RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_08_07_01_Marymount_Parking_Lot_Extension
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: August 7, 2012
Subject: Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project – A Request to Extend
Time Periods for Completion of Phases 1 and 2 for an Additional Year
(Case No. ZON2003-00317)
Subject Property: 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Misetich
2. Report of Notice Given: Deputy City Clerk Takaoka
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Deputy Community Development Director Mihranian
4. Public Testimony:
Appellants: None
Applicant: Marymount College
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Misetich
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
1-1
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
R!\NCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:.
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,AICP,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
AUGUST 7,2012
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION
PROJECT - A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE TIME
PERIODS FOR COMPLETION OF PHASES 1 AND 2
FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR(CASE NO.ZON2003-
00317)130800 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~P.
Ara Mihranian,AICP,Deputy Community Development Directo~
RECOMMENDATION
1)Continue the public hearing for consideration of the College's one-year time
extension request for Phases 1 and 2 to the September 4,2012 Council meeting so
the extension request can be considered after completion of a temporary parking lot
that is needed to help alleviate student street parking;
2)Affirm the Director's determination that because the Parking Management
Strategies employed by the College during the Fall2011/Spring 2012 school terms
were not effective in reducing street parking,pursuant to Condition of Approval No.
158,direct the College to provide an operational on-campus temporary parking lot
to accommodate a minimum of 90 parking spaces before commencement of the
2012 Fall term (August 27,2012);and,
3)Affirm Staff's interpretation that because said parking lot is temporary in nature,
minimal grading necessary to accommodate the temporary parking lot does not
trigger the grading related Conditions of Approval associated with the College's
2010 approval.
1-2
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
AUGUST 7,2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
BACKGROUND
On June 1,2010,the City Council adopted Resolution No.2010-42,approving with
Conditions of Approval,the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.According to
Condition of Approval Nos.60a and 60b,construction of Phase 1 is required to be
completed by September 30,2012 and construction of Phase 2 is required to be completed
by June 1,2015 unless a time extension is granted by the City Council for each of these
phases.The Condition also states that approvals for any components of Phase 1 and
Phase 2 that are not completed within the specified time period shall lapse and become
null and void unless an extension is granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public
hearing.
On April 11,2012,the College submitted a request for a one year extension on the
construction completion time periods for the College's Facilities Expansion Project
approved'by the City Council on June 1,2010 (see attachment).In response to City Staffs
inquiry on the College's time extension request,on July 16,2012,a supplemental letter
was submitted to the City by the College clarifying the time extension request (see
attachment).In addition,the July 16th letter also provides an update on the construction
delays associated with the expanded permanent parking lot approved by the City Council in
April 2012.Furthermore,on July 18,2012,the College notified Staff that since the
expanded parking lot will not be constructed in advance of the Fall 2012 term as expected,
as part of the required Parking Management Strategies for the 2012/2013 academ.icyear·
(per Condition No.158),the College intends to provide a temporary parking lotto address
deficient on-campus parking and to minimize on-street parking impacts until the permanent
expanded parking lot is constructed.
It should be noted that although the College's time extension request was received in April
2012,Staff did not schedule this matter before the CounCil until now to allow time for the
College to proceed with,and Staff to monitor,the construction of the expanded parking lot
that was approved by the City Council as a minor modification on April 17,2012.
Scheduling the request at this time provides an opportunity for the Council to raise
questions in regards to the status of the permanent parking lot construction that is part of
Phase 1 prior to the September 30,2012 deadline.
DISCUSSION
Provided below is a discussion of Staff's three recommendations.
1.Continue the public hearing for consideration of the College's one-year time
extension request for Phases 1 and 2 to the September 4,2012 Council meeting so
the extension request can be considered after completion of a temporary parking lot
that is needed to help alleviate student street parking.
The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project which was approved by the City
Council on June 1,2010 is allowed to be constructed in three phases over an eight year
period provided that actual construction activity does not exceed a total of three years (36
months).The time limits approved by the City Council were vetted through the EIR and the
entitlement process,and are described in detail in Condition of Approval No.60 (see
attachment).
1-3
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
AUGUST 7,2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
According to Condition of Approvals No.60a and 60b,Phase 1,which 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 must be completed by
September 30,2012 unless a time extension is granted by the City Council.Phase 2
which consists offine grading,construction of the new library building,maintenance facility,
athletic building,outdoor pool,and additions to the faculty building and student union must
be completed by June 1,2015 (five years from the June 1,2010 decision date)unless a
time extension is granted by the City Council.Based on the July 16 th letter,the College
requests the City Council's approval of a one year time extension to complete Phase 1
(including the expanded parking lot)resulting in a new completion deadline of September
30,2013 and a one year time extension to complete Phase 2 resulting in a new completion
deadline of June 1,2016.
While theTeason this item is before the Council is to act on the College's time extension
request,there are issues related to the time extension request that Staff believes warrant
Council review and discussion before acting on the extension request.Specifically,one of
the reasons for the extension request is the lack of an on-site permanent parking lot that
along with other Phase 1 improvements was required to be constructed by September 30,
2012 to alleviate street parking by College students.The College is now offering to
construct a temporary parking lot to correct the noticeable lack of available parking spaces
on~campus,as discussed below.As.SUCh,Staff recommends that the City Council
continue its consideration of the College's time extension request until its September 4,
2012 meeting to allow the College to fulfill its commitment of constructing a temporary
parking lot in advance of the fall 2012 term.Staff understands that said temporary parking
lot could be constructed in 1-2 weeks.Thus,continuing the time extension request as
recommended will enable Staff to evaluate the effectiveness of the temporary parking lot.
.Furthermore,the additional time will allow Staff to report on the College's progress in
securing the necessary permits to begin construction of the permanent expanded parking
.lot prior to considering the College's time extension request.
2.,Affirm the Director's determination that because the Parking Management
Strategies employed by the College during the Fall2011/Spring 2012 school terms .
were not effective in reducing street parking,pursuant to Condition of Approval No.
158,direct the College to provide an operational on-campus temporary parking lot
to accommodate a minimum of 90 parking spaces before commencement of the _
2012 Fall term (August 27,2012).
A major component of Phase 1 is the construction of an expanded parking lot that would
add 120 parking spaces resulting in a total of 463 on-campus parking spaces. This is
because the maximum enrollment of 793 students ("Traditional Degree Programs")
specified in the Council adopted Conditions of Approval was largely based on the
availability of 463 parking spaces on-campus,as described in the parking study for the
Project's EIR.Given that the student enrollment recently reported to the City is at or near
the maximum of 793 students,and that there are only 343 parking spaces on-campus,
based on Staff's evaluation of the College's reported Parking Management Strategies for
the 2011/2012 academic year,on October 26,2011,Staff notified the College that the
strategies being implemented were essentially ineffective since approximately 90 student
vehicles continued to be observed parking on neighboring streets and that the College
1-4
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT·
AUGUST 7,2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
needed to implement additional strategies to address this issue (see attachment).
Specifically,the College was required by Staff to implement any combination of strategies
so that a minimum of 90 temporary parking spaces are provided on the College campus by
the first day of Spring 2012 classes (January 9,2012)to minimize student and visitor street
parking (City Staff reported its field observations to the City Council at its October 4 and
November 1,2011 meetings).
On December 21,2011,the College submitted a letter to the City (see attachment)stating
that in lieu of providing 90 temporary parking spaces by the January 9,2012 deadline,the
College proposed to construct a permanent parking lot during the summer of 2012 in
advance of the fall 2012 term.The reasoning behind the Col.lege's request was that the
cost of a temporary parking lot would be significantly onerous (upward of $100,000)and
unnecessary in light of the Phase 1 condition that requires the construction of an expanded
permanent parking lot.Staff agreed that a permanent parking lot is preferred to a
temporary parking lot provided that 120 parking spaces are constructed pursuant to
Condition No.158 by the September 30,2012 deadline for Phase One.Ultimately,on
April 17,2012;the City Council approved construction of the expanded permanent parking
lot.
As described in the College's July 16th letter,because of delays in obtaining approvals from
both the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)and the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE)for construction of a storm drain detention basin associated with the
construction of the expanded parking lot,the College informed the City that the expanded
permanent parking lot would not be constructed in advance of the fall 2012 term.Given
this delay,as part of the 2012/2013 Parking Management Strategies (see attachment),the
College has informed the City that it intends to construct a temporary parking lot (similar in
scope to the temporary parking lot Staff identified in its October 26,2011 letter)prior to the
upcoming fall 2012 term.The temporary parking lot is proposed to be constructed at the
undevelopedwestern end of the campus (roughly at the future location of the athletic field)
and would provide up to 90 vehicles until the expanded permanent parking lot is
constructed.The College's offer to construct a temporary parking lot is subject to the
following two stipulations (see attached July 18th letter):
•Total cost does not exceed $75,000
•City approvals be issued by mid-august so that the parking is available during most
of the fall 2012 term or at least until the permanent expanded parking lot is
completed.
While the City cannot control nor influence the construction costs associated with the
construction of the temporary parking lot,the City Council can direct Staff to immediately
issue a Temporary Parking Lot permitto the College that complies with the following Code
criteria:
•The temporary parking lot is approved for one year and is renewable on an annual
basis for two additional years not to exceed a total of three years;
• A Plot plan is submitted to Staff including the location and dimensions of the
proposed temporary parking lot (including parking stall dimensions);
•The temporary parking lot is surfaced (with gravel)and continuously maintained
dirt,dust and weed free;
1-5
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
AUGUST 7,2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•Any existing planting material is maintained;and,
• A bond or trust deposit,in an amount determined by the Director of Community
Development,is posted to ensure that the temporary parking lot is removed and the
site restored to its pre-existing condition at the end of the temporary period.
If so directed by the City Council,Staff will issue said Temporary Parking Lot permit to the
College once plans are submitted to the City by the College that include the above required
information.It should be noted that the surface material should either consist of gravel or
lawn and that grading required to prepare the site for the temporary parking lot should be
minimal and primarily comprised of grubbing (no earth embankments permitted other than.
for access).Lastly,if the parking lotand associated access are not located entirely outside
the jurisdictional delineation approvals must be obtained from the CDFG and ACOE.
Although the College has offered to construct said temporary parking lot,it is Staff's
opinion that because the expanded parking lot will not be constructed by the
commencement of the fall 2012 term (August 27,2012)as the College committed to on
numerous occasions,including the April1ih Council meeting,and that the College knew
about the agency approvals stated in Mitigation Measure 810-3 for several years (and
reminded by Staff on numerous occasions),construction of the temporary parking lot prior
to the commencement of the fall 2012 term should be a requirement in order for the
College's enrollment to remain at its current maximum of 793 students ("Traditional
.Students").If for some unforeseen reason the College does not construct the temporary·
parking by the commencement of the fall 2012 term (August 27,2012),then it is
recommended that the Council direct Staff to open the CUP to adjust the maximum student
enrollment to correspond to the number of available parking spaces (currently 343spaces)
at the time the Council considers the College's time extension request at its September
18th meeting.This calculation would be based on the parking formula used in the Project's
EIR.
As such,Staff recommends that the Council direct the College to construct the temporary
parking lot in advance of the fall 2012 term (August 27,2012).
3.Affirm Staff's interpretation that because said parking lot is temporary in nature,
minimal grading necessary to accommodate the temporary parking lot does not
trigger the grading related Conditions of Approval associated with the College's
2010 approval.
Certain conditions of approval and mitigation measures related to the College's 2010
approval are written in a manner whereby certain actions on the part of the College are
triggered by the issuance of "any"grading permit.For example,Mitigation Measure 810-3
states that prior to issuance of "any"grading permit,a jurisdictional delineation shall be
conducted by the Applicant (College)to determine whether the two drainage channels are
under the jurisdiction of ACOE and CDFG.Staff believes that the minimal grading
associated with the temporary parking lot does not trigger compliance with said Conditions
of Approval since the minimal grading is temporary and the site will generally remain in its
natural state similar to other open field areas in the City used for overflow parking for
special events (i.e.City Hall and Coast Guard lots).Staff seeks the Council's affirmation of
this Staff interpretation.
1-6
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
AUGUST 7,2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Parking Management Strategies
According to Condition No.158 and Mitigation Measures TR-5 and TR-6,the College is
required to implement Parking Management Strategies,on an annual basis,to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Director of Public Works to
minimize street parking by students and visitors.As previously noted,on July 18,2012
(see attachment),the College reported its assessment of the Parking Management
Strategies implemented during the 2011/2012 academic year,as well as the following
strategies the College intends to implement for the 2012/2013 school year (please note
that the first four bullet points are strategies that are being continued from the 2011/2012
academic year):
•Designate 20 parking spaces on-campus for carpools
•Increase.shuttle services to the campus between the two residential facilities and
the San Pedro Waterfront Campus
•Financial incentives (gift cards)for students who carpool
•Increased campus security to monitor street parking
•Construction of the expanded parking lot to provide an additional 120 parking
spaces on-campus
•Restricted access on campus parking for students in College housing
•Incentives for Staff and Faculty to use the Shuttle Service from the San Pedro
Waterfront·Campus
•Construction of a temporary parking lot to accommodate 90 parking spaces
Beginning on Monday,August 27,2011 (the first day of classes),Staff will monitorthe
effectiveness of the strategies listed above and will update the Council....
Public Notification of Tonight's Meeting
On July 19,2012,a public notice announcing the Council's consideration of the College's
time extension request was sent to property owners within a500-foot radius,all interested .
parties,and pUblished in the Peninsula News.Furthermore,the City's website,under the
Marymount College homepage,was updated to include information regarding tonight's
meeting and a list-serve message was sent to Marymount College subscribers.In response
to the public notification,the City received four public comment letters (see attachment)
expressing,among other things,concerns with the College's time extension request and
the College's non-compliance with the Conditions of Approval because of student
enrollment.The issues related to the public comments letters have been addressed in the
Discussion Section of this Staff Report,with the exception of the student enrollment and
the reconfigured athletic field that are discussed below.
College Compliance with Conditions of Approval
According to the College's student enrollment report for the spring 2012 term,there were
734 "Traditional"and 106 "Non-Traditional"students.As for the summer 2012 term,there
were a total of 167 students enrolled for the June 2012 term and a total of 550 students
1-7
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
AUGUST 7,2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
enrolled for the August term (see attachment).However,in a letter dated June 26,2012
(received on July 26,2012)by CCC/ME,Inc.and an email from Mr.Gordon on July 31,
2012,the College is not in compliance with the maximum student enrollment requirements
stated in Condition No.145 and Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure Nos.TR-4,TR-
5,and TR-7 (see attachment),because the College has publicly stated that its enrollment
ranges between 900-1000 students.The student enrollment issue has been raised by
CCC/ME in the past and was addressed by Staff in the following email to Mr.Jim Gordon
on February 8,2012 (the City Council was copied):
Hi Jim,
I want to get back to you on the Marymount College enrollment issue.As I
understand it,you believe that the studies,mitigation measures,and conditions of
approval for the project established a total enrollment cap of 793 students for all
programs offered at the College;Thus,you believe that the College is in violation of
Condition No.145 because the College reported to the College Board an enrollment
of 940 students.
