Line By Line, It Ain't So Fine

Below, please find the Argument in Favor of Measure P.

Now I am sure you didn't expect me to just write it as I found it and not place comments, rather the truth and questions for just about every single line of the argument, did you?

I knew you wouldn't expect that from me. Since I have so much factual information at my fingertips, facts and purported truths 'established' by Marymount representatives and language actually contained in The Marymount Plan and the ballot measure, I feel I have the experience in these matters, the unquestioned credibility from all sides of the issues, and the blog right here to provide the honest and as yet, undeniable truth, why shouldn't I take a crack at breaking down the Argument in Favor of Measure P.

As I have done with previous posts, I will make my comments and offer the truth and proof using a different color of font.

I didn't even have to get one letter beyond the argument's first sentence to find something that Marymount purports to be true but has gone unproven and remains questionable, at best and deceptive, I feel, at worst.

Here goes:

"Marymount College has been an important asset for Rancho Palos Verdes for 50 years."

Really? Where is there any proof for this statement? Where is evidence demonstrating how 'important' Marymount College has been for Rancho Palos Verdes?

It certainly is not found in the television advertisement that has been showing up on cable networks. There is absolutely nothing that has any 'important' relevance for Rancho Palos Verdes in that ad. There are works and deed illustrated conducted in other communities and in other areas, but there is nothing specifically illustrating any 'important' benefit Marymount provides to Rancho Palos Verdes.

I feel if any credibility of the first sentence is to be found, Marymount College officials should provide all types of proof that the college is factually an "important asset for Rancho Palos Verdes" Barring any reasonable demonstration of importance to the city, Marymount should have that sentence removed from the Argument.

"Your Yes Vote on Measure P will allow the school to build a state-of-the-art library and a recreational center available to every Rancho Palos Verdes resident."

This is a true misstatement of fact and it completely deceptive and there is proof enough to find my claim credible.

A Yes vote means absolutely nothing towards whether Marymount will or won't build the two items mentioned UNLESS Marymount has no intention of building them using the recent approval of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

What the sentence is telling me and should be telling you is that IF Measure P is not passed by the voters, Marymount will NOT go ahead with the buildings and other items that are in both The Marymount Plan and the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

What the sentence also infers to me is that it is Marymount's way or the highway as far and creating a state-of-the-are library and recreational center or providing any new facilities for current and future students should the ballot measure fail. It looks very true to me that Dr. Brophy and others representing Marymount are telling all of us that they must have dorms on the campus or they will BUILD NOTHING.

As of this date, Dr. Michael Brophy, President of Marymount College nor anyone else representing Marymount College, its supporters and members of its Board of Trustees have stated publicly or privately to me that they would build anything according to The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

"It will also allow it to build a dormitory for 250 students while maintaining the existing 793 student enrollment cap."

The Marymount Plan and Measure P would approve possible construction of two buildings housing up to 250 students and up to five faculty advisors/administrators. It would also allow for construction of facilities related to having students living on the campus proper.

There is nothing within both The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project that disallows Marymount officials from approaching city government to seek to increase the current enrollment cap of 793 full-time students.

However, should Measure P pass, there is no reason that Marymount officials would not again seek voter support to increase the student enrollment cap, should a City Council in the future, deny a request to increase the cap.

"For more than 10 years, Marymount College worked with the City to Obtain approval for campus improvements. An Environmental Impact Report studied every feature of Measure P."


The Environmental Impact Report DID NOT have studies for "every feature of Measure P".

The Environmental Impact Report did not provide any studies dealing with the 'Campus Specific Plan", a plan that COULD allow Marymount to sell, lease, rent, or by other means, provide outside vendors or business interests from using facilities at Marymount's campus.

This is a VERY IMPORTANT point that I hope the judge will offer his opinion on.

What many opponents of Measure P believe Marymount is intending on doing, should Measure P pass, it to sign a contract with a campus housing business that would build the student housing at no cost to the College, administer and maintain it, and provide to Marymount College a continuing revenue stream. ( I have researched several independent companies that offer these services.)

Also, language contained in the "Campus Specific Plan" continues to be disputed and many opponents of Measure P believe that should the measure pass, Marymount officials would be allowed to provide facilities at the College's site for events that would not be under the authority of city regulations and some municipal codes and that Marymount could contract with companies to allow those companies to offer events such as concerts, summer camps, music festivals, and other entertainment and sports activities in return for revenue being provided to Marymount College.

It is strongly believed, prior to any opinion by any judge, that events, activities, entertainment offerings, and sports related events would not be under any regulatory constraints that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes could inforce, due to the Measure's and The Marymount Plan's "Campus Specific Plan" wording.

It is hoped by many on all sides that the judge will offer a judicial opinon on the language carried within The Marymount Plan and the Measure P language that will settle the matter.

