CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES · 9/4/2012 · city of rancho palos verdes memorandum council members...

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDESMEMORANDUM

COUNCIL MEMBERS

E LOPMENT

HONORABLE MAYOR &CIT

JOEL ROJAS, AICP, COMMU

DIRECTOR

SEPTEMBER 4, 2012

MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION

PROJECT - A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE TIME

PERIODS FOR COMPLETION OF PHASES 1 AND 2

FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR (CASE NO. ZON2003

00317) 130800 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST

CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER 0Y--- .Ara Mihranian, AICP, Deputy Community DevelopmentDirecto~

TO:

FROM:

DATE: .

SUBJECT:

Project Manager:

REVIEWED:

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive and file a status update on the construction of the temporary andpermanent parking lots on the College's campus;

2. Extend the planning entitlements and the construction completion deadline forPhase 1 ofthe Marymount College Facilities Expansion Projectfrom September 30,2012 to December 18, 2012, without prejudice to granting a further extension up toSeptember 30, 2013;

3. Deny, without prejudice, the College's one-year time extension request to extend theplanning entitlements and the construction completion deadline for Phase 2 fromJune 1, 2015 to June 1, 2016; and,

4. Authorize City Staff to execute a restricted use covenant pursuant to Condition No.79 of Resolution No. 2010-42 that restricts certain improvements within thedesignated Building Geologic Setback Area.

1-1

BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2012, the College submitted a request for a one year extension to theconstruction completion time periods for the College's Facilities Expansion Projectestablished by the Condition of Approval No. 60 of the College's Conditional Use Permit(CUP) approved by the City Council on June 1,2010 (see attachment). On July 16, 2012,the College submitted a supplemental letter clarifying the requested time extension request(see attachment). Per the July 16th letter, the College requests the City Council's approvalof a one year time extension to complete Phase 1 and a one year time extension tocomplete Phase 2. No extension to the total 3-year construction activity or the overall 8year construction time frame for Phases 1, 2 and 3 is being requested as described inCondition No. 60d.

On August 7,2012, the City Council continued the College's time extension request to itsSeptember 4, 2012 meeting to allow the College to first construct a temporary parking lot tohelp alleviate student street parking. Consistent with this action, the City Council affirmedthe Community Development Director's determination that a temporary parking lot wasrequired to alleviate student street parking as part of the College's Parking ManagementStrategies for the 2012 - 2013 academic year. As such, the City Council directed theCollege to obtain the necessary T~mporaryParking Lot Permit from City Staff to constructtheteniporary parking lot prior to the commencement of the College's fall term (August 27,2012).

. DISCUSSION

Provided below is a discussion of Staff's four recommendations.! ,

1. Receive and file a status 'update on the· construction of the temporary "andpermanent parking lots on .the College's campus:

Temporary Parking Lot

According to Condition No. 158, the College provided the City with its Parking ManagementStrategies (Strategies) for the 2012/2013 academic year (see attachment). According tothe Strategies, as well as Council directive, the College is required to provide an operabletemporary parking lot to help alleviate student street parking until the College completesconstruction of the expanded permanent parking lot approved by the City Council on April17,2012. On August 16, 2012, the City issued a Temporary Parking Lot PermiUo theCollege for the construction of a temporary gravel parking lot that accommodates 101parking spaces, as well as a driveway and a separate pedestrian pathway. Constructionbegan on the temporary gravel parking lot the following day and was completed andoperable for the first day of classes on August 27, 2012.

Based on two days of field observations of the parking condition at the College and thesurrounding streets (Monday, August 27 and Tuesday, August 28), the temporary parkinglot is being utilized and there is a reduction in the number of observed student cars parkedon the surrounding streets (approximately 5-6 cars). Staff associates this reduction instreet parking to the availability of the temporary parking lot combined with the College'sefforts in making students aware of the parking lot through the use of student parkingmonitors, campus announcements, and flyers. Additionally shuttle ridership appears tohave improved partly due to the enhanced awareness and frequency of the shuttles. Since

1-2

Staff's initial assessment is based mostly only on two-days of field visits, Staff will continueto monitor the parking condition at the College and direct the College to make anyappropriate adjustments to the implemented Strategies under the authority given to theCommunity Development Director pursuant to Condition No. 158.

Permanent Parking Lot

As reported to the Council at the August i h meeting, because of delays in obtainingapprovals from both the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) for construction of a storm drain detention basinassociated with the construction of the permanent parking lot, the College informed the Citythat the expanded permanent parking lot approved by the City Council at its April 17, 2012meeting would not be constructed in advance of the fall 2012 term. The College reportedto the Council at the August i h meeting that it intends to secure the appropriate agency,approvals as soon as possible so that construction can commence within the comingweeks. At this time, the City has been informed that the College has received approvalsfrom theL:.osAngeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Certificate 401) and from theCDFG (Certificate 404). Approvals from ACOE for the blue line stream jurisdictionaldelineation are still pending. In the meantime, the City's Plan Check review process(involving the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, and the Public WorksDepartment) continues so that when the ACOE approval is secured, the City will beprepared to immediately issue the grading permit so that construction on the permanentexpanded parking lot can commence shortly thereafter.

Staff will continue to update the Council on the progress of the permanent expandedparking lot, as well as the College's implementation ofthe 2012/2013 Parking ManagementStrategies. As such, based on the above, Staff recommends the Council receive and file'the status update on the temporary and'permanent parking lots.

2. Extend the planning entitlements 'and the construction completion deadline forPhase 1 of the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project from September 30,2012 to December 18, 2012, without prejudice to granting a further extension up toSeptember 30, 2013.

According to Condition of Approval No. 60a, Phase 1 which consists of demolition ofexisting buildings, grading including the installation of drainage and water quality facilities,installation of utilities, the construction of new parking ar;eas, athletic field, tennis courts andthe installation of temporary modular buildings must be completed by September 30, 2012unless a time extension is granted by the City Council. The Condition also states thatapprovals for any components of Phase 1 that are not completed within the specified timeperiod shall lapse and become null and void unless an extension is granted by the CityCouncil at a duly noticed public hearing. Based on the July 16th letter (see attachment), theCollege requests the City Council's approval of a one year time extension to completePhase 1 resulting in a new completion deadline of September 30, 2013.

According to Section 17.60.070 of the RPVMC, the City Council may extend ConditionalUse Permit time limits for up to one additional year upon a showing of substantial hardship,delays beyond the control of the applicant or other good cause. The College's justificationsfor granting a time extension are summarized below, and described in detail in the attachedApril 11 th letter (see attachment):

1-3

• The June 2010 City Council approval of the Facilities Expansion project came in themidst of an economic recession which made fund raising difficult, particularly raisingfunds before obtaining City entitlements.

• Fundraising for constructing components of Phase One (infrastructure and parking)presented a challenge since these improvements are not considered legacy itemsdonors are generally inclined to support.

• Resources (approximately $2.5 million), exceeding costs for other improvementsdescribed in Phase One, were spent upgrading the existing on-campus utilities(electrical, gas, and plumbing) to sustain the current operation of the College.

• In order to address current student housing needs, the College expended funds ontemporary improvements to its student housing facilities in San Pedro, as well aspreparing an application to City of Los Angeles to expand these facilities over a 20year period.

• Funds were expended to improve academic facilities for student use at the newlyacquired Waterfront Campus in San Pedro.

• Th~ College will be seeking the City Council's consideration of a modification to therelocated athletic field which will not be completed by the current September 30,2012 construction completion deadline.' , '

• The College is not in a financial position' to complete the reconfiguration of thenorthern parking lot (adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive East) by the current September30, 2012' construction completion deadline. '

In addition to the above, the College's July 16th letter requests a time extension beyond theSeptember 30, 2012 deadline to construct the expanded permanent parking "Iotthat wasapproved by the City Council in Aprii 2012, which is a component of Phase 1. As stated inthe Coltege's letter, there have been del,ays in securing approvals for the proposeddetention basin from the CDFG and the ACOE, which according to Mitigation Measure BIO-'3 must be obtained 'by the College p'rior to the City issuing any grading permit ' "

Based on the reasons summarized above, particularly the importance of constructing anexpanded' permanent parking lot to accommodate the 463 parking spaces needed 'tosupport the student enrollment cap established in the Conditions of Approval, City Staff isof the opinion that there is sufficient cause for the Council to extend the time limits forPhase 1. However, rather than extending the time limit to complete Phase 1 for acompleteyear (to September 30, 2013), Staff recommends that the City Council extend the timelimits for Phase 1 until December 18, 2012 (t~e date of the last regularly scheduled CityCouncil meeting of the year). This"would enable the City Council to monitor the College'sability to fulfill its commitment to construct the expanded permanent parking lot and otherinfrastructure improvements described in Phase 1 in the next few months. According to theCollege, it is estimated that construction of the permanent parking lot will takeapproximately75 days to complete. Thus, if the College is able to commence constructionin September as expected, completion of the permanent parking lot should be completed ornearly completed around mid-December. Based on the College's progress in completingthe expanded permanent parking lot and other grading and infrastructure improvementsneeded to prepare the site for the construction of structures allowed in Phase 2, theCouncil could then consider extending Phase 1 for the complete one-year period toSeptember 30, 2013, as originally requested by the College.

Based on the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council extend Phase 1until December 18, 2012, without prejudice to granting a further extension up to September

1-4

September 30, 2013.

3. Deny, without prejudice, the College's one-year time extension requestto extend theplanning entitlements and the construction completion deadline for Phase 2 fromJune 1, 2015 to June 1, 2016.

According to Condition of Approval No. 60b, Phase 2 which consists of fine grading,construction of the new library building, maintenance facility, athletic building, outdoor pool,and additions to the faculty building and student union must be completed by June 1, 2015(five years from the June 1, 2010 decision date) unless a time extension is granted by theCity Council. The Condition also states that approvals for any components of Phase 2 thatare not completed within the specified time period shall lapse and become null and voidunless an extension is granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing. Basedon the July 16th letter, the College requests the City. Council's approval of a one year timeextension to complete Phase 2 resulting in a new completion deadline of June 1, 2016.

Staff is of the opinion that extending the time limit for Phase 2 is premature at this time.According to the Conditions of Approval, the improvements permitted in Phase 2 can beconstructed between now and June 1, 2015 provided that appropriate grading and buildingpermits ar'eobtainedfrom the City. Up to this point, the College has not initiated the City'sPlan Check process to proceed with the construction of Phase 2. Therefore, since theCollege has approximately three years to complete the construction of Phase 2, Staffrecommendsthatthe request to extend thecon,struction tirnelimits for Phase 2 be deniedwithout prejudi~e at this time. Denying the time extension request without prejudice stilla"lIows the College to submit a time extension request in"thefuture (but before June 1,2015which is the currentexpiration dateforPhase 2). In fact, if still needed, Staff suggests thatthe College resubmit its time extension r~quest.for Phase 2 after Phase 1 has beencpr,n:pleted and closer to the Phase ;2 deadHne date in 201 p.'

Based ol'lthe foregoing discussion,Staff recommends that the City Council deny,.withoutprejudice, ·t.he College's time extensi,on request for Phase 2..

4. . Authorize City Staff to execute a restricted use covenant pursuant to Condition.No. 79 of Resolution No. 2010-42 that restricts certain improvements within thedesignated Building Geologic Setback Area..

According to Condition No. 79 of Resolution No. 2010-42, prior to issuance of any gradingpermit, the College is required to record a restricted use covenant that prohibits certainimproVements within the designated Building Geologic Setback Area. This setback area isdescribed in the applicant's geotechnical reports and illustrated in the attached exhibit, butis essentially east of the existing library and academic building to the property line abuttingtheCity-owned San Ramon Reserve (see attachment). According to Condition No. 79, theCollege is establishing a "No Build and Restricted Use Area" on the Propertythat runs withthe land (as depicted in the shaded area on the attached Exhibit B) that indicates nobuilding, structure or other new improvements may be constructed or permitted within the"No Build and Restricted Use Area" unless otherwise expressly approved by the City ofRancho Palos Verdes.

The attached covenant has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney forrecordation and is now before the City Council for its acceptance. It should be noted thatduring the review of the covenant, the City Attorney raised the issue that the language

1-5

stated in Condition No. 79 does not exactly match the Plan approved by the City Council in2010, since the Council-approved plan allows at-grade parking facilities, trails and the rosegarden in the area that is restricted by the covenant. As such, both the City Attorney andthe College's attorney have indicated that when the CUP is opened in the future, the text ofCondition No. 79 should be amended to better represent the Plan approved by the CityCouncil in 2010, which mayor may not require the College to amend the restricted usecovenant.

To ensure that structures are not constructed in this restricted area without City approval,Staff recommends that the Council authorize City Staff to execute the attached restricteduse covenant for recordation.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Public Notification of Tonight's Meeting

Tonight's 'agenda item was continued from the August ylh City Council. Although publicnotification is not required for an agenda item continued to a date certain, Staff wanted toensure that the public was aware of the tonight's agenda item. As such, on August 21,2012, the City's website under the MarymountCollege homepage was updated to includeinformation regarding tonight's meeting and alist:..serve message was sent to MarymountCollege subscribers.

,At this time, no public comments have bee.n submitted to the City since the August ylh': meeting. However, since some of thepublic comments submitted to the City for the August

ylh Council meeting expressed ,'concerns with the College's time extension request, 'particularly extending Phase 2, Staff has attached those comment letters to this StaffReport for the Council's reference (see attachment).

Proposed Revisions to the Council Approved Athletic Field

Past correspondence from the College indicates the College's interest in amending its CUPto allow a reconfiguration of the 2010 Council approved athletic field. Staff has informedthe College that a revision to the Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit would berequired, as well as additional environmental review and focused studies (Air Quality,Noise, Traffic, Safety, and Geology Studies) that would be considered by the City Councilat a public hearing for the export of earth material, site grade changes, and other proposedproject revisions. At this time, no formal planning applications related to a reconfiguredathletic field have been submitted to the City. However, since such applications areanticipated to be submitted within the next few weeks,Staff is speaking to potentialconsultants about preparing the needed CEQA document for this request from the College.Staff will update the Council and the public when such an application has been filed withthe City.

Community Programs Offered at Marymount College

Over the past several months, the College has publicly made statements and publishedadvertisements in local papers offering graduate students the opportunity to continue totake tuition free courses at the College and offering members of the Peninsula Seniorsorganization the opportunity to audit courses, also without paying tuition. These programsoffered by the College have raised public concerns regarding adequate on-campus parking

1-6

and compliance with the maximum student enrollment caps established by the Counciladopted Conditions of Approval. These issues came up as recently as the August i h

Council meeting, and in response, the College's legal counsel, Mr. Don Davis, explainedthat to his knowledge these programs offered by the College are being held at itsWaterfront Campus in San Pedro and not at the Rancho Palos Verdes campus. However,further investigation by Staff has revealed that the Peninsula Seniors program is beingoffered at both the Rancho Palos Verdes and the Waterfront Campuses. In light of this,Staff contacted the College and the Peninsula Seniors for further information to assesstheir operations as it pertains to the Conditions of Approval.

According to the College, for the fall 2012 term, one course is being offered to graduatestudents at its Waterfront Campus in San Pedro. No graduate courses are being offered atthe Rancho Palos Verdes campus for this term. As for the Peninsula Seniors, the programoffers up to 99 participants an opportunity to take one course per term at either the RanchoPalos Verdes or the Waterfront Campuses. Attached is the fall 2012 course scheduleincluding a detailed description of the program offered to the Peninsula Seniors (seeattachment). In summary, prior to a term commencing, Peninsula Seniors may register atthe Peninsula Seniors Administrative Office and select one course of their member's choice(including an alternate choice). Acceptance is contingent on available seats in the selectedclass. If a seat is not available in the course selected by an interested Peninsula Seniorbecause of College enrolled students, the Peninsula Senior is not able to participate in theprogram for that term.

According to the Peninsula Seniors, last year 8 members participated in the program ofwhich 3 members took courses atthe Rancho Palos Verdes campus. As for the fall 2012term, although a final enrollment is still pending, thePeninsula Seniors believe that there

,are approximately 12 participants of which 7 may be taking courses at the Rancho PalosVerdes campus.

Staff believes the program offered to the graduatestudents(albeit not curremtlyoffered atthe Rancho Palos Verdes campus) is permitted to occur at the Rancho Palos Verdes'campus as a "Non-traditional Degree Program" pursuant to Condition of Approval No; 140which states:

The College's "Non-Traditional Degree Program" are academic programs(Associates, Bachelors, and Masters degrees) that offer classes, including postsecondary academic classes, primarily during weekday evenings and on weekend(Saturday and Sunday), SOBS to generally avoid overlap with the class schedules ofthe Traditional Degree Programs.

The students enrolled in the "Non-Traditional Degree Programs" would be accounted for inthe enrollment report filed by the College for each term. And according to Condition ofApproval No. 145b the maximum total permitted enrollment in "Non-Traditional DegreePrograms" on campus during any Term is 150 students.

As for the Peninsula Seniors program, Staff is also of the opinion that this College offeredprogram complies with the Council adopted Conditions of Approval because it is limited to99 participants associated with a group unaffiliated with the College's educational andrecreational programs listed in the Conditions of Approval. Condition of Approval No. 139states:

1-7

The use of the College campus is permitted for only the following academic andrecreational programs and related activities as further described below and defined inCondition 140:

• Traditional Degree Programs• Non-Traditional Degree Programs• Continuing Educational Programs, such as but not limited to English as a

Second Language (ESL)• Recreational Activities• Summer Educational Programs, such as but not limited to:

o Upward Bound ,o High School Courseso International Students Taking ESLcourses

The use of the campus by groups or organizations unaffiliated with the College'seducational and recreational programs listed above that would have less than 100participants or visitors present on campus at one time or would occupy less than20% ofthe 463 required parking spaces during such use is also allowed. Any andall other uses and activities on the College campus that do not meet this thresholdare prohibited unless approved with a revision to this Conditional Use Permi.t or aSpecial Use Permit is obtained, whichever is applicable based on the request.

