Council on or before
September 30, 2013, with respect to any remaining Phase 1
grading."
• As referenced in a recent Court Decision, Katzoff v. California
Department of Forestry, Filed 1/28/2010, in Orinda Assn v.
Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145 (Orinda), at
pp. 1145, 11 71 .); "A public agency is not permitted to
subdivide a single project into smaller individual subprojects in
order to avoid the responsibility of considering the
environmental impact of the project as a whole". The
requirements of CEQA "cannot be avoided by chopping up
proposed projects into bite-sized pieces which, individually
considered, might be found to have no significant effect on the
environment or to be only ministerial." (Ibid.) (Continues) "If
demolition could be segregated from other development
activities and made non-reviewable, the requirements of CEQA
would be voided altogether ... " (Id)
6IPage
• "Several points in Orinda are significant here. First, Orinda
states the well-established principle that a project cannot be
divided into smaller parts that individually will not have a
significant effect on the environment. Second, this rule is
applicable even if one of the smaller parts might require only
ministerial, rather than discretionary, approval. Third, where
conditions are imposed on a project, those conditions-and the
policies behind CEQA-cannot be avoided by applying for
another approval apart from the larger project. (Orinda, supra,
182 Cal.App.3d at pp 11 71-11 72.)"
• City Staff has been well-informed of the consequences of
Marymount's failure to complete all remaining Phase 1
entitlement components by the extended deadline of
September 30, 2013, at which time such uncompleted
entitlements, including grading, became "null and void" as
shown in Staff's May 7, 2013 Recommendation.
71P age
Staff Recommendation
• deny the Phase 1 extension request, thereby
voiding all the construction related planning
entitlements for Phase 1 of the Facilities
Expansion Project with the exception of the
permanent Parking Lot Expansion Project, which
is a vested construction project that is currently
underway, and documenting the City Council's
decision on August 2, 2011, which clarified the
operational conditions that remain in effect.
• The extension in the above Presentation was granted, but
Marymount failed to meet that extended deadline (and) thereby
the related planning entitlements of Phase 1, with the
exception of the permanent Parking Lot Expansion Project,
were voided per Condition 60a.
• Although the initial 15/MND Draft was released October 31,
2013, and later revised in November, no public notification has
been made acknowledging this lapse of those entitlements,
which represents a Significant change in the 2010 EIR that
disqualifies use of a MND in for any EIR review of the proposed
Revised Athletic Field project.
• This is significant oversight because, per CEQA 1 5162(a) and
1 5162(a)(2), a subsequent declaration that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) be adopted, is in direct conflict
with those established CEQA provisions that prohibit use of a
MND under such radically changed conditions.
• For example, "When an earlier adopted mitigation measure has
been deleted (ref. Mitigation Measure TR-9 /TR-9A), the
deference provided to governing bodies with respect to land
use planning decisions must be tempered by the presumption
that the governing body adopted the mitigation measure in the
first place only after due investigation and consideration. We
therefore hold that a governing body must state a legitimate
reason for deleting an earlier adopted mitigation measure, and
must support that statement of reason with substantial
BJ Page
evidence." (Ibid., italics added; see also Mani Brothers Real
Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th
1385, 1388-1389, 1403."
• As with the above determination, Mitigation Measure TR-9 was
in fact adopted only after due investigation and consideration.
........ ......... c.tllllll ~· ....... ............. Miion ~ofl:OllllllmCI
FBl•llllllllldflr ............ ........... AINetk ........ .., ,._,,., .....
AllNNIMN Allllillr: F1lllt __.. ...... ....... ......... COlllplMol fllr .... o.11 ......... Fllld1 ......
l9qllQmenls and shal be to
the lallsfacllon of the Pulllc
Worb lli9cb'. Since hi
Paloe Vtflles DriWl Emtll'llb
Verdes Dri'le S014t1 ~
II ~ by Che plOpclMd
Projecl for 'C~ wilh
propoMd Project QOlldllons,' •
~ shnc:onlriW!on
~~~·
TR·9 Prior lo lslUln:e of My Y8il TR+AF Prior ID lssl8lC8 of any Pllorlo ~ Vllibllon th8I
Gredilg Pl!wl, the Project Pin ahal .Pli19 Ot bvici119 peimt. Ille Project ilRllllCllolalrf ~ the requiad
be rMied 1o Incl.do 'M04Jghl ron Plmll ~ be 18'1\ted to h:lude Gidtgor Dlrectlr lenciig is ahow1
fllndrQ aloog Pa Verdes Drive wnK"1I Iron lencing lllong the Building PEimt on plans
Eal II ~ l>.O leel In ~adgeoflheillhllltlglleldll
~t ;nd 80 pett:erC open to lght ~ e.o 1eo1 1n height en<1
and •• llrrcJol*Y rehcbible netllng 80 pen:enl open to lght and all' so
along the llOl1llem, ICUlhern and tllll DITft blllt n dlclen~
MAim llidea of· the liNetic leld Ill oontailld, lo the l5IElrlaclcll of the
appolimllaly 30.0 l9el In heigh~ Cormudty DIMlopment OnctJr.
end dlain ilk fencing Ill 29.0 fNt In The UM of a landlClpe eaeen
helg1I around tbl perimeW of lhe arwnd nl ;idjacent lo Ille \llOOght --.n lerir.il coOOI and 10.0 feet ron l8nce a1ong the perimot1f of Iha
ii heiglll sound Ille perimeler of the Atiric Field ""81 be lmll8ll lo a
8Mllm lllMfa courts IO lhat enWtl
b.ls In IUlliclendy conllined, lo Iha
maxinun height 0142 lndles.
~ of the Communly
llewlopment DlrD!r. The
~ net std only be
exllw1ded cUlng adivila ~
llllld bait Ill the All*'& Fleld,
albjec:t ID lhe hblicN 11111 lo<lh in
~ u..... .... AES-Ii. The
15
• This determination is memorialized by the Findings and Facts
in Support of Findings in Resolution No. 2010-41, Exhibit A,
pages 6 7 and 68.
• The further required statements of Site adequacy by size and
shape can be found in Resolution No. 2010-42 on pages 6' & 7
in Sections 2.1.9, 2.1. l 0 and 2.1.11.
9IPage
• Specifically, Section 2.1.10 states with reference to the
approved field, that "The City Council finds that the site is of
adequate size to accommodate an athletic field in addition to
the other components of the project, provided (emphasis
added) that it is moved further to the east, with two tennis
courts on either side, because a field so configured, would not
result in safety impacts on Palos Verdes Drive East.
• Condition No. 1 75 provides that there be no use of "small
balls" on this playing field, including golf, lacrosse and
baseballs, among others. The IS/MND provides no justification
that supports modification of this Condition.
• Staff is also well aware of testimony given on April 17, 2012 by
neighbor Mike DeNardo, (to Council member Jim Knight), that
his real life experience with the adjacent Castle Field use by
Marymount students resulted in "enough soccer and lacrosse
balls that could fill this Room".
10 I Page
• This direct evidence contradicts the anecdotal review
conducted in the IS/MND (Errant Balls) that seeks to
demonstrate otherwise.
• Just take a look at the trees and Nets protecting Mike's home
(right) from the invasion of all those room-filling errant balls.
• Here is a photograph of the Nets behind that goal area;
111Page
• The basis for adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(bottom of page 1 7) fails to meet the standards established by
CEQA 15162. The Resolution No 2010-41 (EIR, Appendix A,
pages 69, 70 & 71) determined that the Level of Significance
for Short Term Construction Noise was "Significant and (caused
an) Unavoidable Impact, thus requiring (Exhibit B, page 1) a
Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC).
• Bottom Line is that you cannot logically approve use of a MND
when it has been demonstrated there can be no Mitigation of
the resulting impacts (Short term Construction Noise) that
cannot be reduced by Mitigation to a less than a Significant
level, as is the case here. Makes no sense!
• That 201 0 required SOC also set forth a benefit (as Item E) of
that approved athletic field location, stating that "The Final
Project increases the landscaped setback along Palos Verdes
Drive East, thus enhancing the appearance of the campus from
the public right-of-way." This benefit would be voided and
lost by the design of the Proposed Revised Athletic Field
Project location, a fact not disclosed anywhere in the IS/MND.
• The Short Term excessive Construction Noise (exceeds 70dbA)
contemplated by the EIR, as shown in the Table 5.5-9, was
confined to Phase I only, limited in duration for three months.
The 201 0 approved project compressed all of the demolition
and basic grading for all buildings, parking lots and athletic
field to be incurred concurrently during the specified
12 I Page
(Condition 60a) limited 3 month time span. Post September 30,
2013, with the lapse and voiding of these uncompleted Phase I
entitlements that Marymount has indicated are now shifted to
the future in a re-phased new Master Plan, those future
unavoidable impacts also represent a significant change that
cannot be fully mitigated which further disqualifies adoption of
a MND for this Revised Athletic Field Project.
13 I Page
Table 5.5-9
Summary of Estimated Construction Noise
-locMiont Eltimllad
o.aipdon Conltrucllon nw.holcP Exceed
DINCtion Diltlncel NollelevtP Tiv.hold?
Phuel
Demotition/Gradlng, Parl<ing Lot North 125 84dBA 70dBA Yes
Construction South 250 78dBA 70dBA Yes
East 25 98dBA 70dBA Yes
West 165 82dBA 70dBA Yes
Ph11eU
Construction Of Fac:Uty And North 215 . 75dBA 70dBA Yes
Student Union Adcitions, New South 450 69dBA 70dBA No
l.itgy, Mainfenalce And East 125 80dBA 70dBA Yes
Alhletic F aciity West 650 66dBA 70dBA No
Phaeelll
Auditorilm And Acministntion North 375 70dBA 70dBA Yes
Additions, New Residence Hals South 315 72dBA 70dBA Yes
andGalery East 190 76dBA 70dBA Yes
West 600 66dBA 70dBA No
Notes:
1 Clslmlce is an approxination to lhe nenst sensitive land use ~l to an actNe OOOSU\Kfu1 zone.
2 Estimaed COR8truCtion noise leYel is calcUated brt applying a EklBA recluction pet doubling <lstillCe to the noise pdilell identified in ~
ll§. Mora piecisely, the fonnUa Is as fdlor,r,is:
dBA2=dBA1 + 10!.ogw (d1fd2)2
where:
cllA2 = EstinlBd COnstrudian Noise l.IMll;
dBA 1 = Reference noise level al 25 feel (from Tille 5.5§1;
d1 = reference cislance ct 25 feel;
d2 = Approxinate Receptor Location DBtance
3 Threshold based unon the 70-0BA sllfllrll intederence criteria
Excessive noise levels resulting from construction activities generally would occur In
the daytime hours only, because Code Section 17.56.020 , Conduct of Construction
and Landscaping Activities (Hours of Operation), prohibits construction, grading or
landscaping activities, or the operation of hea.vy equipment, except between the ,
Public R!Mew Draft • October 2007 5.5-18 Noise
• During Construction of the Modified Parking Lot in 2013, the
entire front side of the Classroom Building was covered with a
soundproofing blanket.
• Adoption of a MND is non-compliant with CEQA 1 51 62
because the proposed Mitigation Measures TR-4-AF and TR-
7-AF, specify unmet/ineffective Mitigation objectives (793
weekday maximums), consistently exceeded since Fall 2011.
14 I P age
History of Reported Marymount Enrollments per the studied approved 2010 CUP : Fall 2010 • Fall 2013
Reporting Period Reporting Ol tegorle$ Ma•lmum Weel\dav (see Notes 1 2 & 3)
fndftlon:JJ Non-Tradftlonal 8A$rudeot> Tot•I Pet CUP/EIA
inclu ded(?) Studied
Fall 2010 755 0 (40) 755 793
Sprlng2011 762 1 (97 ) 763 793
Fall 2011 786 98 (8) 884 793
Sprlng2012 734 106 (93) 840 793
Fall 2012 769 143 0 912 793
Sprlng2013 754 101 0 855 793
S7 Hl\At,t11:it
Fall 2013 793 132 (20) 925 793
.__
Note 1 Appendix Don pa11e 3.3-39, Assumptions, st1.1dled a maximum weekday student enrollment of 793
Note 2 Mitigation Measure TR-7 states that parkln1 Impacts studied assume a maximum of 793 weekday students
Note 3 Mitigation Mea sure TR-4 speclfles traffic Impacts etssume a ma1dmum of 793 weekday students
-oK? Difference
YES 38
YES 30
NO
~
NO '
NO
.
NO
NO
-
.·
• Mitigation Measure TR-4-AF does not recognize or mitigate
the current Traffic impacts of the 925 weekday students which
significantly exceeds the specified maximum limit of 793
shown in Marymount's Fall 2013 Enrollment report.
MARYMOUNT
CALIFO.RNIA UNIVERSITY
September 23, 2013
Dtreclor of Environmental Servtcas
City ofltmlc:ho Palos Vardes
J094-0 H1wt11omc Blvd.
Rmcllo Paloo Venlea CA 9027S-5391
{)./LA--
OFFICE OF THE PRE$10ENT
Per out RPV CUP requilmlonts mid Its enrollment cohort pararnetcn, Muymo1111t California
Univenity la oubmittin& cerllft<:alion of Fall 2013 cnrolbnent u follows:
> 793 SIUdent1 are enrolled in tho Tnidltional Degree Propam. Thon ""' 22 upper
dlvialon BA program atud<:nts In Ibis cateipny.
> 132 Stu.dents are enrolled In the Non-Tnldldmlll Oe8fCICI Propam in the ovonilJ&.
> 783 studlnta ponlclplled in driver 11fe1y tnllnina.
Midlael Brophy, Ph.D.