As you know,Condition No ..145 establishes a cap of 793 for students enrolled in
"Traditional Degree Programs"(Monday through Friday daytime students)and a
separate cap of 150 for students enrolled in "Non-Traditional Degree Programs"
.(evening and weekend students).The condition establishes two separate caps that
are mutually exclusive.The condition does not establish a total enrollment cap of
793 for all programs,nor was that the intent of the condition.If the intent had been
to establish a total maximum cap of 793 students in all programs,we would have
written the condition to limit the total enrollment to 793 with a subset maximum of
643 "daytime"students and a subset maximum of 150 "evening/weekend"students.
That being said,I can see how the 793 cap on "Traditional"(weekday daytime)
students could be misconstrued as a maximum student enrollment cap for all
College programs,given that certain documents refer to the 793 number as an
enrollment cap,as you have cited in your emails.The reason the 793 number was
sometimes referred to as C;1n enrollment cap was because it represented the "worst
case scenario"for the purpose of the EIR analysis.However,in several places in
the collective set of EIR documents (Draft Mitigation Measure TR-4 on page 5.4-54
of the Draft EIR,page 12-7 of the Final EIR,Table 2-2 on page 2-6 of EIR Draft
Appendix 0 and Final Mitigation Measure TR-4 on page 6-6 of the Final Appendix
D),it is made clear that the traffic impacts and corr€?sponding mitigation measures
assume student enrollment at a maximum of 793 weekday students and 150
weekend students.
In conclusion,the enrollment assumptions described in the EIR for assessing the
parking and traffic impacts of the College's expansion plan involved a 793 student
cap for weekday students and a 150 student cap on evening/weekend students.As
a result,the adopted conditions of approval impose these two separate enrollment
caps.The college reported that for its Fall 2011 term,there were 786 "Traditional"
students and 98 "Non-Traditional"students.The College recently reported that for
its Spring 2012 term,there are 734 "Traditional"students and 106 "Non-Traditional"
students.Since these enrollment figures do not exceed the two enrollment caps
1-8
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
AUGUST 7,2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
established by the conditions of approval,the College is in compliance with its
enrollment restrictions.If the College wishes to add these two separate program
enrollment figures together and report said number to the College Board,that is not
a violation of the conditions of approval.
I hope this clarifies the issue.I would be happy to meet with you to go through the
various CEQA documents and staff reports with you.
Ara
Based on the aforementioned and the enrollment figures the College has reported to the
City (including for the Summer 2012 term),Staff does not believe the College in violation
with Condition No.145 and Mitigation Measure Nos.TR-4, TR-5,and TR-7.Therefore,
Staff finds the College to be in compliance with the Council adopted Conditions of Approval
and Mitigation Measures.
Proposed Revisions to the Council Approved Athletic Field
Past correspondence from the College indicates the College's interest in amending its CUP
to allow a reconfiguration of the 2010 Council approved athletic field.Staff has informed .
the College thata revision to the Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit would be
required,as 'well as additional environmental review and focused studies (Air Quality,
Noise,Traffic,Safety,and Geology Studies)that would be considered by the City Council
'at a public'hearing.At this time,no formal planning applications related to a reconfigured
athletic field have been submitted to the City.Staff will update the Council and the public
when such an application has been filed with the City.
Update on the Upgrading of Existing Campus Utilities
On May 24,2012,construction commenced on the Utility Improvement Plan that upgrades
the existing underground gas and electric lines throughout the campus.Construction is on
schedule and will b,e completed by August 14,2012.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion,Staff recommends thatthe City Council continue the
College's time extension request to the September 4,2012 meeting,direct the College to
construct the temporary parking lot to provide,at a minimum,90 parking spaces by the
commencement of the fall 2012 term (August 27,2012),and to affirm Staff's interpretation
that the minimal grading required to prepare the site for the temporary parking lot does not
trigger the grading related Conditions of Approval associated with the College's 2010
approval.
ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to Section 17.60.070 of the RPVMC,the City Council could find that the College's
justification for granting a time extension,as described in detail in the attached April 11 th
letter (see attachment),is warranted in that the College has demonstrated substantial
hardship,delays beyond the control of the applicant or other good cause that justifies the
1-9
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT
AUGUST 7,2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Council to grant a one year extension to Phase One (September 30,2013)and to Phase
Two (June 1,2016).
ATTACHMENTS
•April 11 ,2012 College's Time Extension Letter
•July 16,2012 College's Time Extension Supplemental Letter
•Condition of Approval No.60
•July 18,2012 College's Letter on the 2012/2013 Parking Management
Strategies
•October 26,2011 City Letter Regarding Parking Management Strategies
•December 21,2011 College Letter Proposing to Construct a Permanent Parking
Lot
•StIJdent Enrollment Condition of Approval No.145 and Traffic and Circulation
Mitigation Measures TR-4,TR-5,and TR-7
•Spring and Summer 2012 Term Student Enrollment Reports
•Public Comments Letters
1-10
April 11,2012 College's
Time Extension Letter
Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project
August 7,2012
City Council Meeting
1-11
444 South Flower Street -Suite 2400
Los Angeles,California 90071-2953
voice 2 r3.236.0600 -fax 213.236.2700
www.bwslaw.com
Direct No.:213.236.2702
Our File No.:04693·0001
ddavls@bwslaw.com
April 11 ,2012
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.~ojas 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 "E"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 fund raising 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 County1-12
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 the City of Los Angeles in order to
ultimately expand these facilities over a 20-year period.
Subsequent to the City's approval of CUP Revision "E",Marymount also received 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 soa 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
1-13
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 Condition of ApprovaI60(b)and (c)be similarly extended by one 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
1-14
July 16,2012 College's
Time Extension Supplemental Letter
Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project
August 7,2012
City Council Meeting
1-15
444 South Flower Street •Suite 2400
los Angeles.California 90071-2953
voice 2I 3.236.0600 -fax 213.236.2700
www.bwslaw.com
Direct No.:213.236.2702
Our File No.:04693·0001
ddavis@bwslaw.com
July 16,2012
By E-Mail and U.S.Mall
Joel Rojas,Director
Ara Mihranian,Deputy Director
Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthome Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391
Re:Marvmount 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 "E"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 County1-16
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
M-71J.~/flj2.
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
1-17
Condition of Approval No.60
Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project
August 7,2012
City Council Meeting
1-18
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
construction 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 30 th 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
1-19
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
mo ar segments each,as shown on the Phase One phasing site plan prepared
by.Ra ussen Associates)shall be permitted until the completion of the
.applicab ermanent buildings or additions in Phase Two or Phase Three and in
no event 10 er than eight years from the issuance 'of the first grading or building
permit.for PH e One,unless a revision to this CUP is approved.Upon the
issuance of the rtificate of occupancy for the applicable building or addition,the
temporary modul building serving such use shall be removed from the project
site within 3D-days.d the site restored to a condition deemed acceptable by the
Community Developm t Director.
62)The permanent use of the mporary modular building shall be prohibited unless
a revision to this CUP isapp ved.
63)The temporary modular building hall not exceed 15-feet in height,as measured
from the lowest adjacent grade to t highest roof ridgeline.
64)The exterior facades for the temporary odular building facades shall be painted
a neutral color to match existing or the w structures and incorporate materials
that are similar to the proposed finish for e permanent buildings (not including
Palos Verdes Stone or other stone mater I)as.deemed acceptable by the
Community Development Director.
65).The areas adjacent to the temporary modular bUi ings shall be landscaped to
reasonably screen the buildings from Palos Verdes ive East and properties to
the south as deemed acceptable by the Community De lopment Director.
66)A building permit shall be obtained for applicable modular e erior improvements
(e.g.,decks,stairs,facade details,etc.)from the Departme of Building and
Safety.
Resolution No.2010-42
Exhibit A
Page 15 of 39
1-20
July 18,2012 College's
Letter on the 2012/2013 Parking
Management Strategies
MarymountCollege
Facilities Expansion Project
August 7,2012
City Council Meeting
1-21
.,Marymount College
PALOS VERDES,CALIFORNIA
r •.....,..;;;:.
.~Lie E \y.'~
July 18,2012
Mr.Ara Mihranian
Deputy Director,Planning,Building &Code Enforcement
City of Rancho Palos verdes
30940 Hawthorne 61.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Dear Mr.Mihranian,
30800 Pulos Verdes Drive East
Rancho P3los Verdes.CA 90275
Phone:310-377-5501
www.mflryrnollntpv,adu
Marymount College's Conditional Use Permit (CUP),Condition No.158{rR-5!6 related to Parking
Management and Strategies to minimize street parking,require an annual report to the City
documenting the College's progress toward this goal.
Attached please find the required report that assesses the College's progress toward the 2011-2012
parking management strategies as outlined in the College's July,2011 letter to the City.In addition,the
report contains proposed strategies for the 2012·2013 academic year.
Please contact me directly should you have questions about this report.
Sincerely,
~~~\j:'~~~:nt
Marymount College
c:Dr.Michael Brophy -President,Marymount College
Mr.Don Davis -Legal Counsel to Marymount College
••.,r'
.........'..........
1-22
Marymount College
Review of 2011·2012 Parking Management Strategies:
1.Designated Carpool Parking Spaces.The College anticipates providing up to
40 carpool parking spaces in specially marked areas of the campus.
The College did provide 40 carpool spaces at the beginning of the school
year.As the term progressed,and despite the financial incentives offered
by the College to increase ride sharing,it became apparent that the carpool
spaces were being underutilized during peak hours.In order to provide
more spaces on campus,the number of reserved carpool spaces was
reduced to 20 by the end of the school year.Marymount intends to
maintain the number of carpool spaces at 20 for the 2012·2013 academic
year.
2.Additional Shuttle Services to the Campus.The College will provide
additional shuttle services from College residential sites.Additional services
including "express"shuttles will be scheduled during peak hours to provide
further incentives to riders.
The College added four additional buses to its fleet last year bringing the .
total number of vehicles to 10.Shuttle service to the RPV Campus from the.
College's two residential facilities in addition to its new San PedrO
Waterlront Campus was provided Monday to Friday from 7:00 AM to 10:45
PM,with approximately 28 round trips occurring.each day.On weekends,.
the shuttle service was available from ·'1:00 AM to 7:00 PM.Marymount
estimates that there was a 10··15%increase in peak hour weekday'
ridership last year as a result the Collegefs concerted efforts to promote
the service for environmental reasons as well to reduce parking demand.
This service cost Mary-mount approximately $350,000 to operate last year.
3.Financial Incentives.The College will provide financial incentives in the form of
free shuttle services to stUdents.In addition,a trial-run gift card program will be
instituted for carpoolers for the fall semester 2011.
The shuttle service was provided at no cost to riders.The College issued
24 gift cards,at a cost of approximately $600.00,to students who agreed to
carpool to the RPV Campus.
4.Increased role of Campus Security.College Campus Security staff will be
tasked with directing traffic to open spaces on campus,particularly during peak
hours.In addition,staff will be utilized to monitor street parking in an effort to
encourage on-campus parking and the use of transit services.
Marymount employed 25 safety and security personnel last year,inclUding
five students.As indicated,their primary purpose with respect to parking
was to monitor on-campus parking and direct drivers to available spaces.
As a result of this monitoring effort,very few parking spaces went unused
during peak hours.
1-23
Marymount College
Parking Management Strategies
2012-2013
5.Restricted Access to Campus Parking.The College is currently considering
limiting on-campus parking to students residing in College provided housing.
While this solution may not be fully implemented in the fall of 2011,the College
anticipates having such a program in place by the fall of 2012.
This strategy will be implemented for the fall 2012 term as described below.
General Assessment of 2011-12 Parking Management Strategies:
The 2011-2012 school year saw the College's enrollment reach record levels,
essentially to the maximum numbers permitted under its CUP.Although this
increase in enrollment also led to additional numbers of vehicles using the
available public parking in the streets surrounding the campus,the strategies
c~rtainly helped reduce the potential number of vehicles parking off-campus.It
should be noted that street parking in the vicinity of the campus significantly
declined by late afternoon,and after 5 pm,when many local residents return
home from work.there were generally fewer than 10 vehicles parked on the
streets near the campus.Street parking demand is also highest on Monday,
Tuesday and Thursday,which are the days when the majority of classes are
scheduled.On Wednesdays and Fridays when there are fewer classes
scheduled,there is a significant decrease in the number of vehicles parking off-
campus.Consistent with past precedent,campus parking demand also
decreases as the semester progresses when students get accustomed to using
the shuttle service,discover new ride'sharing opportunities,and generally adjust
their schedules.Accordingly,in the final month or two of each semester,there
were typically fewer than 30 vehicles observed on the streets surrounding the
campus during peak days and hours and typically fewer than 10 vehicles during,
non-peak hours and days.
Marymount is pleased to note that despite the additional numbers of vehicles
utilizing street parking last year.the College received no written complaints or
notices from any.of its neighbors.City staff,or the Sheriff's Department asio any
specific disturbances or incidents related to students or visitors parking on the
pUblic streets around the campus..
Proposed 2012-2013 Parking Management and Strategies;
1.Addition of 120 New Parking Spaces.In April of 2012,the City approved the
College's revised plans for expanded parking on campus that would add at least
120 additional parking spaces to the campus to bring the total number of parking
spaces to 463.Marymount anticipates that enrollment for the 2012-2013
academic year will be similar to the past year,and with similar programs being
offered the parking demand should likewise be similar to the past year.Based
on the observed demand for street parking during the 2011-2012 academic year,
it is clear that the addition of these 120 parking spaces should be sufficient to
address all current off-campus parking demand.As of the date of this submittal,
Marymount has a contractor in place and is prepared to commence the work as
soon as the City is able to issue the required grading permit.At this time,the
College anticipates that the work will be completed in the fall of 2012.
Page 2 of3
1-24
Marymount College
Parking Management Strategies
2012·2013
2.New Restrictions on Campus Parking for Students in ColJege Housing.
