Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_05_07_01_Marymount_Expansion_Project PUBLIC HEARING Date: May 7, 2013 Subject: Marymount California University Facilities Expansion Project – Extension of the Time Period for Completion of Phase 1 (CASE NO. ZON2003-00317) Subject Property: 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East 1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Brooks 2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Deputy Director of Community Development Mihranian 4. Public Testimony: Appellant: Applicant: Marymount California University 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Brooks 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: CITY OF 4o RANCHO PALOS VERDES 1-1 MEMORANDUM OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELO DIRECTOR DATE:MAY 7,2013 SUBJECT:MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT -EXTENSION OF THE TIME PERIOD FOR COMPLETION OF PHASE 1 (CASE NO. ZON2003-00317)I 30800 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST REVIEWED BY:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER 09-- Project Manager:Ara Mihranian.Deputy Director of Community Developm~ RECOMMENDATION 1.Receive and file a report on the construction status of the Parking Lot Expansion Project; 2.Extend the use of the temporary parking lot until Staff determines that the permanent parking lot has been completed;and, 3.Adopt Resolution No.2013-XX denying the Phase 1 extension request,thereby extending the use of the temporary parking lot until the permanent parking lot has been completed,voiding all the construction related planning entitlements for Phase 1 of the Facilities Expansion Project with the exception of the permanent Parking Lot Expansion Project,which is a vested construction project that is currently underway,and documenting the City Council's decision on August 2, 2011,which clarified the operational conditions that remain in effect. 1-2 MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY -PHASE 1 TIME EXTENSION MAY 7,2013 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND According to Condition of Approval No.60a of the Marymount Facilities Expansion Project CUP approved by the City Council on June 1,2010,Phase 1 consists of demolition of existing buildings,grading including the installation of drainage and water quality facilities,installation of·utilities,the construction of new parking areas,athletic field,tennis courts and the installation of temporary modular buildings.According to Condition No.60a,Phase 1 was to be completed by September 30,2012,unless a time extension is granted by the City Council. On April 11,2012,Marymount submitted a written request for a one year extension to the construction completion time periods for all three construction phases established by the 2010 CUP (see attachment).On July 16,2012,Marymount submitted a supplemental letter (see attachment)narrowing its extension request to a one year time extension to complete Phase 1 and a one year time extension to complete Phase 2.No extension to the total 3-year construction activity or the overall 8-year construction time frame for Phases 1,2 and 3 as described in Condition No.60d was requested. On September 4,2012,the City Council,after considering public testimony and relevant information particularly on the construction status of the permanent parking lot,agreed to extend the planning entitlements and construction completion deadline for Phase 1 from September 30,2012 to December 18,2012,and denied without prejudice extending the time period for Phase 2.On December 18,2012,the Council decided it would consider extending the deadline for Phase 1 up to September 30,2013,based on the construction progress of the new permanent parking lot.At that meeting,the City Council extended the planning entitlements and construction completion deadline for Phase 1 to May 7,2013. The Council is now being asked to consider a further extension of the completion deadline for Phase 1 of the Facilities Expansion Project (also referred to as the Master Campus Plan)to September 30,3013,as originally requested by Marymount. DISCUSSION Given that the City Council has agreed to tie the progress/completion of the new permanent parking lot with the Phase 1 extension request,Staff has divided the discussion of this issue into three separate recommendations as described below. 1.Receive and file a report on the construction status of the Parking Lot Expansion Project On January 8,2013,the City issued Marymount a Grading Permit for the Parking Lot Expansion Project.On January 16th ,Marymount's grading contractor informed the City that grading could not occur on the site of the expanded parking lot for approximately 30 days because the site needed to be irrigated due to the dry soil condition.Therefore, grading for the parking lot did not commence until the week of February 11 th thus causing an approximate one month delay in the construction schedule from what was 1-3 MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY -PHASE 1 TIME EXTENSION MAY 7,2013 PAGE 3 described at the December 18th meeting.However,construction on the parking lot commenced in the areas adjacent to the existing Administration Building and Health Center building.During the course of construction,the City occasionally received public complaints regarding certain construction activities,such as truck deliveries,haul routes,dust,etc.,but these issues were addressed immediately by the University,after being brought to their attention by Staff. At this time,based on field observations and discussions with Marymount's construction team,construction of the parking lot is anticipated to be completed around May 17, 2013.In fact,Marymount intends to conduct its upcoming May 11 th graduation ceremony on the location of the new expanded parking lot.A Certificate of Completion (including final City inspection)will not be issued until City Staff confirms that the parking lot was built in accordance to the approved plans and the Conditions of Approval have been fulfilled,such as the installation of the parking lot lighting, surrounding landscaping,parking stall striping,way-finding signs,along with the removal of the temporary construction fencing and the s0undJ}F00f blanket from the adjoining Academic Building. 2.Extend the use of the Temporary Parking Lot until the permanent parking lot is determined to be completed by Staff. On August 7,2012,the City Council affirmed the Community Development Director's determination to issue a Temporary Parking Lot Permit (Permit)as part of the University's Parking Management Strategies for the 2012 -2013 academic year,so that a temporary parking lot could be constructed to help alleviate student street parking. On August 16,2012,the Community Development Director issued the University a Temporary Parking Lot Permit allowing the development of a temporary gravel parking lot to accommodate 101 parking spaces.The temporary gravel lot was constructed and operational by August 27,2012 (the first day of the fall 2012 term). The Permit issued by the Community Development Director for the temporary parking lot includes conditions to minimize impacts to neighboring properties,such as regulating the hours of operation (daytime use only)and minimizing dust impacts,among other things.Additionally,Condition NO.4 of the Temporary Parking Lot Permit states: The temporary parking lot shall no longer be operational once the permanent parking lot,approved by the City Council on April 17,2012,is constructed and deemed acceptable by City Staff or 180 days from August 16,2012 (City approval of the Temporary Parking Lot Permit),whichever occurs first.The City Council,at a duly noticed public meeting,may extend the use of the temporary gravel parking lot beyond this time period provided that the temporary gravel parking lot does not remain for more than a total of three years from the original date of approval (August 16,2012).Such extension requests shall be submitted prior to any expiration. Upon notification from the City that the temporary gravel parking lot is no "longer necessary,the College shall immediately cease use of the temporary gravel 1-4 MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY -PHASE 1 TIME EXTENSION MAY 7,2013 PAGE 4 parking lot.Prior to removing the temporary gravel parking lot,the College shall be responsible for obtaining all appropriate approvals from the City.Once all City approvals have been obtained and prior to refunding the bond or trust deposit, the College shall have 30-days,from the date of City authorization,to remove the temporary gravel parking lot. Based on the above,a time extension request should have been filed by Marymount for the continued use of the Temporary Parking Lot Permit beyond February 16,2013 (180 days from August 16,2012).Due to the delays in commencing construction of the permanent parking lot,together with the City's desire to minimize student street parking, Staff did not believe there was a compelling reason to order Marymount to cease using the temporary parking lot.In light of the anticipated May 17,2013 completion date for the permanent expanded parking lot,Staff is recommending that the City Council allow the continued use of the temporary parking lot,pursuant to Condition NO.4 cited above, until Staff determines that the permanent parking lot has been completed.Once the City signs off on tAe permanent parking lot,Marymount wiU be required to restore the site where the temporary parking lot is located to its pre-existing condition by removing the temporary gravel parking lot within 30-days from the City's notice to cease using the temporary parking lot.Additionally,Staff would like to report that it is currently working with Marymount to see if the gravel base material from the temporary parking lot can be repurposed at one of the City's gravel lots (Le.Abalone Cove or Lower Point Vicente). Staff will update the Council and the public on the discontinued use and dismantling of the temporary gravel parking lot. 3.Deny the Phase 1 extension request,thereby.voiding all the planning entitlements for Phase 1 of the Facilities Expansion Project with the exception of the Parking Lot Expansion Project which is a vested construction project currently underway. On December 18,2012,the City Council extended the construction and completion deadline for Phase 1 to May 7,2013.That evening the Council indicated that it would consider extending Phase 1 up to September 30,2013 (a full one year)as originally requested by Marymount based on the construction progress of the revised permanent Parking Lot Expansion Project approved by the City Council on April 17,2012.As discussed earlier,the Parking Lot Expansion Project is anticipated to be completed around May 1ih .According to Condition No.60a,the following project components remain to be completed if Phase 1 is extended: •Demolition of existing buildings; •Grading including the installation of drainage and water quality facilities (excluding work completed for the expanded parking lot but for new buildings such as the Athletic Facility,the Library,the Faculty Building,Main Pedestrian Walkway/Emergency Access Road,and drainage facilities throughout the campus); •Installation of utilities (underground infrastructure for new buildings and facilities); •Construction of new parking areas (the additional unconstructed parking areas approved by the City Council in 2010); 1-5 MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY -PHASE 1 TIME EXTENSION MAY 7,2013 PAGES •Construction of the Athletic Field and Tennis Courts;and, •Installation of temporary modular buildings. At this time,the University has not submitted any plans for any of the above project components nor has the University given any indication to Staff that intends to construct the above improvements if Phase 1 is extended to September 30,2013.Furthermore, Staff does not believe that all of the project components listed above can be completed within the next five months given the necessary Building and Safety Plan Check process and on-site construction time.Additionally,on October 29,2012,the University submitted a CUP Revision application to reconfigure the 2010 Council-approved Athletic Field which would result in approximately 17,605 cubic yards of exported earth that was originally supposed to be balanced on site.This is because the 201 O-Council approved Grading Plan was designed to be balanced on-site so that excavated earth associated with the pads for the Athletic Building,Library Building,parking lot,Athletic Field,and Tennis Courts would be repurposed as fill material to accommodate campus facilities such as the main