PnBiclenl
cc: Vice Pnsident for F"tnance lllld Admlnlllnltion, lllllOI Reeves
• TR-4, the current Mitigation Measure, has not mitigated the
reported current excess Traffic impacts caused by those 1 32
weekday students and therefore, for the IS/MND to proclaim
that even greater Traffic (TR-4-AF) and Parking impacts (TR-
7-AF) would be "mitigated" by the same exact measure is
complete folly and nonsense. Since excess Traffic and Parking
impacts have not actually been mitigated or the related
maximum weekday enrollments brought back within the
established maximum limits already set (793 weekday students
15 I Page
enrolled), it becomes illogical to claim that any environmental
impacts, significant or otherwise have been or could actually
be "mitigated" as CEQA 1 5162 requires in order to properly
process the environmental review as a Mitigated Negative
Declaration instead of a comprehensive EIR in accordance with
the Standards listed in Section 15162, including l 5 l 62a(l) l.
• Even more illogical is the studied avoidance by the IS/MND of
those Significant changes post 2010, including the lapse of
Phase One entitlements after September 30, 2013.
Marymount has consistently exceeded approved EIR "Weekday" maximum enrollment limits since Fall 2011
Mitigation Measures TR-4 (Traffic) & TR-7 (Parking) limit weekday enrollments to a maximum of 793 students
Reporti ng Period Weekday Student Enrollment Reported Maximum Weekday (see Notes 1, 2 & 3)
Traditional Non-Traditional BA Students Actual CUP/EIR
Included (7) Reported Limits
Fall 2011 786 98 8 884 793
Spring 2012 734 106 93 840 793
Fall 2012 769 143 None 912 793
-
Spring 2013 754 101 None 855 793
(~.il BA Actual}
Fall 2013 793 132 20 925 793
• Reported Enrollments understates actual enrollments by the number of un-reported BA students
Note 1 Appendix Don pase 3.3-39, Assumptions, studied a maximum weekday student enrollment of 793
Note 2 Mitigation Measure TR-7 states that parking Impacts studied assume a maximum of 793 weekday students
Note 3 Mitigation Measure TR -4 specifies traffic Impacts assume a maximum of 793 weekday students
Studied
In EIR?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-
"Weekday" student enrollment is defined as "the courses offered at Marymount College (that) occur on weekdays between 8 AM and
10 PM . Classes offered as part of the BA Prosram would occur durins these stated hours ." (FEIR & Appendix 0, Course Offerings).
Excess
Not studied
"
1/
l l<\
b)
i
• The IS/MND completely fails to demonstrate how the prior
and/or proposed Mitigation Measures TR-4/TR-4-AF and TR-
7 /TR-7-AF will mitigate the existing added Traffic and Parking
environmental impacts since Marymount
reported "weekday" enrollments well above
16 I Pag e
has consistently
the limits of the
*
*
stipulated 793 weekday student enrollment maximum levels.
The existing Mitigations TR-4 and TR-7 are not working now,
so how is it possible that TR-4-AF and TR-7-AF will provide
any mitigation in the future for the impacts created by the
Revised Athletic Field project?
• The IS/MND of October 31, revised November 26, 2013,
provides only a non-descriptive listing of numerous "Required
Approvals" (item 1 0 on page 6). Therefore, until and unless
these Required Approvals are specified fully, it is not possible
to offer appropriate comments or review without further
elaboration.
• The lapse and voiding of all uncompleted Phase I components
after September 30, 2013 per City Code and Condition #60a
represents a very significant change since the 2010 EIR and
CUP approvals. As such, a MND is obviously not appropriate.
• For example, after September 30, 2013, the previous
maximum allowed Grading specified in Condition #67 (79, 155
cubic yards), reverts back to the actual completed grading of
29,000 cubic yards acknowledged by Staff as the actual
amount of grading utilized for the Modified Parking Lot.
• Although Marymount Counsel Don Davis, in his letter to RPV of
February 27, 2013 (page 3), has viewed the City's request for
detailed information on any proposed revisions to the grading
plans and quantities associated with the (October 29, 2012)
application to extend the phasing schedule "as a valid request
17 I Pa g e
under the circumstances, and promptly directed its engineers
to provide such information." "City Staff was further advised
that the phasing amendments would be resubmitted ('i.e.
piecemealing) at a later date once the requested grading
information was prepared." It has not been submitted to date.
• The problem is that, post September 30, 201 3, this grading is
still a no-show from Marymount. And the IS/MND Athletic Field
Plan (Figure 6) has a redacted Earthwork section which no
longer provides that basic grading information.
• One reason why the IS/MND removed the Revised Field grading
quantities from Figure 6, may be opined from a review of a
very revealing table of grading earthwork quantities for all
remaining re-phased construction. This key Table data
demonstrates that there is no remaining grading available post
September 30, 2013!
Summary of Proposed Grading Quantities • Marymount Athletic Field Expansfon -as revealed behind door number Three I
I I l ' I I
GRADING: Condition 67: I ' Mod Pkg Lot !New Field 1 Library Athletic Facllity Total All Phases
I I I (Actual)
a Maximum Total Grading I '. I N/A N/A I N/A N/A 1 79,155
I I 232,690 I
Actual/Planned I I l i 29,000 ~daeted Nat ShOW[l Not Shown Not Shown
I I I I 39.01'# 23,6'13 'l<>.913 103,690
Balanced on-site gradir:uz project I ! I : NO ! NO ' NO 0 I NO I
I
:Actual/Planned Export/Import 0 -19,225 8,013 ' -19.659 46,927 :
I I l I I I I I
• The table also discloses that the total future grading quantities
(103,690 cubic yards) for the Revised Field, Library and
Athletic Facility, greatly exceed the original approved 79, 1 S 5
18 IP age
cubic yards of earthwork in the 2010 Resolutions. As such a
MND is unsuitable because of this very Significant Change and
related environmental impacts.
• In this respect, the Draft 15/MND is notable for an obfuscation
of grading quantities (see redacted Figure 6), perhaps that is
intentional because no maximum additional grading quantities
are available due to the lapse of all uncompleted Field and Pad
grading previously approved in 2010 for Phase I.
• As shown in Katzoff v. California Department of Forestry (op.
cit.) Mitigation Measures, once adopted, cannot summarily be
removed, altered or re-configured as TR-9-AF (Athletic Field).
• In 2010, the governing body (RPV City Council) adopted
Mitigation Measure TR-9 only after extensive investigation and
consideration. For the lack of any supporting substantial
evidence to the contrary, TR-9 cannot be so summarily waived
as this IS/MND proposes.
• Another such duly considered proscription is Condition #1 75;
specifically that; "Use of the Athletic Field shall be prohibited
for activities involving baseballs, golf balls, or other similar
sized balls that cannot be adequately contained by the use of
the field net." That Condition is one of those that Require
Approval (pending?)
• The standard of "substantial evidence" needed to overturn or
revise a Mitigation or protective Condition is also in evidence
by Marymount's application to continue use of this field as
19 I Page
before including for Lacrosse, which balls come under the
"small balls" prohibition of Condition #1 75. Note also the
exception to chain link fencing as provided in Conditions #1 76
and #1 77 by the 201 0 CUP approval that would also be
inappropriately eliminated by the terms of this Revised Athletic
Field project specified in the IS/MND.
• Marymount is requesting an enrollment increase from 943 to
1,200 students; That is an unrecognized significant change
which also and of itself disqualifies use of a MND for the
Revised Athletic Field Project.
To prepare for an anticipated increase in enrollment, largely due to student desire for four-year degrees,
Marymount College is requesting from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes an increase of enrollment capacity from
943 to 1,200 students. Also for consideration by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, is the college's need for a 20-
year window to build the city council-approved facilities on the college's Main Campus . Approved in June 2010,
library and recreational facilities are slated in the campus' future to enhance the educational experience of Its
students and serve as a community resource .
• In 2010, Marymount promoted an Initiative, Measure P, to the
RPV Community which allowed, among other revisions (as
Attachment D), a change in the approved location of the
Athletic Field. That Measure and specifically the change in field
location, was unanimously opposed by the City Council in their
June 2010 Resolution 2010-64. The Planning Commission also
rejected that proposed new field location in their Resolution PC
2010-24. On November 2, 2010, Measure P, including the
revised field location was rejected by a substantial margin.
20 I Page
Rancho Palos Verdes Shoots Down Measure P, Marymount
Expansion
Weanesday November 3 2010 by Dakota Smith
The Daily Bmeze reports that Marymount College's controversial bid to expand
its campus in Rancho Palos Verdes was rejected by voters . "Councilman Brian
Campbell - a aitic of the initiative who is no stranger to hyperbole -said in an
e-mail that the outcome was the ''biggest political upset in Southern California
history ." Previously, the college tried to get its plan approved through the city
<http://la .curbed .comlarchives/2010/03/fed_ up_ with_ opposition_ to. php> , a
process which frustrated Marymount executives .
· Rancho Palos Verdes rejects Measure P
<http://www .dailybreeze.com/news/ci_ 16506546> [Daily Breeze]
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
POLITICS
• Not to worry, however because in his MCU 201 3 President's
Report, Dr. Brophy noted that MCU had obtained Athletic Field
and other uses of facilities at the newly-opened John M and
Muriel Olguin High School Campus in San Pedro.
•
11 Beginning in Fall 2013, MCU students will..have the
opportunity to use the Olguin facilities for .. physical education."
21 I Page
Maryrnount Expands 'Footprint' in San Pedro
M~ Califof1lla~(MCU) kars.Mlf'IOUnCed 11.$ el!part~ dt thrtt
S8n Ped-a loi:atiol'6
~we dfllil r1pldly gt.,......ng to tntrel ~ Ufl~rsffy't •ncreHing enroltmefit, '
~ MCU President Mkha.N Bropry, PhD ~San Pedro olhw.> DUr ~udetati
manv oul§lendif\g loallo/\5 :O loam .,d oppo"1.lnflle5 for sef'Vi<o IN'ning,
In Apnl 201J, the Gty of lm ~approved University~ to 1N:re.e
~' ait MCU\ San Pedro Re:sidentiitl CMOpUS.. The master plan For this
campus 1ridudlrs the c.Qf1$troct)on of das5roo"" ~nded food .md sh.den!
seM...--es • ....cl addrtiorial hQU!l1r19 at ttvJ srtit locited on Palos~ Driw North
Construction 'lflM be oompletM m phasff over .a 20-year period
Bitgmning in Fall 7.013, MCU studtonB wrH .Ntend d&ssM .tt the! John M and
Muriel ~in CJmpU! of San Pei*<> Hqi School This Los An~ Un1hod
School OWict (lAUSO) Qrnpld, which opened in 2012, hill!I the CepKrfy to
serve add"rtional 1nidentJ, so the UniveBity will h""9 thn oppor1unity to Uk lhe
Olg.Jln hic1litiM /or darsMl9 in fio-o ans. perlormiflg Mts ¥kl physicaf &<Lcation
In an ag1eement with LAUSO lor lhe cooperative' Liie of campus lacilttie5,
MCU wil PfO'IGa San Pede Kgti School student:; the opporturuty to efV'DU in
uni\lemty-level courses for academic:~. ThUi means hlgh school studeots are
.abkt to get"° ee1ty ~on co11ege ;md, ah-high school gr~. CM\ 4tflroll
in pn'laie or public colteges wd ~"'"-~0-an Mf1~11td ~ •t.nd"'f>
Sines •ts opetllrtg •n 2012, the W..iterfront Campw looted m the. his:tOfic
district of Sim Pedro has served upper-dr..rsl()JI students Mld now wiH 5"efVe
gradual& ~IS;,.. ~ral ~lions, •ncluding '1Z2. W Slrtti 5U'h( flOrmerl)I
tho N<irthrup Grumman ~kingl, Uwt Arc~ Gat'ery arid the Grand Alinell.
9egin,..i~ 1n fill '2013, MCU wiN expM\d itlstudent das511Xims .wod ser~
and~;a5* KlditiaMlspace at the mw. Siirth Stteet IOG11tl0'1 Work IS &lso
under.qy lo remodel and e<JJi1' lhe i(l;,us Cenl~ for Media Arts at 430 W.
Sur: th StrMt. Th°' k>cation wii offer 11udenb statf!'-!Jt-cn...rt !e<hl'lology
and il'l!:trl.l(tiori for film and video production, video a111rnation, ;i,nd vide.o
compuUt ~ign ThE. ~ Centor •s expected lo open in dla 2()14
Marvmount California Unrvers;t;v Armounc85 New Tl'\l:ftee5
• Ever since August 26, 2010, Marymount has participated in
NAIA Athletics, beginning with a Men's Soccer home field game
(7:00 PM) against Embry-Riddle University - a "home" game for
Marymount) the day before Dr. Brophy signed his acceptance
agreement of the approved Resolutions for the 2010 EIR and
CUP. In those documents, Dr. Brophy was on public record as
denying that Marymount then had any current intentions or
plans for joining a new Athletic Conference. Accordingly, a
special Mitigation Measure, LU-1, requiring an Athletic
Associations Membership Report annually, to document the
corresponding sports in order to determine if a revision to the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required. Such Report was not
provided until 2012.
22 I Page
• NAIA sports have been successfully conducted by Marymount
teams for years since August 26, 20 l 0, without having any
special NAIA fields in RPV.
• Notably, Dr. Brophy signed the EIR and CUP acceptance letter
August 27, 2010, one day after Marymount's first NAIA game.