Pending completion of the 120 additional parking spaces,the College will
implement a policy starting with the fall term that restricts students residing in
College provided housing from individually driving to campus during peak hours
(9 AM to 3 PM).These residential students will either have to carpool or take the
shuttle bus during these periods.Last year,approXimately 244 parking permits
were issued to residential students.These parking permits are color-coded and
therefore readily identifiable:If a vehicle.with a residential parking permit is
observed parking in a non-carpool spot or elsewhere on the campus or on the
surrounding streets during these peak hours,the applicable student will initially
receive one warning.Any subsequent violations of the policy will be subject to a
fine of $35.00 that will be collected prior to the release of grades and/or
transcripts.Implementation of this policy could reduce parking demand by up to
60 vehicles during peak.periods.._
3.Incentives for Staff and Faculty to use Shuttle Service from the Marymount
Harbor Campus.Marymount will offer financial and other incentives to its staff
and faculty that pass through or near San Pedro on route to the RPV campus to
park at the College's Waterfront Campus and take the shuttle service to the RPV
_campus.Additional shuttle service will be provided if there is sufficient additional _
,ridership to support such service;Implementation of this strategy could reduce
parking demand by up to 20 vehicles during peak periods.
.....""
,4.Construction of Temporary Parking Lot.Due to the unanticipated delays in
obtaining approvals'or waivers from outside agencies to commence the-
construction work for the 120 a.dditionalparking spaces,Marymount is prepared--
to construct a temporary parking lot on the undeveloped western end of the
campus thatcould.provide spaces for up to 90 vehicles during the fall term
subject to the follOWing param13ters:
(a)That the total cost of the work,including any permits and the costs of any
other City~imposed_conditions,not exceed $75,000;
(b)That the work be approved by the City so that construction starts ideally by
mid-August but no later than the end of August,so that such parking is available
for use during most of the fall term or -at least until the permanent additional
parking spaces are completed in order to justify the cost of this temporary lot.
5.Other Initiatives.Students,faculty and staff who live near a shuttle route will be
encouraged to utilize College transportation services.The College will identify
additional piCk-Up locations along the route to encourage use.In addition,the
College has developed a web-based scheduling technology that is accessibly by
text messaging or through an app that can be downloaded to a smartphone.The
College will also display shuttle schedules on monitors at the Waterfront Campus
to assist riders in determining when the next shuttle will be at their location.This
technology will assist students and other riders in planning their transportation to
and from the various College locations and thus hopefully encourage greater use
of the service.
Page 30f3
1-25
October 26,2011 City Letter Regarding
Parking Management Strategies
MarymountColiege
Facilities Expansion Project
August 7,2012
City Council Meeting
1-26
CITYOF
October 26,2011
Via email and U.S.Mail
Marymount College
Dr.Michael Brophy
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUbject:Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project -Condition No.158
Parking Management Strategies
Dear Dr.Brophy,
As you are aware,according to Condition No.158,the College is required to implement
Parking Management Strategies,on an annual basis,to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director and the Director of Public Works to minimize street
parking by Marymount students and visitors.In the spirit of the City's ongoing efforts to
work with the College to address student parking on the streets adjacent to the College,
various Parking Management Strategies have been identified by both the College and
the City.The effectiveness of these Parking Management Strategies has been
monitored by the City since the first day fall 2011 classes commenced,on August 29,
2011.
On September 21,2011,the City notified the College of its observations of the
effectiveness of the Parking Management Strategies.as described in the College's
August 24,2011 letter,which were implemented during the first three weeks of school.
Based on Staff's observations,the City concluded that the implemented strategies were
ineffective because there were student cars, ranging between 70 and 90 cars,parked
each day on Palos Verdes Drive East,Crest Road,and Calle Aventura primarily
between the hours of 10am and 3pm.As such.pursuant to Condition No.158,the City
required the College to implement the following additional Parking Management
Strategies by October 10,2011 :
•Temporarily reduce the number of designated carpool spaces at the south
parking lot until carpooling increases,at which time the number of designated
carpool spaces can increase in direct relation to the number of carpool permits
issued.
•Do not charge for parking permits.
•Designate campus security or College personnel to monitor student parking on
the streets,specifically at the driveway entrance.Utilize these individuals to
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD /I~CHO F1\LOS VERDES.CA 90275-5391
PLANNIN{~&CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISK)N (310)544-5228/BlJR.OINC1 &RAFETY DIV/RKm (310)265-7800 I DEPT FAX (310)544-5293
E-MAIL PLANNING@r~PVCOM I WVVWPALOSVERDER C(1M/I~PV 1-27
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE -PARKIt4GMANAGEMENT STRATEGU:S
OCTOBER 26,2011
PAGE 2
•identify students who are carpooling and parking on the slreetso that these
students are encouraged to use the designated carpool parking lot and promote
the benefits of carpooling or using the shuttle service to students parking on the
street.
•Increase and promote the financial incentives to students who park at designated
off-campus parking facilities and utilize the shuttle service.Incentives or a
frequent-user program should be designed to appeal and to reward the user for
daily and weekly use of the shuttle service.
•Utilize pUbficannouncements,posters,and flyers identify the benefits in utilizing
the shuttle service.
•Utilize various aspects of social media to promote shuttle service or carpooling.
•Implement social events for shuttle users such as a "meet &greet"mixer.
On OctQber12,2Q11,the College provided the City with a written response to the City's
September 21$t letter.In Summary,the College's letter indicates that many of the
strategies identified by the City in.its Septemper.21st letter are already being
implemented by the Coneg.e.The Colleg.ealso pointed out the following:
•On-street parking is busiest on Mondays,Tuesdays and ThursdaY,at peak
periods when area residents have left for work and subsides before area
residents return home;
•Neither the City nor the College has received complaints from area residents
regarding the street parking in front of homes or related disturt>ances;
•The initial impact of street parking occurs during the first few weeks of school and
subsides over time as students settle into routines and become rnoreaware of
transportation options;
•students traveling·from area.neighborhoods.(not student housing offered by the
College)pose a larger problem because of minimal alternative transportation
options;and.
•The College is exploring areas of the community where students living off-
campus .ate concentrated ·to •provide shuttle services.
Since receiving the October 12th letter,Staff has continued to monitor the parking
conditions at Marymount College toq.eterrnine the effectiveness of the modified Parking
Management Strategies.Based on Staff's observations,the on-street parking condition
has not improved,and the currently implemented Parking Management Strategies
continue to be ineffective.This is because there continues to be between 70 ..90 student
cars parked on the public streets during peak periods (10am and 3pm)while during the
same period there continues to be only 0-5 parking spaces available on-eampus.
According to Condition No.60,the expanded parking lot,which is to provide 463
parking spaces on-campus (an increase of 120 parking spaces from the existing 343
space parking lot)is not required to be constructed until September 30,2012.However,
according to Condition No.158,the College is required to implement Parking
Management Strategies to minimize street parking by students and visitors.Based on
1-28
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE -PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
OCTOBER 26,2011
PAGE 3
the existing parking conditions observed by Staff,pursuant to Condition No.158,Staff is
of the opinion that the only effective means for the College to minimize street parking by
students and visitors is to provide,at a minimum,90 additional temporary parking
spaces on-campus until thE:!expanded parking lot is constructed.As discussed with the
College on October 25 1h ,the City is requiring the College to implement one,or any
combination of,the following Parking Mana.gement Strategies So that 90 temporary
parking spaces are provided on the College campus by the first day of Spring 2012
classes (January 9,2012)to minimize student and visitor street parking.
1.Off-Campus Parking and Shuttle for Faculty and Staff
One of the parking manageme.nt strategies the College is currently implementing
is increased shuttle service for students between the RPV main campus .and the
College's satellite campuses (PVDN North and Waterfront Campuses).As a
means of .incteasing student ridership,the Col.lege offers the shuttle service free
of charge and offers an express service to the RPVcampus.The College is also
considering offering financial incentives,such as gift cards,for the use of the
shuttles.Staff haS observed an increased frequency of the shuttle se.rvice but
ridership,although increased from years past,still seems low.
It is Staff's belief that the students'lack of use of the shuttle is primarily based on
convenience and behavior.To ask a student to park off-campus and use the
shuttle service essentially requires a student to begin his or her day
approximately one hour earlier,which is likely not conducive to a student's
lifestyle.As such,City Staff believes that the Colleg.e will be more successful in
increasing shuttle ridership and reducing the on-campus parking demand if its
faculty and staff are reqUired to park at its off-eampus facilities and utilize the
shuttle service.There are currently approximately 90 parking spaces (out of the
eXisting 343 parking spaces)designated for faculty and staff parking.If the
COllege required its faculty and staff to park at thePVDN and/or Waterfront
campuses and use the shuttles,up to 90 of these parking spaces can then be
designated,at least temporarily until the expanded parking lot is constructed,for
use by students.
2.Construction ofa Temporary Parking Lot
As previously reported,dUring peak hours the number of student cars parked on
the street range between 70-90 cars.Another parking management strategy for
consideration is for the College to prOVide an on-campus temporary parking lot
that would accommodate up to 90 temporary parking spaces.This can be
achieved by either one,or any combination of the following:
a.Utilizing the unimproved area west of the existing preschool,the location
of the proposed athletic field and tennis courts,as a temporary lawn or
1-29
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE -PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
OCTOBER 26,2011
PAGE 4
gravel parking lot.Minimal grading will be needed and access can be
provided from the existing parking lot.
b.Converting all or a portion of the existing athletic field into a temporary
parking lot.In this case.vehicle access can be provided from a temporary
driveway south of the academic bUilding.
c.Converting portions of the existing tennis courts and/or basketball courts
into a temporary parking lot.This can be achieved by removing the
eXisting fencing and equipment,and using slurry seal to pave over the
court.Access can be provided off the existing parking lot.
This required Parking Management Strategy is intended to be temporary only
until the College's expanded parking lot is constructed and operational.In order
to allow a temporary parking lot,pursuant to Section 17.76.010.C,a temporary
parking permit would be issued by the Community Development Director subject
to certain condItions to minimize impacts upon neighboring properties.
Moreover,as preViously noted,the temporary parking lot would only be used
during peak parking periods,and would be closed off at all other times.
3.Valet Parking
In cases when adequate parking is not available during peak periods,valet
parking services could be utilized to stack cars in parking spaces.Based on the
current parking lot configuration,the area on-campus that can likely
accommodate valet parking is the southern parking lot in the area adjacent to the
south facing fayade of the Student Union and the Academic Building.In order to
minimize disruption to on-site vehicle circulation,vehicles queuing for drop-off
and pick-up would occur withi.n the driveway aisle past the existing Maintenance
BUilding.Cars using the valet service that are n.ot parked in stripped stalls would
be parked in the driveway .aisle perpendicular to the stalls.In order to be
effective,this service would be offered free of charge to the students and visit.ors.
It should be noted that this strategy cannot be considered independently but
rather in combination with one of the previously listed strategies.This is
because,based on Staff's calculations,the southern parking lot can only
accommodate approximately 25 cars when parked perpendicular to the stripped
stalls and,as previ.ouslystated,at a minimum,90 additional temp.orary parking
spaces are currently needed to address the on-campus parking deficiency.
Furthermore,20 feet .of the existing 30-foot driveway aisle in the southern parking
lot serves as an emergency vehicle lane and parked cars cannot obstruct such
access.Lastly,the Fire Department will have to review and approve a valet
parking plan before it can be approved and implemented.
City Staff has proposed the aforementioned strategies to acc.omplish a reduction of
stUdent and visitor parking on the street.Staff believes these strategies will be effective
because they do not solely put the responsibility on the students to seek alternatives to
1-30
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE -PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
OCTOBER 26,2011
PAGE 5
the lack of available on-site parking,and provide students with available on-campus
parking.In order for the above listed Parking Management Strategies to be most
effective,the College also should provide a staff member at the driveway entrance to
direct student vehicles to the newly designated parking spaces on-campus.The
College also should use social media and other forms of advertisement to promote the
newly created parking spaces and to discourage students from continuing to park on the
streets.The suggested parking management strategies identified herein,in combination
with the strategies currently being implemented by the College,should achieve a
significant reduction in student and visitor parking on the street,as required by
Condition No.158,until the expanded parking lot is constructed.
Thus,in summary,pursuant to Condition No.158,the Director of Community
Development and the Director of Public Works are requiring that the College provide a
minimum of 90 temporary parking spaces on the College campus by the first day of
Spring 2012 classes (January 9,2012)to minimize student and visitor street parking.
To meet this deadline,the City requests that the College submit its proposal/plan to
meet this requirement by November 30,2011.
As indicated in an email to ~ou and Mr.Davis on October 20,2011 and during our
conversation on October 25 ,the City Council will receive a status report on the
effectiveness of the 2011/2012 Parking Management Strategies and the
aforementioned Parking Management Strategies at its upcoming November 1st,2011
meeting.The November 1st City Council Staff Report will be posted on the City's
website later this week.
If you should have any questions please do not hesitate to me at 310-544-5228 or via
email ataram@rpv.com.
a ihranian
Deputy Community Development Director
c.Jim Reeves,Vice-President,Marymount College
Don Davis,Marymount College Legal Counsel
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Carol Lynch,City Attorney
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Ray Holland,Director of Public Works
Nicole Jules,Senior Engineer
1-31
December 21,2011 College Letter
Proposing to Construct a
Permanent Parking Lot
Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project
August 7,,2012
City Council Meeting
1-32
BURKE.WILLIAMS &SORENSEN.LLP
444 SOUt/l Flower Street -Suite 2400
Los Angeles.California 90071-2953
voice 213.236,0600 -fax 213236.2700
www.bwsJaw.com
December 21,2011
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:Provision of Additional Permanent Parking Under
Revision "E"to CUP No.9
Dear Messrs.Rojas and Mihranian:
I write in response to your letters to Marymount College of October 26 and November
16,2011,and in furtherance of my letter to the City Council of October 31,2011,as well as to
several subsequent telephone conference calls between City staff and representatives of the
College regarding the referenced subject.
Without rehashing all the details of these exchanges,I want to make just a few
preliminary points to explain Marymount's position on this matter.During our conference call on
October 25,2011,Marymount explained that one of the staff proposed parking management
strategies (off-campus faculty parking and shuttle bus use)was not feasible and that we would
have to look into the cost of constructing a temporary lot before we could respond to that
proposal.We requested some additional time to do so.Unfortunately,and apparently due in
part to time constraints with respect to a request for a City Council update on the matter
scheduled for November 1,what Marymount believed were preliminary discussions resulted In a
purported directive to build a temporary lot pursuant to Mr.Mihranian's letter the following day
(October 26,2011),which was issued before Marymount or City staff even knew what would be
involved in constructing such a lot.When Marymount leamed that the cost of a temporary lot
would be upwards of $100,000 (see attached letter from Rasmussen &Associates of 10/31/11),
this proposal became significantly onerous and unnecessary in light of the two-year period to
construct the additional permanent parking approved as part of Revision "E"to Marymount's
CUP and the College's pending plans to initiate such construction in summer 2012.Marymount
conveyed this objection along with other legal objections in my letter to the City Council of
October 31,2011.