pedestrian wa~kway I emergency access road and the remedial grading of the southern slope.Thus,based on Marymount's latest submitted plan,the Campus Master Plan approved by the City Council in 2010 cannot be completed as a balanced on-site grading project without changes to the finished grades approved by the Council in 2010.For these reasons,Staff believes that extending Phase 1 is not warranted. It should be noted that aside from the Marymount Expansion Facilities Project,the Master Plan for St.John Fisher is the only other Institutionally zoned project that was approved by the City Council with construction phasing.According to City records,no time extensions were requested or considered by the City Council for the St.John Fisher project which is currently under construction.Additionally,although not directly related,Terranea was granted a one-time one year time extension by the City Council because the project was appealed to the California Coastal Commission and a decision from the Coastal Commission was still pending at that time.In addition,the planning entitlements for Trump National have also been extended by the City Council as allowed by State's Subdivision Map Act for Tentative Tract Maps. Denying a time extension to Phase 1 will still allow the on-going Parking Lot Expansion Project to proceed because it is considered a vested construction project with active building permits.Accordingly,Staff recommends that the Permanent Parking Lot Expansion Project approved on April 17,2012 be allowed to be completed.Moreover, the 2010 Council-approved Conditions of Approval,which were interpreted by the City Council at its August 2,2011 meeting as regulating the operations of the campus,will remain in full force and effect. Denying a time extension to Phase 1 does not make Phases 2 or 3 null and void as these phases have separate time limits described in Condition Nos.60b and 60c (see attachment).It should be noted that denying the time extension for Phase 1 does not prevent Marymount from submitting a CUP Revision application at any time to pursue any of the project components,or variations thereof,that were part of Phase 1.As such,if Marymount indicates that it would like the City to continue processing its 1-6 MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY -PHASE 1 TIME EXTENSION MAY 7,2013 PAGE 6 currently submitted CUP Revision request to reconfigure the 2010 Council-approved Athletic Field,the City can continue to do so,since this request would now be considered a stand alone application that is no longer tied to Phase 1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Parking Lot Lighting Condition of Approval No.151 requires the University to install an illuminated mock-up for each type of lighting fixture that would be used for the parking lot and walkways. The University installed two mock-up light fixtures consisting of one 42-inch tall bollard light fixture that will be placed along the parking lot driveway and parking lot perimeter and one 10-foot tall light standard that will be placed in the center landscape planter of the parking lot.Staff viewed the illuminated light fixtures in the evening from various vantage points and notified neighbors of the mock-up.Based on Staff's observations, Staff determined the bollard light fixtures to be acceptable but raised a concern with the light intensity,glare and spread of the 10-foot tall parking lot light standard,and therefore suggested modifications be made to the 10-foot tall standard.Staff continues to work with the University to address these related lighting concerns before the light fixtures are installed. Variance Revision Application Fee Waiver Request On January 25,2013,Marymount submitted a Variance Revision application to amend the 2010 Council-approved Athletic Field retractable netting location and paid the filing fee of $4,213 ($4,209 application fee plus $4 data entry fee).On February 26,2013, Marymount submitted a request for the City Council to waive the required filing fee of $4,213 (see attachment). In reviewing Marymount's fee waiver request,it came to City Staff's attention that the filing fee for the Variance Revision should have been $2,104.50 which is half of the $4,209 filing fee.This is because the City Council-adopted Fee Schedule requires half the application fee for project revision requests.As such,the City will be refunding $2,104.50 to Marymount for the over payment (this excludes the $4 data processing fee).In light of this information,Marymount has withdrawn its fee waiver request (see attachment). Public Notification of Tonight's Meeting On April 25,2013,Staff updated the City's website under the Marymount home page and issued a list-serve message to subscribers of the Marymount Facilities Expansion project announcing the various agenda items to be considered at the May yth Council meeting.A follow-up list-serve message was issued announcing the availability of the May 7th City Council Staff Report on the City's website. 1-7 MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY -PHASE 1 TIME EXTENSION MAY 7,2013 PAGE 7 Public Comments Attached for the Council's review are public comments letters associated with the time extension request.It should be noted that some of the comments letters were submitted by Dr.Brophy supporting the time extension request,while other public comments letters are in opposition of granting any further time extensions. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing discussion,Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file a status report on the construction progress of the Parking Lot Expansion Project, extend the use of the temporary parking lot,and deny Marymount's request to extend the Phase 1 deadline,thereby voiding all the construction related planning entitlements related to Phase 1 with the exception of the Parking Lot Expansion Project,which is a vested construction project that is underway.Staff has prepared the attached resolution fer adoption by the City Counoil,wAioA memorializes these actions in addition to clarifying the operational conditions that remain in effect pursuant to the City Council's decision on August 2,2011. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's Recommendation,the City Council may also consider the following alternatives: 1.Grant the University's Phase 1 time extension request until September 30, 2013 (for the remainder of the full one year);or, 2.Grant the University's Phase 1 time extension request to a date certain other than September 30,2013. ATTACHMENTS •Resolution No.2013-XX o Exhibit "A"- April 17,2012 City Council Approved Site Plan for the Parking Lot Expansion Project o Exhibit "B"-Interpretation of Conditions of Approval Matrix •April 11 ,2012 Marymount Time Extension Request Letter •July 16,2012 Marymount Time Extension Request Letter •Condition of Approval No.60 (Construction Phasing) •February 25,2013 Marymount Variance Fee Waiver Request Letter •April 30,2013 Marymount Withdrawal Letter of Variance Fee Waiver Request •Public Comments 1-8 RESOLUTION NO.2013-XX May 7,2013 City Council Meeting Marymount University Facilities Expansion Project Time Extension Request 1-9 RESOLUTION NO.2013-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES THEREBY EXTENDING THE USE OF THE TEMPORARY PARKING LOT UNTIL THE PERMANENT PARKING LOT IS COMPLETED AND DENYING THE PHASE 1 EXTENSION REQUEST,THEREBY VOIDING ALL THE CONSTRUCTION RELATED PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS FOR PHASE 1 OF THE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT,WHICH IS A VESTED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED AND DOCUMENTING THE CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION ON AUGUST 2, 2011,WHICH CLARIFIED THE OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS THAT REMAIN IN EFFECT. WPfEREAS,on June 1,2010,the City Couhcil conditionally approved Planning Case No.ZON2003-00317 for the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project (Project),located on the Marymount campus,which is located at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East;and, WHEREAS,the City Council's approval of the Facilities Expansion Project allowed the modernization of the campus facilities including the demolition and construction of new buildings,such as the gymnasium and library buildings,and site improvements consisting of increasing the parking lot to accommodate 463 parking spaces,relocating the athletic field and tennis courts,and constructing new pedestrian pathways and plazas.Additionally,the Council's approval included allowing the four- year degree college program to be implemented and imposed conditions regulating the operational aspects of the College,such as limiting the hours of operation and a limit on student enrollment to name a few;and, WHEREAS,Condition No.60 of the Council-approved Conditions of Approval for the Facilities Expansion Project allowed the Project to be constructed in 3 phases over an 8 year period,provided that total construction activities do not exceed a total of 36 months.Additionally,Condition No.60a consists of demolition of existing buildings,grading (including the installation of drainage and water quality facilities), installation of utilities,the construction of new parking areas,athletic field,tennis courts and the installation of temporary modular buildings.According to Condition No.60a, Phase 1 was to be completed by September 30,2012 unless a time extension was granted by the City Council;and, WHEREAS,on August 2,2011,the City Council,pursuant to Section 17.78.050,conducted an interpretation hearing for the sole purpose of clarifying the timing and applicability of the June 1,2010 Council-adopted Conditions of Approval to clarify the conditions that apply "now,"as they relate to the operational activities of the University,versus "later,"as they relate to construction-related activities for the Facilities Expansion Project;and, 1-10 WHEREAS,on March 16,2012,in response to the City's requirement, through the Parking Management Strategies,that additional parking be provided on- campus to help alleviate student street parking,Marymount submitted project plans for the Parking Lot Expansion Project.The proposed parking lot expansion is not exactly the same as the Council-approved parking lot but it is proposed in the same general area as the previously-approved location;and, WHEREAS,on April 11 ,2012,Marymount University ("Marymount"or "the University")submitted a written request for a one-year extension to the construction completion time periods for all three construction phases established by the 2010 Council approved Conditions of Approval;and, WHEREAS,on April 17,2012,the City Council,pursuant to Section 17.78.05Q(A)(4)of the RPVMC,approved the expanded parking lot as a minor project modification because it's similar in scope to the original 2010 Council-approved parking lot location and achIeves substantially the same result;and, WHEREAS,on July 16,2012,Marymount submitted a supplemental letter narrowing its extension request to a one year time extension to complete Phase 1 and a one year time extension to complete Phase 2.No extension to the total 3-year construction activity or the overall 8-year construction time frame for Phases 1,2 and 3 as described in Condition No.60d was requested;and, WHEREAS,on August 7,2012,the City Council affirmed the Community Development Director's determination to issue a Temporary Parking Lot Permit (Permit) as part of the University's Parking Management Strategies for the 2012-2013 academic year,so that a temporary parking lot could be constructed to help alleviate student parking on adjacent public streets. WHEREAS,on August 16,2012,the Community Development Director issued the University a Temporary Parking Lot Permit allowing the development of a temporary gravel parking lot to add 101 parking spaces,which was constructed and operational by August 27,2012 (the first day of the fall 2012 term). WHEREAS,on September 4,2012,the City Council,after considering public testimony and relevant information particularly on the construction status of the permanent Parking Lot expansion Project,agreed to extend the planning entitlements and construction completion deadline for Phase 1 from September 30,2012 to December 18,2012 and denied,without prejudice,extending the time period for Phase 2;and, WHEREAS,on October 29,2012,the University submitted a CUP Revision application to reconfigure the 2010 Council-approved Athletic Field which would result in approximately 17,605 cubic yards of exported earth that was originally supposed to be balanced on site as part of the Facilities Expansion Project;and, Resolution