Tf)e sub-leasing of the campus for commercial purposes that are unaffiliated withthe College is prohibited.

'It should also be noted, that in terms of parking;· the Parking and Circulation ,studyconducted as part of the Project's EIRaccounted for the use of the campus by suchparticipants in such programs which is why there are enrollment caps for such programs.As such, based on the above, Staff is of the opinion that these two programs offered by theCollege are permitted provided-they continue to operate in compliance with the Counciladopted Conditions of Approval. .

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council receive and filea status update on the temporary and permanent parking lot including the Collegeimplemented Parking Management Strategies for the fall 2012 term, extend the planningentitlements and the construction completion deadline for Phase 1 to December 18,2012,deny, without prejudice, the College's one-year time extension to extend the planningentitlements and construction completion deadline for Phase 2 to June 1, 2016, andauthorize the City Manager to execute a restricted use covenant pursuant to Condition No.79 of Resolution No. 2010-42 that restricts certain improvements within the designatedBuilding Geologic Setback Area.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff Recommendations, the City Council may also consider the following:

1. Grant the College's Phase 1 time extension request until September 30, 2013

1-8

(a full one year);2. Deny the College's Phase 1 time extension request which would result in the

denial of the permanent parking lot approved by the City Council in April 2012; or

3. Grant the College one year time extension to complete Phase 1 (including theexpanded parking lot) resulting in a new completion deadline of September 30,2013 and a one year time extension to complete Phase 2 resulting in a newcompletion deadline of June 1, 2016.

ATTACHMENTS

• April 11 ,2012 Letter• July 16, 2012 Letter• Condition of Approval No. 60 (Construction Phasing)• 2012/2013 Parking Management Plan• R~stricted Use Covenant• Peninsula Seniors fall 2012 Course Schedule• Council Adopted Enrollment Conditions ofApproval (Excerpt)• Public Comments Letters

1-9

April 11, 2012 College'sTime Extension Letter

Marymount CollegeFacilities Expansion Project

September 4, 2012City Council Meeting

1-10

BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP

444 South Flower Street . Suite 2400Los Angeles, California 90071-2953voice 213,2360600 - fax 2' 3236.2700www.bwslawcom

April 11 ,2012

Direct No.: 213.236.2702OUf File No.: 04693-0001

[email protected]

Joel Rojas, DirectorAra Mihranian, Deputy DirectorCommunity'DevelopmentCity of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 H,awthorne BoulevardRancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391

. Re: Marymount College: Request for aOne Year Extension on the Construction CompletionTime Periods ofConditiOI1 No. 60 ofRevision"E" to CUP No.9

Dear Messrs. Rojas and Mihrahifm:

This 'letter.serves as a request on behalf of Marymount College for a one year extensionon the construction completion time periods for the three phases of the College's facilitiesexpansion plan approvedbythe City Council on Jurie1, 2010 as Revision "E~' to CUP NO.9.This reQuest is made pur~ual1.t toCondition of ApPrO'val Nq. 60 and Rancho Palos Verdes.Mun,icipal'Gode sec~iori 17.60.070,.which authori~es' such aone year extension on permit timelimits by the City Councilupor) ashowingqf subs~ntialhardship and other good cause. Thereasonsjustifying this extension req uest are set forth below. .

. The City, Council's approv~1 of Revision "E" in June of 201.0 came in the midst of thecountry's worst economic recession in decades.1 This unfortunate timing presented numerOuschallenges to Marymount because not only has fundraising been difficult in recent years in andof itself due to the economicdownturn,but;donors were also reluctantto make commitmentsuntil the College hadthe entitlements in hand. In addition, the initial improvements in PhaseOne (e.g., parking and infrastruct!Jre) present a unique fundraising challenge because they arenot the kind of legacy items thatmajor donors are typically inclined to support. For example,Marymount was able to identify donors early on for facilities such as the proposed new library,butthe library cannot proceed until the grading work is done and the parking lot imprOvementsare in place. Accordingly, funds for these imprOvements have had to be raised thrOugh multiplesmaller donations, which take additional time and effort to gather.

While Marymount has put considerable efforts into its fundraising campaign for the RPVcampus imprOvements, the College has simultaneously faced a number of other immediate

1 See for example AB 203 (codified in part as Government Code section 66452.23), which wasapprOved by the Legislature in 2011. The bill granted an automatic two year extension on allpending but unexpired subdivision apprOvals "[i]n order to permit cities ... to preservedevelopment applications that are set to expire and that cannot be prOcessed presently due toprevailing adverse economic conditions in the construction industry...."

Los Angeles - Inland Empire - Marin County - Oak/and- Orange County - Palm Desert - Silicon Valley - Ventura County1-11

BURKE, WILLIAMS 6, SORENSEN, UP

Joel Rojas and Ara MihranianApril 11, 2012Page 2

needs. For example, Marymount also needed to make upgrades to the electrical, gas andplumbing infrastructure at the RPV campus before it commenced the facilities expansionimprovements. That work has now been approved by the City and should be commencingsoon, but the estimated total cost of the work (approximately $2.5 million) has turned out toexceed virtually all of the other pending Phase One improvements combined.

Marymount has also had to address its current student housing needs. This hasrequired ·the College to expend funds on making temporary improvements to its existingresidential facilities in San Pedro in response to unprecedented enrollment increases in the pasttwo years while simultaneously preparing an application to the City of Los Angeles in order to'ultimately expand these faCilities over a 20-year period.

Subsequent to the City's approval of CUP Revision "E", Marymount also received adonation that enabled it to establish new academic facilities in an existing office building locatedcit 430 West 6th Street in San Pedro (the Marymount "Waterfront Campus"). The availability anduse of this facility reduces academic facility demands at the RPV campus, which facilities arenot scheduled to be upgraded until the latter phases of the ,approved RPV campus master plan.While the donations for this Waterfront Campus facility were generous, they did not by any ,means cQverc::lIl of the costs needed to ready this new facility for student use.

Despite all of these concurrent demands on limited College resources, Marymount hassubmitted plans for and is prepared to construct all of the additional parking spaces requiredunder the CUP. Ifthe plans are timely approved by the City Council, the additional parkingshould be completed before September 30, 2012 - the current deadline under Condition ofApproval No. 60(a). Marymount is also prepared to start construction on the relocated athleticfield that is also part of the Phase One improvements. However, because Marymount isrequesting a modification to the site plan to allow the field to be regulation size for certainintercollegiate sports, it is not known when the City CounCil will be in a position to act on therevised site plan, and as such, Marymount is concerned that this work may not be completedbefore the current September 30, 2012 deadline. The College is also not in a financial positionto commence work on the proposed reconfiguration of the northern campus parking lots thisslimmer, and so a one year extension is, at minimum, clearly needed for those improvements.

Marymount has made every possible effort to meet the time frames for completing all ofthe improvements proposed under Phase One, but for the reasons described, it is clear that allsuch work cannot be completed by September 30,2012. Accordingly, good cause exists for theCity Council to grant the requested one year extension with respect to the relocation of theathletic field and the remaining approved parking lot reconfiguration and expansion work. (Forclarity, Marymount is not requesting an extension to provide the additional 120 parking spacesrequired under Condition of Approval No. 158 unless the City Council does not approve theproposed plans on April 17 or shortly thereafter, or other unforeseen circumstances beyondMarymount's control prevent the timely commencement or completion of such work.)

LA #4821-9064-0911 v2

1-12

BLJI'(KE. WILLIAMS [, SORENSEN. UP

Joel Rojas and Ara MihranianApril 11 ,2012Page 3

The requested one year extension will also allow sufficient time for the City to processMarymount's pending application for a revision to its CUP that would allow the College greaterflexibility as to the timing of the start of construction for the Phase Two and Phase Threeimprovements (but without changing the existing 36-mbnth limitation on total construction time).

In sum, for the reasons set forth above, Marymount respectfully requests that the CityCouncil grant a one year extension"for Marymount College to complete the Phase Oneimprovements in Condition of ApprovaI60(a) (other than the provision of 120 additional parkingspaces), and that the completion dates for the Phase Two and Phase Three improvementslisted under Condition of Approval 60(b) and (c) be similarly extended by one year.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this timeextension request.

Sincerely,

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP

DONALD M. DAVIS

DMD:ir

cc: (Via e-mail only)Dr. Michael Brophy, President, Marymount CollegeJim Reeves, Vice President, Marymount CollegeCarol Lynch, City AttorneyAnette Jensen, Stegeman and Kastner, Inc.Jim Hanafin, Rasmussen & Associates

LA #4821-9064-0911 v2

1-13

July 16, 2012 College'sTime Extension Supplemental Letter

Marym.ount CollegeFacilities Expansion Project


1-14

RUr'I<E. WILLI/\iv1S (~ SCWfNSEN, UP

By E-Mail and U.S. Mail

444 South Flower Street . Suite 2400Los Angeles. California 90071·2953voice 213.2360600 - fax 213,236,2700www.bwslaw.com

July 16, 2012

Direct No,: 213.236,2702Our File No.: 04693-0001

ddavis@bwslaw,com

Joel Rojas, DirectorAra Mihranian, Deputy DirectorCommunity DevelopmentCity of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne BoulevardRancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391

Re: Marymount College: Request for a One Year Extension on the ConstructionCompletion Time Periods for Phases One and Two of Condition No. 60 ofRevision OlE" to CUP No.9

Marymount would also like to make one other clarification to its original extensionapplication, and that is with respect to the date of the completion of the additional parkingspaces that are included as part of the Phase One improvements. At the time of ourapplication, the College was reasonably optimistic that such work would be completed bySeptember 30, 2012 absent "unforeseen circumstances beyond Marymount's control [thatwould] prevent the timely commencement or completion of such work." As City staff and theCity Council are now aware, Marymount's applications with the California Department of Fishand Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to construct certain storm waterdetention facilities in the drainage swale that may be under the jurisdiction of these agencies arestill pending. Although the College believes that the approvals or waivers for the proposed workshould be forthcoming, the delay has been very frustrating, particularly because representativesof these agencies have generally acknowledged that there are no sensitive plant, fish or wildlife

LA #4821-9064-0911 v3

Los Angeles - Inland Empire - Marin County - Oakland - Orange County·· Palm Desert - Silicon Valley - Ventura County1-15

BURKE, WILLIAMS L~ sor,r NSLN, LLP

Joel Rojas and Ara MihranianJuly 16, 2012Page 2

resources In the work area and as such, the timing of the agency approvals/waivers appears tohave nothing to do with the scope or significance of the proposed work and everything to dowith internal agency operations and their limited personnel and resources to process suchapplications. Despite this delay, Marymount remains committed to commencing work on theadditional parking improvements at the earliest opportunity even if that means that some of thework takes place during the academic year rather than this summer as previously anticipated.Nevertheless, because Marymount may not have this work completed by September 30, 2012,the College respectfully requests that these improvements also be included as part of theoverall request for a one year extension on the completion dates of the Phase Oneimprovements.

As always, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questionsregarding this clarification of Marymount's construction extension request under Condition ofApproval No. 60(a) and (b). .

Sincerely,


~ lJ} ~;gl!-.DONALD M.· DAVIS

DMD:ir

cc: (Via e-mail only)Dr. Michael Brophy, President, Marymount CollegeJim Reeves, Vice President, Marymount CollegeCarol Lynch, City AttorneyAnette Jensen, Stegeman and Kastner, Inc.Jim Hanafin, Rasmussen & Associates

LA #4821-9064-0911 v3

1-16

Condition of Approval No. 60



1-17

project buildings, including but not limiteand Library Building.

e Athletic Building, Student Union,

59) The storage of all go , wares, merchandise, produce, janitorial supplies andother commodif shall be permanently housed in entirely enclosed structures,except whe transport.

CONSTRUCTION PHASING

60) This Facilities Expansion Plan approval shall remain valid as set forth below, andshall be constructed in no more than 3 phases totaling 36 months of actualconstruction time over a period not to exceed eight (8) years from the date theapproval becomes final:

a.' Phase One (Years 1-2): Phase One includes demolition of existingbuildings, grading including the installation of drainage and water qualityfacilities, installation of utilities, the construction of new parking areas,athletic field, tennis courts, and the installation of temporary modularbuildings to replace demolished facilities and those buildings subject tofuture construction. The planning entitlements, including grading andbuilding permits, for all construction described under Phase One shallremain valid and the construction thereof shall be completed no later thanSeptember 30th of the year that is two years from the date the decision .becomes final. Approvals for any Phase One components that are notcompleted with the two-year period shall lapse and become null and voidunless an extension is granted by the City Council at a duly noticed publichearing.

b. Phase Two (Years 2-5): Phase Two includes fine grading, the constructionof the new library, maintenance facility, Athletic Building, outdoor pool, andadditions to the faculty building and student union. The planningentitlements, including building permits, for all construction describedunder Phase Two shall remain valid and the construction thereof shall becompleted no later than five (5) years from the date the decision becomesfinal. Approvals for any Phase Two components that are not completedwith the five-year period shall lapse and become null and void unless anextension is granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing.

c. Phase Three (Years 6 -8): Phase Three includes the construction of thenew fine arts building and an addition to the admissions building. Theplanning entitlements, including building permits, for all constructiondescribed under Phase Three shall remain valid and the constructionthereof shall be completed no later than eight years from the date thedecision becomes final.

Resolution No. 2010-42Exhibit A

Page 14 of 39

1-18

d. All project buildings and improvements stated in these Conditions ofApproval shall be completed in a total of three (3) years of constructionactivity and Certificates of· Occupancy shall be issued within eight (8)years of the final decision of the project. All elements of the approvedFacilities Plan that are not completed within the time period stated in thisCondition shall require additional review and approval through anadditional revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 9 and additional CEQAreview if required.

TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS

61) The installation and use of temporary modular buildings (consisting of severalm ular segments each, as shown on the Phase One phasing site plan preparedby- asmussen Asso.ciates) shall be permitted until the completion of theapplic Ie permanent buildings or additions in Phase Two or Phase Three and inno even onger than eight years from the issuance of the first grading or buildingpermit for hase One, unless a revision to this CUP is approved. Upon theissuance of e certificate of occupancy for the applicable building or addition, thetemporary mo lar building serving such use shall be removed from the projectsite'within 30-da and the site restored to a .condition deemed acceptable by theCommunity Develo ment D.irector. .

62) The permanent use of e temporary modular building shall be prohibited unlessa revision to this CUP is proved.

63) The temporary modular buil gs shall not exceed 15-feet in height, as measuredfrom the lowest adjacent grade the highest roof ridgeline.

64) The exterior facades for the tempo ry modular building facades shall be painteda neutral color to match existing or t new structures and incorporate materialsthat are similar to the proposed finish rthe permanent buildings (not includingPalos Verdes Stone or other stone terial) as deemed acceptable by theCommunity Development Director.

65) The areas adjacent to the temporary modula buildings shall be landscaped toreasonably screen the buildings from Palos Ver s Drive East and properties tothe south as deemed acceptable by the Communit Development Director.

66) A building permit shall be obtained for applicable mo ar exterior improvements(e.g., decks, stairs, facade details, etc.) from the Department of Building andSafety.


Page 15 of 39

1-19

July 18, 2012 College's2012/2013 Parking

Management Strategies



1-20

., Marymounr CollegePALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA

July 18, 2012

Mr. Ara MihranianDeputy Director, Planning, Building & Code EnforcementCity of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne 61.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

Dear Mr. Mihranian,

30800 P<llos Verdes Drive EastRancho Palos Verdes. CA 90275

Phone: 310-377-5501www.m<lrymoLlotpv.adu

Marymount College's Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Condition No. lS8/TR-5/6 related to Parking

Management and Strategies to minimiZE:' street parking, require an annual report to the City

documenting the College's progress toward this goal.

Attached please find the required report that assesses the College's progress toward the 2011-2012

parking management strategies as outlined in the College's July, 2011 letter to the City. In addition, the

report contains proposed strategies for the 2012-2013 academic year.

Please contact me directly should you have questions about this report.

Sincerely,

m~~Marymount College

C: Dr. Michael Brophy - President, Marymount CollegeMr. Don Davis - Legal Counsel to Marymount College

...... '

" ..."~.,., '- - '~. ",,', '.,.... ........, ....... .. ....... ' '. -:- ..... "1-21

Marymount College

Review of 2011·2012 Parking Management Strategies:

1. Designated Carpool Parking Spaces. The College anticipates providing up to40 carpool parking spaces in specially marked areas of the campus.

The College did provide 40 carpool spaces at the beginning of the schoolyear. As the term progressed, and despite the financial incentives offeredby the College to increase ride sharing, it became apparent that the carpoolspaces were being underutilized during peak hours. In order to providemore spaces on campus, the number of reserved carpool spaces wasreduced to 20 by the end of the school year. Marymount intends tomaintain the number of carpool spaces at 20 for the 2012·2013 academicyear.

2. Additional Shuttle Services to the Campus. The College will provideadditional shuttle services from College residential sites. Additional servicesincluding "express" shuttles will be scheduled during peak hours to providefurther incentives to riders. .

