Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

CITYOF CITYOF - Palos Verdes on the Net

VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 80

									                    CITY OF                   RANCHO PALOS VERDES
                                  PUBLIC HEARING


Date:               May 4,2010

Subject:            Appeal of the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
                    (Case No. ZON2003-00317) /30800 Palos Verdes Drive East

Subject Property: 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East

1.      Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Wolowicz

2.      Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale

3.      Staff Report & Recommendation: Principal Planner Mihranian

4.      Public Testimony:

                                       Appellants: CCC/ME

                                       Applicant:     Marymount College

5.      Council Questions:

6.      Rebuttal:

7.      Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Wolowicz

8.      Council Deliberation:

9.      Council Action:




                                                                               13-1
                   CITY OF                         RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:                   HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY: COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM:                 JOEL ROJAS, AICP,        COMMU~LOPMENT                       DIRECTOR

DATE:                 MAY 4,2010

SUBJECT:              APPEAL OF THE MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES
                      EXPANSION PROJECT (CASE NO. ZON2003-00317) I 30800
                      PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST

REVIEWED:             CAROLYN LEHR, CITY          MANAGER~
Project Manager:      Ara Michael Mihranian,        Principal Plann~
                                                ,,"CP,


RECOMMENDATION

   1.      Review and select an athletic field alternative;

   2.      Direct Staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions memorializing the Council's
           action, including action taken on the project from its March 31,2010 meeting, for
           adoption at the May 18, 2010 meeting.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On March 31,2010, the City Council, after considering public testimony, closed the public
hearing, voted to certify the project EIR (including Appendices A and D), and approved a
modified version of the Planning Commission approved project. At the April 6, 2010
meeting, the Council indicated its desire to revisit specific issues relating to the athletic
field. As such, a public notice was released announcing the May 4,2010 public hearing on
the Council's focused review of the following issues relating to the athletic field:

   •    The location of the proposed athletic field;
   •    Parking affected by the location of the proposed athletic field; and,
   •    Consideration of any safety measures related to the location of the proposed
        athletic field including but not limited to increasing the height of the retractable
        net and/or installing a median safety barrier along Palos Verdes Drive East.

Pursuant to Council direction, Staff has analyzed the athletic field alternatives studied in
Appendix D of the Final EIR that were presented at the March 30 and 31,2010 meetings.
Staff has identified two options that reconfigure the layout of the athletic field for Alternative

                                                                                          13-2
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO - MAY 4,2010

D-1 so that access to the proposed fire lane is unobstructed. Furthermore, Staff provides a
summary of issues and recommended modifications to Alternative D-2 for the Council's
consideration.

The Council is being asked to review and select an athletic field alternative to be
constructed as part of the overall improvements to the Marymount College campus, rather
than completely denying the athletic field, which is still an option.

BACKGROUND
On March 30, 2010, the City Council conducted a public hearing that was continued from
its September 12, 2009 meeting to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's
approval of the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project filed by CCC/ME. At the
            th
March 30 meeting, the City Council received public testimony from the appellants
(CCC/ME), the applicant (Marymount College), and members ofthe public on the proposed
project and continued the public hearing to the following night. At the March 31 st meeting,
after hearing a brief presentation from Staff to questions raised at the March 30th meeting,
the Council began to deliberate on the merits of the appeal. As part of its deliberations, the
Council considered the location of the two athletic field alternatives (D-1 and D-2) analyzed
in Appendix D of the Final EIR. A motion is support of Alternative D-1, which would
maintain the athletic field in its current location was approved with a vote of 3-2 (Mayor
Pro-Tem Long and Councilman Stern dissenting). Soon after this motion passed, the
College's legal counsel, Mr. Don Davis, informed the Council that the approval of
Alternative D-1 should be denied because the College will not redesign its plan to build the
athletic field in this location.

While considering the adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
project, Staff informed the Council that with the approval of Alternative D-1 for the athletic
field, the environmental document concluded that there would be two additional significant
and unavoidable impacts resulting in a total of four. Staff informed the Council that the
additional significant and unavoidable impacts pertain to aesthetic impacts associated with
relocation of approximately 90 parking spaces to the western portion of the campus and
noise impacts with the close proximity of the athletic field to the proposed library building.
As a result of this information, the Council moved to deny the athletic field entirely, as
suggested by the College's attorney Mr. Davis, so that parking can be retained on the east
side of the campus avoiding the need to relocate parking spaces to the west side of the
campus and to avoid two additional significant and unavoidable impacts. This motion
passed 3-2 with Mayor Wolowicz and Councilman Misetich dissenting.

That evening the City Council closed the public hearing and gave direction regarding the
CCC/ME's appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval of the Marymount
College Facilities Expansion project. Specifically, the City Council voted to certify the
project EIR (including Appendices A and D) and approved a modified version of the
Planning Commission approved project. Furthermore, the Council directed Staff to bring
back the appropriate resolutions to memorialize the Council's action at its April 6th meeting.
At the April 6, 2010 City Council meeting, Staff reported that it needed additional time to
finalize the resolutions and thus intended to present the finalized resolutions at the


                                                                                      13-3
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO - MAY 4,2010

                   th
Council's April 20 meeting. However, that evening, the Council indicated its desire to
revisit the issues relating to the athletic field. Staff informed the Council that in order to
discuss the athletic field this item would need to be placed on a future agenda and re-
                                                                     st
noticed because the public hearing was closed at the March 31 meeting. As such, the
Council directed Staff to re-notice the public hearing to its May 4, 2010 meeting to only
consider the following specific issues:

   •   The location of the proposed athletic field;
   •   Parking affected by the location of the proposed athletic field; and,
   •   Consideration of any safety measures related to the location of the proposed
       athletic field including but not limited to increasing the height of the retractable
       net and/or installing a median safety barrier along Palos Verdes Drive East.

On April 15, 2010, a public notice announcing the date, time and location of the City
Council public hearing on the Project was released. Pursuant to the Council's direction on
       th
April 6 , the public notice stated the hearing would only consider the issues noted above.

DISCUSSION

The following discussion evaluates possible locations for the athletic field as described and
analyzed in Appendix 0 of the Final EIR, in the March 30, 2010 City Council Staff Report,
and at the March 30 and 31,2010 City Council meetings. The proposed Athletic Field
Alternatives are intended, among other things, to address concerns with errant field balls
entering Palos Verdes Drive East and potential impacts to neighboring properties, while
providing the College a recreational field. To assist the Council in its review of the athletic
field alternatives for consideration this evening, Staff has prepared and attached a matrix
that summarizes the points discussed below.

Athletic Field Alternative No. D-1

Alternative 0-1 was originally developed by Staff at the direction of the City Council at its
September 12, 2009 meeting to address safety concerns pertaining to errant field balls
entering the roadway related to the College's proposed athletic filed location. Alternative
0-1 originally consisted of the existing athletic field remaining in its current location, but
enlarged to resemble the dimensions of the athletic field proposed by the College at the
western portion of the campus (100 x 55 yards or 300 x 165 feet). However, during the
public comment period on Appendix 0 to the Final EIR, Staff learned that the design for
Alternative 0-1 was found to be infeasible because it impedes on access to the fire lane at
the southeastern portion of the campus. According to the Los Angeles County Fire
Department (LACFD), a maximum of 150-feet accessibility is required for all portions of
exterior walls for the first story of all buildings and this is achieved with the proposed fire
lane along the southern edge of the improvement campus. Because unobstructed fire
access cannot be provided with the current configuration of Alternative 0-1, at the March
   th
30 meeting, Staff reported to the Council that this alternative would either have to be
redesigned to accommodate the necessary fire access or be deemed infeasible. It should
also be noted that in regards to CEQA, the environmental analysis in Appendix 0 for
Alternative 0-1 concluded that a significant and unavoidable impact would occur with


                                                                                       13-4
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO - MAY 4,2010

respect to Aesthetics/Light and Glare (long term visual character with the relocation of the
parking lot at the western portion of the campus) and noise (long-term stationary noise at
the proposed library). As such, approval of Alternative D-1 would result in the Council's
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration.

Pursuant to Council direction to revisit the safety and environmental issues relating to the
athletic field, Staff has identified issues that may be considered to keep the athletic field at
the eastern portion of the campus without obstructing the proposed fire access lane and
impacting the major components of the proposed project. These issues are discussed
below.

1.     REORIENTING THE ATHLETIC FIELD BY 90 DEGREES

Configuration

This option consists of reorienting the athletic field by 90-degrees so that the northwest
corner of the original Alternative D-1 design now becomes the southwest corner and the
southwest corner of the original Alternative D-1 now becomes the southeast corner. Under
this design option, the southwest corner will extend over the south slope by approximately
60-feet (see attached exhibit). A 1O-foot walkway would be provided around the perimeter
of the athletic field. A retaining wall ranging in height between 2-feet and 20-feet would be
needed to support approximately 3,000 cubic yards of backfill under the portion ofthe field
extending over the south slope. In terms of the CEQA, the additional grading would not
exceed the grading quantities (100,000 cubic yards) evaluated in the Draft EIR. In order to
minimize the visual impact of the overall height of the retaining wall, it is recommended that
the wall be designed as a split retaining wall that is screened with vegetation to soften its
overall appearance.

Parking

This design option would not result in a change in the number of proposed parking spaces
(463 spaces). However, in order to accommodate the construction of this redesigned
athletic field option, the proposed eastern parking lot would have to be modified.
Specifically, approximately 40 parking spaces, rather than 90 parking spaces shown in the
original Alternative D-1 design, would need to be relocated from the eastern parking lotto a
new parking lot located west of the proposed tennis courts. Similar to the original design
for Alternative D-1, the tennis courts would be relocated to the south by approximately 15-
feet to accommodate a driveway to the proposed parking area. It is anticipated that some
minor grading would be required to level the site to accommodate the parking lot, and that
parking lot lighting and landscape planters would be installed to resemble the proposed
parking throughout the campus. This revised parking configuration would not result in new
or different environmental impacts because it would be located in an area previously
studied in Appendix D of the Final EIR.

Fencing

Similar to the Project analyzed in Appendix D ofthe Final EIR, a 42-inch high wrought iron


                                                                                        13-5
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO - MAY 4,2010

fence embedded within a 42-inch high landscape hedge and a 20-foot high retractable net
would be proposed along the athletic field's perimeter, in order to contain errant field balls
from entering the eastern parking lot, adjacent campus buildings and neighboring
properties. The fence would be shielded from view by the proposed landscaping and the
retractable net should be conditioned to only be used during activities involving field balls
and prohibited on Sundays and legal federal holidays to minimize potential visual impacts
to neighboring properties.

Athletic Field Surface

As indicated in the project EIR, the far eastern portion of the College campus is located in
close proximity to the South Shore Landslide and within a Building Geologic Setback.
Therefore, in order to minimize potential impacts to slope stability resulting from increased
irrigation in this general area for a turf field, a condition should be imposed that requires
synthetic turf and appropriate drainage catch basins be provided for the athletic field.

Environmental Impacts

This redesigned athletic field option would be set-back from the proposed library building
by approximately 50-feet rather than 20-feet as shown in the original Alternative D-1
design, and would be setback approximately 50-feet, rather than approximately 70-feet,
from the nearest residence to the south on Vista Del Mar. As concluded in the Final EIR,
the Project's short-term noise impacts associated with construction would remain
significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures. However, in regards to long-term noise impacts associated with the use of this
athletic field option, this redesign places the field further away from the proposed campus
buildings, but closer to the residence located on Vista del Mar.

Based on the noise modeling conducted for the project EIR, average noise levels
generated on athletic fields during games are approximately 58.4 dBA at a distance of 50
feet from the focal point or effective noise center of the playing field. The distance
between this redesigned athletic field option and the nearest residence to the south and
the proposed library building is approximately 50 feet. Using the standard attenuation rate
for a soft site, soccer event noise levels at the property line of the residence to the south
would be approximately 58.4 dBA. Therefore, the 65 dBA State noise standard used by
the EIR as the significance threshold for noise would not be exceeded and a less than
significant impact would result in this regard. As such, a significant and unavoidable noise
impact is eliminated with this redesigned option and a Statement of Overriding
Consideration would no longer be required for long-term noise impacts. Notwithstanding, a
significant and unavoidable impact would remain for aesthetic impacts resulting from the
introduction of lighting and hardscape in connection with the relocation of 63 parking
spaces to the western portion of the campus.




                                                                                      13-6
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO - MAY 4, 2010

2.     RELOCATING THE ATHLETIC FIELD FURTHER ONTO THE SOUTH SLOPE

Configu ration

This option consists of relocating the athletic field studied for Alternative D-1 to the
southeast by shifting it onto the southern slope by approximately 80-feet at the southwest
corner and by approximately 25-feet at the southeast corner (see attached exhibit). This
redesign option provides a 1O-foot walkway around the perimeter of the field requiring the
construction of a retaining wall on the south slope that would support approximately 4,000
cubic yards of backfill to maintain a finished grade elevation of approximately gOO-feet for
the athletic field. The backfill would be supported by a retaining wall ranging in height
between approximately 2-feet and 25-feet. In terms of the CEQA, the additional grading
would not exceed the grading quantities (100,000 cubic yards) evaluated in the Draft EIR.
In order to minimize the visual impact of the overall height of the retaining wall, it is
recommended that the wall be designed as a split retaining wall that is screened with
vegetation to soften its overall appearance.

Parking

This design option would not result in a change in the number of proposed parking spaces
(463 spaces). However, in order to accommodate the construction of this redesigned
athletic field option, the proposed eastern parking lot would have to be modified.
Specifically, approximately 63 parking spaces, rather than gO parking spaces shown in the
original design for Alternative D-1, would be relocated from the eastern parking lotto a new
parking lot located west of the proposed tennis courts. Similar to the original design for
Alternative D-1, the tennis courts would be relocated to the south by approximately 15-feet
to accommodate a driveway to the proposed parking area. It is anticipated that some
minor grading would be required to level the site to accommodate the parking lot, and that
parking lot lighting and landscape planters would be installed to resemble the proposed
parking throughout the campus. This revised parking configuration would not result in new
or different environmental impacts because it would be located in an area previously
studied in Appendix D of the Final EIR.

Fencing

Similar to the Project analyzed in Appendix D of the Final EIR, a 42-inch high wrought iron
fence embedded within a 42-inch high landscape hedge and a 20-foot high retractable net
would be proposed along the athletic field's perimeter, in order to contain errant field balls
from entering the eastern parking lot, adjacent campus buildings and neighboring
properties. The fence would be shielded from view by the proposed landscaping and the
retractable net should be conditioned to only be used during activities involving field balls
and prohibited on Sundays and legal federal holidays to minimize potential visual impacts
to neighboring properties.

Athletic Field Surface

As indicated in the project EIR, the far eastern portion of the College campus is located in


                                                                                      13-7
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO - MAY 4,2010

close proximity to the South Shore Landslide and within a Building Geologic Setback.
Therefore, in order to minimize potential impacts to slope stability resulting from increased
irrigation in this general area for a turf field, a condition should be imposed that requires
synthetic turf and appropriate drainage catch basins be provided for the athletic field.

Potential Environmental Impacts

This redesigned athletic field option would be set-back from the proposed library building
by approximately 80-feet, rather than 20-feet as shown in the original Alternative D-1
design, and would be setback approximately 45-feet, rather than approximately lO-feet,
from the nearest residence to the south on Vista Del Mar. As concluded in the Final EIR,
the Project's short-term noise impacts associated with construction would remain
significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures. However, in regards to long-term noise impacts associated with the use of this
athletic field option, this redesign places the field further away from the proposed campus
buildings but closer to the residence located on Vista del Mar.

Based on the noise modeling conducted for the project EIR, average noise levels
generated on athletic fields during games are approximately 58.4 dBA at a distance of 50
feet from the focal point or effective noise center of the playing field. The distance
between this redesigned athletic field option and the nearest residence to the south is
approximately 45 feet. Using the standard attenuation rate for a soft site, soccer event
noise levels at the property line ofthe residence to the south would be approximately 59.3
dBA. Therefore, the 65 dBA State noise standard used by the EIR as the significance
threshold for noise would not be exceeded and a less than significant impact would occur
in this regard. As such, a significant and unavoidable noise impact is eliminated with this
redesigned option and a Statement of Overriding Consideration would no longer be
required for long-term noise impacts. Notwithstanding, a significant and unavoidable
impact would remain for aesthetic impacts resulting from the introduction of hardscape in
connection with the relocation of 63 parking spaces to the western portion of the campus.