PLANNING. BUlDINC .... CODE fN~NED
Certification of Acceptance of Project AUG 2 7 2a1n
PROJECT:
PROJECT LOCATION:
APPROVAL DATE:
Conditions of Approval "'=~
ZON2003-00317 {COHDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
a REVISION E, GRADING PERMrr, VARIAHCE,
MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT .utD
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEHT)
30100 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST -
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
JUNE 1,2010
(Nolo: Puniuanl to Condition No . 1, !his cerUtloulJon ahsl be s;gnad and Clllumad kl the
City or Ron<iho Palos Verdeo Convnunily O..Votopmont Depallmonl B1 30940
Hawtl>Omo BQJlevanl, Rancho P-v-... Cl\ 90276 by AUCIUST 30. 2010).
:awaH111111~ Or.1J fR-W..llUP""ll'l-\tll.ll'\,a~
A,,,...NC-JUIUI fHl(JRUMINI ~lq&of<!-6228 I ailOff; lllCl285-7800 ( l>l:Pl. IAXPICl54•·62Q3 if·~ PUl'tNJ«;.°'1f'v_(._Ot.!
• Another extreme example of a post 2010 EIR Significant
change took place on April 11 , 201 3, when the Los Angeles
City Planning Commission approved a major expansion of
residential and educational facilities at Marymount"s Palos
Verdes Drive North (PVDN) site.
23 I Page
5. CPC-2011-2480-CU
CEQA: ENV-2011-2478-MND
Plan Area: Wilmington-Harbor City
Council District: 15 -Buscaino
Expiration Date: 4-11-13
Appeal Status: Appealable
to City Council
PUBLIC HEARING -Completed on January 24. 2013
Location: 1600 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH
Proposed Project:
The subject site is currently developed with 86 dwelling units that provide off-campus housing for
students attending the Marymount College Rancho Palos Verdes Campus. The stated goal of
the College is to develop a five phase undergraduate and graduate campus. which at total build
out would accommodate 1,500 students, with 84 7 students being housed on the site. The project
proposes: to convert the garages of the existing dwellings into additional bedrooms, construct a
surface parking lot along Palos Verdes Drive, construct new structures comprised of a 27 ,000
square foot dining facility, with classrooms an ct administrative offices , (called the Old Main), a
17,500 square foot building located south of Old Main containing classrooms, laboratories design
studios and administrative offices and a 4,077 square foot maintenance building. The proposed
buildings will be two to four stories 30-75 feet in height. The Old Main building will have an 87
foot 6 inches in height tower element which will serve as a focal point for the campus.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting
r h ·1'J'··'f'' '• • . { I ; 1 "'
Approved April 11, 2013
May 7, 2013
(;
1. cec.2911..wa.cu
CEQA: Etfll·2011-2UllA>INO
Pl.,, !UH: Whlngton.JWbor City
PUB UC HEMING -Compteled on J•nur, 24. 201 J
Council Olllrict 15 -Buacalno
Expiration DMe 4-11-13
-"'S'""'" --'° CltyCountll
~ 1600 PAlOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH
~~---~ .... aa~ ......... ..-.. _.,,......,..
1tudentl ~the M:aryn.ounl O:ilfge RMdlo Palot Vetdn Catnput The .Ua.d golf~
"1e CG11ogolotod.-P1 ... pn..~--o•-._ -·--..., __ UOOOllld ..... -~7-•llolt>g-onlheoile Thepn>jod
:;:"'~-==~=~..=--==o';"~~ ==-~~-:.....-==~.::..""=.=:~~ ....,...,,,., ___ ond14,071""" ... '°"'"'""-o.lldolg. ,.., _
....,.,.., ............ ,.,,,_30-151ootlofl0i9ht, Th10ld--inllwil)low on87
lo<>t0-loholgl11-1olo"'""'..tllch""-"a-poo1llOftt!0<1mpu1
•• F...,LAMC-.1u1.1.,_"'"'"-"-but.trigo"'_'_,_ o1-...,, _ ,3> "'""" m-. ...,, hefg1111'"'"'""" :io '"'"' 1&'"' (ilc*ldlrig--)lolN_h<l_°"""8•--llOlll.olldl1
IOOIO-lo<ilo_iMr_ ... Jld;ng,,,_t.-.lo-ollhe :JO.IHI-ii
the 1XL zone
b From I.AMC Sedloft 1Z.09at B 3to'Nln'91n the 1~11 Jeaf Vlf'dNIHK*of tOfeet lnllead
of the 25 foo1 res yard reqund In the ROEi zone
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2tlt3
• The prospective increase in Traffic and Parking environmental
impacts of the newly added 847 Residential and 1,500 daytime
enrollments at PVDN has not been taken into account by the
proposed IS/MND. Because this foreseeable increase in Traffic
24 I fl ;Jg c
and Parking impacts at the proposed Revised Athletic Field has
not been mitigated or examined, a MND is not appropriate for
this Project.
• Condition 67 requires that all grading for all components of
these entitlements be "balanced on site", with no import or
export of grading materials except as may be otherwise
provided for required material, including removal of demolition
material and import of minor construction-related materials,
as stated. As shown (again) below, the instant project requires
an export of a reported 19,255 cubic yards of earthwork
material without any or even sufficient rationale or evidence.
Summary of Proposed Grading Quantities -Marymount Athletic Field Expansion -as revea led behind door number Three
I I I I
GRADING: Condition 67: Mod Pkg lot !New Field ! Library Athletic Facility Total All Phases
I I I I I ' l (Actual)1 I I I I I
a Maximum Total Grading I I I N/A l N/A N/A I I N/A I 79,155 .
I I I I I m.690 I I
: Actual/Planned I 29,000 ' "RPdaeted N0t Shown N0tShown Not Shown
l I I I I 39,m 23.6¥3 'I0,913 103,690
Balanced on-site grading project 0 NO NO : NO I NO
I
Actual/Planned :Export/Import i 0 19,225 8,013 ' -19,659 1 46,927
I I I I I I I j
• But this is just the tip of the unbalanced iceberg that Marymount
is requesting. The proposed export of 19,255 cy of earthwork for
the Revised Athletic Field requires future significant additional
amounts of imported and exported earthwork grading which
totals 46,927 cubic yards. The IS/MND provides no justification,
mitigation or other supporting rationale for these quantities,
because the analysis is limited to only the environmental impacts
25 I Page
associated with the Revised Athletic Field in isolation from the
entire project.
• As previously documented, "A public Agency is not permitted to
subdivide a single project into smaller individual subprojects in
order to avoid the responsibility of considering the environmental
impact of the project as a whole." 'The requirements of CEQA,
"cannot be avoided by chopping up proposed projects into bite-
size pieces which, individually considered, might be found to
have no significant effect on the environment or to be only
ministerial."
• This important principle has been totally dismissed and omitted
from the current IS/MND process. As fully documented by Staff to
Dr Brophy in the March 8, 201 3 rebuttal letter (v. Don Davis's
February 27, 2013 claims), the following key points in dispute are
revealed;
1 . Marymount has failed to provide promised grading data and
information, agreed by Davis in his correspondence, as it
relates to the construction phasing in the Master Campus
Plan, the College .. did not address the question regarding the
revised grading quantities in relation to the Campus Master
Plan.
2. "The College's January 25th submittal raised a concern with the
proposed grading plan as it relates to the Campus Master Plan
as a whole."
26 IP age
March 8, 2013
VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL
Dr. Michael lllophy
Pl'Bllden!
Maryrnount College
OTY OF t L PALOS VERDES
PIANNINC, BUILDING. & CODf fNFORCEMlNI
30800 Pam Verdell Drive Eaat
Rancho Piiot v.-, CA 90275
Subject Conditional U'8 Penni! No 9 Ravlalon "F" et al (ZON2012-00386) -
Amandmenla ID Ille Council Adopled Athletic Field and Condlliona of ApprOYlll
De« Dr . llRlplly,
I am writing you In respo,_ ID ~. Don Davio' (Collage'• lllgal oounaaQ leltllr to the Cily
d.tlld Febrwuy 27, 2013 regarding lhe Cily'a delenninetion that the aubjecl appflco!lon la
"-tied in<:OmplelB for proooaalng.
Aa lndlcatBd In Mr. Dav1e' February 27"' lllllM, the Ctty-Informed of the p~ 19'1111on beine conle""*1eci bylhe CoUego 11ootly .. May2012, bul the aub)ect appbtion ·-not
toml•lly aulJmlttod ID the Ctty for ptOOMalng umll """' 6 rnonll>• lalat'. FW1Jlet, In roopotWO
to the Coltege'o May 2012 -· on Jilna 2G, 20 12. the Clly praWled the College with
lnfotrMllOn. baled on a prelimlnory roYlew (al no oost to the College) of llmlied 1nlonnallon
provided, teganling what would be needeCI to ptOCUll the Collego'o COllUlmplallld rlOYlllld
propooaL In tumr1181y, Clly Sbl!l lndicalecl 111111 lho Collogo -.kl ,_ ID W>nVI 1 """"'°"
to ill Condi1lon91 UM Ponn-efld Gtadlng Porrnl eppllcetiooe along with Qllldlng lnlolmlllon
indudlng gnocfll'lg quantiJeo IOI CU. fill, •-II and lmpol1. Clly Slldl' oancluded by Nllng
that •lddiUonlll oommon11 1111y be torthoomlng _, lilll ~ appu..tlonll and projecl
plans •I'll formally submlllad to the City for p-.lng."
0.. October 29, 201 2. lhe Colloga rcm..iiy oubmltted a requeel lo 111vloo Ila DXll1!JIQ
Conditional U111 Pannk -UwcMld ~ opeci(IC req-1a. lnQudll'G a <-' IO rcMle the
oonflguralloo of the 2010 COUl1Cll lj)p!OVOIO a111iellc llelcl end ID amend the~
phaalng candl!lon (Cotldilion Ho. 80) Iha! would -lialy -tlle Maaler ~ Plen ID
be oonetrwtod ""'' a 20 -period flllter thin lllO 8 ~ period Ofllltna!ly approwd by lhe
City Counc:il In 2010 Alla! lll\lle\ltlnQ the fnforma!lon IUbrnilled by IM College, Sblfl -
the appllcallon lnoompiell on NovombDt 27. 2012. In rospor!la ID lhe Clly'1 ~lier 27.
2012 ~ req...ting addltionll lnlonM1!on . ~lly vpd11lng the grading pl111 to
Dddme lho Collova'• pmpoMI to add,_ Illa cllangoe ID the gradk'Q quall1ll!et u M -
Oi(lj.t .... ~..._ a \u ·~1 or~v, •. u., c11 ... an .. ~1
1·.11~ ... ((l()tlNl"lllllfMfM1:11a&1.<1~1 .-.,r1n.te ::1·0~1 -:DI.,. fM0 1(1~(~<"iitJ I C..w ....... .-...... 1'-1 ,0ltP..1..~
3. "Specifically, the proposal to export 17,625 cubic yards of
earth. Which according to the approved grading plan was to
be repurposed on-site for the Campus Master Plan, raised the
question as to how this revision affects the overall project."
4. "Because the College is unable to provide the information
necessary to address changes to the approved grading plan
occasioned by the new 17,625 cubic yards of export, the
question still remains outstanding as to how the proposed
export impacts the accuracy of remaining grading for the
overall Campus Master Plan, and validity of the other grading
plans for the other portions of the site."
27 I P age
MARYllOUNTCOLI.EGECUPNO.IREVl~ON"P'
MARCH 8, 2013
PAGE2
to the construction phasing for the Master Campus Plan, the College submitted a revised
application on January 25. 2013 that essentially removed the original request to amend the
construction phasing schedule. However, the College's January 25111 submittal did not
address the question regarding the revised grading quantities in relation to the Campus
Master Plan.
The College's January 25111 submittal raised a concern with the proposed grading plan as it
relates to the Campus Master Plan as a whole . Specially, the proposal to export 17,625
cubic yards of earth, which according to the approved grading plan was to be repurposed on-
site for the Campus Master Plan, raised the question as to how this revision affects the
overall project. City Staffs concem was discussed with Mr. Davis during a conference call
on February 22, 2013. Because the College is unable to provide the infofmation necessary
to address changes to the approved grading plans occasioned by the new 17,625 cubic
yards of export, the question still remains outstanding as to how the proposed export Impacts
the accuracy of remaining grading for the overall Campus Master Plan , and validity of the
grading plans for the other portions of the site .
• "CEQA requires that no matter who prepares the initial version of
an EIR, the EIR must be subject to the Lead Agency's own review
and analysis and reflects the Lead Agency's independent
judgment with regard to the scope, content, and adequacy. The
Lead Agency is responsible for the objectivity of the Draft EIR.
When a Draft EIR is prepared by another party, .. such as a
consultant, the Lead Agency should review preliminary or
administrative drafts of the EIR to enable the Lead Agency to
exercise its independent judgment concerning the scope, content
and general adequacy." (Chapter 4, Lead Agency Responsibilities,
Preparation and Review of an EIR and Agency Decision Making.
CEQA Handbook)
• "Clearly this is a significant change that does need to be
addressed. Maybe there will be no impacts ... but I'm not a traffic
engineer, and I don't know." Carol Lynch, Rancho Palos Verdes
City Attorney. September 13, 2009
281Page
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting
May7, 2013
()
'"" IN••_... ... -,.,.-..-reeze
MUYllDWIT COUdlJ RAB..it11 Palm
Vft'llcl 91Dtl b>-t1r l1lqwl ptquR
ft>ur1UJ' ~ proaams w111 lw\'C' on c11y
-a.tr ......
5:' ......... __.. ...,.. ........ ... ..,__
""'"" -· 1111111 .....
...illlodl -·· .:::= ,_.., -
•
11 Adding to the reasons for the new name change are the recent
admission into the NAIA Cal Pac Athletic Conference and the
school's increased enrollment, which has doubled in the past
three years." Daily Breeze, March 16, 2013
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting
May7, 2013
"this ii-::i "ignificant change"
Adding to the reasons for
the new name are the
recent admission into the
NAIA cal Pac Athletic Con-
ference and the school's
increased enrollment,
which has doubled in the
past three years.