"Dorm rooms were originally approved for construction more than 20 years ago but could not be built at that time due to lack of funding. The dorms will be operated with strict after-hour rules and supervision that are included in Measure P."

Again, at this time it is strongly believed that passage of Measure P would allow Marymount College the ability to have a separate business interest build, administer, and maintain on-campus housing and dining facilities and offer the college a continuing revenue stream.
What this also may mean is that the authority over students living at the dorms and the responsibility for the students safety, welfare, and control, will not be obligated to Marymount's administration, but rather given to the business interest contracted by Marymount to deal with all issues related to any on-campus student and advisor housing.

It is undetermined at this time that should all of this occur, Marymount's own Code of Conduct and the personnel staffing the advisory positions at the student housing, would not be employed or directly part of the administration of Marymount College.

"Having dorms on campus reduces student traffic because fewer students will be commuting from off-campus. Also, Measure P builds more on-campus student and faculty parking- cars will not need to park on residential streets."

Currently, Marymount students residing in the College's two off-campus student housing facilities are highly encouraged to use the regularly scheduled shuttle buses, driven by trained drivers to provide commutes. In truth and fact, Marymount already endorses and requests students who do not live in one of that facilities but who might normally commute to and from the campus, park their personal vehicles at the Palos Verdes North student housing facility and use the shuttle bus system. This would also be included and incouraged should Measure P pass.
With both The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, there would NOT be enough parking spaces supplied as what is now required under the city's municipal code.

The Project, as already approved, supplies a variance to the municipal code for Marymount.
The Plan, as currently suggested, makes moot the municipal code for the minimum number of parking spaces required at Marymount College and states, as a matter of fact, that any municipal code that is conflict with provisions of the "Campus Specific Plan" at Marymount, would have Marymount College's guidelines supersede some municipal codes, including the parking space code.


"No taxpayer funds are required to build the Marymount Plan. In fact, the City will receive increased revenue from utility and sales taxes and increased property taxes that Measure P brings."

Further down in their Argument in Favor of Measure P, it states that $200,000 will be supplied by Marymount for the center median along a 1,000 foot stretch of Palos Verdes Drive East, as it curves around a large portion of the campus.

The latest estimate for the cost of that barricade is at least $285,000 meaning in essence, that taxpayers WILL have to fund elements of The Marymount Plan.

Marymount officials have consistently argued that they should only pay "their fair share" as Dr. Brophy stated, for the other traffic mitigation elements of The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Every time I directly asked Dr. Brophy were the remainder of the funds to provide the necessary traffic mitigation required by both The Plan and The Project, Dr. Brophy has continually stated that he didn't know where those funds would come from.

I don't know how to explain what appears to me to be something deceptive, better than that!
It is common knowledge that if and when Marymont College pays its "fair share" that will not be enough to provide the three traffic mitigation items.

The short answer to where those funds would come from is, taxpayer funds.

I acknowledge and agree that taxpayer funds will be required to pay a portion of the traffic mitigation and one safety item in both The Plan and The Project.

It is inconceivable to me that taxpayer funds would not be required for at least a portion of some items within The Marymount Plan.

Furthermore, should Measure P, The Marymount Plan pass, there could be added infrastructure requirements needed, including more first responders who are paid using taxpayer funds.

There will also be additional security requirements needing to be instituted because there hasn't been students living on the campus of Marymount College since the site was a Catholic Girls High School and College students living away from home have caused security issues at both off-campus housing facilities and there is no expectation that there would not be increased security issues and required funds should students live at the main campus of Marymount College.

Measure P also ensures that Marymount College complies 100% with the City's building, safety, sound, landscaping, and fire codes. The College will have to obtain building permits, including strict time limits for construction, from the City for every part of the plan.

The sentence above is one of the core issues in the lawsuit filed by Mr. Jeffrey Lewis. No matter what any city attorney or attorneys for Marymount College claim, it must be up to a judge to determine whether the statement above is factual or not applicable.

As for "strict time limits", Marymount has claimed for months to years that, according to The Marymount Plan, the construction time will take "36 months".

With the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, the City Council included an eight year time frame to allow Marymount to complete its "36 months" of construction time.
According to now disputed language in The Marymount Plan and wording within Measure P, even the eight year time frame is not considered moot, should Measure P pass.

Wording in the original Argument in Favor of Measure P, concerning any actual time limit for construction was redacted and removed from consideration by all readers of the Argument.

The Marymount Plan was designed so that 2/3 of the campus will remain open space and the neighbors' views will not be blocked.

If this statement is to be truthful and believable, then why is the 10 foot decrease in the overall height of the roof of the gymnasium included in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project but not in The Marymount Plan (Measure P)? If it is good enough to not be forcefully objected to by Marymount's land use attorney, what has that very small change not found its way into The Marymount Plan, as far as I can tell?

