A Veiled Threat and Some Thoughts

The following is from a news article by Ms. Melissa Pamer, a reporter from The Daily Breeze.

Naturally, I will have my comments following the article.

RPV puts off Marymount College expansion decision until tonight

Melissa Pamer Staff Writer

Posted: 03/31/2010 11:18:31 AM PDT

Want to go?

What: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council hearing on Marymount College's expansion plans

When: 7 tonight

Where: Fred Hesse Park Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd.

After nearly six hours of public comment and argument from Marymount College and a neighborhood group that opposes its expansion plans, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on Wednesday put off a decision on the controversial project until tonight.

Mayor Steve Wolowicz said tonight's hearing will focus on council members crafting resolutions that would approve - or deny - aspects of Marymount's 10-year-old effort to build new facilities on its small, aged campus.

Tuesday's meeting marked the first time the council had weighed the merits of the college's proposal, which includes a new athletic center, library and other upgrades, with construction spread out over eight years.

The project has been through various delays and permutations since it was first proposed in 2000. Last spring, it was approved by the Planning Commission after Marymount dropped the element of the plan that most upset neighbors - on-campus dormitories for 250 students.

Since the beginning, the project has generated concern among homeowners who live near the Palos Verdes Drive East campus - though Marymount officials contend they have broader support among city residents.

"This is a very divisive issue in our community," Councilman

---

Advertion both sides."

Tonight, the council will meet in closed session to discuss the veiled threat of litigation made Tuesday by the college's attorney, Don Davis, who suggested that a newly discussed effort to prevent Marymount from building in future on an undeveloped area of its campus would constitute a "taking."

Davis's comment came at the end of a meeting filled mostly with impassioned pleas by the school's neighbors, many of whom urged the council to turn down the project and ask Marymount to build on property it owns in San Pedro.

"The Marymount Expansion Project is a threat to our way of life," said Lois Karp, who heads Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion, which appealed the project to the council.

Karp's group, which is concerned about parking, noise, and operating hours that will extend to 11 p.m., among other things, contends the college's 25-acre campus is too small for the proposal. A fairly new worry is whether soccer balls from a new athletic field would fly onto Palos Verdes Drive East, causing a danger to drivers.

Marymount College President Michael Brophy said he hoped that the project would move forward so that school officials could begin to formally address some of those concerns.

"We are aching for you to deny this appeal and set in place a formal advisory group to have a conversation that is constructive, ongoing and sustained," he told the council.

Though not before the council, the dorms were clearly on the minds of many members of the public. The college earlier this month announced that it was gathering signatures to place its expansion - including the dorms - before voters in November as a ballot initiative.

City officials said this week's meetings on the project needed to go forward despite the possibility of a ballot initiative that could essentially overrule whatever the council approves.

melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com

______________________________________________________________

So it appears that Marymount College's administration may sue the city anyway. The article stated that Marymount's attorney may have made a veiled threat to sue the city of Rancho Palos Verdes over the matter of dorms being built on the campus.

At first thought, what Mr. Davis stated may be a 'tell' that the proposed initiative may not be approved of by voters if it qualifies for the November ballot.

It is my opinion that because Mr. Davis may have mentioned something about the "taking" of the right to build what Marymount's administration has wanted for its 'primary' goal (I am using "primary" subjectively) of having on-campus housing at Marymount, he is telling the council that Marymount will fail if on-campus housing is not secured one way or another.

The is completely as I opined about for some time. Yes, the proposed initiative caught many of us off guard, including me. But the simple fact that the ONLY major difference between the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project now being considered by City Council members and the proposed "Marymount Plan" and the associated initiative process is the spectre of on-campus housing.

Now it could also be that Mr. Davis' veiled threat is a way to get the City Council to approve the construction of on-campus housing any time they choose to because they have always had the right to approve the construction of residential units on the campus and they do not necessarily have to follow what the Planning Commission or Staff recommended for the project.

I think that there won't be a majority of City Council members who would vote for dorms, especially since Marymount is trying to make whatever the council decides moot, because of the proposed initiative.

So it now should be clear to everyone that Marymount has played its hand to the fullest except for publicly admitting that the college will fail if on-campus housing is not offered to future students.

Now I know what Dr. Brophy and others will say, but with every action taken by the College's President and supporters since they first publicized that they had applied to become a four-year institution, it has been illustrated without much doubt that they are going for on-campus housing or failure of the college.

Dr. Brophy and others have:

Applied to become a four-year institution and just about everyone knows that practically every four-year college has some type of on-campus or campus adjacent housing for students.

Withdrew their request for approval by the Planning Commission for on-campus housing when it was plainly illustrated through actions, considerations, and a very unfortunate tragedy, that the Planning Commission would not vote to support the on-campus housing element of the Project.

Initiated a proposed ballot measure and began collecting signatures on petitions for a ballot measure that, if qualified for the November ballot and then approved by voters, would essentially mimic the plan approved of by the Planning Commission AND then allow for on-campus housing EXACTLY as originally proposed by the Applicant in the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Provided signals and actions to circumvent the will of the electorate who voted for five members of the City Council to represent them in creating a stable government in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and doing the residents' bidding as representatives of the people, by the people, and for the people who reside and vote in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Have not publicly offered to pay one penny of taxpayer-funded possible General Fund demands that their proposed ballot measure would cost the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Continued to seek approval for a grading permit on the Marymount Campus that mimics what the grading would be required to have on-campus housing built, even though that element has been removed from the Project the Planning Commission certified. In essence, they want to grade for dorms whether the City Council members approve dorms or not.

They have stated in written materials supporting the proposed ballot measure that the construction of "The Marymount Plan" will take 36 months when they also accepted that the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is considered to take 8 years to finalize.

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

I was not able to attend the public hearing held on Tuesday March 30. I watched some members of the public speak on CATV for the city.

I am still sad that too many folks, including the immediate past Mayor, are supporting the increased use of the Palos Verdes North facilities, including having temporary classrooms set up there and having the athletic facilities there.

They are all playing with fire in suggesting things that simply can not happen.

If these folks wish to get into a tussle with three Neighborhood Councils in San Pedro plus two more Neighborhood Councils in Harbor City (each Neighborhood Council represents between 20,000 and 25,000 households plus the Los Angeles City Planning Department, Los Angeles City Planning Commission, Los Angeles City Council (which already approved a zoning variance at Palos Verdes North to allow for more residential units on the site) plus the reluctance by Marymount to deal with the city of Los Angeles, it will continue to brew discontent between residents of San Pedro and Harbor City and those of us who live in Rancho Palos Verdes.

It also allows a NIMBY issue between residents living closer to the campus and residents of the Eastview section of R.P.V. and many residents of the Miraleste area.

Our city needs to remain very close friends with the government of Los Angeles and its San Pedro portion so we can all do what is necessary to solve the San Ramon/Tarapaca problems that has the potential to be a terrible problem.

If I attend the City Council meeting on Wednesday March 31, I will create a post on that meeting.

Please do not sign the petition

In the 21st Century, Is Marymount College Already Obsolete?

A wise individual and I chatted about things and he brought up something I had not been considering.

The gentleman suggested to me that in the 21st century, many brick and mortar colleges may become obsolete because in this new age of technology, online colleges may replace many smaller colleges and offer a quality education without any need to sit in any seat on any campus.

As we move towards the second decade of the new century, we already have had the ability to attend online colleges and universities that offer a wide range of classes and degree programs.

With the popularity of electronic reading devices and online access to a remarkable amount of educational resources, might small brick and mortar colleges like Marymount College soon become a thing of the past?

Why can't professors who now teach classes on a college campus simply upload lectures onto sites where students can view the instruction and even provide two-way interaction during course study?

Who says professors can't create an entire course of study complete with textbooks that can be viewed by students on portable tablets or E-books?

Online education can be addressed when considering "The Marymount Plan" produced by supporters of Marymount College and the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project now undergoing another public hearing by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council who will then debate and create a final set of motions that will be the framework for the college's future.

There are two main factors I hope all will consider.

First, the ONE and ONLY big difference between "The Marymount Plan" sought by the college's President Dr. Brophy and the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is on-campus housing.

For almost nine and one half years, the Expansion Plan had on-campus housing as a component until Dr. Brophy and others voluntarily removed on-campus housing from consideration.

The second factor revolves around both plan. They both share the same similarity in that there are no plans to upgrade or add any classrooms! I should think that if we are too believe Marymount supporters' claims that they want to move the college into the 21st century, then why do both plans remain so silent on the actual places where instructors teach students at the classroom level?