The College added four additional·buses to its fleet last year bringing th.total number of vehicles to 10. Shuttle service to the RPV Campus from theCollege's two residential facilities in addition to its new San Pedro.Waterlront Campus was provided Monday to Friday from 7:00 AM to 10:45PM, with approximately 28 round trips occurring each day. On weekends,the shuttle service was available from 11:00 AM' to 7:00 PM. Marymountestimates that there was a 10-·15% increase in peak hour weekdayridership last year as a result the College'S concerted efforts to promotethe service for environmental- reasons as well to reduce parking demand.This service cost Marymount approximately $ 350,000 to operate last year. .

3. Financial Incentives. The College will provide financial incentives in the form offree shuttle services to students. In addition, a trial-run gift card program will beinstituted for carpoolers for the fall semester 2011.

The shuttle service was provided at no cost to riders. The College issued24 gift cards, at a cost ofapproximately $ 600.00, to students who agreed tocarpool to the RPV Campus.

4. Increased role of Campus Security. College Campus Security staff will betasked with directing traffic to open spaces on campus, partiCUlarly during peakhours. In addition, staff will be utilized to monitor street parking in an effort toencourage on-campus parking and the use of transit services.

Marymount employed 25 safety and security personnel last year, includingfive students. As indicated, their primary purpose with respect to parkingwas to monitor on-campus parking and direct drivers to available spaces.As a result of this monitoring effort, very few parking spaces went unusedduring peak hours.

1-22

Marymount CollegeParking Management Strategies2012-2013

5. Restricted Access to Campus Parking. The College is currently consideringlimiting on-campus parking to students residing in College provided housing.While this solution may not be fully implemented in the fall of 2011, the Collegeanticipates having such a program in place by the fall of 2012.

This strategy will be implemented for the fall 2012 term as described below.

General Assessment of 2011-12 Parking Management Strategies:

The 2011-2012 school yearsaw the College's enrollment reach record levels,essentially to the maximum numbers permitted under its CUP. Although thisincrease in enrollment also led to additional·· numbers of vehicles using theavailable public parking in the streets surrounding the campus, the strategiesee.rtainly helped reduce the potential number of vehicles parking off-campus.. Itshould be noted that· street parking in the vicinity of the campus significantlydeclined by late afternoon, a.nd after 5 pm, when many local residents return ,home from work, there were generally fewer than 10 vehicles parked on thestreets near the campus. Street parking demand is also highest on Monday.Tuesday and Thursday, which are the days when the majority of classes are'scheduled. On Wednesdays aric:fFridays when' there are fewarclassesscheduled. there is a significant dec~ease iri'the number of vehicles parking off-

, ,campus. Consistent with' fjasf ' precedent,. campus parking demand ,al!;3o '.eJecrea,sesas the semesterprogresseswhE!n students get accustomed. lousing

( ,the <shuttle service, discover new ride shariligoppOftulJitieSI and generally adjust '-., .... tl)eir ,schedules. Accordingly, in the final month or two of each semester, there "

" " were ,typically fewer than 30 vehicles, obselved on ,the streets surrounding th~:f, camPlJs ..during peak days and hout'sandtypically fewer than 10 vehicles duringnon-pe~k hours and days. t '" " . .

Marymount is pleased to note that despite the additional numbers"of vehicles. utilizing ,street parking last year, the Col1ege received no written complaints or

notices from any of its neighbors, City staff, or the Sheriffs Department as to anyspecific disturbances or incidents related to students or visitors parking on tnepublic streets around the campus.

Proposed 2012-2013 Parking Management and Strategies: '

1. Addition of 120 New Parking Spaces. In April of 2012, the City approved theCollege's revised plans for expanded parking on campus that would add at least120 additional parking spaces to the campus to bring the total number of parkingspaces to 463. Marymount anticipates that enrollment for the 2012-2013academic year will be similar to the past year, and with similar programs beingoffered the parking demand should likewise be similar to the past year. Basedon'the observed demand for street parking during the 2011-2012 academic year,it is clear that the addition of these 120 parking spaces should be sufficient toaddress all current off-campus parking demand. As ofthe date of this submittal,Marymount has a contractor in place and is prepared to commence the work assoon as the City is able to issue the required grading permit. At this time, theCollege anticipates that the work will be completed in the fall of 2012.

Page 2 of3

1-23

Marymount CollegeParking Management Strategies2012-2013

2. New Restrictions on Campus Parking for Students in College Housing.Pending completion of the 120 additional parking spaces, the College willimplement a policy starting with the fall term that restricts students residing inCollege provided housing from individually driving to campus during peak hours(9 AM to 3 PM). These residential students will either have to carpool or take theshuttle bus during these periods. Last year, approximately 244 parking permitswere issued to residential students. These parking permits are color-coded andtherefore readily identifiable. If a vehicle with a residential parking permit isobserved parking in a non-carpool spot or elsewhere on the campus or on thesurrounding streets during these peak hours, the applicable student will initiallyreceive one warning. Any subsequent violations of the policy will be subject to afine of $ 35.00 that will be collected prior to the release of grades and/ortranscripts. Implementation of this policy could reduce parking demand by up to6Q vehicles during peak periods.

3. .. Incentives for Staff and Faculty to 'use Shuttle Service from the MarymouiltHarbor Campus. Marymount will offer financial and other incentives to its staffand faculty that pass through or near San Pedro on route to the RPV campus topark at the College's Waterfront Campus and take the shuttle service to the RPV

.campus. Additional shuttle servicewill be provided.ifthere is sufficient additional,ridership to support such service. Implementation of -this strategy could reduceparkingdemand by up to 20 vehicles during peak periods.

. 4. Construction of Temporary Parking' Lot. Que to the unanticipated delays'inobtainirig approvals or waivers from outside agencies to commence the '.constru.ction work for the 120, a.dditional parking' spaces, Marymount is prepared

Jo .construct a temporary parklnglat on the undeveloped western end of thecampus that could provide. spaces for up to 90 vehicles during the fall termsubject to the following parameters:' ,

(aJ That the total cost of the work, including any' permits and the costs of anyother City-imposed conditions, not exceed $ 75,000.

(b) That the work be approved by the City so that construction starts ideally bymid-August but no later than the end of August, so that such parking is availablefor use during most of the fall term or at least until the permanent additionalparking spaces are completed in order to justify the cost of this temporary lot.

5. Other Initiatives. Students, faculty and staff who live near a shuttle route will beencouraged to utilize College transportation services. The College will identifyadditional pick-Up locations along the route to encourage use. In addition, theCollege has developed a web-based scheduling technology that is accessibly bytext messaging or through an app that can be downloaded to a smartphone. TheCollege will also display shuttle schedules on monitors at the Waterfront Campusto assist riders in determining when the next shuttle will be at their location. Thistechnology will assist students and other riders in planning their transportation toand from the various College locations and thus hopefully encourage greater useof the service.

Page 30f3

1-24

Restricted Use Covenant


September 4, 2012City -Council Meeting

1-25

RECORDING REQUESTED BY ANDWHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

JIM REEVES, VICE PRESIDENTMARYMOUNT COLLEGE30800 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EASTRANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-6299

Recorded for the benefit of theCity of Rancho Palos VerdesNo fee required(Government Code §27383).

SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE

APN: --------RESTRICTED USE COVENANT

This RESTRICTED USE COVENANT ("Covenant") is made by Marymount College, a

non-profit educational institution ("Owner"), for the benefit of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes

("City").

RECITALS

A. Owner is the owner of certain real property ("Property") located in the City of Rancho

Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, California. The Property is legally described on

Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by this reference.

B. On June 1, 2010, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes pursuant to Resolution No. 2010-42

approved Revision "E" to Conditional Use Permit NO.9 ("CUP No.9"), which applies to

Owner's Property.

C. The City's Conditions of Approval for Revision "E" to CUP No. 9 included Condition No.

79, which provided in part that Owner was to record a restricted use covenant that would

acknowledge the restriction on the development of new buildings or structures within the

designated "Building Geologic Setback Area" described in the Owner's geotechnical

reports and depicted on the site and grading plans for Revision "E" to CUP NO.9.

D. As required under the Conditions of Approval for Revision "E" to CUP No.9, Owner

intends by this Covenant to provide for certain restrictions on the use of the Property.

NOW THEREFORE, Owner does hereby covenant as follows:

-1-LA #4843-1849-4223 v2

1-26

1. No Build and Restricted Use Area. Owner hereby establishes a "No Build and

Restricted Use Area" on the Property in the shaded area depicted on the attached

Exhibit B. As required under Condition No. 79, no building, structure or other new

improvements may be constructed or permitted within the No Build and Restricted Use

Area unless otherwise expressly approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

2. Covenant Runs with the Land. This Covenant, and the restrictions imposed hereby, run

with the land and are binding on all parties having any right, title, or interest in the

Property or any part thereof.

3. Amendment. This Covenant and the restrictions imposed hereby, may not be modified,

amended, or revoked except with the express written consent of the City of Rancho

Palos Verdes.

The undersigned Owner has executed this Covenant on this day of

________,2012..

MARYMOUNT COLLEGE, PALOS VERDES

Michael D. Brophy, President

CONSENTED TO AND APPROVED BYCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

Carolyn Lehr, City Manager

-2-LA #4843-1849-4223 v2

1-27

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

On

personally

before me,

appeared

)) SS.)

_____________, Notary Public,

____________________________, who proved to

me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to

the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in

his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the

person(s), 'or the entity upon behalf of which 'the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

______________ (Seal)

LA #4843-1849-4223 v2

1-28

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

LOT 94 OF TRACT NO. 32574 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OFLOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

