An Article from The Daily Breeze

Marymount College's Measure P proves deeply divisive in Rancho Palos Verdes
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 10/25/2010 07:52:59 PM PDTUpdated: 10/25/2010 08:09:55 PM PDT

When the owner of a prominent shopping center in Rancho Palos Verdes last week signaled - on a towering marquee - his support of Marymount College's controversial ballot measure, he was met with a howl of protest from opponents of the initiative.

Those who favor Measure P, which seeks voter approval for a long-desired campus improvements and dormitories at the small Catholic college, also called the center with equal fervor.

"I was confused. Why are people so angry?" said Tucson Zarrabian, owner of the Golden Cove Center at Palos Verdes Drive West and Hawthorne Boulevard.

In response to the outcry, Zarrabian quickly removed the sign, instead taking a neutral stance. Zarrabian wrote in a letter to residents that the intent of the sign was "to promote education for the city of Rancho Palos Verdes."

"However," he continued, "it has recently been brought to my attention that Measure P is more than just educational purposes."

It's that lack of certainty about the initiative that the Yes and No campaigns are striving - with just a week to go before the Nov. 2 election - to resolve in their favor. Voters are being bombarded with mailers, advertisements and robocalls.

Marymount has already spent a historic $1.2 million in support of its measure, which comes after a lengthy municipal review that frustrated school officials, though it resulted in approval of most of the college's plan.

"The college rightfully feels that we've gone through every required process ... and, at the end, there were mixed results," Marymount College President Michael Brophy said. "We took the case to the voters."

Brophy said a "good number" of voters remain undecided, according to the college's internal polling. He's personally been trying to reach those voters.

Critics of the initiative - who have raised less than $40,000 - also say their message is starting to resonate, despite the seriously lopsided campaign spending.

"I think people are becoming aware and are starting to question it and they are starting to see through this big PR campaign," said Ken Dyda, a former city mayor and leader of the opposition campaign.

Members of the two sides offer starkly different takes on the import and the impact of Measure P.

Some see it as a threat to the very founding principles of a city incorporated in 1973 to limit dense development of the scenic coast. Others view it as a comeuppance delivered by a private property owner distressed by an exhaustive local planning process.

The 51-page initiative's path to the ballot box has been marked by disputed endorsements, accusations of lying and anti-religious bias, allegations of law-breaking, theft of lawn signs, and a court battle.

Without a doubt, Measure P has deeply divided this affluent coastal community.

"The emotions run high. I don't know about those rifts ever being reconciled," said Mayor Steve Wolowicz, who leads a council unanimously opposed to the initiative.

The measure would change the city's General Plan and zoning code by implementing a "campus specific plan" for Marymount's 25 sloping acres off Palos Verdes Drive East.

It would allow six new buildings, including dormitories for 250 students, a new library and an athletic center. Four existing buildings would be significantly renovated.

The improvements would cost Marymount more than $50 million and would add 118,000 square feet to the campus footprint, more than doubling it.

An existing enrollment cap would be maintained at 793 students.

Most of the proposed facilities could be built today under similar plans approved by the city last summer - a point that initiative opponents have emphasized repeatedly.

Construction on the council-approved plan, which did not include student housing, could proceed even if the initiative fails.

But there is a major difference between the two visions for the campus: dormitories.

Marymount considers on-campus dorms essential to its future success. It currently provides housing in San Pedro and shuttles students between facilities.

Residents in the neighborhoods that surround the Rancho Palos Verdes campus have long worried dorms would increase noise, traffic and bring other negative effects from young college students living nearby.

It's a clash with a long history.

Marymount College moved to its current location - which offers a sweeping ocean view off a curving roadway - in 1975. The campus had housed a Catholic girls high school.

In the late 1970s, Marymount earned city backing for dormitories, but the college's lack of funds prevented construction and the approval lapsed.

In 2000, the college again presented modernization plans that included dorms. It revised its plans several times - causing delays - before a final environmental review of the plan was issued by city planners in 2008.

Late that year, the Planning Commission indicated in an informal vote that it would not approve dorms. Several months later, Marymount dropped student housing from its proposal, hoping to gain approval for the rest of the modernization.

Without the dorms, the plans were approved in July 2009 and promptly appealed to the City Council by a neighborhood group that had long criticized the expansion.