What about the idea that no classrooms may soon be the norm for smaller colleges? Why can't that be added into the discussions.?

Everyone has the opportunity to view online colleges and there is even a Saint Leo College that offers online degrees.

When a professor now has the easily ability to set up a site which provides all the instruction necessary to offer a degree-level college course and access to all instructional needs that can be acquired electronically, can you start seeing that smaller colleges like Marymount College may be the last of a breed?

When a human being has the ability to get a quality education like the one Marymount supporters contend the college provides without actually spending one minute on the Palos Verdes Drive East campus, is that such a bad thing?

Just think about Marymount's enrollment cap of 793 students if and when it offers online education like supporters and Dr. Brophy are now talking about. Marymount could offer online degrees to 793 thousand students who won't need to traverse a single winding road or a set of switchbacks.

Currently we are watching thousands of dollars worth of advertising being spent on securing 2,700 or so signatures on petitions to place a measure on the November ballot that could cost taxpayers many tens of thousands of dollars.

Registered voters in R.P.V. just received a Digital Video Disk from Marymount College.

With today's technology, that same DVD could have had an entire course of study and even a textbook or two on it that students could have used to further their education.

Marymount supporters may be throwing money towards an already obsolete interest.

If a student could receive the same quality of education sitting at home that they could receive in a classroom that isn't part of any modernization at Marymount, why shouldn't they?

With just one of my computers at my home, I have more that the total sum of computing power and storage that it took to land 6 Lunar land crafts on the Moon and return the Apollo astronauts to safety, and still more to bring the three brave astronauts home on Apollo 13.

With the growing popularity of E-books and electronic readers, i-Pads, and other tablet electronics, having a "college level library" like Marymount supporters are tauting, is already available to me, in the comfort of my man-cave.

Virtual classrooms are not science fiction. A quality college education without the need to step onto a literal campus has been around and will probably continue growing.

Just think about the current cost of sending a student to Marymount College full time and including housing and then compare that with what the cost might be to receive the same level of education without the need for costs to house the student or provide brick and mortar classrooms, libraries, athletic facilities, and a bookstore.

I volunteer many hours at Miraleste Intermediate School. One day I showed up with a eight gigabyte flash drive that took up the entire palm of one hand. I wanted to show some students what I had received less than two years before they first saw what I brought in. They were amazed at the size and how 'huge' it looked compared to new flash drives they all had.

I believe students today already have the ability to navigate through an online college and they probably learned it in middle school.

I can certainly see Dr. Brophy being the last President of a Marymount College that has a physical campus and him then becoming the first President of an online Marymount College that can offer a quality education to many thousands of more students that it could ever offer with its physical presence on Palos Verdes Drive East.

I can see the classroom faculty numbers remaining identical to what it is today and even growing in numbers as more degrees can be offered.

As a college, Marymount can survive and even prosper without on-campus housing and without the extraordinary costs and debate we are all being assaulted with.

It just takes another look forward into the 21st century by folks who can envision sights other than the moving of bentonite and balls landing on P.V. Drive East.

And it just takes more reasonable discussions than we are currently seeing.

But of course, I will still stick around and oppose on-campus housing.

Please don't sign the petition.

A DVD Too!

Another day, another four-color item from Marymount. This time it is a DVD.

And here is a quote from the packaging that I think I will write to Marymount about.

"We can achieve our goal of reducing student commuter traffic and taking parked cars off the residential streets without changing the enrollment cap we currently have and without taxpayer dollars."

Well, how are they going to do that without the proposed ballot measure getting onto the November ballot and then finding enough votes to pass the measure which will cost taxpayer dollars for the ballot measure to be on the ballots?

Look below for the post where I asked our city officials how much having the ballot measure appear on the ballot would cost our city's General Fund.

Apparently, Maria Grau doesn't think there is currently a college level library on the Marymount College campus right now. She wrote; "Having a college level library, a state of the art athletic facility and new meeting spaces benefits the community and enhances a City asset."

Janet Hausrath Thrall also seems to feel her child who attended Marymount didn't have a college level library because she wrote: "A college level library, gym and new playing fields area all a benefit to our community."