MARYllOUNT A2.
• A very logical as well as troubling question remains
unanswered with regard to the lapse of Phase I entitlements
and the significant effects thereof. This issue was brought to
29 I Page
light beginning on page 3 of RPV's March 8, 2013 letter to Dr.
Brophy.
It should be noted that currently, Phase I is valid until May 7, 2013 (extended by the City
Council at its December 1B, 2012 meeting), at which time, the City Council will consider
whether to extend Phase I up to September 30, 2013. It also worth noting for clarification
purposes to Mr. Davis' February 27°' letter, that according to Condition No. 60, which was
drafted based on the College's written narrative submitted to the City in August 2008 for CUP
No. 9 Revision ·o: ~All maior rough grading (emphasis added) needed for the
reconfiguration of the parking tots and the establishment of building pads for the new
improvements would be completed within the first three months of the start of construction.·
Moreover, Phases 2 and 3 describe grading as "Fine grade (emphasis added) for new
construction associated with this phase .· The City would like to further clarify what may be a
misconception by the College regarding Construction Phasing Condition No. 60. On August
2 , 2011 , the City Council was asked to interpret the 2010 Council adopted Conditions of
Approval because of the apparent inactivity on the construction aspect of the project by the
College. As stated in the August 2nc1 City Council Staff Report and affinned by the Council
that evening:
"A concem was raised regarding the timing periods stated in this condition. According
to this condition, the entire Facilities Expansion ProJ'ect. approved by the City Council
is to be completed by June 1, 2018, which is 8 years from June 1, 2010, the date the
C-Ouncil took ifs final action regarding the application by adopting the resolution
approving the Facililies Expansion Project. Moreover. if components described in
each phase are not completed within the pennffted time frames, and extensions 818
not granted by the City as described in Condition No. 60, those uncompleted items
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE CUP NO. 9 REVISION uF"
MARCH 8, 2013
PAGE4
become null and void and cannot be completed as part of the following phase. For
example, if grading for the athletic building pennitted in Phase I is not completed in the
time period specified in Condition No . 60, construction of the athletic building can no
longer occur. Extensions to the time limits established for each phase may be
considered provided that ccnstruction activities do not exceed a total of 3 years and
that project construcffon is completed within 8 years from June 1, 2010. It should Blso
be noted that pursuant to Condition No. 60(d) a/f elements not completed wffhin the
time periods specified will requim additional review and approval through a 1'8Vision to
the Conditional Use Permit and additional CEC1A review. •
• Per the City Council Review of August 2, 2011, "if components
described in each phase are not completed within the
permitted time frames, and extensions are not granted by the
City as described in Condition No. 60, those uncompleted
items become null and void and cannot be completed as part
of the following phase." Bottom Line First?
30 I Page
• "For example, if grading for the athletic building permitted in
Phase I is not completed in the time period specified in
Condition No. 60a, construction of the athletic building can no
longer occur."
• In similar fashion, if grading for the athletic field permitted in
Phase I is not completed in the time period specified in
Condition No. 60a, construction of the athletic field cannot
occur!
• The 15/MND makes questionable claims regarding the
reconfigured athletic field vs. the approved field. These claims
are presented on page 103. Upon review of the revised field
and "D-2" approved field plans, the following has been
determined:
1 . The Revised field is significantly closer to PV Drive East than
the approved field.
2. The Revised field removes the approved 20' high chain link
fencing around the western tennis courts perimeter (TR-9)
which was considered in the findings as an important
protection against errant balls. (Resolution 2010-42, 2.1. l 0)
3. The Revised Field adds no replacement physical or distance
features to protect against errant balls, nor does the 15/MND
even discuss the omission of the TR-9 20' high chain link
fencing that is included in TR-9.
4. At the southwestern corners of each field, the approved field
is positioned 65' farther away towards the east, and 80'
31 I Pa g e
farther north than the Revised Field proposed.
5. At the northwestern corners of each field, the approved field
is 2 5' farther east and 30' farther south from PV Drive East
than the Revised field.
6. The westernmost 11 touchline" of the approved field is
consistently 3 5' farther east away from PV Drive East than
the Revised Field.
7. Thus the quoted IS/MND distance comparisons are incorrect
as noted here. The IS/MND also fails to provide any
supporting rationale or substantial evidence for removing
those mitigating features of TR-9, contrary to CEQA. No
additional restraining physical features to protect against
errant balls have been proposed, except "hot air."
32 I Pa g e
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DECEMBER 2, 2014
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
c
3
Description of Material
Memorandum from Senior Administrative Analyst Fox;
Emails from: Janet Gunter; Ronald Conrow
Emails from: Diane Smith; Jim Reeves
Respecff~
~cA -~
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, December 2, 2014**.
W:IAGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20141202 additions revisions to agenda.doc
MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
KIT FOX, AICP, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST
DECEMBER 2, 2014
SUBJECT: LATE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE 5883 CREST
ROAD CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IN ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
(BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT-AGENDA ITEM 'C')
5883 Crest Road Condominium Project, Rolling Hills Estates
At last night's meeting, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing to review the proposed 4-unit residential project at 5883 Crest Road, located at
the northeast corner with Highridge Road (see attached Staff report). The Planning
Commission expressed a number of serious concerns with the proposed project,
including the size, number and design of the proposed homes; the proposed site grading;
and the justification for the requested General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Zone
Text Amendment. A representative of the nearby Seabreeze homeowners' association
in Rancho Palos Verdes expressed a number of objections to the project. Staff was also
provided with a formal response to our comments on the project's Mitigated Negative
Declaration (see attachments).
At the conclusion of the meeting, the project proponent agreed to continue the matter to
a future date uncertain in order to work with Rolling Hills Estates Staff to address the
issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff will continue to monitor this project in
future Border Issues reports.
Attachments:
Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission Staff report (dated 12/1/14)
Response to RPV Comments (received 12/1/14)
M :\Border lssues\Staff Reports\20141202_ CC_LateCorrespondence .docx
1 of 26
c
AGENDA
Staff Repor DEc-12014
ITEM NO. ~A
City of Rolling Hills Estates!--~~:...=:::===-Jl l
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2014
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: NIKI WETZEL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO: 25-14;
APPLICANT: MS . JUDY CHAI
LOCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD
OVERVIEW
The following is a request to approve:
1. A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to
High Density Residential;
2. A Zone Change from Commercial Limited {CL) to Residential Planned Development (RPO);
3. A Zone Text Amendment for development standards for lot size in the RPO Zone;
4 . A Tentative Parcel Map for a one-lot subdivision;
5. A Grading Application;
6. A Minor Deviation for lot coverage;
7 . A Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Planned Development;
8. A Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for the construction of four single-family patio homes;
and
9. A Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding
that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment.
BACKGROUND
Application Filed:
Application Deemed Complete:
Public Notices Mailed:
Public Notices Posted:
Public Notices Published:
3/21/14
10/7/14
10/9/14
10/9/14
10/16/14
Approval of a General Plan Amendment is required to modify the Land Use Element of the General
Plan to change the land use designation of the subject property from Neighborhood Commercial to High
Density Residential. General Plan Amendment procedures are set forth in Section 65350 of the
Government Code.
Approval of a Zone Change is required to change the zoning designation of the property from
Commercial Limited (CL) to Residential Planned Development (RPO).
Approval of a Zoning Text Amendment is required to amend Section 17.18 .040(A) of the Municipal
Code related to minimum lot size.
Approval of a Tentative Parcel Map is required under Section 66426 of the California Government
Code and Chapter 16.12 of the Municipal Code.
Approval of a Grading Plan is required pursuant to Section 17 . 07 . 030 of the Municipal Code for any
importation onto or exportation from any site in the City which exceeds 20 cubic yards of earth or any
vertical change in the grade of any site which is 3' or more. ·
Approval of Conditional Use Permit is required pursuant to Section 17 .18 .020(8) of the Municipal
Code for a Residential Planned Development (RPO) subdivision.
Approval of a Minor Deviation is required pursuant to Section 17 .66 .100(A)(6) of the Municipal Code
for an increase of not more than 10% in the maximum allowable lot coverage .
Approval of a Neighborhood Compatibility Determination is required pursuant to Chapter 17 .62 of the
Municipal Code to review the natural amenities, neighborhood character, style, privacy, and
landscaping of the proposal.
Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is required under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), finding that the project, with appropriate mitigation measures as stated in the Initial
Study, will not have a significant impact on the environment.
The subject property, located in the C-L (Commercial Limited) Zone, is .51 acres in size and currently
undeveloped . The property is unique in that it is one of two C-l designated properties in the City and
the only one that does not have a Mixed Use Overlay designation (the other property is the Pepper
Tree Lane project site). The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Neighborhood
Commercial, and the site is located in Planning Area Number 7 in a Cultural Resources Overlay area .
To the north and east of the subject property are residential uses in the Seaview Villas townhome
complex zoned Residential Planned Development (RPO). To the south of the subject property ,
across Crest Road, are single-family residences in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. To the west of
the subject property, across Highridge Road are residential uses in The Ranch community zoned
RPO.
The following is a list of previous discretionary permits for the subject property :
• LS·105-65: Approved a lot split to create the subject property for the location of a gas station;
• PPD-102-75: Approved an expansion to a garden nursery facility (Crest Garden Center);
• PPD~ 107-75: Approved construction of a greenhouse at a garden nursery facility (Crest Garden
Center);
• PPD-107-78 : Approved construction of an additional greenhouse at a garden nursery facility
(Crest Garden Center);
2
3 of 26
• PPD-109-88: Approved an addition and sign plan for a garden nursery facility (Kim's Crest
Nursery);
• OC-161-89: Approved replacement of an existing sign at garden nursery facility (Sunset Garden
Center);
• CUP-113-92: Request for consideration by the Planning Commission of either a two-story, 7,240
square foot office/retail building or a two-building, four-unit residential development; (Note :
Planning Commission was in general support of commercial development of the site and
continued the matter for project revision/Precise Plan of Design application);
• OC-116-00: Approved demolition of all existing buildings .
• PA-27-03: Approved a Precise Plan of Design, Variances to exceed the maximum allowable
coverage of the lot by buildings or structures , permit less landscaping than required in the parking lot
area, and a grading application for a 5,760 square foot commercial building.
As shown above, an application for a commercial building was approved in 2004 for the subject
property. The applicant, Ms. Judy Chai, indicates that she attempted unsuccessfully to construct and
tenant the approved commercial building. As such , she now requests a residential use which is the
predominant use in the surrounding area.
A "First Look" meeting was held before the Planning Commission and City Council on July 9, 2013 to
discuss conversion of the subject property to residential use and the development of four patio
homes. There was general support of such a project The project presented here is largely the same
as that presented at that meeting.
At the time of this writing, staff has received three comment letters on the proposed project (see
Attachment 1 ). Staff will prepare a Response to Comments document upon closure of the public
review period for the project Mitigated Negative Declaration (November 24, 2014). The Response to
Comments document will be provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover on
November 26, 2014 and will include any other correspondence received during the remainder of the
public comment review period .
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to construct a one-lot subdivision with four, two-story patio homes on the .51-
acre property. Two homes would be located on either side of a shared driveway accessible from
Highridge Road . Four existing curb cuts (two each on Highridge Road and Crest Road) would be
closed and replaced with full curb and gutter with the project. Each home would have an enclosed
two-car garage and a guest parking space accessible from the shared driveway. The remainder of
the site would be developed with private yard areas and landscaping. A stairway is proposed in the
easterly portion of the property to provide access to raised private yard areas and secondary entries
for the two easterly homes. The two westerly homes would have entries on the first floor facing
Highridge Road. In addition to 400 square foot garages, each home has four bedrooms and is
proposed to have 2,880 square feet of livable area .
Street elevations are provided on Sheet A-5 attached separately to this report. Additional building
elevations and a materials and colors board will be provided at the public hearing. Elevations show
Monterey-style exposed rafter tails , painted wood trellis and window headers, flat clay tile, and smooth
stucco finish. The architect indicates that roof tiles will be terra cotta in color, and building walls will
be painted neutral colors . Street elevations and the site plan also show new fencing along the
3
4 of 26
perimeter of the property and in the upper private yard areas to be 30"-high wrought iron fence on top
of 42"-high concrete walls.
It is anticipated that the project would generate 38 daily vehicle trips. Three of these would be in the
AM peak-hour and four in the PM peak-hour. LOS thresholds would not be increased with the
proposed project, and no new signal is warranted.
Section 17.28.050(0) of the Municipal Code requires a 25'-wide front yard and 20'-wide side and rear
setback areas where the site abuts residential districts. The project provides a minimum 25' wide
setback area between the building and Highridge Road (considered the front yard) and 20' for the
remaining setback areas in conformance with Code requirements.
Section 17 .28.050(G) of the Municipal Code · permits developments of two-story structures with a
maximum 35' height. The proposed homes are approximately 22' in height from finished grade and
two stories. Furthermore, this Code section indicates that the Planning Commission will make
reasonable efforts to preserve existing views enjoyed by neighboring properties when reviewing all
applications. It should be noted that the project applicant worked with and has received support from
the adjoining Seaview Villas homeowners association for the proposed project. A flag silhouette for
the project has been erected, and the Planning Commission should visit the project site to better
understand site characteristics and proposed building mass.
General Plan Applicability
The purpose of the General Plan is to provide a comprehensive, long-range plan designed to serve as
a guide for the physical development of the City. The General Plan consists of an integrated and
internally consistent set of goals, policies, and implementation measures. The Municipal Code is a
tool to implement the General Plan's goals, policies, and implementation measures. The City's
present General Plan was adopted on August 18, 1992 (Housing Element on January 28, 2014).