Athletic Field Alternative No. 0-2

This Alternative was proposed by the College to respond to the Council's concerns
expressed at the September 1i h meeting and consists of the athletic field approved by the
Planning Commission moving approximately 60-feet to the east (closer to the location of
the proposed tennis courts). No change to the size ofthe field is proposed (100 x 55 yards
or 300 x 165 feet). The two westerly tennis courts would serve as a buffer between the
curvature of Palos Verdes Dive East and the athletic field to minimize the potential for
errant balls entering the roadway. The playing surface of the athletic field is designed with
slope banks ranging from 20 to 34 percent (i.e., 20 percent slope for the area west of the
field, 28 percent slope for the area north of the field, and 34 percent slope for the area
south of the field) similar to the athletic field that was approved by the Planning
Commission and analyzed in Appendix A of the Final EIR. As with the Project that was
approved by the Planning Commission and analyzed in Appendix A of the Final EIR, a 42-
inch high wrought iron fence embedded within a 42-inch high landscape hedge would be
proposed along Palos Verdes Drive East, set back 3.0-feet from the property line, in order


                                                                                      13-8
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO - MAY 4, 2010

to contain errant field balls from entering Palos Verdes Drive East. The fence would be
shielded from view by the proposed landscaping.

To accommodate the relocated athletic field, the tennis courts would be reconfigured,
placing two on either side of the athletic field. The northerly tennis courts would serve as
an additional buffer between the athletic field and Palos Verdes Drive East and would help
contain errant field balls. The tennis courts would be enclosed with a retaining wall, fence
or combination wall/fence that would not exceed a maximum height of 10-feet, as
measured from the lowest adjacent grade on the side of the tennis courts. The size and
number ofthe courts would remain unchanged (four courts). Further, lighting of the tennis
courts is not proposed. The proposed chain link fence with a green or black mesh would
be 80 percent open to light and air.

Parking

Alternative 0-2 would retain the parking configuration, as approved by the Planning
Commission, at the eastern portion of the campus. As such, there would be no change to
the nu mber of proposed parking spaces (463 spaces) and the location of the parking lot for
this alternative.

Retractable Net

According to Appendix 0 of the Final EIR, a 20-foot tall retractable net is identified as a
required mitigation measure for Alternative 0-2 to contain errant field balls. At the April 6th
meeting, the Council directed Staff to explore whether a 30-foot tall retractable net could be
installed along the northern portion of the proposed athletic field without creating adverse
impacts to views from the roadway and properties to the north. According to the grading
plan exhibit prepared by the applicant for Alternative 0-2, the finished grade elevation for
the athletic field is approximately 891', the finished grade at the property line near the
athletic field is approximately 903', and the roadway elevation at this general location is at
910'. Based on these elevation call-outs, the top of a 20-foot tall retractable net would be
at an elevation of 911' which is approximately 8-feet higher than the grade elevation at the
property line and approximately 1-foot higher than the roadway in this general location.
The top of a 30-foot tall retractable net would be at an elevation of 921' which is
approximately 18-feet higher than the grade elevation at the property line and
approximately 11-feet higher than the roadway.

In regards to the homes to the north of the proposed athletic field, according to previous
studies prepared for the Planning Commission when considering the use of a retractable
net, Staff assessed potential view impacts from neighboring properties to the north on
Casilina and Narino Drive (specifically, 30853, 30865, 30871 Casilina Drive and 3324
Narino Drive). According to the City's contour maps, the lowest finished pad elevation for
these homes is at approximately 925' (taken from the rear yards). As described above, a
30-foot tall retractable net, as measured from the finished grade of the athletic field (891 ')
to the top of the retractable net, would be at an elevation of 921' which is slightly below the
finished pad elevations for these homes and slight taller than the roadway elevation.



                                                                                       13-9
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO - MAY 4,2010

As conditioned by the Planning Commission, in order to minimize potential view impacts to
the neighboring properties, Staff recommends a condition of approval that limits the use of
the retractable net during activities involving field balls and prohibits the use of the field
involving field balls on Sundays and legal federal holidays. Based on the above, Staff does
not believe that the limited use of a retractable net, at a height of 30-feet, would result in
adverse view impacts experienced from the roadway or from neighboring properties to the
north.

Fencing

Similarto the Project analyzed in Appendix D of the Final EIR, a 42-inch high wrought iron
fence embedded within a 42-inch high landscape hedge is proposed along the curvature of
Palos Verdes Drive East in order to contain errant field balls from entering the roadway.
The fence would be shielded from view by the proposed landscaping. In order to enhance
the containment of errant field balls, Staff recommends that the 42-inch wrought iron fence
along the curvature of Palos Verdes Drive East be increased to 6-feet in height. The fence
would be setback 3-feet from the property and a 42-inch hedge would be planted along the
wrought iron fence to soften its appearance.

In light of past concerns raised by the Council regarding the potential for tennis balls to
enter the roadway, the Council may also wish to increase the height of the tennis court
fencing from 10-feet to 20-feet to contain tennis balls from entering the roadway.

Roadway Median
                 st
At the March 31 meeting, the Council briefly discussed the possibility of constructing a
barrier within the roadway median of Palos Verdes Drive East to prevent cross-median
collisions in the proximity of the proposed athletic field related to Alternative D-2. This
                                    th
issue came up again at the April 6 meeting with the Council requesting Staff explore the
feasibility of constructing a roadway median barrier, as well as projected costs and other
                                              th
related matters for consideration at the May 4 meeting.

Pursuant to Council direction, Staff selected two engineering firms to prepare a preliminary
report addressing the feasibility of constructing a median barrier along Palos Verdes Drive
East between Ganado Drive and Casilina Drive in the immediate proximity ofthe proposed
athletic field. The preliminary reports were prepared by Adams Engineering and Willdan
Engineering and according to these reports, there are generally the following two types of
median barriers that can be used to reduce or prevent cross-median accidents:

    •   Concrete Barrier - this barrier type requires minimal maintenance and in flat angle
        collisions most vehicles are redirected with minimal damage and are able to drive
        away; however, the severity of an impact can be greater with a concrete barrier at
        higher angles of impact.

    •   Thrie Beam Barrier: this barrier type provides dissipation of energy upon impact;
        however, it requires frequent maintenance and it occupies more median space than
        a concrete barrier.


                                                                                     13-10
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO - MAY 4,2010



A raised median island, with or without landscaping, may also be considered as a traffic
calming measure. However, median islands are not typically considered for traffic safety,
but rather to reduce the scale of the street and make the public street more appealing
through landscaping. While a raised median island can provide for a clear zone between
opposing traffic, it provides significantly less protection against cross-median accidents
than a median barrier.

According to the reports, based on the curvature of the roadway in the general area of the
proposed athletic field, in order to prevent cross-over accidents a median barrier would
need to be installed for approximately 1,000 linear feet, extending between the beginning
and the end of the road curvature. According to the engineering report, the median barrier
cannot be installed in limited areas along the road curvature, but rather the entire length of
the road curvature. In consideration of the existing condition of the Palos Verdes Drive
East roadway in this location and to avoid having to expand the roadway to accommodate
the median barrier, the following design features were considered feasible for a median
barrier:

    •   Traffic Flow and Striping - restriping the northbound and southbound directions
        into a single lane. This will allow for a larger median width and allow a larger
        shoulder for a bike lane
    •   Crash cushions
    •   Drainage improvements
    •   Raised Median

Taking all of the existing characteristics into account, the reports estimate that it would cost
approximately $460,000 to $857,000 to construct a concrete median barrier (not including
a raised median with landscaping) for the extent of the road curvature. Construction of
such a median barrier would take approximately 3 to 4 months.

As noted in the studies, the median barrier will not minimize or eliminate errant balls from
entering the roadway, although the barrier would minimize the risk of vehicles drifting into
the opposing travel lanes that might be caused by vehicles trying to avoid errant balls in the
roadway.

Potential Environmental Impacts

Appendix D to the Final EIR concluded that the College proposed Alternative D-2 would
result in two potential environmental impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant
level with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. These two impacts are
Aesthetics/Light and Glare (long-term visual character with the use of the retractable net)
and Hydrology/Water Quality (updated drainage plan to reflect the revised layout of the
athletic field and tennis courts).

As noted in the study, objects, such as field balls that may leave the proposed athletic field
and enter the roadway cannot be prevented with the use of a median barrier. Rather,
appropriate fencing should be installed to around the athletic field. As such, Staff


                                                                                       13-11
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO - MAY 4,2010

recommends that the Council require the height of the retractable net be increased from
20-feet to 30-feet, with conditions limiting the use of the net to minimize view impacts from
properties to the north, and to increase the height of the tennis court fencing from 10-feet
to 20-feet. Lastly, the Council should require the 42-inch wrought iron fence along the
curvature of Palos Verdes Drive East be increased in height to 6-feet to further enhance
the containment of errant field balls.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Meeting Format

Since the public hearing for this item is limited to issues related to the athletic field (such as
parking, noise, and location), the Mayor is going to propose that the appellant and the
applicant each be given 15 minutes to give their respective presentations plus an additional
5 minutes for rebuttals for each side. This time can be divided amongst whomever they
choose, but the total initial presentation time will be 15 minutes. The Mayor will also
encourage Council members to not interrupt each side's presentation. Members of the
public who are not part of the appellant's or the applicant's initial presentations will be given
3 minutes per person to comment on the project, unless there are more than 15 speakers,
in which case the Mayor will suggest limiting the speakers to two minutes each.
Furthermore, speakers will not be allowed to "transfer" or "donate" their time to other
speakers.

Public Notice

As previously noted, since the public hearing was closed at the March 31 st meeting, in
order to discuss the athletic field at tonight's meeting Staff was required to re-notice the
public hearing. As such, on April 15, 2010, a public notice announcing the date, time and
location of the City Council public hearing on the Project was published in the Peninsula
News and was posted on the City's website under the Marymount College page.
Additionally, a public notice was sent to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the
project site, interested parties (including adjacent HOA's), and list-serve subscribers.
Lastly, the public notice was also published in the Daily Breeze on April 17, 2010.

Correspondence Received

Attached are the public correspondence letters submitted to the City since the March 31,
2010 Council meeting. The comment letters represent both opposition to and support of
the project. It should be noted that a majority of the comment letters respond to the
                                 st
Council's action at the March 31 meeting rather than on the athletic field alternative
issues.

Adoption of the CEQA and Planning Application Resolutions

Based on the Council direction regarding the athletic field location, Staffwill be prepared to
present the City Council with resolutions that memorialize the Council's final action on the
project for adoption at the May 18, 2010 meeting. The Council will be presented with a


                                                                                        13-12
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL MEMO - MAY 4,2010

                                                                       th
CEQA Resolution and a Planning Application Resolution at the May 18 meeting. The
CEQA Resolution will be based on the analysis in the EIR and the project revisions that
were analyzed in Appendix A and D ofthe Final EIR. The Planning Application Resolution
will approve, with conditions, the project in accordance with Council direction.

ATTACHMENTS:

   •   Athletic Field Alternatives Matrix
   •   Athletic Field Exhibits
          o Alternative D-1 Option 1
          oAlternative D-1 Option 2
          o Alternative D-2
   •   Median Barrier Engineering Reports
          o Adams Engineering
          o Willdan Engineering
   •   Public Comments




                                                                               13-13
            ATHLETIC FIELD ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
                                  Alternative D-1                Alternative D-1
                                   Option No. 1                   Option No. 2                   Alternative D-2
                                     (Reoriented)                     (Shifted)
                                    100 x 55 yards                  100 x 55 yards                      100 x 55 yards
Field Dimensions
                                   (300 x 165 feet)                (300 x 165 feet)                    (300 x 165 feet)
                                 Approximately 3,000             Approximately 3,000
Grading                        cubic yards of additional       cubic yards of additional                 No Change
                                       grading*                        grading*
Retaining Walls                20-foot maximum height          25-foot maximum height                    No Change

Surface Material                     Synthetic Turf                  Synthetic Turf                     Natural Turf

Retractable Net                           20-feet                        20-feet                           30-feet

Tennis Court Fencing                      10-feet                        10-feet                           20-feet

Perimeter Fencing                       42-inches                      42-inches                            6-feet
                               Relocation of 40 parking Relocation of 63 parking
Parking                         spaces to the western    spaces to the western                           No Change
                                  portion of campus        portion of campus
CEQA – Noise Impacts                    Mitigated                       Mitigated                         Mitigated
                                     Significant and                Significant and
CEQA – Visual Impacts                                                                                     Mitigated
                                      Unavoidable                    Unavoidable
* The additional grading quantities do not exceed the grading quantities evaluated in the Draft EIR.


                                                                                                                      13-14
13-15
13-16
13-17
13-18
DATE:            April 27, 2010

TO:              Ms. Nicole Jules, City of Rancho Palos Verdes

FROM:            Ken Jewell, P.E., Adams Engineering

SUBJECT:         Palos Verdes Drive East Median Barrier at Marymount College
                 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
                 Technical Memorandum



      The purpose is of this memorandum is to provide technical information regarding the
feasibility of a median barrier installation in Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) at Marymount
College north of Ganado Drive (see exhibit A). The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has consulted
with Adams Engineering to prepare this memorandum because of the Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project which includes the construction of an athletic field adjacent to Palos
Verdes Drive East (see Exhibit B).
      The scope of this memorandum is to provide [1] an analysis of the feasibility of installation
per the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) Traffic Manual Chapter 7 – Traffic
Safety Systems; [2] review of available right-of-way, modification to existing signs and striping,
and use of appropriate crash cushions; and [3] provide a cost estimate.
Existing Conditions:
      Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) at Marymount College north of Ganado Drive is currently
a four lane road with two northbound lanes and two southbound lanes. As a vehicle travels
northbound, PVDE is a single lane as it approaches Ganado Drive, it opens to two lanes
immediately after the intersection, then the northbound traffic transitions into a single lane at the
approach to Casilina Drive and then opens again to two lanes at the intersection of Crest Road.
As a vehicle travels southbound, PVDE has two lanes at the Crest Road intersection, transitions
into a single lane at Casilina Drive., opens to two lanes immediately after the intersection, then
again transitions to a single lane at the Ganado Drive intersection.
      The section of road included in this analysis includes a large switch-back turn between
Ganado Road and Crest Road. Throughout the turn the street is in a super-elevation. A normal
street in a straight section will have a crown or high point in the middle and slope to the outside
curbs (left and right); however, in a super-elevation the southbound lanes cant towards the
inside of a curve as opposed to the outside curb.
     There is an existing guardrail for the southbound traffic with an asphalt sidewalk outside of
the guardrail. There is no sidewalk along the northbound section of road.

5315 Avenida Encinas, Suite 220 ● Carlsbad, California 92008
760.268.6150 ● FAX 760.268.6160
www.adams-engineering.com                                                                  1
                                                                                            13-19
    Palos Verdes Drive East Median Barrier at Marymount College                                                      April 27, 2010
    Rancho Palos Verdes, CA                                                                            Adams Project No. C10-0082

    Median Barrier:
    Reference: CALTRANS Traffic Manual Chapter 7 – Traffic Safety Systems
           The installation of a median barrier can be an appropriate solution to cross-median
    accidents. There are two standard types of median barriers that are normally installed to
    prevent or reduce cross-median accidents, [1] concrete median barrier and [2] thrie beam
    barrier (single or double). Additionally, a raised median island may also be considered as a
    traffic calming method.
          Per Section 7-04 of the Traffic Manual, the advantages of the installation of the median
    barrier is to prevent cross-median accidents, however, the disadvantage of installation of a
    median barrier will result in fixed-object accidents (into the median barrier) that might not
    otherwise occur.
          Due to the large switchback curve, it is assumed that the purpose of the median barrier is
    to reduce and/or prevent cross-median collisions of the northbound traffic into the southbound
    lanes.
           Concrete Barrier: The advantages are that this barrier requires minimal maintenance and
    in flat angle collisions most vehicles are redirected with minimal damage and are able to drive
    away. The disadvantage is that the severity of impact can be greater with concrete at higher
    angles of impact.
         Thrie Beam Barrier: Provides dissipation of energy upon impact; however it requires
    frequent maintenance and it occupies more median space than a concrete barrier.
          Due to small median width and discussions with the City Public Works staff, a concrete
    barrier is preferred in this situation.




                                                                           Hawthorn Street: Concrete Barrier - July 2009
                      Thrie Beam Guardrail                           This barrier is one of the standard types of median barriers used.
This barrier is one of the standard types of median barriers used.



