Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_09_04_01_Marymount_College_Expansion_Project
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM COUNCIL MEMBERS E LOPMENT HONORABLE MAYOR &CIT JOEL ROJAS,AICP,COMMU DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER 4,2012 MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT - A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE TIME PERIODS FOR COMPLETION OF PHASES 1 AND 2 FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR (CASE NO.ZON2003- 00317)130800 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER 0Y---. Ara Mihranian,AICP,Deputy Community Development Directo~ TO: FROM: DATE:. SUBJECT: Project Manager: REVIEWED: RECOMMENDATION 1.Receive and file a status update on the construction of the temporary and permanent parking lots on the College's campus; 2.Extend the planning entitlements and the construction completion deadline for Phase 1 ofthe Marymount College Facilities Expansion Projectfrom September 30, 2012 to December 18,2012,without prejudice to granting a further extension up to September 30,2013; 3.Deny,without prejudice,the College's one-year time extension request to extend the planning entitlements and the construction completion deadline for Phase 2 from June 1,2015 to June 1,2016;and, 4.Authorize City Staff to execute a restricted use covenant pursuant to Condition No. 79 of Resolution No.2010-42 that restricts certain improvements within the designated Building Geologic Setback Area. 1-1 BACKGROUND On April 11,2012,the College submitted a request for a one year extension to the construction completion time periods for the College's Facilities Expansion Project established by the Condition of Approval No.60 of the College's Conditional Use Permit (CUP)approved by the City Council on June 1,2010 (see attachment).On July 16,2012, the College submitted a supplemental letter clarifying the requested time extension request (see attachment).Per the July 16 th letter,the College requests the City Council's approval of a one year time extension to complete Phase 1 and a one year time extension to complete Phase 2.No extension to the total 3-year construction activity or the overall 8- year construction time frame for Phases 1,2 and 3 is being requested as described in Condition No.60d. On August 7,2012,the City Council continued the College's time extension request to its September 4,2012 meeting to allow the College to first construct a temporary parking lot to help alleviate student street parking.Consistent with this action,the City Council affirmed the Community Development Director's determination that a temporary parking lot was required to alleviate student street parking as part of the College's Parking Management Strategies for the 2012 -2013 academic year.As such,the City Council directed the College to obtain the necessary T ~mporaryParking Lot Permit from City Staff to construct theteniporary parking lot prior to the commencement of the College's fall term (August 27, 2012). .DISCUSSION Provided below is a discussion of Staff's four recommendations. !, 1.Receive and file a status 'update on the·construction of the temporary "and permanent parking lots on .the College's campus: Temporary Parking Lot According to Condition No.158,the College provided the City with its Parking Management Strategies (Strategies)for the 2012/2013 academic year (see attachment).According to the Strategies,as well as Council directive,the College is required to provide an operable temporary parking lot to help alleviate student street parking until the College completes construction of the expanded permanent parking lot approved by the City Council on April 17,2012.On August 16,2012,the City issued a Temporary Parking Lot PermiUo the College for the construction of a temporary gravel parking lot that accommodates 101 parking spaces,as well as a driveway and a separate pedestrian pathway.Construction began on the temporary gravel parking lot the following day and was completed and operable for the first day of classes on August 27,2012. Based on two days of field observations of the parking condition at the College and the surrounding streets (Monday,August 27 and Tuesday,August 28),the temporary parking lot is being utilized and there is a reduction in the number of observed student cars parked on the surrounding streets (approximately 5-6 cars).Staff associates this reduction in street parking to the availability of the temporary parking lot combined with the College's efforts in making students aware of the parking lot through the use of student parking monitors,campus announcements,and flyers.Additionally shuttle ridership appears to have improved partly due to the enhanced awareness and frequency of the shuttles.Since 1-2 Staff's initial assessment is based mostly only on two-days of field visits,Staff will continue to monitor the parking condition at the College and direct the College to make any appropriate adjustments to the implemented Strategies under the authority given to the Community Development Director pursuant to Condition No.158. Permanent Parking Lot As reported to the Council at the August i h meeting,because of delays in 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 permanent parking lot,the College informed the City that the expanded permanent parking lot approved by the City Council at its April 17,2012 meeting would not be constructed in advance of the fall 2012 term.The College reported to the Council at the August i h meeting that it intends to secure the appropriate agency ,approvals as soon as possible so that construction can commence within the coming weeks.At this time,the City has been informed that the College has received approvals from theL:.osAngeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Certificate 401)and from the CDFG (Certificate 404).Approvals from ACOE for the blue line stream jurisdictional delineation are still pending.In the meantime,the City's Plan Check review process (involving the Planning Division,Building and Safety Division,and the Public Works Department)continues so that when the ACOE approval is secured,the City will be prepared to immediately issue the grading permit so that construction on the permanent expanded parking lot can commence shortly thereafter. Staff will continue to update the Council on the progress of the permanent expanded parking lot,as well as the College's implementation ofthe 2012/2013 Parking Management Strategies.As such,based on the above,Staff recommends the Council receive and file' the status update on the temporary and'permanent parking lots. 2.Extend the planning entitlements 'and the construction completion deadline for Phase 1 of the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project from September 30, 2012 to December 18,2012,without prejudice to granting a further extension up to September 30,2013. According to Condition of Approval No.60a,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 ar;eas,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.The Condition also states that approvals for any components of Phase 1 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.Based on the July 16 th letter (see attachment),the College requests the City Council's approval of a one year time extension to complete Phase 1 resulting in a new completion deadline of September 30,2013. According to Section 17.60.070 of the RPVMC,the City Council may extend Conditional Use Permit time limits for up to one additional year upon a showing of substantial hardship, delays beyond the control of the applicant or other good cause.The College's justifications for granting a time extension are summarized below,and described in detail in the attached April 11 th letter (see attachment): 1-3 •The June 2010 City Council approval of the Facilities Expansion project came in the midst of an economic recession which made fund raising difficult,particularly raising funds before obtaining City entitlements. •Fundraising for constructing components of Phase One (infrastructure and parking) presented a challenge since these improvements are not considered legacy items donors are generally inclined to support. •Resources (approximately $2.5 million),exceeding costs for other improvements described in Phase One,were spent upgrading the existing on-campus utilities (electrical,gas,and plumbing)to sustain the current operation of the College. •In order to address current student housing needs,the College expended funds on temporary improvements to its student housing facilities in San Pedro,as well as preparing an application to City of Los Angeles to expand these facilities over a 20- year period. •Funds were expended to improve academic facilities for student use at the newly acquired Waterfront Campus in San Pedro. •Th~College will be seeking the City Council's consideration of a modification to the relocated athletic field which will not be completed by the current September 30, 2012 construction completion deadline.',' •The College is not in a financial position'to complete the reconfiguration of the northern parking lot (adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive East)by the current September 30,2012'construction completion deadline.' In addition to the above,the College's July 16th letter requests a time extension beyond the September 30,2012 deadline to construct the expanded permanent parking "Iotthat was approved by the City Council in Aprii 2012,which is a component of Phase 1.As stated in the Coltege's letter,there have been del,ays in securing approvals for the proposed detention basin from the CDFG and the ACOE,which according to Mitigation Measure BIO-' 3 must be obtained 'by the College p'rior to the City issuing any grading permit ' " Based on the reasons summarized above,particularly the importance of constructing an expanded'permanent parking lot to accommodate the 463 parking spaces needed 'to support the student enrollment cap established in the Conditions of Approval,City Staff is of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for the Council to extend the time limits for Phase 1.However,rather than extending the time limit to complete Phase 1 for acomplete year (to September 30,2013),Staff recommends that the City Council extend the time limits for Phase 1 until December 18,2012 (t~e date of the last regularly scheduled City Council meeting of the year).This"would enable the City Council to monitor the College's ability to fulfill its commitment to construct the expanded permanent parking lot and other infrastructure improvements described in Phase 1 in the next few months.According to the College,it is estimated that construction of the permanent parking lot will take approximately 75 days to complete.Thus,if the College is able to commence construction in September as expected,completion of the permanent parking lot should be completed or nearly completed around mid-December.Based on the College's progress in completing the expanded permanent parking lot and other grading and infrastructure improvements needed to prepare the site for the construction of structures allowed in Phase 2,the Council could then consider extending Phase 1 for the complete one-year period to September 30,2013,as originally requested by the College. Based on the foregoing discussion,Staff recommends that the City Council extend Phase 1 until December 18,2012,without prejudice to granting a further extension up to September 1-4 September 30,2013. 