Do you get the feeling that supporters of Marymount's plan have learned to recite the talking points without even thinking about what they are saying or writing?

I guess Marymount might not have a college level library now so how might the current students be receiving the quality education that the college's administration tauts that they provide?

As for the DVD, EVERYONE who spoke stating how long they have lived in the city arrived where they lived about TWENTY years AFTER I arrived. Even the elderly folks haven't been in their homes from the date I first came to my home, in 1955.

One of the 'lobbyists' who spoke on the DVD has a vested interest in the college remaining open because she works there.

There is absolutely no reasonable or realistic position that anyone can take suggesting that it is safer to have younger drivers residing just above the switchbacks on Palos Verdes Drive East and along a two-lane winding road when most of those students would not have come from the Los Angeles Basin.

When folks taut that the majority of the site will remain open space, they don't tell you that is because the bulk of the property is not safe to build structures on.

They also don't tell you that the tragedy that occurred a while ago didn't happen near either of the two off-campus housing sites. It actually happened in a spot that would be visible from the windows of the on-campus student housing, if there had been any at the time.

Go ahead Marymount supporters, challenge me concerning safety, I dare you.

Where should students live? on a hillside that won't have a fence around it or in a fenced in, guarded facility that offers a great deal of outside lighting. After all, that is what Palos Verdes North has.

Please do not sign the petition.

What I Do Support

While many of us are dealing with the potential ballot measure being supported by Marymount's faculty, staff, administration, and other, I would like to state what I support.

It just happens to be what those folks supported when the Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report.

I support the findings of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission and their efforts to provide the best set of guidelines for Marymount College.

I do not support the Appeal filed by Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME) and I hope the City Council votes to approve plans sent to them by the Planning Commission and Planning Department.

I would consider having the tennis courts on the west side of the soccer field to be the better of the alternatives found in Appendix D of the Environmental Impact Report.

What is basically different with the plans I approve of and what Marymount wants is that there would be no on-campus housing and Marymount would have to be granted a variance to the municipal code regarding the number of parking spaces on the campus.

I would be even happier if the City Council found a way to mandate that Marymount meets minimum parking space requirements that it is currently attempting to override with their proposed ballot measure.

Do I truly feel Marymount can survive without on-campus housing? to be perfectly honest, no.

But that is not my call, as Dr. Brophy, the President of the College reminded me.

That call would be his and his supporters. It would not be the call of any member of CCC/ME or any member of our City Council, staff, or most of our city's residents.

Marymount supporters chose these routes to get to this point. The administration and planners of the expansion were the ones who provided the longest delays in their plans, and no one else.

I feel if the plans worked on so hard and for so long by our city's Planning Department and Planning Commission were not changed so many times by folks representing Marymount, some of the construction would have begun some time ago.

Marymount now seeks to go around the years of hard work everyone has done so far. There is a plan approved of by the Planning Commission and is now in the hands of the members of the City Council.

I continue to hope that there are not enough signatures gathered to have the measure placed on the November ballot so our city and all of our residents can be represented like they voted on when they voted for those who would govern us.

I may not have supported all the current members of the City Council in the past, but I do know all of them cherish Rancho Palos Verdes and seek to do what is best for ALL of our residents, not just the minority of them who might sign the petition.

Let the process move forward and respect all voters by allowing the City Council to do the job we elected them to do.

Please don't sign the petition.

"We appreciate the deep support the people of Rancho Palos Verdes."

Opening the cover of the big, glossy, four color brochure that arrived in our mailbox, I found this written statement:

"Making sure the college remains a vital city asset is at the heart of the Marymount Plan. We appreciate the deep support the people of Rancho Palos Verdes." (Oops! It looks like we found our first problem on the inside of the cover. Now back to the writing.) "The modernization of Marymount will be achieved at no taxpayer expense and will benefit everyone. After ten years of study and refinement, the Marymount Plan is ready to move forward."

Now let me think for a moment. O.K., I have now considered that a brochure from an institution of higher learning which recently was granted four-year status could have found at least one individual who could have done a better edit.

It's just more fodder.

It appears also that the modernization of Marymount can't take place until the petition drive is successful, so even the costs associated with the brochure, petition drive and voting, if the measure qualifies, can also be considered part of their plan.

Please look for the post below and consider whether Marymount should be required to fund the potential and literal voting of any measure relating to Marymoun't plan on this November's ballot.