LA #4843-1849-4223 v2

1-29

EXHIBIT B

DEPICTION OF NO BUILD AND RESTRICTED USE AREA

LA #4843-1849-4223 v1

1-30

D i ~ @~§

~~~5

~~II

~<

88;

Cl~~

)-!5

Il.~

~1lI

~:::e~

i:l

I~;.~

I

<h

W .... .. "o <h

<h

c(

g ..:: ,.

:z:;;

cw

•;;

.

!IH~

m m ITII

Tn

~ ~ I

'----

-

ED

-~\

-'-,-""

'V/

'\.C

'/

'fl6-f

~//

'B~

///

'\.\

,//'

:\'~

./«;.

1>'-0

;y/

;\2-\-

J~//

oQ

".../

..J~(1

_9<::

rl'\..

O":

>

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L

(\

9J\~

<.'\~

l11i

»- \ \ \ i 1--

R5

10

EN

TIA

L

0/.;'

;:'00

of2.

\Y€'

~s;z,ITE~P~LA~N~

\__~_

_~

JLJ1..J~

01

0!l

O5

01

00

1-31

Peninsula SeniorsFall 2012 Marymount College

Course Schedule



1-32

,;h- PENINSULA\J SENIORS

FALL 2012 COURSE SCHEDULE

Marymount College offers the membership of Peninsula Seniors the opportunity toattend Marymount College courses, tuition-free, for the fall semester 2012. This firstof-its-kind venture by the two Palos Verdes area non-profit organizations will provideup to 99 members of Peninsula Seniors the ability to audit courses at MarymountCollege's two campuses in Rancho Palos Verdes and San Pedro.

Students who are auditing a class are able to attend class sessions, participate in classdiscussion and access course materials online. Audit students do not take exams andtheir work is not graded by the class professor. A transcript is not generated so thecoursework is not transferable for college credit.

There is no audit fee. Students are limited to enrollment in only one course persemester. All students must be members of Peninsula Seniors. Registration for classesoccurs through the Peninsula Seniors administrative office located at the City ofRancho Palos Verdes property, 30928 Hawthorne Blvd. To reach the office bytelephone, call 310-377-3003.

Classes begin August 27, 2012. Students must attend first day of class to 'confirm theirenrollment.

Academic Policies

Students are provided the opportunity to audit a course when there is physical spaceavailable in the classroom, the instructor is agreeable to auditing students in theclassroom and the student agrees to adhere to the highest standards of conduct.The college expects the highest standards of integrity from its students in theperformance of academic assignments. Moreover, the college requires thecooperation of its students in creating a college-wide environment that is conducive toeveryone's learning. Creating this environment includes but is not limited to:

• Arriving and departing class on time

• Attending class regularly• Being prepared for class work and class discussion

• Participating in discussions in a way that does not discriminate against or harasspeers or professors, and that respects the free inquiry of others

• Refraining from disruptive behavior (e.g., talking, noises from electronicdevices; coming and going during class, sleeping during class)

1-33

.. Refraining from attending class under the influence of alcohol or illegalsubstances

.. And adhering to specific classroom standards set forth by the professor.

ParkingStudents must place a parking permit in their vehicle while parked at the Main Campusor the Waterfront Campus. Your parking permit will be mailed to you before thesemester begins or you may seek a permit through the Security Office located on theMain Campus in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Course Description and Schedule(SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

This art appreciation course improves the human ability to understand thelanguage and cultural functions of art and media. It presents methods foranalyzing, criticizing and evaluating various art forms and their content. Thevocabulary of art and media criticism is emphasized.

Course # AM 101

This history course surveys the painting, sculpture and architecture ofWestern civilization from prehistoric times to the Renaissance. Analysis,evaluation and the interpretation of major themes in the development of thevisual arts in Western Culture are explored.

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

AM 100.02

Mondays & Thursdays3 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.

Main Campus - Rancho Palos Verdes

Vanderpool

Wednesdays9 a.m. - 11 :50 a.m.


Vanderpool

1-34

This course examines the history of Radio and Television in the 20thCentury. The course explores the development of broadcast mediatechnologies as well as the evolution of the content of these mediumincluding the news, entertainment genres, sports and advertising.

Course # AM 105.01

This class explores theories of Arts and Media. Topics will include film,animation, interactive media, and graphic design. Students research andanalyze these art forms through diverse verbal and written projects.

Course # AM 111 .01, AM 111.03

An introductory drawing class emphasizing the principles of visual formsusing a variety of traditional and nontraditional drawing tools and media.Emphasis is placed on visual literacy and vocabulary of the elements andprinciples of design.

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

AM 102

Thursdays3 p.m. - 5:45 p.m.

Waterfront Campus - San Pedro

Schwartz

Wednesdays1:30 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.


Vanderpool

Mondays & Thursdays9 a.m. - 11 :50 a.m. or 1:30 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.


Eastup

1-35

A digital design class, which explores elements and principles of Art ancDesign using media disciplines: video, animation, graphic design, websitedesign.

Course # AM 122.01

ENG (Electronic News Gathering) style digital video production methodsusing portable cameras, basic field lighting techniques and audio recording.Students learn the pre-production and post-production process of creatingvideos including the development of production outlines, scripts and editingto create an original short video. Emphasis is placed on technical proficiencywith basic portable video equipment.

Course # AM 131.01

An introductory course in painting using a variety of painting techniquesemphasizing color theory and image composition using opaque media.Approaches to painting different subject matter are explored.

Instructor

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

AM 120.02

Mondays & Thursdays 8 a.m. - 10:45 a.m.


Martin

Tuesdays & Fridays 1:30 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.


Khanna



Eastup

1-36

C:ourse # AM 132.01

This course introduces the student to traditional film production methodsincluding the use of handheld 16mm film cameras, basic field lightingtechniques and audio recording. Students will learn how to go through thepre-production, production and post-production process of creating shortfilms including the development of film scripts and storyboards to createand edit an individual short film. Emphasis is placed on creative expressionin the art of filmmaking.

Course # AM 141.01

Print design course in the preparation of digital mechanicals for commonlayout designs. Students learn to prepare digital mechanicals for designswith Adobe Creative Suite©. Traditional commercial printing and digitalprinting industry standards and vocabulary are emphasized.

This course introduces the student to photography and the basic methodsof using a digital SLR camera including manual camera settings and customlighting conditions for creative photographic expression. Students explorevarious photographic disciplines including portrait, landscape, commercialand abstract photography and learn traditional darkroom and digitalmethods for photographic printmaking. Basic vocabulary of photography isalso covered.

Location

. Instructor

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

Mondays & Thursdays 1:30 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.


Kelley



Martin

AM 151.01, AM 151.02

Mondays & Thursdays 9 a.m. - 11 :50 a.m.or Wednesdays 9:00 a.m.-11 :45 a.m.and 1:30 p.m. -4:15 p.m.


Kelley

1-37

Course # AM 201 .01

This history course surveys the painting, sculpture and architecture ofWestern civilization from the Renaissance through the 19th Century. Thecourse explores the religious, philosophical, social and political ideas thathave influenced artists and art movements throughout this period.

Course # AM 202

This course surveys the evolution of filmmaking in the 20th and 21 stcenturies. The course exposes students to a wide range of firm genres andexplores how the cultural, political and ideological values have influencedfilmmakers and the art of filmmaking. Critical analysis of film scriptwriting,cinematography, direction, acting and style are emphasized.

This history course surveys the painting, sculpture and architecture of NonWestern cultures including China, Japan, India and Southeast Asia. Thecourse explores of how the ideals, values and religious beliefs of NonWestern cultures have influenced the art and artists of Asia.

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor



Vanderpool

Tuesdays 7:30 p.m. -10:15 p.m.


Schwartz

AM 211

Thursdays 7:30 p.m. - 10:15 p.m.


Kinoshita

1-38

Course # AM 213

Students learn to create motion graphics using Adobe After Effects© and itsperipheral support applications, Adobe Photoshop©, Adobe IIlustrator©and Apple Sound Edit Pro©. Students will learn how to integrate 2d and 3dgraphics, video, text and sound to create engaging animations. Emphasisplaced on the original design solutions and technical proficiency.

Course # AM 231.01

A studio cou'rse in the elements and principles of visual order as they relateto three-dimensional forms for Arts & Media and Non-Art students using avariety of media and construction techniques. Explores the relationshipbetween form and meaning in the visual arts.

Course # AM 242

This studio course provides an overview of various methods of audiorecording for video, film and multimedia projects. Students learn the basicsof digital recording and monitoring methods using field and studio audioequipment. Students learn how to record voice over talent, announcers andperformers in the field and sound booth settings. Students also learn how torecord sound effects and create basic music theme soundtracks with AppleGarage Band© software.

Instructor

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

Tuesdays & Fridays 9 a.m. - 11 :50 a.m.


Wade



Eastup



Raby

1-39

Course # AM 251

Print design to prepare digital mechanicals for editorial and publicationdesigns intended for commercial printing applications. Students preparespecial printing effects with Adobe Creative Suite© software including diecutting, embossing and spot varnishing for different types of designs.Traditional commercial printing and digital printing industry standards andvocabulary are emphasized.

Course # AM 252

Students acquire basic digital video production skills in Apple Final Cut ProStudio©. Students and will learn how to log and capture, and edit digitalvideo. Students learn the basics of Final Cut Pro© ands its peripheralsoftware Sound Track Pro©, Sound Track Pro©, Color©, Motion©, to .createnarratives and commercial video content. Students learn how to compositetitles and motion graphics and develop multiple audio tracks.

Course # AM 261

This intermediate studio course provides the student with in-depthknowledge of the history, design and application of Typography incommunication arts. Students will learn how to effectively use Type for avariety of graphic design applications with Adobe Creative Suite© Software.Vocabulary of Typography is emphasized.

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

Tuesdays & Thursdays 4:30 p.m. - 7:15 p.m.


Powe

Mondays & Wednesdays 4:30 p.m. - 7:15 p.m.


Khanna



Powe

1-40

Introduction to 3d computer generated animation for fields in cinema,games, graphic design, and interactive media. This course explores the 12principles of animation, camera set-up and operation, lighting, animatingusing key-frame, set driven keys, graph editor, nonlinear, and pathtechniques. Students learn the basics of modeling, UV texture mapping,animation, staging, and editing using Autodesk Maya 3d©, AdobePhotoshop©, Adobe After Effects© and Apple Final Cut Pro©.

Course # AM 303



Wade

Course # BUS 415

Social entrepreneurship is an emerging field which asserts that the problemsof the world cannot be solved by governments or economic markets. T6make real changes, entrepreneurs must act as stewards of their communitiesand undertake ventures which add social value. This interdisciplinary courseis targeted to those students who believe they may seriously consider asocial entrepreneurial opportunity early in their careers, although the skillsdeveloped will benefit any career direction. This course will include a fieldproject with significant social service value-added.

Location

Instructor

Mondays & Thursdays 3 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.


Grimshaw

1-41

Course # BUS 461

A comprenensive study of the concepts, strategies, and skills inherent in theprocess of personal/professional transformation that is often the foundationof organizational leadership. Students will examine the various factors andclassical and contemporary theories and styles of leadership, with theirapplications in a variety of professional global and local settings. Topicsinclude models of leadership styles and techniques, organizational cnangeagents, motivating personnel, decision-making and problem solving, ethics,interpersonal relationships, conflict resolution, and power.

Course # ECO 302

An examination of key California industries including agriculture, energy,education, arts and media, manufacturing, tourism, services, and trade in aregional and global context. Topics include natural and human resources,diversity, migration, innovation, physical infrastructure and transportation, theregulatory and tax environment, and the international flow of goods, ideasand capital.

Course # ENG 208.01

A survey of British Literature from the Anglo-Saxon period to the mid-18thCentury, with special emphasis on the development of English culture as itrelates to and is reflected in the literature of the period.

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

Tuesdays & Fridays 3 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.


Holliman

Tuesdays & Fridays 11 a.m. -12:15 p.m.


Holliman



Spurgeon

1-42

Course # ENG 340.01

An introduction to literature written by authors from colonizing nationsabout the colonial experience, and by authors of nations that haveexperienced colonization. The course is organized around recurrent themesin Colonial and Postcolonial literature-First and Third World places andidentities, power and subordination, assimilation and resistance, belongingand exile, along with social, cultural and historical contexts for the peoplesof Europe, Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Australia, and the Caribbean.

Course # HIS 100.01

The emergence of European culture and the development of westernsociety from the neolithic era to the Enlightenment. Emphasis on thepolitical, economic, social, religious and intellectual events that had animpact on the maturation of European traditional culture.

Course # HIS 101.01

Emergence of modern European culture and the development of westernsociety from the Age of Absolutism to the present. Emphasis on political,economic, social, religious and intellectual events that had greatest impacton the maturation of modern Europe.

Location

. Instructor

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor



McMahon



Desilets



Desilets

1-43

Survey ofthe political, social and institutional changes in the history of theUnited States since the Civil War. Emphasis on economic growth and theinternational role of the United States.

Instructor

HIS 121.01

Tuesdays & Fridays 3 p.m. -4:15 p.m.


Desilets

Survey of various fields within the discipline of psychology, such asperception, memory and personality, and how each of these fieldscontributes to understanding and improving human behavior.

location

Instructor

PSY 150

Various


Various


Mondays & Wednesdays 6 p.m. - 7:15 p.m.

PSY 200

Wu

location

Instructor

. Development of children from conception to adolescence:cognitive, linguistic, moral and personality development.

1-44

Course # PSY 220

This course investigates major concepts, issues and methods in the study ofhuman development, from conception through death, with emphasis on thefollowing aspects of development: physical, perceptual, cognitive, language,moral, personality (social and emotional) and atypical.

Psychological study of the interplay of the personality and personal historyof author and reader along with the relationship of social p~x-~hological

concepts to literature.

The literature of ancient Hebrew civilization and of the early Christianmovement, as preserved in the Bible, from a culture very different from ourown. The course aims to capture a sense of what this literature meant to thepeople of its time by studying its historical, cultural and literary background.This provides depth and perspective for a student's personal interpretationof the Bible.

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor



Sichan

PSY 440

Wednesdays 1:30 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.


Wu

REL 102.01

Mondays & Wednesdays 6 p.m. - 7:15 p.m.


Dunlop

1-45

This course is an introductory study of American religious history from theend of the Civil War to the present time. Topics include the study of majorevents and persons in the primary religious traditions of America as well asan examination of the growing religious pluralism and religious diversityfound in the United States.

Course # PSY 220

This course investigates major concepts, issues and methods in the study ofhuman development, from conception through death, with emphasis on thefollowing aspects of development: physical, perceptual, cognitive, language,moral, personality (social and emotional) and atypical.

Location

Instructor

Location

Instructor

REL 144.01



Zanca



Sichan

MARYMOUNT COLLEGE CAMPUS LOCATIONSMain Campus

30800 Palos Verdes Drive EastRancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

Waterfront CamPUS222 West Sixth Street Marylyn and Chuck KlausSan Pedro, CA 90731 Center for the Arts

430 West Sixth StreetSan Pedro, CA 90731

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES

Palos Verdes Drive North1600 Palos Verdes Drive North

San Pedro

Pacific View West740 West 24th Street

San Pedro

Marymount College Palos Verdes is one of two Catholic, four-year coeducational colleges in Los AngelesCounty. With campuses along the picturesque coastline of Rancho Palos Verdes and in the vibrant communityof San Pedro, Marymount College challenges its students to pursue lives of leadership and service. In thespirit of its founding order, the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary, the College strives to graduate studentswho embody the virtues of integrity, respect for human dignity and commitment to justice.

www.marymountpv.edu • (310) 377-5501 1-46

Council Adopted EnrollmentConditions of Approval



1-47

Auditorium (as shown on the site plan approved by the City Council), and theoutdoor pool area. The Athletic Field and Tennis Courts may only be used withamplified sound for graduation ceremonies.

137) The existing preschool shall discontinue its operation u the demolition of thebuilding occupied for this use in Phase I, as descr" d in these Conditions ofApproval. The future use of a preschool, either . in an existing building or in anew building that needs to be constructe shall require a revision to thisConditional Use Permit pursuant to the pr Isions stated in the RPVMC and theappropriate environmental review.

138) The College shall establish a Ighborhood Advisory Committee consisting ofone representative selected each of the following neighboring homeowner'sassociations: EI Prado, an Ramon, Mira Catalina, Seacliff Hilltop, andMediterrania; two at- ge representatives who live within 3000 feet of thecampus (one of who shall be selected by the Community Development Directorand one by th College); and a representative from City Staff (non-votingmember). Th ommittee shall meet, at a minimum of once every fall and springterm, to re . w any campus operational and neighborhood concerns. Reports onthe~eetings shall be provided to the City Council.

PROGRAMS I STUDENT ENROLLMENT

139) The use of the College campus is permitted for only the following academic andrecreational programs and related activities as further described below anddefined in Condition 140:

• Traditional Degree Programs• Non-Traditional Degree Programs• Continuing Educational Programs, such as but not limited to English as a

Second Language (ESL)• Recreational Activities• Summer Educational Programs, such as but not limited to:

o Upward Boundo High School Courseso International Students Taking ESL courses

The use of the campus by groups or organizations unaffiliated with the College'seducational and recreational programs listed above that would have less than100 participants or visitors present on campus at one time or would occupy lessthan 20% of the 463 required parking spaces during such use is also allowed.Any and all other uses and activities on the College campus that do not meet thisthreshold are prohibited unless approved with a revision to this Conditional Use


Page 28 of 39

1-48

Permit or a Special Use Permit is obtained, whichever is applicable based on therequest.

The sub-leasing of the campus for commercial purposes that are unaffiliated withthe College is prohibited.

140) The College's "Traditional Degree Programs" are the academic programs(Associates and Bachelors degrees) that offer classes primarily during the day onweekdays (Monday to Friday). The College's "Non-Traditional DegreePrograms" are the academic programs (Associates, Bachelors, and Mastersdegrees) that offer classes, including post-secondary academic classes, primarilyduring weekday evenings and on weekends (Saturday and Sunday), so as togenerally avoid overlap with the class schedules of the Traditional DegreePrograms. The Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs are referredcollectively as the "Degree Programs."

141) The College may also provide lifelong learning programs ("Continuing EducationPrograms") such as English as a second language (ESL). For the purposes ofthis Conditional Use Permit, all students in such Continuing Education Programswill be inclUded as part of the total full-time and part-time permitted studentenrollment for both the Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs. Thedetermination as to which enrollment category such students are countedtowards will be based on whether the applicable classes are primarily offeredduring the weekdays (in which case the students would be classified as part of .the Traditional Degree Program enrollment) or nights/weekends (in which casethey would be classified as part of the Non-Traditional Degree Programenrollment).

142) As used in this Conditional Use Permit, a "student" means either a "full-timestudent," who is a person enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts or Associates of ArtsDegree Program or a Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 12hours of course work during the applicable Term (as defined below), or a "parttime student," who is a person enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts or Associates of ArtsDegree Program or Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 3hours, but up to 11 hours, of course work during the applicable Term.

143) The campus facilities may also be used for "Summer Educational Programs."Summer Educational Programs are educational programs for persons generally14 years or older such as college-credit classes for local high school students,Upward Bound, and international students taking ESL classes along with othereducational classes and recreational activities. Persons enrolled in SummerEducational Programs are referred to in this CUP as "participants" for thepurpose of establishing enrollment limitations.


Page 29 of 39

1-49

144) The College may operate throughout the calendar year under the followinggeneral "Term" schedule: "Fall Term" (August through December), "Winter Term"(January), "Spring Term" (February to May) and "Summer Term" (June throughJuly/August).

The College shall provide all of its incoming students a driver's training courseregarding local roadway conditions. The total number of students receiving therequired driver's training course shall be included in the enrollment report foreach term as described in Condition No. 146.

145) The following enrollment limitations apply:

A. The maximum total permitted enrollment in Traditional Degree Programson campus during the Fall, Winter, and Spring Terms is 793 students (fulltime and part-time). Of these 793 students, a maximum of 250 studentsshall be enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts degree program (BA Program). Forthe Summer Term, if other educational or recreational programs areconcurrently offered during weekdays, the maximum total permittedenrollment in Traditional Degree Programs must be proportionally reducedso that the combined enrollment in all such programs (e.g., TraditionalDegree Programs and Summer Educational Programs) does notexceed atotal of 600 students (full-time and part4ime) and participants.

B.· The maximum total permitted enrollment in Non-Traditional DegreePrograms on campus during any Term is 150 students.

C. The maximum total permitted enrollment in any combination of TraditionalDegree Programs and Summer Educational Programs offered·concurrently during summer weekdays (June to August) is 600 studentsand participants.

146) .The College shall submit to the City an enrollment report for each Term within anacademic year for all Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs andSummer Educational Programs no later than30-days after a term hascommenced. Failure to submit such a report on a timely basis will constitute aviolation punishable by administrative citation per the RPVMC.

NOISE I MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

