RPVCCA_SR_2010_04_06_14_Marymount_Conditional_Use_PermitCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MA~R&CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,A ,DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APRIL 6,2010
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE MARYMOUNT
COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.9 -REVISION "E",
GRADING PERMIT,VARIANCE,MINOR EXCEPTION
PERMIT,MASTER SIGN PERMIT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CASE NO.
ZON2003-00317)I 30800 PALOS VEREDS DRIVE
EAST
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAG~',
Prepared By:Ara Michael Mihranian,Principal Planne~
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file a status update on the preparation of the project resolutions to be transmitted
to the City Council for adoption.
DISCUSSION
On March 31,2010,the City Council closed the public hearing and took action on the
CCC/ME's appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval of the Marymount
College Facilities Expansion project.Specifically,the City Council voted to certify the
project EIR (including Appendices A and D)and approved a modified version of the
Planning Commission approved project.Furthermore,the Council directed Staff to
bring back the appropriate resolutions to memorialize the Council's action.
It was Staff's intent to bring back the finalized resolutions for adoption at the Council's
upcoming April 6th meeting.However,since the agenda for the April 6th meeting
needed to go out by Friday,April 2nd ,the 2-day turnaround was not enough time for
14 - 1
Staff to complete the resolutions to the City Attorney's satisfaction.Thus,since Staff
needs additional time to finalize the resolutions,Staff intends to present the finalized
resolutions to the City Council for adoption at the April 20,2010 meeting.At this
meeting,the City Council would consider whether the resolutions presented at that time
accurately reflect the City Council's conclusions and determinations regarding the
project and the Final EIR.The Council's discussion and public input would be limited to
the accuracy of the resolutions.
On the other hand,the item would need to be re-agendized and re-noticed for a public
hearing if the City Council wanted to provide further direction to Staff regarding the
project because the public hearing was closed on March 31,2010.
14 - 2