3.Deny,without prejudice,the College's one-year time extension requestto extend the planning entitlements and the construction completion deadline for Phase 2 from June 1,2015 to June 1,2016. According to Condition of Approval No.60b,Phase 2 which consists of fine grading, construction of the new library building,maintenance facility,athletic building,outdoor pool, and additions to the faculty building and student union must be completed by June 1,2015 (five years from the June 1,2010 decision date)unless a time extension is granted by the City Council.The Condition also states that approvals for any components of 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.Based on the July 16th letter,the College requests the City.Council's approval of a one year time extension to complete Phase 2 resulting in a new completion deadline of June 1,2016. Staff is of the opinion that extending the time limit for Phase 2 is premature at this time. According to the Conditions of Approval,the improvements permitted in Phase 2 can be constructed between now and June 1,2015 provided that appropriate grading and building permits ar'eobtainedfrom the City.Up to this point,the College has not initiated the City's Plan Check process to proceed with the construction of Phase 2.Therefore,since the College has approximately three years to complete the construction of Phase 2,Staff recommendsthatthe request to extend thecon,struction tirnelimits for Phase 2 be denied without prejudi~e at this time.Denying the time extension request without prejudice still a"lIows the College to submit a time extension request in"thefuture (but before June 1,2015 which is the currentexpiration dateforPhase 2).In fact,if still needed,Staff suggests that the College resubmit its time extension r~quest.for Phase 2 after Phase 1 has been cpr,n:pleted and closer to the Phase ;2 deadHne date in 201 p.' Based ol'lthe foregoing discussion,Staff recommends that the City Council deny,.without prejudice,·t.he College's time extensi,on request for Phase 2.. 4..Authorize City Staff to execute a restricted use covenant pursuant to Condition. No.79 of Resolution No.2010-42 that restricts certain improvements within the designated Building Geologic Setback Area .. According to Condition No.79 of Resolution No.2010-42,prior to issuance of any grading permit,the College is required to record a restricted use covenant that prohibits certain improVements within the designated Building Geologic Setback Area.This setback area is described in the applicant's geotechnical reports and illustrated in the attached exhibit,but is essentially east of the existing library and academic building to the property line abutting the City-owned San Ramon Reserve (see attachment).According to Condition No.79,the College is establishing a "No Build and Restricted Use Area"on the Property that runs with the land (as depicted in the shaded area on the attached Exhibit B)that indicates no building,structure or other new improvements may be constructed or permitted within the "No Build and Restricted Use Area"unless otherwise expressly approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The attached covenant has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney for recordation and is now before the City Council for its acceptance.It should be noted that during the review of the covenant,the City Attorney raised the issue that the language 1-5 stated in Condition No.79 does not exactly match the Plan approved by the City Council in 2010,since the Council-approved plan allows at-grade parking facilities,trails and the rose garden in the area that is restricted by the covenant.As such,both the City Attorney and the College's attorney have indicated that when the CUP is opened in the future,the text of Condition No.79 should be amended to better represent the Plan approved by the City Council in 2010,which mayor may not require the College to amend the restricted use covenant. To ensure that structures are not constructed in this restricted area without City approval, Staff recommends that the Council authorize City Staff to execute the attached restricted use covenant for recordation. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Notification of Tonight's Meeting Tonight's 'agenda item was continued from the August ylh City Council.Although public notification is not required for an agenda item continued to a date certain,Staff wanted to ensure that the public was aware of the tonight's agenda item.As such,on August 21, 2012,the City's website under the MarymountCollege homepage was updated to include information regarding tonight's meeting and alist:..serve message was sent to Marymount College subscribers. ,At this time,no public comments have bee.n submitted to the City since the August ylh ':meeting.However,since some of thepublic comments submitted to the City for the August ylh Council meeting expressed ,'concerns with the College's time extension request,' particularly extending Phase 2,Staff has attached those comment letters to this Staff Report for the Council's reference (see attachment). Proposed Revisions to the Council Approved Athletic Field Past correspondence from the College indicates the College's interest in amending its CUP to allow a reconfiguration of the 2010 Council approved athletic field.Staff has informed the College that a 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 for the export of earth material,site grade changes,and other proposed project revisions.At this time,no formal planning applications related to a reconfigured athletic field have been submitted to the City.However,since such applications are anticipated to be submitted within the next few weeks,Staff is speaking to potential consultants about preparing the needed CEQA document for this request from the College. Staff will update the Council and the public when such an application has been filed with the City. Community Programs Offered at Marymount College Over the past several months,the College has publicly made statements and published advertisements in local papers offering graduate students the opportunity to continue to take tuition free courses at the College and offering members of the Peninsula Seniors organization the opportunity to audit courses,also without paying tuition.These programs offered by the College have raised public concerns regarding adequate on-campus parking 1-6 and compliance with the maximum student enrollment caps established by the Council adopted Conditions of Approval.These issues came up as recently as the August i h Council meeting,and in response,the College's legal counsel,Mr.Don Davis,explained that to his knowledge these programs offered by the College are being held at its Waterfront Campus in San Pedro and not at the Rancho Palos Verdes campus.However, further investigation by Staff has revealed that the Peninsula Seniors program is being offered at both the Rancho Palos Verdes and the Waterfront Campuses.In light of this, Staff contacted the College and the Peninsula Seniors for further information to assess their operations as it pertains to the Conditions of Approval. According to the College,for the fall 2012 term,one course is being offered to graduate students at its Waterfront Campus in San Pedro.No graduate courses are being offered at the Rancho Palos Verdes campus for this term.As for the Peninsula Seniors,the program offers up to 99 participants an opportunity to take one course per term at either the Rancho Palos Verdes or the Waterfront Campuses.Attached is the fall 2012 course schedule including a detailed description of the program offered to the Peninsula Seniors (see attachment).In summary,prior to a term commencing,Peninsula Seniors may register at the Peninsula Seniors Administrative Office and select one course of their member's choice (including an alternate choice).Acceptance is contingent on available seats in the selected class.If a seat is not available in the course selected by an interested Peninsula Senior because of College enrolled students,the Peninsula Senior is not able to participate in the program for that term. According to the Peninsula Seniors,last year 8 members participated in the program of which 3 members took courses atthe Rancho Palos Verdes campus.As for the fall 2012 term,although a final enrollment is still pending,thePeninsula Seniors believe that there ,are approximately 12 participants of which 7 may be taking courses at the Rancho Palos Verdes campus. Staff believes the program offered to the graduatestudents(albeit not curremtlyoffered at the Rancho Palos Verdes campus)is permitted to occur at the Rancho Palos Verdes' campus as a "Non-traditional Degree Program"pursuant to Condition of Approval No;140 which states: The College's "Non-Traditional Degree Program"are academic programs (Associates,Bachelors,and Masters degrees)that offer classes,including post- secondary academic classes,primarily during weekday evenings and on weekend (Saturday and Sunday),SOBS to generally avoid overlap with the class schedules of the Traditional Degree Programs. The students enrolled in the "Non-Traditional Degree Programs"would be accounted for in the enrollment report filed by the College for each term.And according to Condition of Approval No.145b the maximum total permitted enrollment in "Non-Traditional Degree Programs"on campus during any Term is 150 students. As for the Peninsula Seniors program,Staff is also of the opinion that this College offered program complies with the Council adopted Conditions of Approval because it is limited to 99 participants associated with a group unaffiliated with the College's educational and recreational programs listed in the Conditions of Approval.Condition of Approval No.139 states: 1-7 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 ESLcourses 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%ofthe 463 required parking spaces during such use is also allowed.Any and all other uses and activities on the College campus that do not meet this threshold are prohibited unless approved with a revision to this Conditional Use Permi.t or a Special Use Permit is obtained,whichever is applicable based on the request. Tf)e sub-leasing of the campus for commercial purposes that are unaffiliated with the College is prohibited. 'It should also be noted,that in terms of parking;·the Parking and Circulation ,study conducted as part of the Project's EIRaccounted for the use of the campus by such participants in such programs which is why there are enrollment caps for such programs. As such,based on the above,Staff is of the opinion that these two programs offered by the College are permitted provided-they continue to operate in compliance with the Council adopted Conditions of Approval.. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing discussion,Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file a status update on the temporary and permanent parking lot including the College implemented Parking Management Strategies for the fall 2012 term,extend the planning entitlements and the construction completion deadline for Phase 1 to December 18,2012, deny,without prejudice,the College's one-year time extension to extend the planning entitlements and construction completion deadline for Phase 2 to June 1,2016,and authorize the City Manager to execute a restricted use covenant pursuant to Condition No. 79 of Resolution No.2010-42 that restricts certain improvements within the designated Building Geologic Setback Area. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff Recommendations,the City Council may also consider the following: 1.Grant the College's Phase 1 time extension request until September 30,2013 1-8 (a full one year); 2.Deny the College's Phase 1 time extension request which would result in the denial of the permanent parking lot approved by the City Council in April 2012;or 3.Grant the College one year time extension to complete Phase 1 (including 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. ATTACHMENTS •April 11 ,2012 Letter •July 16,2012 Letter •Condition of Approval No.60 (Construction Phasing) •2012/2013 Parking Management Plan •R~stricted Use Covenant •Peninsula Seniors fall 2012 Course Schedule •Council Adopted Enrollment Conditions ofApproval (Excerpt) •Public Comments Letters 1-9 April 11,2012 College's Time Extension Letter Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project September 4,2012 City Council Meeting 1-10 BURKE.WILLIAMS &SORENSEN,LLP 444 South Flower Street .Suite 2400 Los Angeles,California 90071-2953 voice 213,2360600 -fax 2'3236.2700 www.bwslawcom April 11 ,2012 Direct No.:213.236.2702 OUf File No.:04693-0001 ddavis@bwslaw.com Joel Rojas,Director Ara Mihranian,Deputy Director Community'Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 H,awthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391 .Re:Marymount College:Request for aOne Year Extension on the Construction Completion Time Periods ofConditiOI1 No.60 ofRevision"E"to CUP No.9 Dear Messrs.Rojas and Mihrahifm: This 'letter.serves as a request on behalf of Marymount College for a one year extension on the construction completion time periods for the three phases of the College's facilities expansion plan approvedbythe City Council on Jurie1,2010 as Revision "E~'to CUP NO.9. This reQuest is made pur~ual1.t toCondition of ApPrO'val Nq.60 and Rancho Palos Verdes. Mun,icipal'Gode sec~iori 17.60.070,.which authori~es'such a one year extension on permit time limits by the City Councilupor)ashowingqf subs~ntial hardship and other good cause.The reasonsjustifying this extension req uest are set forth below.. .The City,Council's approv~1 of Revision "E"in June of 201.0 came in the midst of the country's worst economic recession in decades.1 This unfortunate timing presented numerOus challenges to Marymount because not only has fundraising been difficult in recent years in and of itself due to the economicdownturn,but;donors were also reluctantto make commitments until the College hadthe entitlements in hand.In addition,the initial improvements in Phase One (e.g.,parking and infrastruct!Jre)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, butthe 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 -Oak/and-Orange County -Palm Desert -Silicon Valley -Ventura County1-11 BURKE,WILLIAMS 6,SORENSEN,UP 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 cit 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 cQverc::lIl of the costs needed to ready this new facility for student use. Despite all of these concurrent demands on limited College resources,Marymount 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 slimmer,and so a one year extension is,at minimum,clearly needed for those improvements. Marymount has made every possible effort to meet the time frames for completing all of the improvements proposed under Phase One,but for the reasons described,it is clear that all such work cannot be completed by September 30,2012.Accordingly,good cause exists for the City Council to grant the requested one year extension with respect to the relocation of the athletic field and the remaining approved parking lot reconfiguration and expansion work.(For clarity,Marymount is not requesting an extension to provide the additional 120 parking spaces required under Condition of Approval No.158 unless the City Council does not approve the proposed plans on April 17 or shortly thereafter,or other unforeseen circumstances beyond Marymount's control prevent the timely commencement or completion of such work.) LA #4821-9064-0911 v2 1-12 BLJI'(KE.WILLIAMS [,SORENSEN.UP Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian April 11 ,2012 Page 3 The requested one year extension will also allow sufficient time for the City to process Marymount's pending application for a revision to its CUP that would allow the College greater flexibility as to the timing of the start of construction for the Phase Two and Phase Three improvements (but without changing the existing 36-mbnth 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 Approval 60(b)and (c)be similarly extended by one year. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this 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 1-13 July 16,2012 College's Time Extension Supplemental Letter Marym.ount College Facilities Expansion Project September 4,2012 City Council Meeting 1-14 RUr'I<E.WILLI/\iv1S (~SCWfNSEN,UP By E-Mail and U.S.Mail 444 South Flower Street .Suite 2400 Los Angeles.California 90071·2953 voice 213.2360600 -fax 213,236,2700 www.bwslaw.com July 16,2012 Direct No,:213.236,2702 Our File No.:04693-0001 ddavis@bwslaw,com Joel Rojas,Director Ara Mihranian,Deputy Director Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391 Re:Marymount College:Request for a One Year Extension on the Construction Completion Time Periods for Phases One and Two of Condition No.60 of Revision OlE"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 County1-15 BURKE,WILLIAMS L~sor,r NSLN,LLP Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian July 16,2012 Page 2 resources In the work area and as such,the timing of the agency approvals/waivers appears to have nothing to do with the scope or significance of the proposed work and everything to do with internal agency operations and their limited personnel and resources to process such applications.Despite this delay,Marymount remains committed to commencing work on the additional parking improvements at the earliest opportunity even if that means that some of the work takes place during the academic year rather than this summer as previously anticipated. Nevertheless,because Marymount may not have this work completed by September 30,2012, the College respectfully requests that these improvements also be included as part of the overall request for a one year extension on the completion dates of the Phase One improvements. As always,please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this clarification of Marymount's construction extension request under Condition of Approval No.60(a)and (b).. Sincerely, BURKE,WILLIAMS &SORENSEN,LLP ~lJ}~;gl!-. 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 1-16 Condition of Approval No.60 Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project September 4,2012 City Council Meeting 1-17 project buildings, including but not limite and Library Building. e Athletic Building,Student Union, 59)The storage of all go ,wares,merchandise,produce,janitorial supplies and other commodif shall be permanently housed in entirely enclosed structures, except whe transport. CONSTRUCTION PHASING 60)This Facilities Expansion Plan approval shall remain valid as set forth below,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 1-18 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 m ular segments each,as shown on the Phase One phasing site plan prepared by-asmussen Asso.ciates)shall be permitted until the completion of the applic Ie permanent buildings or additions in Phase Two or Phase Three and in no even onger than eight years from the issuance of the first grading or building permit for hase One,unless a revision to this CUP is approved.Upon the issuance of e certificate of occupancy for the applicable building or addition,the temporary mo lar building serving such use shall be removed from the project site'within 30-da and the site restored to a .condition deemed acceptable by the Community Develo ment D.irector.. 62)The permanent use of e temporary modular building shall be prohibited unless a revision to this CUP is proved. 63)The temporary modular buil gs shall not exceed 15-feet in height,as measured from the lowest adjacent grade the highest roof ridgeline. 64)The exterior facades for the tempo ry modular building facades shall be painted a neutral color to match existing or t new structures and incorporate materials that are similar to the proposed finish rthe permanent buildings (not including Palos Verdes Stone or other stone terial)as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director. 65)The areas adjacent to the temporary modula buildings shall be landscaped to reasonably screen the buildings from Palos Ver s Drive East and properties to the south as deemed acceptable by the Communit Development Director. 66) A building permit shall be obtained for applicable mo ar exterior improvements (e.g.,decks,stairs,facade details,etc.)from the Department of Building and Safety. Resolution No.2010-42 Exhibit A Page 15 of 39 1-19 July 18,2012 College's 2012/2013 Parking Management Strategies Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project September 4,2012 City Council Meeting 1-20 .,Marymounr College PALOS VERDES,CALIFORNIA 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 P<llos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes.CA 90275 Phone:310-377-5501 www.m<lrymoLlotpv.adu Marymount College's Conditional Use Permit (CUP),Condition No.lS8/TR-5/6 related to Parking Management and Strategies to minimiZE:'street parking,require an annual report to the City documenting the College's progress toward this goal. Attached please find the required report that assesses the College's progress toward the 2011-2012 parking management strategies as outlined in the College's July,2011 letter to the City.In addition,the report contains proposed strategies for the 2012-2013 academic year. Please contact me directly should you have questions about this report. Sincerely, m~~ Marymount College C:Dr.Michael Brophy -President,Marymount College Mr.Don Davis -Legal Counsel to Marymount College ......' "..."~.,.,'--'~.",,','.,............,................''.-:-....."1-21 Marymount College Review of 2011·2012 Parking Management Strategies: 1.Designated Carpool Parking Spaces.The College anticipates providing up 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 th. 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 11:00 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 College'S concerted efforts to promote the service for environmental-reasons as well to reduce parking demand. This service cost Marymount approximately $350,000 to operate last year.. 3.Financial Incentives.The College will provide financial incentives in the form 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. 1-22 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 yearsaw 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 ee.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,a.nd 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 aric:fFridays when'there are fewarclasses scheduled.there is a significant dec~ease iri'the number of vehicles parking off- ,,campus.Consistent with'fjasf 'precedent,.campus parking demand ,al!;3o '. eJecrea,sesas the semesterprogresseswhE!n students get accustomed.lousing (,the <shuttle service,discover new ride shariligoppOftulJitieSI and generally adjust '-. ,....tl)eir ,schedules.Accordingly,in the final month or two of each semester,there " ""were ,typically fewer than 30 vehicles,obselved on ,the streets surrounding th~:f ,camPlJs ..during peak days and hout'sandtypically fewer than 10 vehicles during non-pe~k hours and days.t '"".. Marymount is pleased to note that despite the additional numbers"of vehicles .utilizing ,street parking last year,the Col1ege received no written complaints or notices from any of its neighbors,City staff,or the Sheriffs Department as to any specific disturbances or incidents related to students or visitors parking on tne 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 ofthe 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 1-23 Marymount College Parking Management Strategies 2012-2013 2.New Restrictions on Campus Parking for Students in College 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 6Q vehicles during peak periods. 