147) All new mechanical equipment, regardless of its location, shall be housed inenclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level of 65 dBA CNEL at the projectsite's property lines. Mechanical equipment for food service shall incorporatefiltration systems to reduce exhaust odors.


Page 30 of 39

1-50

Public Comments



1-51

of 4

Ara Mihranian

From: [email protected]

Sent: Thursday, July 19, 20122:58 PM

To: Ara Mihranian; jlkarp

Cc: Joel Rojas; [email protected]

Subject: Re: Marymount College - Time Extension Clarification Letter

Attachments: MarymountEnroliNowSign.jpg

Ara

Any "extension" granted should be no longer than for one year and forCondition 60 (a) only. Such Extension should only be granted "Conditionally",conditioned upon the College bringing their operations into full compliancewith approved enrollment levels, as well as with the RPVMC 17.11.140.B.3low income housing requirement. In this regard, the College (June 7, 2012EasyReader article, Dr. Brophy) has stated that they are now enrollingupwards of 1,000 students and have plans for 1,200 at the RPV site.

It was my understanding, based upon video recorded comments at the April17,2012 Minor Modification Hearing, that the College had been adequatelyforewarned "months ago" regarding the necessity to begin approval meetingswith the CDFG. It was further, my additional understanding that this goodadvice from Staff was based upon years earlier experience (San RamonCanyon) with that and possibly other Approval Agencies that warranted an "early start to obtain timely approvals necessary to complete scheduled workat that time., "

It is further my information and understanding that the College failed toexpeditiously act upon this sound advice from Staff and only at the last minuterealized the current nature of these approval problems which were provably"foreseeable" in nature, contrary to Attorney Davis's explanation in hisClarification discussion.

This was and remains an avoidable delay that the College had been givenadvance notice of, and refused or failed to take seriously in time to eitherprevent this delay from occurring, or else allowing an early warning to the Cityof such problems that were not revealed until well beyond all reasonableremaining schedule completion dates promised and posted by the College(Letter of June 26, 2012).

It is most notable, in this regard that Mayor Anthony Mizetich pointedlymade reference to just this potential delay factor, yet the College, whenquestioned by Council Woman Brooks about the status for parking lotcompletion by September 30, 2012, was told by College Counsel in

8/29/2012 1-52

of4

unequivocal terms that this project would "Absolutely" be finished by that date.

This is but one of several examples where the College Attorney has been provenwrong with respect to key representations for the College to the City. You may recallhis August 27, 2007 statements regarding the potential for the College's San Pedrosite to accommodate the Alternative "Living Campus". Attorney Davis failed in hisremarks to fully reveal and truthfully attest to that potential which is now currenthistory according to a number of recent RPV "Border Issues" reports that now showplans for on-campus residences for over 600 students, along with Classrooms, etc.that were, according to Attorney Davis's letter, "infeasible" there.

Fumbled statements by Attorney Davis* include:

1.) "The College was never consulted regarding this alternative". Fact, The Collegehas been fl:llly aware of the Alternative of a "Living/Academic Campus" since theinitial scoping sessions of the original.EIR (2002).

2.) "The site is outside the lead agency's jurisdiction" suggesting that noconsideration, legally, can be given this alternative. Of course, Attorney Davis must

.have been aware of Finding FN7 of th~ Goleta Gasewhich state, in part,'"jurisdictional borders are simply a factorto be taken into account and do not·establish an ironclad limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives."

, 3.) Davis's next whopper was "The site's (existing) land use designation is.inconsistent with the project". If so, then why is-the College now actively pursuingjust suct) land use with LA City Planning? Le. not a valid reason for non~use, as itnow seems. Attorney Davis's statement is all the more deceptive and misleadingbecause such then current land use designation was actually recognized by theCollege in its application to the USDOE which sta~ed "As an educational Facility,Marymount College will seek a conditional use permit for the (educational) purposesintended." -

4.) Attorney Davis also cogently noted that the deed "..conditions include aprohibition on any mortgage or encumbrance of the site without prior writtenapproval of the DOE." Technically correctand absolutely misleading because, atthe time of his writing, Attorney Davis knew, or had reason to know that theadjoining Rolling Hills Prep (RHP) property, deeded under identical conditions, wasnow up and running with a $7.5 Million mortgage loan obtained from Bank ofAmerica as was publicly disclosed in RHP's April 2007 Annual Report monthsbefore. .

5.) A further brilliant observation cast on the waters by Marymount's Land UseCounsel was that "The site is not economically viable;" Tell that (again) to theTrustees of Marymount College now that they have invested significant Millions inthat site recently.

8/29/2012 1-53

of4

6.) Then there was the old saw that "The site is incompatible with Surrounding LandUses." Brilliant. Yeah, right.

7.) How about the restrictions cited by the College and Attorney Davis that "The sitepresents Seismic Constraints." What Constraints? Not now in evidence according topublished plans.

8.) Or how about the old standby "There are Significant Environmental Effects inDeveloping the Off-Site (San Pedro) location". Apparently such limitations assuggested by Counsel for the College have now been overcome. Wow! What anawesome prognosticator!

And, oh yes, did the College fulfill its promise in its application to the USDOE that "A .major capitQI investment is proposed to begin within one to three years aftertransfer." "The College will construct (Page 8 of the Application) an academic centerat the eastern side of USS New Jersey Street..there will be an academic center withthree classrooms, four room for quiet study, and a C0n"lputer lab. We will alsoconstruct a student health and welfare center with a cafeteria, a nurse;'s office, andexamining room, an exercise/fitness area with Nautilus equipment, a studentlounge, and a laundry facility. We estimate that 18,200 square feet ofspace will be;required with a total cost of $2,300,000." (exclUding equipment and other costs,G'rand total $3 Million). . .

Don't befooled again by this College's misrepresentation? Buyer Beware!

I would suggest that any current representations from the College be treated withthe respect that has been previously earned by them.

Jim

*(Additional Information and more details regarding Attorney Davis's August 27, .2007 guidance can be obtained in Comment Letter 20 of Section 12 of the EIR)

---- Ara Mihranian <[email protected]> wrote:>> Hi Lois and Jim,> The attached letter was submitted to the City this week from the College providingclarification on its time extension request.> The letter has been provided to the City Council and is posted on the City'swebsite.> Let me know if you have any questions.>Ara>

8/29/2012 1-54

of4

> Ara Michael Mihranian> Deputy Director of Community Development> City of Rancho Palos Verdes> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.> Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275> 31 0-544-5228 (telephone)> 310-544-5293 (fax)> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> www.palosverdes. com/rpv<http://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 PalosVerdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. Theinformation is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorizeddisseminatron, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this emailin error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately."Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.> '

8/2912012 1-55

of 4

Ara Mihranian


Sent: Sunday, July 22,20126:40 PM

To: Ara Mihranian; jlkarp

Cc: [email protected]; Carolyn Lehr; Joel Rojas

Subject: Re: Marymount College - Time Extension Clarification Letter

Attachments: Marymount Davis Attached. pdf; RPV Enrollment Report 9.29.11.pdf

Ara

Thank you for your latest information from the College.

By way of further clarification on this subject I have attached the College'sOctober 31 ~ 2011 letter for further comparison and reference with yourpreparation of recommendations to the City for any approval of the College'srequested extensions (April 11,2011 request) and follow-up letters from theCollege of June 26 and July 16, 2012) and as described further in your mostrecent listserv notice for that Council Meeting of August 7,2012.

. The sum and substance of Attorney Davis's 31 October 2011 letter as shownin his 4th Point on page 5 "The Council should refrain from any significantmodification to the CUP parking Conditions until it is clear that theCollege is unable to timely complete the additional Parking Areas."

That time has now come and Attorney Davis's promises should beremembered and acted upon and recommended by Staff to the City'CouncilAugust 7,2012. Applicable portions of the College's October 31,2011document are;

1.) "On September 28,2011, Mr. Mihranian met with representatives of theCollege and was shown a revised site plan that would allow the College to .provide upwards of 500 (parking) spaces instead of the 463 currentlyproposed as part of Phase I." Show us that plan and the extra spacesproposed. Include that increase as part of your recommendation.

2.) "If the College is unable to complete the work (on the parking lot) withinthe current CUP schedule (Le. September 30, 2012) and an extension isrequired(it is) then the College would be prepared to accept as a condition ofsuch extension, the construction of a temporary parking lot for up to 90vehicles before the start of the fall term next year (August 2012). This wouldavoid any potentially wasteful expenditures and would be fully consistent withthe two year period to provide such parking that was incorporated into the CityCouncil's 2010 approval of the project."

8129/2012 1-57

of4

Ara, take them up on that offer. Do not "stay the course" as recently suggested bythe College in contradiction to their June 26,2012 and July 16, 2012 letters)

As you know, the College has far exceeded their maximum enrollmentlimitation of 793 students, notwithstanding their erroneous and shameful charadethat certain AA students are enrolled separately in "Evening Classes" or otherwiseas part of a claimed "Non-Traditional Degree Program". That is a complete and totalsham that should be permanently exposed as a fraud on this community.

It is a fraud because the sum total of Traditional (793) and Non-TraditionalDegree Students (150) was never studied in the Findings, What was studied(Webster College Weekend College) is no longer associated with MarymountCollege and has not been for at least the past three years. Facts in Support ofFindings, or anywhere else in the Approved EIR and Resolution of ApprovedConditions. It .is a fraud on this Community because there is no such allowableenrollment category as "Evening College Students" (see attached Fall 2011CoUege-submitted enrollment report)

It is a fraud on this Community because there is no such category ofenrollment provided in the Conditions of Approval (#145) as "Day Collegestudents" as improperly stated in that Fall 2011 enrollment report..

It is a fraud on the educational Community when this College reports,instead,that its enrollment is (variously) 940 or 923 Degree-seeking undergraduate students(Fall 2011) to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) andCollegeBoard.org.* In addition, the College President has also recently been quoted(document previously provided to you) in a.June 7, 2012article in the localEasyReaderthat the latest RPV campus enrollment is now 1,000 or more and thatthe College is not turning away such prospective students based upon anyenrollment limitation now approved.

As you well know, there is a basic RPVMC requirement that any applicant forentitlements must first demonstrate full compliance with any existing approvedConditions before the Community Development Director is allowed to proceed withany such application for additional entitlements.

The College is not in compliance with its Enrollment limitation condition.

The College is not in compliance with LU-1 to report annually on-July 1st, withrespect to its (NAIA or other) Athletic Conference agreements which could triggerfurther CUP Review and modifications.

The College, based upon their own reports of new hiring, is not in compliancewith the City's RPVMC requirement to provide low-income housing when thereare 10 or more added workers created by the Project.

8/29/2012 1-58

of4

The College is most likely not eligible for any extension based upon"hardship" under the terms as provided by RPVMC since any such "hardship" isself-imposed and completely within the control of the College who admittedlyhas voluntarily expended needed Phase I funds at other project locations and forother purposes, including nearly $2 Million to obtain Measure P passage inNovember 2010 that would have allowed the College full discretion as totiming and selection of entitlement components for which they are now askingCity forbearance..

The Fall 2011 Enrollment Report is a fraud against the City because inAppendix 0, Hours of Operation the Classroom Hours studied as part of thatBA.and AA student enrollment limitation review were stated as from 8 AM to 10 PM,thereby automatically including any and all such participating students enrolled asan integral part of the "weekday" Traffic and Parking studies contained therein. "Theproposed BA Program would not result in changes to the hours of operationanalyzed in the FEIR and as described below:"

You are asked, therefore to take the College up on its offer to constructadditipnal parking spaces (beyond the 463) and to further requireimmediataimplementation of a temporary parking solution (Tennis/basketb~IICourt.area) prior to construction (not"during School session months) next year ofthatlot. The College does not automatically have the option now to "staythe Course". .and construct this additional parking whne school is in session. That clock hasadmittedly run out. And the College previously informed the City thatsuCh:"ln .Session" Construction was not viable. .

In the event the City wishes to make any extensions of entitlements,' despite thegood and valid reasons above for not doing so, the City should insist on makingsuch an extension (Phase One - Condition 60(a) only) conditional on the Collegebringing themselves into Full Compliance with all Conditions of Approval as alreadyrequired in that document.

Jim Gordon

*Copies of these NCES and CollegeBoard Enrollment reports (923/940undergraduates Fall 2011) are available from the sources on-line or by request.

---- Ara Mihranian <[email protected]> wrote:>> Hi Lois and Jim,> The attached letter was submitted to the City this week from the College providingclarification on its time extension request.> The letter has been provided to the City Council and is posted on the City'swebsite.

8/29/2012 1-59

of4

> Let me know if you have any questions.>Ara>> Ara Michael Mihranian> Deputy Director of Community Development> City of Rancho Palos Verdes> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.> Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275> 310-544-5228 (telephone)> 310-544-5293 (fax)> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> www.palosverdes.comlrpv<http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv>>> P Do you really need to print this e-mail?> This e-mail message conta1ns information belonging to the City of Rancho PalosVerdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. Theinformation is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorizeddissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this emailin error,' or are not an intended recipient, please "notify the sender immediately.Thankyou for your assistance and cooperation.>

8/29/2012 1-60

Bur~I<[. WILLIAMS & SOr~FNSEN, LL?

444 South Flower Street - Suite 2400Los Anqclcs, California 90071·2953voice i13236 0600 fax 213.236,2700www.bwslaw.com

October 31, 2011

Direct No,: 213.236.2702Our File No.; 04693-0005

ddavis@bwslaw,com

VIA E-MAIL & OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Tom Long, MayorMembers of the City CouncilCity of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne BoulevardRancho Palos Verdes, California 90275

Re: REQUEST TO STAY THE PROPOSED IMPROPER MODIFICATIONS TO THEMARYMOUNT COLLEGE CUP REGARDING PARKING

Dear Mayor Long and Councilmembers:

On behalf of Marymount College, we respectfully request that the City Council take noaction at its meeting of November 1, 2011 on agenda item No.3 (Marymount College [Purported] Parking Management Strategies) because, as set forth below, (1) the proposed'action in fact seeks to modify the terms and conditions of Marymount's Conditional Use Permit(CUP), (2) the proposed modifications have not been properly noticed in accordance with theCity's Municipal Code and also do not comport with applicable due process requirements,and(3) there is a lack of substantial evidence to support to the proposed modiflcations to the CUP.

1. THE PROPOSED ACTION SEEKS TO MODIFY THE PARKING CONDITIONS OFMARYMOUNT'S CUP.

Under agenda ltem No.3, City staff is asking the City Council to "affirm" one or anycombination of three proposed measures "so that a minimum of 90 temporary parking spacesare provided on the College campus by...January 9,2012." (Staff Report at p.3.) Althoughcouched as "strategies" that the Community Development Director and Public Works Directorhave the purported discretion to implement under the CUP, in reality, the proposed action seeksto amend the terms and conditions of Marymount's CUP, which is readily apparent from a briefreview of the record that led to the Council's approval of Revision "E" to CUP No.9 in 2010,specifically as it pertains to Mitigation Measure TR-5 of the Final EIR (FEIR), which wasrestated as CUP Condition No. 158.

1..05 Angeles Inland Empire Oakland - Orange County - Palm Desert - Silicon Valley - Ventura Couilly1-61

fJUI(!([. WIL.UfIJ\llS t~ SUFi!-:NSEN. UJ'

Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No.3City Council Meeting of November 1, 2011October 31, 2011Page 2

Based on observed parking demand at the College, which has historically included legalstreet parking on Palos Verdes Drive East, it was determined that at full enrollment (793students), there would be a peak hour demand for 519 parking spaces. Because the Collegewas proposing to add 1.20 new spaces beyond the existing 343 spaces (463 spaces total) uponcompletion of Phase I of its campus master plan, the FEIR parking analysis estimated that therewould be a potential deficiency of 56 spaces. (See attached FEIR Table 3.3-43.) In order toaddress'this potential deficiency at build out of the new parking areas, Mitigation MeasureTR-5 was recommended, which included parking management strategies in order to reduceoff-site parking demand following the completion of the additional on-site parking areasin Phase I. .

It is abundantly c1eC;:lr,from the parking analysis of the approved FEIR that the primaryintent behind the parking management strategies in Mitigation Measure TR-5 and thepercentage reductions in demand associated with student enrollment, which terms wererestated in Condition No.158, was to reduce parking demand at or just prior to completion of theexpanded parking areas and not to eliminate all street parking during the interim two-year periodin which the College was permitted to complete Phase I under Condition No. 60. Accordingly,the burdensome and premature"interim" actions that Staff is asking the Council to approvemust be viewed as a modification to the CUP. This is particularly true where, as here, the onlytruly feasible manner to create the 90 additional parking spaces now being demanded withoutimpacting eXisting and approved campus operations is to create a 30,000 square foot temporaryparking lot on the site of the proposed new athletic field for which construction is scheduled tostart in less than six months. (See Comment NO.4 below regarding the details of this proposedtemporary parking lot.)

The City Council had the opportunity to preclude street parking and to require theconstruction of a temporary parking lot when it approved Revision "E" to the CUP in 2010. TheCouncil chose not to do so at the time, and the CUP cannot now be amended withoutevidentiary support for such a change or in compliance with all applicable due process noticeand hearing requirements.

2. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO MARYMOUNT'S CUP HAVE NOT BEENPROPERLY NOTICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE ANDAPPLICABLE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.

A CUP creates certain property rights that may not be modified arbitrarily without causeor without proper notice and a hearing that comports with constitutional rights of due process.(See Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.AppAth 1281; Malibu Mountains Recreation, Inc.v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 67 Cal.AppAth 359; Community Development Com. v. City of

1-62

BURKI::, WILUf\MS [, SOI,ENSEf\), UP

Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item NO.3City Council Meeting of November 1, 2011October 31,2011Page 3

Fort Bragg (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1124; Garavatti v. Fairfax Planning Com. (1971) 22Cal.App.3d 145; and City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d657.) Staff, in its rush to modify the CUP not only tramples upon these well-establishedconstitutional principles, but ignores the applicable provisions of the City's own municipal code.

Under Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code sections 17.60.100 and 17.86.060, themodification of any term of a CUP requires at least 10-day's notice and a hearing. No suchnotice was provided to Marymount, which only learned about the proposed City Council actionthrough a list-serve message that was sent by email after regular business hours on Thursday,October 27,2011 -less than five days prior to the proposed action item on the Council'sagenda, which is not a public hearing.

The proposed action to modify the CUP violates not only Marymount's due processrights, but those of its neighbors as well who should have an opportunity to review and commenton the grading and construction activities associated with the creation of the 30,000 square foot,90-space temporary parking lot that staff is requesting the Council mandate construction ofwithin two month's time. (See Scott v. Indian Wells (1972) 6 CaL3d 541 [neighbors entitled todue process notice on CUP matters].)

Because the City has failed to comply with all applicable due process requirementsassociated with the proposed action to modify Marymount's CUP, the matter may not beconsidered at the November 1, 2011 meeting, and Marymount will not be sending anyrepresentatives to participate in such an unlawful proceeding. This letter will preserve theCollege's right to challenge any unlawful action that may knowingly and Willfully be taken by theCity Council subsequent to this notice of the constitutional infirmities associated with the subjectagenda item.

3. THERE IS A LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT TO THEPROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CUP.

Equally as troubling as the deliberate avoidance of due process protections in thisagenda item is the utter absence of any evidentiary basis to support the proposed modificationof an existing condition/mitigation measure that seeks to "reduce" or "minimize" street parking toone that essentially seeks the eliminate all such lawful street parking before the expandedparking areas are even constructed. According to the staff report, staff has observed amaximum of 70-90 cars parked on the street during peak hours. As the proposed CUPmodification would require the construction of a 90-space temporary parking lot, it is clear thatthe modifications seek to eliminate any such lawful overflow parking.

1-63

13UFiKf, WlLUNv1S & SORENSIN, LLP

Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No.3City Council Meeting of November 1, 2011October 31,2011Page 4

In order to modify or revoke a validly issued permit, there must be substantial evidenceto support such action. (See City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, supra, 180Cal.App.2d 657, 669 [rejecting city interpretation of its own ordinance that a parking area mustbe constructed before issuance of building permit for a new building].)

What then are the bases for the proposed modification to the CUP? According to thestaff report, there are none other than staff's erroneous and overly aggressive interpretation ofCondition No. 158 as requiring the elimination of any street parking prior to the construction ofthe additional 120 parking spaces in Phase I of the College's master plan. Staff concedes thatthere have been no complaints from any of the property owners abutting the public streetswhere students and visitors to the campus are lawfully parking: "Neither the City nor the Collegehas received complaints form area residents regarding the street parking in front of homes orrelated disturbances." (Staff Report at p.2.) Indeed, in accordance with CUP Condition No.138, Marymount met at the end of September with the designated representatives of theneighboring homeowner's associations along with City staff to discuss campus operations.None of these HOA representatives called for the elimination of street parking near theMarymount campus or demanded that the City take any special action with respect to streetparking particularly of the nature being proposed here by staff in their attempt to modify theCUP. 1