"New parking facilities to take students and faculty parking off residential streets"

That's the first bullet under "The Marymount Plan consists of:"

Now since it has been shown, for so many of the past ten years, that students and faculty choose to park on residential streets rather than using available parking spaces already at the campus, why should we believe that practice would change?

Also it is worth repeating that Marymount's Plan continues to call for fewer parking spaces that the minimum number of parking spaces mandated in the municipal code of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

"New on-campus housing for students and adult supervisors that will reduce traffic"

Well, according to the Environmental Impact Report, traffic will actually increase and it will be traffic up to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, something not seen at Marymount College in the last ten years.

How many residents of Rancho Palos Verdes have ever been on the campus of Marymount College? What programs has the administration of the college announced would be included for residents of Rancho Palos Verdes that would be more beneficial that what is already provided?

"Marymount will not increase its enrollment cap of 793" Oh really?

Marymount called for on-campus housing before it voluntarily removed them from consideration, before they called for it again, with a ballot measure.

So, if the Marymount Plan ultimately comes to fruition, how would the all the work and new facilities be paid for? Would tuition for the up to 793 students rise to become too expensive to pay or will the administration soon claim that they can't pay for the plan without support from a higher student total?

What have we all heard throughout the years concerning things that seem too good to be true?

If you don't know already, apparently neither do the folks who produced the brochure.

I also think one copy of the brochure to each residence would have been enough. Not only did I get mailed a brochure, so did Terri. How much might Marymount's supporters be paying for sending brochures to all registered voters instead of one per household?

If they are willing to spend these types of monies, what might that also say about their fiscal responsibility?

I happen to believe that having traffic 24 hours a day, seven days a week, on mornings and evenings where fog is a problem, and driving being done by younger students who are not as necessarily familiar with driving in the L.A. area, is a safety problem.

I would also like to see proof that every single one of the students who drives to and from the campus, every single faculty and staff member who drive to and from the campus, park in the campus' parking lots for a period of time to prove that they won't voluntarily park on public streets.

I never again wish to read about the tragedy that occurred when a Marymount student lost his life by being drunk and driving near the campus. That must NEVER happen again!

Having students living on the campus increases the chances that what must never happen again, will happen again.

If Marymount's supporters are spending so much money to get approximately 2,700 to sign the qualifying petition, how much will they spend on trying to get a bad measure passed if it qualifies for the November ballot?

The bottom line is that Marymount must have dorms on its campus to survive. With that and not other issues revolving around the quality of education the college actually offers, perhaps it should be allowed to fail again and begin anew in another location.

Please do not sign the petition.

An Email and The Reply

I wrote an Email and addressed it to many in the government of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

When Marymount's talking voice on its T.V. ad stated that there would be no cost to taxpayers for Marymount's Expansion Project, I wanted to fact check that statement.

I already know that many hours of our city staff's time has been afforded to the Marymount plan and that costs taxpayers' money.

Specifically, I am still seeking to learn how much our city's General Fund might be charged if the initiative qualifies for the November ballot. Here is my Email, minus the addresses and my return address:

Greetings.

I am sending this to a wide range of individuals in hopes someone knows the answers to my questions.

With concerns about a potential ballot measure qualifying for an upcoming election, specifically the proposed Marymount initiative, here are some questions.

Has the City Attorney calculated the possible costs to the city for incorporating the proposed ballot measure either as part of the November, 2010 general election, or as being part of a special election, if the proposed measure qualifies to become part of any ballot?

If the information has been created, will it be part of the petition or will it become public information in some other format?

If the information is not known at this time, when might the information become available?

Are city funds that would be used for the vote on the Marymount Expansion Plan, part of the general funds or are funds for a purpose like this kept in a different account? If so, what type of account would these funds be in?

Thank you for any and all assistance that can be provided at this time.

I wish I was more optimistic that the proposed ballot measure not qualify for placement on any ballot.

Now here is the reply I received today from our City Clerk:

Mark,

I cannot answer all of your questions, since some of the estimates/facts are not known at this time and will require further research; however, I can provide some information for you.