3...Incentives for Staff and Faculty to 'use Shuttle Service from the Marymouilt 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 servicewill be provided.ifthere is sufficient additional ,ridership to support such service.Implementation of -this strategy could reduce parkingdemand by up to 20 vehicles during peak periods . .4.Construction of Temporary Parking'Lot.Que to the unanticipated delays'in obtainirig approvals or waivers from outside agencies to commence the '. constru.ction work for the 120,a.dditional parking'spaces,Marymount is prepared Jo .construct a temporary parklnglat on the undeveloped western end of the campus that could provide.spaces for up to 90 vehicles during the fall term subject to the following parameters:', (aJ 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 1-24 Restricted Use Covenant Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project September 4,2012 City -Council Meeting 1-25 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: JIM REEVES,VICE PRESIDENT MARYMOUNT COLLEGE 30800 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-6299 Recorded for the benefit of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes No fee required (Government Code §27383). SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE APN:-------- RESTRICTED USE COVENANT This RESTRICTED USE COVENANT ("Covenant")is made by Marymount College,a non-profit educational institution ("Owner"),for the benefit of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"). RECITALS A.Owner is the owner of certain real property ("Property")located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,County of Los Angeles,California.The Property is legally described on Exhibit A,which is attached and incorporated by this reference. B.On June 1,2010,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes pursuant to Resolution No.2010-42 approved Revision "E"to Conditional Use Permit NO.9 ("CUP No.9"),which applies to Owner's Property. C.The City's Conditions of Approval for Revision "E"to CUP No.9 included Condition No. 79,which provided in part that Owner was to record a restricted use covenant that would acknowledge the restriction on the development of new buildings or structures within the designated "Building Geologic Setback Area"described in the Owner's geotechnical reports and depicted on the site and grading plans for Revision "E"to CUP NO.9. D.As required under the Conditions of Approval for Revision "E"to CUP No.9,Owner intends by this Covenant to provide for certain restrictions on the use of the Property. NOW THEREFORE,Owner does hereby covenant as follows: -1- LA #4843-1849-4223 v2 1-26 1.No Build and Restricted Use Area.Owner hereby establishes a "No Build and Restricted Use Area"on the Property in the shaded area depicted on the attached Exhibit B.As required under Condition No.79,no building,structure or other new improvements may be constructed or permitted within the No Build and Restricted Use Area unless otherwise expressly approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 2.Covenant Runs with the Land.This Covenant,and the restrictions imposed hereby,run with the land and are binding on all parties having any right,title,or interest in the Property or any part thereof. 3.Amendment.This Covenant and the restrictions imposed hereby,may not be modified, amended,or revoked except with the express written consent of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The undersigned Owner has executed this Covenant on this day of ________,2012.. MARYMOUNT COLLEGE,PALOS VERDES Michael D.Brophy,President CONSENTED TO AND APPROVED BY CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Carolyn Lehr,City Manager -2- LA #4843-1849-4223 v2 1-27 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On personally before me, appeared ) )SS. ) _____________,Notary Public, ____________________________,who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s),'or the entity upon behalf of which 'the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ______________(Seal) LA #4843-1849-4223 v2 1-28 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY LOT 94 OF TRACT NO.32574 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,STATE OF CALIFORNIA. LA #4843-1849-4223 v2 1-29 EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF NO BUILD AND RESTRICTED USE AREA LA #4843-1849-4223 v1 1-30 D i ~ @ ~§ ~~~5~~II~<88 ;Cl ~~ )-!5 Il.~~1lI ~:::e~i:l I ~;.~I <h W...... "o <h <h c(g..::,. :z:;;c w •;;. !IH~mm ITIITn ~ ~ I '----- ED -~\ -'-,-""'V /'\.C'/'fl6-f~//'B~/// '\.\,//' :\'~./ «;.1>'-0 ;y/ ;\2-\-J~//o Q ".../ ..J~(1_9<:: rl'\..O":> RESIDENTIAL (\ 9J\~ <.'\~l11i»- \ \ \ i 1-- R510ENTIAL 0/.;';:'00 of2.\Y€' ~s;z,ITE~P~LA~N~\__~__~JLJ1..J~ 010 !lO 50 100 1 - 3 1 Peninsula Seniors Fall 2012 Marymount College Course Schedule Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project September 4,2012 City Council Meeting 1-32 ,;h-PENINSULA \J SENIORS FALL 2012 COURSE SCHEDULE Marymount College offers the membership of Peninsula Seniors the opportunity to attend Marymount College courses,tuition-free,for the fall semester 2012.This first- of-its-kind venture by the two Palos Verdes area non-profit organizations will provide up to 99 members of Peninsula Seniors the ability to audit courses at Marymount College's two campuses in Rancho Palos Verdes and San Pedro. Students who are auditing a class are able to attend class sessions,participate in class discussion and access course materials online.Audit students do not take exams and their work is not graded by the class professor.A transcript is not generated so the coursework is not transferable for college credit. There is no audit fee.Students are limited to enrollment in only one course per semester.All students must be members of Peninsula Seniors.Registration for classes occurs through the Peninsula Seniors administrative office located at the City of Rancho Palos Verdes property,30928 Hawthorne Blvd.To reach the office by telephone,call 310-377-3003. Classes begin August 27,2012.Students must attend first day of class to 'confirm their enrollment. Academic Policies Students are provided the opportunity to audit a course when there is physical space available in the classroom,the instructor is agreeable to auditing students in the classroom and the student agrees to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. The college expects the highest standards of integrity from its students in the performance of academic assignments.Moreover,the college requires the cooperation of its students in creating a college-wide environment that is conducive to everyone's learning.Creating this environment includes but is not limited to: •Arriving and departing class on time •Attending class regularly •Being prepared for class work and class discussion •Participating in discussions in a way that does not discriminate against or harass peers or professors,and that respects the free inquiry of others •Refraining from disruptive behavior (e.g.,talking,noises from electronic devices;coming and going during class,sleeping during class)1-33 ..Refraining from attending class under the influence of alcohol or illegal substances ..And adhering to specific classroom standards set forth by the professor. Parking Students must place a parking permit in their vehicle while parked at the Main Campus or the Waterfront Campus.Your parking permit will be mailed to you before the semester begins or you may seek a permit through the Security Office located on the Main Campus in Rancho Palos Verdes. Course Description and Schedule (SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE) This art appreciation course improves the human ability to understand the language and cultural functions of art and media.It presents methods for analyzing,criticizing and evaluating various art forms and their content.The vocabulary of art and media criticism is emphasized. Course #AM 101 This history course surveys the painting,sculpture and architecture of Western civilization from prehistoric times to the Renaissance.Analysis, evaluation and the interpretation of major themes in the development of the visual arts in Western Culture are explored. Location Instructor Location Instructor AM 100.02 Mondays &Thursdays 3 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Vanderpool Wednesdays 9 a.m.-11 :50 a.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Vanderpool 1-34 This course examines the history of Radio and Television in the 20th Century.The course explores the development of broadcast media technologies as well as the evolution of the content of these medium including the news,entertainment genres,sports and advertising. Course #AM 105.01 This class explores theories of Arts and Media.Topics will include film, animation,interactive media,and graphic design.Students research and analyze these art forms through diverse verbal and written projects. Course #AM 111 .01,AM 111.03 An introductory drawing class emphasizing the principles of visual forms using a variety of traditional and nontraditional drawing tools and media. Emphasis is placed on visual literacy and vocabulary of the elements and principles of design. Location Instructor Location Instructor Location Instructor AM 102 Thursdays 3 p.m.-5:45 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Schwartz Wednesdays 1:30 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Vanderpool Mondays &Thursdays 9 a.m.-11 :50 a.m.or 1:30 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Eastup 1-35 A digital design class,which explores elements and principles of Art anc Design using media disciplines:video,animation,graphic design,website design. Course #AM 122.01 ENG (Electronic News Gathering)style digital video production methods using portable cameras,basic field lighting techniques and audio recording. Students learn the pre-production and post-production process of creating videos including the development of production outlines,scripts and editing to create an original short video.Emphasis is placed on technical proficiency with basic portable video equipment. Course #AM 131.01 An introductory course in painting using a variety of painting techniques emphasizing color theory and image composition using opaque media. Approaches to painting different subject matter are explored. Instructor Location Instructor Location Instructor AM 120.02 Mondays &Thursdays 8 a.m.-10:45 a.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Martin Tuesdays &Fridays 1 :30 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Khanna Tuesdays &Fridays 1 :30 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Eastup 1-36 C:ourse #AM 132.01 This course introduces the student to traditional film production methods including the use of handheld 16mm film cameras,basic field lighting techniques and audio recording.Students will learn how to go through the pre-production,production and post-production process of creating short films including the development of film scripts and storyboards to create and edit an individual short film.Emphasis is placed on creative expression in the art of filmmaking. Course #AM 141.01 Print design course in the preparation of digital mechanicals for common layout designs.Students learn to prepare digital mechanicals for designs with Adobe Creative Suite©.Traditional commercial printing and digital printing industry standards and vocabulary are emphasized. This course introduces the student to photography and the basic methods of using a digital SLR camera including manual camera settings and custom lighting conditions for creative photographic expression.Students explore various photographic disciplines including portrait,landscape,commercial and abstract photography and learn traditional darkroom and digital methods for photographic printmaking.Basic vocabulary of photography is also covered. Location .Instructor Location Instructor Location Instructor Mondays &Thursdays 1:30 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Kelley Mondays &Thursdays 7:30 p.m.-10:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Martin AM 151.01,AM 151.02 Mondays &Thursdays 9 a.m.-11 :50 a.m. or Wednesdays 9:00 a.m.-11 :45 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Kelley 1-37 Course #AM 201 .01 This history course surveys the painting,sculpture and architecture of Western civilization from the Renaissance through the 19th Century.The course explores the religious,philosophical,social and political ideas that have influenced artists and art movements throughout this period. Course #AM 202 This course surveys the evolution of filmmaking in the 20th and 21 st centuries.The course exposes students to a wide range of firm genres and explores how the cultural,political and ideological values have influenced filmmakers and the art of filmmaking.Critical analysis of film scriptwriting, cinematography,direction,acting and style are emphasized. This history course surveys the painting,sculpture and architecture of Non- Western cultures including China,Japan,India and Southeast Asia.The course explores of how the ideals,values and religious beliefs of Non- Western cultures have influenced the art and artists of Asia. Location Instructor Location Instructor Location Instructor Mondays &Thursdays 1:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Vanderpool Tuesdays 7:30 p.m.-10:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Schwartz AM 211 Thursdays 7:30 p.m.