No.2013-XX Page 2 of 5 1-11 WHEREAS,on December 18,2012,the Council decided it would consider extending the deadline for Phase 1 up to September 30,2013,based on the construction progress of the new permanent Parking Lot Expansion Project.At that meeting,the City Council extended the planning entitlements and construction completion deadline for Phase 1 to May 7,2013;and, WHEREAS,on January 8,2013,the City issued Marymount a Grading Permit for the permanent Parking Lot Expansion Project;and, WHEREAS,based on field observations and discussions with Marymount's construction team,construction of the permanent parking lot is anticipated to be completed around May 17,2013;and, WHEREAS,on May 7,2013,the City Council held a public hearing to consider a further extension of the completion deadline for Phase 1 of the Facilities Expansion Project to September 30,3013,as originally requested by Marymount: NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.According to Condition No.60a,the following project components of the Facilities Expansion Project remain to be completed if Phase 1 were extended: •Demolition of existing buildings; •Grading including the installation of drainage and water quality facilities (excluding work completed for the expanded parking lot but for new buildings such as the Athletic Facility,the Library,the Faculty Building, Main Pedestrian Walkway/Emergency Access Road,and drainage facilities throughout the campus); •Installation of utilities (underground infrastructure for new buildings and facilities); •Construction of new parking areas (the additional unconstructed parking areas approved by the City Council in 2010); •Construction of the Athletic Field and Tennis Courts;and, •Installation of temporary modular buildings. Section 2.At this time,the University has not submitted any plans for any of the project components set forth in Section 1,other than the Parking Lot expansion project,nor has the University given any indication to Staff that Marymount intends to construct the above improvements,if Phase 1 were extended to September 30,2013. Furthermore,it does not appear to be feasible for Marymount to construct and complete all of the other project components listed above within the next five months,given the necessary Building and Safety Plan Check process and a realistic construction timeline. Resolution No.2013-XX Page 3 of 5 1-12 Section 3.On October 2012,the University submitted a CUP Revision application to reconfigure the 2010 Council-approved Athletic Field which would result in approximately 17,605 cubic yards of exported earth,which was originally supposed to be retained on site as part of the 2010 Council-approved Facilities Expansion Project. This is because the 2010 Council-approved Grading Plan was designed to be balanced on-site so that excavated earth associated with the pads for the Athletic Building, Library Building,parking lot,Athletic Field,and Tennis Courts would be repurposed as fill material to accommodate campus facilities such as the main pedestrian walkway I emergency access road and the remedial grading of the southern slope.Thus,based on Marymount's latest submitted plan,the Campus Master Plan approved by the City Council in 2010 cannot be completed as a balanced on-site grading project without substantial changes to the finished grades approved by the Council in 2010.For these reasons,the City Council finds that extending Phase 1 is not warranted. Section 4.In denying a time extension to Phase 1,the City Council finds that the Parking Lot Expansion Project,as approved by the City Council on April 17,2012, as reflected in the attached Exhibit "A"SifePlan is still allowed to proceed because it is considered a vested construction project with active building permits and is set to be completed on or about May 17,2013.The City Council finds that the construction- related Conditions of Approval that are associated with the Parking Lot Expansion Project,as reflected in the attached Exhibit "B"Interpretation of Conditions of Approvals Matrix approved by the City Council on August 2,2011,shall continue to remain in full force and effect and shall apply to that one remaining aspect of the Phase 1 Facilities Expansion Project. Section 5.Based on the August 2,2011 City Council interpretation hearing on the timing and applicability of the June 1,2010 Council-adopted Conditions of Approval, the City Council is memorializing its prior decision on August 2,2011,and finds that the following "operational"conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "B"Interpretation of Conditions of Approvals Matrix approved by the City Council on August 2,2011 shall remain in full force and effect as they pertain to the operation of the University:1-6,8- 11,15-17,19,42-45,59,96,122,129-146,149-150,153-154,158-160,and 170. Section 6.The denial of the extension of Phase 1 does not affect components of Phases 2 and 3 that are not dependent upon the aspects of Phase 1 which are no longer valid.The City Council finds that in denying an additional time extension to Phase 1 does not render the entirety of Phases 2 and 3 null and void,because these phases have separate time limits as described in Condition Nos.60b,60c and 60d. Thus,the "construction"related conditions that are reflected in the attached Exhibit "B" Interpretation of Conditions of Approvals Matrix approved by the City Council on August 2,2011,which are associated with Phases 2 and 3,shall remain in full force and effect with respect to those phases. Section 7.The City Council finds that in denying the time extension for Phase 1 is without prejudice to,and does not prevent,Marymount from submitting a CUP Revision application at any time to pursue any of the project components,or variations Resolution No.2013-XX Page 4 of 5 1-13 thereof,which previously were part of Phase 1.As such,if Marymount indicates that it would like the City to continue processing its currently submitted CUP Revision request to reconfigure the 2010 Council-approved Athletic Field,the City can continue to do so, since this request would be considered a stand-alone application that is no longer tied to,or part of,Phase 1.Any such subsequent application will be evaluated by the City and will be considered and determined (granted or denied)at a duly noticed public hearing before the City Council. Section 8.The City Council finds that due to the delays in commencing construction of the permanent parking lot,together with the City's desire to minimize student on-street parking and the anticipated May 17,2013 completion date for the permanent expanded parking lot,the temporary parking lot is permitted to continue to be used by Marymount pursuant to Condition No.4 of the Temporary Parking permit until Staff determines that the permanent parking lot has been completed. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this i h day of May 2013. Mayor Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I,Carla Morreale,the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do hereby certify that the above Resolution No.2013-XX was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 7,2013. City Clerk Resolution No.2013-XX Page 5 of 5 1-14 EXHIBIT "A" APRIL 17,2011 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED SITE PLAN PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT 1-15 z w ~. D ~ W 0-:= '-'o ~ ~ '" --~j~ r~l'!KnJ6 " i';i EB -'-'-'~'-,-,-r-,·__,'-"'-".--.. .,-"-""'-" I / ~ \\\\ \ i' .,. .., DG1JP) PARKING CALCULATiON l£r4 i'EST PARK1N6 LOT, FULL !;rIlE,rf GOMPAC-T,10 (14 REGONFf6lJRED.13 ADDED) TOTAL PARKINiSo 5P~, /l'ER """""'" EX15TlNe PARKINeo W ReCOHFIe>URED VISITOR I !>TlDEIfT PARl<IN6 NEW 5TAFFIFACAILT'f PARKING>LOT, FULL51ZE,% COMPAGT,13 RESIDENTIAL NOTE LEGEND H.l.l!IC1ERlORlIl5oHl'lN5>5Ho'U.COt#ORMTOne~E:6T~ 0I'~1lONn~C40~AI-~TlOIl).AU.~LI6NflllIS, ~OOSHlfl..OfDAND~I'_AI:'Jl'TIN6o~ND ORlEIfIEI)~'OE6RQlN)TOPRfVEllT}o'W>tO°IN'OEII6HT5I:Y. l.exlSTmt>~or'P"'~ 2,~ISTl~PAAli:M50~ACP"'V/16. ,._P.-.u::II6I\l1U!1\;ACPAVJ16 ....tai::lb·I"IOE~ROAO>ACP ...V'IM[o. ~I'lll:!!rlfP~AGGE6RO.1'1). l>._~I'II'LK. 1.Ol!:-~TRl>'eTO.o.ooI'Olll'lI£t'l~SPAGa ~.1N'Jl:~PlATIi:~AAI:UlD.I"!:R"II5o.~"J-.A~D. ".fXlSTI>6~_1::.. 1O.~"""L'.e. Il.>eI'lLAND5GAPE Q,GONTl'lOLLED6o'>'ll:.~10P_JI6LOT. PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE I",SO',O' ./ RESlDEt'CTIAL "9J\~ Z'\c:rni~ i i. \-1.-.--,-_.- /;:::::::':-~'\Jl ....··".' /.,.//~ ,/-'-/ / / / /., ! /,J:,; /~''i i '/ I I I,,,1.__- 'I,I:,t-'@ \(\\ /\\\ /I,\\. \.\'\' \\\ '\\\'~-~,~\1\\, '.\.\\\)..\\'.,'.\.\ \",\\'\\\".('\ \ \i)'\'\."\'. \\\)t..\.-.-.--\y-'-'-00"\/ I 1 j,, t, t ~ i J i Ii.1 i~.''If--JJ.'1ItII fl 'ft "I! :!·f i:;. ",i IfJ.if~,fq, .,•t ~11HI,,I ~.."o ., Ht~Jj -3 {.J 1H 3 u IHHiHi"'J i 'tiI, ;jf &-f~h 1 - 1 6 EXHIBIT "B" AUGUST 2,2011 CITY COUNCIL INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS MATRIX 1-17 GENERAL CONDITIONS Condition No.1 -,Certificate of Acceptance -/Yes -/90 days from I CompletedofConditionsofApprovalapproval Payment of the State 5 days fromConditionNo.2 I required Fish and Game -/Yes -/I Completed fee approval Implementation and Acceptance of On-going Condition Nos.3 and 4 I Compliance with the -/Yes -/Conditions of compliance,noadoptedMitigationApprovalfurtheractionMeasures Implementation and Acceptance of On-going Condition Nos.5 and 6 I Compliance with adopted -/Yes -/Conditions of compliance,No Conditions of Approval Approval further action Construction shall Project I substantially comply with Prior to submittal construction plans Condition No.7 -/to Building and are to comply withtheCouncilapprovedSafetyCityCouncilplansapprovals Minor modifications to plans or conditions Condition No.8 I permitted by the Director I -/I Yes I -/I City Council I No further action if in substantial approval at this time compliance to Council approvals Failure to comply with Failure to comply Applicable if a Conditions of Approval violation occursConditionNo.9 I results in revocation of -/Yes -/with City approvals that is not cured in CUP a timely manner Page 1 1 - 1 8 Organization and City CouncilConditionNo.1 0 I applicability of Conditions "Yes "of Approval approval Conflicts between More restrictjve Condition No.11 Conditions of Approval "Yes "condition or I and Mitigation Measures mitigation stricter shall apply measure Condition No.12 I Applicability of Building "Prior to Permits construction Applicability of Applicability will be Condition Nos.13 -14 I Environmental Excise Tax "Prior to issuance determined at time and Affordable Housing of bUilding permits building permits requirement are obtained Compliance with the College has City's Transportation Acceptance of provided a list of Condition No.15 I Demand Management "Yes "measures and Trip Reduction Conditions currently being Ordinance implemented College pays for City Condition Nos.16 -17 I consultant costs related I "I Yes I "IThe use of lOn-goingtoreviewingplansorconsultants documents 6-month review for each Trigger is This condition construction phase and a completion of includes an overall Condition No.18 I 3-month review for the "each construction review 18 months Landscape Maintenance phase or after the entire Plan Landscape project is Maintenance Plan completed Condition No.19 Changes to development "Yes "Trigger if changes I plans including operations are proposed Page 2 1 - 1 9 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS Temporary I Installation of construction I Prior to Construction Condition No.20 I I ./1 commencing Fence Plan safety fencing construction or reviewed and grading approved by Plannin Condition No.21 I Permitted construction ./Construction and Consistent with hours grading activities RPVMC Off-site and on-site Condition Nos.22 -23 I construction site condition ./Construction and I Consistent with includina oarking grading activities RPVMC Condition No.24 I Obtaining Geotechnical Prior to issuance approvals ./of any grading ....ermits Approvals by 3D-days prior to Community Condition No.25 I Public notification criteria I I I I commencement Development prior to construction ./of each Director (COD)30- construction days prior to phase installation and issuance Due prior to Substantially Condition No.26 I Submittal of Classroom I I I I issuance of comply with Student Seating Plan ./Certificate of student seating Occupancy for plan for Appendix Phase 3.AofFEIR Page 3 1 - 2 0 Condition Nos.27 -29 I Criteria for construction I I I ./activities including timing Submittal of a Condition No.30 I Construction ./Prior to issuance Management Plan of grading permits Criteria for construction Prior to issuance These conditionsofgradingor related activities building permits,apply to Condition Nos.31 -40 I impacting the pUblic prior to construction ./related activitiesroadwaysincludingcommencing posting bonds for construction,or and potential potential damage prior to releasing impacts to the bonds public right-of-way Compliance with Condition No.41 I requirements for public ./Construction utilities and aqencies activities Condition No.42 I Full force of existing ./Yes Acceptance of I No further action./Conditions ofeasements needed at this timeApproval INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE Hold harmless and indemnify City officials for I I I Condition Nos.43 -44 I construction or ./Yes ./lin the event of an operational related incident claims Page 4 1 - 2 1 Acceptance of Insurance certification I Insurance for operation of I I I I Conditions of submitted to theConditionNo.45 ./Yes ./Approval!TriggertheCollegeisconstructionof City.An athletic field endorsement is endino. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Describes the maximum Acceptance of permitted square Conditions of footages,heights,and Approval;prior to I D "b r "t f Condition Nos.46 -51 I setbacks for the proposed ./framing ~s~n es Iml s or and expanded structures,inspection;prior to bUildings including obtaining the final inspection of appropriate certifications.Qradin! The maximum permitted Installation of new Condition No.52 I height for new or replaced ./or replaced flag flag poles poles BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS Requires specific Future building Condition No.53 modifications to the ./Prior to Plan plans to be I Athletic BUilding prior to Check submittal reviewed by Plan Check submittal.Plannin~ Requires all new,Building plans to expanded,or modified be reviewed by Condition Nos.54 -57 I structures be finished in ./Prior to issuance Planning . an earth tone color with of building permits Modified bUildings specific architectural means exterior materials changes Page 5 1 - 2 2 Condition No.58 Condition No.59 Allows roof mounted mechanical equipment provided approvals are obtained with a Site Plan Review aoolication. The Storage of goods, merchandise,janitorial supplies,etc.shall be housed in an enclosed structure. 0/Yes 0/ 0/ New and expanded buildings or equipment On-going operations Consistent with RPVMC.See Council approved Roof Plan. This criteria applies now and for future operations. CONSTRUCTION PHASING Condition No.60 Allows the Facilities Expansion Project to be constructed in 3 phases over a span of 8 years from the June 1,2010 City Council final decision and provided that construction activities do not exceed a total of 3 years 0/June 1,2010 City Council approval The Project is to be completed by June t 2018, which is 8 years from June 1,2010, the date the approval became final. If components described in each phase are not completed within the permitted time frames and extensions are not Page 6 1 - 2 3 granted,those uncompleted items become null and void and cannot be completed as part of the following hase. TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS Condition Nos.61 -62 Condition Nos.63 -66 GRADING Condition Nos.67 Condition Nos.68 Allows the installation of temporary modular building during the duration of construction. Sets design and screening criteria, including maximum heights,for the temporary modular buildinas Describes the maximum permitted grading quantities and grading activities to accommodate the Facilities Expansion Proiect Export or imported earth material requires approval of revised CUP and -/ -/ -/ -/ Installation at the time demolition permits are issued for Phase 1 At the time of installation and prior to occupancy Prior to issuance of grading permits and final inspection of grading Prior to issuance of grading permits or durina aradin Page 7 1 - 2 4 Grading Permit applications,as well as added environmental review Requires the review and approval of the City I I I I Prior to issuanceConditionNo.69 -73 I Engineer and City V-of grading permitsGeologistsforgrading and construction activities Requires insurance for Prior to issuance I D t f t Condition No.74 I grading and construction V-of grading or ocum~n a Ion ? activities buildina oermits be provided to City Requires the College post a bond or security to I I I I Prior to issuance I Documentation toConditionNo.75 I cover costs of grading or V-of grading permits be provided to Cityrestoringthesitetoan acceotable condition Prior to issuance Requires the review and of grading See each approval of the City permits;during condition for Condition No.76 -89 I Engineer and City V-grading or specific Geologists for grading construction;or compliance and construction activities prior to final triggers I I I I grading inspection Sets geotechnical criteria Condition No.90 -91 for water features I I I V-I Prior to issuance I including swimming pools of grading permits to revent leaks I Prohibits rock crushing During Cutting and Condition NO.92 V-shaping of pre-cutandrawstonecuttingconstructionstoneisoermitted Page 8 1 - 2 5 pursuant to the criteria contained in this condition. Heights of Condition No.93 Establishes maximum V-Prior to issuance retaining walls to I heights for retaining walls of grading permits be shown on grading plans UTILITIES Underground I Prior to final utilities for new Condition Nos.94 -95 I All new utilities shall be I I I V-inspection of construction as placed underground grading required per Section 17.54 of the RPVMC Criteria for the use of At the time of I Consistent withConditionNo.96 I satellite dish antennas or V-Yes V-installation RPVMCotherantennas Requirements for the Prior to issuance of grading or Condition No.97 -102 I installation of new sewer V-building permits;and sanitation prior to issuanceimprovementsoffinalCofO. Requirements for the Prior to issuance Condition No.103 -107 I installation of new water V-of grading or lines buildina oermits HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Condition No.108 -123 I Requires the submittal of V-Prior to issuance an updated Master of grading or Page 9 1 - 2 6 Drainage Plan and sets I I I I building permits criteria for storm drain facilities including water quality features pursuant to State regulations Maintenance of drainage Maintenance facilities and posting of obligation applies The College Condition No.122 security for the ./Yes ./to existing and currently maintains I construction and future facilities.existing drainage maintenance of new Security applies to facilities drainaqe facilities new facilities SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING Requirements for developing a Waste I I I'.. IDocumentation Condition No.124 Management Plan that I ./Yes Prior to Certificate provided on July 6,I encourages recycling of Occupancy 2011 including green waste for College oeerations Requires the submittal of a Construction and Prior to issuanceDemolitionMaterial I Management Plan to of grading or Condition Nos.125 -128 ./building permits;encourage reuse or Prior to CertificaterecyclebuildingmaterialsofOccupancyduringproject construction. OPERATIONAL Page 10 1 - 2 7 Work conducted in or Acceptance of Condition No.129 I outside the Maintenance ./Yes ./Conditions ofBuildingshallbeApprovalscreenedfromDublicview The College provided documentation of Sets hours of operation Acceptance of the current hours Condition No.130 I for campus buildings,./Yes ./Conditions of of use. including new buildings.Approval The limitations on the Athletic Building apply after construction Indicates areas of the This condition Condition No.131 campus that are to be ./After Construction applies to new I closed between sunset areas and and sunrise structures The College has I Sets hours of operation I I I I Acceptance of provided Condition No.132 ./Yes Conditions of compliancefortheoutdoorpoolApprovaldocumentation on July 26,2011. Sets criteria for the Acceptance of Consistent withConditionNo.133 -134 I delivery of goods and ./Yes Conditions of RPVMCsuppliesApproval I Acceptance of documentation Condition No.135 I Requ~res 24-hour campus I ./I Yes I ./Conditions of provided.Security security Approval booth to be constructed later. Page 11 1 - 2 8 Sets criteria for outdoor Condition No.136 I events with amplified ./ Acceptance of A SUP has been sound with the approval Yes Conditions of submitted to the of a Special Use Permit Approval City for 2011/2012. This condition only Requires the existing applies if the preschool is preschool to discontinue demolished Condition No.137 I its operation upon the ./Upon demolition otherwise the demolition of the structure of the preschool preschool may that houses the preschool continue to operated in its Requires the existing buildin Condition No.138 I establishment of a Acceptance of The College is ./No currently in the Neighborhood Advisory Conditions of recruitment Committee Approval process PROGRAMS AND STUDENT ENROLLMENT Allows the campus to be Summer youth used for various recreational academic and programs are recreational programs Acceptance of included in the Condition No.139 I and related activities ./Yes Conditions of definition of groups Approval or organizations as Prohibits sub-leasing requested by the campus for commercial College in 2005 purposes and evaluated in the CUP and EIR. Page 12 1 - 2 9 Defines the various I I I I Acceptance of Condition No.140 I degree programs offered ./Yes Conditions of at the College Aooroval Allows the College to offer Continuing Acceptance of Condition No.141 I Education Programs such ./Yes Conditions of as English as a second Approval Lanauaae I Defines "full-time"and Acceptance of Condition No.142 ./Yes Conditions of"part-time"students Approval Allows campus facilities Acceptance oftobeusedforSummerConditionNo.143 I Education Programs by ./Yes Conditions of students 14 years or older Approval Driving training Defines the various program to be "terms"offered at the offered to College.Acceptance of incoming students. Total number ofConditionNo.144 I ./Yes Conditions of participatingRequiresStudentdrivingApprovalstudentsmust betrainingcoursesforreportedeachtermincomingstudentswithenrollment I reports. Establishes student Acceptance of Condition No.145 I enrollment limitations ./Yes Conditions of On-going Approval Requires the College to 30-days after Summer Term Condition No.146 I submit enrollment reports ./Yes each term has enrollment figures to the City for each commenced to include Page 13 1 - 3 0 enrollment for educational programs.See Condition No.144 NOISE I MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Sets criteria tor attenuate I I I I Installation of newConditionNos.147 -148 I noise levels for all new ./ equipmentmechanical Establishes permitted Acceptance of Condition No.149 I hours to maintain ./Yes Conditions of I Consistent with the hardscape surfaces,such Approval RPVMC as parkinQ lots Compliance with Limits noise levels to noise levels is at 65dba at all property lines Acceptance of all times. Condition No.150 I and requires noise ./Yes ./Conditions of Sound tests are monitoring at the Approval required six completion of each months after construction phase completion of each phase LIGHTING Requires the submittal of Prior to issuance a Lighting Plan,the of any building Condition No.151 -152 I installation of a lighting ./permit;prior to mock-up,and monitoring installation of light for 30-davs fixtures Condition No.153 I Prohibits outdoor lighting ./Yes ./Acceptance of I Consistent with to exceed a building's Conditions of RPVMC Page 14 1 - 3 1 Prohibits lighting of the Acceptance of This condition Condition No.154 I athletic facilities except "Yes "Conditions of applies to existingforsafetylightingforApprovalandnewfacilitieswalkways Establishes maximum Construction of Applies when Condition Nos.155 I heights for light fixtures "new parking lot parking lot is constructed Establishes maximum Construction of Applies when Condition No.156 I height limits of light "new east parking parking lot is fixtures lot constructed PARKING I Requires the submittal of Prior to issuance Condition No.157 "of any gradingaParkingLotPlan~ermit Annual Parking Management Requires the construction Strategy Program reviewed everyofnofewerthan463on-Prior to July 1sl based onsiteparkingspaces.completion of student enrollment Condition No.158 I Requires the annual "No "Phase One.consistent with July 1sl of every mitigationimplementationofameasures TR-5ParkingManagementyear.and TR6.TheStrategyProgramcollegeisinthe process of completing this Page 15 1 - 3 2 requirement for Limits the use of the new I 2011/2012 Condition Nos.159 -160 I east parking lot and the Construction of new lower terrace eastern ./new parking lot oarkinC/lot except Sets criteria for Prior to