What Barry Hildebrand wrote in his letter to the editor published today in the South Bay Daily Breeze is that those like him who support Measure P, The Marymount Plan are calling for special treatment for ONE property's owner over every other property owner in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
What Barry wants you to do is give something to Marymount College that NO OTHER COLLEGE, private property, public property AND resident have, in our city and he wants that to be the fact and the case well into the future.
It is not enough for Mr. Hildebrand I guess, that EVERY OTHER Special District falls under the Conditional Use Permit mandates and he wants Marymount to have, even that, no apply to Marymount College.
He wants Marymount to have more rights and authorities on their land that is on any part of The Salvation Army Officers College, and highly regarded and very beneficial college not only to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, but also to millions of residents of the United States of America and many countries all over the World.
Voters who vote "Yes" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan are voting to descriminate between Marymount and The Salvation Army Officers College. They are singling out Marymount over every other business, resident, and public entity, and they are giving Marymount authorities no other entity has, including Trump National, Terranea, our Land Conservancy, Saint John Fisher Catholic Church, Saint Peter's By The Sea, every business and every resident.
Why must Marymount have what would be singular, and discriminatory in our city?
Why don't Marymount officials build what voter-approved representatives gave unanimous approval for Marymount to build?
Not only in academia, the college environment in California, or colleges throughout the U.S.A., what makes Marymount so special and different that it "MUST" have rights, privileges, and authorities even our other college does not have?
Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Partying To Death
Partying to death
By Larry Altman Staff Writer, South Bay Daily Breeze
Posted: 10/30/2010 10:47:04 PM PDT
Updated: 10/30/2010 10:53:08 PM PDT
Seventeen-year-old Mikkel Christian Andersen had made it halfway.
After crossing to the middle of the Harbor Freeway in South Los Angeles, he stood in the carpool lane and took off for the shoulder on the other side.
The Danish teen, a student at the EF International Language School in Redondo Beach, didn't get there. A car struck him in the second lane, killing him instantly in the early morning of Oct. 8.
Coroner's officials said Mikkel's blood-alcohol level measured 0.27, more than three times the legal limit of 0.08 in California for driving.
In the wake of Mikkel's death, along with the rape of a drunken 20-year-old student from South Korea in August, police are focusing their attention on the drinking and partying activities of EF International's student body, largely 17- to mid-20-year-olds who come to the Pacific Coast Highway school from Europe, Asia, Africa and South America to learn English.
A Venezuelan student already has been arrested and convicted of furnishing alcohol to minors on the night the girl was raped. A French student was arrested Thursday and is facing more serious alcohol-related charges in connection with Mikkel's death.
"Obviously when you have really young kids drinking copious amounts, bad things happen," Redondo Beach police Sgt. Phil Keenan said. "There's got to be some culpability in this."
Fellow students and police say Mikkel had spent his last night with more than 30 classmates and American friends aboard a rented "party bus," which took them to a Hollywood club.
Along the route, they drank beer, vodka, rum and other spirits, according to a 20-year-old female student from Europe who was aboard the bus.
"Not just drinking," the student said under condition of anonymity. "I saw a girl, she was an American girl, I saw them taking something. It was Ecstasy."
On the way home about 3a.m., the bus made two stops for students who needed to use a restroom or who had become sick. The first stop occurred at a gas station at Century Boulevard and Figueroa Street. Mikkel, police and friends believe, got off the bus and was left behind when it pulled away.
"We are not a school bus where we have to do a head count," said Sal Zamora, the owner of Whittier-based Luxury Sports, a limousine company that rented out the bus. "He got left behind because his friends or the people who rented that bus on that particular night forgot about him."
Police and students believe Mikkel later walked up a freeway on-ramp on the northbound side, and crossed to the southbound side with the intention of walking toward the South Bay.
Party buses are common
Two students who spoke to the Daily Breeze said party buses have become a regular extracurricular activity for the 340 foreign students who attend EF International for weeks or months.
Students who attend the English-language immersion school live with host families, or in rented apartments in complexes on Avenue G near Palos Verdes Boulevard.
