Since basically nothing has been done with regards to the phased construction according to project guidelines, it looks like a review in which college administrators may be asked whether they plan to go forward with the Project may be forthcoming.
Since the time the Planning Commission approved the Project and the Council voted to accept most of the recommendations, two MAJOR changes have occurred that I feel should trigger a larger review and possible recalculations concerning The Project.
First, Marymount proposed a new brick and mortar library that may be claimed to be the state-of-the-art in terms of that type of library facility proposed with the Project.
Measurements were submitted and approved, visual illustrations of what planners hoped the library would look like were observed and discussed, and the structure was approved for construction in an early phase.
All this was done BEFORE Marymount became a four-year college and this means the state-of-the-art library sought for a Junior College, might now be in the plans for a four-year institution of higher learning, for a college that may also add post-graduate degrees.
A Junior College library for a four-year institution? That's going to be pretty hard to market, I think.
The library was designed and permissions to build were sought and granted for a library that was intended to serve two-year college students. Marymount changed the rules without changing the library's plans, it appears.
Looking at brick and mortar libraries around the country in four-year institutions provides some differences between them and libraries of solely two-year colleges.
I have opined and I still maintain that Marymount would get 'more bang for their bucks' if they created a virtual library instead of a brick and mortar one and now that plans are swirling about having upper division classes in San Pedro, it make a virtual library, a much better idea, in my opinion.
So, I think a solid review is necessary concerning the library proposed for Marymount's campus. Not that I truly believe one was ever going to built in the first place, mind you.
And for the second issue, that revolves around the E.I.R. for both the Expansion Project and the ill-fated Marymount Plan. The Traffic and Parking studies were conducted and published again, BEFORE Marymount became a four-year institution and well before Marymount's newest housing plans came to light and apparently, are being constructed.
Recently, Marymount's administration produced a new set of guidelines and a new timeline for its Palos Verdes North student housing facility.
It seems to becoming true that Marymount officials want to house more students at the facility on Palos Verdes Drive North than have ever lived there before.
It also seems that some of Marymount's plans include turning the garages of the 86 units at P.V. North into bedroom facilities to house even more students there.
That might be all fine and good except that the traffic studies and expected traffic counts attributed to both the Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan have absolutely nothing in writing about the increased student housing at the site and the added impacts of transporting more students between northwest San Pedro and Marymount's campus.
So, without any new studies to suggest what potential traffic and parking impacts at the college may occur for what can only be called a dramatic increase in the number of students living at Palos Verdes North in the near future, I hope and expect a careful review by staff and our Council members on these two subjects.
There will come a time when I will write a glowing post suggesting a great win-win for Marymount and communities on The Hill and in the harbor area, but this is not that post.
Marymount has changed the ball fields in two major ways. Careful review is necessary and I hope City Staff can work with the Los Angeles City Department of Transportation on a set of charts to determine new traffic patters based on what Marymount proposes as its newest student housing figures at Palos Verdes North.
It should be very interesting to read what Marymount's administrators think. It will also be more interesting to read what the candidates for the three City Council seats up for grabs, think.
No comments:
Post a Comment