My Comments and Some Documentation Regarding the Staff Report

With this post I am doing something Marymount has done throughout the time I have been dealing with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan.

They seem to pick and choose the pieces that support whatever they want and pretty much avoid what looks bad for them.

I believe I can now more effectively illustrate that:

While Marymount claims the construction will take "36 months" that time will be over a period of eight years and,

Rancho Palos Verdes taxpayers will have an as yet unknown amount from their General Fund

used for either The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project AND The Marymount Plan, and,

A significant and unavoidable impact of both will not be dealt with until 2010 and,

The placement of the large field on the west side of the campus has been documented to cause a potential traffic hazard.

Again I must state that I FULLY SUPPORT The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and I OPPOSE The Marymount even though the two are almost identical with the exception of two very important items, in my view.

And to repeat, the two very important items I am concerned with in The Marymount Plan are its Residence Halls item and the potential for the institution of a new Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code: 17.30.100.050 which would ONLY apply to Marymount College and allow Marymount College to oversee The Marymount Plan without oversight allowed by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council or its Staff or much of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Government and Departments.

I will acknowledge that, according to The Project, approved by our City Council, there would be little traffic impact after The Project's completion, eight years after it officially begins and that parking on campus could allow for all vehicles that would normally park on public streets, be able to park on campus, should their drivers choose to do so, and that is not guaranteed.

Below in black is the actual wording found in the 258-page Staff Report which includes the two resolutions being voted on by the City Council at its May 18, 2010 meeting.

In dark red are my own personal comments.

I also acknowledge that Marymount is required to pay their "Fair Share" of funds for at least two of the traffic mitigation items, the rest of the funds must come from the city's General Fund, a TAXPAYER-BASED Fund.

Unfortunately, I have not found within the report, the potential TAXPAYER costs required to implement both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project or The Marymount Plan, both having identical traffic mitigation sections.

There are two Resolutions the City Council will vote on tonight. They are the CEQA Resolution, with CEQA being the California Environmental Quality Act and the Planning Application Resolution, both requiring approval before Marymount can begin The Project.

Marymount College seeks to make both Resolutions moot with The Marymount Plan, if it is approved and have a new municipal code created for its own purpose becoming the controlling code for The Plan.

CEQA Resolution

The attached CEQA Resolution accomplishes the following:

• Certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marymount College Facilities

Expansion Project that was approved by the Planning Commission, excluding the

residence halls, including Appendices A and D to the Final EIR;

• Makes environmental findings pursuant to the Californian Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA) and that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA;

• Adopts a Statement of Overriding Consideration for environmental impacts that

cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance; and,

• Adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Attached as Exhibit B to the CEQA Resolution is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting

Program (MMRP) which identifies the milestones and responsibilities for monitoring each

mitigation measure. The Applicant will have the responsibility for implementing the

measures, and various City Departments will have the primary responsibility for monitoring

and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures. The mitigation monitoring

and reporting program has been revised to reflect the analysis for the revised project, as

discussed in Appendices A and D to the Final EIR.

Planning Application Resolution

The attached Planning Application Resolution approves, with conditions, the project with

the exception of the Residence Halls. All other aspects of the proposed project are

approved, including the Athletic Building (with modifications), the Library Building, the

addition to the Student Union, the expansion of the Admissions Building, parking lot

improvements, athletic field and tennis courts (as depicted in Alternative D-2 of Appendix

D), and other site buildings and improvements based on the stated Findings of Facts.

Included as an attachment to the Planning Application Resolution are the Conditions of

Approval. The attached Conditions of Approval are the conditions adopted by the Planning

Commission with new revisions based on information raised to the City Council during the

appeal hearings. Staff is also providing the Council with a redline version that depicts the

revisions to the Conditions of Approval since the March 31st meeting. The redline version

identifies conditions as underlines for added text and strike outs for deleted text. In

summary, the revisions since the March 31st meeting consist of the following:

• Approving Athletic Field Alternative D-2

• Requiring a 30-foot retractable net around the north, south and west sides of the

athletic field

• Requiring a 20-foot chain link fence around the perimeter of the westerly tennis

courts

• Modifying the height of the Athletic Building per Council direction at the March 31st

meeting

• Modifying the landscape conditions per Council direction at the March 31st meeting

• Requiring a driver’s training course for incoming students

• Clarifying or adding more specificity to existing conditions of approval.