           Raised Median Island: The installation of a raised median, with or without landscaping,
    may also be considered as a traffic calming measure. Median islands are not considered for
    traffic safety; however they are able to reduce the scale of the street and make the public street

    5315 Avenida Encinas, Suite 220 ● Carlsbad, California 92008
    760.268.6150 ● FAX 760.268.6160
    www.adams-engineering.com
                                                                                                                         13-20
                                                                                                                         2
Palos Verdes Drive East Median Barrier at Marymount College                               April 27, 2010
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA                                                     Adams Project No. C10-0082

more appealing through landscaping. The raised median island design can provide for a clear
zone between opposing traffic; however it provides significantly less protection against cross-
median accidents. Enhancements to the median that can be classified as a fixed objects, such
as trees, boulder, monument, pole, etc. must be considered as part of the design.
Design Considerations:
     There are several design considerations that must be addressed for the installation of a
median barrier.
    1. Traffic Flow/Striping: In discussions with the City Public Works staff, the proposed
       improvements should consider a single lane in both the northbound and southbound
       directions. This will reduce the number of lane additions and lane drops throughout this
       section of road, allow for larger median width, and allow for a larger shoulder width.
       There should be no additional road widening and right-of-way required for installation of
       a median barrier. Signing and striping of the roadway should be accordance with the
       Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) latest edition.
    2. Crash Cushions: A median barrier is a fixed object and will require crash cushions, also
       known as impact energy attenuators, and should be installed to shield the ends of the
       median barrier.
    3. Drainage: PVDE is super-elevated through the road curve, this results in the entire road
       drainage to flow to the northbound side and therefore the installation of a concrete
       barrier will require special design to provide for drainage. Per Section 7-04.6 of the
       Traffic Manual, passing runoff under a concrete barrier with scuppers on an all-paved
       street section is not desirable because what was sheet flow becomes concentrated
       across the northbound lanes. Slotted drain inlets are the recommended means of
       providing drainage with a concrete median barrier.
         A raised median design will also require special drainage design; however, curb and
         gutter can eliminate the use of a slotted drain and install a curb inlet at the end of the
         super-elevation.
         Drainage improvements are required because the existing sheet flows across the road
         are being concentrated in the median and must be collected such that the concentrated
         flows are not directed across the northbound lanes. It should be noted that the
         installation of a median barrier should not change the contributing drainage areas and
         the amount of impervious areas; therefore, the impact to runoff flow rates are anticipated
         to be minimal. The scope of this memorandum does not include a drainage analysis and
         further study is required to determine all of the drainage impacts.
    4. Raised Median Island: Median barriers should not be placed on raised medians,
       however a raised median can be placed adjacent to a concrete median barrier on the
       southbound side. Medians adjacent to concrete barriers should be paved. An example
       of a median adjacent to a concrete barrier is located at Hawthorn Boulevard near the
       City offices.
    5. Objects leaving the fields: Per discussions with the City Public Works staff, this
       memorandum should address the design considerations of ball and/or objects leaving
       the Marymount College athletic fields and entering the street. Median barriers are only
       designed for reducing or preventing cross-median collisions; therefore, appropriate

5315 Avenida Encinas, Suite 220 ● Carlsbad, California 92008
760.268.6150 ● FAX 760.268.6160
www.adams-engineering.com
                                                                                             13-21
                                                                                             3
   Palos Verdes Drive East Median Barrier at Marymount College                                                   April 27, 201 0
   Rancho Palos Verdes, CA                                                                         Adams Project No. C10-0082

             fencing should be designed into the athletic field site plan to prevent objects entering the
             road.
        6. Parking and pedestrians: Currently there is no parking allowed along the northbound
           and southbound sides of the street, and there is also no sidewalk along the northbound
           side of the street. The reduction to a single lane allows for space for a shoulder. The
           scope of this memorandum does not include analysis of pedestrian, bike lane, and/or
           parking along this section of road; however, another advantage of a median barrier is to
           discourage unauthorized pedestrian crossing (J-walking) across the road.




       Hawthorn Street Crash Cushion - April 2010
This crash cushion and concrete barrier or equivalent should be used
                                                                             Hawthorn Street: Median - Concrete Barrier
on Palos Verdes Drive East.                                                           Combination - July 2009
                                                                       The combination of concrete barrier and median can be used
                                                                       together as shown in this picture.



    Cost Estimate:
         Exhibit D is the cost estimate for the installation of a concrete guardrail, median, and
    drainage improvements.
   We hope the above information is helpful in your review of the project. Please contact us if we
   can be of further service on this issue.




    5315 Avenida Encinas, Suite 220. Carlsbad, California 92008
    760.268.6150. FAX 760.268.6160
                                                                                                                     13-22
EXHIBIT A




       13-23
Source: Rasmussen & Associates; May 2009.



Not to Scale                                         MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
                                                    BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE PROGRAM • EIR APPENDIX D
                                            Athletic Field Alternative No. 2 Site Plan
                 01/10 • JN 10-104089


                                                                              EXHIBIT B
                                                                                    Exhibit 2-5
                                                                                13-24
13-25
                                                                                                                    Exhibit D

                                                                          ESTIMATED
ITEM No.                          DESCRIPTION                                         UNIT   PRICE UNIT EXTENDED AMOUNT
                                                                          QUANTITY
   1       Traffic Control                                                     1      LS       $8,500.00    $8,500.00
   2       Install Curb and Gutter (6")                                      1000     LF        $22.00      $22,000.00
   3       Sawcut and remove existing pavement                              12000     SF         $3.50      $42,000.00
   4       Install 3" PCC in the median                                     12000     SF         $8.00      $96,000.00
   5       Install Type 60 Barrier per Cal-Trans Std.                        1000     LF        $465.00    $465,000.00
           Thermoplastic Traffic Striping, Marking, and Raised Pavement
   6
           Markers                                                            1       LS       $5,000.00    $5,000.00
   7       Traffic Signs                                                      15      EA        $150.00     $2,250.00
   8       Crash Cushion 6 bay 24" wide Quadguard System                      2       LS      $50,000.00   $100,000.00
   9       Install Curb Inlet                                                 1       EA       $6,250.00    $6,250.00
  10       18-inch RCP                                                       150      LF        $145.00     $21,750.00
  11       Junction Structure                                                 1       EA       $6,500.00    $6,500.00
  12       Erosion and Sediment Control                                       1       LS       $4,000.00    $4,000.00
                                                                                             Sub-TOTAL =   $779,250.00
                                                                                             10% cont'g.    $77,925.00

                                                                                             TOTAL =       $857,175.00




                                                                                                                   13-26
April 27, 2010



Ms. Nicole Jules
Senior Engineer
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391

SUBJECT:              PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST PROPOSED BARRIER WALL –
                      FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND COST ESTIMATE

Dear Ms. Jules:

Willdan Engineering (Willdan) is pleased to submit this feasibility analysis and cost estimate
for the installation of a Type 60 Barrier Wall on Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE), north of
Ganado Drive, to separate the northbound and southbound travel lanes. The barrier wall,
as indicated on the aerial map provided by the City, would be approximately 1,000 feet long.

The feasibility analysis considered any needed modifications to the existing roadway width
and street striping, the available right-of-way width, and any significant environmental
effects.

Existing Conditions

The proposed barrier wall would begin just west/south of Casalina Drive, at the beginning of
the northbound left turn lane for Casalina Drive, and end approximately 800 feet north of
Ganado Drive. These have been identified as Points A and D, respectively, on the attached
aerial exhibit. At Point A, PVDE has two southbound lanes and one northbound lane. At
Point D, PVDE has two northbound lanes and one southbound lane. Point B on the
attached exhibit indicates where the two northbound lanes become one lane and Point C
indicates where the two southbound lanes become one lane. Please note that the exhibit’s
aerial photo does not reflect the current striping for the southbound lanes – the lane drop
has been moved northerly approximately 500’, as indicated on the attached exhibit.

In the vicinity of the proposed barrier wall, PVDE is about 48’ wide from edge line to edge
line (the traveled way), with a 4’ wide painted median. PVDE widens to 52’ for a short
distance, near Point B. For the purposes of this analysis, however, PVDE was assumed to
have 48’ of available roadway width before widening would be required. The current lane
widths vary from 9’ to 14’.

The right-of-way width of PVDE is 80’ from Point A to Point D. It widens to 90’ on the south
side just west of Casalina Drive, and widens again to 100’ just east of Casalina Drive. The
speed limit on PVDE is 35 mph. The daily traffic volume on PVDE in the vicinity of the
proposed barrier wall is approximately 3,000 vehicles per day.




                                                                                     13-27
Palos Verdes Drive East Barrier Wall
April 27, 2010
Page 2


Feasibility Analysis

Construction Feasibility
A Type 60 Barrier Wall is two feet wide at the base and would fit within the existing painted
median with one foot to spare on each side. The physical barrier, however, would require
the adjacent travel lanes to be wider than for the existing painted median, since there would
be less room for error. Typically, lanes adjacent to raised medians are 13’ to 14’ wide. With
the one-foot wide buffer, it is recommended that the inside lanes adjacent to the barrier wall
be a minimum of 12’ wide. It is also recommended that the outside lanes be a minimum of
13’ wide for northbound PVDE, which has an asphalt curb, and a minimum of 12’ wide for
southbound PVDE, which has a concrete curb and gutter. The result would be a 25’
traveled way for northbound and a 24’ traveled way for southbound, with a total edgeline-to-
edgeline width of 53’. When compared to the existing 48’ width, PVDE would need to be
widened an additional 5’, all on the northbound side.

With 10’ of right-of-way on each side for paved shoulders, curbs, gutters, guard rails,
pedestrian paths and/or swales, the minimum right-of-way needed to accommodate the
barrier wall would be 73’, which is within the available 80’ right-of-way width.

The steep terrain in the area would require most of the additional 5’ to be cut from the
hillside, which would also necessitate the construction of a retaining wall, both costly
propositions.

A second, less-costly option, in keeping with the City’s goals for PVDE in the vicinity of
Marymount College and Ganado Drive, was also considered. In January 2010, the City
Council approved and accepted the Palos Verdes Drive East Preliminary Study Report
prepared by Willdan Engineering. The study considered the feasibility of the City’s goal of
making PVDE a multi-modal corridor that would accommodate motor vehicles, pedestrians,
bicyclists and equestrians. The study also identified key sections of PVDE with safety
concerns and proposed possible improvements. The multi-modal improvements were then
integrated with the safety improvements and prioritized. The 4-lane segment of PVDE in
the vicinity of Marymount College and Ganado Drive had the third highest traffic collision
rate on PVDE. As a result of the analysis, the recommended safety improvements for this
segment included reducing PVDE from 4 lanes to 2 lanes.

In accordance with the recent City Council action, Option 2 would reduce the through lanes
to one lane in each direction from Ganado Drive to Crest Road. As noted previously, the 4-
lane configuration for northbound PVDE extends from Ganado Drive to Point B, a length of
approximately 1,300’. The 4-lane configuration for southbound PVDE extends from Point A
to Point C, or approximately 700’. The narrowest section of northbound PVDE is at the
beginning of the northbound left turn lane into Casalina Drive, with a travel-lane width of 15’.
The narrowest travel-lane width of southbound PVDE is 20’, and exists for most of the
length of the proposed barrier wall.

For Option 2, the minimum available travel lane width on PVDE would be 15’ for northbound
and 20’ for southbound, although for more than half of the length of the wall, a 22 - 24’



                                                                                       13-28
Palos Verdes Drive East Barrier Wall
April 27, 2010
Page 3


travel lane in each direction would be feasible. This added width would ease the existing
conflict between motor vehicles and bicyclists, however, it would also be wide enough to
allow motorists to pass each other. Therefore, for Option 2, the travel lanes should be no
wider than 18’. It should be noted that the current 48’ travel width of PVDE would also
accommodate bike lanes (another recommendation of the above-mentioned report), should
the City want them in the future. No additional right-of-way would be needed for Option 2.

Significant Environmental Effects
The proposed barrier wall would be expected to affect the environment by changing traffic
flow patterns during construction and by altering the flow of run-off water on Palos Verdes
Drive East. Each was analyzed to determine if the effects would be significant.

It is anticipated that the construction of Option 1, which includes excavation and
construction of a retaining wall, would be conducted in two phases. The installation of the
barrier wall would be done separately from the excavation and construction of the retaining
wall/roadway widening. The roadway widening/construction of the retaining wall would
probably be done first, and would be expected to leave enough existing roadway width to
accommodate one lane of traffic in each direction. During the barrier wall installation, it is
expected that in addition to the 4’ painted median, 12’ on either side would also be needed
for construction purposes, which would leave ample room for one lane of traffic in each
direction. One travel lane in each direction should be sufficient to accommodate the low
volume of traffic on PVDE in the area. It is estimated that the construction of this option
would be roughly 60 to 80 working days (3 – 4 months).

For Option 2, the width needed for the barrier wall installation would be the same as for
Option 1, leaving one 10’ wide lane in each direction. This is an acceptable width for
construction work, however, the asphalt pavement and concrete gutter outside of the
existing edgelines could also be used, to provide 11 or 12’ lanes. The construction time for
Option 2 is estimated to be approximately 1 – 2 months.

Although traffic would be affected and delays would be likely to occur from time to time
during construction for both options, the installation of the barrier wall would be temporary
and would not be anticipated create a significant adverse impact to traffic operations.

The impact of the barrier wall on water flow was considered in two ways. Due to the sloping
roadway, the barrier wall would be expected to impede the existing drainage of run-off water
on PVDE. The additional pavement could also increase the volume of run-off water on
PVDE, although the increase would be minimal. A drainage system installed under the
barrier would intercept the flow of water from the southbound lanes and convey it to the
existing storm drain system. Since this would fully mitigate any possible adverse drainage
impacts, the installation of the barrier wall would not be expected to create a significant
adverse impact to water flow/drainage.

It should be noted that based on the limited information that was available for this analysis,
it is not known if the barrier wall would actually impede the drainage of water to the extent




                                                                                     13-29
Palos Verdes Drive East Barrier Wall
April 27, 2010
Page 4


that mitigation would be necessary.     Such a determination can only be made with an
appropriate hydrology study.

Cost Estimates

The estimated cost of Option 1, including the installation of the barrier wall with drainage
system, pavement widening with retaining wall, and restriping of the roadway, would be
approximately $1,900,000, as shown in the attached table. The estimated cost of Option 2,
including the installation of the barrier wall with drainage system, and restriping of the
roadway, would be approximately $460,000, as shown in the attached table.

To provide an estimate of the full cost of the options, the cost estimates include a 10%
contingency and 35% for PS&EI construction management. They also assume that a 2"
overlay of new asphalt on PVDE would complete the job. It should be noted that these are
very rough cost estimates, based on cursory information, and should only be used for
general discussion purposes. The actual costs could be higher or lower.

In conclusion, the proposed barrier wall on PVDE could feasibly be constructed and would
not be anticipated to have any significant adverse environmental impacts. Cost, however,
could be a major consideration.


Thank you for the opportunity to be of continuing service to the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes. Should you have any questions, please contact Ms. Ruth Smith at (714) 978-8225.

Respectfully submitted,

WILLDAN ENGINEERING



Ruth Smith, TE, PTP
Project Manager
                                                        ~z~
                                                        Director of Engineering

Attachments




                                                                                    13-30
                NB lane drop
                Point B:
           CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
             PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST




End Wall
Point D:
              BARRIER WALL ANALYSIS




                               Begin Wall
                               Point A:


                                            Casalina Dr.