In the ensuing period,we have appreciated the opportunity to discuss with you
Marymount's plans to commence construction of some of the City-approved Phase I campus
improvements in the summer of 2012.Specifically,Marymount will be submitting the applicable
applications and addressing the conditions necessary to construct a permanent 93-space
parking lot in the southeast area of the campus In the same location as depicted on the site plan
Los Angeles -Inlvnd Empire -Oakland -Orange Coumy -Palm Desert -Silicon Valley -Ventura County1-33
BURKE,WILLIAMS &SORENSEN,lLP
Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian
December 21,2011
Page 2
approved in 2010.Because this location is the site of the existing athletic field,Marymount will
also be processing an application with the City to construct either an interim athletic field or the
approved permanent athletic field in the location that was also approved on the 2010 site plan.
A copy of the proposed site plan for these improvements is attached,and further details will be
forthcoming with the College's permit application materials.
In light of Marymount's stated intention and commitment to pursue a permanent parking
lot in the summer of 2012 that will provide the 90 spaces that City staff has requested,
Marymount respectfully requests that City staff defer the directive to construct an interim parking
lot on the campus so that Marymount and City staff can focus their time and energy on
implementing the proposed permanent parking lot in the approved location.
On behalf of the College,I appreciate your consideration of this matter,and we look
forward to working with the City in order to begin the implementation of these campus
improvements.
Sincerely,
DMD:ir
Attachments:2
cc:Dr.Michael Brophy,President,Marymount College
Jim Reeves,Vice President,Marymount College
Carol Lynch,City Attorney
Randall Fulton,Stegeman and Kastner,Inc.
LA #4820·1643·0346 v1
1-34
Architecture
Planning
31 October 2011
Michael S.Brophy,Ph.D.,M.F.A.
President of Marymount College
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:City Requested Temporary Parking Lot
Dear Michael,
Per your request,we have looked into the possibility of providing a temporary
parking lot (90 spaces)on the undeveloped area on the west side of the campus.
The lot would need to be approximately 30,000 square feet in size.Because it is
temporary,we would propose a gravel surface be used.The design of the
parking lot would follow the existing slopes as much as possible in the flatter area
below the existing parking level.The majority of grading will likely be to grade
out a short road to access that parking lot with daylight slopes.A storm drainage
system would need to be installed and storm water treatment would need to
addressed.
We have consulted with our Civil Engineer to estimate the probable construction
cost at $70,000 to $100,000.This cost would include the following:
•Clearing and Grubbing
•Grading and Earthwork
•6"thick gravel
•Perimeter gravel bags
•Storm drainage system
•Design &permit fees
If you have any questions,please call.
Yours truly,
RASMUSSEN &ASSOCIATES
~~
Scott Boydstun,A.I.A.,LEED AP BD+C
Principal
21 S.CAUFORNIA STREET
FOURTH FLOOR
VENTURA,CALIFORNIA 93001
805 648·1234 FAX805648-4444
1-35
1-36
Student Enrollment
Condition of Approval No.145 and
Traffic and Circulation Mitigation
.Measures TR-4,TR-5,and TR-7
Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project
August 7,2012
City Council Meeting
1-37
Auditorium (as shown on the site plan approved by the City Council),and the
utdoor pool area.The Athletic Field and Tennis Courts may only be used with
a lified sound for graduation ceremonies.
137)The e .ting preschool shall discontinue its operation upon the demolition of the
building cupied for this use in Phase I,as described in these Conditions of
Approval.e future use of a preschool,either within an existing building or in a
new building t needs to be constructed,shall require a revision to this
Conditional Use mit pursuant to the provisions stated in the RPVMC and the
appropriate environm tal review.
138)The College shall establis Neighborhood Advisory Committee consisting of
one representative selected 15 each of the following neighboring homeowner's
associations:EI Prado,San on,Mira Catalina,Seacliff Hilltop,and
Mediterrania;two at-large represe tives who live within 3000 feet of the
campus (one of which shall be selected the Community Development Director
and one by the College);and arepres ative from City Staff (non-voting
member).The Committee shall meet,at a mini of once every fall and spring
term,to review any campus operational and neigh hood concerns.Reports on
the meetings shall be provided to the City Council.
PROGRAMS I STUDENT ENROLLMENT
139).The use of the College campus is permitted for only the following academic and
recreational programs and related activities as further described below·and
defined in Condition 140:
•Traditional Degree Programs
•Non-Traditional Degree Programs
•Continuing Educational Programs,such as but not limited to English as a
Second Language (ESL)
•Recreational Activities
•Summer Educational Programs,such as but not limited to:
o Upward Bound
o High School Courses
o International Students Taking ESL courses
The use of the campus by groups or organizations unaffiliated with the College's
educational and recreational programs listed above that would have less than
100 participants or visitors present on campus at one time or would occupy less
than 20%of the 463 required parking spaces during such use is also allowed.
Any and all other uses and activities on the College campus that do not meetthis
threshold are prohibited unless approved with a revision to this Conditional Use
Resolution No.2010-42
Exhibit A
Page 28 of 39
1-38
Permit or a Special Use Permit is obtained,whichever is applicable based on the
request.
The sub-leasing of the campus for commercial purposes that are unaffiliated with
the College is prohibited.
140)The College's "Traditional Degree Programs"are the academic programs
(Associates and Bachelors degrees)that offer classes primarily during the day on
weekdays (Monday to Friday).The College's "Non-Traditional Degree
Programs"are the academic programs (Associates,Bachelors,and Masters
degrees)that offer classes,including post-secondary academic classes,primarily
during weekday evenings and on weekends (Saturday and Sunday),so as to
generally avoid overlap with the class schedules of the Traditional Degree
.Programs.The Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs are referred
collectively as the "Degree Programs."
141)The College may also provide lifelong learning programs ("Continuing Educaticm
Programs")such as English as a second language (ESL).For the purposes of
this Conditional Use Permit,all students in such Continuing Education Programs
will be included as part of the total full-time and part-time permitted student
enrollment for both the Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs.The
determination as to which enrollment category such students are counted
towards will be based on whether the applicable classes are primarily offered
during the weekdays (in which case the students would be classified as part of
the Traditional Degree Program enrollment)or nights/weekends·(in which case
they would be classified as part of the Non-Traditional Degree Program
enrollment).
142).As used in this Conditional Use Permit,a "student"means either a "full-time
student,"who is a personenroHed in a Bachelor of Arts or Associates of Arts
Degree Program or a Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 12
hours of course work during the applicable Term (as defined below),or a "part-
time student,"who is a person enroHed in a Bachelor of Arts or Associates ofArts
Degree Program or Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 3
hours,but up to 11 hours,of course work during the applicable Term.
143)The campus facilities may also be used for "Summer Educational Programs."
Summer Educational Programs are educational programs for persons generaHy
14 years or older such as college-credit classes for local high school students,
Upward Bound,and international students taking ESL classes along with other
educational classes and recreational activities.Persons enrolled in Summer
Educational Programs are referred to in this CUP as "participants"for the
purpose of establishing enrollment limitations.
Resolution No.2010-42
Exhibit A
Page 29 of 39
1-39
144)The College may operate throughout the calendar year under the following
general "Term"schedule:"Fall Term"(August through December),"Winter Term"
(January),"Spring Term"(February to May)and "Summer Term"(June through
July/August).
The College shall provide all of its incoming students a driver's training course
regarding local roadway conditions.The total number of students receiving the
required driver's training course shall be included in the enrollment report for
each term as described in Condition No.146.
145)The following enrollment limitations apply:
A.The maximum total permitted enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs
on campus during the Fall,Winter,and Spring Terms is 793 students (full-
time and part-time).Of these 793 students,a maximum of 250 students
shall be enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts degree program (BA Program).For
the Summer Term,if other educational or recreational programs are
concurrently offered during weekdays,the maximum total permitted
enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs must be proportionally reduced,
so that the combined enrollment in all such programs (e.g.,Traditional
Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs)does not exceed a
total of 600 students (full-time and part-time)and participants.
B.The maximum total permitted enrollment in Non-Traditional Degree
Programs on campus during any Term is 150 students.
C.The maximum total permitted enrollment in any combination of Traditional
Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs offered'
concurrently during summer weekdays (June to August)is 600 students
and participants.
146)The College shall submit to the City an enrollment report for each Term within an
academic year for all Traditional and Non-Traditional Degree Programs and
Summer Educational Programs no later than 30-days after a term has
commenced.Failure to submit such a report on a timely basis will constitute a
violation punishable by administrative citation per the RPVMC.
NOISE I MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
147)All new mechanical equipment,regardless of its location,shall be housed in
enclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level of 65 dBA CNEL at the project
site's property lines.Mechanical equipment for food service shall incorporate
filtration systems to reduce exhaust odors.
Resolution No.2010-42
Exhibit A
Page 30 of 39
1-40
Existin
TR-2
TR-3
TR-4
obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site.If necessary,a
flag person .shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing
roadways:
Weekdays:Hauling and deliveries shall bf;l scheduled between 9:00
AM and 4:00 PM,with consideration given to reduce deliveries
during the 11 :30 AM to 1:30 PM lunch period.
Saturdays:Hauling and deliveries,if any,shall not occur during the
peak hour period of 11 :30 AM to 1:30 PM.
There shall be no idling or staging of equipment or accumulation of vehicles on
Rancho Palos Verdes City streets.Staging of trucks for the hauling of all
demolition debris shall be limited to the Colleqe campus.
Plus Proiect Conditions
Prior to issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase"buildings
(Le.,Library,Maintenance,or Athletic Facility),the Applicant shall implement
the following improvement and may be eligible in the future for partial
reimbursement from future projects that result in impacts on this intersection:
•.Palos Verdes Drive East/Miraleste Drive-Signalize the intersection ..The
intersection traffic signal shall be designed to include a westbound right-
.turn overlap,which would preclude u-turn movement from southbound to
northbound Palos Verdes Drive East.
Prior to issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase"buildings
(Le.,Library,Maintenance,or Athletic Facility),the Applicant shall implement
the following improvement,at the City's direction,and may be eligible for
reimbursement from future projects that result in impacts on this intersection:
•Western Avenue (SR-213)/Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive -Re-stripe the
eastbound Trudie Drive approach from one shared left-turn/through lane
and one de-facto right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one
shared through/right-turn lane.The Project Applicant shall coordinate
with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,City of Los Angeles,and Caltrans
reqardinq implementation of this mitiqation.
The traffic impacts and corresponding mitigation measures assume the
Marymount College student enrollment at a maximum of 793 weekday students
(based on the formula allowing 750 full-time students,20 part-time students,
and a marqinal difference of 3.0 percent),and 150 weekend students.
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
Community
Development
Director and
City Engineer
Community
Development
Director and
City Engineer
Community
Development
Director
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report
Verification of
Signalization
Verification of
Modifications
Verification of
Student
Enrollment
Final •May 18,2010 6-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1
-
4
1
Parkin
TR-5
Additionally,it is assumed,Marymount College student enrollment as a
maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the SA Program and a
maximum of 793 weekday students minus current SA Program weekday
students enrolled in the AA Program.Therefore,prior to issuance of any
Certificate of Occupancy,student enrollment shall be limited to a maximum of
793 weekday students and 150 weekend students,including full-and part-time
students,and maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the SA Program
and a maximum of 793 weekday students minus current SA Program weekday
students enrolled in the AA Program.The College shall submit to the City an
Enrollment Report for each Term within an academic year for all Traditional
and Non-Traditional Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs no
later than 30-days after a term has commenced.
Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy,the Applicant shall institute,
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Dire~tor and the Public
Works Director,parking management strategies to reduce weekday College-
related parking demand by the following values:
•11 percent or greater for student enrollment between 744 and 793;
• 6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;
• 0 percent or greater for student enrollment of 693 or less ..
Potential parking management strategies may include,but are not limited to,
the following:
•Provision of "carpool only"parking spaces;
•Implementation of parking pricing for campus parking permits;
•Utilization of remote parking;
•Provision of increased shuttle services;
•Offering financial incentives;and
•Implementation of restrictions on parking allowed by residents of the Palos
Verdes North Facilitv.
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report
No Later Than Community Approval of
30 Days From Development Annual Student
Commencement Director Enrollment
ofT~rm Report
Prior to Any Community Approval of
Certificate of Development Parking
Occupancy Director and Management
Public Works Strategies
Director
TR-6 A Parking Management Strategy Program shall be prepared and submitted by
the Applicant for review and approval by the Community Development Director,
by July 1st of every year.Said Program shall:
•Document the prior-vear's achieved parkinQ demand reductions;
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
Community
Development
Director and
Public Works
Approval of
Parking
Management
Strategies
Final.May 18,2010 6-6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1
-
4
2
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report
•Identify strategies for use in the upcoming academic school year;and
•Se modified on an as needed basis,as deemed necessary by the
Community Development Director.
TR-7 I The parking impacts and corresponding mitigation measures assume the
Marymount College student enrollment as a maximum of 793 weekday
students (based on the formula allowing 750 .full-time students,20 part-time
students,and a marginal difference of 3.0 percent)and 150 weekend students.
Additionally,it is assumed,Marymount College student enrollment as·a
maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the SA Program and a
maximum of 793 weekday students minus current SA Program weekday
students enrolled in the AA Program.Therefore.prior to issuance of any
Certificate of Occupancy,student enrollment shall be limited toa maximum of
793 weekday students and 150 weekend students,inciuding full-and part-time
students,and maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the SA Program
and a maximum of 793 weekday students minus current sA Program weekday
students enrolled in the AA Proaram..
CumUlative (Forecast Year 2012)Conditions
TR-8 I Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy,the Applicant shall make a
proportionate share contribution to implement the following,in addition to
improvements specified in Mitigation Measures TR-2 and TR-3:
•Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South -Modify the
intersection to provide a two-stage gap acceptance design for southbound
left-turning vehicles.A raised median refuge area shall be constructed for
vehicles to turn left from Palos Verdes Drive East to cross westbound
Palos Verdes Drive South while waiting for a gap in eastbound traffic to
complete the turn to eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South.Additionally,
the existing raised median shall be narrowed to provide an acceleration
lane along Palos Verdes Drive South to accommodate vehicles
accelerating to join eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South traffic flow.