-10:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Kinoshita 1-38 Course #AM 213 Students learn to create motion graphics using Adobe After Effects©and its peripheral support applications,Adobe Photoshop©,Adobe IIlustrator© and Apple Sound Edit Pro©.Students will learn how to integrate 2d and 3d graphics,video,text and sound to create engaging animations.Emphasis placed on the original design solutions and technical proficiency. Course #AM 231.01 A studio cou'rse in the elements and principles of visual order as they relate to three-dimensional forms for Arts &Media and Non-Art students using a variety of media and construction techniques.Explores the relationship between form and meaning in the visual arts. Course #AM 242 This studio course provides an overview of various methods of audio recording for video,film and multimedia projects.Students learn the basics of digital recording and monitoring methods using field and studio audio equipment.Students learn how to record voice over talent,announcers and performers in the field and sound booth settings.Students also learn how to record sound effects and create basic music theme soundtracks with Apple Garage Band©software. Instructor Location Instructor Location Instructor Tuesdays &Fridays 9 a.m.-11 :50 a.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Wade Tuesdays &Fridays 9 a.m.-11 :50 a.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Eastup Mondays &Thursdays 1:30 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Raby 1-39 Course #AM 251 Print design to prepare digital mechanicals for editorial and publication designs intended for commercial printing applications.Students prepare special printing effects with Adobe Creative Suite©software including die cutting,embossing and spot varnishing for different types of designs. Traditional commercial printing and digital printing industry standards and vocabulary are emphasized. Course #AM 252 Students acquire basic digital video production skills in Apple Final Cut Pro Studio©.Students and will learn how to log and capture,and edit digital video.Students learn the basics of Final Cut Pro©ands its peripheral software Sound Track Pro©,Sound Track Pro©,Color©,Motion©,to .create narratives and commercial video content.Students learn how to composite titles and motion graphics and develop multiple audio tracks. Course #AM 261 This intermediate studio course provides the student with in-depth knowledge of the history,design and application of Typography in communication arts.Students will learn how to effectively use Type for a variety of graphic design applications with Adobe Creative Suite©Software. Vocabulary of Typography is emphasized. Location Instructor Location Instructor Location Instructor Tuesdays &Thursdays 4:30 p.m.-7:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Powe Mondays &Wednesdays 4:30 p.m.-7:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Khanna Tuesdays &Fridays 9 a.m.-11 :50 a.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Powe 1-40 Introduction to 3d computer generated animation for fields in cinema, games,graphic design,and interactive media.This course explores the 12 principles of animation,camera set-up and operation,lighting,animating using key-frame,set driven keys,graph editor,nonlinear,and path techniques.Students learn the basics of modeling,UV texture mapping, animation,staging,and editing using Autodesk Maya 3d©,Adobe Photoshop©,Adobe After Effects©and Apple Final Cut Pro©. Course #AM 303 Tuesdays &Fridays 1:30 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Wade Course #BUS 415 Social entrepreneurship is an emerging field which asserts that the problems of the world cannot be solved by governments or economic markets.T6 make real changes,entrepreneurs must act as stewards of their communities and undertake ventures which add social value.This interdisciplinary course is targeted to those students who believe they may seriously consider a social entrepreneurial opportunity early in their careers,although the skills developed will benefit any career direction.This course will include a field project with significant social service value-added. Location Instructor Mondays &Thursdays 3 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Grimshaw 1-41 Course #BUS 461 A comprenensive study of the concepts,strategies,and skills inherent in the process of personal/professional transformation that is often the foundation of organizational leadership.Students will examine the various factors and classical and contemporary theories and styles of leadership,with their applications in a variety of professional global and local settings.Topics include models of leadership styles and techniques,organizational cnange agents,motivating personnel,decision-making and problem solving,ethics, interpersonal relationships,conflict resolution,and power. Course #ECO 302 An examination of key California industries including agriculture,energy, education,arts and media,manufacturing,tourism,services,and trade in a regional and global context.Topics include natural and human resources, diversity,migration,innovation,physical infrastructure and transportation,the regulatory and tax environment,and the international flow of goods,ideas and capital. Course #ENG 208.01 A survey of British Literature from the Anglo-Saxon period to the mid-18th Century,with special emphasis on the development of English culture as it relates to and is reflected in the literature of the period. Location Instructor Location Instructor Location Instructor Tuesdays &Fridays 3 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Holliman Tuesdays &Fridays 11 a.m.-12:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro Holliman Tuesdays &Fridays 1 :30 p.m.-2:45 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Spurgeon 1-42 Course #ENG 340.01 An introduction to literature written by authors from colonizing nations about the colonial experience,and by authors of nations that have experienced colonization.The course is organized around recurrent themes in Colonial and Postcolonial literature-First and Third World places and identities,power and subordination,assimilation and resistance,belonging and exile,along with social,cultural and historical contexts for the peoples of Europe,Africa,India,Southeast Asia,Australia,and the Caribbean. Course #HIS 100.01 The emergence of European culture and the development of western society from the neolithic era to the Enlightenment.Emphasis on the political,economic,social,religious and intellectual events that had an impact on the maturation of European traditional culture. Course #HIS 101.01 Emergence of modern European culture and the development of western society from the Age of Absolutism to the present.Emphasis on political, economic,social,religious and intellectual events that had greatest impact on the maturation of modern Europe. Location .Instructor Location Instructor Location Instructor Tuesdays &Fridays 3 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Waterfront Campus -San Pedro McMahon Mondays &Thursdays 3 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Desilets Tuesdays &Fridays 1 :30 p.m.-2:45 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Desilets 1-43 Survey ofthe political,social and institutional changes in the history of the United States since the Civil War.Emphasis on economic growth and the international role of the United States. Instructor HIS 121.01 Tuesdays &Fridays 3 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Desilets Survey of various fields within the discipline of psychology,such as perception,memory and personality,and how each of these fields contributes to understanding and improving human behavior. location Instructor PSY 150 Various Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Various Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Mondays &Wednesdays 6 p.m.-7:15 p.m. PSY 200 Wu location Instructor .Development of children from conception to adolescence: cognitive,linguistic,moral and personality development. 1-44 Course #PSY 220 This course investigates major concepts,issues and methods in the study of human development,from conception through death,with emphasis on the following aspects of development:physical,perceptual,cognitive,language, moral,personality (social and emotional)and atypical. Psychological study of the interplay of the personality and personal history of author and reader along with the relationship of social p~x-~hological concepts to literature. The literature of ancient Hebrew civilization and of the early Christian movement,as preserved in the Bible,from a culture very different from our own.The course aims to capture a sense of what this literature meant to the people of its time by studying its historical,cultural and literary background. This provides depth and perspective for a student's personal interpretation of the Bible. Location Instructor Location Instructor Location Instructor Mondays &Thursdays 3 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Sichan PSY 440 Wednesdays 1:30 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Wu REL 102.01 Mondays &Wednesdays 6 p.m.-7:15 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Dunlop 1-45 This course is an introductory study of American religious history from the end of the Civil War to the present time.Topics include the study of major events and persons in the primary religious traditions of America as well as an examination of the growing religious pluralism and religious diversity found in the United States. Course #PSY 220 This course investigates major concepts,issues and methods in the study of human development,from conception through death,with emphasis on the following aspects of development:physical,perceptual,cognitive,language, moral,personality (social and emotional)and atypical. Location Instructor Location Instructor REL 144.01 Tuesdays &Fridays 3 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Zanca Mondays &Thursdays 3 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Main Campus -Rancho Palos Verdes Sichan MARYMOUNT COLLEGE CAMPUS LOCATIONS Main Campus 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Waterfront CamPUS 222 West Sixth Street Marylyn and Chuck Klaus San Pedro,CA 90731 Center for the Arts 430 West Sixth Street San Pedro,CA 90731 RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES Palos Verdes Drive North 1600 Palos Verdes Drive North San Pedro Pacific View West 740 West 24th Street San Pedro Marymount College Palos Verdes is one of two Catholic,four-year coeducational colleges in Los Angeles County.With campuses along the picturesque coastline of Rancho Palos Verdes and in the vibrant community of San Pedro,Marymount College challenges its students to pursue lives of leadership and service.In the spirit of its founding order,the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary,the College strives to graduate students who embody the virtues of integrity,respect for human dignity and commitment to justice. www.marymountpv.edu •(310)377-5501 1-46 Council Adopted Enrollment Conditions of Approval Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project September 4,2012 City Council Meeting 1-47 Auditorium (as shown on the site plan approved by the City Council),and the outdoor pool area.The Athletic Field and Tennis Courts may only be used with amplified sound for graduation ceremonies. 137)The existing preschool shall discontinue its operation u the demolition of the building occupied for this use in Phase I,as descr"d in these Conditions of Approval.The future use of a preschool,either .in an existing building or in a new building that needs to be constructe shall require a revision to this Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the pr Isions stated in the RPVMC and the appropriate environmental review. 