Want to go?

What: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council hearing on Marymount College's expansion plans

When: 7 tonight

Where: Fred Hesse Park Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd.

After nearly six hours of public comment and argument from Marymount College and a neighborhood group that opposes its expansion plans, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on Wednesday put off a decision on the controversial project until tonight.

Mayor Steve Wolowicz said tonight's hearing will focus on council members crafting resolutions that would approve - or deny - aspects of Marymount's 10-year-old effort to build new facilities on its small, aged campus.

Tuesday's meeting marked the first time the council had weighed the merits of the college's proposal, which includes a new athletic center, library and other upgrades, with construction spread out over eight years.

The project has been through various delays and permutations since it was first proposed in 2000. Last spring, it was approved by the Planning Commission after Marymount dropped the element of the plan that most upset neighbors - on-campus dormitories for 250 students.

Since the beginning, the project has generated concern among homeowners who live near the Palos Verdes Drive East campus - though Marymount officials contend they have broader support among city residents.

"This is a very divisive issue in our community," Councilman

Advertion both sides."

Tonight, the council will meet in closed session to discuss the veiled threat of litigation made Tuesday by the college's attorney, Don Davis, who suggested that a newly discussed effort to prevent Marymount from building in future on an undeveloped area of its campus would constitute a "taking."

Davis's comment came at the end of a meeting filled mostly with impassioned pleas by the school's neighbors, many of whom urged the council to turn down the project and ask Marymount to build on property it owns in San Pedro.

"The Marymount Expansion Project is a threat to our way of life," said Lois Karp, who heads Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion, which appealed the project to the council.

Karp's group, which is concerned about parking, noise, and operating hours that will extend to 11 p.m., among other things, contends the college's 25-acre campus is too small for the proposal. A fairly new worry is whether soccer balls from a new athletic field would fly onto Palos Verdes Drive East, causing a danger to drivers.

Marymount College President Michael Brophy said he hoped that the project would move forward so that school officials could begin to formally address some of those concerns.

"We are aching for you to deny this appeal and set in place a formal advisory group to have a conversation that is constructive, ongoing and sustained," he told the council.

Though not before the council, the dorms were clearly on the minds of many members of the public. The college earlier this month announced that it was gathering signatures to place its expansion - including the dorms - before voters in November as a ballot initiative.

City officials said this week's meetings on the project needed to go forward despite the possibility of a ballot initiative that could essentially overrule whatever the council approves.

melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com

______________________________________________________________

So it appears that Marymount College's administration may sue the city anyway. The article stated that Marymount's attorney may have made a veiled threat to sue the city of Rancho Palos Verdes over the matter of dorms being built on the campus.

At first thought, what Mr. Davis stated may be a 'tell' that the proposed initiative may not be approved of by voters if it qualifies for the November ballot.

It is my opinion that because Mr. Davis may have mentioned something about the "taking" of the right to build what Marymount's administration has wanted for its 'primary' goal (I am using "primary" subjectively) of having on-campus housing at Marymount, he is telling the council that Marymount will fail if on-campus housing is not secured one way or another.

The is completely as I opined about for some time. Yes, the proposed initiative caught many of us off guard, including me. But the simple fact that the ONLY major difference between the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project now being considered by City Council members and the proposed "Marymount Plan" and the associated initiative process is the spectre of on-campus housing.

Now it could also be that Mr. Davis' veiled threat is a way to get the City Council to approve the construction of on-campus housing any time they choose to because they have always had the right to approve the construction of residential units on the campus and they do not necessarily have to follow what the Planning Commission or Staff recommended for the project.

I think that there won't be a majority of City Council members who would vote for dorms, especially since Marymount is trying to make whatever the council decides moot, because of the proposed initiative.

So it now should be clear to everyone that Marymount has played its hand to the fullest except for publicly admitting that the college will fail if on-campus housing is not offered to future students.

Now I know what Dr. Brophy and others will say, but with every action taken by the College's President and supporters since they first publicized that they had applied to become a four-year institution, it has been illustrated without much doubt that they are going for on-campus housing or failure of the college.

Dr. Brophy and others have:

Applied to become a four-year institution and just about everyone knows that practically every four-year college has some type of on-campus or campus adjacent housing for students.

Withdrew their request for approval by the Planning Commission for on-campus housing when it was plainly illustrated through actions, considerations, and a very unfortunate tragedy, that the Planning Commission would not vote to support the on-campus housing element of the Project.

Initiated a proposed ballot measure and began collecting signatures on petitions for a ballot measure that, if qualified for the November ballot and then approved by voters, would essentially mimic the plan approved of by the Planning Commission AND then allow for on-campus housing EXACTLY as originally proposed by the Applicant in the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Provided signals and actions to circumvent the will of the electorate who voted for five members of the City Council to represent them in creating a stable government in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and doing the residents' bidding as representatives of the people, by the people, and for the people who reside and vote in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Have not publicly offered to pay one penny of taxpayer-funded possible General Fund demands that their proposed ballot measure would cost the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Continued to seek approval for a grading permit on the Marymount Campus that mimics what the grading would be required to have on-campus housing built, even though that element has been removed from the Project the Planning Commission certified. In essence, they want to grade for dorms whether the City Council members approve dorms or not.

They have stated in written materials supporting the proposed ballot measure that the construction of "The Marymount Plan" will take 36 months when they also accepted that the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is considered to take 8 years to finalize.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I was not able to attend the public hearing held on Tuesday March 30. I watched some members of the public speak on CATV for the city.

I am still sad that too many folks, including the immediate past Mayor, are supporting the increased use of the Palos Verdes North facilities, including having temporary classrooms set up there and having the athletic facilities there.

They are all playing with fire in suggesting things that simply can not happen.

If these folks wish to get into a tussle with three Neighborhood Councils in San Pedro plus two more Neighborhood Councils in Harbor City (each Neighborhood Council represents between 20,000 and 25,000 households plus the Los Angeles City Planning Department, Los Angeles City Planning Commission, Los Angeles City Council (which already approved a zoning variance at Palos Verdes North to allow for more residential units on the site) plus the reluctance by Marymount to deal with the city of Los Angeles, it will continue to brew discontent between residents of San Pedro and Harbor City and those of us who live in Rancho Palos Verdes.

It also allows a NIMBY issue between residents living closer to the campus and residents of the Eastview section of R.P.V. and many residents of the Miraleste area.

Our city needs to remain very close friends with the government of Los Angeles and its San Pedro portion so we can all do what is necessary to solve the San Ramon/Tarapaca problems that has the potential to be a terrible problem.

If I attend the City Council meeting on Wednesday March 31, I will create a post on that meeting.

Please do not sign the petition