Modifications to the Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South
intersection shall be designed taking into account trUCk.turning radius
requirements and shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Since the Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South intersection
is impacted bv the proposed Proiect for "Cumulative with proposed
Final •May 18,2010
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
6-7
Director
Community
Development
Director and
City Engineer
Community
Development
Director and
City Engineer
Program
Annual Student
Enrollment
Report
Verification of
Proportionate
Share
Contribution
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1
-
4
3
Spring and Summer 2012 Term
Student Enrollment Reports
Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project
August 7,2012
City Council Meeting
1-44
January 21,2012
Director of Environmental Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275-5391
Per our RPV CUP requirements,Marymount College is submitting certification of Spring 2012
enrollment as follows:
~734 Students are enrolled in Traditional Degree Programs,of which 93 are BA
program students
~106 Students are enrolled in Non-traditional Degree Programs.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brophy,Ph.D.
President,Marymount College
cc:Vice President for Finance and Administration,James Reeves
1-45
June 18,2012
Director of Environmental Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275-5391
.'
RECEIVED
,:'.J\i2 1 L012
COMMUNITY DEVEL.OPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Pursuant to the approval of our Conditional Use Permit,Marymount College is submitting
certification of enrollment as follows:
);>Total enrollment for Summer 2012 Sessions in June is 167.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brophy,Ph.D.
President,Marymount College
c:Vice President for Finance and Administration,James Reeves
1-46
RECEIVED
July18,2M2
Director of Environmental Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275-5391
JUL 30 2012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Pursuant to the approval of our Conditional Use Permit,Marymount College is submitting
certification of enrollment as follows:
~Total enrollment for Summer 2012 Sessions in July is 550.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brophy,Ph.D.
President,Marymount College
c:Vice President for Finance and Administration,James Reeves
1-47
Public Comment Letters
Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project
August 7,2012
City Council Meeting
1-48
Page 1 of3
Ara Mihranian
From:bubba32@cox.net
Sent:Tuesday, July 31,20122:16 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:Joel Rojas;Ara Mihranian
Subject:Marymount College's forgotten Promises to RPV
Attachments:Marymount Davis Attached.pdf;RPV Enrollment Report 9.29.11.pdf;IMG.jpg;IMG_0001.jpg;
IMG_0006.jpg
To the City Council
On August 3,2012,the City Council will consider extending Marymount
College's entitlements for Phase I components.
Such extension is unlike any prior experience with this College that obtained a
number of extensions in 1979 (Fire Dept.changes)and 1980 (Financial
arrangements).These are detailed in Appendix C of the EIR and took place
when RPV City permits were limited to only a single year vs.the 2+years
granted to the College for Phase I improvements.
The College has stated in its extension request of April 11,2012,that it faces
an unforeseen Financial hardship beyond its control as the required basis (per
City Code)as the rationale for extension.Such claim is false and egregious
on its face since,by the College's own admission,it voluntarily chose to
expend needed Phase I resources of over $10 million on other projects and
campus sites,including expenditures of upwards of $2 million towards
passage of its failed Measure P in November of 2010.
As you know,City Code requires that an applicant be in current
compliance with existing Conditions of approval before an application for
additional entitlements (or changes)can be processed.Although that was in
fact the case in 1979 and 1980,it is not the case now even though the
College publicly promised to comply with all Conditions of Approval and
Mitigation Measures at the April 17,2012 City Council Hearing.
The College had made other critical promises which they now seek to avoid
and to sidetrack the Council from implementing.
Marymount College promised RPV (Don Davis Letter of October 31,2011 -
attached)that if the College is unable to complete the work (expanded on-site
parking areas)within the current CUP schedule (Le.September 30,2012),
and an extension is required,then the College would be prepared to accept
as a condition of such extension,the construction of a temporary
parking area for up to 90 vehicles before the start of the fall term
7/31/2012 1-49
Page 2 of3
(August 2012).This would "..be fully consistent with the two-year period to provide
parking that was incorporated into the City Council's 2010 approval of the project."
"On September 28,2011,Mr.Mihranian met with representatives of the College
and was shown a revised site plan that would allow the College to provide
upwards of 500 spaces instead of the 463 currently proposed as part of Phase
I,and was also informed that the College was preparing to submit this modified plan
to the City."
"Marymount is at full enrollment this semester.."
In further correspondence of June 26,2012,page 1,"Marymount believes that the
most prudent course is to proceed with the work (on the parking lot
additions)".."even if that means (Letter of July 16,2012 page 2)that some of
work takes place during the academic year rather than this summer as
previously anticipated (promised)."
This "stay the course"option is an obvious distraction from reality and completely
nuts because,as the College knows,their only available field would then be out of
commission when parking takes over Castle Field with no real replacement
approved or on the near horizon.Conversely,the temporary parking solution,as
offered by the College October 31,2011,would solve both parking and field
availability issues through 2013 .
.During the hearings of April 17,2012,the City Council was promised by the
College's representative (Davis)that the College would be in full compliance with all .
of its Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures.
That is not the case now:The College has far exceeded its 793 maximum
enrollment limit of undergraduate students -'as·studied in the EIR (Class hours of
operation 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM),by a substantial margin,as follows;.
The College's "interpretation"of "full enrollment"appears to have nothing
whatsoever to do with the required categories of reporting or the 793 student total
maximum allowed (see Fall Semester report totaling 884 "Day"and "Evening"
Students)while contemporaneously reporting even higher undergraduate
enrollments of 935 and 923 students (respectively)to key education organizations,
including the highly respected College Board and National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES)for that same Fall period (attachments).
Marymount College President Dr.Michael Brophy is prominently featured in an
EasyReader June 7,2012 article that includes further confirmation of these
excessive enrollment levels,"..now with enrollment topping 1,000 students"."When
the RPV campus reached its 940-student limit (sic -793)before the beginning of
last year,rather than turn students away,school administrators hired more
7/31/2012 1-50
Page 3 of3
teachers and spent more than $3 million on a new campus in San Pedro.In about
five years,the RPV campus expects to accommodate up to 1,200 students."
As a direct result,the College now has most likely exceeded the 222 Faculty/Staff
number studied and incorporated into the EIR,as well as triggering the City Code-
mandated low-income housing required.The College was previously just 3 below
the 10 trigger amount necessary for such low cost housing implementation.
This is a most disturbing set of circumstances that the City Council is tasked to deal
with effectively.The situation appears to be totally out of control and disrespectful
by the College to the City and nearby residents.
1;)Any extension of entitlements,if·granted,should consider only Phase I
entitlements and include measures to stop on-street student parking as the
College had previously promised.Any Phase II entitlement extension can,as
experience allows,await future approval(s)as appropriate.
2.)New,fully enforceable conditions and limits going forward are needed to
preclude the continued stealth enlargement of College operations beyond
.what was included,studied and approved in theEIR and associated
Resolutions.
Jim Gordon
7/31/2012 1-51
BUFf<L,Vl/i.UAJV<;&~C)f~Ef\!SEN,LLP
444 Soutrl Flower Street -SUIte 2'100
Los /\ngeles,C:liifomia 900712953
voice 21 :'U36 0600 f,lX 213.2362700
www.bwSIi.1W com
October 31,2011
Direct No,:213,236,2702
Our File No.:04693-0005
ddavis@bwslaw,com
VIA E-MAIL &OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Tom Long,Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
.Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
Re:·REQUEST TO STAY THE PROPOSED IMPROPER MODIFICATIONS TO THE
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE CUP REGARDING PARKING
Dear Mayor Long and Council members:
On behalf of Marymount College,we respectfully request that the City Council take no
action at its meeting of November 1,2011 on agenda item No.3 (Marymount College -
[Purported]Parking Management Strategies)because,as set forth below,(1)the proposed
action in fact seeks to modify the terms and conditions of Marymount's Conditional Use Permit
(CUP),(2)the proposed modifications have not been properly noticed in accordance with the
City's Municipal Code and also do not comport with applicable due process requirements,and
(3)there.is a lack of substantial evidence to support to the proposed modifications to the CUP.
1.THE PROPOSED ACTION SEEKS TO MODIFY THE PARKING CONDITIONS OF
MARYMOUNT'S CUP.
Under agenda item No.3,City staff is asking the City Council to "affirm"one or any
combination of three proposed measures "so that a minimum of 90 temporary parking spaces
are provided on the College campus by ...January 9,2012."(Staff Report at p.3.)Although
couched as "strategies"that the Community Development Director and Public Works Director
have the purported discretion to implement under the CUP,in reality,the proposed action seeks
to amend the terms and conditions of Marymount's CUP,which is readily apparent from a brief
review of the record that led to the Council's approval of Revision "E"to CUP No.9 in 2010,
specifically as it pertains to Mitigation Measure TR-5 of the Final EIR (FEIR),which was
restated as CUP Condition No.158.
Los Angeles !nli.lnci Empire Oakldncl ..·Orange County -Palm Desert --Silicon Valley ..·Ventura (OlJllIy1-52
Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No.3
City Council Meeting of November 1,2011
October 31,2011
Page 2
Based on observed parking demand at the College,which has historically included legal
street parking on Palos Verdes Drive East,it was determined that at full enrollment (793
students),there would be a peak hour demand for 519 parking spaces.Because the College
was proposing to add 120 new spaces beyond the existing 343 spaces (463 spaces total)upon
completion of Phase I of its campus master plan,the FEIR parking analysis estimated that there
would be a potential deficiency of 56 spaces.(See attached FEIR Table 3.3-43.)In order to
address this potential deficiency at build out of the new parking areas,Mitigation Measure
TR-5 was recommended,which included parking management strategies in order to reduce
off-site parking demand following the completion of the additional on-site parking areas
in Phase I.
It is abundantly clear from the parking analysis of the approved FEIR that the primary
intent behind the parking management strategies in Mitigation Measure TR-5 and the
percentage reductions in demand associated with student enrollment,which terms were
restated in Condition No.158,was to reduce parking demand at or just prior to completion of the
expanded parking areas and not to eliminate all street parking during the interim two-year period
in which the College was permitted to complete Phase I under Condition No.60.Accordingly,·
the burdensome and premature "interim"actions that Staff is asking the Council to approve
must be v[ewed as a modification to the CUP.This is particularly true where,as here,the only
truly feasible manner to create the 90 additional parking spaces npw being demanded without:
impacting existing and approved campus operations is to create a 30,000 square foot temporary
parkirig lot on the site of the proposed new athletic field for which construction is scheduled to
start in less than six months.(See Comment NO.4 below regarding the details of this proposed
temporary parking lot.)
The City Council had the opportunity t6 preclude street parking and to require the
construction of a temporary parking lot when it approved Revision "En to the CUP in 2010.The
Council chose not to do so at the time,and the CUP cannot now be amended without
evidentiary support for such a change or in compliance with all applicable due process notice
and hearing requirements.
2.THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO MARYMOUNT'S CUP HAVE NOT BEEN
PROPERLY NOTICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE AND
APPLICABLE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.
A CUP creates certain property rights that may not be modified arbitrarily without cause
or without proper notice and a hearing that comports with constitutional rights of due process.
(See Bauer v.City of San Diego (1999)75 Cal.AppAth 1281;Malibu Mountains Recreation,Inc.
v.County of Los Angeles (1998)67 Cal.AppAth 359;Community Development Com.v.City of
1-53
Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item NO.3
City Council Meeting of November 1,2011
October 31,2011
Page 3
Fort Bragg (1988)204 Cal.App.3d 1124;Garavatti v.Fairfax Planning Com.(1971)22
Cal.App.3d 145;and City of San Marino v.Roman Catholic Archbishop (1960)180 Cal.App.2d
657.)Staff,in its rush to modify the CUP not only tramples upon these well-established
constitutional principles,but ignores the applicable provisions of the City's own municipal code.
Under Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code sections 17.60.100 and 17.86.060,the
modification of any term of a CUP requires at least .1 O-day'snotice and a hearing.No such
'notice was provided to Marymount,which only learned abouUhe proposed City Council action
through a list-'serve message that was sent by email after regular business hours on Thursday,
October 27,2011 -less than five days prior to the proposed action item on the Council's
agenda,which is not a public hearing.
The proposed action to modify the CUP violates not only Marymount's due process
rights,but those of its neighbors as well who should have an opportunity to review and comment
on the grading and construction activities associated with the creation of the 30,000 square foot,
90~space temporary parking lot that staff is requesting the Council mandate constructIon of
within twof11onth's time.(See Scott v.Indian Wells:(1972)6 Cal.3d 541 [neighbors entitled to
due process notice on CUP matters].)
Because the City has failed to comply with all applicable due process requirements
associated with the proposed action to modify Marymount's CUP,the matter may not be
considered at the November 1,2011 meeting,and'Marymount will not be sending any
representatives to participate in such an unlawful proceeding.This letter will preserve the
College's right to challenge any unlawful action that may knowingly and willfully be taken by the
City Council subsequent to this notice of the constitutional infirmities associated with the subject
agenda item.
3.THERE IS A LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT TO THE
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CUP.
Equally as troubling as the deliberate avoidance of due process protections in this
agenda item is the utter absence of any evidentiary basis to support the proposed modification
of an existing condition/mitigation measure that seeks to "reduce"or "minimize"street parking to
one that essentially seeks the eliminate all such lawful street parking before the expanded
parking areas are even constructed.According to the staff report,staff has observed a
maximum of 70-90 cars parked on the street during peak hours.As the proposed CUP
modification would require the construction of a 90-space temporary parking lot,it is clear that
the modifications seek to eliminate any such lawful overflow parking.
1-54
Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item NO.3
City Council Meeting of November 1,2011
October 31,2011
Page 4
In order to modify or revoke a validly issued permit,there must be substantial evidence
to support such action.(See City of San Marino v.Roman Catholic Archbishop,supra,180
Cal.App.2d 657,669 [rejecting city interpretation of its own ordinance that a parking area must
be constructed before issuance of building permit for a new building].)
What then are the bases for the proposed modification to the CUP?According to the
staff report,there are none other than staff's erroneous a lid overly aggressive interpretation of
Condition No.158 as requiring the elimination of any street parking prior to the construction of
the additional ,120 parking spaces in Phase I of the College's master plan.Staff concedes that
there have been no complaints from any of the property owners abutting the public streets
where students and visitors to the campus are lawfully parking:"Neither the City nor the College
has received complaints form area residents regarding the street parking in front of homes or
related disturbances."(Staff Report at p.2.)Indeed,in accordance with CUP Condition No.
138,Marymount met at the end of September with the designated representatives of the
neighboring homeowner's associations along with City staff to discuss campus operations.