138)The College shall establish a Ighborhood Advisory Committee consisting of one representative selected each of the following neighboring homeowner's associations:EI Prado,an Ramon,Mira Catalina,Seacliff Hilltop,and Mediterrania;two at-ge representatives who live within 3000 feet of the campus (one of who shall be selected by the Community Development Director and one by th College);and a representative from City Staff (non-voting member).Th ommittee shall meet,at a minimum of once every fall and spring term,to re . w any campus operational and neighborhood concerns.Reports on the~eetings shall be provided to the City Council. PROGRAMS I STUDENT ENROLLMENT 139)The use of the College campus is permitted for only the following academic 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 meet this threshold are prohibited unless approved with a revision to this Conditional Use Resolution No.2010-42 Exhibit A Page 28 of 39 1-48 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 Education 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 person enrolled 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 enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts or Associates of Arts 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 generally 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 1-49 144)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 notexceed a total of 600 students (full-time and part4ime)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 than30-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 1-50 Public Comments Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project September 4,2012 City Council Meeting 1-51 Page 1 of 4 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 8/29/2012 1-52 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 fl:llly aware of the Alternative of a "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 th~Goleta Gasewhich state,in part,' "jurisdictional borders are simply a factorto be taken into account and do not· establish an ironclad limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives." ,3.)Davis's next whopper was "The site's (existing)land use designation is. inconsistent with the project".If so,then why is-the College now actively pursuing just suct)land use with LA City Planning?Le.not a valid reason for non~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 sta~ed "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 correctand 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. 8/29/2012 1-53 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 capitQI investment is proposed to begin within one to three years after transfer.""The College will construct (Page 8 of the Application)an academic center at the eastern side of USS New Jersey Street..there will be an academic center with three classrooms,four room for quiet study,and a C0n"lputer lab.We will also construct a student health and welfare center with a cafeteria,a nurse;'s office,and examining room,an exercise/fitness area with Nautilus equipment,a student lounge,and a laundry facility.We estimate that 18,200 square feet of space will be ;required with a total cost of $2,300,000."(exclUding equipment and other costs, G'rand total $3 Million)... Don't befooled again by this College's misrepresentation?Buyer Beware! I would suggest that any current representations from the College be treated with the respect that has been previously earned by them. Jim *(Additional Information and more details regarding Attorney Davis's August 27,. 2007 guidance can be obtained in Comment Letter 20 of Section 12 of the EIR) ----Ara Mihranian <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 > 8/29/2012 1-54 Page 4 of4 >Ara Michael Mihranian >Deputy Director of Community Development >City of Rancho Palos Verdes >30940 Hawthorne Blvd. >Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 >31 0-544-5228 (telephone) >310-544-5293 (fax) >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 disseminatron,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately." Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. > ' 8/2912012 1-55 1-56 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 preparation 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 and substance of Attorney Davis's 31 October 2011 letter as shown in his 4th Point on page 5 "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." 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 that would allow the College to . provide upwards of 500 (parking)spaces 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." 8129/2012 1-57 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,What was studied (Webster College Weekend College)is no longer associated with Marymount College and has not been for at least the past three years.Facts in Support of Findings,or anywhere else in the Approved EIR and Resolution of Approved Conditions.It .is a fraud on this Community because there is no such allowable enrollment category as "Evening College Students"(see attached Fall 2011 CoUege-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 "Day College students"as improperly stated in that Fall 2011 enrollment report .. It is a fraud on the educational Community when this College reports,instead, that its enrollment is (variously)940 or 923 Degree-seeking undergraduate students (Fall 2011)to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)and CollegeBoard.org.*In addition,the College President has also recently been quoted (document previously provided to you)in a.June 7,2012article in the local EasyReaderthat the latest RPV campus enrollment is now 1,000 or 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. 8/29/2012 1-58 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 Appendix 0,Hours of Operation the Classroom Hours studied as part of that BA.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 studies contained therein."The proposed BA 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 up on its offer to construct additipnal parking spaces (beyond the 463)and to further requireimmediata implementation of a temporary parking solution (Tennis/basketb~IICourt. area)prior to construction (not"during School session months)next year ofthat lot.The College does not automatically have the option now to "staythe Course".. and construct this additional parking whne school is in session.That clock has admittedly run out.And the College previously informed the City thatsuCh:"ln . Session"Construction was not viable.. In the event the City wishes to make any extensions of entitlements,'despite the good and valid reasons above for not doing so,the City should insist on making such an extension (Phase One -Condition 60(a)only)conditional on the College bringing themselves into Full Compliance with all Conditions of Approval as already required in that document. Jim Gordon *Copies of these NCES and CollegeBoard Enrollment reports (923/940 undergraduates Fall 2011)are available from the sources on-line or by request. ----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. 8/29/2012 1-59 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 >310-544-5228 (telephone) >310-544-5293 (fax) >aram@rpv.com<mailto:aram@rpv.com> >www.palosverdes.comlrpv<http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv> > > P Do you really need to print this e-mail? >This e-mail message conta1ns information belonging to the City of Rancho 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 in error,'or are not an intended recipient,please "notify the sender immediately. Thankyou for your assistance and cooperation. > 8/29/2012 1-60 Bur~I<[.WILLIAMS &SOr~FNSEN,LL? 444 South Flower Street -Suite 2400 Los Anqclcs,California 90071·2953 voice i13236 0600 fax 213.236,2700 www.bwslaw.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 modiflcations to the CUP. 1.THE PROPOSED ACTION SEEKS TO MODIFY THE PARKING CONDITIONS OF MARYMOUNT'S CUP. Under agenda ltem 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. 1..05 Angeles Inland Empire Oakland -Orange County -Palm Desert -Silicon Valley -Ventura Couilly1-61 fJUI(!([.WIL.UfIJ\llS t~SUFi!-:NSEN.UJ' Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item No.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 1.20 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 c1eC;:lr,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 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 temporary parking lot.) The City Council had the opportunity to preclude 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 Bauer v.City of San Diego (1999)75 Cal.AppAth 1281;Malibu Mountains Recreation,Inc. v.County of Los Angeles (1998)67 Cal.AppAth 359;Community Development Com.v.City of 1-62 BURKI::,WILUf\MS [,SOI,ENSEf\),UP Marymount College Comments on Agenda Item NO.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 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-space temporary parking lot that staff is requesting the Council mandate construction of within two month's time.(See Scott v.Indian Wells (1972)6 CaL3d 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. 1-63 13UFiKf,WlLUNv1S &SORENSIN,LLP 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 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 Coul1cil 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 number further (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. 1-64 BURKE.WILLIAMS ,,"SORENSEt\l.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 facultywho 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 civjl 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. 1-65 BURKE.WILLIf"MS E,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 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 DevelopmentDirector Tom Odom,Public Works Director Carol Lynch,City Attorney 1-66 ATTACHMENT 1-67 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/Facully1 793 Students •543 M Program students •0.57 parked vehicles/student .250 BA Program students •0.57 parked vehicles/student • 1.43 multiplier 5 Net New Student Seats (City Code: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 SurplusfDeficiency +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 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 1-68 ·.. 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 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 Respectfully submitted, ~- President.Marymount College c:Vice President for Finance and Administration,James Reeves 1-69 Page 1 of8 Ara Mihranian From:bubba32@cox.net Sent:Monday,July 23,2012 7:29 PM To:Ara Mihranian Cc:Joel Rojas;Carolyn Lehr;cc@rpv.com SUbject:Fwd:Re:Fw:Marymount College -Time Extension Clarification Letter Attachments:Constrtuction Schedule Summer 2012 photo.JPG;IMG_0006.jpg;Exhibit3 8IMG_0005.jpg;RPV Enrollment Report 9.29.11.pdf;Constrtuction Schedule Summer 2012 photo.JPG;IMG_0006.jpg; Exhibit3 8IMG_0005.jpg;RPV Enrollment Report 9.29.11.pdf Ara >As you know,I am very concerned that Staff and the Council will become immersed ifl the minutiae of the diversionary issues raised by the College rather than backing off to take stock of just where this College has led them so far.But first things first: The College's tricky request to extend Phase One includes a request to extend Phase Two Condition 60 (b)requested in Paragraph One,of Davis's July 16,2012 letter of "Clarification".Clarification,my foot!That Phase Two extension should categorically be denied and tabled to await any results pending from a possible one year extension of Phase One. > >The"big picture"revolves around the very simple but incomplete three month construction (Condition 60 (an specified and shown in the College's own Exhibit 3-8 Gannt Chart in the EIR that depicts Phase One (Co(ldition 60 (a», construction/excavation as a three month project over the summer break when Classes are not in session. The College,in responding to prior City requests (March,2011)to build the remaining 120 parking spaces ASAP,previously told the City that such (late, out of sequence)construction and excavation would not be possible while classes were in session.Now that tune has changed,180 degrees! In his latest "doublespeak"letters of June 26 and July 16,2012,the College representative (Donald Davis)goes directly against these prior reservations and the EIR-approved plan (Exhibit 3-8)for Phase One,proposing to complete those components after the summer months when classes will be in session."Just