The Myths, Marymount's "Facts" And Then There Is The Truth

There is a Web site where proponents of ballot measure P have posted statements relating to “Myths” and “Facts” relating to the ballot measure and The Marymount Plan.

Wherever you see “Myth” followed by a comment in black it is taken directly from the Web site.

Wherever you see “Fact” followed by comments in black they are directly from the Web site.

But I am now going to offer the Truth. Those comments will be in a dark red color.
The truth is based on reality, legal documents, statements from Marymount representatives that have not been denied, and other sources that are as objective as I can possibly find.

What is most important about this entire matter is that all potential voters on this measure become as educated as possible about the truth, no matter what the myths and facts purported to be factual by Marymount’s lobbyists, public relations firm, administration, representatives, and supporters might be.

When all the voters learn the truth, it will be very easy for them to understand that The Marymount Plan has already been almost completely approved and that the remainder of the wishes of Marymount’s representatives are within that Plan, are NOT in the best interests of anyone.

MYTH: The College is “going around” the
planning process.

Fact:
Marymount College has done everything the Planning
Commission asked us to do during the 10 year planning
process.

The student housing is not a new idea: the City, when former
Mayor Ken Dyda was a member of the City Council, approved an
even bigger version of the dormitories in 1979 and then again in
1980. Unfortunately, Financial conditions kept the College from
building the student housing on-campus at that time.

Measure P also imposes “Quiet Hours” on the campus and
requires all students to check in and out with adult
supervisors between the hours of 10 p.m. – 7 a.m.

A Yes vote on Measure P means that Marymount will be
required to conform to every Rancho Palos Verdes building,
fire, landscaping and safety code. We will have to apply for
and receive permits from the City as anyone doing
renovation would, and we will be bound by the California
Environmental Quality Act [CEQA].

Truth:
While it is true that there have been earlier approvals for on-campus housing at Marymount, that was during a period before the city reached the physical size and population it is on this date.

Furthermore, traffic has increased dramatically since 1980 along with the requirements of first responders to an area that has not seen an increase of first responders since before 1979.

Additionally, language within ballot measure P provides as yet untried set of statements that could allow Marymount to do just about anything it wished to do as far as development, hours of operation and codes of conduct principles due to the fact that no judge has provided an opinion yet, as to what the proposed language would legally mean, if it is ever adjudicated.

Myth: The modernization plan is undefined and once approved by
the voters, the College can build whatever it wants.

Fact:
Marymount will only be allowed to build what is approved
by the voters.

The City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis states that substantial
changes to Measure P would “require either approval of the
City…or voter approval,” ensuring that the projects promised
in Measure P are implemented as proposed.

Measure P is a clearly defined plan and provides the community
with a transparent path to completion. It will enhance a
valuable community asset without taxpayer funding.

It will be required to adhere to a strict City imposed timeline
for completion.

The College will have to obtain all building permits
from the City for every part of the plan. The City and
the Citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes retain significant
oversight.

Truth:
The timeline most advertised by Marymount repeatedly states that the Marymount Plan will take 36 months to construct. What Marymount repeatedly fails to include is that the overall timeframe for construction was set by the City Council for a period of not more than eight years.

With the approval of the ballot measure, even the eight year period becomes moot and it could take a decade or more to fully complete any construction begun according to the measure’s Marymount Plan.

Here is what voters are being asked to approve:

• New parking facilities to take student, faculty and
visitor parking off residential streets
• New on-campus housing for students
• New state-of-the-art library and lecture hall
• New indoor athletic facility
• New pool
• Relocation of existing athletic field and tennis
courts
• New art studio and maintenance building
• Upgrades of existing academic buildings

Truth:
Here is what voters are being asked to approve:
New on campus housing for up to 250 students and up to five faculty advisors.

Everything else noted on the Web site in this particular portion has already been approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council with the adoption of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Voters cannot factually be asked to approve something that has already been approved, can they?

Myth: Measure P: The Marymount Plan will increase the
number of students at the College.

Fact:
Measure P explicitly calls for the College to maintain
the current cap on student enrollment at 793.