None of these HOA representatives called for the elimination of street parking near the
Marymount campus or demanded that the City take any special action with respect to street
parking particularly of the nature being proposed here by staff in their attempt to modify the
CUP.1 '
Staff's contention that the parking management strategies utilized to date by the College
have not been effective is equally untenable in light of the findings made the Council in the Final
EIR.As noted above,it was assumed that there would be a demand for 519 parking spaces
with full enrollment of 793 students,which would result in a deficiency of 176 spaces until the
120 additional parking spaces were constructed by September 2012.Marymount is aHull
enrollment this semester,and yet the highest number of vehicles counted on the streets (90)is
about 50%less than forecast deficiency of spaces (176).While Marymount is continuing to
work towards reducing this number further (and Marymaunt believes current peak overflow is
more in the range of 50 vehicles),it cannot be said that what it has been done to date to reduce
parking demand has been ineffective,particularly where,as here,there is no evidence that the
situation is creating a public nuisance to the level that would justify the proposed elimination all
legalstreet parking.In the absence of such substantial evidence,the City Council must reject
the proposed modifications to the CUP.
1 Although this meeting took place over one month ago,City staff,to Marymount's knowledge,
has never proVided the City Council with a report on this meeting as required by Condition No.
138.
1-55
BUI~I<E.WIl.Ll/\i\t1S r SORENSEN.LLP
Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item NO.3
City Council Meeting of November 1,2011
October 31,2011
Page 5
4.THE COUNCIL SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ANY SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION TO
THE CUP PARKING CONDITIONS UNTIL IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COLLEGE IS
UNABLE TO TIMELY COMPLETE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS.
The staff report omits two key interactions between the College and City staff,On
September 28,2011,Mr.Mihranian met with representatives of the College and was shown a
revised'site plan that would allow the College to provide upwards of 500 spaces instead of the
463 currently proposed as part of Phase I,and was also informed that the College was
preparing to submit this modified plan to the City.On October 25,2011,City staff and
representatives of the College had a conference call to explore additional parking management
strategies.Staff suggested that the College's faculty could be made to park in San Pedro and
take a shuttle to the campus,to which the College's representatives told staff in no uncertain
terms that such a measure was not feasible because the majority of the teaching staff are
adjunct faculty who teach at multiple campus and operate on very tight schedules.As such,the
only potentially feasible strategy to provide additional interim parking appeared to be the
creation of a temporary lot on the undeveloped portion of the campus.2 The College's
representatives told City staff that the College would look into the temporary lot and get back to
staff at the earliest opportunity (not knOWing that staff had already made up its mind to impose
several new conditions and was scheduling the matter for City Council action at this meeting).
On October 28,2011,the College's project architect was advised by a civil engineering
firm that the construction of a temporary lot of approximately 30,000 square feet sufficient to
hold approximately 90 vehicles could potentially be constructed in the unimproved western area
of the campus where the new athletic field is to be located and would cost around $75,000 (not
including any permitting or processing fees or stormwater mitigation measures that could raise
the costs to upwards of $100,000).A good portion of this work (e.g.,gravel,drainage,etc.)
would need to be removed and therefore would be wasted when the College proceeds with
Phase I of its campus master plan.
At this time,the College is working diligently towards the goal of proceeding with Phase I
next summer,which would include the construction of the expanded on-site parking areas.If
the College is unable to complete the work within the current CUP schedule (Le.,September
2012),and an extension is required,then the College would be prepared to accept as a
condition to such extension,the construction of a temporary parking area for up to 90 vehicles
before the start of the fall term next year (August 2012).This would avoid any potentially
2 Staff's suggestions to convert the existing athletic field or to convert its basketball and tennis
courts into parking lots were also deemed not feasible or desirable during the call because of
the negative impact on existing programs.The so-called "valet parking"strategy was not
mentioned by staff during the call,but as conceded in the letter sent to the College following day
(see letter dated 10/26/11 at pA),it cannot independently achieve staff's proposed modification
to the CUP to eliminate all street parking near the campus.
1-56
BUPKE,WILLIAMS I~,SORENSEN,LLI'
Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item NO.3
City Council Meeting of November 1,2011
October 31,2011
Page 6
wasteful expenditures and would be fully consistent with the two-year period to provide such
parking that was incorporated into the City Council's 2010 approval of the project.
In closing,Marymount is disappointed by the precipitous recommendation being made
by staff to modify Marymount's CUP in the manner proposed.For the reasons set forth above,
the College respectfully requests that the City Council refrain from such action.
Sincerely,
BURKE,WILLIAMS &SORENSEN,LLP
DONALD M.DAVIS
Attachment:Portion of Final EIR Parking Analysis (Page 3.3-42)
cc:(Via E-Mail only)
Dr.Michael Brophy
Vice President Jim Reeves
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Tom Odom,Public Works Director.
Carol Lynch,City Attorney
1-57
ATTACHMENT
1-58
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Bachelor of Arts Degree Program
Environmental Impact Report Appendix D
Table 3.3-43
Mitigated Forecast Parking Demand Based on Observed Parking Ratio and RPVMC
7 New Employees/Faculty1
793 Students
•543 AA Program students *0.57 parked vehicles/student
•250 BA Program students *0.57 parked vehicles/student *
1.43 multiplier
5 Net New Student Seats (City Code:1 parking space per 5
student seats)2
Subtotal Forecast Parking Spaces Required
Mitigation Measure:Parking Management Strategy (11%
Reduction applied to 519 demand)
Total Forecast Parking Spaces Required
Parking Spaces Provided (343 existing +120 added by
proposed project)3
4
310
204
519
462
Parking SurpluslDeficiency +1
1 -Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code for Colleges and Universities for employee/faculty category.
2 -Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code for Colleges and Universities.
3 -Based on site Ian Rasmussen and Associates,November 2005).
SA Program Existing Plus Project Parking Mitigation Measures:
TR-5 Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy,the Applicant shall institute,to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning,BUilding,and Code Enforcement and the
Public Works Director,parking management strategies to reduce weekday College-
related parking demand by the following values:
..11 percent or greater for student enrollment between 744 and 793;
..6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;
..0 percent or greater for student enrollment of 693 or less.
Potential parking management strategies may include,but are not limited to,the
following:
..Provision of "carpool only"parking spaces;
..Implementation of parking pricing for campus parking permits;
..Utilization of remote parking;
..Provision of increased shuttle services;
..Offering financial incentives;
..Implementation of restrictions on parking allowed by residents of the Palos
Verdes North Facility.
Public Review Draft ..January 2010 3.3-42 Traffic and Circulation
1-59
September 29,2011
Director of Environmental Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275-5391
.'
Marymount College is submitting certification of its enrollment at the RPY campus as required
by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes:
>-Total enrollment for Fall 2011 is:
o 786 Day College students including 8 students in upper division
baccalaureate course work
o 98 Evening College students
Respectfully submitted,
~-
President.Marymount College
c:Vice President for Finance and Administration,James Reeves
1-60
College Search -Marymount College Palos Verdes California Page 1 of2
College Planning ¥ouCal1Gol SAT{SAT)AP{Advanced Placement)PSATiNi\I!SQT CLEf'For Educators
More Find Colleges,Advice and More Search
Makel.l Plan
Marymount College Palos Verdes California
+Add to MV College List
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA
g~..
Print complete college prome
Iii ...2
AtaG!ance
Majors &Learning
Environment
SmaUschool
Total undergraduates
First-time degree-seeking freshmen
Degree-seeking undergrads
Graduate enrollment
Geographic location
30 miles from Los Angeles.
940
426
935
Residential Campus
Suburban Setting
Large Town
Student Bocty Housing,Activities Sports Support Service
Ft:lr Transfer
Studems
For International
Students
MORE TO EXPLORE
Visiting a cottege.can give you a feel for life on campus.
Many students say that a college's size,iocation and campus "personality"were major factors
in their nnal choice,A college's student body is an important part of that equation,Ask yourself
these questions:Are you interested in being pert Of a diverse community with people from
many different backgrounds?Do you want to be around students who are interested in sports,
studying.politics or something else?
Compal1l Coiley!>"
Find SimilarCo!loges
Ffaq"",,!!y Asked
Quesf.ions
Average Age
19
All students
19
Full time students
Race/Ethnicity
Part-Time
Students
1%
Gender In-state and Out of State
Hi.James,
Find c
PLEASE NOTE:College Search profiles are based primarily on information
suoolied bv the colleoes themselves in response to the Collaoe 8o"rd's"Annual
surVey of Colleges,With ..i:\n'j;tateagencies,
C confir\'l!hars college really fike?Students and experts share the
oHegesi~~de sC"'1!lh'ft~g1t~3~'§Sto Find colleges to
OcoHe,
your lis
https:/ibigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-uni versity -search/marymount-college-palos-verd...7/22/2012
1-61
College Navigator -Marymount College Page 1 of4
.,les ~1iucA;::oli~;m:r,25
(310)377-5501
YiYjY!Ifl?j.Y.f.'QQ~im2Y....?i~
4-1fJar,primarily associare's,Private not·foc··profit
Associate's degree
Bachelor's degree
SUburb:Large
Yes
923 (all undfJrgraduale)
15 to 1
Campus setting:
Campus !lousing:
Student population:
Student·to·faculty ratio:
Marymount l.:CllleCte
30S00 Palos Verdes East Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275·6299
Geflerallflformation:
WebsII,,:
Type:
Awards offered:
IPEOS 10:118541
OPE 10:01047400
GENERAL iNFORMATION
Admissions www.marymountpv.edUiadmission
Apply Online W\'Vw.IT'13rymounlpv.edu.!:l1p..Q.iY:9nlint~
Financial Aid WW'N marymoun:pv edei'1()4:J.c'JlIJiJ:4.
Net Price Calculator W\YN .marvmountpv.edllif1nangiai··aid
Mission Statement
Yi.Wl:Y:.iT1£1!.x.rp..Qy'{1Ui.Y.:.f#Q{!!.?gQNY'maillQ9W1t~coJl&fJe-mis!JJ.Q!],
Speciall.eamil1g OppQrtllnlties
Study abroad
Student SelVices
Remedial services
Academic/career counseling service
Employment services for students
Cradit Accepted
Duslcred!t
Advanced placement (AP)credits
Carnegie Classlflcation
Associale'$--Privala Not-for-profil
RellgiQus Afflliation
Roman Catholic
Federal Aid
Eligible stUdents may receive rei!Grants and other
federal aid (e.g.Direct Loans).
Undergraduate students enrolled who lire
fQrmally registered with office of disabiilty
services
12%
FACULTY AND GRADUATE ASSisTANTS ElY PRIMARY FUNCTiON,FALL 2011
Total faculty
Instructional
Research and public 8elvioo
Tolal graduate assistants
Instructional
Research and public seNice
FULL TIME
33
33
o
PART TIME
87
87
o
o
o
o
TUITION,FEES,AND ESTiMATED STUDENT EXPENSES
FINANCIAL Ali)
NET PRICE
(ALL L1NDERGRADUA TE)
,v U;ld~;;gr~d'Jate transfer.in enrollment
ATiENOANCE SiAiLlS STUDENT GENDER
http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigatorl?id=118541 7/2212012
1-62
Mar<;osbody
<i(26 ••••••••••••••••••••••1if'~/.1
1-63
CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION /MARYMOUNT EXPANSION
CCC/ME,Inc.
31115 Ganado Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
phone:310-541-3197 fax:310-868-2880 email:jlkarp@cox.net
June 26,2012
Joel Rojas,Director
Ara Mihranian,Deputy director
Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project (Time Extension to
Planning Case No.ZON2003-00317 Conditional Use Permit -Revision "E"
Grading Permit,Variance,Minor exception Permit,and Sign Permit)
Gentlemen:
Inconformance with RPVMC 17.86.050,RPV should not be holding a
hearing to grant any approvals to Marymount,as they are not in compliance with
their CUP.By their own admission they have more than 793 students enrolled.
They claim to have 900-1000 depending on which report or public statement you
hold them to.If there is any question of which enrollment cap number should
apply it is simply solved by reading number 11 of the Conditions of Approval "In
the event that a Condition of approval is in conflict or is inconsistent with any
Mitigation Measure for this project,the more restrictive shall apply."Therefore
they are in non-compliance with #145,TR-4 and TR-5 and TR-4 is the most
restrictive.There is insufficient parking and insufficient parking management as
testified by staff in a previous staff report and there are many more items non-
compliances that could be listed.In the Conditions of Approval numbers 3,4,
and 5 state that Marymount must be in compliance with all Conditions of
Approval and each and every Mitigation.Marymount is not in Compliance!
CCC/ME has been asking for the approved parking lot since March of
2011.We were told it was impossible to build during the school year and we
must wait for summer 2012.Now we have been told they will build a parking lot
during the school year.School begins in August and there is no parking lot with
the additional 120 spaces.Parenthetically,if they have 900-1000 student's 120
spaces will still be insufficient.Also,if construction takes place simultaneously
with the students being in session a whole new host of problems arises.Where
do they stage the construction equipment and park the construction workers to
name just a few?Last fall there were 160 student cars on the streets at the
beginning of school.There is no reason that Marymount students should
1-64
inundate our neighborhood only because our City has not held Marymount to the
contract they signed.We have heard excuse,after excuse and lie after lie.It is
time to end this charade.Get the cars off the streets!
In the Letter dated July 16,2012 From Marymount's attorney they are
asking for a one year extension for the completion of Phase I and that Phase II to
be completed no later than 6-years from the final approval of Revision "E"to Cup
No.9,which is what this hearing is about.That totals more than eight years!
Phase III will go beyond the 8-year approval for completion of the entire project.
A request to extend the 8-year time limit on this project should be denied.The
City code allows for a 1-year extension therefore there should be no
consideration of any extension on Phase II or III.Marymount was given 8-years
to complete this project,which was a precedent setting outside number.This
was a contract and must be honored.Any consideration of any additional time
beyond eight years for the construction for the entire project is a complete
disregard for the resident of this neighborhood,the City of RPV and should be
completely and unequivocally denied!'
In the letter dated April 11,2012 from Marymount's attorney the college is
asking for an extension of time based on the RPVMC 17.60.070,"hardship".
Marymount's claim of hardship is not valid.Their hardship is "self-induced".I
refer to the California Court of Appeals Case "City of San Marino Vs.The Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles",Marymount's situation is as in this case a
"self-Induced"hardship and therefore invalid.Marymount has spentin excess of
$7 million dollars on other projects in the last three-years as quoted by Dr.
Brophy in an interview with the Easy Reader in'June of 2012.Because the
completion of this approved project,in Rancho Palos Verdes,is not considered a
high priority to Marymount does not make it a case of hardship under the
RPVMC.The non-completion of Phase I in the allotted time is just an indication
of their lack of care,priority and respect for the codes and agreements with RPV.
This $7 million dollars spent elsewhere would have gone a long way to
completing Phase I and would have shown that this project is a priority to them.
They.will never complete any of this project in a timely manner as long as this
City Council does not demand adherence to the agreed upon contract to
complete this project in 8-years.The final date for completion is September 30,
2018.