Staff's contention that the parking management strategies utilized to date by the Collegehave not been effective is equally untenable in light of the findings made the Coul1cil in the FinalEIR. As noted above, it was assumed that there would be a demand· for 519 parking spaceswith full enrollment of 793 students, which would result in a deficiency of 176 spaces until the120 additional parking spaces were constructed by September 2012. Marymount is at fullenrollment this semester, and yet the highest number of vehicles counted on the streets (90) isabout 50% less than forecast deficiency of spaces (176). While Marymount is continuing towork towards reducing this number further (and Marymount believes current peak overflow ismore in the range of 50 vehicles), it cannot be said that what it has been done to date to reduceparking demand has been ineffective, particularly where, as here, there is no evidence that thesituation is creating a public nuisance to the level that would justify the proposed elimination alllegal street parking. In the absence of such substantial evidence, the City Council must rejectthe proposed modifications to the CUP.

1 Although this meeting took place over one month ago, City staff, to Marymount's knowledge,has never provided the City Council with a report on this meeting as required by Condition No.138.

1-64

BURKE. WILLIAMS ,," SORENSEt\l. LLP


4. THE COUNCIL SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ANY SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION TOTHE CUP PARKING CONDITIONS UNTIL IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COLLEGE ISUNABLE TO TIMELY COMPLETE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS.

The staff report omits two key interactions between the College and City staff. OnSeptember 28, 2011, Mr. Mihranian met with representatives of the College and was shown arevised site plan that would allow the College to provide upwards of 500 spaces instead of the463 currently proposed as part of Phase I, and was also informed that the College waspreparing to submit this modified plan to the City. On October 25, 2011, City staff andrepresentatives of the College had a conference call to explore additional parking managementstrategies. Staff suggested that the College's faculty could be made to park in San Pedro andtake a shuttle to the campus, to which the College's representatives told staff in no uncertainterms that such a measure was not feasible because the majority of the teaching staff areadjunct facultywho teach at multiple campus and operate on very tight schedules. As SUCh, theonly potentially feasible strategy to provide additional interim parking appeared to be thecreation of a temporary lot on the undeveloped portion of the campus.2 The College'srepresentatives told City staff that the College would look into the temporary lot and get back tostaff at the earliest opportunity (not knowing that staff had already made up its mind to imposeseveral new conditions and was scheduling the matter for City Council action at this meeting).

On October 28, 2011, the College's project architect was advised by a civjl engineeringfirm that the construction of a temporary lot of approximately 30,000 square feet sufficient tohold approximately 90 vehicles could potentially be constructed in the unimproved western areaof the campus where the new athletic field is to be located and would cost around $75,000 (notincluding any permitting or processing fees or stormwater mitigation measures that could raisethe costs to upwards of $100,000). A good portion of this work (e.g., gravel, drainage, etc.)would need to be removed and therefore would be wasted when the College proceeds withPhase I of its campus master plan.

At this time, the College is working diligently towards the goal of proceeding with Phase Inext summer, which would include the construction of the' expanded on-site parking areas. Ifthe College is unable to complete the work within the current CUP schedule (Le., September2012), and an extension is required, then the College would be prepared to accept as acondition to such extension, the construction of a temporary parking area for up to 90 vehiclesbefore the start of the fall term next year (August 2012). This would avoid any potentially

2 Staff's suggestions to convert the existing athletic field or to convert its basketball and tenniscourts into parking lots were also deemed not feasible or desirable during the call because ofthe negative impact on existing programs. The so-called "valet parking" strategy was notmentioned by staff during the call, but as conceded in the letter sent to the College following day(see letter dated 10/26/11 at pA), it cannot independently achieve staff's proposed modificationto the CUP to eliminate all street parking near the campus.

1-65

BURKE. WILLIf"MS E, SORENSEN. LLP

Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No. 3City Council Meeting of November 1, 2011October 31,2011Page 6

wasteful expenditures and would be fully consistent with the two-year period to provide suchparking that was incorporated into the City Council's 2010 approval of the project.

In closing, Marymount is disappointed by the precipitous recommendation being madeby staff to modify Marymount's CUP in the manner proposed. For the reasons set forth above,the College respectfully requests that the City Council refrain from such action.

Sincerely,


DONALD M. DAVIS

Attachment: Portion of Final EIR Parking Analysis (Page 3.3-42)

cc: (Via E-Mail only)Dr. Michael BrophyVice President Jim ReevesJoel Rojas, Community DevelopmentDirectorTom Odom, Public Works DirectorCarol Lynch, City Attorney

1-66

ATTACHMENT

1-67

Marymount College Facilities Expansion ProjectBachelor of Arts Degree Program

Environmental Impact Report Appendix D

Table 3.3-43Mitigated Forecast Parking Demand Based on Observed Parking Ratio and RPVMC

7New Employees/Facully1

793 Students• 543 M Program students • 0.57 parked vehicles/student. 250 BA Program students • 0.57 parked vehicles/student •1.43 multiplier

5 Net New Student Seats (City Code: 1parking space per 5student·seats)2

Subtotal Forecast Parking Spaces Required

Mitigation Measure: Parking Management Strategy (11%Reduction applied to 519 demand)

Total Forecast Parking Spaces Required

Parking Spaces Provided (343 existing +120 added byproposed project) 3

4

310204

519

462

Parking SurplusfDeficiency +11• Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code for Colleges and Universities for employee/faculty category.2 • Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code for Colleges and Universities.3 . Based on site plan (Rasmussen and Associates, November 2005).

SA Program Existing Plus Project Parking Mitigation Measures:

TR-5 Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall institute, to thesatisfaction of the Director of Planning, BUilding, and Code Enforcement and thePublic Works Director, parking management strategies to reduce weekday Collegerelated parking demand by the following values:

• 11 percent or greater for student enrollment between 744 and 793;• 6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;• 0 percent or greater for student enrollment of 693 or less.

Potential parking management strategies may include, but are not limited to, thefollowing:

• Provision of "carpool only" parking spaces;• Implementation of parking pricing for campus parking permits;• Utilization of remote parking;• Provision of increased shuttle services;• Offering financial incentives;• Implementation of restrictions on parking allowed by residents of the Palos

Verdes North Facility.

Public Review Draft • January 2010 3.3·42 Traffic and Circulation

1-68

·..

September 29,2011

Director of Environmental ServicesCity of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275-5391

.'

Marymount College is submitting certification of its enrollment at the RPV campus as requiredby the City ofRancho Palos Verdes:

~ Total enrollment for Fall 2011 is:o 786 Day College students including 8 students in upper division

. baccalaureate course worko . 98 Evening College students

Respectfully submitted,

~ -President. Marymount College

c: Vice President for Finance and Administration, James Reeves

1-69

of8

Ara Mihranian


Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 7:29 PM

To: Ara Mihranian

Cc: Joel Rojas; Carolyn Lehr; [email protected]

SUbject: Fwd: Re: Fw: Marymount College - Time Extension Clarification Letter

Attachments: Constrtuction Schedule Summer 2012 photo.JPG; IMG_0006.jpg; Exhibit3 8IMG_0005.jpg; RPVEnrollment Report 9.29.11.pdf; Constrtuction Schedule Summer 2012 photo.JPG; IMG_0006.jpg;Exhibit3 8IMG_0005.jpg; RPV Enrollment Report 9.29.11.pdf

Ara

> As you know, I am very concerned that Staff and the Council will becomeimmersed ifl the minutiae of the diversionary issues raised by the Collegerather than backing off to take stock of just where this College has led themso far. But first things first:

The College's tricky request to extend Phase One includes a request toextend Phase Two Condition 60 (b) requested in Paragraph One, of Davis'sJuly 16, 2012 letter of "Clarification". Clarification, my foot! That Phase Twoextension should categorically be denied and tabled to await any resultspending from a possible one year extension of Phase One.>> The" big picture" revolves around the very simple but incomplete threemonth construction (Condition 60 (an specified and shown in the College'sown Exhibit 3-8 Gannt Chart in the EIR that depicts Phase One (Co(ldition 60(a», construction/excavation as a three month project over the summerbreak when Classes are not in session.

The College, in responding to prior City requests (March, 2011) to build theremaining 120 parking spaces ASAP, previously told the City that such (late,out of sequence) construction and excavation would not be possible whileclasses were in session. Now that tune has changed, 180 degrees!

In his latest "doublespeak" letters of June 26 and July 16, 2012, the Collegerepresentative (Donald Davis) goes directly against these prior reservationsand the EIR-approved plan (Exhibit 3-8) for Phase One, proposing tocomplete those components after the summer months when classes will be insession. "Just Stay the Course" is his new mantra. We don't need to establishany new precedent in these matters that will come back and bite the City inthe future.

But that is just the beginning of these problems brought on by the failure ofthis College to act with due diligence in proceeding to obtain necessary and

8/29/2012 1-70

of8

well-known approvals for the "Minor modification of a 120 space parking lot.

In his letter of July 16, 2012, Attorney Davis reprises one of the most disrespectfuland misleading statements I have ever seen from what is supposed to be an eliteCollege representative. "At the time of our application, the College was reasonablyoptimistic that such work (the parking lot) would be completed by September 30,2012, absent "unforeseen circumstances beyond Marymount's control [that would]prevent the timely commencement or completion of such work."

That is a disrespectful characterization that flies in the face of his April 17th answerto Councilwoman Brooks regarding the College's prospects for completion of this"Minor Modification" by September 30,2012. "Absolutely" was Davis's April 17th,2012 answer. No ifs, ands or buts about it. No "reasonably confident" qualificationthen as now being put forth. Isn't this latest example virtually just a bald-faced lie tonow sympathetically characterize the required CDFG and ACOE site approvals forMitigation Measures B10-1,2 & 3 as either an unforeseen or unforeseeablecircumstance when the College had been specifically forewarned months earlier ofsuch possible issues based upon the City's prior experience years ago with theCDFG and ACOE during permitting for the San Ramon Canyon Project. It is a factthat the College has been fully aware of these requirements for years, beginningwith their approval of the Entitlements they signed on August 23, 2012. No "sobstory" here!

Then, when you actually read those BIO Mitigation Measures, it becomesincreasing obvious that there is a two-step process involved. First to determine ifthese agencies claim jurisdiction over the affected area where required drainagefeatures are needed, and then, and second, to proceed diligently toobtain whateverpermitting may govern. The College failed miserably here. They literally had yearsto prepare and get these issues settled in preparation for construction permitting.

The fact remains that the College failed to take this advance warning adviceseriously. If you take a look at the Construction Bulletin display (picture attached)at the College entrance, the start was projected for June 1, 2012 with completionjust 75 days later by August 14th, 2012. Furthermore, the College publiclyconducted a groundbreaking ceremony for this Project on May 16th, 2012, but, upto June 20,2012, failed to even alert the City as to the recently-disclosed difficultieswith obtaining those required permit approvals from the CDFG and ACOE.

The actual difficulties with these approvals were absolutely foreseeable as well asexplicitly foreseen in this case, but not timely acted upon by the College who hasthe sole responsibility for obtaining these key approvals on a timely basis.

On a directly related matter, because the College has requested permission fromthe City to now "Stay the Course" with this construction beyond their entitlementcutoff date of September 30, 2012; that clock has run out. But you may recall that

8/29/2012 1-71

of8

the College was singing a different tune in their October 31, 2011 letter regardingparking issues, offering to construct a temporary lot in the interim if thepermanent lot could not be finished in time by the expiration deadline.

That circumstance has now come to pass, and the City should take this offerseriously in generating recommendations for the forthcoming August 7, 2012 CityCouncil Meeting. But that extension depends upon the College first being in fullcompliance with their existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures, and theyare not. Nor is their April 11, 2012 request for extension fully revealing of the factsbehind the apparent lack of necessary funds to complete Phase One (Condition 60(a) components by the deadline.

As you know, the RPVMC Code requirement for extension specifiescircumstances beyond the control of the applicant, certainly not the fact in thisinstance. The College had plenty of funding but voluntarily chose to spend thosefunds at other sites instead, including at least $2 Million in an abortive attempt tobypass RPVMC and the previously approved June 2010 Entitlements throughpassage of Measure P. That failed. Measure P should not now be resurrected inpractice by allowing the College to effectively bypass their own agreements.

> For example, -aotual enrollment claimed by the College and reported to the Cityfar exceeds the maximum 793 allowed. The Fall 2011 Enrollment report(attached) reported a total of 884 enrolled students combined in theAAand BAprograms (8 in the upper division), but used smoke and mirrors to conceal that fact by renaming the required reporting categories as "Day College students" and"Evening College students". The studied and doculliented EIR and Conditions ofApproval included Operational Classroom hours from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM therebyautomatically precluding such aunilateral and meaningless distinction when -reporting student enrollments.

Further, of the total 884 reported in that Fall 2011 College report, only 8 weredisclosed as being in the "upper division", presumably in the BA program leavingthe remaining 876 as AA enrolled students, far above the allowed maximumenrollment studied. At the same time, Marymount College reported 923 total AA andBA undergraduates enrolled to the National Center for Education Statistics(NCES) and 935 degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled to the prestigiousColiegeBoard. And the College's enrollment is now virtually out of control andclimbing according to recent (June 7,2012 reports featuring the College Presidentattached) at 1,000 or more at the RPV campus envisioned for this fall.

To set this in perspective, If the 793 max stated in the EIR required 463 parkingspaces per the EIR as studied, then 940 requires more, or 548 spaces (pro rata).Why commiserate just over these failed 120 parking lot spaces (as the Collegewould like to divert you) when you know that another 86 spaces (pro rata) are stillneeded just to keep pace with the admitted and publicly disclosed increase in

8/29/2012 1-72

of8

enrollment to 940+?>So, please keep in mind that the College is not in Compliance with itsenrollment cap. Period. Don't lose sight of that, and they need at least another 86parking spaces just to keep pace with the 940.

And please do not make excuses for another of the College's disservice to the truth.The EIR never studied Traffic and Parking impacts for a combined Weekdaymaximum of 943 students as claimed now by the College. There were, however,separate Traffic and Parking studies for 150 Weekend College enrollees whichproduced additional Traffic totaling 888 trips and 131 more required parking spaces(Appendix D Tables 3.3-4 and 3.3-42 respectively) which represents an increase inTraffic of 46% over the studied 1,931 Weekday trips for 793 students in Table 3.312, and a 28 percent increase in parking spaces over the 462 spaces shown inTable 3.3-43. There never was any other studied Traffic and Parking exhibit thatincluded anything like 943 or so "Weekday" enrolled students. Take a look at theseAppendix D Tables for yourself. Let's not do a sne'aky new EIR by stealth as theCollege is seemingly requesting by its actions and inactions.>Then there is the simple matter of non-compliance with Mitigation MeasureLU..1, the annual required Athletic Conference Sports Program Reporting. Araanswered that the College had not submitted this report last July 1st and I doubtthat they have submitted any since, including this July 1st, 2012.

And, where is the compliance with RPVMC section 17.11.140 regarding lowincome housing now that the College has admitted adding more staff (June 7,2012 EasyReader) which will now require implementation of this low incomehousing code requirement. They previously were below the 10 new employeesincrease necessary (7) and now must be well over that limit exemption. Simplemath indicates that they will have added at least another 17 new faculty/supportstaff on a pro-rata basis to maintain a 15/1 student teacher ratio at 940 students.That Code Section is now activated and should be complied with. As you know, theEIR allowed for a total F/S of 222 which is now highly suspect and well in excess ofthat allowance. Check it out!

We are now looking at a potential disaster for the City regarding any extensionagreement under these most undeserving of circumstances.

It is public information that the College's so-called plight of not having enoughfunding to proceed with Condition 60 (a) components, is one of its own making, aself-imposed "hardship" along the Lines of the San Marino v. Catholic Church case.

There is no disputing the fact that from the from the very beginning (August 23,2010) the College was actively seeking to nullify their approved Conditions andspent upwards of $2 Million to pass Measure P. Where is that accounted for in

8/29/2012 1-73

of8

Davis's April 11, 2012 letter? It is not!

We also know for a fact that they had available another $600 k to construct theCecilia Hall Fume Hood Additions (April 1, 2011) which Staff tried to hide as aConsent Calendar item with the Planning Commission. That effort tanked with avoluntary withdrawal by the College later in 2011. They did not claim lack offunding as a reason.

Then we have the present situation where the College "forgot" a $2.5 Millionupgrade for basic Utilities, and then announced that the 120 space added parkingwould also cost $2.5 Million, matched again by another $2.5 Million for an expandedAthletic Playing Field yet to be even properly applied for, 'and for good measure,held a ground-breaking ceremony for a total of these three projects that totaled $7.5Million six days after announcing their intentions to create that new Field this yearwithout ever submitting a formal application. In January of this year the College wasspecifically advised that any such field revis·ion would require a separate Hearingand probable newCUP, etc.

So this recent funding ($2 Million + $2.5 Million + $2.5 Million + $2.5 Million) is $9.5Million which supposedly the College does have to proceed with now,is bogus. Andit does not even take into consideration many more millions voluntarily expendedoutside of RPV by the College recently at other "hardship" locations of its'ownchoosing. Therefore, the College's April 11,.2012 claim for an extension ringshollow by any measure, not even including the additional $7 Million alreadyvoluntarily spent at other locations. Were such .expenditures actually a "hardship"under terms of.the RPVMC? I don't think so.

Bottom line is a recommendation to allow "progress; 1.) Extend, Conditionally, theCondition 60 (a)time line one year, pending demonstration by the College of fullcompliance with all the other Conditions of approval and Mitigations granted to and

.accepted by the College. The added one-year extension clock starts with theapproval and extends to September 30, 2013. This approval also requires pro-rataadded parking (above) be provided if the College wishes to increase theirenrollment limit above the 793 maximum limit and the City is willing to offer that·potential pending CUP/EIR review. Do not change or extend Phase Two (Condition60 (b) at this time and await results of any extension of Phase One. The College'sconvoluted Phase Two extension request does not fit within or comply with theRPVMC one year extension limitation. And any such Phase Tow extension now ispremature at best.

2.) Approve Special Permit Event items requested only as they were previouslyapproved this past year with no added items until the College regains fullcompliance with their Conditions of Approval after which they may be allowed tore-submit additional Events for approval.

8/29/2012 1-74

0[8

>Jim

> ---- jlkarp <[email protected]> wrote:»> > ----- Original Message ----> > From: Ara Mihranian> > To: jlkarp> > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:04 PM> > Subject: RE: Marymount College - Time Extension Clarification Letter

> > Lois,»> > I agree with the concerns you raise and am working on gathering theinformation. I need to address these concerns at the August 7th meeting.»

·> > Ara

> > From: jlkarp [mailto:[email protected]]> > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:04 PM. ' . . .•

· > > To: .Ara ~ihranian .> > Subject: Re: Marymount College - Time Extension Clarification Letter>;>

> >Ara" ,

»> > This letter does not address the 120 parking ~pace shortage for~012 Fall

·Semester or where construction workers will par.k and the staging plan for theequipment necessary to the construction, if construction is done during the schoolyear. Previously, construction during the school year was impossible according toDon Davis when we asked for construction of a parking lot more than a year ago.What will the city require of the College for Fall 2012 parking due to the shortage of .120 spaces? These items need to be part of this agenda item at the August 7th CityCouncil meeting. It's not just the time extension it is the extreme burden that thiscollege constantly places on the residents who live near by.»»»> > Lois»> > ----- Original Message ----»> > From: Ara Mihranian> > To: jlkarp ; [email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1~ :30 AM

8/29/2012 1-75

f8

> > Subject: Marymount College - Time Extension Clarification Letter

> Hi Lois and Jim,»> > The attached letter was submitted to the City this week from the Collegeproviding clarification on its time extension request.»> > The letter has been provided to the City Council and is posted on the City'swebsite.»> > Let me know if you have any questions.»> > Ara

> > Ara Michael Mihranian»> > Deputy Director of Community Development»> > City of Rancho Palos Verdes»> > 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.»> > Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275»> > 310-544-5228 (telephone)»> > 310-544-5293 (fax)»> > [email protected]»> > 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 PalosVerdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. Theinformation is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorizeddissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this emailin error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.»»»»

8/29/2012 1-76

»> » > ---> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

8/29/2012

Page 80f8

1-77

taft

aS8

/D

oscri

pti

on

Co

n.t

ract

ion

Tas

k~

~.

ifirif

iriIif

ill

Co

nstr

ue

t:N

ow

OI.

ld"o

orP

oo

l.

r:.

t

CJo

4rQ

0.w

Ae.

dem

ICS.•··

ii-.

,~~~-.~~

•.1

_,~

~ri"

i-~-

-.~'

;,~_

··-+

-~

t'S

fte

p_

".

...._

_._

_.•

_..,_

l!:ltortgrFl~tl_

......_

....

,.

,:~..

t1

...

,~."

t!l!!!!'

,..

.I.IC

•...

....

"*

len

bnpr

ovem

ontl

a..

•...

.---·-

,..·_

.._·_

·..·~..

.-·'4--+-~'-~·........l

.._-"-

'..

..

1"

....

.iO

tlntm

NII

!'W

,Bul

ldJi

'l_l,

,LaI

'ld.l

Ie.p

e&

Sit

eP

alli

ng!

:'

I'!'

i-'"

""1-

..--

:---

-.,

-1--

:---

-t--

-,..

..·~--+-

>~

i-

~j

-Ifi

:;

Co

nst

ruct

New

S"l

Idln

f1.j

nLl"

btal

Y,

Ma

inte

na

nce

-an

dA

tble

tic

FlIc

lUty

'.

CO

l'lS

ttuG

t£:h

tlldl

ng,A

ddW

Ol'l

&:F.~

and·

Stu

den

tUni

on.

PH

AS

eI(

YE

AR

1[A

NT

IC'P

AT

E&

2008

J)-

_.

J'L

.~~

.._

._

:..

f•

;I!

!"

.±

fi=:J

~"'----'

~-r-~--~~---"""""""'v--f:----~~'---~-r--~-----·~'-<-.---

-~--,.;.....

