Dr. Susan Soldoff, a member of the College's Board of Trustees, filed initial papers with the city in order to begin the petition processes that may lead to a ballot measure in the November, 2010 General Election.
Dr. Soldoff and supporters of the proposed initiative have done everything in a legal and rightful manner it appears, for the signature-gathering process to begin, on or about March 18, 2010.
There is a deadline for signature gathering and other things to qualify the proposed measure for the November, 2010 election.
I don't think anyone can or should dispute the right to seek a ballot measure through the initiative process and I defend those who make those constitution choices.
The proposed measure seeks to have the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project's proposed plans enacted into law, by ordinance, and removes the right and power of the City Council to make the motions and votes required to approve or disapprove those portions of the proposed plans that were certified by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission.
Please make no mistake from what I have written up to this point and what I am going to write; It is all about on-campus housing and the circumventing of municipal code involving the minimum number of parking spaces, I feel.
A notice, postmarked March 9, 2010, yet dated March 11, 2010, yet received in my mailbox and many others' mailboxes on March 10, 2010 makes notice of a continued public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Marymount college Facilities Expansion project.
The proposed ballot measure would have voters approve or disapprove, by ordinance, the project and disallow the City Council members from making decisions on the project, even after the fact.
All the time, money, city staff requirements necessary to continue the processes the R.P.V. City Attorney has opined that the city must continue to do, might get wasted if the proposed initiative qualifies for the ballot and is subsequently approved.
Do we have the right to find out whether taxpayer funds should be spent by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes' governors and staff while the proposed initiative process moves forward?
I think we not only have the right, we have the responsibility to question the expenditures of funds, staff time, and other related costs when all of it could be for naught.
The City Attorney has advised at least one council member that the city is required to continue the processes and proceedings that should eventually lead to outcomes voted on by City Council members.
If that is the interpretation by the City Attorney, a resident or residents have the right to challenge that in court, if they wish and feel that there is a waste of taxpayers' funds ongoing when the elected officials of R.P.V. are obligated to preserve taxpayers' funds from useless expenditures.
It can be claimed by some, I think, that having the city continue along with the processes and proceedings is useless because there has not been a result of the potential ballot measure thus far. That measure, if it appears on the ballot and is passed by voters also makes the appeal of the certification by the Planning Commission also a moot point.
Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion, (CCC/ME) is the main opposition group to some of the expansion plans associated with Marymount College.
For the record, I am not a member of that organization and I have some dispute with one of the Alternatives to the proposed project supported by that organization.
There will be a continued public hearing on the appeal of the project on Tuesday March 30, 2010, beginning at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers.
The R.P.V. City Council Chambers are located within Fred Hesse Park.
29301 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Members of the public are invited to offer verbal comments before the members of the City Council or they can also submit written comments to Council members.
Now for some bottom-line subjective comments.
Most everyone associated with the debate over the expansion plan won't tell you, but know fairly certainly that Marymount College must have on-campus housing to survive as an active institution of higher learning.
There is also common knowledge and facts that indicate that the supporters of the College's expansion have no interest in or following the R.P.V. municipal code regarding the number of parking spaces required for Marymount College. During the processes and proceeding it has been repeated acknowledged by Marymount representatives that their proposed plan for the number of parking spaces they are willing to offer do not meet minimum requirements according to the R.P.V. municipal code.
The enrollment cap of students attending Marymount College during its regular system is 793 students.
When studies were taken for the expansion project, there were approximately 625 students attending courses at the campus.
I have some information that there are currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 575 students attending the College's current two-year program.
Very recently, approval by a certifying organization approved Marymount College to become a four-year institution and offer up to three Bachelor's Degree programs at the school.
It is common knowledge that practically every four-year institution for higher learning offers either on-campus or near proximity campus housing for students attend those schools.
On-campus housing was planned with the proposed plan sought by Marymount College officials and supporters.
A short time before the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission was set to vote to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, college officials removed from the project, the on-campus housing component of the Application and Reports.
The Planning Commission members voted to approve, certify, and pass along to the City Council members much of the proposed project's plan, minus the on-campus housing element.
The City Council was provided documentation to proceed to a final vote to approve or disapprove elements of the project or the entire project, but without on-campus housing remaining an issue they could decide upon.
CCC/ME filed an Appeal to the certification by the Planning Commission.
More elements of the project were added and studied and another Appendix to the Report, Appendix D, was added to the processes.
The City Council, with the help from city staff members now has to decide about the Appeal filed by CCC/ME, Appendix D, and the overall elements of the proposed project sent to them by the Planning Commission.
All the while, there is now the concept that voters may be the decision makers of the entire project, not city governors.
Should voters in all parts of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes take part by deciding what will be the project? Perhaps.
Attendance records at the College will show that a very small percentage of residents of Rancho Palos Verdes have family members attending regular day classes at Marymount.
It is also fairly common knowledge that Marymount representatives want to have students whose families do not reside locally have family members attending Marymount.
There are some statements being made by supporters of Marymount's plans to have on-campus housing that charge that the College seeks to attract more local residents to become students.
I may be incorrect with this, but I believe I read in one document that 37% of the students attending Marymount are 'local' at least to the Los Angeles Basin area.
If Marymount seeks to add to that percentage, why would they really need dorms. Wouldn't students wish to live at home rather than pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $37,000-$39,000 per year to attend Marymount and live at one of the schools two off campus housing site?
The bottom line is that on-campus housing is required to keep Marymount open. On-campus housing would have been disapproved of by the Planning Commission, at least that is what everyone believes.
If it is not good enough for the Planning Commission's approval, then why should the residents feel on-campus housing is right for them?
I expect that if and when the City Council adopts or rejects portions or even the whole project submitted to them by the Planning Commission, Marymount officials will sue the city, no matter what the proposed ballot measure does.
That is, as long as Marymount has the financial stability to remain open, I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment