To Extend Or Not Extend, That Is The Question.

On September 4, 2012 the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, at its regular meeting, will have on its agenda the matter of extending the time frames for Phase One and Phase Two of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Below is the URL for the Staff Report dealing with the council's Agenda Item:

http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2012_Agendas/MeetingDate-2012-09-04/RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_09_04_01_Marymount_College_Expansion_Project.pdf

You may also go to the city's Web site: www.palosverdes.com/RPV and look under the city council current agenda link to find, view and download the staff report.

Marymount College representatives would like a one year extension to complete Phase One of the Expansion Project which is now slated to end on September 30, 2012.

Representatives would also like approval, on September 4, 2012, to extend the completion date of Phase Two of the project from September 30, 2015 to September 30, 2016.

The Staff Report recommends extending the completion date for Phase One to December 18, 2012 with an additional recommendation to also provide for a further extension, should Marymount representatives need such an extension, to September 30, 2013.

The Staff Report recommends a denial of the request to extend the completion date requirement of Phase Two.

As of today, I seem to be warming to the idea of allowing an extension of the completion date requirement of Phase One, to December 18, 2012, which is the date of the last meeting of the city council in 2012.

HOWEVER, I hope for a vigorous discussion about any extension of Phase One and I believe there can be requirements placed on any extension of Phase One that should be considered, before any extension is granted.

Marymount officials have a list of what I term as 'roadblocks' to being able to complete all portions of Phase One during the more than two years they have had to complete anything on the Palos Verdes Drive East campus.

Yes, it has been a bad economy and yes there have been problems receiving enough financial support to complete items considered as part of Phase One.

But when 'roadblocks' are stated as being the needs of physical improvements in areas other than on the campus of Marymount College in Rancho Palos Verdes, there are more than a few RPV residents that question the use of dollars in other areas rather than on what Marymount officials committed to do, in RPV.

Furthermore, Marymount officials seemingly changed their road map for Phase One construction plans when they did not build the required 120 new parking spaces mandated to allow for the current student body population allowed for on Marymount's main campus.

Instead, they constructed a 'temporary parking lot' which did open on time but, as of today, has not been studied to see whether its construction has provided the necessary mitigation required from Marymount officials to lessen the number of vehicles parking off-campus.

IF a majority of the member of our city council vote to extend to December 18, 2012 or any other date, I hope there are stipulations created and adhered to such that nobody will have egg on their faces should things not go according to how it should go.

One of the large pieces of Phase One is the construction of a new athletic field on the western side of the Marymount College campus. The field approved of back in June, 2010 stood some chance of being built had Marymount officials worked towards that goal.

Instead, they came up with a new plan for an athletic field that will require new studies and a new Environmental Impact Report being studied and then approved of, before their concept of a new field goes forward.

Marymount officials changed their plans away from what was already approved and that should mean something to those making the decisions for our residents and our community, I feel.

So, I feel it is fair and not too late to inquire from Marymount officials what the truly intend on doing during any extension of the timetable for Phase One. The changes or 'minor modification' to the originally approved parking lot on campus also mandated a longer time frame that also needs to be considered.

City officials still don't have a clear picture as to what Marymount officials intend to do with the structures slated for demolition as part of Phase One or what may or may not happen to the tennis courts considered to be within the scope of Phase One construction plans.

I should think that before granting any extension, city council members should ask Marymount representatives for a more exacting timetable expected for the elements contained within Phase One, not needing a new EIR. Knowing what Marymount officials truly seek to do provides more foundation for considerations.

There is also the wish by Marymount officials, that the student body population levels existing at Marymount's main campus be raised to a number that is higher than it is now.

I feel it is within the scope of the discussion to require Marymount College officials to complete all of the elements of Phase One, minus the new athletic field, before any further consideration as to the increase in student enrollment at the RPV campus happens.

Marymount officials changed their own plans. They want more students taking classes in RPV. They have used monies that could have to towards work according to Phase One guidelines on other things, in other places. There has not been any study, to date, that their required mitigation of off-campus parking has been successful now that the new temporary parking lot has been installed.

Now, Marymount officials are claiming they will construct the new permanent parking spaces during the Fall semester when they originally signalled they would do the work during the Summer recess.

While I will not object to an extension of the Phase One timetable, I believe it should only be until December 18, 2012 and that there is true,  significantly varifiable movement forward to complete all that Marymount officials want to do, according to Phase One guidelines, prior to December 18, 2012, before any further extension up to and including September 30, 2012 be granted.