~~~~~_A_

---r--

--..

IJ._

'.,

!!!!!.

.•L,_~.

--.~_._

__

•....

;.....

..._

_.•

..~_

.••~_

._

"..

•__

".~

•••t--

-_:t._

-:S

iteD

e_

ho

n,

.;

i!:

!:

,I

'--)

~~.5i:.,~l;;;;.;;

....

~__M

';""-+

..~,._I

_;u~

.j-~

_.t._

..:~~

~;11

1·-

~l:':~i2?9~T

d.nO

tlaa

"'(N

oSUi

idfr

ii··

I;ne

G;;;

;;--

-·-~

;~

i'

I;l:~

•1'T

--i-.-

-~~~=~~=.~=-~0J1hl~=L+-j;-:=~~===~=;[·n={;~

.'.

•N

>'":""

Of.;C

urb

s.P

a¥fn

ga

nd

Str

ipin

gi

.;.

\1

:!

1j

I.,

,.

\:!

..._t

1L.~

.'~.

'.~!

!.9.

.~L.

~!;!

\\f~

~~~D

riv"

.-

--------

.-._

-...

1..

..

'-.

•..r-'

'"'.

.,-.-.

..,.

_.-_

.,j.-

"...~.._

'.•..'

,.,/

,.,"-.

'.••.•

•'.·..•

l··

CQ

nfl

;tn

lct:

Ne

wI:

QfJ

We

tPa

rJd

ng

Lo

t;C

urb

sP

a¥fn

ga

nd

Str

IPin

g!,.

.!',

1I

:!

..

:--

-~X

t9n~

cm.!

!r.

..•

..••.

•...••.

.•.'.

'.•,-----.

.L..,...........:..-~--.-.~-.-----!

..'.

..~:_..

....t.

._._

..;.-.

...-':'

"....-

-L.....

.l-..--..

..,.-...

..-I·..--

----

-'..·...

.....·-

-·-..

..·,..·

··-..

....·...

...i---'-'--l~""

CQ

nll'

tNct

:A

thle

tlC

Fit

lld:

and

Ten

nis

:Fln

eG

rad

e,L

and

$e;

tpe,

i.....,"

i:;

I;

1"

',

...'

..C

o.r

is,

iTJl

nnls

Cou

n.C

on

"..

Ij,!

,l

;

PN

AS

EII

(YE

AR••

IT

G.4

'I_

T(C

IPA

TE

&2

00

.TO

29

12

»fp

_:-.

,,_

..~_:..~

:.it1:\.;.:.....;,4ft.:':"':t.:.-_

:b-.

_.j

".....

·f...

""_f:

!"iF

ln.

Gra

din

gf

.IL

al'...

.f.u

pe

&S

ite

Pav

ing

Co

nst

ruct

tR

esl

de

"ce

-H

all

No

s.1

&2

CO

f1$l

ruct

Su

lld

lng

Ad

dlU

on

lr.

Au

dlt

cll'

iu.w

Fi..

..A

rts

S.t

ud

loa

nd

Adm

lnia

tn!lt

lon/

Adl

Tilll

s-lo

ne.

PH

AS

EII

!(Y

EA

RS

$T

O8

[AN

TIC

IPA

TE

D2

01

3T

OlO

iS}

)"

,_,!t.&f!t~Y!!:

..~~fi,~.Ct~~~m~J!st~h._...

i_h

.

EMM

li,oNM

ENTA

LJM

'PACT

R,EP

ORT

•.-.:

r.>

'...

.','.

....•.

.•.I"

..~.!

~.•rf..:ra

.,.i:lJ.•.~~

.•C,...~~EG..·.

i,·~.~

.•.ITI.E

.•~.,~)(.,•..'.

~.••.A.•...••~."N

.i,PR.•·.

'~.··.~~.tc.•,.T

I~

£111

11I1

1,••

",•

••,8

1••_

,1.1.

co

Nli

lUt.T

tf\l

lltO

O7'

IN1ll

-104

081l

'

bftib

i il3.

.8

1-80

September 29,2011

Director ofEnvirorunental ServicesCity of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275-5391

.'

Marymount College is submitting certification of its enrollment at the RPV campus as requiredby the City of Rancho Palos Verdes:

~ Total enrollment for Fall 2011 is: ,o 786 Day College students including 8 students in upper division

baccalaureate course·worko 98 Evening College students


~ -President, Maryrnount College


1-81

CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION I MARYMOUNT EXPANSIONCCC/ME, Inc.

31115 Ganado Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275phone: 310-541-3197 fax: 310-868-2880 email: [email protected]

June 26, 2012

Joel Rojas, DirectorAra Mihranian, Deputy directorCommunity DevelopmentCity of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

Re: Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project (Time Extension toPlanning Case No. lON2003-00317 Conditional Use Permit - Revision "E"Grading Permit, Variance, Minor exception Permit, and Sign Permit)

Gentlemen:

In conformance with RPVMC 17.86.050, RPV should not be holding ahearing to grant any approvals to Marymount, as they are not in compliance withtheir CUP. By their own admission they have more than 793 students enrolled.They claim to have 900-1000 depending on which reportorpublic statement youhold them to. If there is any question of which enrollment cap number should'apply it is simply solved by reading number 11 of the Conditions of Approval "Inthe event that a Condition of approval is in conflict or is inconsistent with anyMitigation Measure for this project, the more restrictive shall apply." Thereforethey are in non-compliance with #145, TR-4 and TR-5 and TR- 4 is the mostrestrictive. There is insufficient parking and insufficient parking management astestified by staff in a previous staff report and there are many more items noncompliances that could be listed. In the Conditions of Approval numbers 3, 4,and 5 state that Marymount must be in compliance with all Conditions ofApproval and each and every Mitigation. Marymount is not in Compliance!

CCC/ME has been asking for the approved parking lot since March of2011. We were told it was impossible to build during the school year and wemust wait for summer 2012. Now we have been told they will build a parking lotduring the school year. School begins in August and there is no parking lot withthe additional 120 spaces. Parenthetically, if they have 900-1000 student's 120spaces will still be insufficient. Also, if construction takes place simultaneouslywith the students being in session a whole new host of problems arises. Wheredo they stage the construction equipment and park the construction workers toname just a few? Last fall there were 160 student cars on the streets at thebeginning of school. There is no reason that Marymount students should

1-82

inundate our neighborhood only because our City has not held Marymount to thecontract they signed. We have heard excuse, after excuse and lie after lie. It istime to end this charade. Get the cars off the streets!

In the Letter dated July 16, 2012 From Marymount's attorney they areasking for a one year extension for the completion of Phase I and that Phase II tobe completed no later than 6-years from the final approval of Revision "E" to CupNo.9, which is what this hearing is about. That totals more than eight years!Phase III will go beyond the 8-year approval for completion of the entire project.A request to extend the 8-year time limit on this project should be denied. TheCity code allows for a 1-year extension therefore there should be noconsideration of any extension on Phase II or III. Marymount was given 8-yearsto complete this project, which was a precedent setting outside number. Thiswas a contract and must be honored. Any consideration of any additional timebeyond eight years for the construction for the entire project is a completedisregard for the resident of this neighborhood, the City of RPV and should becompletely and unequivocally denied!

In the letter dated April 11, 2012 from Marymount's attorney the college isasking for an extension of time based on the RPVMC 17.60.070, "hardship".Marymount's claim of hardship is not valid. Their hardship is "self- induced". I 'refer to the California Court of Appeals Case "City of San Marino Vs. The RomanCatholic Archbishop of Los Angeles", Marymount's situation is as in this case a"seJf-lnduced" hardship and therefore invalid. Marymount has spent in excess of

-$7 million dollars on other projects in the lastthree-years as quoted by Dr.Brophy in an interview with the Easy Reader in June of 2012. Because the'completion of this approved project, in Rancho Palos Verdes, is not considered ahigh priority to Marymount does not make it a case of hardship under theRPVMC. The non-completion of Phase I in the allotted time is just an indicationof their lack of care, priority and respect for the codes and agreements with RPV.This $7 million dollars spent elsewhere would have gone a long way tocompleting Phase I and would have shown that this project is a priority to them.They will never complete any of this project in a timely manner as long as thisCity Council does not demand adherence to the agreed upon contract tocomplete this project in 8-years. The final date for completion is September 30,2018.

In the Letter dated May 10, 2012 from Marymount's attorney he wishes tomake changes to Revision "E" of their CUP. The athletic field was one of thesubjects of Appendix "0" of the EIR. Removing the tennis courts, from theirspecified location, which was to block balls from entering traffic on Palos VerdesDrive East, is a major component of the plan. There were facts and Findingsmade that retractable nets were not deemed sufficient to keep errant balls out oftraffic. The removal of these courts is a monumental change and an egregiousdisregard to the safety of residents driving on Palos Verdes Drive East. Thesechanges would also involve changes to the grading quantities approved. This

1-83

project was approved with a "balanced on site" grading plan and the newproposed field would countermand those objectives. The exportation of truckloads of dirt that would traverse Palos Verdes Drive East was one of reason for a"balanced on site" project. As part of the approvals on this entire project therewere Findings related to a "balanced on site" grading plan. How do you changethe Findings after the fact and still have an approved project?

We ask you to approve nothing until the college is in compliance withall of the Conditions of Approval and each and every Mitigation. Pleasemake sure that Marymount builds sufficient parking so that the quality of life forthe surrounding residents is maintained. We spent 10-years working out everydetail. Marymount must honor the contract it signed with RPV and complete thisentire project by September 30,2018. The community and the City Council needto move on and not be held hostage by this college.

Yours truly,

Lois Karp.eCC/ME President

1-84

of3

Ara Mihranian


Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:16 PM

To: [email protected]

Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian

Subject: Marymount College's forgotten Promises to RPV

Attachments: Marymount Davis Attached. pdf; RPV Enrollment Report 9.29.11.pdf; IMG.jpg; IMG_0001.jpg;IMG_0006.jpg

To the City Council

On August 3, 2012, the City Council will consider extending MarymountCollege's entitlements for Phase I components.

Such extension is unlike any prior experience with this College that obtained anumber of extensions in 1979 (Fire Dept. changes) and 1980 (Financialarrangements). These are detailed in Appendix C of the EIR and took placewhen RPV City permits were limited to only a single year vs. the 2+ yearsgranted to the College for Phase I improvements.

The College has stated in its extension request of April 11, 2012, that it·facesan unforeseen Financial hardship beyond its control as the required basis (perCity Code) as the rationale for extension. Such claim is false and egregiouson its face since, by the College's own admission, it voluntarily chose toexpend needed Phase I resources of over $10 million on other projects andcampus sites, including expenditures of upwards of $2 million towardspassage of its failed Measure P in November of 2010.

As you know, City Code requires that an applicant be in currentcompliance with existing Conditions of approval before an application foradditional entitlements (or changes) can be processed. Although that was infact the case in 1979 and 1980, it is not the case now even though theCollege publicly promised to comply with all Conditions of Approval andMitigation Measures at the April 17, 2012 City Council Hearing.

The College had made other critical promises which they now seek to avoidand to sidetrack the Council from implementing.

Marymount College promised RPV (Don Davis Letter of October 31, 2011 attached) that if the College is unable to complete the work (expanded on-siteparking areas) within the current CUP schedule (i.e. September 30,2012),and an extension is required, then the College would be prepared to acceptas a condition of such extension, the construction of a temporaryparking area for up to 90 vehicles before the start of the fall term

8/29/2012 1-85

of3

(August 2012). This would "..be fully consistent with the two-year period to provideparking that was incorporated into the City Council's 2010 approval of the project."

"On September 28, 2011, Mr. Mihranian met with representatives of the Collegeand was shown a revised site plan that would allow the College to provideupwards of 500 spaces instead of the 463 currently proposed as part of PhaseI, and was also informed that the College was preparing to submit this modified planto the City."

"Marymount is at full enrollment this semester.."

In further correspondence of June 26, 2012, page 1, "Marymount believes that themost prudent course is to proceed with the work (on the parking lotadditions)".."even if that means (Letter of July 16, 2012 page 2) that some ofwork takes place during the academic year rather than this summer aspreviously anticipated (promised)."

This "stay the course" option is an obvious distraction from reality and completelynuts because, as the College knows, their only available field would then be out ofcommission when parking takes over Castle Field with no real replacementapproved or on the near horizon. Conversely., the temporary parking solution, as 'offered by the College October 31, 2011, would solve both parking and fieldavailability issues through 2013.

During the hearings of April 17, 2012, the City Council was promised by theCollege's representative (Davis) that the College would be in full compliance with all'of its Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures.

That is not the case now: The College has far exceeded its 793 maximumenrollment limit of undergraduate students - as studied in the EIR (Class hours ofoperation 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM), by a substantial margin, as follows;

The College's "interpretation" of "full enrollment" appears to have nothingwhatsoever to do with the required categories of reporting or the 793 student totalmaximum allowed (see Fall Semester report totaling 884 "Day" and "Evening"Students) while contemporaneously reporting even higher undergraduateenrollments of 935 and 923 students (respectively) to key education organizations,including the highly respected College Board and National Center for EducationStatistics (NCES) for that same Fall period (attachments).

Marymount College President Dr. Michael Brophy is prominently featured in anEasyReader June 7,2012 article thatincludes further confirmation of theseexcessive enrollment levels, "..now with enrollment topping 1,000 students". "Whenthe RPV campus reached its 940-student limit (sic - 793) before the beginning oflast year, rather than turn students away, school administrators hired more

8/29/2012 1-86

[3

teachers and spent more than $3 million on a new campus in San Pedro. In aboutfive years, the RPV campus expects to accommodate up to 1,200 students."

As a direct result, the College now has most likely exceeded the 222 Faculty/Staffnumber studied and incorporated into the EIR, as well as triggering the City Codemandated low-income housing required. The College was previously just 3 belowthe 10 trigger amount necessary for such low cost housing implementation.

This is a most disturbing set of circumstances that the City Council is tasked to dealwith effectively. The situation appears to be totally out of control and disrespectfulby the College to the City and nearby residents.

1.) Any extension of entitlements, if granted, should consider only Phase Ientitlements and include measures to stop on-street student parking as theCollege had previously promised. Any Phase II entitlement extension can, asexperience allows, await future approval(s) as appropriate.

2.) New, fully enforceable conditions and limits going forward are needed topreclude the continued stealth enlargement of Colle.ge operations beyondwhat was included, studied and approved in the EIR and associatedResolutions.

Jim Gordon

8/2912012 1-87

BU!(I<E. WILLI,i\fV;S & Sor~ENSI:.N, LU'

444 South Flower Srreet - Suite 2400Los Angeles, California 90071,2953voice 213,236,0600 fax 213236,2700www.bwslaw.com

October 31,2011

Direct No,: 213,236.2702Our File No,; 04693-0005

ddavis@bwslaw,com

VIA E~MAIL & OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Tom Long, MayorMembers of the City CouncilCity of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne BoulevardRancho Palos Verdes, California 90275

Re: REQUEST TO STAY THE PROPOSED IMPROPER MODIFICATIONS TO THEMARYMOUNT COLLEGE CUP REGARDING PARKING

Dear Mayor Long and CouncHmembers:

On behalf of Maryll10unt College, We respectfully-request that the City Council take noaction at its meeting of November 1, 2011 on agenda item No.3 (Marymount College [Purported] Parking Management Strategies) because, as set forth below, (1) the proposedaction in fact seeks to modify the terms and conditions of Marymount's Conditional Use Permit(CUP), (2) the proposed modifications have not been properly noticed in accordance with theCity's Municipal Code and also do not comport with applicable due process requirements, and(3) there is a lack of substantial evidence to support to the proposed modifications to the CUP.

1. THE PROPOSED ACTION SEEKS TO MODIFY THE PARKING CONDITIONS OFMARYMOUNT'SCUP.

Under agenda item No.3, City staff is asking the City Council to "affirm" one or anycombination of three proposed measures "so that a minimum of 90 temporary parking spacesare proVided on the College campus by...January 9,2012." (Staff Report at p.3.) Althoughcouched as "strategies" that the Community Development Director and Public Works Directorhave the purported discretion to implement under the CUP, in reality, the proposed action seeksto amend the terms and conditions of Marymount's CUP, which is readily apparent from a briefreview of the record that led to the Council's approval of Revision "E" to CUP No.9 in 2010,specifically as it pertains to Mitigation Measure TR-5 of the Final EIR (FEIR), which wasrestated as CUP Condition No. 158.

Los Angeles Inland Empire Oakland - Orange County - Palm Desert - Silicon Valley - Ventura County1-88

fJI.W!(L, WILUflivlS & SC>I~I::N:)FN, LEP


Based on observed parking demand at the College, which has historically included legalstreet parking on Palos Verdes Drive East, it was determined that at full enrollment (793students), there would be a peak hour demand for 519 parking spaces. Because the Collegewas proposing to add 120 new spaces beyond the existing 343 spaces (463 spaces total) uponcompletion of Phase' of its campus master plan, the FEIR parking analysis estimated that therewould be a potential deficiency of 56 spaces. (See attached FEIR Table 3.3-43.) In order toaddress'this potential deficiency at build out of the new parking areas, Mitigation MeasureTR-5 was recommended, which included parking management strategies in order to reduceoff-site parking demand following the completion of the additional on-site parking areasin Phase I.