                                                           13-31
                                             City of Rancho Palos Verdes
                                               Palos Verdes Drive East
                                         Barrier Wall Analysis - Cost Estimate
Option 1- Four Lanes with Widening
  BEES
                               Description                             Qty        Unit      Unit Price       Amount
  code
CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 60)
839701     Concrete Barrier (Type 60)                                    1000      LF           $60.00         $60,000.00

END TREATMENT
839566  Metal Beam Railing Terminal System (Type CAT)                         2    EA        $5,000.00         $10,000.00
839567  Metal Beam Railing Terminal System (Type CAT)
        Backup                                                                2    EA          $650.00          $1,300.00
839310  Double Thrie Beam Barrier                                            50    LF           $40.00          $2,000.00

ROADWAY 5 ft WIDENING (Approximate area = 5000 sq ft)
390133 Hot Mix Ashpalt (Type B)                                         268.5      ton         $100.00         $26,850.00
280000 Lean Concrete Base                                                185       CY          $165.00         $30,525.00
260301 Aggregate Base (Class 3)                                          185       CY          $100.00         $18,500.00
390133 2" Overlay [Hot Mix Asphalt (Type B)]                             595       ton         $100.00         $59,500.00

RETAINING WALL (TYPE 1) (Approximate length = 800 LF
         Type 1 Retaining Wall                                           7850      SF          $100.00       $785,000.00

EARTHWORK
192037 Structure Excavation (Retaining Wall)                           3274.5      CY           $40.00       $130,980.00

DRAINAGE
620100   Alternate Pipe Culvert                                          1000      LF          $100.00       $100,000.00
510502   Minor Concrete(Minor Structure)                                 1590      CF           $45.00        $71,550.00
520101   Bar Reinforcing Steel                                          10340      LB            $0.75         $7,755.00

STRIPING
840653      Paint Traffic Stripe                                         5000 LF          $1.00                $5,000.00
840660      Paint Traffic Marking                                         215 SF          $4.50                 $967.50
150711      Remove Painted Traffic Stripe                                5500 LF          $0.35                $1,925.00
150712      Remove Painted Traffic Marking                                215 SF          $2.65                 $569.75
                                                                          Subtotal                         $1,311,852.50
                                                                          10% Contingency                   $131,185.25
                                         35% Design, Specification and Construction Management              $460,000.00
                                                                          Total                            $1,903,100.00


Note:
Since the design professional has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the contractor's
method of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, his estimates of probable
construction costs provided herein were made on the basis of his experience and qualifications. These cost
estimates represent his best judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. However,
the design professional cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or construction costs will not vary
from these estimates of probable cost prepared by him.




                                                          1 of 2                                                      4/19/2010
                                                                                                                13-32
                                             City of Rancho Palos Verdes
                                               Palos Verdes Drive East
                                         Barrier Wall Analysis - Cost Estimate
Option 2- Two Lanes
  BEES
                               Description                             Qty        Unit      Unit Price       Amount
  code
CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 60)
839701     Concrete Barrier (Type 60)                                    1000      LF            $60.00        $60,000.00

END TREATMENT
839566  Metal Beam Railing Terminal System (Type CAT)                         2    EA        $5,000.00         $10,000.00
839567  Metal Beam Railing Terminal System (Type CAT)
        Backup                                                                2    EA          $650.00          $1,300.00
839310  Double Thrie Beam Barrier                                            50    LF           $40.00          $2,000.00

2" OVERLAY
390133   2" Overlay [Hot Mix Asphalt (Type B)]                            540      ton         $100.00         $54,000.00

DRAINAGE
620100   Alternate Pipe Culvert                                          1000      LF          $100.00       $100,000.00
510502   Minor Concrete(Minor Structure)                                 1590      CF           $45.00        $71,550.00
520101   Bar Reinforcing Steel                                          10340      LB            $0.75         $7,755.00

STRIPING
840653      Paint Traffic Stripe                                         4500 LF          $1.00                $4,500.00
840660      Paint Traffic Marking                                         215 SF          $4.50                 $967.50
150711      Remove Painted Traffic Stripe                                5500 LF          $0.35                $1,925.00
150712      Remove Painted Traffic Marking                                215 SF          $2.65                 $569.75
                                                                          Subtotal                           $313,997.50
                                                                          10% Contingency                     $31,399.75
                                         35% Design, Specification and Construction Management               $110,000.00
                                                                          Total                              $455,400.00


Note:
Since the design professional has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the contractor's
method of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, his estimates of probable
construction costs provided herein were made on the basis of his experience and qualifications. These cost
estimates represent his best judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. However,
the design professional cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or construction costs will not vary
from these estimates of probable cost prepared by him.




                                                          2 of 2                                                      4/19/2010
                                                                                                                13-33
Ara M

From:                          Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:                          Thursday, April 01, 2010 10:16 AM
To:                            'Ara Mihranian'
Cc:                            'Joel Rojas'
Subject:                       FW: Construction Time and related information

Attachments:                   Construction time history.xls; Exhibit3 8IMG_0005.jpg




Construction time      ExhibitJ
  history.xls ... IMG_OOOS.jpg (2 ME


~----Original Message-----
From: bubba32@cox.net [mailto:bubba32@cox.netJ
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 9:47 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Construction Time and related information

To the City Council

During last evenings Council deliberations, some additional background information might
have been helpful for your discussions. Here is the correct construction time for the
Marymount Expansion Project under changing circumstances as shown in Excel Spreadsheet
attached'i

Also attached is Exhibit 3-8 from the DEIR showing Phased Construction times.

That Exhibit was not updated to the FEIR or Approved Plan. It was eliminated.

The City Council had the wrong construction time, 36 months is for the Project with
Residence Halls and 121,092 sq ft of new construction. That is from Marymount College
assuming there are Residence Halls.

The correct construction time is 28 months (see Exhibit 3-8) without Residence Halls

The original Construction time was 24 months with 3 Residence Halls (2002) and 2 Residence
Halls (Feb 2006) .

By correspondence of October 30, 2006, Dr. Brophy requested 7 years (not 8) with 2
Residence Halls, 121,092 sq. ft of new facilities construction, and
36 months of actual construction. Dr Brophy's rationale was that the College did not have
the funding for the full project and needed extra time to raise new funds

In September (4th) 2008, Dr. Brophy stated the College had all funds necessary in hand
(Attorney Davis was a witness)

In May 2009, Dr Brophy stated to the Planning Commission that the College needed 8 years
to raise funds - and the PC gave him a real 8 years (Condition 60) for all Phases - Phase
I = 2 years, Phase II = 3 years, Phase III = 3 years.

The actual construction time for the Approved project without residence halls was 28
months, not 36 months without Residence Halls.

The Removal of the Residence Halls subtracted 59,164 sq. ft. of facilities and reduced
construction time by 8 months (per DEIR Exhibit 3-8)

The City Council1s review of the REVISED location of the Soccer Field - Alternative D-1
Rev. that was shown was mistakenly characterized by Councilman Stern as not having Fire
Access, and causing drainage issues with the South Shores Landslide area. Those were

                                                               1
                                                                                       13-34
previous problems that were not part of the newly-Revised location but Planning Staff
failed to alert the Council to those remedied problems.

The Revised Fired location eliminated any previous concern about the drainage onto the
South Shores Landslide area in two ways; by moving it off that Eastern edge, and (2) by
including the exact same type engineered drainage conditions that are proposed for the
other location near PVDE.

The shifting   of the field near the current location involves very minor grading,
eliminates 4   and possibly 5 retaining walls at the PVDE location, eliminates grading of
30,000 CY of   earthwork and does not propose to pave over the existing grassy area as Staff
had proposed   in their original D-l Alternative.

Instead, the parking displaced by the Revised Field would be far less than previous
versions, and would be added to the already approved parking along PVDE as a simple
continuation of that parking. To the extent necessary, the tennis courts would be shifted
westward, and lowered as necessary to keep them from view obstruction.

The nearby neighbors would prefer having such shifted parking instead of an athletic field
at that location. Staff did not make these attributes clear to the Council during their
deliberations. The fact that the Revised Alternative D-1 had addressed all these prior
issues was left moot and caused great angst and confusion as a direct result.

The primary issue was Safety and that got lost in the shuffle.


Jim




                                              2

                                                                              13-35
History of Maryrnount Expansion: Construction Time, Time Frame and new sq. ft.
 Ref                                     sq.ft        Residence Construction        Overall        Project          Time Frame
 No        Plan Version    Year       new facilities     Halls          Time     Time Frame'       Cost***           Rationale
  1    Oriqinal            2002         133,906             3            24         18-24        24,000,000        Fully Funded
  2    McFadden (Feb)      2006         133,906             2            24         18-24        48,000,000        Fully Funded
  3    Brophy (Oct)        2006         121,092             2            36           84         65,506,000        Raise Funds
  4    July                2008         121,092             2            36           84         65,506,000 Have funds (9/4/2008)
  5    Approved (July)"    2009         61,928              0            28           96         35,506,000        Raise Funds
       , Oct 30 2006 proposed Phased Program: I - 1 year. II - 3 years, III = 2 years, Plus 1 "timeout year" - 84 months
       " Approved Phased Plan: I = 2 years, II = 3 years, III = 3 years, See Condition 60 = 96 months
       "'Project Cost per College 2002 & 2006 (Feb), 2006( Brophy) per Turner Const. Index, Approved removes $30 M per Broph)
       Construction Time per DEIR Exhibit 3-8                                                                                   I
       College Claimed to have Full funding: 2002/2006 (McFadden), 2006 Brophy introduced Phasing to raise funding, claimed full'
         funded September 4, 2008, then claimed June 2009 to need funds; Marymount Plan states Plan now fully funded            i




                                                                                                                            13-36
                          Phase I Description                                            Construction Task
                                                                                                                                       - il i il il i
                                                                                                                                       1                                   :i            ~        ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                            ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                            J        ~I i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ::l! ::l!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         $! I ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 - - ::e -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 '91'" 1 "'1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         111 1 I '" js IS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ::!       :::!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               D
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       l!!

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       11
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Iil


         PHASE I (YEAR 1 [ANTICIPATED 2008])
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            r--- -,
               Remov.:       f~mnis        -and Handbatl Courts.
               ·~~=~(~~fi~~~~1:!ii,t~~Ma~~~;-···
               Malnbmancv/Photo Lab; Bookstore! Health'
                                                                               'Sltea O.molttlon
                                                                                                                     ----_
                                                                                                                               ~=-~-~~, :"~:"~o.~."~::' -.'.=:- --;_.:~-.~~------+-+~ ~ ·--'"~·l·----'-
                                                                                                                               _
                                                                                                                                        --:-;-
                                                                                                                                                     .-                                      ' I ] :
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         j--

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ,- ..~ "-_.__.-- .-----, . . ~-.--_. ~ ,-.. ~l·~'·---
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         :         :
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ;




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              I
         - --~-:~:Rt~~rr[i:-i:1~fi';B~~ar~ P.ds:-AI1-i·R·---·-h·~·-~;----- _.- .._,--                                       ·1--~·--·· --+ .. --.- ..                            _0'._ ... :. _._ .•_ •. _.-          _. f ---   --r~"   --           ..j-                                               .! --... j               j.-
        I---~~~ri!:~g~~$ld.nc.                       Halls {No   suliciing     :F~~-!~-'~;--~!_-----r                                                    __                                  I                             : ,                                                                    '--+i--~+--

          ·~~;~~0·~iZ:~:;=i~==i~ii·=J=±=··.;'~=:~~=.:c=J1r
                                                ..=
               Construct: Now EastIWest Perking Lot
                Extensions.                                        u s. avngan
                                                                               C rb
                                                                                        p ng
                                                                                              P        I   d Strf I            I                     ....                                   I i '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            1,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ,                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I
               .Construct: -Athjotfc-F1fii(ran~ifTenr'-i1i-- ·---Fln-. -Grade: Landscap-e;---" "!i                                                       .                        ,;
                                                                                                                                                         .... ._- '~-"-----:-'-""-----------"1-'-'                               --~-.- '-_._~-----_._--                          _._-_._-     --, -     d_._.--' __._   --r
               Courts.                                                         T.nnia Court COnl~tructlon ! '                                                                                                               !                            i                                                                        I

         PHASE II (YEARS 2 TO 4 [ANTICIPATED 2009 TO 2012])
                                        ,_F.~~!!.dJI~~-'~_~~ ... __                                                                                                                    _._. 1 __. ~_                 ......J     .:                      ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ,
               ~::'d:~~~~~~lngA.dditfOna:                    Facuttyand        :.~=::_~~~~~_~r! ~_o:
                                                                               •     •    _       '_                                          H ••   •
                                                                                                                                                         ,---. .
                                                                                                                                                          '      .~_,   .... _    ~
                                                                                                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                                                                                                      ,,,._._.1
                                                                                                                                                                                                           ---
                                                                                                                                                                                                       .. , __ ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ....£..~-[
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       __ .• '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ..   ~,_.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         -j




         PHASE III (YEARS 5 TO 8 [ANTICIPATED 2013 TO 2015])
           Rernovo_: EXisting SWimming Pool:----JPoofDemoiHlon _
               . -- .... --.. -, ..            .--   .~--   ------.   ----·-·-fF~iirii:l~iio~~a~~.             ,-   -~---_.     :,':   ~._.      ----         "·.~·-I   .-'-'.   '.:~~ ~ _o_.~. ~.__
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    >oj
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        -- -t
                Construct Building Additions:                                                          •



                                                                                                                                                                                             .
                                                                               !~Y:H..t!!ng.Fr .!!IJ!!9...~   '"                        _. _             __"..
                Auditorium/Fine Arts Studio and
                                                                                                                                                                    t__                                                                  _._,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,---j                                 ,

                                                                                                                                       :=:~r~ rt~:~_t: j .~ .; .......~}.
                Admlnlslratlon/Admiaalona.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -1    ~_.. -~.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            r-


                Consuuet: R&$ldeneo Han Nos. 1 & 2                         u   •                           •            . . ,




                                                                               'Interior Finish                        •__ . ••..                    - .,".-._. " ,
                                                                                                                                                                -- _... - _.-- o·_..
           --FlneCfnad(,;·Aro••-Surroundlngt-iew·                              'F'            G    di ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~'<_   •••        ....   · - - - - ~ I ·   - ~ r - - - '




               _~ul!C!ln9.o     __ .   ._ "".     _ __  1 tne _~ ~g                                                                                                 i     '
                                                                                                                                                                  _ J •.. I
                Con$truct: Slto Prxiosklan Improvemonts (La d     & 81te P J
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         !
                {A,djacont tQNfilW Buhdlngs}.           in_capo           av ng




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
~
CONSU.l.TING        1011J7-JH 11)-1040S9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Construction Phasing Schedule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             13-37Exhibil3-8
                                                                                                 Page 1 of 1



 Ara M

  From:      Mark R Wells [mtwells@pacbell.net)
  Sent:      Thursday, April 01, 2010 10:49 AM
  To:        mbrophy@marymountpv.edu; RPV City Council; Ashley Ratcliff; Melissa Pamer; Ara Mihranian
  Subject: My conversation with Dr. Brophy

Greetings.

During last night's continued City Council meeting, I had a conversation with Dr. Brophy in the hallway.

I asked him about my concerns with what I feel is deceptive advertising relating to The Marymount
Plan.

Specifically, I asked Dr. Brophy about the portions of advertisements relating to the construction time
for The Marymount Plan and tax-payer funding on the potential ballot measure.

While Dr. Brophy did not agree that any advertising was deceptive, he also did not categorically deny
my statements that I offered as to why I feel there is deception in print, oral and video advertisement
seeking to find residents to sign the petition for The Marymount Plan.

I created and published a post at my www.eastrpv.blogspot.com blog and I would glad publish any
rebuttal or comments from Dr. Brophy by using a post.

There is also a comment area that anyone can use to make comments on any of my posts and there is no
requirement that commentors use their actual name. I do publish every comment I receive on all of my
blogs. However, offensive comments are copied and posted on a blog of mine that is not identified, but
still meets my requirement to publish every comment. I only do this when a comment contains foul
language, attacks individuals other than myself directly, or I deem too offensive to publish on more read
blogs.

I would like to thank the members of the City Council, and members of Staff for their very determined
and hard work on The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

As I have offered before, I did not agree with the Appeal and I am very satisfied with what the Council
members ultimately decided last night.

I think we are all concerned with the soccer field issues, I hope that too, gets resolved so that soccer can
be played on the campus of Marymount College.

Be well.

Mark Wells
aka M Richards
Rancho Palos Verdes




4/28/2010                                                                                       13-38
                                                                                               Page 10f3




 Ara M

  From:     Mark R Wells [mtwells@pacbell.net)
  Sent:     Thursday, April 01, 2010 1:57 PM
  To:       mbrophy@marymountpv.edu; Ashley Ratcliff; Melissa Pamer; RPV City Council; Ara Mihranian; Jim
            Gordon; Pat Carroll
  Subject: Will Marymount use the soccer field issue in their PR?

GREETINGS.
Greetings.

Here is another post on my www.eastrpv.blogspot.com blog that I wrote to attempt to head off
any PR ploy that Marymount's supporters try to use to suggest that my City Councilor anyone
else did not want a soccer field built at Marymount College's main campus.