The "Introduction" section of the Land Use Plan (page 2-19) indicates that land use designations
largely correspond to development as it existed at the time of General Plan adoption. The project site
is within the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation (as described on page 2-20 in Table 2-1,
Summary of General Plan Designations) which "refers to smaller single commercial uses located at
key intersections". Table 2-2, Land Use Designation Standards (page 2-21), further describes the
designation indicating that it is implemented by the C-L Zone, allows business, professional service,
and retail uses, and that a maximum floor area ratio of 4 to 1 is permitted.
The Overlay Map for Planning Area Number 7 (Exhibit 2-14 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan) shows that the subject property is in a Cultural Resources Overlay Zone. Page 2-22 of the Land
Use Plan indicates that this designation "applies to a portion of the City where archaeological
resources are known or suspected to exist." Mitigation Measures included in the project Initial Study
address actions to be taken should an archaeological resource be discovered during project
construction.
As mentioned previously in the report, the applicant received approval for construction of a
commercial building on the property, but was not successful in having it built. The property is
surrounded on all sides by residential uses, and the applicant proposes residential use of the
property. As such, a General Plan Amendment is proposed to remove the property from the
Neighborhood Commercial designation and to place it in the High Density Residential designation.
The High Density Residential designation corresponds to the Residential Planned Development
(RPO) zone designation requested for the property, and is the General Plan land use designation of
the Seaview Villas development to the north and east of the site. The designation provides for up to
4
5 of 26
8 units per acre, and the project proposes 7.8 units per acre in conformance with General Plan
density.
Because the project requires a General Plan Amendment, pursuant to Government Code §65352.3,
staff is required to notify tribal governments for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to, or
cultural places located on land, within the City's jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan
adoption. As such, staff requested and received a list of tribal governments to contact for consultation
from the Native American Heritage Commission . Ten governments were listed and contacted for the
required minimum 45-day review period. Only the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians commented on
the project (as seen in Attachment 1) requesting that one of their monitors be onsite during any and all
ground disturbances. Staff will include a related condition of approval in any resolution approving this
project.
Zoning Applicability
Currently, the site is zoned Commercial Limited (CL) which corresponds to the Neighborhood
Commercial General Plan land use designation. The applicant requests that the property be rezoned
to Residential Planned Development (RPO) with the proposed application. This is the zoning
designation of the Seaview Villas development to the north and east of the site . The RPO zone is
described in Chapter 17 .18 of the Municipal Code and provides for cluster housing subject to approval
of a Conditional Use Permit. Single family detached structures are permitted in the RPO zone, and
common and private open space shall not comprise less than 70% of the project site. The applicant
requests a Minor Deviation to permit 33% of the site to be covered by building and structures as
discussed below. The maximum permitted density in the zone is established by the General Plan
designation, and the proposed land area may not be less than 1 O acres. As further described below,
the applicant requests a Zone Text Amendment permitting an RPO development on less than 10
acres if a site is contiguous to a 10-acre site zoned RPD.
Zoning Text Amendment
Section 17.18.040(8)(1) states that following :
"Area. The proposed development plan shall include a parcel or parcels of land containing not less than
ten acres. The area, width and frontage requirements of lots in a planned residential development shall
be as required in the approved plan of development. The dwelling units and buildings and the land
within the development may be divided in ownership only in the manner authorized in the approval of
the development."
Thus, a development in the RPD zone requires a minimum of ten acres. While the subject property is
only .51-acres in size, the adjoining Seaview Villas development to the north and east of the subject
property is 10.66 acres in size . Together, the properties form 11.17 acres of RPO development. The
applicant requests a Zone Text Amendment to permit an RPO development on a property that is less
than ten acres in size if the site adjoins an RPO development that is over ten acres in size. This
amendment would provide for a similar scale and pattern of development for smaller parcels
contiguous to currently RPO-zoned property while continuing to preserve all other development
standards of the RPD designation (i.e., maximum coverage, height limitation, and setback
requirements). Importantly, approval of any RPO development would continue to require approval of
a Conditional Use Permit which provides for discretionary approval by the Planning Commission and
the inclusion of any applicable conditions of approval.
5
6 of 26
Tentative Parcel Map
The applicant has submitted a Tentative Parcel Map for Condominium Purposes for the project as
included separately to this report. Regarding maps, Chapter 16.12 of the Municipal Code requires
that the plan must be prepared by a registered civil engineer for all public works improvements to be
constructed as a condition of the subdivision and for all site development including (but not limited) to
grading, drainage facilities, and structures in accordance with the City standards. Furthermore, plans
for all irrigation and landscaping subject to the approval of the Planning Director and a plot plan
showing details of the entire development and all improvements to be constructed are required. In
addition, the project must be consistent with the General Plan Mixed·Use land use designation and
corresponding Municipal Code. Pursuant to Chapter 16.04 of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission's actions shall be as an advisory agency only, and all actions of the Planning
Commission with reference to tract maps shall be reported to the City Council who shall act approve,
deny or conditionally approve the map. Given that all proposed entitlements are bundled for review
by the Planning Commission and that the Tentative Parcel Map requires approval of the City Council,
the Planning Commission Resolution for the project shall provide a recommendation only to the City
Council regarding the subject request.
Grading Plan
Proposed cuts would primarily occur to lower the building pad elevations by approximately 3' to
minimize building height. Fill would be placed near the easterly property line for development of
private patio areas. Approximately 1, 150 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed including 650 cubic
yards proposed as fill and 500 cubic yards exported from the site (which results in approximately 50
truck loads). The grading application is included as Attachment 2.
Minor Deviation
Section 17.18.040(8)(5) of the RPO zone indicates that building and structures may not occupy more
than 30% of the gross lot area. Further, Section 17.66.100(6) permits that a Minor Deviation may be
approved for an increase of not more than 10% in the maximum allowable lot coverage. Accordingly,
a Minor Deviation is required for the proposed 33% lot coverage. The excess lot coverage provides
for slightly larger building footprints in light of the small size of the property.
Conditional Use Permit
A Condition Use Permit (CUP) is required to establish a Residential Planned Development (RPD)
community. Requirements for CU P's are provided in Chapter 17 .68 of the Municipal Code. Section
17.68.010 of the Municipal Code indicates that conditionally permitted uses may be allowed when
such uses are necessary to the development of the community, and which uses are in no way
detrimental to existing uses or to those permitted in the district. In no case shall a CUP be issued for
a specifically prohibited use.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Section 17.26.020 (Neighborhood Compatibility) of the Municipal Code provides for a review process
for residential construction proposals to protect and maintain the established character of all
residential neighborhoods. The primary purpose of this review is to ensure that proposals will not
create privacy issues, obstruct views, create obtrusive light sources, or establish an unaesthetic
architectural appearance when considered from the residential property. Neighborhood compatibility
criteria as it relates to the proposed project is described below.
6
7 of 26
1. Natural Amenities . Improvements to residential property shall respect and preserve to the
greatest extent possible existing topography, landscaping, and natural features.
No major topographical, landscaping or natural features exist on this previously-developed site .
Proposed grading is minor and will not result in the loss of natural site amenities .
2. Neighborhood Character. Proposals shall be compatible with the existing neighborhood
character in terms of scale of development , architectural style and materials .
The Seaview Villas complex surrounds the project on two sides and provides the most visually
prominent buildings in relation to the proposed project. The complex consists of neutral-toned
buildings with red tile roofs, exposed rafter tails, and wood balconies in a Mission Revival and Spanish
Colonial Revival style. The project proposes neutral-toned buildings, flat terra cotta roofs, exposed
rafter tails, and wood trellises, all of which are similar to the Seaview Villas complex. In addition, the
scale of the proposed development is the similar to the Seaview Villas complex in that the requested
RPD zone designation and High Density Residential land use (with a corresponding maximum of 8
units per acre) are the same as the Seaview Villas zoning and land use designations .
3. Scale . Designs should minimize the appearance of overbuilt property to both public and
private view. The square footage of the residence and total lot coverage should reflect the
rural character of the City and neighborhood .
The proposed homes would be surrounded on all sides by landscaped areas and yards that would
minimize the appearance of an overbuilt lot. The proposed square footage of the residences, at 2,880
square feet, are larger than the 1,800 to 2,200 square foot Seaview Villas townhomes, but not
excessive. The proposed 33% lot coverage would only slightly exceed the permitted 30% and would
respect the rural character of the City and neighborhood.
4 . Style . Proposals shall address the following design elements : fa9ade treatments (avoid stark
and unbroken walls), structure height(s). open spaces, roof design , appurtenances, mass and
bulk. These design elements should be compatible with the existing home and neighborhood
and in all instances seek to minimize the appearance of a massive structure.
The proposal indicates that building walls and mass would be broken by balconies, trellises and pop-
out features. Building height at approximately 22 ' from finished grade would be much lower than the
35 ' maximum permitted, and the roof design is low in pitch. Like the Seaview Villas complex, the
project is proposed to be "courtyard" in style such that buildings are surrounded by landscaping and
yard areas which also serve to minimize the appearance of building mass.
5. Privacy . Proposals shall maintain an adequate separation between the proposed structures
and adjacent property lines. In addition, proposed balconies, decks and windows shall respect
the existing privacy of surrounding properties .
The proposed residences would be located downslope from the Seaview Villas townhomes to the east
and separated by a property line wall and landscaping to ensure privacy between the uses. Given the
grade differences between the properties, it is not anticipated that the yard areas or windows of the
proposed residences will adversely impact the surrounding property . Further, the approximately 100'-
wide roadway widths of both Highridge and Crest Roads accompanied by project setbacks of 20' to
25' ensure privacy to homes to the south and west.
7
8 of 26
6. Views. Designs should respect existing neighboring views .
This finding has been met because the proposed homes are located down slqpe from the townhomes
above and have been designed with a low roof profile. In addition, the building pads are proposed to
be lowered 3' to minimize any potential view impacts .
Init ial Stud y and Negati ve Decl ara ti on fo r the Cali forn ia Enviro nm enta l Quality Ac t (CEQA)
The proposed development has been defined as a project under CEQA which requires completion of
an Initial Study to determine if the project would have significant impacts on the environment. The
City contracted with PMC to perform the Initial Study . (The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration was provided to the Planning Commission on October 9, 2014 and is also available on the
City website under What's New/Project Updates/5883 Crest Road.) Staff reviewed the Initial Study
and determined that, with proper mitigation as specified in the Initial Study, the proposed project will
not have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, staff prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for Planning Commission consideration .
As required by CEQA, a public comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is be ing
conducted. The review period is from October 9, 2014 to November 24 , 2014 . A Notice of Intent to
Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided to all affected properties within a 500' radius of
the project, adjacent cities , and other government agencies. The notice provides a brief description of
the project, the Planning Commission Public Hearing date/time/location, and how to obtain detailed
information about the project including the Initial Study. The notice, Initial Study, and Mitigated
Negative Declaration were filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on October 8, 2014 and were
made available at the Peninsula Center Library . A copy of the project plans, Initial Study, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration have been made available at the public counter and on the City's
website .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission :
1. Open the Public Hearing;
2. Take Public Testimony
3. Discuss the issues ;
4 . Close the Public Hearing; and
5. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending approval of PA-25-14 to the City Council for
the next Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 2014, subject to a condition of approval
requiring a Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians to be present during any and all ground
disturbances.
EXHIBITS
Attached
1. Comment Letters
2. Grading Application
Pa25-14 pm
8
9 of 26
ATTACHMENT 1
10 of 26
Page 1 of l
Niki Wetzel ----··-----·---· __ ,,_,, _______ _
From: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians (gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 11 :21 PM
To: Niki Wetzel; Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez; Matt Teutimez.Kizh Gabrieleno; Tim Miguel; Gary Stickle; Martha Gonzalez. Kizh
Gabrieleno ·
Subject: four Patio-Home Development project 5883 crest road rolling Hills Estates Los Angeles County -Tribal Consultation
Native Americans [edit)
Today Rolling Hills is a city within Palos Verdes, The peninsula was the homeland of
the Gabrielirio Native Americans people for thousands of years. In other areas of the Los
Angeles Basin archeological sites date back 8,000 years.l41f51 Their first contact with Europeans
in 1542 with Joao Cabrilho (Juan Gabri/Jo), the Portuguese explorer who also was the first to
write of them. Chowigna and Suangna were two Tongva settlements of many in the peninsula
area, which was also a departure point for their rancherias on the Channel Islands.
Dear Niki Wetzel, AJCP
Principle Planner
This is regards to the above project The Point Vicente Lighthouse on
the Palos Verdes Peninsula and
''The project locale lies in an area where the traditional territories of the Kizh(Kitc) Gabrieleflo, villages the National Register of Historic Places.
( Chowi and Suangna) adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric
and Protohistoric Periods. The homeland of the Kizh (Kite) Gabrielenos, probably the most influential
Native American group in aboriginal southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a:538). was centered in the Los Angeles Basin, and reached as far
east as the San Bernardino-Riverside area. The homeland of the Serranos was primarily the San Bernardino Mountains, including the slopes and
lowlands on the north and south flanks. Whatever the linguistic affiliation, Native Americans in and around the project area echibited similar
orgainization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups. Their home/ base sites are marked by midden
deposits, often with bedrock mortars. During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups would migrate within their traditional
territory in search of specific plants and animals. Their gathering strategies often left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on
bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resources . Therefore in order to protect our resources we would like to request one of our experienced &
:::ertified Native American monitors to be on site during any and all ground disturbances.
In all cases, when the NAHC (Native American Heritage Commission) states there are " NO" records of sacred
sites'' in the subject area; they always refer the contractors back to the Native American Tribes whose tribal
territory is within the project area. This is due to the fact, that the NAHC is only aware of general information on
each California NA Tribe they are NOT the "experts" on our Tribe. Our Elder Committee & Tribal Historians are
the experts and is the reason why the NAHC wlll always refer contractors to the local tribes.
