Since I got another unsolicited mailer today, I thought I have the right to do with it what I wish.So, rather than just placing it in the round file, I decided Photoshop and I would have a fun afternoon. And we did.
HOWEVER! While I was working with photoshop, I contacted at least one extremely reliable source with questions about the mailer and my questions and the responses and comments I received are below.
I knew the instant I read the mailer, fiction dominated the item. So my source also included citings of documentation to stress the truth and facts versus what is sent to our homes.
First: Answers as requested:
What were the number of students approved to live in the dorms in 1979 and 1980?
Number of students approved to live in dorms (1978 only) = 200
What was the student enrollment cap in those years?
No enrollment CAP, but enrollment at the time of approval was 250-275.
Were the physical sizes of the dorms larger or smaller than the ones in The Marymount Plan, if you know.?
Much smaller physical size, two story, individual units. Much smaller than the 45' height (viewed from the South) of the proposed dorms.
What was the real and actual reason that Marymount didn't build them? I know they said they could not afford them?
Financial. Didn't have the money. Repeatedly requested extensions based on lake of financial resources. High Interest rates. $3 Million approximate cost - for dorms only. No new field, Library, Athletic Facility etc. Same problem today, only now #30 Million - Brophy quoted figure.
What other elements were considered, approved, or rejected in 1979 and 1980? Were dorms and dining facilities the only parts of the plans back then?
The only other element/component was the addition of 80 parking spaces. No dining facilities included in 1978 plan. No EIR. So little grading was needed that they had to add excavation (3,500 CY) to get fill for the parking area.
"They continue to misinform the public with today's mailing! The information you are seeking is and has been publicly available since publication of the Public Review Draft of October 2007, also known as the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Therein on pages 3-8 & 3-9 of the Project Description section it is stated that "On November 14, 1978, the City's Planning Commission adopted P C Resolution No. 78-50, which approved Revision "A" of CUP No. 9.
This "approval" "allowed 50 dormitory units (with a maximum occupancy of 200 students, four supervisor units, a common room and 80 parking spaces along the southwestern facing slope overlooking Palos Verdes Drive East."
"Environmental Assessment (EA) No 348 (a Negative Declaration) was prepared for Revision "A".
On March 27, 1979, the City's Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 79-8, which approved several revisions to the project being proposed because of review and input by the Fire Department."
After Planning Commission granted permit extensions in 1979 and in 1980, the approvals granted for Revision "A" expired without the rights granted therein having been exercised, thus Revison "A" is irrelevant to the current application..
Project Description Page 3-9.
Dr. Brophy, in the December 9, 2008 PC hearing had stated that there were four (separate) dorm approvals. The above documentation refutes that assertion and the erroneous current college claim that the City approved larger dormitories for more students twice, in 1979 and again in 1980.
The important fact to keep in mind is that this only a project for dormitories, five units of them and that they WERE NOT LOCATED ON OR NEAR STEEP TOPOGRAPHY. This latter condition was later included in the approval rationale for the additions approved in 1990. The key concern, among others, was that these new and much larger Residence Halls were to be constructed on steep slopes which the Code prohibited. That was the key issue in the PC's not being able to make the necessary "Findings" back in both December 2008 and in April 14, 2009.
I would also like to emphasize that in his statements describing the Colleges' Proposition P rationale at the recent CHOA meeting, Dr. Brophy made key omissions and an erroneous assertion, among others. At the CHOA meeting he blamed the PC for not completing the EIR review with ALL the Project components proposed by the College. I reminded Dr. Brophy that this was due to the fact that the college voluntarily removed the dorms from the PC's consideration. He denied that. I investigated the record and Dr. Brophy along with his accomplices, is in error.
At the April 14, 2009 PC meeting, the College was demanding that the PC approve the residence halls in the manner and locations proposed by the College. (April 14, 2009 Don Davis Letter to Jeffrey Lewis - page 1)
When a vote was subsequently taken by the PC at that meeting, the vote "failed" on a 2-2 tie result. (see page 22 of the April 14, 2009 Minutes of that PC meeting).
Staff was thereafter directed to bring forth a Resolution,. for PC to review at the next (May 26th, 2009) PC hearing (pages 23-24) whereupon (page 25) Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that each of the motions to direct staff to prepare a resolution "are not final decisions of the Commission." Such decisions would be made at the May 26, 2009 meeting.
However, in his CHOA presented remarks, Dr. Brophy complained that Proposition P was necessary because the colleges (complete) Project was never properly considered and heard by the PC. I spoke up with a question to Dr. Brophy at that meeting and reminded him that the College took that opportunity away from the PVC by voluntarily removing/withdrawing the Residence Halls from consideration. Her hemmed and hawed because that scenario did not fit his convenient "truth" rationale. The record backs me up. The College did not publicly withdraw those residence halls, but, in the interim between the April 14th and May 26th PC Hearings, stealthily removed the dorms.
This can be validated by reading Don Davis's letter of April 24, 2009, reviewing the May 1, 2009 revised plans, etc., as more fully described in the Staff Report for the May 26th, 2009 Hearing. These are all described in greater detail on pages 1, 2 & 3 of that report.