I hope I have stated the facts correctly in that is was a technical move to keep the statement of
overiding considerations to a minimum and at the request of Marymount's Attorney, Mr.
Davis, That now allows for the potential of a PR 'ploy" to have grown.

While I hope to not see any written or televised statements along the lines of "R.P.V. City
Council denies Marymount's right to build a soccer field, I am afraid that we may all see
something like that and I hope we can all use the facts of what occurred to keep everyone
honest.

liiPI~ing AJ'ptential PKPlox]ll' Marym.-ilJ1...nUnTheBtill
It is an undeniable fact that the majority of the members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City
Council approved the construction of a new soccer field at Marymount College and within
parameters of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

It is also an undeniable fact that Mr. Davis, the Attorney for Marymount College requested that
the City Council ultimately deny allowing a soccer field to be built at Marymount College.

Anyone who states otherwise is not telling the truth.

The soccer field was approved for construction on the eastern side of Marymount's campus in
roughly the same area as the current large playing field is located.

Marymount's Attorney for The Project went to the microphone just after the Council approved
constructed of the soccer field and flatly stated that Marymount's administration will not build
a new soccer field on the eastern side of that campus.

Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy and others want a new soccer field approved on
the west side of the campus.

Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion want to have a soccer field built at the
off-campus student housing site named, Palos Verdes North which sits in the San Pedro area of
the city of Los Angeles.

Here are some undeniable facts, no matter what PR spin Marymount Plan supporters try to put


4/28/2010                                                                                     13-39
                                                                                        Page 2 of3


on the actions of the City Council.

The City Council DID NOT DENY the construction of a soccer field on the Palos Verdes Drive
East campus of Marymount College when it made is finding during the period of time the
soccer field was discussed.

The City Council COULD NOT MANDATE the building of a soccer filed on the college's off-
campus housing site along Palos Verdes Drive North in northwest San Pedro.

Marymount's Attorney for The Project, Mr. Davis stood up and stated into the microphone that
Marymount's administration and supporters REFUSE TO BUILD A SOCCER FIELD on the
eastern side ofthe campus.

No member of CCC/ME, Staff ofthe city of Rancho Palos Verdes. members ofthe Rancho Palos
Verdes City Council AND Planning Commission ever considered denial of a soccer field being
built on the campus of Marymount College.

Marymount's folks simply do not like the location the City Council approved for the
construction of the soccer field.

If you had seen Mr. Davis' reaction is was akin to what I can believe is a child's reaction that
when the child is told that he has to play somewhere else in his back yard, he states that if he
can't play exactly where he wants to play, he won't play at all.

I expect a full throttle approach by The Marymount Plan supporters to be just as deceptive with
this as I have demonstrated they seem to be on other matters.

They may simply state that the City Council has denied the college the right to build a soccer
field and use that to gain more sympathy for their cause and more support to have on-campus
housing built at Marymount College.

This is, of course, not a factual depiction of the truth and what was voted on by the City
Council.

It is more truthful for them to state that the Council did not approve having a soccer field built
where Marymount wanted it so they have elected to not build on at all.

In a truthful and technical sense, the City Council ultimately approved a denial of a soccer field
because allowing the approval to remain would have created a significant and unavoidable
problem with potential parking spaces on the west side of the campus. THIS WAS DONE AT
THE REQUEST OF MARYMOUNT'S ATTORNEY AND BY THE OPINION OF THE CITY
ATTORNEY.

1. The Council approved the construction of a soccer field on the east side of the Marymount
Campus.

2. Mr. Davis stated that no soccer field would be constructed on the east side of Marymount
College.

3. With Mr. Davis' statement, the City Attorney concluded that there would be an added


4/2812010                                                                              13-40
                                                                                        Page30f3


significant and unavoidable consequence to the Marymount College Facilities Expansion
Project because parking spaces that were considered to be built on the eastern side of the
campus would have to be moved to the west side of the campus, creating a significant view
issue that could not be mitigated beyond the level of unsatisfactory and would have resulted in
the Council increasing to three the number of significant and unavoidable issues that could not
be mitigated to a level ofless than unsatisfactory.

4. To keep the parking spaces from being mandated on the west side of the campus, the City
Attorney gave the opinion that the only way to do that without mandating them by the use of
the approval of a statement of over riding considerations, was to deny a soccer field completely
so that no parking spaces would need to be mandated on the west side of the campus.

5. The City Council accepted the City Attorney's and Mr. Davis' opinion that the only way to
keep the statement of over riding considerations from having the west parking spaces as an
added issue, the Council had to vote to deny the construction of a soccer field on the college's
main campus.

While there is now some truth to a comment that would state "City Council denies soccer field
at Marymount College" it is only partially true and was accomplished at the request of
Marymount College.

But I suppose that the PR spin has already begun and that few people will take the time or
energy to learn all the facts before signing a petition.

I did hear a request by Marymount's Attorney to deny a soccer field being constructed at
Marymount College and that the City Council approved Mr. Davis' and Dr. Brophy's request.


Thank you.

Mark Wells




4/28/2010                                                                             13-41
                                                                                                   Page I of2



 Ara M

  From:     Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
  Sent:     Thursday, April 01, 2010 2:44 PM
  To:       'Carla Morreale'
  Cc:       terit@rpv.com; 'Ara Mihranian'
  SUbject: FW: Marymount

Hi Carla-

Mayor Pro Tern Long has requested that this email exchange be included as late correspondence
(adoption of the Marymount resolutions) on the April 6th City Council agenda.

Thanks!

Carolynn


From: Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 1:48 PM
To: anchanrj@cox.net
Cc: clehr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv,com; joelr@rpv,com
Subject: Re: Marymount

Dear Rick, While I am sure you speak for a lot of your neighborhood, I suspect many in this city
disagree with you. One by one your "valid issues" were carefully addressed by professional planners,
geologists and traffic consultants. And, with all due respect, none of them warranted denying
Marymount the right to modemize its decades old campus. The only substantive complaint you make
below seems quite unwarranted. The enrollment of the college is the same and with 120 more parking
spaces there will be fewer cars on the street blocking any evacuation that may be necessary. In any
event, in the city's entire history I believe only one home (and no lives) have been lost to brush fues of
the type about which you are concerned. I live in a neighborhood with 3 schools. The lights of
Chadwick shine into my master bedroom. The noise from Peninsula High wafts into my yard. The
traffic of hundreds of parents in SUVs dropping off their children at Soleado clogs my local streets (and
would make evacuation difficult at some times of the day). And personally I have no children. I could
take an attitude like yours and bitterly complain bitterly about all of these things. But they are just little
things that come with living in an urban area. We all need to just be a little more respectful of one
another and a little more capable of seeing differing points of view. Staff, please include this in late
correspondence for our next meeting. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tern, Rancho Palos Verdes

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent 4/1/201012:42:07 PM
To: stevew@rpv.com, tom.long@rpv.com, Douglas.Stern@rpv.com, Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com,
Brian.Campbell@rpv.com
Subject: You Gutless Wonders

Thanks for screwing your tax paying constituents by giving Marymount pennission for their expansion.
I cannot believe that you continued to ignore the valid issues that those of us who lived near this
misplaced institution brought to your attention.



4/28/2010                                                                                        13-42
                                                                                                 Page 2 of2



How can you ignore each of the very valid points. I hope that when we next have a major fire, and those
of us living across the street cannot get up or down RVP East due to additional traffic, that the lives lost
because of your decision haunt you for the rest of your lives. Or the slides that occur due to EIGHT
YEARS of construction impact you like they wil1 us. Or the additional traffic and noise or ...... you have
had them al1 presented

Please rest assured that those of us in the neighborhood will now take whatever legal action is available
to us, including court action. Maybe there we can find some community leaders who won't give into the
special interest group of Marymolillt.

To councilman Campbel1 and Misetich. rest assured we wil1 do everything possible to make certain you
are one term councilmen.

You don't represent the tax paying voters of this community. How much did your campaign funds get
from hidden Marymount sources.

Unbelievable. You exemplify what is wrong with our political system at al1levels where none of you are
willing to tackle a controversial issue.

Rick Anchan




4/28/2010                                                                                      13-43
Ara M

From:                 Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com]
Sent:                 Friday, April 02, 2010 3:24 PM
To:                   'Ara M'
Subject:              FW: Tom Long Isoccer balls




---~-Original   Message-----
From: Cathy Vilicich (mailto:shimiv@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:45 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Tom Long /soccer balls

Dear Council Members   I


With respect to Councilman Long's quote in todayls Daily Breeze regarding llsomeone
panicking if they get hit by a soccer ball n , building a soccer field in the location
Marymount wants to build is an accident waiting to happen . Count on it .

Patrick Vilicich




                                                   1

                                                                            13-44
                                                                                              Page 1 of 1



 AraM

  From:     Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com)
  Sent:     Friday, April 02, 2010 3:35 PM
  To:       'Ara M'
  ec:       'Carol W. Lynch'; 'David Snow'
  Subject: FW: Tom Long Isoccer balls


Fyi


From: Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 12:01 PM
To: cathy Vilicich
Cc: c1ehr@rpv.com; joelr@rpv.com
Subject: Re: Tom Long /soccer balls

Dear Patrick, I know people say that but there are hundreds of athletic fields near streets throughout the
nation and I have done a Google search to see if there are any reports of soccer balls causing accidents
and it comes back with nothing. I drive 56 miles round trip to downtown LA every day on high speed
freeways. I have been hit by all sorts of debris and rocks and cement, etc. and had my windshield craked
and yet I have always managed to stay in my lane and I am not a good driver. But if we are to have
ZERO tolerance for risk then yes, we cannot allow Marymount to have a soccer field. We had also better
ban all cats and dogs from being outdoors and take steps to trap and kill all wildlife such as squirrels,
racoons, opposoms, etc, because anyone of them running into the street could also cause an accident
and most such animals weigh more than a soccer ball. In sum, I feel that drivers are responsible for
being attentive to their surroundings and that the problem with a sitation of panic because of a 10 ounce
soccer ball hitting a car is a problem with the driver and not the soccer ball. We have so many real
dangers in the community that are much more serious and not addressed (such as poor young and old
drivers who should not have licenses) that I just cannot see this probem as being serious enough to deny
a property owner its rights. All that being said, I do hope we get a median on PV Drive East in that area
because I think it will enhance safety. That was a good idea Councilman Campbell brought forward.
Tom Long Mayor Pro Tern, Rancho Palos Verdes.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Cathy Vilicich"
Sent 4/2/20109:45:25 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Tom Long /soccer balls

Dear Council Members,
With respect to Councilman Long's quote in today's Daily Breeze
regarding "someone panicking if they get hit by a soccer ball" ,
building a soccer field in the location Marymount wants to build is
an accident waiting to happen. Count on it .

Patrick Vilicich




4/28/2010                                                                                    13-45
                                                                                               Page I of2



 Ara M

  From:      Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
  Sent:      Friday, April 02, 2010 5:11 PM
  To:        'Ara M'
  Subject: FW: Tom Long Isoccer balls




From: Patrick Vilicich [mailto:pvwatch@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 4:46 PM
To: Cathy Vilicich
Cc: cc@rpv,com; joelr@rpv.com; c1ehr@rpv.com
Subject: Re: Tom Long /soccer balls

Dear Councilman Long,

Your response to my email begs the question, who are you looking out for here?

Patrick Vilicich
On Apr 2, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Cathy Vilicich wrote:




Begin forwarded message:


From: "Tom Long" <LoI11JQ.Qg@R.aLo~ye.rde_s_.com>
Date: April 2, 20107:00:38 PM PDT
To: "Cathy Vilicich" <shimiv@pacbell.net>
Cc: <c1ehr@rpv.com>, <joelr@rpv.c.om>
Subject: Re: Tom Long Isoccer balls

Dear Patrick, I know people say that but there are hundreds of athletic fields near streets throughout the
nation and I have done a Google search to see if there are any reports of soccer balls causing accidents
and it comes back with nothing. I drive 56 miles round trip to downtown LA every day on high speed
freeways. I have been hit by all sorts of debris and rocks and cement, etc. and had my windshield
craked and yet I have always managed to stay in my lane and I am not a good driver. But if we are to
have ZERO tolerance for risk then yes, we cannot allow Marymount to have a soccer field. We had also
better ban all cats and dogs from being outdoors and take steps to trap and kill all wildlife such as
squirrels, racoons, opposoms, etc, because anyone of them running into the street could also cause an
accident and most such animals weigh more than a soccer ball. In sum, I feel that drivers are
responsible for being attentive to their surroundings and that the problem with a sitation of panic
because of a 10 ounce soccer ball hitting a car is a problem with the driver and not the soccer ball. We
have so many real dangers in the community that are much more serious and not addressed (such as
poor young and old drivers who should not have licenses) that I just cannot see this probem as being
serious enough to deny a property owner its rights. All that being said, I do hope we get a median on
PV Drive East in that area because I think it will enhance safety. That was a good idea Councilman
Campbell brought forward. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tern, Rancho Palos Verdes.



4/28/2010                                                                                     13-46
                                                                      Page 2 of2



-----Original Message-----
From: "Cathy Vilicich"
Sent 4/2/20109:45:25 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Tom Long /soccer balls

Dear Council Members,
With respect to Councilman Long's quote in today's Daily Breeze
regarding "someone panicking ifthey get hit by a soccer ball" ,
building a soccer field in the location Marymount wants to build is
an accident waiting to happen. Count on it .

Patrick Vilicich




4/28/2010                                                             13-47
                                                                                   Page I of2



  Ara M

   From:       bubba32@cox.net
   Sent:       Saturday, April 03, 2010 103 PM
   To:         cc@rpv.com
   Cc:         aram@rpv.com
   Subject:    More Marymount Lies Today
   Attachments: TRIP TABLE AND PARKING IMPACTS MAR 30 10[1].doc



All

Today I received a Marymountplan Flier

"What does Common sense Tell you?"

"That if you take 250 students, who otherwise have to drive up and down Palos Verdes
Drive East, several times a day to attend classes, and put them on campus in student
housing, there will be less traffic."

"And wouldn't fewer cars on our street make our neighborhood safer?"

YES. That is what common sense, llswdlllsJlIe City'sill!lependent traffic study t~ns
lI,S~ "


PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT IS THE BIG LIE! THE BIG LIE IS A
FALSEHOOD, TOLD OFTEN ENOUGH, GAINS THE PERCEPTION OF TRUTH!

Please see DEIR Tfl.bLes_5.3-29and5.:3~:3! which show that Traffic is increased by 1,561 and
1,478 trips Weekdays and Saturdays respectively, not reduced by 250 students housed on-
campus!

The average number of Weekday Trips observed - 658 students and 215 Faculty/Staffwas
2,439 daily trips (Traffic Appendix page 162). Add in the "missing" 135 students to the
maximum allowed student enrollment (793) and the average Weekday number oftrips is
2,816 trips .. The INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AS SHOWN IN THE CITY'S
INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC STUDY IS 55%! (+1,561/2,816= +55%). THlS IS THE
FINDING THAT IS PRODUCED WITH 250 ON-CAMPUS STUDENTS IN RESIDENCE
HALLS by the Independent Traffic Study Section 5.3.

The Traffic INCREASE IS EVEN MORE DRAMATIC ON WEEKENDS because the
Study, Table 5.3-31 shows an increase in Saturday Traffic of 1,478 trips which more
than doubles the existing Saturday Traffic from 949 trips to 2,427 trips, virtually the
same number of observed weekday trips at the College driveway with only 658 students.
Sunday Trips are not shown in the Analysis, but were observed to be 1,079 trips, similar to


4/28/2010                                                                        13-48
                                                                                  Page 2 of2


Saturday. Thus, to the extent that Saturday's added trip findings are similar to the
Saturday increase with 250 on-campus students, there will be a 24/7 increase in Traffic
well above 55%. This is certainly an "Inconvenient Truth!"

THE College Parking situation is not abated but worsened because the Initiative states
that the College plans to allow the addition of 125 vehicles to park on campus 24/7 which
makes this the largest full-time parking lot on the hill. The Independent City Analysis
found that the existing parking space shortfall was 292 spaces in Table 3.3-36. That is
simply unacceptable and an impact that the College has not and wishes not to acknowledge.
The most recent Appendix D (EIR) Traffic & Parking study found that there was only 1
extra parking space left with 463 spaces but did not count the new 125 vehicles (Initiative)
that overwhelms the added 120 spaces planned. The overall result is a further shortfall of
parking beyond that included in findings of these Traffic studies which projects even more
parking demand based on the new Bachelor 4-year program. Such students require a parking
"multiplier" of 1.47 beyond that of the existing AA students (543) that remain.