Please contact our office regarding this project to coordinate a NA monitor to be present. Thank
You
Sincerely,
£\ndrew Salas, Chairman
3abrieleno Band of Mission Indians -Kizh Nation
::io Box 393
~ovina, CA 91723
;ell (626)926-4131
:imail: gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com
Nebsite: www.gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com
10/23/2014
11 of 26
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
FIRE DEPAH.TMENT
----···-""'"":-'""~""'" .... ~,.. ..... ----
DARYL L. OSBY
FIRE CHIEF
1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENLJ.l ~ ,-., '\l ··""' -1 ~ 7 [~" ID)
LOS ANGELES CALIFORNU06J.> t) [-~v ;o\~-~ -1 0
I
FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
November 6, 2014
Niki Wetzel, Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
Planning Department
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Dear Ms. Wetzel:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, "5833 CREST ROAD PROJECT
(PA-25-14),'' CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR TWO-STORY,
DETACHED PATIO HOMES WITH A SHARED DRIVEWAY, 5833 CREST ROAD,
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES (FFER #201400184)
The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been reviewed by the Planning Division, Land
Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the
County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments:
PLANNING DIVISION:
1. We hav~ no comments at this time .
LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT:
1. . The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's
Land Development Unit are to review of and comment on all projects within the
unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. Our emphasis is on the
availability of sufficient water supplies for firefighting operations and
AGOURA HILLS
ARTESIA
AZUSA
BALOVVIN PARK
BELL
BELL GARDENS
BELLFLOWER
BRADBURY
local/regional access issues. However, we review all projects for issues that may
have a significant impact on the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. We are
responsible for the review of all projects within contract cities (cities that contract
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF:
CALABASAS
CARSON
CERRITOS
CLAREMONT
COMMERCE
COVINA
CUOAHY
DIAMOND BAR
DUARTE .
EL MONTE
GARDENA
GLENDORA
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
HAWTHORNE
HIDDEN HILLS
HUNTINGTON PARK
INDUSTRY
INGLEWOOD
IRVVINDALE
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
LA HABRA
LA MIRADA
LA PUENTE
LAKEWOOD
LANCASTER
LAWNDALE
LOMITA
LYNWOOD
MALIBU
MAYWOOD
NORWALK
PALMDALE
PALOS VEROES ESTATES
PARAMOUNT
PICO RIVERA
POMONA
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ROLLING HILLS
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
ROSEMEAD .
SAN DIMAS
SANTA CLARITA
SIGNAL HILL
SOUTH EL MONTE
SOUTH GATE
TEMPLE CITY
WALNUT
WEST HOLL YWOOI
WESTLAKE VILLAG
WHITIIER
12 of 26
Niki Wetzel, Planner
November 6, 2014
Page 2
with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for fire protection services). We
are responsible for all County facilities, located within non-contract cities. The
County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit may also
comment on conditions that may be imposed on a project by the Fire Prevention
Division, which may create a potentially significant impact to the environment.
· 2. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and
ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire
hydrants .
3. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire
Warden as a Fire Zone 4, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). All
applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water
mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, brush clearance and fuel modification plans, must
be met.
4 . When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the
County of Los Angeles Fire Department, the requirements for access, fire flows
and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage.
5 . Every building constructed shall be accessible to the Fire Department apparatus
by way of access roadways, with an all-weather surface of not less than the
prescribed width . The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around
the exterior of the building.
6 . Fire sprinkler systems are required in some residential and most commercial
occupancies . For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems, it is
strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed . This will reduce
potential fire and life losses. Systems are now technically and economically
feasible for residential use.
7 . Single family detached homes shall require a minimum fire flow of 1,250 gallons
per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour
duration . Two family dwelling units (duplexes) shall require a fire flow of 1,500
gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour
duration. When there are five or more units taking access on a single driveway,
the minimum fire flow shall be increased to 1,500 gallons per minute at 20
pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour duration.
13 of 26
Niki Wetzel, Planner
November 6, 2014
Page 3
8. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet and shall meet the following requirements :
a) No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 450 feet via vehicular access
from a public fire hydrant.
b) No portion of a structure should be placed on a lot where it exceeds
750 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant.
c) When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 450 feet on a residential street, hydrants
shall be required at the corner and mid-block.
d) Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified
distances.
9 . The Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways
exceeding 150 feet in-length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs.
10. Provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders, except
for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an
unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Department vehicular access
to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall s of the first story of the
building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building.
Fire Code 503.1.1 & 503.2.1.
11. Streets or driveways within the development shall be provided with the following :
a) Provide 36 feet in width on all streets where parking is allowed on both
sides.
b) Provide 34 feet in width on cul-de-sacs up to 700 feet in length .' This
allows parking on both sides of the street.
c) Provide 36 feet in width on cul-de-sacs from 701 to 1,000 feet in length.
This allows parking on both sides of the street.
d) For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the
street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be
posted with the Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING -
FIRE LANE" in three-inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to
ensure access for Fire· Department use. -Turning radii shall not be less
14 of 26
Niki Wetzel, Planner
November 6, 2014
Page 4
than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of
the road.
12. Should any questions arise regarding subdivision, water systems, or access,
please contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development
Unit Inspector, Nancy Rodeheffer, at (323) 890-4243 or at
nrodeheffer@fire.lacounty.gov.
13. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit
appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
FORESTRY DIVISION -OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:
1. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's
Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and
endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the
County Oak Tree Ordinance.
2 . Due to the limited amount of information included in your request, we are unable
to respond to specific potential impacts.
HEAL TH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION:
1. Per the submitted information the site was previously occupied by a gasoline
service station and a commercial plant nursery. The historical site use may have
contributed to onsite ~ontaminations that may exceed the State recommended
cleanup guidelines for residential use. It is requested that site is assessed and/or
mitigated under oversight of a local or State jurisdictional agency and obtain a
"No Further Action" letter prior to grading.
If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330 .
Very truly yours,
4-~,()j\LM~l ~
FRANK VIDALES; CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION
PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU
FV:jl
15 of 26
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S or.:FICE
ADMINISTRATION
17 November 2014
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL
Niki Wetzel, AICP, Principal Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Dr. N.
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
SUBJECT: Comments in Response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for a 4-Unit Detached Condominium Project at
5883 Crest Road (PA No. 25-1'4)
Nll<t
Dear ~.:..wetzel :
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-mentioned project. We
have reviewed the MND and project exhibits, and offer the following comments:
1. The discussion of Aesthetics in the Initial Study (pp. 22-25) notes that the proposed
project is expected to have less-than-significant impacts with respect to the privacy
of surrounding properties. Table 111-1 makes specific reference to the impact of
proposed balconies or decks upon "the existing privacy of surrounding properties."
The Initial Study correctly notes that residences in Rancho Palos Verdes to the
south and southwest of the project site will be separated from the project, both
horizontally by the ex.isting; improved right·of-way of Crest Road and vertically by
the difference in elevation. Nevertheless, the City remains concerned about the
potential for privacy infringement upon Rancho Palos Verdes residents as a result ·
of any 2"d_f\oor decks or balconies along the southerly facades of proposed Units
3 and 4. It is not clear if such decks or balconies are proposed for these units or
not, but if they are, the City suggests requiring them .to include a solid, opaque 42-
inch-tall barrier around the perimeter, measured from the surface of the deck or
balcony. This will protect the privacy of downslope properties in Rancho Palos
Verdes while still affording opportunities for ocean and Catalina Island views for
future residents of the project.
2 . The discussion of Transportation/Traffic in the Initial Study (pp. 26-27) concludes
that the proposed project will have no significant impacts on traffic. The City
concurs with this assessment. In a related matter, however, we note that the
project proposes to remove and replace existing driveway approaches along Crest
30!140 l·IAWTl-lORNt: BLVD./ RANCHO 11\LOS vrnoc:s. CA ll02l!i·fi391 I (310) 544'£>205 I FAX (310) [)~4-52fll
WWWJ'At.OSVEf<l:.lfl3.COM/RPV
PmN rw ON r~ECYGl.rn H\Prn
-------·---·-·--· .. ·-·-
16 of 26
Niki Wetzel
17 November 2014
Page 2
Road as a part of the project. The driveway approaches, sidewalk and other right-
of-way improvements along the Crest Road frontage of the project site are located
within Rancho Palos Verdes. As such the project conditions should clearly state
that any proposed modifications require the approval of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Public Works Department. Furthermore, any other deficiencies in these existing
right-of-way improvements should be repaired by the project proponent.
3. The discussion of Air Quality and Noise impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 28-38)
identify less-than-significant air quality and noise impacts during project
construction. The Rancho 1=>a1os Verdes residences located closest to the project
site-and, therefore, most likely to be affected by dust and noise-are located on
Highridge Road in the Seacrest neighborhood and Sail View Avenue in the
Seabreeze neighborhood of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City of Rancho Palos
Verdes agrees that the proposed project seems unlikely to result in significant
construction-related impacts to surrounding properties. However, the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes asks to be kept apprised of project status as it moves
through the building permit process so that we will be able to advise our residents
and City Council about the project's construction status, and to refer residents to
the appropriate contacts in the event of any construction-related complaints.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this project. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5226
or via e-mail at kitf@rpv.com.
Sincerely,
~~
Kit Fox, AJ6P
Senior Administrative Analyst
cc: Mayor Duhovic and City Council
Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager
Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development
Michael Throne, Director of Public Works
M :\Border lssues\5883 Crest Road\20141117 _MNDComments.dacK
17 of 26
ATTACHMENT 2
18 of 26
GRADING APPLICATION
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Telephone-(310) 377-1577
Fax-(310) 377-4468
www .RolllngHlllsEstates-Ca .go v
THIS GRADING PERMIT REVIEW SHALL AUTHORIZE ONLY THE GRADING WORK ft EOU ES~EE>--~'°'
AND SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF OTHER STRUCTURES SHO IJ't N··ON "YT H E GRADTNG )
PLAN. Ji . t/lt,,. l;y
OWNER d V>;J I C./-f k). DATE .g f 1 ft '--"! < -·A I ~
.• #·" ,_
ENGINEER ~a /J 11-1 !f ,,q·~r IY' fl"1J .~f ()v LI CENS E # /Z6{::" .g 11·t,O
CONTRACTOR fll .P · LICENSE #
~----------------
LO CAT 10 N (9 8' J C-1~.£/:J /<,o·l}'J;:;. ~:If . f;.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------
(
EXTENT OF GRADING
A.
B.
c .
WILL THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE IMPORTATION OF
ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIAL? .
1. JF YES, HOW MANY CUBIC YARDS? •:)JO' CUBIC YARDS
,,,,--.. ,r,
WILL THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE EXPORTATION OF/v /,\ J
EARTH MATERIAL? f ~ ~ J
2. IF YES, HOW MANY CUBIC YAR U$_~ ~ 0.0 C IJ ~Q .. X6.R.9 S . _/'..._ \ _...k:..-:_ ,) --~"· WILL THE AMOUNT OF FILL EQUAL THE AMOUN T OF CUT?
EXPLANATION l/o .c"; "fl7-f /~bpo.1'.(: ~, <l)<i/ J ri ,,,..c;
Ct!-rJ .~f; /NI~'-'i ~& ... (, oW€-x t .0" TD .10 JN I (Vl_l -c-e ·r hf· f:
p.·tof:· ):/1-E l?)t r ·~ ;t.f:r{:, r,<.,r.iJ 'G-c-r~, f.. ·~ /'v c r-1 Al(,,
~·-
)lo
)lo .
/X/· ;'f'f .( &<1l3.Jc.. /l"ft<.1:1 ... < 1p Jc.:. f-/<-Fc~.r i ·"!Nt1 .
£. • .. ? /C f' c; •. ,. A" {/{)'IN r.;~ G ) 1-;<,4'1) f fh I ~if') , a r Uj<1.· 1() .:> ' • ,;,_,
1}t f-.• 1..., JA; (.,-1) /..,;-'tJ f-/4'{ t /~·.£ .( V v ·1' C I.? f' rt-.trn-1 .+· l ; r-j ·vlf1 N c..e ti . ~f~l!v/_...
/
D.
E.
WILL THIS PROPOSAL CUT INTO AN EXISTING SLOPE?
1. IF YES, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND DEPTH OF CUT
SLOPE?
LE NGTH, ___ _ DEPTH ___ _
2. IF YES, WHAT IS THE RESULTANT RATIO?
3. IF YES, WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CUBIC YARDS
BEING REMOVED?
WILL THIS PROPOSAL FILL AN EXISTING SLOPE?
1. IF YES, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND DEPTH OF THE
FILL SLOPE?
LENGTH /'J 0 D EPT H & fr:..r ·
2. IF YES, WHAT IS THE RESULTANT SLOPE RATIO? __ _
3. IF YES, WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CUBIC YARDS BEING
FILLED?
'jt/.
./;f!C/f:..-f 1vv -;/XI/DIV 6 &-Prtf' ft4-r>/'€f.-,ry V;_.ar ~ .ff 1,,, IJ>-;i /"utrrir--, W!Vf/
f'o C~'ert ;r S (!Jl-1'?i1A5 _ ,;rV .&t1'1-0 ,.,::r;t.51"f· .5'" t-.-1r 1N ·:~-r....fvf i,,..
HYDROLO GY ~f' J7-)f:. ft-l..of'~A/y' fa Tl-:J~ rCif-/' r I .
A. WILL THIS PROPOSAL ALTER NATURAL DRAINAGE PATIERNS?
B.
c.
WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT IN CONCENTRATION OF STORM
WATER RUN-OFF?
