Thursday's Debate.

The Palos Verdes and Harbor Republican Club held a debate between former Congressman Steve Kuykendall and current Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilman Brian Campbell dealing with Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

The debate was professional and the moderator and timekeeper did a good job with the questioning, rebuttal, and timekeeping matters.

The questions were asked via written cards submitted by the audience prior to the debate.

Congressman Kuykendall and Councilman Campbell were each asked the same question with Councilman Campbell being asked the first of ten questions and then each person traded off who would answer subsequent questions.

Each answer was strictly limited to two minutes each and each person then had one minute of rebuttal time should they desire it.

Congressman Kuykendall began with his three-minute opening statement that restated everything everyone already knows.

Councilman Campbell made his opening statement by mentioning his three major points as to why Measure P is not needed and could be divisive to the entire community and that residents would not have their elected representatives able to adequately represent them, should any problems with Marymount arise, if Measure P passes.

Question One: Will taxpayer dollars be required with The Marymount Plan?

Councilman Campbell began by stating that he didn’t not believe a lot of taxpayer money would be required but he did talk about the probably need for more first responders and infrastructure costs that may have to be borne by taxpayers.
Congressman Kuykendall stated no taxpayer funds would be required.

In Councilman Campbell’s rebuttal, he mentioned that some taxpayer money would be required but he emphasized that he didn’t believe it would be much money.

Question Two was very simple: Why does there need to be dorm on Marymount’s campus?

Congressman Kuykendall stated that dorms for “250 students” and “ten advisors” were needed because it was a “product of the four-year college, that it would reduce traffic, and that it was part of an overall college experience, making them more convenient for those who actually lived on campus. Congressman Kuykendall also mentioned that 25% of Marymount’s current student body is made up of “local” students.

Councilman Campbell stated that Marymount already had dorms and that he lived in dorms that were either on-campus or off-campus during his college days in Boulder, Colorado. He also mentioned the fact that on-campus housing would generate traffic on a 24/7 basis, something that has not been seen at Marymount’s current location.

Question Three dealt with whether there would be a specific schedule of construction similar to a timetable for construction.

Councilman Campbell stated that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project gave Marymount a total of eight years to complete construction. He stated that it was at Marymount’s request that eight years should be the time limit and that one suggestion of a three-year limit and even an six-year limit were discussed but Marymount officials, including Dr. Brophy, Marymount’s President ask for and were granted the eight year timeframe they requested from the City Council.

Congressman Kuykendall stated that Measure P, The Marymount Plan contains only the time limits available via the permit process and that once a building permit has been granted; there would be a timeframe, under the State limits as to how long Marymount would have to complete the building.

In the rebuttal by Councilman Campbell, he stated that if Marymount can’t get something built in eight years, they would have to go back through the processes, to get another approval for building.

In the rebuttal by Congressman Kuykendall, I heard the words “brain damaged” and I believe it was in reference to the decision makers who allowed eight years as opposed to an unlimited amount of time Marymount now wants because time limits have been eliminated in Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

Question Four dealt with the potential effects of noise, traffic and parking should Measure P pass.

This was a very good and interesting question to deal with.

Councilman Campbell said that, according to The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, noise levels above 65 dB over a 15 minute period in any hour would have mandated that Marymount test the sound levels and the city would have the authority to grant or deny use of amplified sound that went over the limits.

Measure P would require anyone who objected to loud noises coming from the campus would have to provide their own testing and then they would have to probably sue Marymount after the loud noise issue became historical.

Again Congressman Kuykendall stated that having students living on campus would reduce traffic and he did not admit that trip generation to and from the campus at all hours of the day or night could become a reality, something that is not done currently.

As far at parking, Congressman Kuykendall stated that the 463 parking spaces in Measure P (They also are approved with The Project) would allow every student and anyone else coming onto the Marymount campus would be able to find off-street parking.

There is no statement of fact in any document that supports Congressman Kuykendall’s claim.

Congressman Kuykendall also stated that everything within Measure P, The Marymount Plan is “still under the laws of the city of R.P.V.” but that is also a misstatement of fact.

In the rebuttal by Councilman Campbell, he stated that since Measure P creates a Specific Plan District, no conditional use permits would be required of Marymount and that every other business, resident, and all four other Special Use Districts must follow Conditional Use Permits, something that Marymount would not have to live by, should Measure P pass.

Question Five: Why did Marymount go to the voters with their plan?

Councilman Campbell began by restating something he said earlier in that everything but dorms have already been approved for construction and that Marymount could “pull permits tomorrow” to begin construction.

Congressman Kuykendall returned to the same line that Marymount has been dealing with this project for “ten years” even after Dr. Brophy earlier today stated that the second submission of the revised plan didn’t come out until 2005.