Truth:
There is no documentation existing on this or any other planet that precludes Marymount officials from attempting to raise the enrollment cap at any point in the future.

Additionally, should ballot measure P succeed, there is the possibility that Marymount officials might again head to the ballot box to have voters allow an increase in the enrollment cap.

Myth: The plan provides no benefit to the residents of
Rancho Palos Verdes.

Fact:
Measure P has signifcant benefits for Rancho Palos
Verdes’ residents and requires no taxpayer funds to:
• Reduce student commuter traffic, making our
community safer;
• Provide new on-campus parking, eliminating the
need for students, faculty or visitors to park on
residential streets
• Build a state-of-the-art library
• Build a new indoor athletic center
• Build a new pool
• Create special programs for our families and
children
• Increase revenue to the City for essential public
services through more utility, sales and property
taxes from the College

Truth:
Allowing students the opportunity to bring their vehicles onto and off of the Marymount campus on a 24 hour, 7 day a week basis cannot possibly decrease the impact of residential student traffic on local streets.

It is a complete lie to offer that The Marymount Plan would not require taxpayer funds because within the requirements of The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project are traffic mitigation requirements in which Marymount College have repeatedly claimed they are only willing to fund “Their fair share” thereby requiring our city tax funds to be used to pay for the remainder of the mitigation obligations.

That is IF Marymount officials actually provide the mitigation required under both The Plan and The Project.

Again we have to view Marymount’s proponents’ claims that the approval of the ballot measure would allow the library, athletic center, pool and other items already approved for construction with all but the athletic facilities and center being approved EXACTLY as wished for by Marymount representatives.

The most egregious misstatement of a purported fact is that the claim that reducing student commuter traffic would make the community safer.

Currently all students living in off-campus housing are instructed to use shuttle buses driven by trained drivers who are familiar with driving in the area and current traffic patterns during the school year.

As residents have tragically seen, over the years, Marymount students have been involved and have caused several traffic collisions that have resulted in great bodily harm and even the death of at least one Marymount student.

Allowing vehicles onto and off of the Marymount campus on a 24 hours per day, seven days per week basis, no matter what the weather and visibility conditions are that high on San Pedro Hill, makes it quite obvious that less trained drivers, driving in unfamiliar areas having differing weather patterns and visibility issues usually greater than where the students normally live, makes having students living on the Marymount campus less safe for everyone and as of today, nobody from Marymount College has been able to deny that, debate me on that, or offer any real explanation as to how that can factually claim what they are claiming.

Myth: The College is only seeking the improvements for the development rights so that it can sell the College to a developer.

Fact:
The property is not and has never been for sale.

Some people who oppose the Measure P
cannot accept the fact that we want to modernize the
campus and bring our facilities into the 21st century.

We want to make the neighborhood safer by
reducing College-related commuter traffic and
take student parking off our neighborhood streets.

The Marymount Plan will allow us to build a new
library, lecture hall, new athletic facilities and
on-campus student housing, while working with the
City to create programs for the benefit of our entire
community.

Truth:
I completely concur with the first sentence and I do not currently feel that representatives of Marymount are in discussions about selling the property if ballot measure P passes.

I do not oppose The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project that will bring the campus well into the 21st century. In fact, I am one of the most vocal and written supporters of The Project.

While Marymount claims that the ballot measure would allow for more parking spaces on the campus, The Project already approved the exact same number of additional parking spaces as in The Marymount Plan.

Furthermore, both The Project and The Plan recognize that according to existing municipal code, Marymount will not provide the minimum number of on-campus parking spaces the code requires.

Using the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, the city authorized a variance to the parking code.

According to language within The Marymount Plan, the “Campus Specific Zone” would allow Marymount to provide any number of parking spaces it ultimately provides, making moot the municipal code it would no longer be required to follow.

Myth: The new buildings block neighbors’ views.

Fact:
Just the opposite. Special care was taken to make
sure that neighbor’s views are protected. All view
corridors were carefully studied and extensive
analysis and sophisticated technology was applied to
ensure nothing intruded on anyone’s views.