Stay the Course"is his new mantra.We don't need to establish any new precedent in these matters that will come back and bite the City in the future. But that is just the beginning of these problems brought on by the failure of this College to act with due diligence in proceeding to obtain necessary and 8/29/2012 1-70 Page 2 of8 well-known approvals for the "Minor modification of a 120 space parking lot. In his letter of July 16,2012,Attorney Davis reprises one of the most disrespectful and misleading statements I have ever seen from what is supposed to be an elite College representative."At the time of our application,the College was reasonably optimistic that such work (the parking lot)would be completed by September 30, 2012,absent "unforeseen circumstances beyond Marymount's control [that would] prevent the timely commencement or completion of such work." That is a disrespectful characterization that flies in the face of his April 17th answer to Councilwoman Brooks regarding the College's prospects for completion of this "Minor Modification"by September 30,2012."Absolutely"was Davis's April 17th, 2012 answer.No ifs,ands or buts about it.No "reasonably confident"qualification then as now being put forth.Isn't this latest example virtually just a bald-faced lie to now sympathetically characterize the required CDFG and ACOE site approvals for Mitigation Measures B10-1,2 &3 as either an unforeseen or unforeseeable circumstance when the College had been specifically forewarned months earlier of such possible issues based upon the City's prior experience years ago with the CDFG and ACOE during permitting for the San Ramon Canyon Project.It is a fact that the College has been fully aware of these requirements for years,beginning with their approval of the Entitlements they signed on August 23,2012.No "sob story"here! Then,when you actually read those BIO Mitigation Measures,it becomes increasing obvious that there is a two-step process involved.First to determine if these agencies claim jurisdiction over the affected area where required drainage features are needed,and then,and second,to proceed diligently toobtain whatever permitting may govern.The College failed miserably here.They literally had years to prepare and get these issues settled in preparation for construction permitting. The fact remains that the College failed to take this advance warning advice seriously.If you take a look at the Construction Bulletin display (picture attached) at the College entrance,the start was projected for June 1,2012 with completion just 75 days later by August 14th,2012.Furthermore,the College publicly conducted a groundbreaking ceremony for this Project on May 16th,2012,but,up to June 20,2012,failed to even alert the City as to the recently-disclosed difficulties with obtaining those required permit approvals from the CDFG and ACOE. The actual difficulties with these approvals were absolutely foreseeable as well as explicitly foreseen in this case,but not timely acted upon by the College who has the sole responsibility for obtaining these key approvals on a timely basis. On a directly related matter,because the College has requested permission from the City to now "Stay the Course"with this construction beyond their entitlement cutoff date of September 30,2012;that clock has run out.But you may recall that 8/29/2012 1-71 Page 3 of8 the College was singing a different tune in their October 31,2011 letter regarding parking issues,offering to construct a temporary lot in the interim if the permanent lot could not be finished in time by the expiration deadline. That circumstance has now come to pass,and the City should take this offer seriously in generating recommendations for the forthcoming August 7,2012 City Council Meeting.But that extension depends upon the College first being in full compliance with their existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures,and they are not.Nor is their April 11,2012 request for extension fully revealing of the facts behind the apparent lack of necessary funds to complete Phase One (Condition 60 (a)components by the deadline. As you know,the RPVMC Code requirement for extension specifies circumstances beyond the control of the applicant,certainly not the fact in this instance.The College had plenty of funding but voluntarily chose to spend those funds at other sites instead,including at least $2 Million in an abortive attempt to bypass RPVMC and the previously approved June 2010 Entitlements through passage of Measure P.That failed.Measure P should not now be resurrected in practice by allowing the College to effectively bypass their own agreements. >For example,-aotual enrollment claimed by the College and reported to the City far exceeds the maximum 793 allowed.The Fall 2011 Enrollment report (attached)reported a total of 884 enrolled students combined in theAAand BA programs (8 in the upper division),but used smoke and mirrors to conceal that fact - by renaming the required reporting categories as "Day College students"and "Evening College students".The studied and doculliented EIR and Conditions of Approval included Operational Classroom hours from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM thereby automatically precluding such a unilateral and meaningless distinction when -- reporting student enrollments. Further,of the total 884 reported in that Fall 2011 College report,only 8 were disclosed as being in the "upper division",presumably in the BA program leaving the remaining 876 as AA enrolled students,far above the allowed maximum enrollment studied.At the same time,Marymount College reported 923 total AA and BA undergraduates enrolled to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)and 935 degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled to the prestigious ColiegeBoard.And the College's enrollment is now virtually out of control and climbing according to recent (June 7,2012 reports featuring the College President- attached)at 1,000 or more at the RPV campus envisioned for this fall. To set this in perspective,If the 793 max stated in the EIR required 463 parking spaces per the EIR as studied,then 940 requires more,or 548 spaces (pro rata). Why commiserate just over these failed 120 parking lot spaces (as the College would like to divert you)when you know that another 86 spaces (pro rata)are still needed just to keep pace with the admitted and publicly disclosed increase in 8/29/2012 1-72 Page 4 of8 enrollment to 940+? > So,please keep in mind that the College is not in Compliance with its enrollment cap.Period.Don't lose sight of that,and they need at least another 86 parking spaces just to keep pace with the 940. And please do not make excuses for another of the College's disservice to the truth. The EIR never studied Traffic and Parking impacts for a combined Weekday maximum of 943 students as claimed now by the College.There were,however, separate Traffic and Parking studies for 150 Weekend College enrollees which produced additional Traffic totaling 888 trips and 131 more required parking spaces (Appendix D Tables 3.3-4 and 3.3-42 respectively)which represents an increase in Traffic of 46%over the studied 1,931 Weekday trips for 793 students in Table 3.3- 12,and a 28 percent increase in parking spaces over the 462 spaces shown in Table 3.3-43.There never was any other studied Traffic and Parking exhibit that included anything like 943 or so "Weekday"enrolled students.Take a look at these Appendix D Tables for yourself.Let's not do a sne'aky new EIR by stealth as the College is seemingly requesting by its actions and inactions. > Then there is the simple matter of non-compliance with Mitigation Measure LU ..1,the annual required Athletic Conference Sports Program Reporting.Ara answered that the College had not submitted this report last July 1st and I doubt that they have submitted any since,including this July 1st,2012. And,where is the compliance with RPVMC section 17.11.140 regarding low income housing now that the College has admitted adding more staff (June 7, 2012 EasyReader)which will now require implementation of this low income housing code requirement.They previously were below the 10 new employees increase necessary (7)and now must be well over that limit exemption.Simple math indicates that they will have added at least another 17 new faculty/support staff on a pro-rata basis to maintain a 15/1 student teacher ratio at 940 students. That Code Section is now activated and should be complied with.As you know,the EIR allowed for a total F/S of 222 which is now highly suspect and well in excess of that allowance.Check it out! We are now looking at a potential disaster for the City regarding any extension agreement under these most undeserving of circumstances. It is public information that the College's so-called plight of not having enough funding to proceed with Condition 60 (a)components,is one of its own making,a self-imposed "hardship"along the Lines of the San Marino v.Catholic Church case. There is no disputing the fact that from the from the very beginning (August 23, 2010)the College was actively seeking to nullify their approved Conditions and spent upwards of $2 Million to pass Measure P.Where is that accounted for in 8/29/2012 1-73 Page 5 of8 Davis's April 11,2012 letter?It is not! We also know for a fact that they had available another $600 k to construct the Cecilia Hall Fume Hood Additions (April 1,2011)which Staff tried to hide as a Consent Calendar item with the Planning Commission.That effort tanked with a voluntary withdrawal by the College later in 2011.They did not claim lack of funding as a reason. Then we have the present situation where the College "forgot"a $2.5 Million upgrade for basic Utilities,and then announced that the 120 space added parking would also cost $2.5 Million,matched again by another $2.5 Million for an expanded Athletic Playing Field yet to be even properly applied for,'and for good measure, held a ground-breaking ceremony for a total of these three projects that totaled $7.5 Million six days after announcing their intentions to create that new Field this year without ever submitting a formal application.In January of this year the College was specifically advised that any such field revis·ion would require a separate Hearing and probable newCUP,etc. So this recent funding ($2 Million +$2.5 Million +$2.5 Million +$2.5 Million)is $9.5 Million which supposedly the College does have to proceed with now,is bogus.And it does not even take into consideration many more millions voluntarily expended outside of RPV by the College recently at other "hardship"locations of its'own choosing.Therefore,the College's April 11,.2012 claim for an extension rings hollow by any measure,not even including the additional $7 Million already voluntarily spent at other locations.Were such .expenditures actually a "hardship" under terms of.the RPVMC?I don't think so. Bottom line is a recommendation to allow "progress;1.)Extend,Conditionally,the Condition 60 (a)time line one year,pending demonstration by the College of full compliance with all the other Conditions of approval and Mitigations granted to and .accepted by the College.The added one-year extension clock starts with the approval and extends to September 30,2013.This approval also requires pro-rata added parking (above)be provided if the College wishes to increase their enrollment limit above the 793 maximum limit and the City is willing to offer that· potential pending CUP/EIR review.Do not change or extend Phase Two (Condition 60 (b)at this time and await results of any extension of Phase One.The College's convoluted Phase Two extension request does not fit within or comply with the RPVMC one year extension limitation.And any such Phase Tow extension now is premature at best. 2.)Approve Special Permit Event items requested only as they were previously approved this past year with no added items until the College regains full compliance with their Conditions of Approval after which they may be allowed to re-submit additional Events for approval. 