As a further error, Dr. Brophy, at the CHOA meeting included as part of the college's rationale for Proposition P, the illogical statement that the functionality of the Athletic Facility would be devastated by the approved changes made by the PC and City Council. He assumed, incorrectly, that the approved design had 10' lopped off the front side, rather than simply having the entire footprint moved back 1' off the steep slope. He further misunderstood that the roof height and design was to be changed and flattened a bit from 4' to 10', but that such change would not at all interfere with functionality of the building itself. That misinformation is contained in the minutes of the hearings themselves and the college had proposed exactly that result that was subsequently approved. "
"Environmental Assessment (EA) No 348 (a Negative Declaration) was prepared for Revision "A".
On March 27, 1979, the City's Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 79-8, which approved several revisions to the project being proposed because of review and input by the Fire Department."
After Planning Commission granted permit extensions in 1979 and in 1980, the approvals granted for Revision "A" expired without the rights granted therein having been exercised, thus Revison "A" is irrelevant to the current application..
Project Description Page 3-9.
Dr. Brophy, in the December 9, 2008 PC hearing had stated that there were four (separate) dorm approvals. The above documentation refutes that assertion and the erroneous current college claim that the City approved larger dormitories for more students twice, in 1979 and again in 1980.
The important fact to keep in mind is that this only a project for dormitories, five units of them and that they WERE NOT LOCATED ON OR NEAR STEEP TOPOGRAPHY. This latter condition was later included in the approval rationale for the additions approved in 1990. The key concern, among others, was that these new and much larger Residence Halls were to be constructed on steep slopes which the Code prohibited. That was the key issue in the PC's not being able to make the necessary "Findings" back in both December 2008 and in April 14, 2009.
I would also like to emphasize that in his statements describing the Colleges' Proposition P rationale at the recent CHOA meeting, Dr. Brophy made key omissions and an erroneous assertion, among others. At the CHOA meeting he blamed the PC for not completing the EIR review with ALL the Project components proposed by the College. I reminded Dr. Brophy that this was due to the fact that the college voluntarily removed the dorms from the PC's consideration. He denied that. I investigated the record and Dr. Brophy along with his accomplices, is in error.
At the April 14, 2009 PC meeting, the College was demanding that the PC approve the residence halls in the manner and locations proposed by the College. (April 14, 2009 Don Davis Letter to Jeffrey Lewis - page 1)
When a vote was subsequently taken by the PC at that meeting, the vote "failed" on a 2-2 tie result. (see page 22 of the April 14, 2009 Minutes of that PC meeting).
Staff was thereafter directed to bring forth a Resolution,. for PC to review at the next (May 26th, 2009) PC hearing (pages 23-24) whereupon (page 25) Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that each of the motions to direct staff to prepare a resolution "are not final decisions of the Commission." Such decisions would be made at the May 26, 2009 meeting.
However, in his CHOA presented remarks, Dr. Brophy complained that Proposition P was necessary because the colleges (complete) Project was never properly considered and heard by the PC. I spoke up with a question to Dr. Brophy at that meeting and reminded him that the College took that opportunity away from the PVC by voluntarily removing/withdrawing the Residence Halls from consideration. Her hemmed and hawed because that scenario did not fit his convenient "truth" rationale. The record backs me up. The College did not publicly withdraw those residence halls, but, in the interim between the April 14th and May 26th PC Hearings, stealthily removed the dorms.
This can be validated by reading Don Davis's letter of April 24, 2009, reviewing the May 1, 2009 revised plans, etc., as more fully described in the Staff Report for the May 26th, 2009 Hearing. These are all described in greater detail on pages 1, 2 & 3 of that report.
As a further error, Dr. Brophy, at the CHOA meeting included as part of the college's rationale for Proposition P, the illogical statement that the functionality of the Athletic Facility would be devastated by the approved changes made by the PC and City Council. He assumed, incorrectly, that the approved design had 10' lopped off the front side, rather than simply having the entire footprint moved back 1' off the steep slope. He further misunderstood that the roof height and design was to be changed and flattened a bit from 4' to 10', but that such change would not at all interfere with functionality of the building itself. That misinformation is contained in the minutes of the hearings themselves and the college had proposed exactly that result that was subsequently approved. "
"The Marymount Community" is going to claim that since there were only about 275 students attending Marymount in 1979-1980 and that housing was planned for up to 200 students, the ratio was greater than it is now.
ReplyDeleteOkay, be that way. How about the ratio of students having jobs now compared to when Marymount was just a Junior College?
How about the fact that ZERO percent of the students that could have lived in dorms 20 years ago were Juniors or Seniors, compared to what Marymount seeks now?
How about the number of vehicles at Marymount now compared to 20 years ago?
How about the number of car trips along roadways today compared to 20 years ago?
How about so many things not mentioned in the mailer dealing with what has happened at and around Marymount College during the previous 20 years?
How about the fact that yet another misleading and deceptive advertisement has been sent out after Judge Yaffe ruled against Marymount's interests in 100% of the lawsuits filed recently?
Every day, in every way, "The Marymount Community" continues to prove my point of my main opposition to on-campus student housing at Marymount: Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.