Coming from countries where drinking ages are generally 18 - or as low as 16 in Germany - students found they could not buy alcohol in stores or bars if they are younger than 21.
And when they drank in their Avenue G apartments, other residents complained to their landlords and police, who would crack down on them.
"It's a constant party, night after night," said former resident Angie Wibar, who said she was forced to move away. "The kids, they would run, they would shout from clear across one unit, way across to the other. They would laugh. They would storm upstairs. You could smell it on them as well."
Then students discovered party bus companies, which offer souped-up vehicles with neon lighting, bars, sound systems, and room for dancing, drinking and lounging.
Buses, which rent for $150 to $250 an hour from various limousine companies, are hired by one student, who charges the 30 to 40 other students $35 to $40 each to board.
"Everybody wants to have a good time, so everybody goes," a female student said.
The students usually climb aboard the buses in parking lots outside Albertsons, CVS and behind the Buca di Beppo restaurant. They head for Hollywood, where they dance at Level 3, a club at Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue that caters to the 18-and-older crowd.
Along the way, students of all ages drink alcohol, police and students said.
"It's definitely a problem with these kids getting on the party buses," said Los Angeles police Detective Kim Porter. "With alcohol, bad things happen. We are trying to stop it."
In August, Porter investigated the rape of a female EF student who had been drinking on a party bus before arriving in Hollywood.
There, she met 19-year-old Hector Lopez, Porter said.
"He did take her to a secondary location where the sexual assault occurred," Porter said.
The student, who had become separated from the rest of her EF classmates, reported the crime when she returned to Redondo Beach in a cab. Los Angeles police arrested Lopez on suspicion of committing the crime.
Charges are pending because the student has returned to her native country.
The crime and alcohol use drew the attention of Redondo Beach police officers, who opened their own investigation.
In August, Redondo Beach police arrested Venezuelan student Jember Alfonso Martelo-Oca, 20, who rented the bus the night the student was sexually assaulted. He was charged with misdemeanors including contributing to the delinquency of a minor, serving alcohol to a minor, serving alcohol without a license and conducting business in the city without a license, Redondo Beach City Prosecutor Brenda Wells said.
On Oct. 8, Martelo-Oca pleaded guilty to serving alcohol without a license and was sentenced to three years' probation and to perform 240 hours of community service. He also was ordered to complete a course with the state Alcoholic Beverage Control.
If he does not complete the requirements, Martelo-Oca could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
"Basically he arranged for a party bus to go to Los Angeles and he charged a fee for the passengers to ride the bus," Wells said. "Included in that fee was an open bar."
Police arrest roommate
On Thursday, Redondo Beach police officers arrested Jeremy Michelren Touche, a 22-year-old student from France, who roomed with Martelo-Oca with host families in Hermosa Beach and Torrance during the past seven months.
Touche rented the party bus the night Mikkel died.
The Redondo Beach City Prosecutor's Office charged him with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, furnishing or giving alcohol to minors, and selling alcohol without a license.
The charges include the extra allegation that Touche provided the alcohol that Mikkel drank, resulting in his death. He could face a minimum of six months in jail.
Zamora said Touche rented the bus for $550 for the night.
According to students, Touche then charged his classmates about $35 each, meaning he took in more than $1,000. Prosecutors contend making a profit and providing students with alcohol is running a business that requires a license.
After students finished boarding the bus near the Starbucks on Pacific Coast Highway in Redondo Beach, the driver took off about 9:30 p.m.
Zamora said his drivers go where they are told, and park wherever the host tells them to stop.
Before they headed for the Harbor Freeway, the bus stopped at Albertsons and a CVS in Redondo Beach, where Touche allegedly purchased alcohol, the girl and police said.
The female student said most bus riders were 19 and 20 years old. Despite their ages, students drank rum, whiskey, vodka and beer - along with soft drinks - as they rumbled toward Hollywood.
The student, who is underage, said she became tipsy. She saw Mikkel drinking, too.
