Opponents Step Up Efforts to Stop Pepperdine Expansion : Development: They say the school has violated an agreement on future growth by failing to adequately dispose of its waste water.

On the surface, Pepperdine University’s plans to build campus housing and an annex to the school’s athletic complex would not appear to stir much controversy.

But when the university sought the approval of the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission in April, it quickly became apparent that the issue would be anything but the “slam dunk” some observers had expected.

After hearing arguments from Malibu’s mayor and other opponents, the commission postponed a decision on whether to approve the projects, which include housing for 546 students, an annex to Firestone Fieldhouse--where the school’s basketball teams play--and parking for 268 cars.

Now, as the panel prepares to consider the matter Wednesday, opponents--including the city of Malibu and a 250-member property owners group--have stepped up a campaign to block the university’s plans.

The opponents contend that Pepperdine has violated a 1985 agreement with the county that ties future campus construction to the university’s ability to adequately dispose of its waste water, something critics contend that Pepperdine has failed to do.

Moreover, residents of some expensive beachfront homes below the campus have accused the university of illegally discharging at least 6 million gallons of water per year into Malibu Bluffs State Park, which they say has undermined the promontory above their homes.

“We have nothing against Pepperdine as an institution, but we think they should be good neighbors, and as far as we’re concerned, they’ve clearly misrepresented the facts in their push to expand their campus,” said Harry Barovsky, a spokesman for the Malibu Road Property Owners Assn.

Andrew K. Benton, the university’s executive vice president and its lead official in the matter before the Planning Commission, declined to be interviewed.

The latest flap exposes the lingering hostility between Malibu’s slow-growth-oriented government and Pepperdine, which, despite its considerable lobbying resources, has never quite figured out how to get on Malibu’s good side.

Relations between Malibu’s leaders and the university have been strained for years, but they worsened in 1989 after the university successfully lobbied county officials to exclude the campus from Malibu’s boundaries.

Many in the community were further outraged last year when The Times disclosed that Pepperdine had secretly invested millions of dollars in Malibu real estate in 1989 while trying to block an incorporation effort.

At the root of the hostility is a widespread fear in the community that Pepperdine’s future growth may ultimately transform Malibu into a booming college town.

Frequent assurances from university officials that the conservative Christian school intends to remain small appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

The latest plans involving the dorm rooms and gym annex represent merely another chapter in the conflict over the university’s expansion plans.

Under the university’s long-range development plan, approved by the California Coastal Commission in 1989, Pepperdine will be able to build nearly 1.5 million square feet of facilities on an undeveloped 72-acre section of the campus.

The long-range plan would allow the Malibu campus to expand to 5,000 students, about double the number enrolled now.

Irate at the coastal panel’s approval of the long-range plan, which allows for grading of more than 3 million cubic yards of earth, two community groups, which have since been joined by the city, went to court trying to block it.

A Superior Court judge and a state appeals court have upheld the university’s right to proceed, dismissing opponents’ claims that the Coastal Commission violated the state’s coastal protection law in approving the plan.

But despite the approval, the university must win the specific approval of the county and the Coastal Commission before being allowed to build.

Its latest proposal includes two three-story buildings to house 402 students on a permanent basis, as well as temporary housing for as many as 144 students. It also wants to build a two-story fieldhouse annex that would include classrooms, basketball and volleyball courts, and a separate building for aerobics and weight training.

At the April hearing, opponents accused the county of accepting the findings of Pepperdine’s environmental consultants at face value without providing an independent analysis of the university’s proposal.

Among other things, Pepperdine’s 1985 agreement with the county requires the university to conduct an annual geologic review to be approved by the county to ensure that water runoff from spray irrigation on the campus does not create landslide problems for the campus or adjacent properties.

However, in a letter to Benton earlier this month, a top county official acknowledged that none of the reports Pepperdine has been required to submit since 1987 have been approved “because we have yet to receive replies to our requests for additional information.”

The official, Assistant Public Works Director Dean Efstathiou, could not be reached for comment.

Documents obtained by The Times show that county officials have complained numerous times during the past five years that Pepperdine was not cooperating with the agreement.

Pepperdine opponents say it is “scandalous” for the county to even consider the university’s request under such circumstances and have called on the county, which operates the state park property, to investigate allegations that Pepperdine is dumping water there.

“Up until this point, the county’s lack of curiosity has been amazing,” said Barovsky, the spokesman for the beachfront homeowners.

The conflict, meanwhile, appears only to have worsened the already tenuous relations between the university and city officials.

“We’ve tried to obtain (the university’s) cooperation,” city planner Bob Benard said, “and we’ve essentially been told: ‘Don’t call us. We’ll call you.’ ”