issuance Condition Nos.161 -162 I emergency vehicles and ./ of building permit; an Emergency prior to final Evacuation Plan inspection of Prohibits the use of Phase 1 Condition No.163 I grasscrete within the Construction of I Located with the Geologic BUilding ./Geologic Building Setback Area new parking lot Setback Area LANDSCAPING Requires the submittal of Landscape Plan and sets criteria for landscaping Condition No.164 Condition Nos.164 -167 I including the replanting of Prior to issuance is tied to Condition existing trees and ./of grading or any No.60 describing removal or trimming of building permit construction trees to restore views of phasing Catalina Island Condition Nos.168 -169 Establishes height limits I for landscaping along the ./Construction of Iropertv lines new parking lot Condition No.170 I Requires the submittal of ./Yes ./Prior to issuance ,I landscape a Landscape of grading permits maintenance Page 16 1 - 3 3 for review of I requirements Landscape pursuant to the sets maintenance I I I I Maintenance Plan RPVMC requirements pursuant the RPVMC Sets maximum height limits for landscaping I I I I Construction ofConditionNo.171 I adjacent to the City-,/ owned San Ramon new parking lot Reserve FENCES,WALLS,AND HEDGES Sets maximum height limits and design I I I I Construction of Condition Nos.172 -174 I standards for walls and ,/new fences or fences along property walls lines Requires the installation of a retractable net for the I I I I Construction ofConditionNo.175 I new athletic field and the ,/ timing for using the new athletic field retractable net Prohibits the installation of chain link fencing Acceptance of within the front and street-conditions of Condition No.176 I side setbacks with the ,/approval exception of the area construction of surrounding the tennis new tennis courts courts Page 17 1 - 3 4 Sets maximum height Condition No.177 I limits and design I I I ./I Construction of standards for the new new tennis courts tennis court fencing Sets maximum height Acceptance of Consistent with thelimitsanddesignConditionNo.178 I standards for new pool ./Yes ./Conditions of RPVMC and USC fencin'"Approval requirements SIGNS Requires the submittal of Condition Nos.179 -180 a Master Sign Plan and I I I ./I Prior to issuance I allows the installation of of grading permit two entrv sians of PVDE Page 18 1 - 3 5 April 11 ,2012 Marymount Letter May 7,2013 City Council Meeting Marymount University Facilities Expansion Project Time Extension Request 1-36 eLJr~KE.WILLIAMS l.~SOr,ENSEN,LLP 444 South Flower Street .Suite 2400 Los Angeles.California 90071-2953 voice 213.2360600 .fax 213236.2700 www bwslaw.com April 11 ,2012 Direct No.:213.236.2702 Our File No.:04693·0001 ddavis@bwslaw.com Joel Rojas,Director Ara Mihranian,Deputy Director Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391 .Re:Marymount College:Request for a One Year Extension on the Construction Completion Time Periods of Condition No.60 of Revision liE"to CUP No.9 Dear Messrs.Rojas and Mihranian: This letter serves as a request on behalf of Marymount College for a one year extension on the construction completion time periods for the three phases of the College's facilities expansion plan approved by the City Council on June 1,2010 as Revision liE"to CUP No.9. This request is made pursuant to Condition of Approval No.60 and Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 17.60.070,which authorizes such a one year extension on permit time limits by the City Council upon a showing of substantial hardship and other good cause.The reasons justifying this extension request are set forth below. The City Council's approval of Revision "E"in June of 2010 came in the midst of the country's worst economic recession in decades.1 This unfortunate timing presented numerous challenges to Marymount because not only has fundraising been difficult in recent years in and of itself due to the economic downturn,but donors were also reluctant to make commitments until the College had the entitlements in hand.In addition,the initial improvements in Phase One (e.g.,parking and infrastructure)present a unique fundraising challenge because they are not the kind of legacy items that major donors are typically inclined to support.For example, Marymount was able to identify donors early on for facilities such as the proposed new library, but the library cannot proceed until the grading work is done and the parking lot improvements are in place.Accordingly,funds for these improvements have had to be raised through multiple smaller donations,which take additional time and effort to gather. While Marymount has put considerable efforts into its fundraising campaign for the RPV campus 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 was approved by the Legislature in 2011.The bill granted an automatic two year extension on all pending but unexpired subdivision approvals "[i]n order to permit cities ...to preserve development applications that are set to expire and that cannot be processed presently due to prevailing adverse economic conditions in the construction industry...." LOS Angeles -Inland Empire -Marin County -Oakland -Orange County -Palm Desert -Silicon Valley -Ventura County1-37 Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian April 11 ,2012 Page 2 needs.For example,Marymount also needed to make upgrades to the electrical,gas and plumbing infrastructure at the RPV campus before it commenced the facilities expansion improvements.That work has now been approved by the City and should be commencing soon,but the estimated total cost of the work (approximately $2.5 million)has turned out to exceed virtually all of the other pending Phase One improvements combined. Marymount has also had to address its current student housing needs.This has required the College to expend funds on making temporary improvements to its existing residential facilities in San Pedro in response to unprecedented enrollment increases in the past two years while simultaneously preparing an application to theCny 6fLos 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 a donation that enabled it to establish new academic facilities in an existing office building located at 430 West 6th Street in San Pedro (the Marymount "Waterfront Campus").The availability and use of this facility reduces academic facility demands at the RPV campus,which facilities are not 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 cover all of the costs needed to ready this new facility for student use. Despite all of these concurrent demands on limited College resources,Marymount has submitted plans for and is prepared to construct all of the additional parking spaces required under the CUP.If the plans are timely approved by the City Council,the additional parking should be completed before September 30,2012 -the current deadline under Condition of Approval No.60(a).Marymount is also prepared to start construction on the relocated athletic field that is also part of the Phase One improvements.However,because Marymount is requesting a modification to the site plan to allow the field to be regulation size for certain intercollegiate sports,it is not known when the City Council will be in a position to act on the revised site plan,and as such,Marymount is concerned that this work may not be completed before the current September 30,2012 deadline.The College is also not in a financial position to commence work on the proposed reconfiguration of the northern campus parking lots this summer,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 of the improvements proposed under Phase One,but for the reasons described,it is clear that all such work cannot be completed by September 30,2012.Accordingly,good cause exists for the City Council to grant the requested one year extension with respect to the relocation of the athletic field and the remaining approved parking lot reconfiguration and expansion work.(For clarity,Marymount is not requesting an extension to provide the additional 120 parking spaces required under Condition of Approval No.158 unless the City Council does not approve the proposed plans on April 17 or shortly thereafter,or other unforeseen circumstances beyond Marymount's control prevent the timely commencement or completion of such work.) LA #4821-9064-0911 v2 1-38 BlJRI<E.WILLIAMS [,SOREWEN.UP Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian April 11,2012 Page 3 The requested one year extension will also allow sufficient time for the City to process Marymount's pending application for a revision to its CUP that would allow the College greater flexibility as to the timing of the start of construction for the Phase Two and Phase Three improvements (but without changing the existing 36-month limitation on total construction time). In sum,for the reasons set forth above,Marymount respectfully requests that the City Council grant a one year extension for Marymount College to complete the Phase One improvements in Condition of ApprovaI60(a)(other than the provision of 120 additional parking spaces),and that the completion dates for the Phase Two and Phase Three improvements listed under Co'ridition of ApprovaI60(b)and (c)be similarly ex.lendedby 6ne year. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this time extension request. Sincerely, BURKE,WILLIAMS &SORENSEN,LLP DONALD M.DAVIS DMD:ir cc:(Via e-mail only) Dr.Michael Brophy,President,Marymount College Jim Reeves,Vice President,Marymount College Carol Lynch,City Attorney Anette Jensen,Stegeman and Kastner,Inc. Jim Hanafin,Rasmussen &Associates LA #4821-9064-0911 v2 1-39 July 16,2012 Time Extension Marymount Letter May 7,2013 City Council Meeting Marymount University Facilities Expansion Project Time Extension Request 1-40 fJUI.KL WILLIAMS &SO('ENSFN.U P By E-Mail and U.S.Mail 444 South Flower Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles.California 90071-2953 voice 213.236.0600 -fax 213.236.2700 www.bwslaw.com July 16,2012 Direct No.:213.236.2702 Our File No.:04693·0001 ddavis@bwslaw.com Joel Rojas,Director Ara Mihranian,Deputy Director Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 HawthorneB'oulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391 Re:Marymount College:Request for a One Year Extension on the Construction Completion Time Periods for Phases One and Two of Condition No.60 of Revision "E"to CUP No.9 Dear Messrs.Rojas and Mihranian: I write to clarify the scope of Marymount College's request for an extension of the construction completion deadlines under Condition of Approval No.60 to Revision liE"to CUP No.9 as set forth in the College's application letter of April 11,2012.In that application,the College inadvertently requested that the construction completion dates for all three phases of the campus master plan be extended by one year The request should have been limited to only Phases One and Two,because,as staff has correctly noted,there is no general one-year extension available for Phase Three because that phase of work extends to the outside completion date established under the CUP (Le.,eight years)and an extension of that date would require a formal amendment to the CUP.Accordingly,the requested extension is to allow the construction of the improvements included under Phase One to be completed by September 30,2013,and the improvements included under Phase Two to be completed by no later than six years from the final approval date of Revision "E"to CUP No.9. Marymount would also like to make one other clarification to its original extension application,and that is with respect to the date of the completion of the additional parking spaces that are included as part of the Phase One improvements.At the time of our application,the College was reasonably optimistic that such work 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."As City staff and the City Council are now aware,Marymount's applications with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers in order to construct certain storm water detention facilities in the drainage swale that may be under the jurisdiction of these agencies are still pending.Although the College believes that the approvals or waivers for the proposed work should be forthcoming,the delay has been very frustrating,particularly because representatives of 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 County1-41 f3lJPKE-,WfLUl\fVb ,"SOr:LNSEN,LLP Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian July 16,2012 Page 2 resources in the work area and as such,the timing of the agency approvals/waivers appears to' have nothing to do with the scope or significance of the proposed work and everything to do with internal agency operations and their limited personnel and resources to process such applications.Despite this delay,Marymount remains committed to commencing work on the additional parking improvements at the earliest opportunity even if that means that some of the work 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 the overall request for a one year extension on the completion dates of the Phase One improvements. As always,please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this clarification of Marymount's construction extension request under Condition of Approval No.60(a)and (b). Sincerely, BURKE,WILLIAMS &SORENSEN,LLP ~11}~;&12. DONALD M.DAVIS DMD:ir cc:(Via e-mail only) Dr.Michael Brophy,President,Marymount College Jim Reeves,Vice President,Marymount College Carol Lynch,City Attorney Anette Jensen,Stegeman and Kastner,Inc. Jim Hanafin,Rasmussen &Associates LA #4821-9064-0911 v3 1-42 Condition of Approval No.60 May 7,2013 City Council Meeting Marymount University Facilities Expansion Project Time Extension Request 1-43 project buildings,including but not limited to the Athletic Building,Student Union, and Library Building. 