WILL STORM WATER BE DISCHARGED INTO AN ACCEPTABLE
DRAINAGE FACILITY? r '::.
-~···· ~-··
D. WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESUL r1N 'f:i ow PATTERNS WHICH CAUSE
WATER TO BE DIRECTED ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES?
1. IF YES, HAS TH·E.·WRITIEN APPROVAL OF THESE ·
PROPERTY OWNERS BEEN OBTAINED?
E. WILL THIS PROPOSAL INSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM
ALL STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS?
F. WILL THIS PROPOSAL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HYDROLOGY OF
OTHER PROPERTIES?
2
/.fo .
110 7
,Yt /.-
!lo ·.
-~
Yt1 __,,..,,...
f./ t/
20 of 26
G. WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT IN ANY EROSION?
1. IF YES, WHAT MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO ENSURE
EROSION PROTECTION?
EXPLANATION ______________ _
GRADING METHODS
A.
B.
WILL THIS PROPOSAL REQUIRE THE USE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT?
1. IF YES,.WHAT MACHINERY WILL BE USED?
EXPLANATION .f"""".f(V'V ./c-t<J,,f' 6~v.1~6NJ
f;Jl1 '7f c.-vf v/CJ> ;Pr!(, ~. l/'f?vf' 4~7<·~ ./t'1"'e
WILL THIS PROPOSAL INVOLVE THE USE OF TRUCK
TRANSPORT?
1. IF YES, WHAT CAPACITY OF VEHICLE AND WHAT HAUL ROUTE
IS REQUESTED?
CAPACITY: /o CUBICYARDS
HAUL ROUTE r: fS , b ·
C . DESCRIBE METHODS OF DUST CONTROL TO BE EMPLOYED DURING
GRADING.
EXPLANATION ... /f',1t Iv'"? 1/ .. ·•: t) /;?.v/ ;<-C/1.'i 1.1ff1-. o L-~--"
~ 6k./r/f<..!J J {.J,,. f!: Ci· t.}) ;,e, e,; r~ Jl / ca J.J Cf.
GRADING COMPATIBILITY
A. WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESPECT AND PRESERVE NATURAL
AMENITIES, INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY, LANDSCAPING AND
NATURAL FEATURES?
3
'/_t~ -
t_&J -
21 of 26 ·
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
WILL THIS PROPOSAL PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND RESPECT
RESPECT THE PRIVACY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES?
EXPLANATION ________________ _
WILL THIS PROPOSAL INCORPORATE EXISTING AND/OR ADDITIONAL
LANDSCAPING TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES?
EXPLANATION------------=--------
WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESPECT AND MAINTAIN EXISTING PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE VIEWS?
WILL THIS PROPOSAL COMPLY WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE (ff...
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE?
EXPLANATION ,ft,.J.tJ-Ct#r f&'-4 -VJb.-J / 1/1;;:.,,&/f/r /.j; D' 1· ,Rf;I( 1e wt!)
f t.-f'-tN J. /Iv /1 o ll &:'Tfc ,.;-N-a · ,e> 8 J e '-nor~) TO /";'a ;i ,.J i:::<-r ·
IJ J f A /r.>,J'&p . "
WILL THIS PROPOSAL COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND ~it;)-
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
GRADING ORDINANCE (MUNICIPAL CODE 17 .07.010)?
forms/grading updated 10/23/07
4
22 of 26
5883 CREST ROAD PROJECT (PA-25-14) RECE!VEO
DEC D 1 2014
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE
INITltL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
PERSONS, 0Rt NIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT COMMENTED ON THE PROPOSED
MITIGATED NEC ATIVE DECLARATION
The public re ,iew period for the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) for thd 5883 Crest Road Project commenced on October 9, 2014, and ended on
November 24, j 2014. The table below lists the persons, organizations, and public agencies that
provided corn ents to the City of Rolling Hills Estates on the Proposed MND.
Gabrieleno Band ~f Mission Indians -Kizh Nation
Andrew ~alas, Chairman
Cow1ty of Los An geles Fire Department ··--
Vidales, f rank
City of Rancho Pa 1os Verdes
Fox, Kit
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
'\ 0/22/2014
1116/2014
11/17/2014
The comment and recommendations received on the Proposed MND, along with the lead
agency's resp,onses to the environmental points that were raised, are presented herein. All
comments on J the Proposed MND were submitted in written form and are included in their
entirety. Each point raised in these comment letters was assigned a number (e.g., XY-1 ), as
noted on the comment letters included in this section. The lead agency's response to each
enumerated c omment is provided after the respective cornrnent letter.
City of Rolling Hi Is Estates
November 2014
5883 Crest Road Project
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
1
23 of 26
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
17. November 2014
NI i Wetzel, AICP, Principal Planner
Cl 1 y of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Dr. N.
R lling Hills Estates, CA 90274
CITY Mt\NAGER 'S OFTICE
AIJMINISrT<ATION
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL
Sl!IBJECT: Comments in Response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for a 4-Unit Detached Condominium Project at
5883 Crest Road {PA No. 25-14)
Nl/<I
Dear ~:..Wetzel :
T e City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the I
pr · posed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-mentioned project. We RPV-1
ha e reviewed the MND and project exhibits , and offer the following comments :
1. The discussion of Aesthetics in the initial Study (pp . 22-25) notes that the proposed
project is expected to have less-than-significant impacts with respect to the privacy
of surrounding properties . Table 111 -1 makes specific reference to the impact of
proposed balcon ies or decks upon "the ex isting privacy of surrounding properties .•
The Initial Study correctly notes that residences in Rancho Palos Verdes to the
south and southwest of the project site will be separated from the project, both
horizontally by the existi ng , improved right-of-way of Crest Roed and vertically by RPV-2
the diffe ren ce In elevation . Nevertheless, the City remains concerned about the
potential for privacy infringement upon Rancho Palos Verd es residents as a result
of any 2"d·floor decks or balconies along the southerly facades of proposed Units
3 and 4. It Is not clear if such decks or balconies are proposed for these units or
not, but if they are, lhe City suggests requiring them to include a solid . opaque 42 -
lnch -tall barrier around the perimeter, measured from the su rface of the deck or
balcony. This will protect the privacy of downslope properties In Rancho Palos
Verdes while still affording opportunities for ocean and Catalina Island views for
future residents of the project.
2. The discussion of TransportationfTraffic in the Initial Study (pp . 26-27) concludes
that the proposed project wlll havfl no significant impacts c>n traffic. The City RPV-3
concurs with this asse .ssment. In a related matter, however, we note that the
project proposes to remove and replace existing driveway approaches along Crest
:Hi~l40 ~14.W'ilfORN[: BLVD./ l~~\!1GHO \f\L(.~; \llf\'OES: CA !10i!'l!1-f1391 /('..HO) !)-l<l-b7.0!J J h\X (:JH,I) !l4-i S~91
\\\\i\WAIDl:'\lf::kfl:~• '.J'..JMtfil '':.'
! •r?~rr.rl\Y-11\tc.vl:~~-t> l'\l'i i?
CUy of Rollfog J, &t•t" 5883 Crest Road Project
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigared Negative Declaration
11
November 20 J 4
24 of 26
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Niki Wetzel
17 November 2014
Page 2
Letter RPV Continued
Road as a part of the project. The driveway approaches, sidewalk and other right-
of-way Improvements along the Crest Road frontage of the project site are located
within Rancho Palos Verdes. As such the project conditions should clearly state RPV-3
that any proposed modifications require the approval of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Public Works Department. Furthermore, any other deficiencies in these existing cont.
right-of-way improvements should be repaired by the project proponent.
3. The discussion of Air Quality and Noise impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 2B-3B)
Identify less -than-significant air quality and noise impacts during project
construction. The Rancho l,alosVerdes residences located closest 10 the project
site-and, therefore, most likely to be affected by dust and noise-are located on
Highridge Road in the Seacrest neighborhood and Sail View Avenue in the RPV-4 Seabreeze neighborhood of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City of Rancho Palos
Verdes agrees that the proposed project seems unlikely to result in significant
construction-related impacts to surrounding properties. However, the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes asks to be kept apprised 1Jf project status as it moves
through the building permit process so that we will be able to advise our residents
and City Council about the project's constrL1ction status, and to refer residents to
the appropriate contacts in the event of any construction-related complaints.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this project. If you have any I
questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5226 RPV-5
or via e-mail at kitf@rpv.com.
Sincerely,
&.7
Senior Administrative Analyst
cc : Mayor Duhovic and City Council
Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager
Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development
Michael Throne, Director of Public Works
M:\Bordor lssues\&883 Crest Road\20141117 _MNDCommonts .docx
5883 Crest Road Project
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Dec/ar<1tion
12
City of Rolling ills Estates
Nov mber 2014
25 of 26
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSES
RPV-1: lntrodu • tory remarks are made. l\Jo response is required.
RPV-2: The c o rnenter raises privacy issues, which are beyond the scope of CEQA, but will be
provided to d cision-makers for their consideral'ion. While outside of the scope of environ mental
impacts pursu , nt to CEQA, subsection Ill. Aesthetics, of the project's 15/MND discusses privacy in
the context of the City of Rolling Hills Estates' Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance. In regard
to privacy, th IS/MND notes, "the residences to the south, across Crest Road [in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes], would be separated by a landscaped median in addition to the
roadway ilsel and by changes in elevation." The closest residences to the south are
approxima1e ly 110 feet from the project site, a sufficient distance to respect residen1"ial privacy in
a suburban se tin g .
RPV-3: The co1 menter expresses concurrence with the 15/MND's conclusion that the proposed
project will nqt cause any significant traffic impacts. The commenter further notes that Crest
Road, including the sidewalk fronting the project, is within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and
requests that i'e project's conditions state that any proposed modification to the Crest Road
right-of-way ( .g., removal of driveway approaches and sidewalk modifications) require the
approval of th i City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department. The project's Conditions
of Approval will incorporate this sugges1ion.
RPV-4: The c l mmenter expresses concurrence with the IS/MND's conclusions regarding air
quality and n · ise impacts from project construction. The commenter further requests that the
City of Ranch Palos Verdes be kept apprised of the project's construction schedule and status .
This requested is noted. City of Rolling Hills Estates staff will continue to coordinate with staff from
the City of Roi cha Palos Verdes on this project.
RPV-5: Closi ng remarks are made. No response is required .
City of Rolling Hi Is Estates
November 2014
5883 Crest Road Project
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negati.ve Declaration
13
26 of 26
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kit Fox
Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:24 AM
Teresa Takaoka
FW: Very Important and Sad anniversary
Late Correspondence for Item C (Border Issues -Rancho LPG)
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Ra.ncho Palos Verdes
(310)544-5'2'26
ki t£@rpv.com
From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arrianeS@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:23 AM
To: MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca .rr.com ; amartinez@earthjustice .org ; det310@juno.com;
jody.james@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;
jhwinkler@me .com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net;
bonbon90731@gmail.com; rregSS@hotmail.com; claudia .r .mcculloch@gmail.com; chateau4us@att.net;
leneebilski@hotmail.com; darzavalney@aol.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; burling102@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net;
hanslaetz@gmail.com; fbmjet@aol.com; lljonesin33@yahoo .com; ksmith@klct.com; paul_h_rosenberg@hotmail .com;
lhermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net;
rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; nancy.kalthoff@yahoo.com; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; hvybags@cox.net;
robertrnch@aol.com
Cc: lara.larramendi@mail .house.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; rachel.zaiden@mail.house .gov; rob .wilcox@lacity .org;
david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; Kit Fox
Subject: Fwd: Very Important and Sad anniversary
Please take the 6 min. necessary to watch this. Rancho LPG is a glaring example of what the CSB is talking about. It
WILL happen ......... .
ps. I hope you all had a nice Thanksgiving!
-----Original Message-----
From : Carl Southwell <carl.southwell@gmail.com>
To : Pryor, Lawrence <lpryor@usc .edu>; Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent: Tue , Dec 2, 2014 9:20 am
Subject: Sad anniversary
https ://www. youtu be. com/watch?v= HZirRB32qzU
Carl Southwell
Contact me at (use whichever you prefer) :
carl.southwell@gmail.com
carl .southwell@riskandpolicy.org
1 C.
Visit : www .pressfriends.org
Making writing fun for elementary school kids, empowering kids to become mentors and leaders, and creating friendships
among youth from diverse backgrounds.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jacob,
Ronald Conrow < Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com>
Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1:44 PM
jacob haik Uacob.haik@lacity.org)
timothy.lippman@asm.ca.gov; eric.guerra@asm.ca.gov; Zivkovic, Jennifer
(Jennifer.Zivkovic@sen.ca.gov); Houterman, Justin; 'Hon. Rudy Svorinich, Jr.';
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; rkim@lacbos.org; ryan.ferguson@lacity.org; Doane Liu;
octaviano.rios@lacity.org; dan.tillema@csb.gov; CC
Gunter_Rancho worst case fabrication
Gunter_Rancho worst case fabrication.pdf; EPA_FOIA Release to Gunter.pdf; EPA_Legal
Validation of Rancho Worst Case.pdf
I trust your trip to China with Councilman Buscaino and Mayor Garcetti was fruitful and enlightening? Welcome back to
the USA.
As is our custom, Rancho has endeavored to keep CD15 informed concerning the dissemination of false information by
community activists about the Facility. Attached are letters from Janet Gunter and Marcie Miller which claim that
Rancho has used the "toxics" formula for calculating the "worst case" scenario and thereby has submitted an inaccurate
offsite impact blast radius to endpoint. These letters were posted and downloaded from the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes website under Border Issues for the December 02, 2014 City Council meeting. As is their prerogative, the City of
RPV allows posting of such information without vetting for accuracy. As you know, the City of RPV has no jurisdiction
over the Rancho facility. Furthermore, Rancho's "worst case" scenario vetted by the EPA using proprietary EPA software
clearly shows it does not impact any residents of RPV, including Eastview, the closet community to the Facility.