It is abundantly clear from the parking analysis of the approved FEIR that the primaryintent behind t~e parking management strategies in Mitigation Measure TR-5 and thepercentage reductions in demand associated with student enrollment, which terms wererestated in Condition No.158, was to reduce parking demand at or just prior to completion of theexpanded parking areas and not to eliminate all street parking during the interim two-year periodin which the College was permitted to complete Phase I under Condition No. 60. Accordingly,the burdensome and premature "interim" actions that Staff is asking the Council to approvemust be viewed as a modification to the CUP, This is particularly true where, as here, the onlytruly feasible manner to create the 90 additional parking spaces now being demanded withoutimpacting existing and approved campus operations is to create a 30,000 square foot temporaryparking lot on the site of the proposed new athletic field for which construction is scheduled tostart in less than six months. (See Comment NO.4 below regarding the details of this proposedtemporary parking lot.)

The City Council had the opportunity to preclude street parking and to require theconstruction of a temporary parking lot when it approved Revision "E" to the CUP in 2010. TheCouncil chose not to do so at the time, and the CUP cannot now be amended withoutevidentiary support for such a change or in compliance with all applicable due process noticeand hearing reqUirements.

2. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO MARYMOUNT'S CUP HAVE NOT BEENPROPERLY NOTICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE ANDAPPLICABLE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.

A CUP creates certain property rights that may not be modified arbitrarily without causeor without proper notice and a hearing that comports with constitutional rights of due process.(See Bauerv. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.AppAth 1281; Malibu Mountains Recreation, Inc.v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 67 Cal.AppAth 359; Community Development Com. v. City of

1-89

BURKE: V/ILLi/\iv1S D SOI<E+JSF N. U F'


Fort Bragg (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1124; Garavatti v. Fairfax Pfanning Com. (1971) 22Cal.App.3d 145; and City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d657.) Staff, in its rush to modify the CUP not only tramples upon these well-establishedconstitutional principles, but ignores the applicable provisions of the City's own municipal code.

Under Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code sections 17.60.100 and 17.86.060, themodification of any term of a CUP requires at least 10-day's notice and a hearing. No suchnotice was provided to Marymount, which only learned about the proposed City Council actionthrough a list-serve message that was sent by email after regular business hours on Thursday,October 27, 2011 -less than five days prior to the proposed action item on the Council'sagenda, which is not a public hearing.

The proposed action to modify the CUP violates not only Marymount's due processrights, but those of its neighbors as well who should have an opportunity to review and commenton the grading and construction activities associated with the creation of the 30,000 square foot,gO-space temporary parking' lot that staff is requesting the Council mandate construction ofwithin two month's time. (See Scott v. Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541 [neighbors entitled todue process notice on CUP matters].)

Because the City has failed to comply with all applicable due process requirementsassociated with the proposed action to modify Marymount'sCUP, the matter may not beconsidered at the November 1, 2011 meeting, and Marymount will not be sending anyrepresentatives to participate in such an unlawful proceeding. This letter will preserve theCollege's right to challenge any unlawful action that may knowingly and willfully be taken by theCity Council subsequent to this notice of the constitutional infirmities associated with the subjectagenda item.

3. THERE IS A LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT TO THEPROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CUP.

Equally as troubling as the deliberate avoidance of due process protections in thisagenda item is the utter absence of any evidentiary basis to support the proposed modificationof an existing condition/mitigation measure that seeks to "reduce" or "minimize" street parking toone that essentially seeks the eliminate all such lawful street parking before the expandedparking areas are even constructed. According to the staff report, staff has observed amaximum of 70-90 cars parked on the street during peak hours. As the proposed CUPmodification would require the construction of a 90-space temporary parking lot, it is clear thatthe modifications seek to eliminate any such lawful overflow parking.

1-90

EJUf,i<F, W/LUNV1S & SORENSLN, LLP


In order to modify or revoke a validly issued permit, there must be substantial evidenceto support such action. (See City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, supra, 180Cal.App.2d 657, 669 [rejecting city interpretation of its own ordinance that a parking area mustbe constructed before issuance of building permit for a new building].)

What then are the bases for the proposed modification to the CUP? According to thestaff report, there are none other than staff's erroneous and overly aggressive interpretation ofCondition No. 158 as requiring the elimination of any street parking prior to the construction ofthe additional 120 parking spaces in Phase I of the College's master plan, Staff concedes thatthere have been no complaints from any of the property owners abutting the public streetswhere students and visitors to the campus are lawfully parking: "Neither the City nor the Collegehas received complaints form area residents regarding the street parking in front of homes orrelated disturbances." (Staff Report at p,2.) Indeed, in accordance with CUP Condition No.138, Marymount met at the end of September with the designated representatives of theneighboring homeowner's associations along with City staff to discuss campus operations.None of these HOA representatives called for the elimination of street parking near theMarymount campus or demanded that the City take any special action with respect to streetparking particularly of the nature being proposed here by staff in their attempt to modify theCUP. 1

Staff's contention that the parking management strategies utilized to date by the Collegehave not been effective is equally untenable in light of the findings made the Coul1cil in the FinalEIR. As noted above, it was assumed that there would be a demand for 519 parking spaceswith full enrollment of 793 students, which would result in a deficiency of 176 spaces until the120 additional parking spaces were constructed by September 2012. Marymount is at fUllenrollment this semester, and yet the highest number of vehicles counted on the streets (90) isabout 50% less than forecast deficiency of spaces (176). While Marymount is continuing towork towards reducing this number further (and Marymount believes current peak overflow ismore in the range of 50 vehicles), it cannot be said that what it has been done to date to reduceparking demand has been ineffective, particularly where, as here, there is no evidence that thesituation is creating a pUblic nuisance to the level that would justify the proposed elimination alllegal street parking. In the absence of such substantial evidence, the City Council must rejectthe proposed modifications to the CUP.

1 Although this meeting took place over one month ago, City staff, to Marymount's knowledge,has never provided the City Council with a report on this meeting as required by Condition No.138.

1-91

BURkE. WILLIAMS [, SORENSEN. l.l.P


4. THE COUNCIL SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ANY SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION TOTHE CUP PARKING CONDITIONS UNTIL IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COLLEGE ISUNABLE TO TIMELY COMPLETE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS.

The staff report omits two key interactions between the College and City staff. OnSeptember 28, 2011, Mr. Mihranian met with representatives of the College and was shown arevised site plan that would allow the College to provide upwards of 500 spaces instead of the463 currently proposed as part of Phase I, and was also informed that the College waspreparing to submit this modified plan to the City. On October 25,2011, City staff andrepresentatives of the College had a conference call to explore additional parking managementstrategies, Staff suggested that the College's faculty could be made to park in San Pedro andtake a shuttle to the campus, to which the College's representatives told staff in no uncertainterms that such a measure was not feasible because the majority of the teaching staff areadjunct faculty who teach at multiple campus and operate on very tight schedules. As SUCh, theonly potentially feasible strategy to provide additional interim parking appeared to be thecreation of a temporary lot on the undeveloped portion of the campus.2 The College'srepresentatives told City staff that the College would look into the temporary lot and get back·tostaff at the earliest opportunity (not knowing that staff had already made up its mind to imposeseveral new conditions and was scheduling the matter for City Council action at this meeting):

On October 28,2011, the College's project architect was advised by a civll engineeringfirm that the construction of a temporary lot of approximately 30,000 square feet sufficient tohold approximately 90 vehicles could potentially be constructed in the unimproved western areaof the campus where the new athletic field is to be located and would cost around $75,000 (notincluding any permittlng or processing fees or stormwater mitigation measures that could raisethe costs to upwards of $100,000). A good portion of this work (e.g., gravel, drainage, etc.)would need to be removed and therefore would be wasted when the College proceeds withPhase I of its campus master plan ..

At this time, the College is working diligently towards the goal of proceeding with Phase Inext summer, which would include the construction of the expanded on-site parking areas. Ifthe College is unable to complete the work within the current CUP schedule (Le., September2012), and an extension is required, then the College would be prepared to accept as acondition to such extension, the construction of a temporary parking area for up to 90 vehiclesbefore the start of the fall term next year (August 2012). This would avoid any potentially

1 Staff's suggestions to convert the existing athletic field or to convert its basketball and tenniscourts into parking lots were also deemed not feasible or desirable during the call because ofthe negative impact on existing programs. The so-called "valet parking" strategy was notmentioned by staff during the call, but as conceded in the letter sent to the College following day(see letter dated 10/26/11 at pA), it cannot independently achieve staff's proposed modificationto the CUP to eliminate all street parking near the campus.

1-92

BURKE. WILLIAMS [, SORENSEN. LLP


wasteful expenditures and would be fully consistent with the two-year period to provide suchparking that was incorporated into the City Council's 2010 approval of the project.

In closing, Marymount is disappointed by the precipitous recommendation being madeby staff to modify Marymount's CUP in the manner proposed. For the reasons set forth above,the College respectfully requests that the City Council refrain from such action.

Sincerely,


'"

DONALD M. DAVIS

Attachment: Portion of Final EIR Parking Analysis (Page 3.3-42)

cc: (Via E-Mail only)Dr. Michael BrophyVice President Jim ReevesJoel Rojas, Community Development DirectorTom Odom, Public Works DirectorCarol Lynch, City Attorney

1-93

ATTACHMENT

1-94

Marymount College Facilities Expansion ProjectBachelor of Arts Degree Program

Environmental Impact Report Appendix D

Table 3.3-43Mitigated Forecast Parking Demand Based on Observed Parking Ratio and RPVMC

7New Employees/Faculty1

793 Students. 543 M Program students • 0.57 parked vehicles/student• 250 SA Program students • 0,57 parked vehicles/student •1.43 multiplier

5 Net New Student Seats {City Code: 1parking space per 5studeni seats)2

Subtotal Forecast Parking Spaces Required

Mitigation Measure: Parking Management Strategy (11%Reduction applied to 519 demand)

Total Forecast Parking Spaces Required

Parking Spaces Provided (343 existing + 120 added byproposed project) 3

4

310204

519

462

Parking SurpluslDeficiency +1

1• Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code ror Colleges and Universities for employee/faculty category.2• Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code for Colleges and Universities.3 . Based on site Ian Rasmussen and Associates, November 2005 .

SA Program Existing Plus Project Parking Mitigation Measures:

TR-5 Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall institute, to thesatisfaction of the Director of Planning, BUilding, and Code Enforcement and thePublic Works Director, parking management strategies to reduce weekday Collegerelated parking demand by the following values:

• 11 percent or greater for student enrollment between 744 and 793;• 6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;• 0 percent or greater for student enrollment of 693 or less.

Potential parking management strategies may include, but are not limited to, thefollowing:

• Provision of "carpool only" parking spaces;• Implementation of parking pricing for campus parking permits;• Utilization of remote parking;• Provision of increased shuttle services;• Offering financial incentives;• Implementation of restrictions on parking allowed by residents of the Palos

Verdes North Facility.

Public Review Draft· January 2010 3.3-42 Traffic and Circulation

1-95

..,

September 29,2011

Director of Enviromnental ServicesCity of Rancho Palos Verdes30940 Hawthorne Blvd.

" ,

Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275-5391

.'

Marymount College is submitting'certification of its enrollment at the RPV campus as requiredby the City ofRancho Palos Verdes:

~ Total enrollment for Fall 2011 is: ,o 786 Day College students including 8 students in upper division

baccalaureate course worko 98 Evening College students


~------President, Marymount College


1-96

College Search - Marymount College Palos Verdes California Page lof2

College Planning YouCanGol SAT(SATI AP(Advance<l Placement) PSATINMSQT CLEf> For Educators

MoreFind Colleges, Advice and More

ShareThis

Search

Make a Plan

Marymount College Palos Verdes California+ Add toMyColleg\l List

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Print complete college profile

At a Glal'lce

DeacUil'les

Major'S I';> learningEnvironment

Campus Ute

Applying

SmaUschoolTotal undergraduatesFirst-lime degree-seeking fresl'imen

Oegree-seeldng undergrads

Graduate enrollment

Geographic Location30 milEl$ from Los Angeles.

940

426

935

Residential Campus

Suburban Setting

Large Town

Student Sody Housing, Activities Sports Support Service

For TransferStUdents

For InternationalStudents

MORE TO £XPLORE

Visitlnga cQllege cao give.you a feel for Ufe on campus.

Many students sev that a e<lliege's size, lllCation and campus "personality" were major factorsIn their final choice. A college's student bOdy fsan Important part of that equation. Ask yOurselfthese questions: Are you interested in being part Of a diverse community with people frommany different backgrounds? Do you want to be around students who era interested in ...ports,atudylng, politics or something else?

COlllparll Colleg&s

Find SllIlliar Colleges

Frt1quenllj/ AskeclQuestl"ns

Average Age

19All students

19Full time students

Race/Ethnicity

Part-TimeStudents

1%Gender In-state and Out of State

HI, James.

PLEASE NOTE: College Search profiles are based primarily on informatiQflsupplied by the r::Qlleg<ls../hllmsel\les in [9$!lQnseJp the. College Soard'l'{AnmJf\1

agencias.IS8 ,confirjijl~~fS college really like? Students and experts share the

oUegesi~~de SC<lif!lh'f{~ml~B~~Sto Find colleges toocolle~

your lis

htlps:/lbigfuture.coIJegeboard.org/college-university-searchimarymount-college-palos-verd... 7122120121-97

College Navigator - Marymount College

LEG

Page 1 of 4

MarymoI.Jnt College30800 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-6299

General information:Website:Type:Awards offered:

campus si)ttlng:Campus housing:Student population:Student-to-facully ratio:

(31 0) 377-5501www.rnarvmounlpv,edu4-year, primarily aSsociate's, Private not-for-profitAssociate's degreeBachelor's degreeSuburb: LargeYes923 (all undergraduate)15 to 1

IPEDS ID: 118041OPE ID; ()1047400

(7) GeNERAL INFORMA1'101\1

Admissions w.ttW,marym9untpv,edufadmissionApply Online www,marvmgunlllll.§llIJlilQQ!Y:.2D.!1l.l$lFinancial Aid www.marvmounlpv,edulfinanclal-aidNet Plice Calculatorwww.marymm!plllll §llufut!atlcjal-aid

Mission StatementWlWw,mllrwnount{)v,edu/al:)I:;utlmarymoynt-coi/fme-mission

SpeelalLeamlng OpportunltlesStUdy abroad

Student ServicesRemedial servicesAcademic/career counseling serviceEmployment services for students

Credit AccePtedDual creditAdvanced placement (AP) credits

Camegie ClassificationAsl\oclale's··Private NOI-for-proflt

RellQious AffiliationRoman Catholic

Federal AidEligible stUdents may receive Pell Grants and otherfederal aid (e.g. Direct Loans),

Undergraduate studen~enrolled who areformally registered with offICe of disability'services12%

FACULTY AND GRADUATE ASSiSTANTS BY PRIMARY FUNCTION, FALL 2011

Total faculty

Instructional

ResearCh and public service

Total graduate assistants

Instructional

Research and public service

TUITION, FEES, AND ESTIMATeD STUDENT EXPENSES

fiNANCIAL AID

(j) NET PRICE

FULL TIME

33

33

o

PART TIME

87

87

Q

ooo

LLMEIIIT (ALL UNDERGRADUATE)

AiTENDANCESTATUS

hftp:/Inces.ed.gov/collegenavigator!?id=118541 7/2212012

1-98

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES · 9/4/2012 · city of rancho palos verdes memorandum council members...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES · 9/4/2012 · city of rancho palos verdes memorandum council members...