I received one of those annoying robocalls from RPV Councilman Tom Long the other day. You know what a robocall is, right? It's a recorded message from someone with a political ax to grind and they're too busy to talk to you but they want you to drop whatever you're doing and listen to them because whatever they have to say is SO important. But because it's a one-sided flood of information, you can't ask questions or say anything back.
So I thought I'd have my say here.
According to Mr. Long, I should vote "no" on Prop. P because Marymount College can build everything in its plan just the way it wants to, right now.
Unfortunately, the devil is in the details, Mr. Long. But I would not have known that if I had not gone to the PBCA Board Meeting a couple of weeks ago and heard Marymount President Dr. Michael Brophy and Planning Commissioner Jim Wright discuss the pros and cons of Proposition P in a friendly, well-mannered and detailed way.
What I learned that night is that on the last go-round of the Marymount plan, when the college received its final approval from the city council, the council had made two minor changes to the plan, which no one seems to be discussing.
First: the council lowered the height of the gymnasium 10 feet. This seemed, to Dr. Brophy, to be a somewhat arbitrary change because the issue of view obstruction had been discussed at length during the previous years of negotiation about the plan. The question was, would the height of the gym, as planned, obstruct the view of any neighbors who lived above the site? According to Brophy, the college had agreed that when the time came to build the gym, they would put up flags to mark the intended roof line, and if it impacted any views, they would lower the roof of the gym. But the council, in its wisdom, made the change in the final plan anyway and never explained why.
Second: the council changed the location of two of the four planned tennis courts, making that part of the plan, in Marymount's eyes, unworkable. Here's why: The planned soccer field is adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive East, a curvy, heavily-traveled road that runs right by the campus. Although the field will be 10 feet below the level of the road, and is topped by a five foot wall, leaving 15 feet between road and field, there were concerns on the part of some council members that a wayward soccer ball might fly up on to the road and cause an accident. To mitigate the problem, Marymount agreed that during games and practices, they would raise a net to make the barrier between ball and road even higher. Up until the last meeting, everyone on both sides had agreed to that solution.
Now comes the bothersome detail that no one is discussing:
The original Marymount plan called for construction of four tennis courts to be located between the soccer field and the rest of the campus. When Marymount got the final approval for its plan, it discovered that the city council had split the courts, putting two between the edge of campus and the soccer field, and two in the original location, on the other side of the soccer field. The purpose of this was to move the soccer field farther from the adjacent road, further decreasing the likelihood that a soccer ball would fly up on the road and cause an accident.
But, this change meant that the four tennis courts would be split by the width of the soccer field. Brophy said that this situation is completely unworkable for both instruction and competitive use of the courts. And if you look at the plan, you have to agree.
None of this had anything to do with dorms, libraries or any of the other land-use issues associated with the plan and Prop. P. And admittedly, these two things might be considered minor points. But Mr. Long, if you want me to listen to your calls, please get all your details right.
As for the other, perhaps bigger, issues surrounding Measure P, more on that later.
But I hope the person who invented the robocall rots in hell.