The statement can also be suggested to be somewhat deceptive to any and all persons who have been to or seen the actual Marymount College main campus and surrounding property.
The site contains some very steep hillside areas that may or may not be suitable for building.
There is a fairly large portion of the property that could allow for more building on the lower portion of the campus, below the very steep hillside.

In one depiction of on-campus housing at Marymount, illustrations were produced showing the dorms below the steep hillside and not built over any of the steep slope as what is currently invisioned for the dorms at the campus.

There are areas of the Marymount campus that could find new construction, in the future.
Measure P's passage could encourage future Marymount Presidents to seek more housing, a greater student enrollment cap, and more uses of the property for educational and non-educational purposes, it is imagined.

Finally, Marymount College is taking extra steps to protect passing cars by building athletic fields below grade and the College is providing $200,000 to build a new traffic median to ensure safety.

This element was included in the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project but it was NOT included in any former version of The Marymount Plan and I am still looking for wording of it within The Marymount Plan and the language of Measure P, if it is there at all.

As you can clearly see, everything that was asked for by Dr. Brophy and others representing Marymount College was approved for construction.

Mr. Don Davis, Marymount's land use attorney argued that the moving of the athletic field 60 feet in a more easterly direction than what is contained in The Marymount Plan was against the wishes of representatives of the college.

The placement of the Athletic field within the language of The Marymount College Facilities Expanion Project was debated and a majority vote by the City Council had the field moved for what the majority considered safety reasons.

Should Measure P pass and the field is constructed according to The Marymount Plan, it will be closer to Palos Verdes Drive East by about 60 than what is within the language of The Project.
Because of my considerations about overall safety, I feel that moving the field is appropriate no matter what Mr. Davis and others representing Marymount want.

There are many ideas floating around about what could or could not be done at Marymount if Measure P, The Marymount Plan were to pass.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has already been passes and there are a couple of new municipal codes that would be made moot, should the Measure pass.

Also, since EVERYTHING Marymount's representatives asked for has already been approved at both the Planning Commission and the City Council levels, it is factual and truthful to state that the ONLY additional construction under The Marymount Plan, Measure P that is relevant is on-campus student housing and other construction related to having students living on the campus 24 hours per day, seven days per week, during normal College operation.

But let's not stop there, shall we? I am going back to a black font.

Included in both The Plan and The Project is the assertion by Marymount officials that no freshmen would be allowed to bring their personal vehicle to the campus if they resided in on-campus housing.

During this past year, Marymount officials sought and found approval to offer three programs that would award Bachelor's degrees based on becoming a four-year institution.

Since the original Marymount Plan stated that up to 250 students would live in the dorms and that no freshmen living on campus would be allowed to bring their personal vehicles, the dynamics of who can bring thier personal vehicles onto the campus and in what numbers would be allowed.

According to The Marymount Plan, no more than 125 'upper classmen' would live in the dorms.

That means that up to 125 freshmen and sophomors could live in the dorms and that no more than 125 juniors and seniors could live in the dorms.

Back before the College received approval to become a four-year institution, it was suggested that up to 125 of the 250 total students could bring vehicles onto campus, where they reside.

With the approval the number apparently could be as high as 250 students, but that is highly unlikely.

What is more likely is that up to 125 juniors and seniors and possibly up to 62 or 63 sophomores might find the opportunity to live on the campus and also have vehicles parked ther.

So the real number could jump from up to 125 to up to 187 dorm students with vehicles, or thereabouts.

Now we all should know that not all residents of on-campus housing do not have jobs.

There is so little employment opportunities near the campus that it is reasonable to believe that many sophomors, junior, seniors, and even some freshmen, living in on-campus housing would need to commute to and from jobs that may be 'down the hill' and even in another city.

With both The Plan and The Project, Dr. Brophy stated that incoming students would be required to attend added driver training. That is a good thing.

The dynamics of having a College campus where upwards of 90% of the students attend on a full-time basis and the added dimensions that most of the students are not local residents presents greater safety issues due to more untrained drivers who are not familiar with driving practices in hilly areas where the roadways are narrow and often covered by fog.

Having trained shuttle bus drivers transport students to and from the College seems much safer than having young students, unfamiliar with the area, bringing vehicles to a campus that is high above a set of narrow switchbacks, on a roadway frequented by speeding car and motorcycle operators, in weather conditions many student/drivers are not trained enough to operate vehicles safely, is a potion for tragedy, in my opinion.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Projects offers everything Marymount asked for and provides greater safety for all students, faculty, staff, visitors, tourists, residents, delivery persons, first responders, and others than The Marymount Plan does.

I fully support The Project and oppose The Plan for safety reasons.

I urge a No vote on or before November 2, 2010 on Measure P.

It's unsafe, unnecessary, probably deceptive, probably unenforceable, and offers nothing to the general population of Rancho Palos Verdes that has not already been approved.