I entered the meeting hoping that the Council members would vote to accept the Planning Commission's findings, certifications, and comments and rejecting the Appeal filed by Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME).
As it ultimately turned out, I was probably the only member of the audience that received so much of what I wanted enacted.
The Council voted to, in essence, certify what the Planning Commission and City Staff recommended, with only a few exceptions and they rejected most of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.
If you are familiar with the Expansion Plan, and what the Planning Commission recommended, then you know much about what the City Council approved.
Since on-campus housing was removed by the Applicant prior to the vote on the Project by the Planning Commissioners, the City Council did not take any action related to on-campus housing.
There were twelve areas that the City Council voted on. There is one area that was 'hotly' discussed, voted on, and then dealt with in other ways.
The placement of the soccer field seemed to be the most hotly debated of the twelve areas and I doubt anyone left the Chambers happy with the final outcome.
Three members of the Council voted to keep the soccer field on the east side of the campus. When that vote was taken, Mr. Davis, the Attorney for Marymount got up and stated that Marymount will not have a soccer field on the east side of the campus, no matter what the majority of the members of the Council voted for.
Later on and during more debate about on-campus parking spaces, another vote was taken and approved to ultimately deny Marymount any soccer field on the east side of the campus because it would interfere with parking spaces Marymount wanted in that area and in other areas where it did not want parking spaces.
Here is my interpretation of what I believe the Council agreed to, with the twelve different areas:
1. Parking Spaces. The Council agreed with the Planning Commission's and Staff recommendations concerning the number of parking spaces on the campus of Marymount College and with the College's proposal for where those parking spaces will be constructed. The Council rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.
There was another consideration about a set-back of some parking spaces and the relocation of some parking spaces but later in the evening, the Council agreed with Marymount's placement of parking spaces on the east side of the campus.
2. Grading. The Council accepted the Geologist's and Staff recommendations and rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.
3. Construction Activity. The Council agreed to accept a thirty-six month construction plan that would be done over an eight year period of time and rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME. This was a hot-button item because Marymount repeatedly claimed that they could not lower the eight year time frame to even six years' duration.
CCC/ME contended that actual construction would be 28 months since the months allocated for construction of on-campus housing was eliminated when the Applicant removed on-campus housing from the Application and consideration.
4. Athletic Building. The Council agreed with a Staff recommendation to lower the height of a portion of the roof line of the Athletic Building and rejected that portion of the Appealed filed by CCC/ME. There was additional comments and consideration that the adult trees near the site of the Athletic Building should be kept alive and placed in other suitable locations on the campus. The Council members do not want to have trees cut down if they can be utilized in other areas to shield views of buildings or offer better aesthetics on the campus.
5. Soccer Field. I wrote what the outcome of the soccer field placement was ultimately decided above in this post. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the outcome. The Council voted to have the field remain on the east side of the campus and accepted that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME. The Attorney for Marymount's Plan stated that there would be no soccer field on the east side of the campus.
6. Modular Buildings. The Council agreed with the Planning Commission and Staff reports concerning the location and placement of modular buildings on Marymount's campus and rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.
8. Environmental Impact Report. The Council agreed with the Planning Commission's certification of the E.I.R. but added language that allowed the analysis of on-campus housing be omitted since it was no longer included by the Applicant in The Project. The Council rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME and agreed with the Staff recommendation to accept the E.I.R. with the on-campus housing analysis eliminated.
9. Overriding Consideration. There are two areas of The Project that have significant and unavoidable outcomes that cannot be mitigated to a satisfactory point. The Project requirements are such that the Council had to make a finding and they agreed to allow The Project with the two areas included, according to the Planning Commission and Staff reports. They rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.
Had Marymount not stated that they will not build a soccer field on the east side of the campus, there would have been a third area (parking on the west side of the campus) that would have been significant and unavoidable according to Staff. That point became moot when Marymount's Attorney stated that no soccer field will be built on the east side of the campus.
10. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings. The Council approved the Planning Commission's and Staff recommendations related to this area and added one finding that was offered by Marymount's representative.
Marymount College's administration has offered to have every new student attending the college take a defensive driving course provided by Marymount on how to drive near the campus and throughout the peninsula and local cities.
The Council (and me) were very impressed with that offer and they included it in the CUP findings.
(This may also be an implied statement that Marymount's administration recognizes the aspects of having younger students driving in an unfamiliar area and accepts that there are real safety considerations related to young drivers on The Hill. This is just my opinion)
11. The General Plan of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Council agreed that The Project does fit within the guidelines of the General Plan and rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.
12. Split Campus Plan. With guidance from the City Attorney, the Council voted that it does not have jurisdiction to require Marymount to provide the Living Campus/Academic Campus alternative supported by CCC/ME and rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.
This ultimately became a moot point because our city's government cannot mandate to another city what a private institution should do.
Other notes.
At the end of the meeting I talked to Councilman Douglas Stern about that portion of the E.I.R. agreed to by the Council that now mandates that a traffic signal system be placed at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East.
Earlier in the meeting, one portion of the C.U.P was voted out related to what entities are required to pay for the placement of the signal.
I think that Councilman Stern is in agreement with me that no matter who is required to pay for the signal system, as long as it remains in the E.I.R. and Project approved by the majority of Council members, it is mandated to be constructed.
I think Councilman Stern and I also agree that it is a matter that should be quickly and easily dealt with and he offered to the public that he does not wish to have signals placed at that intersection, either.
Also at the very end of the meeting which lasted to about 12:35 AM on April 1, Councilman Long stated that he believes that the proposed initiative should no longer go forward by Marymount and that potential litigation should not be considered on any side's part because of the action the Council took during the meeting.
Councilman Long is himself an attorney and I think he wasted a few seconds and breath making those comments because whether you call it The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project or The Marymount Plan, there is nowhere on the horizon of time that these matters will be concluded in the foreseeable future, many of us truly believe.
Again I wish to personally thank the Planning Commission members, the members of the City Council, members of CCC/ME and especially the hardest working Staff a city could hope for, for all the efforts that have been provided to me, my wife Terri, my friends and neighbors, and the other residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and northwest San Pedro.
No comments:
Post a Comment