It is important to note, Ms. Gunter is making this claim knowing that it is in fact false! Also, attached are the "search
results" downloaded from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) website which shows six different FOIA requests made
by Janet Gunter to the EPA indicating the dates submitted, tracking number, and phase (closed/open). I would like to
draw your attention to Tracking Number EPA-R9-2014-002842. The web page shows that 73 records (documents) were
released to Ms. Gunter by the EPA under this request. The actual list of the 73 documents is not printable, however, the
entire list can be viewed on the FOIA webpage. At the conclusion of this attachment is a letter from Enrique Manzanilla
of the EPA informing Ms. Gunter of the documents released to her under EPA-R9-2014-002842.
The final attachment is an e-mail correspondence from EPA Region 9 Attorney Andrew Helmlinger and Plains third party
legal counsel Cliff Mc Farland dated December 10, 2013 and is part of the 73 documents released to Ms. Gunter. This
legal to legal correspondence is in response to an e-mail from me to Mary Wesling of EPA Region 9 concerning prior
bulleted e-mails by Janet Gunter where she states Rancho's "worst case" is 3+ miles using EPA calculations. As a result, I
requested the EPA review and calculate the accuracy of Rancho's "worst case" as submitted in our RMP. EPA Attorney
Helmlinger clearly states the EPA has in fact calculated Rancho's RMP to be 0.5 miles based upon the EPA regulatory
formula. Helmlinger further states that it is "not 3.0 miles as Ms. Gunter asserts". It sh<;>uld be noted this is legal to legal
validation of Rancho's "worst case" scenario. Therefore, any claim that Rancho's "worst case" is greater than 0.5 miles is
erroneous and to state Rancho has used the "toxics" formula is false and not in accordance with EPA regulation
40CFR68. Using EPA parameters and methodologies within the regulation, site specific information is entered into EPA
proprietary software RMP* Comp which automatically calculates the results. Additionally, butane is listed in RMP*
1 C.
Comp drop down selection category box as a flammable and not a toxic. RMP* Comp does not allow the user to enter
the wrong product classification information and continue with the offsite calculation.
It is certainly within any citizens right to exercise the FOIA process to acquire information from federal agencies.
However, it is shameful to have requested and acquired the information via FOIA and to disregard the facts. Moreover,
it is disingenuous for anyone to continue disseminating false information in order to generate fear-mongering within the
local community with the sole purpose of giving relevance to their own "cause celeb".
Per law, Rancho's RMP as vetted by the EPA as being accurate is on file for public review at the LAFD/CUPA office in
downtown Los Angeles. Please advise should CD15 require additional information on this subject matter or anything
related to the Rancho LPG Holdings Gaffey Street facility.
Regards,
Ron Conrow
Western District Manager
Plains LPG Services, LP
19430 Beech Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263
Office: 661-368-7917
Cell: 661-319-9978
ronald.conrow@plainsmidstream.com
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, including any
attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the
sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late correspondence
Ara Michael Mihranian
Ara Mihranian
Tuesday, December 02, 2014 8:26 AM
Teresa Takaoka
FW: Marymount East Parking Lot compliance issues, OUTDOOR LIGHTING TEST
Deputy Director of Community Development
HO f1\Los VERDES
JJ Do you really ne ed to print this e-mail?
l his e-ma:I n'essa9e co11t,1ins inforrnation tidongin~i to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidenti'11 and/or protected frorn
rfo;c!osure. The inforrnatio11 is intenrled only for 11.se of the individual or i~ntity named. Unauthorized dissrmin.otion, distribution, or copyin9 is strictly prohii.iited. If
you received rt1is email in error, rn· 0re not an intencJe<l ri"cipient, please notify trie send(~!' immediately. Thank you for your assistance ancJ cooperation.
From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 4:01 PM
To: Ara Mihranian
Cc: PC
Subject: RE: Marymount East Parking Lot compliance issues, OUTDOOR LIGHTING TEST
I asked the Planning Commission about how I should approach the Marymount lighting but they did not respond. The
reason I asked the Planning Commission was because on October 25, 2011 the Planning Commission requested a Staff
Report of how exterior lighting for proposed non-residential development projects is reviewed by Staff.
On January 24, 20~2 the Planning Commission felt that the City should have a.more specific set of rules or codes to give
project applicants so that they can integrate acceptable exterior lighting into their proposed projects without having to
guess what will be accepted to the City.
Seven months later, on August 14, 2012, the Community Development Director submitted the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission regarding how the light is reviewed after said projects are constructed. The Planning Commission
created a three-member sub-committee {Commissioners Gerstner, Leon and Tomblin) and these commissioners were to
review RPV's current lighting standards and compare those standards with other similar cities . I assumed our planning
department would apply rigid and strict outdoor lighting requirements to maintain peace and tranquility, open space,
view and semi-rural atmosphere of the Peninsula.
It has been over three years and still the outdoor lighting issue has not been resolved.
1 3
The fence has helped immensely for privacy and bollard lighting.
The overhead lighting, in my opinion, is not adequately shielded and does not comply with out outdoor lighting code.
would like to have a simple test -where I can see the vehicles (not the unseen car test) with their lights on and see the
results of the lighting contractor with the parking lot fully lit in the appropriate manner according to our city code.
Our outdoor lighting code states that "testing shall be done with the entire facility illuminated -this was never
done.
Full text of the code is :
17.56.040 -Outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses.2~
No outdoor lighting shall hereafter be installed in any nonresidential district, except in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
A. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, a lighting plan prepared by a lighting contractor,
which shall include the location, height, number of lights, wattage, estimates of maximum illumination on site
and spill/glare at property lines, and in conformance with the following standards and criteria, shall be
submitted for approval by the director.
I. No one fixture shall exceed one thousand two hundred watts and the light source shall not be directed
toward or result in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which
such light source is physically located. Wattage for nonincandescent lighting shall be calculated using the
multiplier values described in Section 17.56.030 (A) of this chapter.
2. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source or fixture, iflocated on a building, is above the
line of the eaves. If the light source or fixture is located on a building with no eaves, or if located on a standard
or pole, the light source or fixture shall not be more than ten feet above existing grade, adjacent to the building
or pole.
3. All estimates or testing shall be done with the entire facility illuminated.
4. Testing equipment shall be a calibrated gossen panalux electronic 2 or an equal approved by the director.
B. The director may approve deviations which exceed the standards set forth in Section 17.56.040(A)(l)
through (A)(3) of this chapter, when the director finds that such deviations are required for public safety."
(emphasis added)
Reference to the "light source" should include vehicles since vehicle headlights are designed to illuminate downward
and out. We residents objecting to the lights are downslope and were never ever considered before approval and, in
fact, written objections (June and July 2013) were totally ignored before the August 6, 2013 initial approval.
So, I think it is at the very least mean that Marymount blindsided me after the Neighborhood Meeting by supposedly
having a car drive around with headlights on last week and now refuses my request to have an SUV, truck and Van drive
around with headlights on. Maybe we won't see anything from the trucks, SUVs and Vans, just like the car and everyone
will only have to deal with the overhead lights.
Diane Smith
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Councilmembers:
Jim Reeves <JReeves@marymountcalifornia.edu>
Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1:58 PM
cc
Michael Brophy
RE: Marymount California University -Follow Up Review of East Parking Lot
I am submitting these comments on the referenced agenda item as I am not able to attend this evening's
meeting, although Dr. Brophy will be present to address any general concerns.
As a preliminary matter, I want to thank Mr. Mihranian for his efforts and cooperation in working
constructively with Marymount so that the reasonable concerns of our neighbors and the City Council were
addressed and the additional improvements installed in a manner that was mutually satisfactory. Having
worked closely with Mr. Mihranian over the past year on this project, I concur with his assessment of the
effectiveness of the improvements in implementing the conditions of approval.
Although not specifically noted in the staff report, last week I accompanied Mr. Mihranian on a site visit to three
homes on San Ramon to view the parking lot. Marc Harris indicated he was quite happy with the results of the project
and noted that he had not seen smoking or students gathering. When visiting the back yards of Diane Smith and Laura
Mcsherry, we had two cars parked, headlights on, facing the east from the upper level of the lot. We could not see the
headlights from those homes. We also asked campus security to back out and drive around the lot. We still could not
see headlights. As the parking lot is primarily intended for and used by passenger vehicles, we do not believe the
fencing needs to be raised any higher.
With respect to the comment from "some" neighbors that all light fixtures should be fully screened from the views of
neighbors, this is clearly not an appropriate or achievable condition for any private property within the City.
Finally, with respect to set up activities for the annual graduation ceremony, which is proposed to be held on the East
Parking Lot this year, the University has no objections to revising the SUP to better coordinate these activities with City
staff.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments .
Sincerely,
Jim Reeves
Sr. Vice President
Finance & Administration
Marymou nt California University
(310) 303-7330
J Reeves@Marymou ntCa liforn ia. ed u
1\1ARYMOUNT
CAl.lJIORNiA li\11VEHS.ITY
1 3 .
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DECEMBER 1, 2014
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, December 2, 2014 City Council meeting:
Item No.
3
Description of Materials
Email exchange between Diane Smith and Deputy
Community Development Director Mihranian
Respectffibmitted,
~~L
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20141202 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Diane,
Ara Mihranian
Monday, December 01, 2014 2:30 PM
Diane Smith
Carolynn Petru; Joel Rojas; Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka
Re: Marymount East Parking Lot compliance issues, OUTDOOR LIGHTING TEST
I will look into the foot candles question you are asking about.
Given that, have you sent this email to the city council? I will include it as late correspondence but you may
want to email it now to cc@rpv.com to give the council adequate time to read your comments and consider your
requests. ·
Ara
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 28, 2014, at 11 :55 AM, Diane Smith <radlsmith@cox.net> wrote:
Dear Ara and Leza,
Regarding the glare and spillover of light from Marymount's East Parking Lot, your requirement "The
light emitted by the light bulbs in the standards ... may not exceed 1700 lumens." does
not reveal to the City Council how much light is delivered to the surface of the parking lot.
Lumen output is of the bulb in the fixture only -it is not a measure of how much light is in the space.
I am objecting to the overspill and GLARE from the light fixtures and I don't know how much noise the
fence buffers because Marymount and City Staff realize the students are not all parking there.
The City Council needs to know how many footcandles you are measuring in the parking lot and how
that complies to minimum safety standards:
"152) Parking and Security lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards and shall
conform to City requirements" {emphasis added)
Because of your limitation of 1700 lumens, I asked both the School District and Rancho Palos Verdes
Department of Public Works to compute the lumens used in their high school and City Council meeting
parking lot (Hesse Park) and they told me 1580 lumens. Based on that comparison I accused City Staff of
allowing Marymount more lumens than the minimum safety standard and therefore violating City's own
code.
Now I find out that I should have asked :
"How many footcandles are you measuring in the parking lot?
In view of:
1) Marymount's numerous violations of their permits {timely construction of fence, Gala event
violations of noise,. exceeding set-up time by 2.5 hours, number of tents, admitted discrepancy
in enrollment, etc.) and failure to effectively stop Marymount from these continuous violations;
1
3
2) Marymount's discouraging students from parking in the parking lot this semester by charging
$150 parking fees;
3) RPV Traffic Safety Commission's opposition to Staff's recommendation for imposing permit
parking on community to discourage students from parking on neighborhood streets;
4) Twarting of City Staff's ability to conduct adequate noise study (Items 2 and 3 above) and
complete truck, SUV & Van vehicle headlight study;
5) Failure of City Staff to conduct appropriate light testing, i.e. measuring of footcandles in
Marymount's east parking lot to assess glare and overspill as compared to minimum safety
standards (high school and community parking lots in residential areas).
I hope you will reconsider your present recommendation to the City Council and amend your Report to
recommend an additional 6-month review so that these and other issues may be properly addressed
when Marymount is in compliance with their Conditional Use Permit.
This really is exhausting but I am afraid that attention to detail is important in order to avoid disasters
like what happened to Lomita homeowners with the erection of Green Hills mausoleum 8 feet from
their property.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Diane Smith
From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: LIGHTING COMPANY
Thank you so much for your quick response. As you can tell this parking lot is driving me nuts . Actually,
the 6' vinyl fence they installed greatly reduced the invasion of privacy and bollard lighting.
I volunteer at the Bob Hope USO center at LAX. Last night I met another volunteer, Florence, who had
retired from working for 40 years for a commercial lighting company. She told me that I have been
asking the wrong questions.
The City required Marymount to keep lighting to minimum safety standards.
"152) Parking and Security lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards and shall
conform to City requirements"
The City allowed Marymount 1700 lumens in light fixtures .
I confirmed with the School District and the City Department of Public Works that their parking lots use
1580 lumen light fixtures .
152) .... There shall be no light spillover onto residential properties or halo into the night
sky. The light emitted by the light bulbs in the standards must be of a warm hue (i.e., not
white/blue) and may not exceed 1700 lumens."
Florence said I should ask:
"How many footcandles are you measuring in the parking lot?
Lumen output is of the bulb in the fixture only -it is not a measure of how much light is in the space .
Florence has in her possession a device that measures footcandles. She is going to demonstrate to me
how to use the device so that I can measure the footcandles in the Peninsula High School parking lot
2
and the footcandles in Hesse Park parking lot {where our City Council conducts its meetings) and then
compare the readings with Marymount's parking lot. If Marymount's footcandle readings are higher
than the high school and RPV Council Meeting parking lot then Marymount would be in violation of
Condition 152.
3