59)The storage of all goods,wares,merchandise,produce,janitorial supplies and other commodities shall be permanently housed in entirely enclosed structures, except when in transport. CONSTRUCTION PHASING 60)This Facilities Expansion Plan approval shall remain valid as set forth below,and shall be constructed in no more than 3 phases totaling 36 months of actual construption time over a period not to exceed eight (8)years from the date the approval becomes final: a.Phase One (Years 1-2):Phase One includes demolition of existing buildings,grading including the installation of drainage and water quality facilities,installation of utilities,the construction of new parking areas, athletic field,tennis courts,and the installation of temporary modular buildings to replace demolished facilities and those buildings subject to future construction.The planning entitlements,including grading and building permits,for all construction described under Phase One shall remain valid and the construction thereof shall be completed no later than September 30th of the year that is two years from the date the decision becomes final.Approvals for any Phase One components that are not completed with the two-year period shall lapse and become null and void unless an extension is granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing. b.Phase Two (Years 2-5):Phase Two includes fine grading,the construction of the new library,maintenance facility,Athletic Building,outdoor pool,and additions to the faculty building and student union.The planning entitlements, including building permits,for all construction described under Phase Two shall remain valid and the construction thereof shall be completed no later than five (5)years from the date the decision becomes final.Approvals for any Phase Two components that are not completed with the five-year period shall lapse and become null and void unless an extension is granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing. c.Phase Three (Years 6 -8):Phase Three includes the construction of the new fine arts building and an addition to the admissions building.The planning entitlements, including building permits,for all construction described under Phase Three shall remain valid and the construction thereof shall be completed no later than eight years from the date the decision becomes final. Resolution No.2010-42 Exhibit A Page 14 of 39 1-44 d.All project buildings and improvements stated in these Conditions of Approval shall be completed in a total of three (3)years of construction activity and Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued within eight (8) years of the final decision of the project.All elements of the approved Facilities Plan that are not completed within the time period stated in this Condition shall require additional review and approval through an additional revision to Conditional Use Permit NO.9 and additional CEQA review if required. TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS 61)The installation and use of temporary modular buildings (consisting of several modular segments each,as shown on the Phase One phasing site plan pr~pJiired by Rasmussen Associates)shall be permitted until the completion of the applicable permanent buildings or additions in Phase Two or Phase Three and in no event longer than eight years from the issuance of the first grading or building permit for Phase One,unless a revision to this CUP is approved.Upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the applicable building or addition,the temporary modular building serving such use shall be removed from the project site within 30-days and the site restored to a condition deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director. 62)The permanent use of the temporary modular building shall be prohibited unless a revision to this CUP is approved. 63)The temporary modular buildings shall not exceed 15-feet in height,as measured from the lowest adjacent grade to the highest roof ridgeline. 64)The exterior facades for the temporary modular building facades shall be painted a neutral color to match existing or the new structures and incorporate materials that are similar to the proposed finish for the permanent buildings (not including Palos Verdes Stone or other stone material)as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director. 65)The areas adjacent to the temporary modular buildings shall be landscaped to reasonably screen the buildings from Palos Verdes Drive East and properties to the south as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director. 66)A building permit shall be obtained for applicable modular exterior improvements (e.g.,decks,stairs,facade details,etc.)from the Department of Building and Safety. Resolution No.2010-42 Exhibit A Page 15 of39 1-45 February 25,2013 Marymount Variance Fee Waiver Letter May 7,2013 City Council Meeting Marymount University Facilities Expansion Project Time Extension Request 1-46 Marymount College PALOS VERDES,CALIFORNIA February 25,2013 Joel Rojas,Director Ara Mihranian,Deputy Director Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391 OFFICE OF BUSINESS SERVICES 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Phone:310·377·5501 RECEIVED www.marymountpv.edu FEB 26 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re:Request for a Fee Waiver for the Revision to the Variance for the Athletic Field Netting Dear Messrs.Rojas and Mihranian: At your direction,Marymount submitted an application on January 25,2013 for an amendment to the variance that was granted by the City Council in June 2010 under Resolution No.2010-42,which,among other things,permits the College to install retractable netting that extends to a height of 30 feet above the field surface around portions of the proposed relocated athletic field (the "Recreational Netting Variance"or "Variance").We understand that an amendment to the Recreational Netting Variance was deemed necessary because the College is proposing to remove the tennis courts adjacent to the field in order to expand the size of the field as part of the proposed "RevisionF"to its CUP.As a reSUlt,retractable netting will need to be installed along the westerly side of the field in the proximate locations where the City approved two tennis courts that would have had 20-foot tall permanent fencing. At this time,the College would like to request that the City Council consider waiving the fee of $4213 that was submitted with the application to amend the Variance at the time the Council considers the application pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 17.78.010.B.That code section authorizes the City Council to waive a land use application fee if it finds that the applicant is "a nonprofit corporation registered with the state of California"or the "use or activity proposed '"are charitable,educational or otherwise provide a substantial benefit to the public."Both of these findings can made in that Marymount is a nonprofit institution registered in California and the Variance revision is related to the proposed relocation of the College's athletic field,which facility is an integral part of Marymount's education mission and has long been and will continue to be used by the community for a variety of recreational activities. Marymount is requesting this fee waiver in large part based on our understanding of the limited nature of the Variance revision and our assumption that much of the analysis needed for the revision will be covered by the College's separate fee payment for the CUP amendment 1-47 Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian February 25,2013 Page 2 ($4,734)and the related reimbursement payments to the City for the staff and consultant time associated with that application,which will likely cost many thousands of dollars as well. On behalf of Marymount College,I appreciate the City's consideration of this request. 1-48 April 30,2013 Marymount Variance Fee Waiver Withdrawal Letter May 7,2013 City Council Meeting Marymount University Facilities Expansion Project Time Extension Request 1-49 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ara, Davis,Donald M.<DDavis@bwslaw.com> Tuesday,April 30,2013 1:26 PM Ara Mihranian;Joel Rojas 'Michael Brophy';Jim Reeves RE:Marymount -Variance fee waiver Based on our conversation this morning in which you clarified that the correct fee for the filing of the proposed revision to the variance that was previously granted to Marymount for the Athletic Field fencing and netting should have been $2104.50 and not the $4209 that was charged,Marymount hereby withdraws its request for a waiver of the application fee.The University administration believes that the stated revision fee is relatively reasonable given the limited changes proposed.Thank you for reviewing the fee schedule further and bringing this to our attention. Regards, Donald M.Davis I Partner 444 South Flower Street,Suite 2400 I Los Angeles,CA 90071-2953 d -213.236.2702 I t -213.236.0600 I f- 213.236.2700 ddavis@bwslaw.com 1 1-50 Public Comments May 7,2013 City Council Meeting Marymount University Facilities Expansion Project Time Extension Request 1-51 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mark R Wells <mtwells@pacbell.net> Tuesday,April 23,201311:52 PM Ara Mihranian;bUbba32@cox.net CC;Joel Rojas Re:Marymount College is requesting from RPV an increased enrollment from 923 to 1,200 With great respect for so many of you,JUST A COTTON PICKING MINUTE,please. What and where is "Marymount College,Rancho Palos Verdes"? I have been provided with information that it no longer exists.I have been reading that "Marymount California University"is now partially within Rancho Palos Verdes. Did I get the name wrong?I remember there WAS a Marymount College,Palos Verdes,but I thought the folks administering that place changed their facility's name a little while ago. How come we are still see,coming from them,"Marymount College,Palos Verdes"when we are also able to view marketing material for a "Marymount California Univresity"? I think we have finally found proof that two objects can exist within the same space and at the same time,if we read what administrators and others are putting forth. There WAS a Marymount College,Palos Verdes that offered A.A.and A.S.Degrees before there was a change to start including Bachelors'Degrees,along with Associates'programs. Then,I think I read that "Marymount California University"will offer only Bachelors'and Masters'programs and we are lead to believe this by the very small number of Associates'Degrees given in the Spring of2012.A very small percentage of students enrolled at Marymount "?"received degrees,compared to the number of students who were acknowledged to have been attending programs at whatever the institution decides to call itself. Of course,The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has no inclusion for "Bachelors or Masters" Degree programs,and there is also no indication that "1,200 students"would be enrolled at Marymount...(You get to pick the rest of the name,I'm now too confused). As we approach May 7,2013,I think it really is up to the administration of one of the TWO colleges that has facilities within the city limits of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes to finally tell us who they really are,what they really want,and how they want to be provided what they are asking for. I think it is quite simple,though. If administrators of Marymount College,Palos Verdes wish to construct the currently approved field,AFTER the permanent parking lot is finished,they need to tell that to the city governors on or before May 7,2013.If they want 'their'field alternative,then the Facilities Expansion Project needs to be ended. If administrators of Marymount California University want 'their'field or an increase in enrollment to "1200", then that needs to be studied based on new data and a different set of plans,not included in the Facilities Expansion Project. 