Congressman Kuykendall mentioned the frustration Marymount had with the City Council without ever mentioning that it was Marymount that added an additional 9 months of delays while seeking to become a four-year college.

Congressman Kuykendall also stated the following reasons as to why the City Council changed the overall height of the roofline of the athletic building and moving the athletic about 60 feet to the east than where Marymount wants it. He said that there is “no other reason than to be capricious” when he referred to the City Council’s changing the two elements mentioned.

Congressman Kuykendall went on to add that he feels politicians need to protect their future and that; “The city needs to protect its future” referring to the power the city seeks to continue to have with all other businesses and every resident of R.P.V.

Question Six: If Measure P passes, will the city have the power to revoke, deny, or change any of The Marymount Plan?

Congressman Kuykendall stated that The Marymount Plan could only be changed by “5%” even though that is an untrue statement. Language within Measure P states that with an approval by the city’s Director of Planning, the 18,000 square feet of changes at Marymount could be increased by up to 15% and that by eliminating any building now contained within The Plan, that net square footage could be utilized with whatever Marymount wants to do, including a third Residence Hall.

In the rebuttal to this question, Councilman Campbell stated that he talked personally with Dr. Brophy who stated to Councilman Campbell that he (Dr. Brophy) did not object to the lowering of the roof of the gym by ten feet.

It is curious now, after hearing what Councilman Campbell stated, that Dr. Brophy is claiming that the City Council reduces the athletic facility’s size by “25%”, even though Dr. Brophy told Councilman Campbell he did not object to that.

In fact, as Councilman Campbell stated, he talked directly with Dr. Brophy and Marymount’s land use attorney, Mr. Don Davis and both men stated NO OBJECTION to lowering the height of the roofline.

Congressman Kuykendall’s rebuttal stated that Measure P, The Marymount Plan fit in well with “the master plan for the community” never mentioning which community, Marymount’s or Rancho Palos Verdes’ he was considering.

Question Seven: Why is Marymount continuing to disobey a court order?

Factually, they are not, per the letter of the law.

Councilman Campbell mentioned all the mailers claiming Marymount must have passage of Measure P in order to build what is mentioned in the vast majority of the mailers, even though they have already been approved.

Congressman Kuykendall stated that the ‘normal’ process during an election is for parties objecting to something must use the courts to rectify the situation.

Councilman Campbell stated that when he and Mr. Jeff Lewis had words about their titles for the City Council election ballot, they settled their differences without having to go to court.

Question Eight: Please comment on the relevance of putting Annenberg (The Annenberg Foundation) into the mix concerning Measure P.

Congressman Kuykendall acknowledged and added information about the fact that it was a ‘stupid’ thing to do (Dr. Brophy’s recent observations, Emails, and mailers) and it was done in the spirit of humor and apologies were offered and Councilman Campbell accepted.

Councilman Campbell agreed.

Question Nine: Will students living in on-campus housing be able to vote in R.P.V. elections?

Both agreed that should the individual be of legal registration age and chooses to claim their dorm room as their residence, it would be legal to register and vote.
As it stands today, no current Marymount student is allowed to vote on Measure P unless they claim current residency within the limits of Rancho Palos Verdes and there are very, very few of the 775 current students enrolled at Marymount who actually live in Rancho Palos Verdes.

In fact, if any student lives at either of the two off-campus housing sites Marymount controls, doesn’t know already, those two addresses are outside Rancho Palos Verdes and within the limits of the City of Los Angeles.

Question Ten: If Measure P passes, will Marymount be able to build a shopping center on campus?

A book store, student union, dining hall are the only three currently planned retail businesses being considered for the campus.

No disagreement in that.

My personal views about the debate are mixed. I thought that when Congressman Kuykendall used his attack on the City Council members for being “capricious” that demonstrated an anger and limited ability to honestly answer the question.

I felt Congressman Kuykendall did a much less impressive job than the much less experienced politician Councilman Campbell.

When Councilman Campbell stated that both Dr. Brophy and Attorney Davis both did not object to the lowering of the roof height and when Congressman Kuykendall came out with is ‘capricious’ remark that also included the athletic field, it showed me how a veteran politician can get mean when he wishes to.

I doubt any voter in the room had their mind changed but I wish it had been recorded for playback on Channels 33 or 35 because there may still be voters who don’t know which way to vote and if they had the opportunity to see tonight’s debate, I think the majority of them would vote “No” on Measure P, because of the reasonable, friendly, honest approach Councilman Campbell took as compared to the lack of full knowledge about Measure P and the inconsistent and uneducated answers Congressman Kuykendall provided.

I may be on opposite ends of the political spectrum of both Congressman Kuykendall and Councilman Campbell, but I already know who I will support should Councilman Campbell seek another term. I am also leaning heavily towards supporting Councilman Misetich for reelection should he choose to run for another term, which kind of shocks even me.