Teen was a newcomer
A handsome Scandinavian teen, Mikkel had arrived two weeks earlier from his native Copenhagen. To people in the school, he came off as an arrogant young man who made his presence felt when he walked into a room.
Once in Hollywood, Mikkel and many of his fellow students headed for the nightclub. Despite his age, he got in.
"I saw him there and he was very drunk," the student said. "He was just dancing with every girl."
The club closed at 2 a.m. The foreign students headed back to their bus for the trip home. It took time for everybody to board, but by 2:30 a.m. they were on the road.
Some students slept, but others began drinking again. Some became sick.
About halfway into the journey, some students needed a restroom. The driver pulled off the freeway and into a Unocal 76 service station at Century and Figueroa, police said.
The female student said several students got off the bus. Some smoked. Others used the bathroom.
About 15 minutes later, they were back on the freeway. The bus driver made a second stop a short time later on Pacific Coast Highway in Wilmington to allow some female students to vomit. The bus company charges extra if anybody becomes sick, Zamora said.
The bus then headed toward Redondo Beach, where the students exited and went home.
"Somebody got a call saying `my roommate is not here,"' the female student said. "We thought he was with a girl."
By that point, Mikkel was already dead. He would have turned 18 on Nov. 20.
"It was very shocking," the female student said. "I told my roommates. They were on the bus, too. We were shocked."
Students said school officials told them not to discuss what happened. An official at the Danish Consulate in Los Angeles also refused to comment.
The California Highway Patrol handled the freeway death investigation. Redondo Beach police Officer Ian Miesen, meanwhile, began looking into who hired the bus and who supplied Mikkel with alcohol.
Miesen, who had investigated the Martelo-Oca case after the rape, keyed on Touche during his seven-month stay in the United States.
On Thursday, Miesen and fellow Redondo Beach officers arrested Touche when he arrived for school about 2:15p.m.
Like Martelo-Oca, Touche allegedly made a profit from charging his fellow students, police said.
On Touche's Facebook page, he lists "partying" as his activity and posted, "Don't get rape" (sic) under his profile photograph.
Students were expelled
EF International spokeswoman Francy Ronayne said both students were expelled from the school Thursday after Touche's arrest.
Shelly Bishop, an investigator with Alcoholic Beverage Control's Target Responsibility for Alcohol Connected Emergencies unit, said she has joined the investigation as well.
ABC regulates alcohol licenses for businesses in the state. Bishop said she is looking into the roles bus companies play in underage drinking.
She declined to comment further on her investigation.
Los Angeles police officers, meanwhile, have begun pulling over party buses, going on board and checking the ages of the partiers, Porter said.
A recent Los Angeles police and California Highway Patrol task force cited seven bus drivers for allowing minors to drink alcohol, Porter said.
More operations are scheduled.
Zamora said his company is not culpable for anything that happened the night Mikkel died. He said he abides by the rules for his industry, and informs prom groups that they cannot drink alcohol aboard his buses.
In this case, a 22-year-old rented the bus with other college-age passengers, he said. Touche, Zamora said, was responsible for supplying the alcohol to the minors.
"These kids are renting the bus for a night out on the town," Zamora said. "We don't know their age. They are young adults."
Ronayne issued a statement Friday that called it a challenge to supervise students who are allowed to drink alcohol in their home countries, but not in the United States.
Students are informed of American laws in "orientation, ongoing discussions and our written policies."
"We have expelled students before for purchasing alcohol for minors, and we have done so again with the students who organized the October and August party buses," Ronayne said.
Ronayne said it is impossible to monitor students' activities off campus, but school officials are working with Redondo Beach police to combat the alcohol problem, including having officers speak to students.
"In the rare instances when we have heard there may be a party bus off campus, we have alerted the police so they can intervene," she said.
She said the school also is working with the ABC as the agency "investigates what is happening on these party buses and in establishments that admit underage students."