The Project would be constructed in three phases over an eight-year period.

Full implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce the

significant cumulative impacts to a level considered less than significant at the

following intersections for forecast year 2012 for both the Project and the Revised Project :

· Palos Verdes Drive East/Miraleste Drive;

· Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South; and

· Western Avenue (SR-213)/Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive.

Accept the College's offer to pay $200,000 towards the City's construction of

a roadway median barrier along the curvature of Palos Verdes Drive East.

VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable

After Mitigation

A. NOISE

1. Construction Noise

Short-term construction related noise impacts are anticipated during the three phases of

construction, as more fully detailed in the EIR.

This next sentence deals with construction traffic during periods of the eight-year long time frame

allowed for the Project's completion.

Project traffic could cause a significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic

capacity of the street system and could exceed an established standard.

B. Cumulative Traffic Impact – Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes

Drive South.

(a) Findings

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that

avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft

EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure is imposed upon the Project or

Revised Project to mitigate the potentially significant cumulative traffic impact at Palos

Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South

Specific economic and legal considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation

measures or alternatives that would fully mitigate the cumulative impact at this

intersection, although the fair share payment offsets this Project’s portion of the

cumulative impact.

The mitigation of this intersection is not planned to be accomplished until "2012" and throughout much of the time construction traffic and construction workers could use this intersection.

With all three required Traffic Mitigation issues (including the signalization of the intersection of Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East and possibly the intersection of Trudie Drive at Western, Marymount College is required to contribute their "Fair Share" and the rest of the funds required to implement both The Project OR The Marymount Plan would come from the city's General Fund, a taxpayer funded Fund.

5. Traffic Hazards

Project implementation could increase traffic hazards due to a design feature, in that the

proximity of the athletic field to Palos Verdes Drive East could result in errant balls

creating hazards for vehicles.

Since the entire Marymount College, assuming completion of the Project, is planned to

provide 463 parking spaces, a 177 parking space deficiency is forecast to occur based

on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code.

As indicated in Appendix A, since the proposed Project is planned to add 120 parking

spaces to the existing 343 parking spaces, a six parking space surplus is forecast to

occur during the weekday peak hour based on the observed weekday parking ratio and

City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code.

The following section includes wording about "Residence Halls" even though The Project does not have

these buildings included in The Project.

I have included this because it illustrates one big difference between The Project, which I support and The Marymount Plan which I do not support.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) advises that there could be an

increase in calls for service as a result of Project implementation, including from the

proposed Residence Halls (i.e., students living on campus resulting in 24-hour

operation). An increase in calls for service would place a greater demand on police

protection services. Although Project implementation could result in an increase in calls

for service to the Project site, it would not generate the number of calls that warrants the

construction of new police protection facilities, nor would it result in the need for

alteration of existing facilities. Further, the Project would not include the proposed

Residence Halls. Thus, the potentially significant impact is even less so with project

modifications. Nevertheless, recommended mitigation PSU-1 would require

implementation of a private security program at the campus, as well as the City’s

review/approval of the Marymount College Code of Conduct. Following implementation

of the recommended mitigation, the Project would result in a less than significant impact

with respect to police protection services.

I also contend that if Residence Halls are added with The Marymount Plan, Fire and other first response resources would be required to protect more residence without an increase in the number of First Responders and associated vehicles. Marymount College can not be required to be taxed for the additional services of First Responders and if any increase in the numbers of First Responders is found, it will be TAXPAYERS who would be required to pay the additional costs for them and the residence of any Residence Halls at Marymount.

Please refer to your own copy of the Staff Report and I hope you read it and understand fully the document. I feel The Project could be successful if Marymount's administration and supporters want it to be.

I do continue to contend that the reason that Marymount began the processes that led up to tonight's vote and now a possible vote on November 2, by registered voters has always been and will continue to be, first, formost, and completely about having on campus dorms so that students of wealthy parents, many not living in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area or this State or this Country can be sent to a very small college where monitoring of those students by the college and the actions and activities of those students can be better controlled to allow the parents to feel more secure and better about sending their kids to the Los Angeles area.

I also believe that if dorms are not accomodated on the Marymount Campus, the enrollment at the college will continue its current downward slide and the College will fail, again.