THE STATEMENTS AND TV ADVERTISING BY THE COLLEGE TO ENCOURAGE
RESIDENTS TO SIGN THEIR PETITION ARE FALSE - DECEPTIVE- MISLEADING
AND UNTRUE. SUCH COLLEGE CLAIMS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY
EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE CITY'S INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC STUDY. THIS IS
THE "BIG LIE" TECHNIQUE IN ACTION.

THIS IS AN EGREGIOUS AND OUTRAGEOUS LIE THAT NEEDS IMMEDIATE
ATTENTION AND WITHDRAW EL BY THIS RECKLESS COLLEGE
ADMINISTRATION.

JIM GORDON




4/28/2010                                                                       13-49
                                     APPENDIX D

                     2YR - 4 YR AFFECTS RESPECTING TRAFFIC TRIPS


 DATE             EVENT                   CALCULATION                          COMMENT
11/2005 MM 24 - HOUR DRIVEWAY     11/15 - 12/1 -2005 SURVEYS         ESTABLISH A BASELINE TO
        COUNT                     4 WEEKDAYS AVG 2,439 =             MEASURE THE EFFECTS OF THE
                                                                     PROJECT
                                  Based on 658 students + 215
                                  Faculty & Staff                    NOT USED - "NOT CONSIDERED
                                                                     COMPREHENSIVE... did not
                                  "missing" 135 students             include traffic associated with
                                  represent 377 more daily           college vehicles parked on
                                  trips (pro rata)                   adjacent streets.
                                  Total with 793 students & 215      Therefore, this data was not
                                                =
                                  Faculty/Staff 2,816 Daily          included in the analysis"
                                  trips: (2,237 Peak Hrs)
                                                                     Parking Survey shows "missed"
                                  Trip Distribution: 2,237 Peak,     traffic ranges from + 9% to 14.5%
                                  517 off Peak (79% Peak)             (if added would increase Daily
                                  ITE 550 University trip factor     Trips to 3,102)
                                  produces only 873 Peak
                                  trips, 2,415 Total (all students   ITE factors not representative
                                  + Faculty - 1,015 persons)
2008   DEIR                       Increase in trips + 1,561:         Project adds to existing traffic
                                  +55% with dorms - 4,377            counts -with dorms by 55%
                                  Total Daily Trips
2009   FEIR                       Increase in trips + 1,636;         Project adds to existing Traffic
                                  +58% without dorms - 4,452         counts -no dorms by +58%




                                                                                                         1
                                                                                                    13-50
                    Total Daily Trips
2010   APPENDIX D   Daily Trips increase + 1,931   Project adds to existing Traffic -no
                                                   dorms by 68% (222 Faculty/Staff +
                    4,747 Total Daily trips +68%   793 students - 543 Lower division,
                    without dorms, 2yr & 4yr       250 upper division)
                    program


DATE   EVENT        CALCULATION                    COMMENT
                                                   Adding staff of 215   =1,008 on
                                                   Adding staff of 215   =1,008 on
                                                   campus.

                                                   Utilizing a baseline of 2,439 + 1,008
                                                   (for 658 students) + 135 students
                                                              =
                                                   more (793) ??

                                                   RBF concludes that there's no
                                                   impact between 2 yr vs. 4 yr

                                                   The traffic counts suggest
                                                   otherwise had the baseline been
                                                   used

                                                   AND with 658 students in 2005
                                                   THERE WAS PARKING ON PVE,
                                                   CREST, ETC.

                                                   THE STREET PARKING
                                                   INCREASED FROM THEN TO NOW




                                                                                       2
                                                                                13-51
       W
       J:
  I-
I-Z
Ww
wJ:
a::: :i: ('.
I-       ('.
000 0
  ww
W 01-
a:::   OZ
0      <::J
::2: w O
J: m U
U Cl~
::J ~U
::2:
    ~-
:i: a:::...J
0
J:Q. Q.
       <§




               13-52
                                                                                               Page 10f2



 Ara M

  From:     Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
  Sent:     Monday, April 05, 2010 8:14 AM
  To:       'Ara M'
  Subject: FW: Tom Long Isoccer balls



                                                               __._--
                                                               .
From: Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com]
sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:30 PM
To: pvwatch@pacbell.net; shimiv@pacbell.net
Cc: c1ehr@rpv.com; joelr@rpv.com
SUbject: Re: Tom Long jsoccer balls

Dear Councilman Long,

Your response to my email begs the question, who are you looking out for here?

Patrick Vilicich
On Apr 2,2010, at 4:19 PM, Cathy Vilicich wrote:




Begin forwarded message:


From : ''Tom Long" <lomJ9.!J9@palo.sye[d.es.com>
Date: April 2. 20107:00:38 PM PDT
To: "Cathy Vilicich" <shimiy~pacbell.net>
Cc: <deor@rp.v.c;of'J1>, <joe!~@rpv.com>
Subject: Re: Tom Long Isoccer balls

Dear Patrick, 1 know people say that but there are hundreds of athletic fields near streets throughout the
nation and 1have done a Google search to see if there are any reports of soccer balls causing accidents
and it comes back with nothing. I drive 56 miles round trip to downtown LA every day on high speed
freeways. I have been hit by all sorts of debris and rocks and cement, etc. and had my windshield
craked and yet 1 have always managed to stay in my lane and I am not a good driver. But if we are to
have ZERO tolerance for risk then yes, we cannot allow Marymount to have a soccer field. We had also
better ban all cats and dogs from being outdoors and take steps to trap and kill all wildlife such as
squirrels, racoons, opposoms, etc, because anyone of them running into the street could also cause an
accident and most such animals weigh more than a soccer ball. In sum, I feel that drivers are
responsible for being attentive to their surroundings and that the problem with a sitation of panic
because of a 10 ounce soccer ball hitting a car is a problem with the driver and not the soccer ball. We
have so many real dangers in the community that are much more serious and not addressed (such as
poor young and old drivers who should not have licenses) that I just cannot see this probern as being
serious enough to deny a property owner its rights. All that being said, I do hope we get a median on
PV Drive East in that area because 1 think it will enhance safety. That was a good idea Councilman
Campbell brought forward. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tern, Rancho Palos Verdes.



4/2812010                                                                                     13-53
                                                                      Page 2 of2



-----Original Message-----
From: "Cathy Vilicich"
Sent 4/2/20109:45:25 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Tom Long /soccer balls

Dear Council Members,
With respect to Councilman Long's quote in today's Daily Breeze
regarding "someone panicking if they get hit by a soccer ball " ,
building a soccer field in the location Marymount wants to build is
an accident waiting to happen. Count on it .

Patrick Vilicich




4/28/2010                                                             13-54
Ara M

From:                  Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:                  Monday, April 05, 2010 12:07 PM
To:                    'Ara Mihranian'
Cc:                    'Joel Rojas'
Subject:               FW: Marymount




-----Original Message-----
From: Raue, Anke [mailto:ankeraue@cox.net]
Sent, Monday, April 05, 2010 12,00 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Marymount

Honorable City Council Members,
Although I am personally neutral on the Marymount expansion plans, we think the City
should have made a serious effort in the news media to point out the cost of a special
election!
We believe a lot of people donlt think of that and they may not have signed the petition
then!

Sincerely

  Jorg and Anke Raue
28813 Rothrock Dr.
R.P.V.




                                                     1
                                                                            13-55
                                                                            Page 1 of 1



 Ara M

  From:     Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
  Sent:     Monday, April 05, 2010 12:08 PM
  To:       'Ara Mihranian'
  Cc:       'Joel Rojas'
  Subject: FW: Re. Marymount Collage




From: Tania Noshad [mailto:tania.noshad@gmail.com]
sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 6: 14 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Re. Marymount Collage


Dear RPV City Council,

I am a RPV resident, living with my wife and two daughters very close to
the Marymount collage. We chose this residential area because of its low
density living code and the lack of traffic generating businesses
surrounding this small community. We paid a top dollar just for that. I
am frustrated by constant reading and hearing the expansion plans of this
for profit institution. If the City approve the MMC expansion, I will be
very much concern about safety and future of my daughters. Just go to any
collage within US and see the housing around it. I am sure they did not
begin in that manner. They all are rental run down properties with
Traffic, Drugs and Alcohol you name it, all offered in a bundle. We say
NO to this expansion, period.

Regards
TN




4/28/2010                                                                   13-56
Ara M
From:                Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com]
Sent:                Monday, April 05, 20102:00 PM
To:                  'Ara M'
Subject:             FW: Marymount Collage Expansion




--~--Original Message-----
From: Chris_Noshad@Toyota.com Emailto:ChrisNoshad@Toyota.com]
Sent, Friday, April 02, 2010 1,10 PM
To: cc@RPV.com
Cc: c.noshad@gmail.com
Subject: Marymount Collage Expansion


Dear RPV City council,

I am a RPV resident, living with my wife and two daughters very close to
the Marymount collage. We chose this residential area because of its low
density living code and the lack of traffic generating businesses
surrounding this small community. We paid a top dollar just for that.       I
am frustrated by constant reading and hearing the expansion plans of this
for profit institution.   If the City approve the MMC expansion, I will be
very much concern about safety and future of my daughters. Just go to any
collage within US and see the housing around it.   I am sure they did not
begin in that manner.   They all are rental run down properties with
Traffic, Drugs and Alcohol you name it, all offered in a bundle.     We say
NO to this expansion, period.

Regards,
Chris Noshad
c.noshad@gmail.com




                                                 1

                                                                                13-57
Ara M
From:                Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com]
Sent:                Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:47 AM
To:                  'Ara M'; 'Joel Rojas'
Subject:             FW: Marymount Soccer Field




-----Original Message-----
From: anchanrj@cox.net [mailto:anchanrj@cox.net]
Sent, Wednesday, April 07, 2010 7,40 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Marymount Soccer Field

Gentlemen,

While I am not happy with your vote to approve the Marymount expansion, at least you had
the vision to see the issues regarding saftey on the location of the soccer field.

I now understand that your soccer field decision will be reconsidered by the council.  I
am sorry but putting a fence or net up or lowering the height of the field in the proposed
location only makes the other issues those of us who live in Mira Catalina and have to
face worse.  A net would inhibit our view and lower my property values. Plus, I am
certain that, if not immediately, eventually there would be lights to use the facility at
night, excessive noise and other negative impacts on my neighborhood.

I bought my home in RPV over PVE because of the great view.  Don';t ruin it by further
giving in to an institution that pays no tax to the city, has very fewlcity residents as
students (unlike Chadwick,  Councilman Stern) and adds virtually no value to not only
those of us immediately adjacent but no value to virtually all residents of RPV.

Please! J ! !! on this matter at least stay with your convictions on the soccer field issue.
r understand several of you walked the property and determined that balls will be able to
reach RPV Drive East. Driving that section of that road is difficult enough.

Please do not reverse your vote on this matter. The college has been granted by you
expansion of facilities that will allow them to grow. Don't make those of us living
immediately adjacent to the college put up with more negative impact.

Thanks

Rick and Linda Anchan
3312 Corinna Drive




                                                   1

                                                                               13-58
Ara M
From:                 bubba32@cDx.net
Sent:                 Sunday, April 11, 2010 8:36 AM
To:                   Ara M
Subject:              RE: Marymount - Athletic Field - Request for latest March 5, 2010 Preliminary Grading &
                      Drainage Plan


Ara

I understand that the May 4th City Council agenda now includes consideration of an
athletic field location and related issues.

One of those athletic Field sites is the Alternative "D-2" as shown in Exhibit 2-6 of the
EIR Appendix D entitled "Athletic Field Alternative No. D-2 Detailed Site Plan".

That Plan has different dimensions and elevations from the Athletic Field and Tennis
Courts shown in the January 6, 2010 and March 5, 2010 Preliminary Grading and Drainage
site Plans.

As we had briefly discussed on the evening of March 30, 2010, I am following up on my
request for a full-size copy of that March 5, 2010 site Plan that was submitted by the
College showing 79,155 Cubic Yards of Grading. You had indicated that a copy will need to
be made and I had confirmed that this will be paid for by myself or CCC/ME.

As you know and have provided for in the Resolutions and conditions of approval for a
further review of grading quantities, it is my understanding that the present wet-stamped
site plan quantity of 79,155 Cubic Yards does not include the shear key grading noted in
the DEIR Section 5.6.4.3 UNSTABLE GEOLOGIC UNITS SLOPE STABILITY and as also confirmed in
the May 19, 2009 ASE letter of transmittal, as follows.

"The Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (March 13, 2007) depicts a laterally extensive
buttressed slope along the southwest facing natural slope at the southeast corner of the
Project site. Proposed keyway excavations for the buttress fills, which are associated
with creating more stable slopes along the southerly margin of the Project site, would not
require shoring."

ASE stated in their May 19, 2009 transmittal letter, under Plan Revisions, that "The
removal of the student housing has created a revision to the slope configuration east of
the Chapel. The previously proposed shear key (50 feet wide by 5 feet deep) is still
considered adequate for slope stability and has been moved up the slope as shown on the
Geotechnical Map, Plate I and in the revised Cross Sections, Plate II."

The elevations shown in the January 6, 2010 Site plan for the Tennis Courts is 900.645',
whereas they are shown as being 9.245' lower in the Alternative D-2 which figures out to
an increase in excavation of 9,861 CY of excavation and a total increase of 17,257 Cubic
Yards of total grading by the convention of balanced on-site grading.

The ltTW" at the NE corner of the Tennis courts was 917.04' that represents a wall height
from FS of slightly over 25. No "TW" is shown in the D-2 exhibit at that location, but
with a revised llFS" of 892' such height would be consistent with the previous January 6,
2020 site plan TW figure.

In addition, the   soccer field itself is depicted as being at an average elevation of
891.9' elevation   in D-2, whereas the January 6, 2010 site plan shows that field elevation
at 892.9', or l'   higher. That l' lower elevation - also the basis for previous
visualizations -   represents additional excavation of 2078 CY and total grading of 3,636 CY
on-site.

The point here is that the Alternate D-2 Plan represents a significant increase in total
grading that has not been recognized so far when compared against the January 6, 2010 or
March 5, 2010 site plan grades and elevations.

My further and most important point is that neither of these 2010 plans submitted by the
                                                      1
                                                                                                 13-59
College has incorporated the designated soil buttress shear key grading in the
calculations, whether for no Residence Halls or with Residence Halls - which would
obviously be much greater.

The simple point being is that in order to grade for the proposed tennis courts, the
College is required by the geologist's recommendations to first excavate down to the
levels and extent shown in Plate II of the Geotechnical Map Cross Sections before
reconstituting that area back to Finish Grade or Finish Surface (FS). Such implementation
of the geotechnically-required shear key grading has not been incorporated into either
site plan submitted by the College to date. At least that is my contention of which you
are aware and for that reason I have requested a copy of the most recent Preliminary
Grading and Drainage Plan.

I look forward to picking up a full-size copy of the latest March 5, 2010 Preliminary
Grading & Drainage Plan that we had discussed.

Jim



---- Ara M <aram@rpv.com> wrote:
> Thank you!
>
> Ara Michael Mihranian
> Principal Planner
>   City of Rancho Palos Verdes
> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
> Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
> 310-544-5228 (telephone)
> 310-544-5293 (fax)
> aram@rpv.com
> www.palosverdes.com/rpv
>
> P      Do you really need to print this e-mail?
> This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of
> Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or
> protected from disclosure.  The information is intended only for use
> of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,
> distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this
> email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the
> sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bubba32@cox.net [mailto:bubba32@cox.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:31 PM
> To: 'j lkarp i Ara M
                I


> Subject: Re: Marymount - Athletic Field
>
>   Ara
>
> Attached is the Revised and compliant new Alternative D-1 field
> location adjusted as you have stated to the west.
>
> The field is described beginning on the bottom of page 5 and is shown
> on page 6 with attributes and advantages that follow on succeeding pages.
>
> Jim
>
>         Ara M <aram@rpv.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jim and Lois,
>   >
> >
> >
> > Can you please email me the exhibit you put together for keeping the
> > athletic field in its current location but adjusted to minimize fire
                                             2

                                                                              13-60
>   access
>   > impediment?
>   >
>   >
>   >
> > Ara
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   Ara Michael Mihranian
>   >
>   >   Principal Planner
>   >
>   >       City of Rancho Palos Verdes
>   >
>   >   30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
>   >
>   >   Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
>   >
>   >   310-544-5228 (telephone)
>   >
>   >   310-544-5293 (fax)
>   >
>   >   aram@rpv.com
>   >
>   >   www.palosverdes.com/rpv
> >
> >
> >
> >     P        Do you really need to print this e-mail?
>   >
> >   This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of
> >   Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or
>   > protected from disclosure.  The information is intended only for use
>   > of the individual or entity named.  Unauthorized dissemination,
>   > distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received
>   > this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify
>   > the sender immediately. Thank you for
>   your
>   > assistance and cooperation.
> >
> >
> >
>




                                                  3
                                                                             13-61
                                                                                                    Page 1   of 1



 Ara M

  From:     fred koehler [fhkoehler@cox.net]
  Sent:     Tuesday, April 13, 20102:41 PM
  To:       cc@rpv.com
  Cc:       Ara M
  Subject: marymount fiasco!