"From this tragedy we have redoubled our efforts in conjunction with local authorities to do everything we can to stem this," Ronayne said.
larry.altman@dailybreeze.com
Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
By Larry Altman Staff Writer, South Bay Daily Breeze
Posted: 10/30/2010 10:47:04 PM PDT
Updated: 10/30/2010 10:53:08 PM PDT
Seventeen-year-old Mikkel Christian Andersen had made it halfway.
After crossing to the middle of the Harbor Freeway in South Los Angeles, he stood in the carpool lane and took off for the shoulder on the other side.
The Danish teen, a student at the EF International Language School in Redondo Beach, didn't get there. A car struck him in the second lane, killing him instantly in the early morning of Oct. 8.
Coroner's officials said Mikkel's blood-alcohol level measured 0.27, more than three times the legal limit of 0.08 in California for driving.
In the wake of Mikkel's death, along with the rape of a drunken 20-year-old student from South Korea in August, police are focusing their attention on the drinking and partying activities of EF International's student body, largely 17- to mid-20-year-olds who come to the Pacific Coast Highway school from Europe, Asia, Africa and South America to learn English.
A Venezuelan student already has been arrested and convicted of furnishing alcohol to minors on the night the girl was raped. A French student was arrested Thursday and is facing more serious alcohol-related charges in connection with Mikkel's death.
"Obviously when you have really young kids drinking copious amounts, bad things happen," Redondo Beach police Sgt. Phil Keenan said. "There's got to be some culpability in this."
Fellow students and police say Mikkel had spent his last night with more than 30 classmates and American friends aboard a rented "party bus," which took them to a Hollywood club.
Along the route, they drank beer, vodka, rum and other spirits, according to a 20-year-old female student from Europe who was aboard the bus.
"Not just drinking," the student said under condition of anonymity. "I saw a girl, she was an American girl, I saw them taking something. It was Ecstasy."
On the way home about 3a.m., the bus made two stops for students who needed to use a restroom or who had become sick. The first stop occurred at a gas station at Century Boulevard and Figueroa Street. Mikkel, police and friends believe, got off the bus and was left behind when it pulled away.
"We are not a school bus where we have to do a head count," said Sal Zamora, the owner of Whittier-based Luxury Sports, a limousine company that rented out the bus. "He got left behind because his friends or the people who rented that bus on that particular night forgot about him."
Police and students believe Mikkel later walked up a freeway on-ramp on the northbound side, and crossed to the southbound side with the intention of walking toward the South Bay.
Party buses are common
Two students who spoke to the Daily Breeze said party buses have become a regular extracurricular activity for the 340 foreign students who attend EF International for weeks or months.
Students who attend the English-language immersion school live with host families, or in rented apartments in complexes on Avenue G near Palos Verdes Boulevard.
Coming from countries where drinking ages are generally 18 - or as low as 16 in Germany - students found they could not buy alcohol in stores or bars if they are younger than 21.
And when they drank in their Avenue G apartments, other residents complained to their landlords and police, who would crack down on them.
"It's a constant party, night after night," said former resident Angie Wibar, who said she was forced to move away. "The kids, they would run, they would shout from clear across one unit, way across to the other. They would laugh. They would storm upstairs. You could smell it on them as well."
Then students discovered party bus companies, which offer souped-up vehicles with neon lighting, bars, sound systems, and room for dancing, drinking and lounging.
Buses, which rent for $150 to $250 an hour from various limousine companies, are hired by one student, who charges the 30 to 40 other students $35 to $40 each to board.
"Everybody wants to have a good time, so everybody goes," a female student said.
The students usually climb aboard the buses in parking lots outside Albertsons, CVS and behind the Buca di Beppo restaurant. They head for Hollywood, where they dance at Level 3, a club at Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue that caters to the 18-and-older crowd.
Along the way, students of all ages drink alcohol, police and students said.
"It's definitely a problem with these kids getting on the party buses," said Los Angeles police Detective Kim Porter. "With alcohol, bad things happen. We are trying to stop it."
In August, Porter investigated the rape of a female EF student who had been drinking on a party bus before arriving in Hollywood.
There, she met 19-year-old Hector Lopez, Porter said.
