Responding to unexpected news last week that Marymount College hopes to begin granting four-year degrees, Rancho Palos Verdes officials on Saturday asked for further study of the school's long-delayed modernization plans.

In a move that is likely to postpone for several months a decision on Marymount's controversial campus expansion proposal, the City Council voted 4-0 to ask for a review of the potential impacts caused by the college allowing students to obtain bachelor's degrees.

The vote came several days after the private Catholic two-year college revealed that it had applied to a regional educational accreditation agency to begin offering bachelor's degrees, with the first class expected to graduate in 2012.

Council members and city staff said the new academic program could cause additional traffic and have other effects on the residential areas surrounding Marymount. A state-required environmental review of the expansion plans which have been fiercely opposed by organized college neighbors since first proposed in 2000 should incorporate a study of impacts from the academic plans, officials said.

"Clearly this is a significant change that does need to be addressed. Maybe there will be no impacts ... but I'm not a traffic engineer, and I don't know," City Attorney Carol Lynch said.

Councilman Doug Stern said California law compelled a supplemental environmental review.

"I regret that it's many years into it, but I don't believe this process ... has fulfilled our obligation under (state environmental law), given this most recent disclosure," said Councilman Doug Stern.

The call for additional analysis follows years of delays and months of lengthy Planning Commission meetings that dissected the college's proposal, which includes a new library and athletic center, among other changes.

The most contentious aspect of the plans - two dormitories that would have housed 250 students - was dropped by the college in May. Nonetheless, neighbors organized as Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion appealed the commission's approval of other buildings.

Parties on both sides, along with city officials, hoped a daylong Saturday meeting would result in a decision finally putting the long-running issue to rest.

Then came the revelation - in a press release and a letter to the city from the college's attorney - about the bachelor's degree plans.

College officials said they sought to be forthright with the city by disclosing their academic plans, which they insisted would not impact residents because the number of students and faculty would not exceed a city-imposed cap.

"We weren't trying to hide the ball on this. Obviously, the timing is awkward. If we had waited six months, we wouldn't have to go through this. There's a penalty being put on us for candor," said Donald Davis, the college's attorney.

Marymount submitted its proposed four-year program - which would offer degrees in business, liberal arts and media studies - to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges in August. The move is a response to student demand and financial pressures due to declining enrollment, college officials said.

Approval from WASC is expected as early as February, college President Michael Brophy said.

Brophy and Davis asked the city to review the college's academic plans separately from the modernization proposal in hope of avoiding another delay to construction at the Palos Verdes Drive East campus.

"It is a time when we wonder what kind of Kafkaesque situation we are in with the city," Brophy told the council.

After over three hours of public comment and debate, the council voted 4-0 for the expanded environmental review. The council also called for an analysis of the possibility of keeping the college's soccer field in its existing location instead of moving it closer to the road.

Mayor Larry Clark was recused because he lives close to Marymount.

Brophy said after the vote that he believed the new environmental review would not show additional impacts to the college's neighborhood. He expects the Planning Commission approval to be upheld by the council.

CCC/ME President Lois Karp supported the council vote, saying the future review was a "necessity."

"My head is spinning," Karp said.

The issue should return to the council for action in February, planning director Joel Rojas said. At that time, the City Council will have two new members, following November elections.

Saturday's action will likely force Marymount's plans into an even more prominent place in the city's politics just as the campaigns of the seven council candidates are gathering steam.

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

Will Marymount remain open long enough to see on-campus housing finally approved or ordered?

How much money will Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount College (CCC/ME) spend on lawsuits that are now almost certain?

How far into the legal system is Marymount willing to go IF they receive accreditation to become a four-year College.

Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President telegraphed, without touching the key, that if Marymount does NOT become a four-year institution offering as few as three Bachelor's degrees, the College will fail.

Since four-year colleges in California and just about every other State have on-campus housing, Dr. Brophy offered his 'tell' with his latest stunt/gimmick/preplanned 'Hail Mary' pass, I believe.

Even though I oppose and will continue to oppose on-campus student housing at Marymount, I recognize and understand the thoughts of many residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and the three other cities on The Hill who support residence halls at Marymount.

San Pedrans living close to or affected by the Pacific Heights or Palos Verdes North off-campus housing sites now in use by Marymount students, have more chances to weigh in with their ideas and demands.

Through interviews and other means, I have learned that Pacific Heights is not the best neighbors to some members of the San Pedro community. Marymount College Presidents have stated that the Pacific Heights site, housing approximately 116 students and staff was to be closed in the past and would certainly be closed if on-campus housing is finally offered at Marymount. Every promise from Marymount to close and sell Pacific Heights has gone unmet.

With the current Facilities Expansion Project, there is no call for the approximately 300-student and staff off-campus housing site on Palos Verdes Drive North to be closed.

Attorneys, and there sure are quite a few of them living in Rancho Palos Verdes, will argue in cases that will overshadow whatever the Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council, CCC/ME and our city's residents decide about Marymount.

However, if the accreditation request fails to allow Marymount to become a four-year institution, most indications now point or have been telegraphed that the College won't survive, especially without residence halls, I feel.

San Pedrans who have been long silent on the Facilities Expansion Project will have more chances to weigh in, in numbers, and with reasonable arguments supporting on-campus housing at Marymount. It is my opinion that they have a right and resposibility to improve their neighborhoods as they see fit and they have standing in discussions about the Project.

CCC/ME is close to demanding that the College us a 'Living Campus/Academic Campus' approach with Marymount. They would like to have no on-campus housing at Marymount, have the Palos Verdes North site expanded with residential units AND the College's Athletic Department AND including playing fields in north San Pedro and not along Palos Verdes Drive East.

That keeps the door open for San Pedrans, including Councilwoman Hahn to contend that on-campus housing is the best thing for San Pedrans and San Pedro.

Our City Council has no jurisdiction to demand anything as far as residence halls and athletic facilities in the city of Los Angeles and its San Pedro community.

And when it comes to the question of which community can provided the greater number of voices, Neighborhood Councils that represent about 25,000 households each, and evidence that both the Pacific Heights and Palos Verdes North facilities have not be the best neighbors, San Pedro wins hands down even though CCC/ME members aren't willing to accept that and the facts.

It appears that the Accreditation Committee may make its ruling by February. My opinion is that if Marymount is not accredited as a four-year College, April will contain news that the Class of 2010 may be the last graduating class at the College.

Now that Dr. Brophy has stated what he has stated, there would not be enough reasons for parents to spend in the range of $39,000 a year to send their kids to a College Dr. Brophy has telegraphed would most likely close.

Since, according to parents of two Marymount alumni, Juniors and Seniors attending four-year Colleges don't normally want to live in on-campus housing, I don't know whether that impacted decisions to attempt to begin a four-year program in the fall of 2010.

Can CCC/ME and others opposing on-campus housing AND the College becoming a four-year school do anything to sway the Accreditation Committee?

I think our city can offer opinions to the Committee if asked, but I am not sure our city government can or should weigh in. Any overt action to support or oppose Marymount's accreditation requests would be met by lawsuits on either or both sides of the issues and R.P.V. shouldn't spend funds it probably doesn't have to deal with lawsuits in the nearer term. There will be more than enough opportunities for our city to have to pay legal fees to represent us with a defense, response, or petitioner.

Now it seems we all need to trudge down to Terranea and help it survive so T.O.T. dollars will be paid to our city so we can find more funds to deal with Marymount.

And aren't we still being sued by "The Donald"?