In the Letter dated May 10,2012 from Marymount's attorney he wishes to
make changes to Revision "E"of their CUP.The athletic field was one of the
subjects of Appendix "0"of the EIR.Removing the tennis courts,from their
specified location,which was to block balls from entering traffic on Palos Verdes
Drive East,is a major.component of the plan.There were facts and Findings
made that retractable nets were not deemed sufficient to keep errant balls out of
traffic.The removal of these courts is a monumental change and an egregious
disregard to the safety of residents driving on Palos Verdes Drive East.These
changes would also involve changes to the grading quantities approved.This
1-65
project was approved with a "balanced on site"grading plan and the new
proposed field would countermand those objectives.The exportation of truck-
loads of dirt that would traverse Palos Verdes Drive East was one of reason for a
"balanced on site"project.As part of the approvals on this entire project there
were Findings related to a "balanced on site"grading plan.How do you change
the Findings after the fact and still have an approved project?
We ask you to approve nothing until the college is in compliance with
.all of the Conditions of Approval and each and every Mitigation.Please
make sure that Marymount builds sufficient parking so that the quality of life for
the surrounding residents is maintained.We spent 10-years working out every
detail.Marymount must honor the contract it signed with RPV and complete this
entire project by September 30,2018.The community and the City Council need
to move on and not be held hostage by this college.
Yours truly,
Lois Karp
CCC/ME President
1-66
Page 1 of 4
Ara Mihranian
From:bUbba32@cox.net
Sent:Sunday,July 22,20126:40 PM
To:Ara Mihranian;jlkarp
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Carolyn Lehr;Joel Rojas
Subject:Re:Marymount College -Time Extension Clarification Letter
Attachments:Marymount Davis Attached.pdf;RPV Enrollment Report 9.29.11.pdf
Ara
Thank you for your latest information from the College.
By way of further clarification on this subject I have attached the College's
,October 31;2011 letter for further comparison and reference with your'
,preparaUon of recommendations to the City for any approval of the College's
requested extensions (April 11,2011 request)and follow-up letters from the
College of June 26 and July 16,2012)and as described further in your most
recent listserv notice,for that Council Meeting of August 7,2012.
:. .
The sum andsubstance ..Qf Attorney Davis's 31 October'2011 letter as shown
inhisAth P9int on pageS "The Council should refrain from any significant
modification to the CUP ,parkjng Condition~until it is clear that the
College is unable to timely complete the additional ParkingAreas~"
,'
,That time has now come and Attorney Davis's promises should be
,remembered and acted upon and recommended by Staff to the City Council
"August 7,2012.Applicable portions of the College's October 31,2011
document are;
1.)"On September 28,2011,Mr.Mihranian met with representatives of the
College and was shown a revised site plan thatwould allow the College to
provide upwards of 500 (parking)spa'ces instead of the 463 currently
proposed as part of Phase I."Show us that plan and the extra spaces
proposed.Include that increase as part of your recommendation.
2.}"If the College is unable to complete the work (on the parking lot)within
the current CUP schedule (Le.September 30,2012)and an extension is
required(it is)then the College would be prepared to accept as a condition of
such extension,the construction of a temporary parking lot for up to 90
vehicles before the start of the fall term next year (August 2012).This would
avoid any potentially wasteful expenditures and would be fully consistent with
the two year period to provide such parking that was incorporated into the City
Council's 2010 approval of the project."
8/1/2012 1-67
Page 2 of4
Ara,take them up on that offer.Do not "stay the course"as recently suggested by
the College in contradiction to their June 26,2012 and July 16,2012 letters)
As you know,the College has far exceeded their maximum enrollment
limitation of 793 students,notwithstanding their erroneous and shameful charade
that certain AA students are enrolled separately in "Evening Classes"or otherwise
as part of a claimed "Non-Traditional Degree Program".That is a complete and total
sham that should be permanently exposed as a fraud on this community.
It is a fraud because the sum total of Traditional (793)and Non-Traditional
Degree Students (150)was never studied in the Findings,Whatwas studied
(Webster College Weekend College)is no longer associated with Marymount
College and has not been for at leastthe past three years.Facts in Support of
Findings,or.anywhere else in the Approved EIRand Resolution of Approved'
Conditions.It is a fraud on this Co l11 munity because there is no such allowable
enrollment category as "Evening College StUdents"(see attached Fall 2011
College-submitted enrollment report)
,,
It is a fraud on this Community because there is no such category of
enrollment provided in the Conditions of Approval (#145)as "DayColleg'e
students"as improperly,stated in that Fall 2011 enrollment report.
It isa fraud on the educational Comnlul::lity when this College reports,instead,
that its enrollment is (variously)9400r923 Degree-seeking undergraduate students'
(Fall 2011)to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)and :_..,
.CollegeBoard.org.*In addition,the College President has also recently been.quoted
(document previously provideqtoyou)in a June t,2012article in the local
EasyReaderthatthe latest RPV campus enrollment is now 1,000 oi more and that
the College is not turning away such prospective students based upon'"any
enrollment limitation now approved.
As you well know,there is a basic RPVMC requirement that any applicant for
entitlements must first demonstrate full compliance with any existing approved
Conditions before the Community Development Director is allowed to proceed with
any such application for additional entitlements.
The College is not in compliance with its Enrollment Limitation condition.
The College is not in compliance with LU-1 to report annually on July 1st,with
respect to its (NAIA or other)Athletic Conference agreements which could trigger
further CUP Review and modifications.
The College,based upon their own reports of new hiring,is not in compliance
with the City's RPVMC requirement to provide low-income housing when there
are 10 or more added workers created by the Project.
8/1/2012 1-68
Page 3 of4
The College is most likely not eligible for any extension based upon
"hardship"under the terms as provided by RPVMC since any such "hardship"is
self-imposed and completely within the control of the College who admittedly
has voluntarily expended needed Phase I funds at other project locations and for
other purposes,including nearly $2 Million to obtain Measure P passage in
November 2010 that would have allowed the College full discretion as to
timing and selection of entitlement components for which they are now asking
City forbearance ..
The Fall 2011 Enrollment Report is a fraud against the City because in
AppendixD,Hours of Operation the Classroom Hours studied as part of that
SA.and AA student enrollment limitation review were stated as from 8 AM to 10 PM,
thereby,automatically including any and all such participating students enrolled as
an integral part of the "weekday"Traffic and Parking stwdies contained therein."The
proposed SA Program would not result in changes to the hours of operation
analyzed in the FEIR and as described below:"
You are asked,therefore to take the College upon its offer to construct
additional<parking spaces (beyond the 463)'and to further require immediate''
implementation of a temporary parking solution (Tennis/basketbaliCourt
area)prior to construction (not during School session months)nextyec;:1roft that
lot.The College does not automatically have the option now to "stay the Course",
and construct this additional parking while school is in session.That clock has "
admittedly run out.And the College previously informed the City that such/lin
Session"Construction was notvi"able.
In the event the City wishes to make any extensions,of entitlements,despite the ;
good and valid reasons above for not doing so,the City should insist on making
,'such,anextension (Phase One -Condition60(a)only)conditional on,the'College
bringing themselves into Full Compliance with all Conditions of Approval'CiS already,'
required in that document.
Jim Gordon
*Copies of these NCES and CollegeSoard Enrollment reports (923/940
undergraduates Fall 2011)are available from the sources on-line or by request.
----Ara Mih~anian <AraM@rpv.com>wrote:
'>
>Hi Loisand Jim,
>The attached letter was submitted to the City this week from the College providing
clarification on its time extension request.
>The letter has been provided to the City Council and is posted on the City's
website.
8/1/2012 1-69
Page 4 of4
>Let me know if you have any questions.
>Ara
>
>Ara Michael Mihranian
.>Deputy Director of Community Development
>City of Rancho Palos Verdes
>30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
.>Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
>31 0-544~5228 (telephone)
>310-544-5293 (fax)
>aram@rpv.com<mailto:aram@rpv.com>
>www.palosverdes.com/rpv<http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv>
>
>P Do you really need to print this e-mail?.
>This e~mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The
information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized
dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email
.'!n ,error;or,are not an intended recipient,piease notify the sender immediately.
Th.ank yqufor your assistance and coope~ation·.··..
>
8/1/2012 1-70
444 Soutrl Flowel'Street -Suite 2400
los /\ngeles.California 900712953
voice 2112360600 fax 213.2362700
www.bwsl'lVV com
Direct No.:213.236.2702
Our File No.;04693-0005
ddavis@bwslaw.com
October 31,2011
VIA E-MAIL &OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Tom Long,Mayor
M~mbers of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90.275
Re:REQUEST TO STAY THE PROPOSED IMPROPER MODIFICATIONS TO THE
MARYMOUNT COLLEGE CUP REGARDING PARKING
Dear Mayor Long and Councilmembers:
On behalf of MarymountCollege,we respectfully request that the City Council take no
action at its meeting of November 1,2011 on agenda item NO.3 (Marymount College -
[Purported]Parking Management Strategies)because,as set forth below,(1)the proposed
action in fact seeks to modify the terms and conditions of Marymount's Conditional Use Permit
(CUP),(2)the proposed modifications have not been properly noticed in accordance with the
City's Municipal Code and also do not comport with applicable due process requirements,and
(3)there is a lack of sUbstantial evidence to supporUo the proposed modifications to the CUP.
1.THE PROPOSED ACTION SEEKS TO MODIFY THE PARKING CONDITIONS OF
MARYMOUNT'S CUP.
Under agenda item No.3,City staff is asking the City Council to "affirm"one or any
combination of three proposed measures "so that a minimum of 90 temporary parking spaces
are provided on the College campus by ...January 9,2012."(Staff Report at p.3.)Although
couched as "strategies"that the Community Development Director and Public Works Director
have the purported discretion to implement under the CUP,in reality,the proposed action seeks
to amend the terms and conditions of Marymount's CUP,which is readily apparent from a brief
review of the record that led to the Council's approval of Revision "E"to CUP NO.9 in 2010,
specifically as it pertains to Mitigation Measure TR-5 of the Final EIR (FEIR),which was
restated as CUP Condition No.158.
Los Angeles !nlclncJ Empire Oaklane!_.Orange County"Palm Desert --Silicon Valley'"Ventura c.ounry1-71
Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No.3
City Council Meeting of November 1,2011
October 31,2011
Page 2
Based on observed parking demand at the College,which has historically included legal
street parking on Palos Verdes Drive East,it was determined that at full enrollment (793
students),there would be a peak hour demand for 519 parking spaces.Because the College
was proposing to add 120 new spaces beyond the existing 343 spaces (463 spaces total)upon
completion of Phase I of its campus master plan,the FEIR parking analysis estimated that there
would be a potential deficiency of 56 spaces.(See attached FEIR Table 3.3-43.)In order to
address this potential deficiency at build out of the new parking areas,Mitigation Measure
TR-5 was recommended,which included parking management strategies in order to reduce
off-site parking demand following the completion of the additional on-site parking areas
in Phase I.
It is abundantly clear from the parking analysis of the approved FEIR that the primary
intent behind the parking managemenfstrategies in Mitigation Measure TR-5 and the
percentage reductions in demand associated with student enrollment,which terms were
restated in Condition No.158,was to reduce parking demand at or just prior to completion of the
expanded parking areas and not to eliminate all street parking during the inte'rim two-year period
in which the College was permitted to complete Phase I under Condition No.60.Accordingly,
the burdensome and premature "interim"actions that Staff is a'sking the Council to approve
must be viewed as a modification to the CUP.This is particularly true where,as here,the only
truly feasible manner to create the 90 additional parking spaces now being demanded without
impacting existing and approved campus operations is to create a 30,000 square foot temporary
parking lot on the site of the proposed new athletic field for Which construction is scheduled to
start in less than six months.(See Comment No.4 below regarding the details of this proposed
,tenlporary parking lot.),,.
The City Council had the opportunity topreclLide street parking and to require the
construction of a temporary parking lot when it approved Revision "E"to the CUP in 2010.The
Council chose not to do so at the time,and the CUP cannot now be amended without
evidentiary support for such a change or in compliance with all applicable due process notice
,and hearing requirements.
2.THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO MARYMOUNT'S CUP HAVE NOT BEEN
PROPERLY NOTICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE AND
APPLICABLE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.,
A CUP creates certain property rights that may not be modified arbitrarily without cause
or without proper notice and a hearing that comports with constitutional rights of due process.
(See Bauerv.City of San Diego (1999)75 Cal.AppAth 1281;Malibu Mountains Recreation,Inc.
v.County of Los Angeles (1998)67 Cal.AppAth 359;Community Development Com.v.City of
1-72
Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item NO.3
City Council Meeting of November 1,2011
October 31,2011
Page 3
Fort 8ragg(1988)204 Cal.App.3d 1124;Garavatti v.Fairfax Planning Com.(1971)22
Cal.App.3d 145;and City of San Marino v.Roman Catholic Archbishop (1960)180 Cal.App.2d
657.)Staff,in its rush to modify the CUP not only tramples upon these well-established
constitutional principles,but ignores the applicable provisions of the City's own municipal code.
Under Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code sections 17.60.100 and 17.86.060,the
modification of any term of a CUP requires at least 10-day's notice and a hearing.No such
notice was provided to Marymount,which only learned about the proposed City Council action
through a list-serve message that was sent by email after regular business hours on Thursday;
October 27,2011 -less than five days prior to the proposed action item on the Council's
agenda,which is not a public hearing.
The proposed action to modify the CUP violates not only Marymount's due process ,
rights,but those of its neighbors as well who should have an opportunity to review and comment
on the grading and construction activities associated with the creation of the 30,000 square foot,
90-spacetemporary parking lot that staff is requesting the Council mandate construction of
within two ,month's time.(See Scott v.Indian Wells (1972)6 Cal.3d 541 [neighbors entitled to
due process notice on CUP matters].)
,Because the City has failed to comply with all applicable due process requirements
associated with the proposed action to modify Marymount's CUP,the matter may not be
considered at the November 1,2011 meeting,and Marymount will'not be sending any
representatives to participate in such an unlawful proceeding.Thisletter will preserve the
College's right to challenge any unlawful action that may knowingly and willfully be taken by the
City Council subsequent to this notice of the constitutional infirmities associated with the subject
.agenda item.
3.THERE IS A LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUr:'PORT TO THE
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CUP.
Equally as troubling as the deliberate avoidance of due process protections in this
agenda item is the utter absence of any evidentiary basis to support the proposed modification
of an existing condition/mitigation measure that seeks to "reduce"or "minimize"street parking to
one that essentially seeks the eliminate all such lawful street parking before the expanded
parking areas are even constructed.According to the staff report,staff has observed a
maximum of 70-90 cars parked on the street during peak hours.As the proposed CUP
modification would require the construction of a 90-space temporary parking lot,it is clear that
the modifications seek to eliminate any such lawful overflow parking.