First of all, as you realize, the initiative would have to qualify for the ballot. If that occurs, the City Attorney will not be the one to calculate the cost of the election. The estimate comes from the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s Office to me, as City Clerk. I placed a request for the estimate with the County for the November 2010 Election and am waiting to hear back from them; they noted that I should receive the estimate in 3-4 weeks. Therefore, the cost is not a known quantity at this time. If the estimated cost has been provided by the County when a report is prepared for the City Council about the election, the estimated cost would be included in the report.

The cost of the Nov. 2009 General Municipal Election for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (which was consolidated with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Library District through the County) with seven candidates and one measure on the ballot was $74,553. For comparison, the cost of the Nov. 2007 General Municipal Election (which was consolidated with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District through the County) with five candidates and two measures on the ballot for the City was $96,553. If the petition qualifies for the November 2010 ballot, the funds to pay for the Special Election would come from the General Fund.

Regards,

Carla

Carla Morreale, CMC

City Clerk

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

Right now, the November ballot is not slated to have any candidates or issues specifically associated with our city government or issues in Rancho Palos Verdes.

That would all change if the Marymount initiative qualifies for the ballot and it appears our city's General Fund would have funds charged against it for the added costs associated with Marymount's proposed ballot measure, if it qualifies.

Now if approximately 10% of the registered voters in R.P.V. sign the petitions being circulated, that means that our city General Fund, which 100% of our residents, pay into would take a hit.

Since Marymount College is tax exempt, only students, faculty, staff, and supporters of Marymount who are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes would contribute to the General Fund, in some manner, possibly.

I highly doubt that those actively associated with Marymount College make up 10% of the registered voters of R.P.V.

Please do not sign the petition.

News About The Terrace Cinemas

I feel bad that so many of the posts, by necessity, are downers.

But this post is a happy and pleasurable one.

The new Terrace Cinemas located in the same spot the old Regal Six Cinemas left is undergoing a big remodel and the prices of tickets still remains low.

The new management is replacing all the seats in the theatre. We found one theatre half way done with high-back seats that recline!

There are still at least a few of the six theatres that haven't had any of their seats replaced yet and one theatre only has half of its old seats with a barren floor on the other side of the isle.

I hope the ticket prices remain as great as they are right now, but I would not be surprised if the ticket prices rose once the remodel is complete.

Here are some of the current pricing rates:

All shows prior to Noon, all theatres, tickets are $5.00.

Between Noon and 6:00 PM, all theatres, tickets are $6.00.

After 6:00, the prices jump to $9.00.

For 3D movies, there is a $2.00 surcharge.

Are you ready for the really good prices?

All day Tuesday and Thursday, all showings, all theatres, tickets are $4.00!

A small popcorn goes for $4.00. I don't know how concession prices compare with other theatres.

We went to the cinemas today, with the discount card that you can pick up for free and I was given a free small drink because of the points I have already accumulated.

The movies that are showing are first-run.

http://www.terracecinemas.com/ is the URL for the theatre's Web site.

Commercial, Web Site, Desperation?

Television commercials are now appearing concerning the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and asking viewers to go online or call to receive a petition to place a measure on the November ballot, basically taking away the right of city government to have a say in the project's plans.

There is also a brand new Web site also dedicated to Marymount's plan.

The female voice on the commercial claims that Marymount's plan will not cost taxpayers any money. Well, if the proposed measure qualifies to be part of the ballot, R.P.V. taxpayers will be on the hook for that portion of the ballot and voting for that initiative.

Since Marymount College is tax exempt, R.P.V. taxpayers continue to fund costs related to public access to the campus, and other infrastructure costs like sewer lines and other utility necessities.

The voice also claimed that traffic will improve because there would be more on-campus parking.

That really doesn't matter when students, faculty, and other continue to park on public streets and even in a residential neighborhood because they just don't like parking on the school's campus.

In fact, when the College experienced its largest student and faculty counts, there was never a day when every parking place on-campus was taken.

Oh, and the proposed measure seeks to remove the minimum number of parking spaces mandated by municipal code which Marymount College NEVER anticipates to meet, even with all of the improvements to the campus they want.

And now about the residents halls that are and have been the main issue for the College.

The two buildings already have been given names. The names of the halls are probably the result of wealthy benefactors making large contributions.

128 rooms for 250 students and five administrators that will sit on land that will have to be worked on because of its slope and geological makeup.

