Another Article About Marymount's Quest.

Here is an article written by Ms. Ashley Ratcliff. Ms. Ratcliff has been following the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project for some time.

College proposes vote on plan By Ashley Ratcliff, Peninsula News Thursday, March 11, 2010 10:12 AM PST RPV — Just days after Marymount College announced that it had the OK to offer Bachelor of Arts programs, the Catholic, liberal arts school has proposed a citywide vote to gain approval for its expansion project, some 10 years in the making. On March 2, Sue Soldoff, a college trustee and Rancho Palos Verdes resident, submitted a legal notification informing the city that the college will begin collecting signatures for a ballot initiative. The 54-page document outlining the “Marymount Plan” includes a proposal for a new library, a wellness center, an athletic field and on-campus housing for 250 students. According to Steve Kuykendall, a former congressman and RPV mayor acting as the college’s spokesperson, the plan was prompted by what he called a “continued delay” and a desire for certainty about the 25-acre Palos Verdes Drive East campus’ future. “This is a private school. Uncertainty is among the worst things for [it],” he said, adding that the ongoing approval process has stifled Marymount’s ability to raise funds for the more than $50-million endeavor. Pursuant to the state elections code, RPV City Attorney Carol Lynch has two weeks to draft the title and summary, the official language on the petition. If there’s disagreement, Kuykendall said, a party could go to court to modify the language. Ten percent of RPV’s registered voters — about 2,700 residents — must sign the petition by the June 24 deadline, to secure placement of the initiative on the November general election ballot. Marymount students and supporters will circulate petitions to RPV residents, starting on March 18. A private firm conducted a poll for Marymount in April 2006 and November 2008 that showed 78 percent and 80 percent resident approval of the project, respectively, Kuykendall said. “People have been really supportive. For many people, they feel it’s time that the college took its application directly to the people of Rancho Palos Verdes,” said Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount’s sixth president. If approved by voters, the initiative would take precedent over any city action, Kuykendall said. This route is more beneficial to the college than an entitlement, which expires after two years. “By doing an initiative, you’re putting a specific plan into the ordinances and general plan of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes for that piece of property,” he said. “That plan stays in effect forever. It’s a new law.” The eight-year construction timeline previously described as a project condition would no longer be required if the measure passes. Marymount’s enrollment cap of 793 students would remain. Project opponents see the initiative is Marymount’s ultimate means to obtain dormitories, after the Planning Commission informally voted down the proposed dormitories and the college removed them from the table last year. “I objected to Marymount becoming a four-year institution because I knew that approval meant that on-campus housing would become a much higher demand by the school … Dr. Brophy and others are demanding too much from our community by demanding on-campus housing,” Mark Wells, an eastside RPV resident, wrote in an e-mail. Lois Karp, president of the opposing neighborhood group, Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion Inc., said the initiative is “harmful” to the city in that it may set a precedent for other developers. “It pre-empts all building codes, all land-use controls,” she said. “It’s development by the ballot box … We might as well not have a city. We certainly don’t need a planning department [or] a planning commission. They’ll all be useless … “Marymount professes to be this very good neighbor,” Karp continued. “A good neighbor would never do a thing like this.” If placed on the ballot, CCC/ME would work to defeat the initiative, Karp said. But not all voices weighing in on this measure were opposed to the prospect of a vote. “There is a small, vocal minority of people that are in the immediate neighborhood [of] Marymount … that have prevented and waylaid and delayed this project coming to fruition,” Soldoff said. “We decided that it [should] be determined by the residents in the city.” While RPV Mayor Steve Wolowicz said he has not read the initiative in detail, he characterized the proposal as an “end run around city government.” “I do not want to say anything pro or con about this issue, save for the fact that it is unique that the reason people form a city is ... [so that] the decision-making process is assigned to city government. In this case, the decision-making process within government is going to be removed from the decision-makers.” Asked if the RPV City Council has considered taking a stance on the Marymount initiative, Wolowicz said the panel has yet to discuss the matter in an open forum and doing so may be premature because the measure has not yet qualified for the ballot. “We have to be careful in being fair to all concerns … We need to deal with the proposal that will be in front of us [on March 30],” he said. At that time, council will conduct a public hearing concerning the environmental documents and the CCC/ME appeal — stalled last September when the college began pursuing bachelor’s degree course offerings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, let's look at two pieces of the article put closer together. “There is a small, vocal minority of people that are in the immediate neighborhood [of] Marymount … that have prevented and waylaid and delayed this project coming to fruition,” Soldoff said. “We decided that it [should] be determined by the residents in the city.” At that time, council will conduct a public hearing concerning the environmental documents and the CCC/ME appeal — stalled last September when the college began pursuing bachelor’s degree course offerings. So it seems that a small vocal minority of people are holding up the project. Then we come to find out it was the College's Administration, Trustees, and supporters who provided a stall last September. College supporters kept on-campus housing as part of the project until they voluntarily removed that portion of the Expansion Project's plan. Now they are putting their demand for on-campus housing in a proposed vote by residents. Since the possible vote won't happen before the first Tuesday in November, how is that not stalling the processes further out. When you read the what Marymount's supporters also want, by way of not having to follow the municipal codes as far as the minimum number of required parking spaces on-campus is concerned, you will also see that Marymount to have special laws that supersede municipal codes the rest of us have to follow. I wish I knew more facts about the two polls that were conducted that show what can only be described as overwhelming support for the college. Polls can be written by the financial backers of the poll such that many of the results favor the financial backers of the poll. A great case in point was a poll conducted for Ponte Vista at San Pedro where the project's former developer finally admitted he wrote some of the poll questions and was involved in creating other questions. As one elected official wrote to me, "Oh well." That about sums it up for me, right now.