1-73
[3l.JiW \X/ii..U?NS I,SOPEr-lSi N.LIP
Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item NO.3
City Council Meeting of November 1,2011
October 31,2011
Page 4
In order to modify or revoke a validly issued permit,there must be substantial evidence
to support such action.(See City of San Marino v.Roman Catholic Archbishop,supra,180
Cal.App.2d 657,669 [rejecting city interpretation of its own ordinance that a parking area must
be constructed before issuance of building permit for a new building].)
What then are the bases for the proposed modification to the CUP?According to the
.staff report,there are none other than staff's erroneous and overly aggressive interpretation of
Condition No.158 as requiring the elimination of any.street parking prior to the construction of
the additional 120 parking spaces in Phase I of the College's master plan.Staff concedes that
there have been no complaints from any of the property owners abutting the public streets
where students and visitors to the campus are lawfully parking:"Neither the City nor the College
has received complaints form area residents regarding the street parking in front of homes or
related disturbances."(Staff Report atp.2.)Indeed,in accordance with CUP Condition No.
138,Marymount met at the end of September with the designated representatives of the
neighboring homeowner's associations along with City staff to discuss campus operations.
None of these HOA representatives called for the elimination of street parking near the
Marymount campus or demanded that the City take any special action with respect to street
parking particularly of the nature being proposed here by staff in their attempt to modify the
CUP.1
Staff's contention that the parking management strategies utilized to date by the College
have not been effective is equally untenable in light of the findings made the Council in the Final
EIR.As noted above,it was assumed that there would be a demand for 519 parking spaces
with full enrollment of 793 students,which would result in a deficiency of 176 spaces until the
120.additional parking spaces were constructed by September 2012.Marymount is at full
enrollment this semester,and yet the highest number of vehicles counted on the streets (90)is
about 50%less than forecast deficiency of spaces (176).While Marymount is continuing to
work towards reducing this numberfurther (and Marymount believes current peak overflow is
more in the range of 50 vehicles),it cannot be said that what it has been done to date to reduce'
parking demand has been ineffective,particularly where,as here,there is no evidence that the
.situation is creating a public nuisance to the level that would justify the proposed elimination all
legal street parking.In the absence of such substantial evidence,the City Council must reject
the proposed modifications to the CUP.
1 Although this meeting took place over one month ago,City staff,to Marymount's knowledge,
has never provided the City Council with a report on this meeting as required by Condition No.
138.
1-74
Bur~KE.WILLlNvlS [SOI~ENSEN.LLP
Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item NO.3
City Council Meeting of November 1,2011
October 31,2011
Page 5
4.THE COUNCIL SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ANY SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION TO
THE CUP PARKING CONDITIONS UNTIL IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COLLEGE IS
UNABLE TO TIMELY COMPLETE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS.
The staff report omits two key interactions between the College and City staff.On
.September 28,2011,Mr.Mihranian met with representatives of the College and was shown a
revised 'site plan that would allow the College to provide upwards of 500 spaces instead of the
463 currently proposed as part of Phase I,and was also informed that the College was
preparing to submit this modified plan to the City.On October 25,2011,City staff and
representatives of the College had a conference call to explore additional parking management
strategies.Staff suggested that the College's faculty could be made to park in San Pedro and
take a shuttle to the campus,to which the College's representatives told staff in no uncertain
terms that such a measure was not feasible because the majority of the teaching staff are
adjunct faculty who teach at multiple campus and operate on very tight schedules.As such,the
only potentially feasible strategy to provide additional interim parking appeared to be the
'creation of a temporary lot on the undeveloped portion of the campus.2 The College's
representatives told City staff that the College would look into the temporary lot and get back to
staff at the earliest opportunity (not knOWing that staff had already made up its mind to impose
several new conditions and was scheduling the matter for City Council action at this meeting).
On October 28,2011,the College's project architect was advised by a civil engineering
firm that the construction of a temporary lot of approximately 30,000 square feet sufficient to
hold approximately 90 vehicles could potentially be constructed in the unimproved western area
of the campus where the new athletic field is to be located and would cost around $75,000 (not
inclUding any permitting or processing fees or stormwater mitigation measures that could raise
the costs to upwards of $100,000).A good portion of this work (e.g.,gravel,drainage,etc.)
would need to be removed and therefore would be wasted when the College proceeds with
Phase I of its campus master plan.
At this time,the College is working diligently towards the goal of proceeding with Phase I
next summer,which would include the construction of the expanded on-site parking areas.If
the College is unable to complete the work within the current CUP schedule (Le.,September
2012),and an extension is required,then the College would be prepared to accept as a
condition to such extension,the construction of a temporary parking area for up to 90 vehicles
before the start of the fall term next year (August 2012).This would avoid any potentially
2 Staff's suggestions to convert the existing athletic field or to convert its basketball and tennis
courts into parking lots were also deemed not feasible or desirable during the call because of
the negative impact on existing programs.The so-called "valet parking"strategy was not
mentioned by staff during the call,but as conceded in the letter sent to the College following day
(see letter dated 10/26/11 at pA),it cannot independently achieve staff's proposed modification
to the CUP to eliminate all street parking near the campus.
1-75
BLJPKE.WIUII\!VIS [..SORENSEN.LLP
Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No.3
City Council Meeting of November 1,2011
October 31,2011
Page 6
wasteful expenditures and would be fully consistent with the two-year period to provide such
parking that was incorporated into the City Council's 2010 approval of the project.
In closing,Marymount is disappointed by the precipitous recommendation being made
by staff to modify Marymount's CUP in the manner proposed.For the reasons set forth above,
the College respectfully requests that the City Council refrain from such action.
Sincerely,
BURKE,WILLIAMS &SORENSEN,LLP
~m9do-r
DONALD M.DAVIS
'Attachment:Portion of Final EIR Parking Analysis (Page 3.3-42)
cc:(Via E-Mail only)
Dr.Michael Brophy
Vice President Jim Reeves
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Tom Odom,Public Works Director
Carol Lynch,City Attorney
1-76
ATTACHMENT
1-77
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Bachelor of Arts Degree Program
Environmental Impact Report Appendix D
Table 3.3-43
Mitigated Forecast Parking Demand Based on Observed Parking Ratio and RPVMC
7 NeW Employees/Faculty1
793 Students
•543 M Program students *0.57 parked vehicles/student
•250 BA Program students *0,57 parked vehicles/student *
1.43 multiplier
5 Net New Student Seats (City Code:1 parking space per 5
student seats)2
Subtotal Forecast Parking Spaces Required
Mitigation Measure:Parking Management Strategy (11%
Reduction applied to 519 demand)
Total Forecast Parking Spaces Required
Parking Spaces Provided (343 existing +120 added by
proposed project)3
4
310
204
519
462
Parking Surplus/Deficiency +1
1 -Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code for Colleges and Universities for employee/faculty category.I 2 -Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code for Colleges and Universities.
3 -Based on site plan (Rasmussen and Associates,November 2005).
SA Program Existing Plus Project Parking Mitigation Measures:
TR-5 Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy,the Applicant shall institute,to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning,BUilding,and Code Enforcement and the
Public Works Director,parking management strategies to reduce weekday College-
related parking demand by the following values:
"11 percent or greater for student enrollment between 744 and 793;
" 6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;
• 0 percent or greater for student enrollment of 693 or less.
Potential parking management strategies may include,but are not limited to,the
following:
"Provision of "carpool only"parking spaces;
"Implementation of parking pricing for campus parking permits;
•Utilization of remote parking;
•Provision of increased shuttle services;
•Offering financial incentives;
•Implementation of restrictions on parking allowed by residents of the Palos
Verdes North Facility.
Public Review Draft •January 2010 3.3-42 Traffic and Circulation
1-78
September 29,2011
Director of Environmental Services
.City of Ra}1cho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos VerdesCA 90275-5391
·'
Marymount College is submitting certification of its enrollment at the RPV campus as required
by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes:
~Total enrollment for Fall 2011 is:
o 786 Day College students including 8 students in upper division
baccalaureate course work .
o 98 Evening College students
RespectfuHy submitted,
~-
President,Marymount College
c:Vice President for Finance and Administration,James Reeves
1-79
Page 1 of4
Ara Mihranian
From:bubba32@cox.net
Sent:Thursday,July 19,20122:58 PM
To:Ara Mihranian;jlkarp
Cc:Joel Rojas;CC@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Marymount College -Time Extension Clarification Letter
Attachments:MarymountEnroliNowSign.jpg
Ara
Any "extension"granted should be no longer than for one year and for
Condition 60 (a)only.Such Extension should only be granted "Conditionally",
conditioned upon the College bringing their operations into full compliance
with approved enrollment levels,as well as with the RPVMC 17.11.140.B.3
low income housing requirement.In this regard,the College (June 7,2012
EasyReader article,Dr.Brophy)has stated that they are now enrolling ,
upwards of 1,000 students and have plans for 1,200 at the RPV site.
It was my understanding,based upon video recorded comments at the April
17,2012 Minor Modification Hearing,that the College had been adequately
forewarned "months ago"regarding the necessity to begin approval meetings
with the CDFG.It was further,my additional understanding that this good
adVice from Staff was 'based upon years earlier experience (San Ramon
Canyon)with that and possibly other Approval Agencies that warranted an
early start to obtain timely approvals necessary to complete scheduled work
,at that time.,
It is further my information and understanding that the College failed to
expeditiously act upon this sound advice from Staff and only at the last minute
realized the current nature of these approval problems which were provably
"foreseeable"in nature,contrary to Attorney Davis's explanation in his
Clarification discussion.
This was and remains an avoidable delay that the College had been given
advance notice of,and refused or failed to take seriously in time to either
prevent this delay from occurring,or else allowing an early warning to the City
of such problems that were not revealed until well beyond all reasonable
remaining schedule completion dates promised and posted by the College
(Letter of June 26,2012).
It is most notable,in this regard that Mayor Anthony Mizetich pointedly
made reference to just this potential delay factor,yet the College,when
questioned by Council Woman Brooks about the status for parking lot
completion by September 30,2012,was told by College Counsel in
811/2012 1-80
Page 2 of4
unequivocal terms that this project would "Absolutely"be finished by that date.
This is but one of several examples where the College Attorney has been proven
wrong with respect to key representations for the College to the City.You may recall
his August 27,2007 statements regarding the potential for the College's San Pedro
site to accommodate the Alternative "Living Campus".Attorney Davis failed in his
remarks to fully reveal and truthfully attest to that potential which is now current
history according to a number of recent RPV "Border Issues"reports that now show
plans for on-campus residences for over 600 students,along with Classrooms,etc.
that were,according to Attorney Davis's letter,"infeasible"there.
Fumbled statements by Attorney Davis*include:
1.)"The College was never consulted regarding this alternative".Fact,The College
has been fully aware of the Alternative ofa "Living/Academic Campus"since the
initial scoping sessions of the original EIR (2002).
2.)"The site is outside the lead agency's jurisdiction"suggesting that no
consideration,legally,can be given this alternative.Of course,Attorney Davis must
have been aware of Finding FN7 of the Goleta Case which state,in part,.
"jurisdictional borders are simply a factor to be taken into account and do not
establish an ironclad limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives."..
3.)Davis's next whopper was "The site's (existing)land use designatiohis
inconsistent with the project".If so,then why is the College now actively pursuing
just such Ii:md use with LA City Planning?Le.not a valid reason fornon~use,as it
now seems.Attorney Davis's statement is all the more deceptive and misleading
because such then current land use designation was actually recognized by the
College in its application to the USDOE which stated "As an educational Facility,
;Marymount College will seek a conditional use permit for the (educational):purposes.
intended."·.
4.)Attorney Davis also cogently noted that the deed "..conditions include a
prohibition on any mortgage or encumbrance of the site without prior written
approval of the DOE."Technically correct and absolutely misleading because,at
the time of his writing,Attorney Davis knew,or had reason to know that the
adjoining Rolling Hills Prep (RHP)property,deeded under identical conditions,was
now up and running with a $7.5 Million mortgage loan obtained from Bank of
America as was publicly disclosed in RHP's April 2007 Annual Report months
before.
5.)A further brilliant observation cast on the waters by Marymount's Land Use
Counsel was that "The site is not economically viable;"Tell that (again)to the
Trustees of Marymount College now that they have invested significant Millions in
that site recently.
8/1/2012 1-81
Page 3 of4
6.)Then there was the old saw that "The site is incompatible with Surrounding Land
Uses."Brilliant.Yeah,right.
7.)How about the restrictions cited by the College and Attorney Davis that "The site
presents Seismic Constraints."What Constraints?Not now in evidence according to
published plans.
8.)Or how about the old standby "There are Significant Environmental Effects in
Developing the Off-Site (San Pedro)location".Apparently such limitations as
suggested by Counsel for the College have now been overcome.Wow!What an
awesome prognosticator!
And,oh yes,did the College fulfill its promise in its application to the USDOE that "A
major capit~1 investment is proposed to begin within one to three years after ,
transfer.""The College will construct (Page 80f the Application)an academic center
at the eastern side of USS New Jersey Street..there will be an academic center with
three c:lassrooms,four room for quiet study,and a computer lab.We will also
construct a 'student health and welfare center with a ,cafeteria,a nurse;'soffice,and
examiniflg room,an exercise/fitness area with Nautilus equipment,a student
lounge,and a laundry facility.We estimate that 18,200 square feet of space wilLbe
,required with a total cost of $2,300,000."(excluding equipment and other costs,
Grand total $3 Million).
,Don't be fooled~ga:in by this College's misrepresentations.Buyer BeWare!
I wou,ldsugg'est th'at any current representations from the College be treated with:
the respeetthathas been previously earned by them.'
Jim
*(Additionallnformation and more details regarding Attorney Davis's August 27,
2007 guidance can be obtained in Comment Letter 20 of Section 12 of the EIR)
----Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpv.com>wrote:
>
>Hi Lois and Jim,
>The attached letter was submitted to the City this week from the College providing
clarification on its time extension request.
>The letter has been provided to the City Council and is posted on the City's
website.
>Let me know if you have any questions.
>Ara
>
8/1/2012 1-82
Page 4 of4
>Ara Michael Mihranian
>Deputy Director of Community Development
>City of Rancho Palos Verdes
>30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
>Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
>310-544-5228 (telephone)
>310-544-5293 (fax)
>aram@rpv.com<mailto:aram@rpv.com>
>www.palosverdes.com/rpv<http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv>
>
> P Do you really need to print this e-mail?
>This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The
information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized
dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly proh"ibited.If you received this email
in error,·or ?re not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately ..
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
>
8/1/2012 1-83
1
-
8
4