The Proposed Resolution Opposing The Marymount Plan

At the next Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting, Item 13 on the agenda (Really! did the item have to be #13, a very unlucky number of a group of people as it will turn out) deals with the following proposed resulution hopefully voeted on and approved that evening.

The public is encouraged to make verbal and written comments about the proposed Resolution and there is no doubt in my mind that there won't be somewhat of a strong showng the meeting seeking to have the proposed Resolution not get passed by the members of the City Council.

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

MEMORANDOM
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY CO~ MEMBERS
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLER~
JULY 20,2010
RESOLUTION OPPOSING MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
INITIATIVE
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER

RECOMMENDATION

Councilman Misetich and Councilman Stern recommend the Adoption of Resolution No.
2010-_, a Resolution of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Taking a Position
in Opposition to the Marymount Initiative Certified for the November 2, 2010 Ballot.

DISCUSSION

On June 15, 2010, the City Council appointed Councilman Misetich and Councilman Stern
as the Subcommittee to draft a resolution, without the expenditure of public funds, outlining
the reasons to oppose the Marymount College Initiative with the resolution to be brought
back to the Council for adoption. Attached is the resolution that was prepared by
Councilman Misetich and Councilman Stern.

RPV City Council Resolution Opposing the Marymount Initiative

A Resolution of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council taking a position in opposition to
the Marymount Initiative certified for the November 2, 2010 ballot.

Whereas, the Marymount Initiative a voter sponsored initiative prepared by Marymount
College, a private liberal arts college was submitted to the City Clerk on Tuesday March 2, 2010.

Whereas, the City recognizes the right of the voters to use the Initiative process when it is used to advance the public health, safety and welfare;

Whereas, on June 3, 2010 the City Clerk certified that sufficient petitions had been signed to
qualify the Initiative for a special election;

Whereas, the City Council, at a public meeting on June 15, 2010, ordered a special election to
be held on the Initiative and consolidated the special election with the November 2, 2010
election;

Whereas, on June 15, 2010 the City Council received a report on the differences between the
Marymount Initiative and the City Council approved plan for Marymount. That evening the City Council received additional staff reports, presentations, updates and extensive public
comments thereon;

Whereas, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on June 15, 2010 to consider
whether or not to take a position on the Marymount measure in light of the differences
between the Marymount sponsored Initiative and the Marymount plan approved by the City
Council and the effects of each upon the community;

Whereas, the City Council had reviewed extensive materials over the course of many additional meetings prior to June 15th, 2010, to fully understand the Marymount modernization plan, and had carefully considered the plan, obtaining significant public input addressing the positive and negative aspects of the plan, and the impact of the plan on the residents ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and various neighborhoods within the City.

Whereas, the City Council had previously granted approval to most of the Marymount plan on
June 1, 2010, folloWing many public hearings where public testimony was obtained;

Whereas, numerous members of the public urged the City Council to take an official position
against the Marymount Initiative because 1) the City Council was elected to act as the citizens
final voice on important land use issues 2) the Initiative has a direct impact on the City and its
operations, 3) the City Council has the resources and the experience to evaluate and
understand the complexities of land use issues and this Initiative's impact on a significant land
use issue and 4) and the City Council has devoted many hours reviewing detailed reports,
obtaining public input and evaluating and understanding the Marymount plan and its impact on the residents of the City;

Whereas, the City Council determined that taking a position on the Marymount Initiative is an
appropriate method of fulfilling its duty to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the
residents; and

Whereas the City Council has carefully considered the provisions of the Marymount Initiative
and determined that it does not advance the health, safety and welfare of our community;

NOW, THERFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

1) That the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes is opposed to the Marymount Initiative on
the November 2, 2010 ballot for the following reasons:

A) The Initiative Interferes with the City's Self Rule. The City was incorporated 37 years
ago to gain oversight over local land use issues and to avert high density developments.
The Marymount Initiative takes away the City's local authority by creating a special
district where Marymount is not subject to any safety, aesthetic or geological
mitigations. The City Council has already authorized virtually all the modernization
requested by Marymount. However, there are 62 different items including high density
dormitories in the Marymount Initiative that differ with the project submitted by
Marymount and approved by the City Council. This is an abuse of the initiative power
and creates a precedent for the future high density developments in Rancho Palos
Verdes.

B) The Initiative Undermines Local Planning Laws. The City's General Plan, zoning laws
and other regulations form the basis for orderly land use development in Rancho Palos
Verdes that preserves a low density community. These regulations apply equally to all
properties in Rancho Palos Verdes. The Marymount Initiative amends and overrides
these important laws that protect the safety and quality of life in Rancho Palos Verdes,
making special exceptions for Marymount College. A private institution's polices and
priorities should not supersede those of the City and its residents.

C) The Initiative is Not Necessary to allow Marymount to Modernize its Campus. The City
Council carefully reviewed all aspects ofthe Marymount plan and granted Marymount
the right to modernize its campus with all the buildings, ofthe size requested, with all
the functionality and amenities that Marymount requested, except for high density
dormitories. However, Marymount did not request from the City Council that it be
permitted to build dormitories.

D) Initiative places the Athletic Field in alocation that is Nearest to Palos Verdes Drive
East, Raising Safety Concerns that were Mitigated by the City Council Approved Plan.
The City Council granted Marymount the right to construct a new and improved athletic
field near to the Marymount requested location, but for safety concerns moved it to a
location slightly away from Palos Verdes Drive East to allow a greater safety buffer to
protect the public driving on Palos Verdes Drive East.

E) The Initiative Eliminates Conditions imposed to Minimize Negative Consequences of
the Project on the Residents. In order to protect the residents of the City, the City
Council imposed conditions to mitigate negative impacts of the Marymount plan. Some
of the mitigation measures are modified or eliminated by the Initiative, to the harm of
the residents of the City.

F) The Initiative Authorizes After-the -Fact Changes. The Marymount Initiative allows the
College to remove mandated conditions that are designed to increase safety and
necessary to maintain a reasonable quality of life in the surrounding neighborhoods.

These were determined after many hours of study and analysis by both the Planning
Commission and City Council with consideration given to both Marymount and the
residents. Should the Initiative be approved by the voters, Marymount will have limitless
authority to modify its' project such that what is presented under the Marymount
Initiative may not resemble the final development. The possibility that a "bait and
switch" might occur deprives the voters of their rights to know exactly the nature of the
project on which they are voting.

G) The Initiative Does Not Benefit the Local Economy. The Marymount Initiative is not
expected to result in any substantial increase in jobs in Rancho Palos Verdes over the life
of the Project.

H) The Initiative Leaves Many Unanswered Questions. The meaning of many aspects of
the Marymount Initiative will not be clear until after it is approved and the college
finishes the project sometime in the future. With unlimited time to complete the
project, it may be many years before the impact ofthe project is truly known if at all.
The City meanwhile will have limited oversight during construction. In addition, the City
will not have oversight capabilities regarding operations at the college that could affect
the quality of life for the residents and lor any safety considerations.

The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes encourages all Rancho Palos Verdes
registered voters to vote against the Marymount Initiative in the November 2, 2010
Special Election.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on July 20, 2010.
MAYOR

Attest:

City Clerk :

State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) 55
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )

I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2010-_ was duly and regularly
passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof he

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

More later this weekend. Please absorb the proposed Resolution and think about what your opinion is and that you will share your oinions on this blog's comments section.