Supporters claim that traffic will be less because of dorms, but they cannot explain why 40% of the 1,561 vehicle trips PER WEEKDAY will be along Western Avenue between Trudie Drive and Palos Verdes Drive North, MILES away from the actual campus, WITH the completed project.

Another 25% of the 1,561 vehicle trips will cross the intersection of Western Avenue and 9th Street and continue into San Pedro.

Now, supporters of Marymount's plan contend that "the plan" will take 36 months to accomplish, if the measure passes.

Then, during the 10 years that the plan has been undergoing reviews, the administration stated that "the plan" will take 8 years to complete and they even offered a timeline to back that up.

Marymount College failed at one time.

Marymount College's programs were placed on academic probation, at one point.

As many as 77% of former students who offered an opinion if they would choose to attend the school again or recommend it to others stated NO!

Supporters won't tell you that the main reason they seek on-campus housing it to attract students who do not necessarily come from the local community or even the State of California.

To put it more bluntly, wealthy parents want to send their kids to a campus where the administration (and the members of the community) offer observation of the students and those parents want better monitoring of their kids' activities.

Marymount Supporters want R.P.V. residents to become part of a larger 'student-sitting' group that will help control the students living so far from home.

And to be even more blunt. Marymount really want to have foreign students come and study there, along with the dollars the parents would be willing to spend on the hope that others will assist in the parenting for their kids.

As a Junior College, a years tuition, with boarding at one of the two off-campus student housing sites cost up to $37,000 and more. That is for costs associated to working towards an associate of arts degree.

Now the College has been granted the opportunity to offer three different Bachelor's degrees and become a four-year institution.

This was also done, many believe, so that on-campus housing would have a better shot at finding approval or even something like a court order to provide.

What could happen is that, if the proposed measure qualifies for the ballot and the measure passes, the College may not be able to finance the entire project and they just might build residents halls before some of the other improvements which would have more public uses.

Since the proposed measure seeks to allow for Specific Plan zoning, Marymount would have control over many matters which would have been decided by city government with oversight that now may not happen.

Please do not sign the petition.

The one idea that keeps floating around is the concept that Marymount College could and would find great success and be able to offer many more seats and on-campus housing if it were to have a land swap with those who own the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site, in San Pedro.

Yes, traffic really would be impacted on Western if that were to happen, but it would be much less of an impact having Marymount at the site rather than hundreds of condos.

I support the idea of a land swap even though it is impossible at this time.

I also support Marymount becoming a four-year institution as long as there is no on-campus housing at their Palos Verdes Drive East site.

Please always remember that Rancho Palos Verdes already has a College with on-campus housing for students and it is the only one of the five cities that sit on the peninsula that can claim that.

Please do not sign the petition.

The New Poll

Traffic signals at Miraleste and Palos Verdes Drive East?

Having them is warranted under current conditions at that intersection.

The current Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project contains plan to have signals placed if and when that project receives approval by the City Council or possibly, registered voters.

Subjectively, I have talked to many people who use that intersection on a regular basis who all say they do not want that intersection to have traffic signals.

I want to find out your opinion. Maybe myself, my wife, and many others are in the minority with our thought that the intersection should not have traffic signals and walking signs installed.

Please answer the poll only once. It certainly is not scientific, but it may demonstrate how many folks desire having the intersection signalized.

You are also most welcome to provide you comments why you answered the poll question the way you did.

I sent out an Email about the poll to many individuals. The Email address I have for Dr. Brophy, the President of Marymount College came back as undeliverable. So I forwarded the Email to another Email address for the College because it is fair to seek input via the poll from folks at Marymount.

Thank you all for participating.

An Opinion From Councilmember Stern

Rancho Palos Verdes Councilmember Douglas Stern has offered his opinion on the proposed ballot measure currently being offered by supporters of the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Councilmember Stern sent and Email out to an unknown number of people.

Here is Councilman Stern's opinion along with a short report by City Staff, I believe Councilmember Stern requested.

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

Update – Some Comparison Information about the Marymount College Ballot Initiative

---

RPV City Staff has provided a short Memorandum for the City Council providing some summary information about the 51 page Marymount College Ballot Initiative that Marymount is trying to place on the November 2010 ballot. I thought providing most of the Memorandum to the residents would be valuable to aid them in deciding if they wish to sign the petitions, or vote for or against the initiative. This information will help residents begin to understand the initiative, some of the complexities, and some of the reasons that I am troubled that a significant and complex land use decision may become a voter initiative. The purpose of the Measure would be to amend the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code to create a new specific plan district that will apply only to Marymount College's property.