The Marymount Plan was designed so that views
remain unobstructed and that 2/3 of the campus will
remain open space and accessible to the community.

Truth:
Language in the already approved project places a requirement that the roof of the athletic center be 10 feet shorter than what is currently in The Marymount Plan and if the ballot measure is approved, there is no indication that Marymount contractors would follow the lowered height of the center.

Since a judge has not yet determined the constraints of the language contained in the Campus Specific Plan within the ballot measure, neither the city attorney nor any other attorney has the final say on what Marymount could or could not do.

Myth: The residents aren’t qualifed to make these kinds of
planning decisions.

Fact:
The single most important decision in the history of
Rancho Palos Verdes was decided by the residents
through the same process as Measure P: the initiative
that founded our City. After 10 years of debate and
discussion, we trust that the residents of our town
can decide for themselves

Truth:
Some residents are qualified to make decisions about Marymount College. Marymount proved that over a 10 year period by going through all those years with city residents learning about and then making almost every decision Marymount asked for, in Marymount’s favor.

The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission is made up of seven resident volunteers who Marymount respected enough to allow them to decide every single piece brought to them for a vote.

Then, Marymount proceeded to the five residents who make up the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and found approval for EVERYTHING brought to the Council by Marymount’s representatives.

Furthermore, Marymount voluntarily omitted on-campus housing from a vote by the Planning Commission and then did not bring it up for a vote by the City Council when Marymount’s representatives knew or should have known that the Council could have decided whatever it wanted to decide, no matter what the recommendations of the Planning Commission was.

When anyone attempts to state as fact that all the delays in the now 10 year process have been primarily due to representatives of Rancho Palos Verdes, that is a piece of deception and a true misstatement of facts.

The vast majority of months and years of delay in all of the processes were by and at the hand of Marymount’s representatives, including a one month delay caused when the college’s President was in Cuba.

It is important to learn the truth, no matter who states things as fact when they clearly are not so.

I am not a member of Save Our City III or Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion. I have made at least one contribution to Save Our City III and I have yard signs in my front yard.

I do not agree with the slogan on the yard sign, but I will continue to have the signs up and available to others because there are more reasons to oppose ballot measure P than what is mentioned on the yard signs.

I have not been paid as much as one penny for anything I have written, spoken, or provided to any number of groups or interests I feel have the best interests of community residents as their primary goal.

I fully support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project even though I must acknowledge my assertion that I do not believe Marymount officials will build anything under The Project’s umbrella unless and until they find approval to build on-campus student housing.

I object to the construction of on-campus student housing because I am unable to find enough mitigation for what I can only determine as a very unsafe proposal for the students, faculty, staff, visitor, tourists, residents, and everyone else who drives, lives, or has responsibilities at or near Marymount’s main campus.

As of today, nothing I have written or said has been found to be untruthful by anyone representing Marymount College, including its President, Dr. Michael Brophy.

I stand ready, willing, and very able to correct any proven errors in fact and truth I provide by my own writing, other than what Marymount purports to be the truth or facts.

I challenge anyone and everyone to challenge me on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, The Marymount Plan, and ballot measure P.

I won’t ‘myth’ the truth and the facts I state are true have not been found to be anything other than the truth and factual.

Disclaimer: I have been associated with the home I live in since May 4, 1955 when I was brought to it at the age of one-day old. I moved away in October, 1976 to serve in the U.S. Air Force and I returned to live in the home in July, 1998 with my second wife. My family members lived in the home when I was not living in it and my father bought the property while the house was still under construction, in 1950.

For all those who have spoken, written, commented in any way, or feel they have more time in this area than I do, they may be inaccurate.

I have traveled past the Marymount site using just about every vehicle or transportation means that regularly pass the campus, including a Type 2 Volkswagen that I got down from the intersection of Crest Road to Palos Verdes Drive South, without touching the brakes once.
I know safety very well and I know what is safe and what is not safe. Housing college students at the Marymount campus is unsafe and I have yet to be proven wrong about that.