"He did take her to a secondary location where the sexual assault occurred," Porter said.
The student, who had become separated from the rest of her EF classmates, reported the crime when she returned to Redondo Beach in a cab. Los Angeles police arrested Lopez on suspicion of committing the crime.
Charges are pending because the student has returned to her native country.
The crime and alcohol use drew the attention of Redondo Beach police officers, who opened their own investigation.
In August, Redondo Beach police arrested Venezuelan student Jember Alfonso Martelo-Oca, 20, who rented the bus the night the student was sexually assaulted. He was charged with misdemeanors including contributing to the delinquency of a minor, serving alcohol to a minor, serving alcohol without a license and conducting business in the city without a license, Redondo Beach City Prosecutor Brenda Wells said.
On Oct. 8, Martelo-Oca pleaded guilty to serving alcohol without a license and was sentenced to three years' probation and to perform 240 hours of community service. He also was ordered to complete a course with the state Alcoholic Beverage Control.
If he does not complete the requirements, Martelo-Oca could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
"Basically he arranged for a party bus to go to Los Angeles and he charged a fee for the passengers to ride the bus," Wells said. "Included in that fee was an open bar."
Police arrest roommate
On Thursday, Redondo Beach police officers arrested Jeremy Michelren Touche, a 22-year-old student from France, who roomed with Martelo-Oca with host families in Hermosa Beach and Torrance during the past seven months.
Touche rented the party bus the night Mikkel died.
The Redondo Beach City Prosecutor's Office charged him with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, furnishing or giving alcohol to minors, and selling alcohol without a license.
The charges include the extra allegation that Touche provided the alcohol that Mikkel drank, resulting in his death. He could face a minimum of six months in jail.
Zamora said Touche rented the bus for $550 for the night.
According to students, Touche then charged his classmates about $35 each, meaning he took in more than $1,000. Prosecutors contend making a profit and providing students with alcohol is running a business that requires a license.
After students finished boarding the bus near the Starbucks on Pacific Coast Highway in Redondo Beach, the driver took off about 9:30 p.m.
Zamora said his drivers go where they are told, and park wherever the host tells them to stop.
Before they headed for the Harbor Freeway, the bus stopped at Albertsons and a CVS in Redondo Beach, where Touche allegedly purchased alcohol, the girl and police said.
The female student said most bus riders were 19 and 20 years old. Despite their ages, students drank rum, whiskey, vodka and beer - along with soft drinks - as they rumbled toward Hollywood.
The student, who is underage, said she became tipsy. She saw Mikkel drinking, too.
Teen was a newcomer
A handsome Scandinavian teen, Mikkel had arrived two weeks earlier from his native Copenhagen. To people in the school, he came off as an arrogant young man who made his presence felt when he walked into a room.
Once in Hollywood, Mikkel and many of his fellow students headed for the nightclub. Despite his age, he got in.
"I saw him there and he was very drunk," the student said. "He was just dancing with every girl."
The club closed at 2 a.m. The foreign students headed back to their bus for the trip home. It took time for everybody to board, but by 2:30 a.m. they were on the road.
Some students slept, but others began drinking again. Some became sick.
About halfway into the journey, some students needed a restroom. The driver pulled off the freeway and into a Unocal 76 service station at Century and Figueroa, police said.
The female student said several students got off the bus. Some smoked. Others used the bathroom.
About 15 minutes later, they were back on the freeway. The bus driver made a second stop a short time later on Pacific Coast Highway in Wilmington to allow some female students to vomit. The bus company charges extra if anybody becomes sick, Zamora said.
The bus then headed toward Redondo Beach, where the students exited and went home.
"Somebody got a call saying `my roommate is not here,"' the female student said. "We thought he was with a girl."
By that point, Mikkel was already dead. He would have turned 18 on Nov. 20.
"It was very shocking," the female student said. "I told my roommates. They were on the bus, too. We were shocked."
Students said school officials told them not to discuss what happened. An official at the Danish Consulate in Los Angeles also refused to comment.