Why are you wasting time and money holding further meetings on Marymount You've given them 99% of what
they wanted and we all know the additional 1% is coming on May 4th. Until now I would have never believed that
my elected City officials would be swayed by the big money that Dr, Brophy is throwing at you to get his way, but
the facts tell otherwise and I am disgusted, disillusioned and disheartened by this whole charade, Government of
the people, by the people and for the people· not in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Priscilla Koehler
3352 Seaclaire r.
RPV,CA.




4/28/2010                                                                                          13-62
                                                                                     Page 1 of2



 Ara M
  From:     Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com]
  Sent:     Thursday, April 22, 2010 1:20 PM
  To:       'Ara M'; 'Joel Rojas'
  Subject: FW: PVP Watch Newsletter




From: Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. [mailto:cfw.cwanda@verizon.net]
sent: Thursday, April 22,2010 12:14 PM
To: pvpwatch@pvpwatch.com
Subject: Re: PVP Watch Newsletter

Dear Council Members, Mr. Long and PVP Watch,

Re Marymount, I was riding up PV Drive East this AM past Marymount and noticed the
drainage ditch is full of soil in several places. Marymount or the City needs to empty out the
ditch if the lined ditch is to provide any valuable service in a large rain storm. I would also
suggest some attention to stabilizing the slope - a retaining wall perhaps, with a nice mural.
Leaving it "as is" probably invites more land slippage problems.

I was offended by the "truthiness" (misrepresentation) in the Marymount fliers sent out about
the proposed project. Marymount presents a rhetorical question about if the congestion in
the area will increase. They answer no, explaining that the cap in students will remain at
750. But now PVP says the student body is a lot less than 750 students. I suspect the PVP
figures as to current active enrollment are wrong, since lots of "facts" put out by PVP have
proven wrong.

I understand the college graduates about 160 students, which suggests a current active
enrollment of around 400. That means the Marymount project is in fact an expansion
project, aimed at getting the student body up to 750 (up by say 350 students, or up 87.5%).
Let's not kid ourselves, Marymount is not proposing to raise and spend millions unless it can
raise enrollment to the 750 allowed (or somewhere near that figure). If that expansion in
headcount is not their goal, they should say so, and agree to a lower cap on active student
headcount. And they should be frank about what the current active enrollment amounts to.
As usual, PVP has not provided any source for its assertion that active enrollment at the RPV
campus is 547 students. Count the car loads and bus-loads coming in and out each day and I
suspect the real current attendance number will prove to be 400 or so.

I drive by Marymount (on the one and only road in and out of Marymount, PV Drive East)
every morning on the way to work, and I live about a mile from Marymount's entrance. I
would not like to see PV Drive East get any more congested - keeping in mind the
congestion on Western as a sobering reminder of what can happen if we are cavalier about
congestion issues when evaluating construction projects.



4/28/2010                                                                          13-63
                                                                                         Page 201'2


I am also not at all impressed with the Marymount contortions about a soccer field right next
to PV Drive East. The RPV area has loads of great soccer fields (like at Ladera Linda
Park). Marymount has 1 or maybe 2 soccer teams, which can easily share fields with the
flocks of other soccer teams sharing fields all over the Peninsula. Why can't Marymount
rent space from existing field owners (like Fram, the School District, etc.)? I am in favor of
landscaping some flat space at the Marymount site for compatible uses, but soccer is not a
reasonably compatible use ofthe land right next to the up-sloping and curving PV Drive East
(where the hillside is already crumbling and needs a retaining wall). Suggesting a fence that
can be raised and lowered to cut down on errant balls going down PV Drive East makes no
sense. Such a fence will require montWy maintenance (which is not a Marymount strong
suit in the current property layout, and will not likely become more of a strong suit). Such a
fence would likely stop working (in an up or down position) in five years or so. The sea air
is not friendly to metal in that area.

This does not mean I am less than bullish and supportive of the fine educational services
provided by Marymount PV as an institution. I think they do a fine job in providing great
classes and great profs. But the Marymount proposal to raise money (when? how?) to
almost double the college enrollment, in that location, seems pretty crazy. Better, perhaps,
to relocate to another site, as it did twice before in the last 50 years or so. The profits for the
college from selling the existing land would likely be large to huge (and not subject to
capital gains tax, I suspect).

Regards,
Chris Wilson
Christopher F. Wilson, Esq.
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
Torrance, California 90503
310 316 2500
Fax,  424 731 8347
Cfw.cwanda@verizon.net



pvpwatch@pvpwatch.c_Qm wrote:
Attached is PVP Watch Newsletter - April 21st 2010




4/28/2010                                                                              13-64
                                                                                     Page 1 of 4




 Ara M

  From:     Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com]
  Sent:     Thursday, April 22, 2010 5:40 PM
  To:       'Ara M'; 'Joel Rojas'
  SUbject: FW: Marymount Project - Congestion/CompatibilityfTraffic Problems



                            ._----------_._-------_._._._--_._.• _.._-----_._--
From: Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. [mailto:cfw.cwanda@verizon.net]
sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:35 PM
To: Brian Campbell
Cc: cc@rpv.com; Long, Tom; PVPWATCH
Subject: Re: Marymount Project - Congestion/Compatibility[Traffic Problems

Thanks, Councilman Campbell, glad to see someone is reading. Here is a bit more about
my concern for a material congestion/compatibility/traffic problem that is being sort of
ignored in the "pitch" material from Marymount:

I note that the existing housing, per the Marymount website, is 320 units. Planned housing
is 250 units. That takes us up to 570 residential students. 101 non-residential are from local
zip codes, per the PVP report. 130 are from outside the local zip codes, but not in the
dorms. Add residential in to local and non-local day students and we are at 801 (about 8
over the cap number).

I would still zoom in on the current headcount - I suspect there are some students in the PVP
count who are just showing up for one summer term (there are 2 summer terms - 1 is a 3-
week term and 1 is a 6-week term) or the winter term (about 3 weeks in December-
January), What needs to be studied is full time equivalent students now compared to a
theoretical max of 793 full time equivalent students. 1 would bet, from my daily drive by of
Marymount, that full time equivalent students now are around 400.

For troubling reports about not much discipline in the existing Marymount dorms (drinking,
drugs, parties), see http://yvww.studentsreview.com/CA/MmymounLCollege.html. If! had
a choice, I would not send my son to the Marymount existing dorms, as opposed to having
him live at home. I am not saying the existing Marymount residential student living space is
much worse than what one might encounter at, say, Duke in Durham, NC, but the
drugs/drinking/partying of college dorms is really a different sort of life style than the norm
in the Marymount part ofRPV.

For an example of traffic headaches that can come from "one road in and out" schools in the
PV area, I would point to the Chadwick School experience. There, they were moving to
busing people in and out, to avoid too much congestion on residential streets. Chadwick is
870 students in 45 acres.




4/28/2010                                                                           13-65
                                                                                                                                         Page 2 0[4


I do not think one reduces Marymount traffic much by having 250 students reside on the
campus - they will still drive out for recreation, food, etc. 1-2 times per day, since there are
only 7-8 developed acres in the Marymount plan.

I also note Marymount is just up the road a mile or so from the Miraleste Middle School,
which has large congestion issues (with a daily traffic manager) at drop off time.

Regards,
Chris Wilson


Christopher F. Wilson, Esq.
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
Torrance, California 90503
310 316 2S00
Fax,  424 731 8347
Cfw.cwanda@~~~~~9g~n~t




Brian Campbell wrote:
Thanks Chris. All good points and I appreciate you sending them to me. I do read them and they help me with
shaping my ultimate opinions on these issues.

Brian



Brian Campbell
Councilman
City of Rancho Palos Verdes

310-544-7400 office
310-702-8009 cell
888-855-9619 fax
www.linkedin.comlin/brianthomascampbell
www.palo_sver.Les.co[l1jrpv

NOTfCE: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient
and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying /s
strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e~mai1, and
delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.




From: Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. [mailto:cfw.cwandil@\,~rjwn.n~J]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12: 14 PM
To: pvpwqtcb@p"PWj'ltc::h~()m
Subject: Re: PVP Watch Newsletter

Dear Council Members, Mr. Long and PVP Watch,

Re Marymount, I was riding up PV Drive East this AM past Marymount and noticed the


4/28/2010                                                                                                                             13-66
                                                                                     Page 3 of4


drainage ditch is full of soil in several places. Marymount or the City needs to empty out the
ditch if the lined ditch is to provide any valuable service in a large rain storm. I would also
suggest some attention to stabilizing the slope - a retaining wall perhaps, with a nice mural.
Leaving it "as is" probably invites more land slippage problems.

I was offended by the "truthiness" (misrepresentation) in the Marymount fliers sent out about
the proposed project. Marymount presents a rhetorical question about if the congestion in
the area will increase. They answer no, explaining that the cap in students will remain at
750. But now PVP says the student body is a lot less than 750 students. I suspect the PVP
figures as to current active enrollment are wrong, since lots of "facts" put out by PVP have
proven wrong.

I understand the college graduates about 160 students, which suggests a current active
enrollment of around 400. That means the Marymount project is in fact an expansion
project, aimed at getting the student body up to 750 (up by say 350 students, or up 87.5%).
Let's not kid ourselves, Marymount is not proposing to raise and spend millions unless it can
raise enrollment to the 750 allowed (or somewhere near that figure). If that expansion in
headcount is not their goal, they should say so, and agree to a lower cap on active student
headcount. And they should be frank about what the current active enrollment amounts to.
As usual, PVP has not provided any source for its assertion that active enrollmentat the RPV
campus is 547 students. Count the car loads and bus-loads coming in and out each day and I
suspect the real current attendance number will prove to be 400 or so.

I drive by Marymount (on the one and only road in and out of Marymount, PV Drive East)
every morning on the way to work, and I live about a mile from Marymount's entrance. I
would not like to see PV Drive East get any more congested - keeping in mind the
congestion on Western as a sobering reminder of what can happen if we are cavalier about
congestion issues when evaluating construction projects.

I am also not at all impressed with the Marymount contortions about a soccer field right next
to PV Drive East. The RPV area has loads of great soccer fields (like at Ladera Linda
Park). Marymount has 1 or maybe 2 soccer teams, which can easily share fields with the
flocks of other soccer teams sharing fields all over the Peninsula. Why can't Marymount
rent space from existing field owners (like Fram, the School District, etc.)? I am in favor of
landscaping some flat space at the Marymount site for compatible uses, but soccer is not a
reasonably compatible use of the land right next to the up-sloping and curving PV Drive East
(where the hillside is already crumbling and needs a retaining wall). Suggesting a fence that
can be raised and lowered to cut down on errant balls going down PV Drive East makes no
sense. Such a fence will require monthly maintenance (which is not a Marymount strong
suit in the current property layout, and will not likely become more of a strong suit). Such a
fence would likely stop working (in an up or down position) in five years or so. The sea air
is not friendly to metal in that area.

This does not mean I am less than bullish and supportive of the fine educational services
provided by Marymount PV as an institution. I think they do a fine job in providing great


4/28/2010                                                                          13-67
                                                                                         Page 4 of4


classes and great profs. But the Marymount proposal to raise money (when? how?) to
almost double the college enrollment, in that location, seems pretty crazy. Better, perhaps,
to relocate to another site, as it did twice before in the last 50 years or so. The profits for the
college from selling the existing land would likely be large to huge (and not subject to
capital gains tax, I suspect).

Regards,
Chris Wilson

Christopher F. Wilson, Esq.
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
Torrance, California 90503
310 316 2500
Fax,  424 731 8347
Cfw.cwanda@verizon.net



PYPWa!Ch@PypWlIlchJ:PJIl wrote:
Attached is PVP Watch Newsletter - April 21st 2010




4/28/2010                                                                              13-68
Ara M

From:                  Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:                  Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:45 AM
To:                    'Ara Mihranian'
Cc:                    'Joel Rojas'
Subject:               FW:




-----Original Message-----
From: Aristides Requicha [mailto:arirequicha@hotmail.comJ
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 7:09 PM
To: City Council
Cc: arirequicha@hotmail.com
Subject:


Dear RPV Councilmen:

You recently voted to deny Marymount College's proposal to move its soccer
field. However, you have now decided to reconsider it. One gets the feeling
that
the council will keep voting until Marymount gets all that it wants!

An athletic field (for soccer, etc.) next to PV Drive East is an
accident waiting to happen. The road is heavily traveled by cars, some of
which
are convertibles, and, importantly, by bicycles. If a soccer (or even
tennis)
ball hits a cyclist, he or she is highly likely to fall. If this happens
when a
car is overtaking the bicycle, we will have a very serious accident. A
proposed
center divider for PV Drive will not help, besides being ugly and expensive.


Being hit on the windshield (or on your head, if you drive a
convertible) by a soccer ball when you are in the middle of a sharp cuve and
in
traffic is also something that can easily cause an accident.

One should not just worry about shots on goal. When defenses
are under pressure, often a player will kick the ball in just about any
direction as hard as he or she can, hopefully to get it far from the goal.
In
big stadiums, these defensive clearances often end out in the audience, but
in
a place like Marymount, they would end out in PV Drive, even with the
proposed net.

I cannot understand why the city staff and consultants find
that a parking lot next to PV Drive has an unmitigatable impact, whereas
having a
bunch of kids running around yelling and screaming on a soccer field
surrounded
by a view-ruining net is OK. Other parking lots and structures in the
proposed college
expansion have been mitigated by such means as planting bushes and trees.
Why
can't that be done for a parking lot near PV Drive? The city staff and
consultants have
been able to find what they consider acceptable mitigations for most
anything
                                                     1

                                                                               13-69
that the college wants, but what the college does not want has mostly been
judged
unmitigatable or unfeasible.

Sincerely,

Ari Requicha
Rancho Palos Verdes

The New Busy is not the too busy. combine all your email accounts with
Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=muItiaccount&ocid=PID283
26"T,WLMTAGL,ON,WL,en-US,WM_HMP,042010_4




                                            2

                                                                               13-70
                                                                                      Page 1 of2



 Ara M

  From:     Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.coml
  Sent:     Wednesday, April 28, 2010 6:49 AM
  To:       'Ara M'; 'Joel Rojas'
  SUbject: FW: Re: Late Plan submittals & an Open Letter to the College




From: bubba32@cox.net [mailto:bubba32@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 3:22 PM
To: Tom Long
Cc: cc@rpv,com
Subject: Re: Re: Late Plan submittals & an Open Letter to the College


Mayor Pro Tern Tom Long

Thank you for your kind advisement. I am responding on my own behalf and not for
CCCIME as you suggest. That should be clear from the headings of the submitted materials
themselves.

I am fully aware of what is on the Agenda.

The first letter of concern regarding the "stealth" Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans of
2010 concerns the fact that these plans have not receiveqthe con:t;1guration managern~nt
attenti<2n that they deserve so far to date. While that particular issue may not be specified or
on the Agenda for action, the information is relevant to any approval that the Council may
wish to provide at this meeting, including the question of a soccer field site.

What is, however, directly relevant to the Council's Agenda item is the effect of any
approval of a new Soccer Field located as proposed by the College at site "D-2". It is
relevant to the review because of the elevations contained in that Alternative "D-2" that are
compliant and consistent with prior approved elevations and grading contained previously in
Appendix D and as approved and reviewed by the City Geologist and Marymount's geologist
consultant. While these elevations would be consistent, the "stealth" plans elevations and
features are not consistent with prior approvals and findings. That should be a real concern
especially when those matters are put to the true test in the permitting and "Plan Check"
process.