1 1-52 Not only do they want their cake,they want to eat it,too ...after they tell others how to bake the cake,prepare the setting and 'get out'of paying the costs of the cake's ingredients. I would fully support Marymount California University's administration bringing to staff,planners and governors ofthe city of Rancho Palos Verdes projects they with to build according to what is currently in writing about the future of Marymount California University. I would also fully support Marymount College,Palos Verdes'administration continuing to build phase one of the Facilities Expansion Project as long as it is built with the currently approved and in force CUPs. I most certainly do not support the administration of Marymount California University trying to use approvals based on an institution they claim is not what they have now and what is no longer in the future as viewed by the approved Facilities Expansion Project. It seems to me that Marymount California University is close to being a 'start over'type of institution,with new programs being forwarded and old programs fading away.I think the residents and governors ofRPV should honor that by demanding that Marymount California University 'start over'with whatever plans are in their pipeline.. Thank you. Mark Wells ---On Tue,4/23/13,bubba32@cox.net <bubba32@Cox.net>wrote: From:bubba32@cox.net <bubba32@cox.net> Subject:Marymount College is requesting from RPV an increased enrollment from 923 to 1,200 To:aram@rpv.com Cc:cc@rpv.com,joelr@rpv.com Date:Tuesday,April 23,2013,12:27 PM Ara I have attached a current page from the College's website dated 4/23/2013 which represents that "Marymount College is requesting from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes an increase of enrollment capacity from 923 to 1,200 students.This is "To prepare for an anticipated increase in enrollment,largely due to student desire for four- year degrees," As you know from your previous reviews and investigations of the College's most recent two Certified enrollment reports (FALL 2012 &SPRING 2013),the College is recently reporting that "there are no SA program students in this (Traditional Degree) category." The reason espoused (unilaterally by the College beginning in FALL 2012)"..is that "There are no upper division courses (300 -400 series)offered in this (Traditional Degree) day program .." However,as further described in the College's 2012-2013 Catalog (pages attached) 2 1-53 "Degree Programs (AA &SA)are comprised of a common liberal education core plus degree-specific requirements .."(page 1 -attached). "Marymount Liberal Education Core (36 -44 Units)..provides a common foundation for all Marymount degrees."(page 7)As described in further detail on this page,such "core"courses are represented by Series 100 and Series 200 "lower division courses". The "Requirements for the Bachelor of Arts Degrees"(page 9)requires candidates to fulfill the following condition(s):"2.)Complete the Marymount liberal education core requirements as outlined in preceding pages." Therefore,the College is currently not in compliance with the Reporting requirements of Conditions 140-146 and is inconsistent and non-compliant with its own published degree requirements as shown above. Therefore,please consider this as a request for the City Of Rancho Palos Verdes,through its elected officials,to; 1.Require full Compliance from the College with Enrollment Reporting Certification per Conditions #140-146,that the College had previously observed and complied with in the preceding reports from FALL 2010 through SPRING 2012. 2.)Require that any pending EIR review encompass a Comprehensive set of subjects,including the announced and expanded enrollments (reference above)as well as all of the announced Re-Phasing proposals acknowledged by the College's Counsel (letter of February 27,2013)that are pending re-introduction after their proposed (Piecemeal)CEQA "Mini"EIR limited to only their Revised Athletic Field. 3.)Any lesser EIR review based upon the presumption that the previous EIR &CUP would remain in place with a simple add-on of a Field EIRICUP is nonsense.That is because the College's proposed implementation of their Revised Athletic Field would virtually void and annul the foundational Findings and Facts in Support of Findings upon which the 2010-41 &2010-42 Resolutions were based. 4.)At that time,in 2010,both the PC and CC passed additional Resolutions (Resolutions PC-2010-24 &CC 2010-64)against moving the field -as was proposed in Measure P -farther westward toward PVDE.Such resolutions were based upon a considered and lengthy review of Safety for the public,especially Section 2.1.10 of Resolution 2010-42 (on page 6 of 31)which states "The City Council finds that the site is of adequate size to accommodate an athletic field in addition to the other components of the project,provided that it is moved further to the east,with two tennis courts on either side,because a field so configured,would not result in safety impacts on Palos Verdes Drive East." 5.)Precedent has been established for additional environmental analysis based upon Marymounts'recent announcements of its mission transformation in becoming a University granting advanced degrees based upon "the school's increased enrollment 3 1-54 which has doubled in the past three years:'City Attorney Lynch stated that Marymount's then announced change in September 2009,justified a similar expanded environmental analysis;"Clearly,this is a significant change that does need to be addressed."she said.This precedent is also memorialized (respectively)on pages 5 &4 of Resolutions 2010-41 &2010-42 for a much more comprehensive EIR than envisioned with the College-proposed Rincon Contract pending your review May 7th. Your review and consideration of these important matters is appreciated. Jim Gordon 4 1-55 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Subject: Carolynn Petru Thursday,April 25,20132:40 PM Ara Mihranian;Joel Rojas FW:Let's see is anyone can get at least some of the answers correct From:Mark R Wells [mailto:mtwells@pacbell.net] Sent:Thursday,April 25,2013 2:19 PM To:CC;Jim Gordon;inquire@marymountrpv.edu Subject:Let's see is anyone can get at least some of the answers correct Greetings good souls. In my preparatio~for the May 7 meeting,I thought of 10 questions I feel SHOULD be easy to answer and the answers be as truthful as humanly possible. Of course I have no real idea of the answers to the questions and I surely hope ALL of the members of our City Council know or learn the answers to all 10 questions by the time they are asked to vote on some very important issues. I'd love to learn the truthful answers to all 10 questions but I fear nobody will be willing to answer them for me,or anyone else,for that matter. I tried to make the questions easy.Yes,I know that some folks will be able to twist the answers around,try to swing us away from the real answers or contend that the questions are too difficult to answer 'at this time'. I can suggest that if our governors,planners,staff members associated with studies and others within the city of RPV can't or won't at least try to come up with their own answers,then I should feel it would be a disservice to the residents of the city or RPV. It's not multiple choice and I'd love to receive your answers individually.Of course I would not publish your reply,unless you wanted me to. No true or false,because only a very few folks who work for or with Marymount might be willing to admit what is true and what is not. No multiple choice either.We've already had a little over 13 years ofthat already. In all seriousness though,I think the city's residents deserve the knowledge that ALL members of their City Council know or will know all the truthful answers by May 7,2012.Really,it isn't all that much to ask for,is it? Good luck and thanks for reading this Email and the following questions: I'd like some simple answers to some question I feel are simple to understand and simply to truthfully respond to. 1 1-56 All of my questions are based on what is stated as the truth on May 7}2013 by administrators and other representatives of the post-high school educational facility headquartered on Palos Verdes Drive East}in Rancho Palos Verdes. 1.What is the actual and/or advertised name of the institution of higher learning? 2.What types of degrees are currently offered and will be offered by the beginning of the Fait 2013 academic period? 3.How many students will be enrolled in classes on the Palos Verdes Drive East site as of May 7}2013. 4.Of the students attending classes at the Palos Verdes Drive East campus}what is the number of students currently seeking degrees and what types of degrees are they seeking? 5.Does the institution offer "A.A.and A.S.//degree programs still and will that remain during future semesters or terms at the campus of the institution? 6.What percentage of students who attended the institution in the Spring of 2012 actually received their degrees in May 2012? 7.Ofthe current student population in their final weeks of attendance}what percentage of them are expected to receive their degrees in late May}2013 compared to the number of students who will fail to achieve their degree standards? 8.Is the institution a current member ofWASC? 9.Would the governors ofthe institution construct the 'approved}athletic field should the 'new}field not be approved of? 10.Would the governors of the institution pre-pay for all studies related to seeking an approval of an increase in enrollment of students attending the institution}s Palos Verdes Drive East campus? Mark Wells 2 1-57 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Greetings Michael Brophy <MBrophy@marymountpv.edu> Thursday,May 02,20139:03 AM CC;Ara Mihranian;Joel Rojas;Carolyn Lehr;Carla Morreale;Carol Lynch <c1ynch@rwglaw.com>;David Snow Michael Brophy Fall 2013 MCU Athletic Field Window Is Closing:Public Comment MCU Field Ltrs ..pqf;Field Setbacks.pptx MCU looks forward to seeing you on 5/7.I will bring with me our university community's hopes that you will grant us the same type of extension you have granted other projects.As the attached letters attest,there is huge demand for this type of field.The second attachment,once again,reminds you that the proposed reduced footprint and increased setbacks attend to many of the previous council's concerns about proximity to PVDE. Tara and I look forward to seeing you all at the 40TH on Sunday! Regards, Michael Michael S.Brophy,Ph.D.,M.F.A. President of Marymount College 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275 310-377-5501 mbrophy@marymountpv.edu www.marymountpv.edu From:Michael Brophy Sent:Thursday,April 18,2013 12:59 PM To:cc@rpv.com;'Ara Mihranian';Joel Rojas;Carolyn Lehr Subject:Fall 2013 MCU Athletic Field Window Is Closing Greetings: I am just hearing that City Council did not act on City staffs recommendation to appoint a consultant to study the redesigned MCU athletic field.Our staffs worked together to present this recommendation to you.This was a recommendation for MCU to invest an additional $100K on studying soccer ball safety,I believe.We were ready to start this work on Wednesday given our need to present our students and the community with a field this fall.It now looks like this schedule is in jeopardy. I am also hearing this was discussed at last night's CHOA meeting.I need to find out what exactly happened from Council members,but RPV City Hall should know this decision presents MCU and the local soccer community with a great challenge in providing this "side of the hiW'with a high quality field in Fall 2013. 1 1-58 I will be at the next Council meeting to hear your thoughts on the matter as I know the Council supports MCU,athletics and higher education. Regards, Michael Michael S.Brophy,Ph.D.,M.F.A. President of Marymount California University 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275 310-377-5501 mbrophy@marymountpv.edu www.marymountpv.edu This email has been scanned by Marymount College's email security service 2 1-59 ~.,'.~.J .k ••.2 .....