The California Highway Patrol handled the freeway death investigation. Redondo Beach police Officer Ian Miesen, meanwhile, began looking into who hired the bus and who supplied Mikkel with alcohol.
Miesen, who had investigated the Martelo-Oca case after the rape, keyed on Touche during his seven-month stay in the United States.
On Thursday, Miesen and fellow Redondo Beach officers arrested Touche when he arrived for school about 2:15p.m.
Like Martelo-Oca, Touche allegedly made a profit from charging his fellow students, police said.
On Touche's Facebook page, he lists "partying" as his activity and posted, "Don't get rape" (sic) under his profile photograph.
Students were expelled
EF International spokeswoman Francy Ronayne said both students were expelled from the school Thursday after Touche's arrest.
Shelly Bishop, an investigator with Alcoholic Beverage Control's Target Responsibility for Alcohol Connected Emergencies unit, said she has joined the investigation as well.
ABC regulates alcohol licenses for businesses in the state. Bishop said she is looking into the roles bus companies play in underage drinking.
She declined to comment further on her investigation.
Los Angeles police officers, meanwhile, have begun pulling over party buses, going on board and checking the ages of the partiers, Porter said.
A recent Los Angeles police and California Highway Patrol task force cited seven bus drivers for allowing minors to drink alcohol, Porter said.
More operations are scheduled.
Zamora said his company is not culpable for anything that happened the night Mikkel died. He said he abides by the rules for his industry, and informs prom groups that they cannot drink alcohol aboard his buses.
In this case, a 22-year-old rented the bus with other college-age passengers, he said. Touche, Zamora said, was responsible for supplying the alcohol to the minors.
"These kids are renting the bus for a night out on the town," Zamora said. "We don't know their age. They are young adults."
Ronayne issued a statement Friday that called it a challenge to supervise students who are allowed to drink alcohol in their home countries, but not in the United States.
Students are informed of American laws in "orientation, ongoing discussions and our written policies."
"We have expelled students before for purchasing alcohol for minors, and we have done so again with the students who organized the October and August party buses," Ronayne said.
Ronayne said it is impossible to monitor students' activities off campus, but school officials are working with Redondo Beach police to combat the alcohol problem, including having officers speak to students.
"In the rare instances when we have heard there may be a party bus off campus, we have alerted the police so they can intervene," she said.
She said the school also is working with the ABC as the agency "investigates what is happening on these party buses and in establishments that admit underage students."
"From this tragedy we have redoubled our efforts in conjunction with local authorities to do everything we can to stem this," Ronayne said.
larry.altman@dailybreeze.com
Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Egregiously Deceptive Mailer
Today's Marymount Mailer was so completely deceptive that it is almost mind boggling how such an institution of higher learning would stoop so low to try and get dorms on its campus.
The Mailer mentioned all the other Specific Plan Districts in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes without once mentioning that EVERY ONE OF THEM are mandated to follow all Conditional Use Permits and IF Measure P, The Marymount Plan passes and it's Campus Specific Plan District get created, Marymount would have to follow NONE, ZERO, NADA, or any Conditional Use Permit.
The important things you need to know about Measure P, The Marymount Plan are ALL the things Marymount, Dr. Brophy, The Board of Trustees, and supporters of Measure P, The Marymount Plan don't want you to know and are deliberately keeping this information from all the voters.
Just read Measure P, The Marymount Plan's language and you will learn for yourself what is real, what is the whole truth about The Plan, and why just about every single person who has actually read every one of the 51-pages AND is not being supported by Marymount in some fashion has either voted "No" or will vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan by 8:00 PM on Tuesday November 2, 2010.
Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
The Mailer mentioned all the other Specific Plan Districts in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes without once mentioning that EVERY ONE OF THEM are mandated to follow all Conditional Use Permits and IF Measure P, The Marymount Plan passes and it's Campus Specific Plan District get created, Marymount would have to follow NONE, ZERO, NADA, or any Conditional Use Permit.
