To Compare Or Not To Compare, That Is The Question

Here is an article from The Daily Breeze.

LMU presents its master plan at public hearing
By Kristin S. Agostoni Staff Writer
Posted: 07/28/2010 06:34:21 PM PDT

Loyola Marymount University supporters and Westchester residents turned out in force Wednesday to comment on the private Catholic school's proposed master plan, a land-use document designed to steer campus development over the next 20 years.

The public hearing before a Los Angeles city planning officer drew hundreds to the Westchester Recreation Center gymnasium and essentially kicked off an approval process that will continue this fall.

The document has drawn objections from some residents of Westchester's Kentwood and Loyola Village neighborhoods, where relations with LMU already are strained, in part, because of past complaints about off-campus parties and a recycling facility that operates a stone's throw from

Westchester residents and supporters of Loyola Marymount University's 20-year master plan met to voice opinions at a public hearing at the Westchester Recreational Center.

But the master plan - which university officials see as key to attracting and retaining top students - on Wednesday afternoon had plenty of proponents, who were visible by the blue-and-white "I support a better LMU" stickers on their shirts.

A line of shuttle buses that had transported students and faculty from campus were lined up outside the Manchester Avenue rec center.

Longtime Westchester resident Kathy Nielsen, who serves on LMU's Board of Regents, said she supported the school's plan to expand its building space within the existing 142-acre campus footprint.

"If we're going to have LMU in our backyard, I'd like it to be the very best," she said. "We're not talking (about building)out. We're talking up and green. ... I, for one, want our community to be green."

Resident David Herbst, an LMU alum who lives in Westchester, said he learned as a student more than 20 years ago "what an asset LMU is to the Westchester community."

"It's time to move this to the Planning Commission and City Council for support," he said.

While the university doesn't plan to expand the campus beyond its footprint, the master plan lays out a framework for upgrading, demolishing and replacing buildings - many constructed from the 1950s to 1970s - along with sports facilities and other amenities.

The plan is to make incremental changes through 2030, starting first with a new life sciences building, and second, by moving the recycling operations near McConnell Avenue to another part of campus.

But with the planned upgrades comes increased density, as the blueprint pencils in an extra one million square feet of academic, administrative and residential facilities as well as indoor recreation space.

And that's a concern for many residents living along the campus boundaries - many of whom complain the plan doesn't include enough parking spaces, address concerns about signage and lighting, and require enough of a buffer along residential boundaries.

Residents of two local homeowners groups have fought for larger setback areas than what the university has proposed, but said Wednesday they have been unsuccessful in getting officials to make that compromise.

McConnell Avenue resident Richard Hofmeister asked Wednesday that the university provide a 20-foot natural buffer zone along its residential boundaries, agree to a 150-foot setback for facilities using amplified outdoor sound, and set a "reasonable deadline" for moving the recycling center, which has drawn odor and noise complaints.

While LMU has said the recycling center's move would be one of its first two projects, Hofmeister said "we don't know when this is going to happen."

Another McConnell resident, Alisa Drake, said she can close her doors and windows and still hear noise from sporting events behind her house.

"We're concerned that the value of our property will continue to decline," she testified. "We just hope that you can come to a mutual agreement with LMU for consideration."

The university earlier this year agreed to a list of concessions after hearing from residents - including extended setback requirements for taller buildings - and proposed them shortly before the Neighborhood Council of Westchester-Playa was to vote on the plan. The advisory panel in March recommended it win the Los Angeles City Council's approval.

Many people speaking Wednesday already had commented on environmental documents analyzing the master plan, but provided more testimony to hearing officer Jeff Pool, a Los Angeles city planner for the Westchester and Playa del Rey areas.

Staff members will eventually make a recommendation to the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, which could discuss the issue in September. It will then head to the City Council for approval.

kristin.agostoni@dailybreeze.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
What, if anything, might we learn about one private Catholic College's plans versus the plans of a more local private Catholic College?

First, I learned that Loyola Marymount College listened to many of the local residents such that the Neighborhood Council, representing many neighborhoods in Westchester and areas around LMU approved of the plans.

It also appears that representatives of LMU take seriously many of the comments from local residents near their facility and respond using reason and respect, I feel.

What did I read in the article? There seems to be complaints by local residents about not enough parking at both campuses and we already know that Marymount College is not going to provide the minimum number of on-campus parking spaces required under the current municipal codes. They are just going to try and have them superseded, just for themselves.

It is also curious that both colleges are trying to attract more students. It is reasonable but I have to consider that LMU probably provides a much better four year education that Marymount might. I have to use 'might' because as of today, Marymount hasn't begun classes in its four-year program.

So, might one be able to consider that The Marymount Plan is partly a competitive move by one private Catholic College to lure students from another private Catholic College?

Hum......

I don't really believe that there could be any real competition between Marymount and LMU unless there will be new sports at Marymount that will find fans from both schools attending events at Marymount.

I think The Marymount Plan is the last step in attempting to see if the school survives, whether it should or not.

I believe this because I have seen no indication that Marymount's representatives will go forward under the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and I am still waiting for Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President to issue a statement that the college would proceed with the Project if the ballot measure fails to find approval.

LMU has to deal with the Los Angeles City Planning Department and Planning Commission before whatever is approved is approved by a majority of votes of the Los Angeles City Council.

LMU has many more hoops to get through than Marymount would ever attempt to try to jump through.

It appears that more local neighbors of LMU accept and/or support upgrades to that campus while there is almost universal opposition, by residents local to Marymount's campus, to The Marymount Plan.

In the end I feel, there is no comparison truly possible. LMU has been a fine four-year institution much more highly regarded than Marymount College and probably has the means and the ability to provide students even a better education than they could receive at Marymount College.

Although I still believe that Marymount College could do well and I continue to support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Please vote No on the ballot measure regarding Marymount College on or before November 2, 2010.