~....:. December 10,2012 City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic,Council member Campbell,Councilmember Knight,and Council member Misetich, I am writing to urge you to approve a one-year extension of Marymount College's project entitlements to allow for the completion of the college's parking lot and athletic field. As the President and CEO of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce,I have the opportunity to work closely with the college's leadership.I am pleased with the college's developments and believe their success provides increased opportunities for learning for Its students,our local residents and the business community. Students and our community are in need of additional athletic facilities and the new Marymount field will help to fill that void.Please allow Marymount College sufficient time to complete Its planned facility improvements.Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~~~. Eileen Hup,p President and CEO Cc:Michael S.Brophy,President,Marymount College Carolyn Lehr,City Manager,City of Rancho Palos Verdes Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce &Visitors'Center 707 Silver Spur Road,Suite 100.Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274 310.377.8111 •310.377.0614 fax.www.palosverdeschamber.com 1-60 December 6,2012 To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, The FRAM Soccer Club is writing to express our support for an extension of the current permit to allow Marymount College to complete the building of a new athletic field on their campus in Rancho Palos Verdes.Marymount College has been a big supporter of FRAM and youth sports within our community, allowing FRAM to use their existing,limited field space when we have been unable to gain access to the PVUSD fields we use due to school and field closures,summer school projects and field maintenance and an ever increasing demand for field space by other youth and community groups. FRAM Soccer Club is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to promoting youth soccer in our community.Founded in 1972,our Rolling Hills based club has over 550 current youth players,and over the past 40 years we have provided a safe,fun,competitive environment for thousands of Rancho Palos Verdes and South Bay children to become not just better soccer players,but also outstanding leaders, teammates,friends,students and citizens.FRAM relies on the support of our local partners,including Marymount College,to continue to succeed and provide unique youth athletic opportunities to area families. Thank you for your support, Harry Bruni President FRAMSK P.O.Box 3142,Palos Verdes Peninsula,CA 90274 lI'ww.fi-amsoccer.com 1-61 Dora M.de la Rosa 27600 Warrior Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 (310)541-8006 d mdela rosa 3@verizon.net December 6,2012 Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic and Councilmembers Knight,Campbell and Misetich: First of all,thank you for your service to our city.I write today to urge you to approve a one- year extension of Marymount College's project entitlements to allow for the completion of the college's parking lot and athletic field.As you know,the approval from the Army Corps of Engineers has delayed this project.Marymount College is committed to completing this work as soon as possible. As you may know,I have long been an advocate for the educational success of our children.My service on the school board demonstrated to me that our educational institutions are the jewels of our community and contribute greatly to the wonderful quality of life we enjoy on the Peninsula.I see tremendous value to our community in extending the Marymount property entitlements afforded by you,our Council.Our entire community will benefit from the athletic field and the parking lot will ensure that students,staff,faculty and visitors to the college have a safe and convenient location to park.I have been encouraged this past year by the greater cooperation between the City and Marymount College,as well as with the school district.I .remain convinced that working together we can accomplish great things on behalf of our ~~children,students and the community at large. fr) ..Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Dora M.de la Rosa cc:Michael S.Brophy,President,Marymount College 1-62 l)on H.eeves (ij.~U Yiil Canada-Ram·htl Falos Ycnks,C\!)o~7.').Pholll":CljO-S.cl:i-fi,'}(;j •drl"cycsH!I:i@aol.coJll Date:12/07/2012 Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic and Councilmembers Knight,Campbell and Misetich; I am writing to urge you to approve a one-year extension of Marymount College's project entitlements to allow for the completion of the college's parking lot and athletic field. As a member of the Palos Verdes Sunset Rotary Club and advisor to the college's Rotaract Club,1 have direct and weekly experience with students.The Rotaractors are a group of enthusiastic students who have learned business leadership skills while providing community service to local, national and regional projects.This club,however,is not the only service club on campus that participates in community service projects.I have had the opportunity to lead many outstanding students for the past 6 years. In my view,Marymount College provides an outstanding education and its students deserve an athletic field to support intercollegiate sports and health and wellness activities. Sincerely, 6424 Via Canada Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 1-63 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Blvd,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Date:December 12,2012 Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic and Councilmembers Knight, Campbell and Misetich: I am writing to urge you to approve a one-year extension of Marymount College's project entitlements to allow for the completion of the college's parking lot and athleticfield. My son Spencer is a freshman at Marymount College and we are long-term residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. Marymount College has been a major partner of the community for decades,and the College is vital to many local businesses,thus more than worthy of this extension. I am a member of the Palos Verdes Chamber legislative Affairs Committee and am aware of the need for additional athletic fields on the Peninsula.I want my son,and his fellow classmates,to have the opportunity to enjoy recreationallHlrsuitsat the college's RPV Campus. By providing the college an extension on these entitlements,additional parking,and a new field will soon be accessible to students and the community. In my view,Marymount College provides an outstanding education,and its students deserve an athletic field to support intercollegiate sports and health and wellness activities. Please approve this Entitlement extension request. Sincerely, Jim Herrera 6519 Beachview Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 c.c.Michael S.Brophy,President,Marymount College 1-64 Page 1 ofl Ara Mihranian----------_.._---------_._-- From:Nelsongang [nelsongang@aol.com] Sent:Monday,December 10,2012 10:25 AM To:Ara Mlhranlan SUbject:Yr Email:DEC 18,2012 CCMEETING-MARYMOUNTPH.1 TIME EXTENSION REQUEST Ara, Writing as a private citizen,not a RPV PC commissioner,I favor granting this extension. Marymount for years has enabled students from RPVand all over the world obtain a highly valued,excellent collegiate education.As a community we should support these requests of our neighbor. Bob Nelson 310-544-4632 \. ) i' 12/10/2012 1-61 1-65 December 6,2012 Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Brooks,Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic and Councilmembers Knight, Campbell and Mlsetlch; I am writing to urge you to approve a one-year extension of Marymount College's project entitlements to allow for the completion of the college's parking lot and athletic field. I am a Marymount College sophomore.I grew up in Rancho Palos Verdes and attended Soleado Elementary,:Ridgecrest Middle School and Peninsula High School.At Marymount,I am a student leader and this year I am the president of the Marymount Events Team,which plans student activities.I want you to know that Marymount students need a field for intercollegiate soccer and lacrosse but we also need space for intra murals and exercise,which will be lost when the new parking lot is constructed on the site of the current sports fJeld. I plan to receive my bachelor's and master's degrees at Marymount and the hope of an athletic field completed before the end of m.y junior year Is so Important to me.Please support the time extension to get this done. Sincerely, Cory Intagliata 27521 Fawnskin Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 I c.c.Michael S.Brophy,President,Marymount College <. 1-66 From:DeDe Hicks [mall1xl:dede@volctr-sobay.org] sent:Thursday,December 06,2012 1:59 PM To:CC ee:'Michael Brophy' SUbject:Marymount College .,one-year extension Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor srooks,Mayor Pro Tern Duhovlc and Coundlmembers Knight, Campbell and Mlsetlch; ,am writing to urge you to approve a one-year extension ofMarymount COllege's project entitlements to allow for the completion ofthe college's parking lot and athletic field. I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes since before the city was founded.I am proud to have a college located in my home community and have supported the college in Its development from a two-year college to a four-year Institution offering bachelor's degrees.The college and Its students offer a great benefit to our community including local service projects and a Cultural Arts Program with speakers, concerts,plays,art shows and other enriching experiences. Allowing the necessary time for the college to complete the permanent parking lot and athletic field will benefit both this fine college and our community. Sincerely, De De Hicks 32859 Seagate Drive #108 Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.90275 c.c.Michael S.Brophy,President,Marymount College 1-67 1-68 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Subject: Carolynn Petru Thursday,May 02,2013 12:14 PM Ara Mihranian FW:Marymount Athletic Field From:Rick Anchan [mailto:anchand@cox.net] Sent:Wednesday,May 01,20136:52 PM To:CC Cc:'Patricia Barrett' Subject:Marymount Athletic Field I write this to you to strongly urge that the approved athletic field plan not be modified or expanded as requested by the college. The original plan called for the field to be grass and used primarily for soccer.A 30 foot high retractable net was to be placed at the north and south end of the field to protect balls from going onto PV Drive East.The original plan called for the net to be erected and removed before and after events to minimize the impact of the view. Now the college is requesting the field be changed to artificial turn,and they are planning to use it for intercollegiate sports including soccer and lacrosse. A lacrosse ball is slightly smaller than a baseball and rock hard.Will the net that is now proposed have to be a smaller mesh (blocking more view)? Now I understand from Ara that the retractable fence is to be on the north,south and west side of the field.Also the fence,according to Ara is a series of 30 foot high polls that will be installed manually.If this is approved,there will be over 800 feet of portable netting.Ara indicated that when the college was queried about who would be responsible for removing the net after an event,he was told "the coach" I can only imagine that installing probably 24-32 polls and over 800 feet of netting manually is not an easy task.Do any of us really think this will be erected and removed only for events?I fear that this will be erected,and not removed.What is my recourse if this is erected and not removed?Who do I call?Does the college face any financial penalty if this occurs?If not,why not?Put some teeth in the guidelines the college is supposed to be operating under. (how long did it take to get the cars off the street after the parking lot was opened?) We are directly above the field.We moved to RPV 13 years ago to enjoy our "million dollar view"I know the city would never give me permission to erect a 30 foot high series of polls and netting that would dramatically impact my neighbors'view.Why this was approved in the first place is beyond me. I urge and beg you to protect the value of our property.While my preference would be for no athletic field,I realize this was approved.PLEASE make the college (opps Marymount University California)stay the course.The continued and ever invasive scope creep that the UNIVERSITY continues to pursue is going to continue to impact all of us.Please take this into consideration and keep the plan as approved. Thank you Rick and Linda Anchan 3312 Corinna Drive 1 1-69 Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca 90275 3102213421 2 1-70