The important things you need to know about Measure P, The Marymount Plan are ALL the things Marymount, Dr. Brophy, The Board of Trustees, and supporters of Measure P, The Marymount Plan don't want you to know and are deliberately keeping this information from all the voters.
Just read Measure P, The Marymount Plan's language and you will learn for yourself what is real, what is the whole truth about The Plan, and why just about every single person who has actually read every one of the 51-pages AND is not being supported by Marymount in some fashion has either voted "No" or will vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan by 8:00 PM on Tuesday November 2, 2010.
Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
What More Would Marymount Do?
The end of the beginning of both The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project will probably arrive by just about 11:59 PM on Tuesday November 2, 2010.
I am hoping that the vote tally will be in and able to inform everyone how voters voted.
I have heard possible results from a very large "No" vote all the way to a very large "Yes" vote and I am not really willing to guess how the vote will end up, except for one thing.
If the vote is very, very close either way, that itself may be the beginning of the middle for both The Plan and The Project. I hope there doesn't need to be a recount or lawsuits filed because of the vote when so many of us know that Wednesday November 3, 2010 will probably be the beginning of many items, issues, and problems nobody wants.
I don't know if there is anything more I could add about my safety concerns with having up to 250 Marymount Students living in on-campus housing.
Probably the last thing is to consider that there is nothing in Measure P, The Marymount Plan's language that specifies who as students, could live in the dorms.
There is no wording included that states that on-campus housing would be exclusively for freshman students and there is no number that states how many seniors would be allowed.
What is stated is the maximum number of vehicles (125) allowed for students to park on campus while residing in dorms.
What is not stated is whether all five "advisers" would each be allowed at least one vehicle left on campus.
It seems that the up to 125 students that would not be able to bring their vehicles on-campus while they are residing at Marymount just might have a long walk to and from their vehicles that would be parked (probably only temporarily until they are mandated to park on campus) in residential areas where parking permits don't exist.
I am still dumbstruck by Dr. Brophy's recent admissions about the gym, playing fields, and other things he didn't like from the City Council's approval of every single building Dr. Brophy asked for.
Not only has it been confirmed that when the lowering of the roofline of the gym, by just 10 feet, Dr. Brophy and Marymount's Land Use Attorney that they has no objections at that time to the lowering of the roofline.
Also, when Dr. Brophy complained about the field being moved 60 feet, he failed to mention that soccer players, playing on a field constructed according to The Marymount Plan will have the problem of not running out of bounds into a chain-link fence, but in at least two portions of the field, they could run into a brick or concrete wall.
It has been my personal experience that it is more desirable to run into a chain-link fence than into a brick or concrete wall.
If The Marymount Plan was actually and factually so good for Marymount AND the community, there clearly would not have been the need for mailers being sent out by Marymount at least several times per week.
Dr. Brophy has not mentioned any negatives that could come from adoption and completion of The Marymount Plan but opponents like me have acknowledged some truthful items in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Plan that are probably not so positive for our community and those items are also INCLUDED in The Marymount Plan.
The facts in print, on videotape, and on official records of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes indicate that every single building element brought to the City Council for discussion, debate, and approval by Dr. Michael Brophy and Marymount College was approved and the approval was by unanimous vote.
Yes, there were some changes, but the fact that the field, gym, library, and all the other elements that was contained in Marymount's own documents, were approved for construction.
What is also noteworthy and disenginous is Dr. Brophy on one hand, chastising and criticizing the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission and then more recently praising them in his remarks of contempt toward the City Council members.
The only consistency in the entire process since 2006, has been the inconsistency of Dr. Brophy and many of his claims and remarks.
I don't know why Dr. Brophy felt he had to resort to using his wife in a 'personal' letter and it once again demonstrates to me what steps he will go to and what people he will use to try and get Measure P passed.
If the mission of Marymount College is to provide education so that graduates can go out into the world and help people so those people can live, how about starting right here in Rancho Palos Verdes?
The vast majority of the good and wonderful service Marymount students perform does not take place within the community they claim to be so supportive of.
What we have seen over the years, is basically the exact opposite.
