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