Then came a surprise announcement.

Shortly before the council was set to begin hearings, the college said it planned to offer four-year bachelor's degrees instead of just two-year degrees. The news blindsided council members and Marymount critics, who contended the change might seriously affect surrounding residents.

Further analysis of the expansion was made in light of the new academic program, but little impact was found.

Then there was another bombshell: the initiative.

In March, a few weeks before a scheduled council hearing on the plans, Marymount announced it would gather signatures for a ballot measure on its plans, including dormitories.

At the time, Wolowicz said the initiative put Rancho Palos Verdes "into unchartered waters."

"This seems like it's appealing a decision before a decision has been made," Wolowicz said in March.

Now, Brophy offers a reminder that at the time the college had not yet secured council approval for any part of its plans.

"Once they saw that we were serious and getting signatures, they hurried right along. The problem was when they did that, they tinkered," Brophy said.

In June, the council finalized its approval of the college's plans. Dorms were never weighed.

The council voted to move the location of an athletic field and rearrange tennis courts because of some council members' safety concerns.

Meanwhile, the initiative had qualified for the ballot after a broad outreach campaign.

As election rhetoric began to get more divisive, council members repeatedly spoke out against the measure, voting officially to oppose it.

"This is counter to the founding purposes of the city. The city was founded so that you could have local representatives making decisions" about planning issues, Wolowicz said.

"If Measure P prevails, this is a change to that. Whether or not that would be inviting to other developers, we're going to see."

In August, Marymount filed a lawsuit challenging the language of a ballot argument against Measure P. An initiative opponent filed suit seeking a change to Marymount's arguments.

A judge sided with college opponents on both issues. The ruling removed a claim Marymount had wanted to make about the project meeting all city codes.

Since then, the campaign has grown more and more heated.

Councilman Anthony Misetich at one point accused Marymount of using "tactics that were employed by totalitarian regimes during the 1930s." It was a statement that Marymount's political consultant found particularly offensive.

"I've never seen anything this disgusting," said Marymount adviser Harvey Englander, a veteran of decades of Los Angeles political races.

Brophy said his campaign's internal polling shows voters generally support the college's need for new facilities, including dorms. Yet now voters are raising other questions.

"They like the college, they trust the college ... but there's a `but.' The `but' is: If I vote yes, am I setting some kind of precedent that will one day undo the city?" Brophy said.

It's a concern that many in the anti-P camp have emphasized, while Marymount supporters have called the message hyperbolic.

An opposition mailer sent out last week warns that the initiative signals a "new way" for developers to gain project approval without city review.

"If Measure P passes, what special interest or large landowner will be next?" the anti-P mailer asks.

Another contentious issue is how much control municipal officials would have over the campus under the initiative.

Measure P does remove some council-mandated oversight provisions and restrictions. Campus lighting and landscaping, for example, would be regulated by existing city ordinances instead of by rules crafted specifically for Marymount with neighbors in mind.

A council-imposed limit of 36 months of construction spread over eight years would be replaced by the time constraints of the city building code, which allows repeated extensions.

Brophy said critics were exaggerating differences.

His campaign, he said, has spent a lot of time answering questions about what the college can do with the land if the initiative is approved.

"Is it true you can build whatever you want, whenever you want? Not true. Can it be bought by someone else? A casino, a condo? The measure calls for only these buildings, for education purposes." Brophy said. "We have no plans to sell the property."

melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com
--------------------------------------------------------------

Marymount is the organization tinkering with all the other businesses and every resident of the community, with Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

What you can't read in the article or hear coming from Dr. Brophy is the whole truth about Measure P and any admission from him about the real facts behind the reasoning why voters are being asked to decide the issue.

What Dr. Brophy is betting on is that R.P.V. voters won't learn all the facts and that they will stay misinformed by dealing with Marymount's propaganda, without actually reading Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

Nowhere have you read or heard from any Marymount supporter that you should carefully read the 51-page document that provides the specific language in Measure P and its Marymount Plan.

Rancho Palos Verdes residence are quite intelligent enough, if they choose to become better informed, to accurately determine that Measure P, The Marymount Plan is bad for the local community, does not really benefit local residents, and is basically a revenue generating machine that would allow the owners of the campus' site more rights than other landowners, including the owners of the Salvation Army's Officers College.

Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Everyhour.