8/29/2012 1-74 Page 6 0[8 >Jim >----jlkarp <jlkarp@cox.net>wrote: » > >-----Original Message ----- > >From:Ara Mihranian > >To:jlkarp > >Sent:Thursday,July 19,2012 1:04 PM > >Subject:RE:Marymount College -Time Extension Clarification Letter > >Lois , » > > I agree with the concerns you raise and am working on gathering the information.I need to address these concerns at the August 7th meeting. » ·> >Ara > >From:jlkarp [mailto:jlkarp@cox.net] > >Sent:Thursday,July 19,2012 12:04 PM.'...• ·> >To:.Ara ~ihranian . > >Subject:Re:Marymount College -Time Extension Clarification Letter >;> >>Ara", » > >This letter does not address the 120 parking ~pace shortage for~012 Fall ·Semester or where construction workers will par.k and the staging plan for the equipment necessary to the construction,if construction is done during the school year.Previously,construction during the school year was impossible according to Don Davis when we asked for construction of a parking lot more than a year ago. What will the city require of the College for Fall 2012 parking due to the shortage of . 120 spaces?These items need to be part of this agenda item at the August 7th City Council meeting.It's not just the time extension it is the extreme burden that this college constantly places on the residents who live near by. » » » > >Lois » > >-----Original Message ----- » > >From:Ara Mihranian > >To:jlkarp ;bubba32@cox.net > >Sent:Thursday,July 19,2012 1 ~:30 AM 8/29/2012 1-75 Page 70f8 > >Subject:Marymount College -Time Extension Clarification Letter >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 > >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 » > >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 in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. » » » » 8/29/2012 1-76 » >»>--->>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/29/2012 Page 80f8 1-77 1-78 1-79 taftaS8 /Doscription Con.traction Task ~ ~.ifir ifiri Iifill Construet:Now OI.ld"oorPool. r:.t CJo4rQ0.wAe.demICS.•··ii-.,~~~-.~~•.1_,~~ri"i-~--.~';,~_··-+-~t'Sfte p_".....__.__.•_..,_l!:ltortgrFl~tl_......_....,.,:~..t 1 ...,~."t!l!!!!',...I.IC •......."*len bnprovemontla ..•....---·-,..·_.._·_·..·~...-·'4--+-~'-~·........l .._-"-'....1 ".....iOtlnt mNII!'W,BulldJi'l_l,,LaI'ld.lIe.pe &Site Palling !:'I'!'i -'"""1-..--:----.,-1--:----t---,....·~--+- >~i -~j -I fi :; Construct NewS"lIdlnf1.jnLl"btalY, Maintenance-and Atbletic FlIclUty'. COl'lSttuGt £:htlldlng,AddWOl'l&:F.~and· Student Union. PHASe I (YEAR 1 [ANTIC'PATE&2008J) -_.J'L .~~.._._:..f •;I!!".±f i=:J ~"'----'~-r-~--~~---"""""""'v--f:----~~'---~-r--~-----·~'-<-.----~--,.;.....~~~~~_A_---r----.. IJ ._'.,!!!!!..•L,_~.--.~_.___•....;........__.•..~_.••~_._"..•__".~•••t---_:t._- :Site De_hon ,.;i!:!:,I '--)~~.5i:.,~l;;;;.;;....~__M';""-+..~,._I_;u~.j-~_.t._..:~~~;11 1·- ~l:':~i2?9~Td.nOtlaa"'(NoSUiidfrii··I;neG;;;;;---·-~;~i'I;l:~•1 'T--i-.--~~~=~~=.~=-~0J1hl~=L+-j;-:=~~===~=;[·n={;~ .'.•N>'":""Of.;Curbs.Pa¥fng and Striping i .;.\1 :!1 j I.,,.\:! ..._t1L.~.'~.'.~!!.9..~L.~!;!\\f~~~~Driv".---------.-._-...1....'-.•..r -''"'..,-.-...,._.-_.,j.-"...~.._'.•..',.,/,.,"-.'.••.••'.·..•l·· CQnfl;tnlct:New I:QfJWetParJdng Lot ;Curbs Pa¥fng and StrIPing !,..!',1 I :!..: ---~Xt9n~cm.!!r...•..••.•...••..•.'.'.•,-----..L..,...........:..-~--.-.~-.-----!..'...~:_......t.._._..;.-....-':'"....--L......l-..--....,.-.....-I·..-------'..·........·--·-....·,..···-......·......i---'-'--l~""CQnll'tNct:AthletlCFitlld:and Tennis :Flne Grade,Land$e;tpe,i .....,"i :;I;1 "',...'.. Co .ris,iTJlnnlsCoun.C on "..I j ,!,l ; PNASE II (YEAR••I TG.4'I_T(CIPATE&200.TO 2912» fp_:-.,,_..~_:..~:.it1:\.;.:.....;,4ft.:':"':t.:.-_ :b-._.j".....·f ... ""_f:!" iFln.Gradingf. ILal'....f.upe &Site Paving Constructt Reslde"ce-Hall Nos.1 &2 COf1$lruct SulldlngAddlUonlr. Audltcll'iu.wFi....Arts S.tudloand Admlniatn!ltlon/AdlTillls-lone. PHASE II!(YEARS $TO 8 [ANTICIPATED 2013 TO lOiS}) ",_,!t.&f!t~Y!!:..~~fi,~.Ct~~~m~J!st~h._...i_h . EMMli,oNMENTAL JM'PACT R,EPORT •.-.:r.>'....','.....•..•.I "..~.!~.•rf..:ra.,.i:lJ.•.~~.•C,...~~EG..·.i,·~.~.•.ITI.E.•~.,~)(.,•..'.~.••.A.•...••~."N.i,PR.•·.'~.··.~~.tc.•,.TI~£11111I11,••",•••,81••_,1.1. co NlilUt.Ttf\lll tOO7 'IN 1ll-104081l ' bftibiil3..8 1 - 8 0 September 29,2011 Director of Envirorunental 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 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 Respectfully submitted, ~- President,Maryrnount College c:Vice President for Finance and Administration,James Reeves 1-81 CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION I 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.lON2003-00317 Conditional Use Permit -Revision "E" Grading Permit,Variance,Minor exception Permit,and Sign Permit) Gentlemen: In conformance with RPVMC 17.86.050,RPV should not be holding 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 reportorpublic 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 1-82 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 "seJf-lnduced"hardship and therefore invalid.Marymount has spent in excess of -$7 million dollars on other projects in the lastthree-years as quoted by Dr. Brophy in an interview with the Easy Reader in June of 2012.Because the' completion of this approved project,in Rancho Palos Verdes,is not considered 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 1-83 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 .eCC/ME President 1-84 Page 1 of3 Ara Mihranian From:bubba32@cox.net Sent:Tuesday,July 31,2012 2:16 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 (i.e.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 8/29/2012 1-85 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 thatincludes 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 8/29/2012 1-86 Page 30[3 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 Colle.ge operations beyond what was included,studied and approved in the EIR and associated Resolutions. Jim Gordon 8/2912012 1-87 BU!(I<E.WILLI,i\fV;S &Sor~ENSI:.N,LU' 444 South Flower Srreet -Suite 2400 Los Angeles,California 90071,2953 voice 213,236,0600 fax 213236,2700 www.bwslaw.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 CouncHmembers: On behalf of Maryll10unt 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'SCUP. 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 Inland Empire Oakland -Orange County -Palm Desert -Silicon Valley -Ventura County1-88 fJI.W!(L,WILUflivlS &SC>I~I::N:)FN,LEP 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'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 t~e 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 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 temporary parking lot.) The City Council had the opportunity to preclude 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 1-89 BURKE:V/ILLi/\iv1S D SOI<E+JSF N.U F' 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 Pfanning 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, gO-space temporary 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'sCUP,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. 1-90 EJUf,i<F,W/LUNV1S &SORENSLN,LLP 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 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 Coul1cil 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 number further (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. 1-91 BURkE.WILLIAMS [,SORENSEN.l.l.P 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 civll 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 permittlng 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 1 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. 1-92 BURKE.WILLIAMS [,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 '" 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 1-93 ATTACHMENT 1-94 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 SA Program students •0,57 parked vehicles/student • 1.43 multiplier 5 Net New Student Seats {City Code:1 parking space per 5 studeni 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 ror Colleges and Universities for employee/faculty category. 2•Based on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code for Colleges and Universities. 3 .Based on site Ian Rasmussen and Associates,November 2005 . SA Program Existing Plus Project Parking Mitigation Measures: TR-5 Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy,the Applicant shall institute,to 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 1-95 .., September 29,2011 Director of Enviromnental 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 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 Respectfully submitted, ~------ President,Marymount College c:Vice President for Finance and Administration,James Reeves 1-96 College Search -Marymount College Palos Verdes California Page lof2 College Planning YouCanGol SAT(SATI AP(Advance<l Placement)PSATINMSQT CLEf>For Educators More Find Colleges,Advice and More ShareThis Search Make a Plan Marymount College Palos Verdes California +Add toMyColleg\l List Rancho Palos Verdes,CA Print complete college profile At a Glal'lce DeacUil'les Major'S I';>learning Environment Campus Ute Applying SmaUschool Total undergraduates First-lime degree-seeking fresl'imen Oegree-seeldng undergrads Graduate enrollment Geographic Location 30 milEl$from Los Angeles. 940 426 935 Residential Campus Suburban Setting Large Town Student Sody Housing,Activities Sports Support Service For Transfer StUdents For International Students MORE TO £XPLORE Visitlnga cQllege cao give.you a feel for Ufe on campus. Many students sev that a e<lliege's size,lllCation and campus "personality"were major factors In their final choice.A college's student bOdy fsan Important part of that equation.Ask yOurself these questions:Are you interested in being part Of a diverse community with people from many different backgrounds?Do you want to be around students who era interested in ...ports, atudylng,politics or something else? COlllparll Colleg&s Find SllIlliar Colleges Frt1quenllj/Askecl Questl"ns Average Age 19 All students 19 Full time students Race/Ethnicity Part-Time Students 1% Gender In-state and Out of State HI,James. PLEASE NOTE:College Search profiles are based primarily on informatiQfl supplied by the r::Qlleg<ls../hllmsel\les in [9$!lQnseJp the.College Soard'l'{AnmJf\1 agencias. IS8 ,confirjijl~~fS college really like?Students and experts share the oUegesi~~de SC<lif!lh'f{~ml~B~~Sto Find colleges to o colle~ your lis htlps:/lbigfuture.coIJegeboard.org/college-university-searchimarymount-college-palos-verd...7122120121-97 College Navigator -Marymount College LEG Page 1 of 4 MarymoI.Jnt College 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East,Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-6299 General information: Website: Type: Awards offered: campus si)ttlng: Campus housing: Student population: Student-to-facully ratio: (31 0)377-5501 www.rnarvmounlpv,edu 4-year,primarily aSsociate's,Private not-for-profit Associate's degree Bachelor's degree Suburb:Large Yes 923 (all undergraduate) 15 to 1 IPEDS ID:118041 OPE ID;()1047400 (7)GeNERAL INFORMA1'101\1 Admissions w.ttW,marym9untpv,edufadmission Apply Online www,marvmgunlllll.§llIJlilQQ!Y:.2D.!1l.l$l Financial Aid www.marvmounlpv,edulfinanclal-aid Net Plice Calculatorwww.marymm!plllll §llufut!atlcjal-aid Mission Statement WlWw,mllrwnount{)v,edu/al:)I:;utlmarymoynt-coi/fme-mission SpeelalLeamlng Opportunltles StUdy abroad Student Services Remedial services Academic/career counseling service Employment services for students Credit AccePted Dual credit Advanced placement (AP)credits Camegie Classification Asl\oclale's··Private NOI-for-proflt RellQious Affiliation Roman Catholic Federal Aid Eligible stUdents may receive Pell Grants and other federal aid (e.g.Direct Loans), Undergraduate studen~enrolled who are formally registered with offICe of disability' services 12% FACULTY AND GRADUATE ASSiSTANTS BY PRIMARY FUNCTION,FALL 2011 Total faculty Instructional ResearCh and public service Total graduate assistants Instructional Research and public service TUITION,FEES,AND ESTIMATeD STUDENT EXPENSES fiNANCIAL AID (j)NET PRICE FULL TIME 33 33 o PART TIME 87 87 Q o o o LLMEIIIT (ALL UNDERGRADUATE) AiTENDANCESTATUS hftp:/Inces.ed.gov/collegenavigator!?id=118541 7/22120121-98 1-99