Rancho Palos Verdes officials are hoping to avoid reopening a can of worms Tuesday when they again look at Marymount College's divisive expansion plans.

Most of those plans were recently approved by the City Council. But this week, the council will return to just one element of the private Catholic school's proposal: whether and where the college may build an athletic field, and what safety precautions should go with that.

"This is very specific," Mayor Steve Wolowicz said. "No other decisions related to this are open for discussion or reconsideration, and I'm going to be making that announcement during the meeting."

Dozens of past meetings on Marymount's proposal have included many hours of public comment, mostly from residential neighbors of the college who are opposed to the expansion.

Tuesday's hearing comes a week after the college submitted signatures in pursuit of a ballot initiative that would give it voter approval for the expansion, plus dormitories for 250 students. The campus housing element was dropped from the plans last year.

The athletic field re-examination follows the council's March 30 denial of the college's bid to put a soccer facility on the west side of campus, adjacent to a fairly tight curve on Palos Verdes Drive East.

That action was taken largely because some council members were concerned that soccer balls could fly into the roadway and cause a danger to drivers.

When the councilconsidered instead putting an improved facility to replace the current field on the east side of campus, the college said it would not build there, leading to the denial.

This week, the council will reconsider the field location and additional safety measures. A higher net around the field and taller fencing around adjacent tennis courts are also in question.

How the different configurations would affect the size and shape of college parking lots is a related consideration.

Marymount officials said they are pleased the matter is being re-examined.

"It's positive. We're glad that they did that," said Don Davis, the college's attorney.

But Davis said the possibility of placing a rotated field on the east side was not feasible and required a large retaining wall that would cause increased grading and visual impacts.

"They don't appear to be fully thought-

out alternatives," Davis said. "It's just a bad design."

Also on the table is a 1,000-foot barrier to separate northbound and southbound traffic on the roadway, at a cost of $1.9million, according to a city consultant's report. Building the same structure and reducing the traffic to one lane in each direction would cost $460,000.

Meanwhile, undoubtedly on city officials' minds will be the news last week that Marymount had submitted signatures for a November ballot initiative that could make the council's actions moot.

College officials touted their deposit of more than 179 percent of the number of signatures needed. But that figure was based on the belief that the college needed signatures from at least 10 percent of registered voters.

In fact, city officials said that under state election law 15 percent is needed - because a municipal vote in November would be considered a special election. (Regular city elections are in November of odd years.)

The college, which is now pursuing a broad advertising strategy in support of its initiative, needs 4,044 valid signatures, City Clerk Carla Morreale said. Marymount submitted 4,876 signatures, according to a preliminary count.

"We've shown that the people of Rancho Palos Verdes have shown strong support for" the initiative, said college communications consultant Ruben Gonzalez in response to the discrepancy.

City Clerk Carla Morreale said signatures would be verified within 30 business days - by June 9.

Want to go?

What: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council revisits athletic field for Marymount College

When: 7 p.m. Tuesday

Where: Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd.

melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com

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

Well, I guess there is new reason why Marymount might take the city to court over the issue of needing 4,044 valid signatures as opposed to the approximately 2,700 they thought they needed.

That would make one more lawsuit added to an untold number of lawsuits that will be filed and adjudicated before any student brings their clothing into any residence hall room, if that ever happens.

I think I could be not uncomfortable having the soccer field approved for the west side of the campus if there was some kind of permanent concrete or steel railing separating the opposing lanes through the long curve along Palos Verdes Drive East.

I understand that the cost would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 Million Dollars. Perhaps Marymount would offer to share the cost with the city just as they are willing to share the cost of placing signals at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive.

I can also be comfortable with the installation of a permanent barrier being installed towards the very end of construction with the condition that the soccer field could not be used until the barrier was installed.

I don't think there would be a change in the height of the retracting netting that are in both The Project and The Plan. At twenty feet high, perhaps the poles supporting the movable netting are as tall as Marymount representatives and the City Council are willing to keep them.

Speaking about this topic is not so important for me because I agree and can easily support whatever Councilman Campbell supports. He is the member who brought up three items that I found acceptable but I don't think the Council will adopt an increased height of the retractable netting and the permanent fencing near the side of the field.

With the likely approval of the placement of the soccer field on the west side of the campus, The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project will be completely approved and more importantly, with the exception of the roof line of the gymnasium, completely in line with what Marymount's President and supporters asked for in that Project.

But differences between The Project and The Marymount Plan, the proposed initiative supporters are asking voters to approve, still exist.

The biggest difference is, of course, residence halls. Marymount removed them from consideration before the Planning Commission voted to certify the Environmental Impact Report and suggest approval of The Project by the City Council.

But small as they may be to some, other differences would allow Marymount powers no other business, resident, or entity have been given from government control.

There are two provisions in The Project that deal with having an examination of the expansion elements at a six month interval. This is in The Project to serve as a method of testing how the elements and processes are being done and how successful everything is going. It is a type of assurance that everything is going smoothly, with few setbacks and in line with expectations.

Also, The Project now allows for a 9 year period of time for the work to begin and then completely finish.

What this also means is that if and when you hear that construction will take "36 months" what you are not being told is that those months of construction begin at some point in time and then everything should be complete by the end of the ninth year.

With The Marymount Plan, they want the 36 months worth of construction over an indeterminate period of time with no maximum number of months or even years to reach the final completion.

Another small, but important difference is that Marymount wants the right to oversee its own Plan without interference from City and other government entities.

Marymount never offered to create the minimum number of parking spaces on its campus mandated by Rancho Palos Verdes municipal codes. With The Project, a variance has been approved allowing Marymount to construct the same number of parking spaces on campus they wish to do in The Marymount Plan.

As for the Plan, if approved by voters, Marymount would be granted rights to supersede municipal code at least as far as the number of parking spaces on the campus.

I believe there are other items and elements of The Plan Marymount demands control over, if the initiative passes.

So, for just a handful of items, issues, or elements, there are no other major differences between what the City Council will finalize with approvals and ordinances and what Marymount seeks voters to approve........except for the residence halls.

It is and always been about residence halls and there is no evidence left that it is anything other than residence halls that Marymount is desperate to have.

The continue to demonstrate that they may stop at nothing to secure the right to build residence halls and that is because, as I continue to feel more strongly about, Marymount officials know that without residence halls, the college will fail again.

By May 5, the new Library, gym, soccer field, tennis courts, pool, improved classrooms, administration building, exterior landscaping, grading, and all other elements of The Project will have been approved of. Everything except residence halls will be given the go by the City Council and voting for those things will be moot by voters.

Voters basically control whether Marymount gets the chance to build residence halls or as I believe, the college will ultimately fail. It comes down to that and only that.

I have listened to folks who support having residence halls built on the campus and I also have witnessed when those same folks refuse to listen to opposition of having up to 125 or more young drivers using Palos Verdes Drive East each a number of times per day.

No matter what folks really believe, the studies of colleges show that traffic increases when students live on campus. Believe it or not, students who have cars usually have jobs to pay for gas and those same individuals do not live in a monastery or convent so they also drive to socialize.

But we are bombarded with mailings, print ads, television ads, and signature gatherers stating some things that are factually incorrect or are only partially true and incomplete.

I hope the whole truth is something the majority of registered voters in Rancho Palos Verdes are willing to learn.

I truly feel that if and when the majority of registered voters learn the facts, the real facts, the complete facts, and the real truth behind why Marymount is using a unique action attempting to persuade voters to approve something that should never be approved, in my opinion.

Please do not sign the petition.