Like most things, the devil is in the details. I am not a fan of the initiative process, and do not believe that it leads to good laws or good public policy. This initiative has some troubling details. On the assumption that enough voters may sign the initiative and place the matter on the ballot for all voters to decide, I think it important that we try to provide as much information as possible for the voters. This is not a simple matter, and yet the voters will have to vote “Yes” or “No” to either adopt the entire proposal as written by MarymountCollege, or reject that initiative.

Placing the matters on the ballot will also cost the residents tens of thousands of dollars, as the city is obligated to pay the costs of the election, and there otherwise would be no RPV election in November 2010.

Once the Initiative Petitions are circulating, I would urge RPV residents to NOT sign them. (You can download the entire Petition by clicking:

http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/marymount/Marymount-College-Initiative-Measure.pdf)

---

Comparison of the Marymount College Proposed Initiative vs. the College’s Current Application

On March 2, 2010, Marymount College submitted a proposed initiative for possible qualification as a ballot measure. The initiative submitted by Marymount College for ballot qualification and the City’s decision on the College’s current entitlement application are two separate matters.

With regards to the differences between the Marymount College expansion project approved by the Planning Commission and the project described in the submitted ballot initiative, it appears that the main differences are that the project in the initiative contains dormitory housing (2 buildings for 255 occupants) and the athletic field in the location originally proposed by the college adjacent to PVDE. In addition, based on a preliminary review, the differences between the conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission and the “campus requirements” included in the College’s initiative include but are not limited to the following:

• Deleting the requirement to implement the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program. Although it appears that some (if not all) of the mitigation measures have been added to the “Campus Requirements.”
• Deleting the six (6) month review condition.
• Allowing the construction of the Residence Halls and the Gallery connecting the two Residence Hall buildings.
• Constructing the athletic field and tennis courts at the western portion of the campus similar to the plan approved by the Planning Commission [This places the athletic field in the location closest to P.V.Dr. East of all the proposed locations.]
• Installing photovoltaic roof panels.
• Replacing the 8 year construction phasing condition with a requirement that construction be completed within the time period allowed pursuant to the City’s Uniform Building Code, including time extensions.
• Deleting the condition prohibiting the permanent use of temporary modular buildings.
• Replacing the condition that allows a 200 cubic yard deviation from the permitted grading to a ten (10) percent deviation (approximately 8,480 cubic yards based on a total of 84,800 cubic yards of total grading) for unforeseen circumstances.
• Deleting the condition that prohibits the removal or delivery of earth, rock or other material without first obtaining City approvals through a revision to the grading permit and environmental analysis.
• Implementing campus “Quiet Hours” between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and discouraging late night driving and staff monitoring of vehicles entering and leaving the campus between 11:00 p.m. and6:00 a.m.
• Replacing the condition prohibiting the use of outdoor amplification, with the exception of graduation ceremonies, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained with a requirement that a Special Use Permit will only be required for special events where demonstrable evidence indicates that noise levels will exceed 65dba for a cumulative period of 15 minutes in any hour at the applicable property lines.
• Deleting the condition prohibiting sub-leasing the campus for commercial purposes that are unaffiliated with the College.
• Deleting the condition that requires a trial period of thirty (30) days for the installation of outdoor lighting.
• Adding traffic impact mitigation requirements at the intersections of PDVE/Miraleste, Western Avenue/Trudie Drive – Capitol Drive, and PVDE/PVDS similar to the Commission adopted mitigation measures.
• Deleting the condition requiring the College construct and maintain no fewer than 463 on-site parking spaces with minimum dimensions.
• Limiting a total of 125 vehicles to be parked on site in association with the Residence Halls
• Replacing the conditions regulating landscaping, including tree heights, with a requirement that the landscaping shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the City’s landscape requirements.
• Deleting the condition prohibiting the use of the athletic field for activities involving baseballs, golf balls or other similar sized balls that cannot be adequately contained by the use of the field net.
• Including requirements for biological resources that are consistent with the mitigation measures adopted by the Planning Commission.

---