The significance of these statements lies in the fact that should such "D-2" alternative be
approved, it would significantly impact the associated on-site balanced grading quantities in
the approximate amount (upward) of 17,000 Cubic Yards as so stated in the letter, such that
the Council's decision would then result not in the latest grading quantity of79, 155 Cubic
Yards now claimed in the recent 20 I0 Grading Plans, but a much a larger amount
approaching 96,000 Cubic Yards of on-site grading.


4/28/2010                                                                           13-71
                                                                                       Page 2 of2




In so doing, or not doing, there remains the possibility of overlooking the stealth retaining
walls added by the January and March 2010 Grading Plans because these were not
recognized or formally approved by the City or recorded as having been approved. Such
changes in these walls and elevations have an associated impact not only related to added
grading but are now contrary to the approved and referenced Visualization Exhibits created
by these unrecognized new elevations as their basis. Further, the extreme proximity of these
walls to the adjacent property line and roadway is an unresolved "Finding" omission as well
as being an operational concern that has been disregarded source of additional grading
quantities that the Council has recognized would require further hearings and delays of the
College's permitting progress should they materialize later.

I am on record with the City with prior submittals as being very concerned that the City not
be placed in a compromised position should approvals be given now inappropriately that
may be construed as not requiring certain confirmed recognized geologic features (the soil
buttress shear key) now that might later be used by the College as a pretext for later re-
opening and avoidance of these issues.

The inclusion of the "Open Letter" regarding the MarymountPlan Initiative and the serious
misrepresentations therein, may not at this point seem relevant to the specified Council
agenda on Tuesday but it is relevant to possible future consideration by the Council should
that measure gain the required number of signatures that would then require the Council, at
such time, to be faced with a decision to either accept the initiative or prepare arguments and
statements against it. In such case I wish to have it on file for that consideration should it
become necessary.

What I am suggesting is that the context of your deliberations on the alternate site of the
soccer field - for which the first letter does include relevant information, should be kept
firmly in mind - that the College has chosen to disrespect the truth of its plans to the public
and that the Council should be wary of further misrepresentations that impact these matters
during your deliberations.

Thanks for listening,

Jim Gordon

---- Tom Long <tomlong@palosverdes.com> wrote:




4/28/2010                                                                            13-72
                            James B. Gordon
                           3538 Bendigo Drive
                   Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275

The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes
% Ara Michael Mihranian, Principal Planner
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391       Tuesday April 27, 2010

Subject: College's late submittals of Revised Preliminary Grading & Drainage
Plans: (January 15,2010 & March 5,2010) Reference; (Previously submitted):
1. The Fallacy of Staff's August 18, 2009 Grading and Drainage Plan, 2. The
Project is Infeasible as presently approved
Mayor Wolowicz and Councilmembers;
I have serious reservations and concerns regarding the latest referenced
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans have not been subjected to rigorous
or adequate Configuration Control or traceability with respect to the prior
approved plans, for example;

  • Neither of these two Plans incorporates the Geologist-approved Soil
    Buttress Shear Key that was described in DEIR Section 5.6.4.3 UNSTABLE
     GEOLOGIC UNITS - SLOPE STABILITY - DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED
     PROJECT COULD BE LOCATED ON A GEOLOGIC UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS
     UNSTABLE OR THAT WOULD, AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT, BECOME
     UNSTABLE.
  • 'This previously proposed shear key (50 feet wide by 5 feet deep) is still
    considered adequate for slope stability and has been moved up the slope
    as shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate I and in the Revised Cross
    Sections, Plate II." (per signed and wet-stamped ASE transmittal letter
    May 19,2010)
  • In his review letter of May 21, 2009, the City Geologist confirmed that
    "the geotechnical consultant's review of the proposed Grading and
    Drainage Plan (including modification of the proposed buttress fill
    keyway) appear to be suitable from a geotechnical perspective."
  • These latest Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plans have not been so
    reviewed and approved from a Geotechnical standpoint.

llPage


                                                                     13-73
     • The latest Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans are not Geotechnical
       documents and do not include any corresponding Geotechnical Map or
       Cross sections. They are "architectural" only and do not contain these
       previously approved geotechnical features.
     • These latest Preliminary Plans include three new and as yet unapproved
       NEW Retaining Walls - at the Southwest Corner of the previously
       proposed soccer field, and a long, 9' high, retaining wall below the
       western edge of the proposed tennis courts that extends more than
       halfway along and close to the soccer field.
     • These latest plans have significantly changed the Finished Surface (FS)
       level of these tennis courts from elevation 892 - 893' to 900.29' -
       901.00', an average of 8 ..145' above the approved elevation shown in the
       approved visualizations in Appendix A, Exhibit 9. Why?
     • The Plans further compromise the proposed soccer field grading
       elevations, raising them by one foot (.992') above the previously-
       approved elevation in Appendix A and as shown to the City Council in
       the August 19, 2009 Staff Briefing.
     • Your attention is also directed to the proximity of the proposed field and
       tennis court retaining walls to the property line; SW corner walls within
       12.5', NW corner walls within 9', NW tennis court corner within 13' and
       NE corner tennis walls within 10'
     • These are all areas that require special shoring measures to protect the
       integrity of the road as shown in the Geotechnical Map Cross Section
       below (left side of illustration);
  .. s'··
       ,
     ...
       '
           .                                                              J         ,
                                                                                    '
                                                                                                                                                                                          . ".;               .. ':"   ~   .
                                                                                                                                                                                                      ' . .i


                                                                                                                                                                        :   .   :~   ,.
                                                                                                                                                                                                  .   ..'. '......

                                                                                                                                                          . ..      . :-.': :':......
  ", ",                                                                                                                                          ,"   .: ~.~'J! . ':;' :~..:..:.-
                                                                                                                                                                                          .,~.
                                                                                                                                                                                                       , ..      ~         .
                                                                                   ~ ~
                                                                                            ".
                                                                                                 ~
                                                                                                     :-                                                                                   .....
                                                                      ;   •                I.•                   .' ,      ",::'::;                                                                    -,      '-.,
                                                                                                          ,_:.~.:"...
                                                                                                                                                                                                      .:;,~L
                                                                      •   ",.'           . ,".J                              '. , .      1


                                                          :   . -:   -.       ..        .......... :.
                                                                                                                                                               .   .'   .'
                                                                                                                                                                            : I.,","


                              ",   .-'..                                                                                                                                                                 ,     '.'- .:
> .:                       :.:~.             ..                                                              .... , ,        '~   .. ,                    ., .                            '"," .._.," .\.:-
~ ,~.;.    . .    . ';.'                              _~ ," .' ~<J: :'.:'1-;,
                                   ," . i.:, .. :_.....                                                       '-~;.~. ;<",: ";               ". "', > "       ,,             :.> ':~·:~!tiWj.:~~ . _·~.<.:::.··.:
           Note: Retaining Walls require sloped excavation behind them as shown above

     • During your forthcoming May 4, 2010 Hearing review of Alternative
       Field locations, I would like to draw your attention to "Alternate Field
21Page


                                                                                                                                                                                                  13-74
    Location No. D-2" as Exhibit 2-6 from the Appendix D. The elevations
    shown here for the tennis courts and the field itself are now much lower
    than in the recent submitted plans and are now consistent with previous
    approved plans.
  • However, these latest plans are claiming a reduced total of on-site
    balanced grading of approximately 79,200 Cubic Yards (vs. 84,800 CY).
  • Should this D2 Alternate field location be approved, that will have the
    direct effect of increasing grading quantities, balanced on-site, by
    approximately 17,000 Cubic Yards, or a new Total of about 96,155 Cubic
    Yards.
  • As previously presented to the City in the Referenced materials, there
    has not been any accounting for additional required grading shown in
    the red shaded area that results from implementation of the
    Geotechnical shear key requirements.

Your final approvals should keep in mind the above concerns and prior
approved plans accordingly.




31Page

                                                                   13-75
    AN OPEN LETTER TO ~l'HE RANCHO PALOS VERDES
                    COMMUNITY

    Burt Arnold, Chairman, Board of Trustees, Marymount College
                           th
    Dr. Michael Brophy, 6 President, Marymount College
    30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
    Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275                            April 22, 2010

    Dear Chairman Arnold and President Brophy:

As Mark Twain once opined, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the
    truth is putting on its shoes."

    Unfortunately, that appears to be true with your False and Deceptive advertising
    of the MarymountPlan Initiative.     Before running an ad, the FTC requires that
there be "objective evidence" that supports the ad's claim. Your ads fail that test
    with respect to;

•     Traffic: Objective evidence produced by the City's independent traffic study -
      DEIR, FEIR and Appendix D to the EIR tell us that Traffic will increase by 55%,
      58% and 68% respectively and require the construction of a new Traffic signal
      at the intersection of PV Drive East and Miraleste Drive as a result of increased
      traffic. Saturday Traffic Increases by 156%1
•     Parking: Objective evidence produced by the referenced independent studies
      demonstrates a current shortfall of 292 parking spaces and that the College will
      only increase parking by 120 spaces. Appendix D - without Residence Halls -
      supports a single extra space that the Initiative - with the addition of 125
      resident vehicles will more than overwhelm that calculation. Further, despite
      your ads' gracious invitation for all RPV Community residents to partake of your
      new facilities, your MarymountPlan Initiative provides exactly zero added
      spaces for Public use.
•     With regard to the most recent claims in your April 22, 2010 ad (by 35 year
      resident Don Reeves) that "in 1979, and again in 1980, the City Council

    llPage




                                                                               13-76
      approved an even bigger version of the dorms for an even greater number of
      students that is being proposed .." is an outright and contemptuous lie. You may
      wish to refresh your corporate memory by reviewing the Minutes of the joint
      scoping session hearing of January 31, 2006 in which Mayor Pro Tem Long at
     that time responded to that ridiculous assertion then made by Attorney Donald
      Davis. The dates of 1979 & 1980 refer to permit time extensions granted by the
      City because the College did not then have the needed funds to proceed.
•     "How long will the project take?"The Project will not take 36 months as stated
      in the ad materials. Conversely, Dr. Brophy stated - in response to a specific
      point in this regard on March 31, 2010 - to the City Council, that the College
      requires a minimum of 8 years, not 36 months, for completion of this Project.
•     Home values: Will not increase - as stated by former Mayor Barbara Ferraro in
      the Marymount DVD. No such precedent exists whereby a day college suddenly
      converts to a full-time residential operation within a pre-existing residential
      community of single family          residences.   Documented   evidence   of this
      outrageous claim is non-existent.

The above are but a few examples of the Pattern and Practice of deception by the
College with respect to the MarymountPlan. Accordingly, you are hereby
demanded to Cease and Desist such False and deceptive advertising, and to take
out corrective advertising to correct this misinformation to our RPV Community.

CC:
FTC: Complaint Reference No. 25802340
Complaint to California Attorney General on a Nonprofit Organization 04/08/2010
Editor: The Daily Breeze
Mary Scott: Editor Palos Verdes Peninsula News

Attachments:
      1. Peninsula News Advertisement Thursday April 22, 2010
      2. Traffic Increase Summary: DEIR, FEIR, Appendix D
      3. DEIR Tables 5.3-29 and 5.3-31 Forecast Weekday and Saturday Trip
         Generation of Proposed Project (with Residence Halls)
    21Page




                                                                                13-77
  4. MarymountPlan Mailers (2)
  5. The Big Lie
  6. Minutes of January 31, 2006 Joint Scoping Session - City Council & Planning
      Commission


The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925
autobiography Mein Kampffor a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could
have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
       Mark Twain, (attributed)
       US humarist, novelist, short story author, & wit (1835 - 1910)



For those interested in the truth I recommended reading the Minutes of the
January 31, 2006 City Council/Planning Commission Scoping Session. At that
meeting;

 "Mayor pro tern Long stated that he was mindful of the fact that when the
college was approved (in 1978) for 200 student(s), the total enrollment was also
around 200 students at the time, which suggested to him that one way the
college could be consistent with the General Plan, in the way it was being
interpreted by Mr. Davis, would be for the school, assuming it was otherwise
compatible with the site, to reduce its enrollment to 200 and have all of its
students housed on campus; and noted that Marymount may want to give this
idea some consideration as a way to enhance its prospects of being compatible
with the General Plan."

James B. Gordon
3538 Bendigo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
310-541-7336



31Page




                                                                                          13-78
                                                                    ,
              TIlat if you take ')50 students, who would otherwise have
              to drive tip and down Palos Verdes Drive East, severol
              times a lby to attend classes, and put them on campus in
              student housing, there v.riJl be less traffic.


              And wOLtldn't fewer cars on our street make our
              neighborhood safer?


              YES. That is what common sense, as well as the
              City's independent traffic srudy tells us,




              Please sign the petition and help move
              MayYOlount College into the 21 st centuyY,                                      For Inore informJliol1 or to iind out when: 10 silll'l
                                                                                              the Jl'Clilion KO to ,,·ww,MaI)'1ll0tllltl'lan.CUIll




                                                                                                                 Thunday, April 22, 2010                15
   Palos Verdcs PeninSl.l~ N.,-ws




                     .-             . ,',        ,   :,'   ~",~.,., ~.   \   ~   _        "       i:"        .    i    -.t> :. '.,
                                                                                                                                                  " ,
               " ... 10 years of study h~ve cost taxpayers and Marymon.ntCQ1~$i' '                                                               "'."

             , millions of dollars, This has become ,oneoffhe lOllgest,f!l0sttb:oronglily
             , stUdied permit applications'irtCalifomia history. :'}',; ii, • ~,":" " .
      <"        " , ,,',.'. "            ,,'.< ;-~     '",': '":.,,~.,,~~:" s: \':' ..'. ,,,
       ,:,:: ": .. Let's be franK; the student housing is. not a,new i1:lea. ill 1979, and "
       , . again in 1980, the City,Coup.cili')?provedaneven bigger version of the
      ",,:1. 'd,oqus for an. even greaternumbel-bf,smdents th;tIJ is being prop<>sed: :,,"
      :;.:~_,;'
    ./r.;:;;'c,,~,,;,:~><",i·,~>.,<~~~·~:~:: ;Jr;'·~~·_~;4,.~ of '~';>,,-'"processisfio~ we
                               ,/. '" ' "      *,;<.1::/' ': :'. 'FT" , .':':'       ,~'.,
                                                                               '. ," ::.' : ::. ',; ~
      ,*,~ :';~"': -itistllrie tolet the citizens Rancho Palos Verdlis decide. That is.
                '~ery, pi~ch iheAinetican:~fl~{~lheinitifltive                                                        achieved
     ,'l"";",.Prop U,As CalifomiflnS; itJ oUTright." :                           . ,:y'        /,;:'"        ',c' ',: '                  >,'
     \~;e~1~<~,?t,'1~'t;.~~;,:f-:. ~~'~~··,~:;' "':'.r::~:';C<,~:''',~=-S:('/:\:1t~:(?':~ .j'~;." '>:~{\""",'               .0.-,-,-


     ',>,;:#:;;¥,:::";';i:~~n'§;:,,;';>':C;(}r'<c::', -f>oJiJ.{eeves, 35 ylbat:Pa)os Vet:des t:esident
                                                   J
     '~' " , ;;,~:,~;~~~:~,~~, '~f/~J'1;~!,;f:i'/~~ '~<'~:~~::,~;:~:~: :i' ' , ,',' <, "                :, 'f,;"
                                            :"             ~. ':jj~yBreeie'


41Page




                                                                                                                                                        13-79
   1. A further assessment of the DEIR Traffic Tables for both Weekday and
      Saturday Peak Hour Traffic impacts demonstrate across the board increases
      in Level of Service Delay times at the key Miraleste Drive/Palos Verdes
      Drive East intersection created by the College's proposed Project with
      Residence Halls. Tables 5.3-10 and 5.3-12 LOS delays are compared against
      the corresponding Tables 5.3-32 and 5.3-34 and show an average increase
      (all delays increase) of over 58%.


   2. The Saturday Delay times increase over 100% as shown in Table 5.3-35.


   3. With   respect   to   claims   that   Parking   will   be   alleviated   by   the
      MarymountPlan Initiative, Appendix D Table 3.3-43 shows a 1 space
      "surplus" (without Residence Halls), but with 250 BA students (out of 793
      total). The Residence Halls then would add up to 125 more resident student
      vehicles on-site, thereby more than overwhelming the claimed "surplus"
      without Residence Halls.


The College's key Claims that the City's independent Traffic study confirms those
claims of Traffic Reduction and Parking Alleviation are False and Misleading,
unbecoming of an Institution of Higher Learning.




51Page




                                                                               13-80

								
To top