When representatives of Marymount College do the things they have done, attempting to get dorms approved, it really flies against the purpose and the mission of Marymount College it imparts on students.
And about Dr. Brophy and others' recent claims about dorms from 1978 and dorms now, they continue to attempt to equate a small box of apples to a shipping container filled with oranges.
The dorms approved in 1978 needed approval from ONLY the Planning Commission and the City Council did not even need to take up that matter.
The on-campus housing was approved for 200 students at a time when the entire enrollment at Marymount was about 250 students.
This clearly indicates that Marymount was seeking housing for 4/5 of its student body and that also means Marymount College is really administered by individuals who seek out of L.A., out of California, and out of U.S. students at their campus.
When what Congressman Kuykendall claimed that currently "15-25% of the students currently enrolled at Marymount grew up locally and are classified as 'local students' it means that 75-85% of those currently attending Marymount come from other areas on the planet.
The facts as stated by Dr. McFadden, Marymount's immediate former President, Congressman Steve Kuykendall and many others is that Marymount IS NOT and WILL NOT provide any education to a majority of students who live in the local area and that Marymount is actually using the World Community as its base and NOT the Rancho Palos Verdes Community, it claims it represents.
If you haven't already, please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
I am hoping that the vote tally will be in and able to inform everyone how voters voted.
I have heard possible results from a very large "No" vote all the way to a very large "Yes" vote and I am not really willing to guess how the vote will end up, except for one thing.
If the vote is very, very close either way, that itself may be the beginning of the middle for both The Plan and The Project. I hope there doesn't need to be a recount or lawsuits filed because of the vote when so many of us know that Wednesday November 3, 2010 will probably be the beginning of many items, issues, and problems nobody wants.
I don't know if there is anything more I could add about my safety concerns with having up to 250 Marymount Students living in on-campus housing.
Probably the last thing is to consider that there is nothing in Measure P, The Marymount Plan's language that specifies who as students, could live in the dorms.
There is no wording included that states that on-campus housing would be exclusively for freshman students and there is no number that states how many seniors would be allowed.
What is stated is the maximum number of vehicles (125) allowed for students to park on campus while residing in dorms.
What is not stated is whether all five "advisers" would each be allowed at least one vehicle left on campus.
It seems that the up to 125 students that would not be able to bring their vehicles on-campus while they are residing at Marymount just might have a long walk to and from their vehicles that would be parked (probably only temporarily until they are mandated to park on campus) in residential areas where parking permits don't exist.
I am still dumbstruck by Dr. Brophy's recent admissions about the gym, playing fields, and other things he didn't like from the City Council's approval of every single building Dr. Brophy asked for.
Not only has it been confirmed that when the lowering of the roofline of the gym, by just 10 feet, Dr. Brophy and Marymount's Land Use Attorney that they has no objections at that time to the lowering of the roofline.
Also, when Dr. Brophy complained about the field being moved 60 feet, he failed to mention that soccer players, playing on a field constructed according to The Marymount Plan will have the problem of not running out of bounds into a chain-link fence, but in at least two portions of the field, they could run into a brick or concrete wall.
It has been my personal experience that it is more desirable to run into a chain-link fence than into a brick or concrete wall.
If The Marymount Plan was actually and factually so good for Marymount AND the community, there clearly would not have been the need for mailers being sent out by Marymount at least several times per week.
Dr. Brophy has not mentioned any negatives that could come from adoption and completion of The Marymount Plan but opponents like me have acknowledged some truthful items in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Plan that are probably not so positive for our community and those items are also INCLUDED in The Marymount Plan.
The facts in print, on videotape, and on official records of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes indicate that every single building element brought to the City Council for discussion, debate, and approval by Dr. Michael Brophy and Marymount College was approved and the approval was by unanimous vote.
Yes, there were some changes, but the fact that the field, gym, library, and all the other elements that was contained in Marymount's own documents, were approved for construction.
What is also noteworthy and disenginous is Dr. Brophy on one hand, chastising and criticizing the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission and then more recently praising them in his remarks of contempt toward the City Council members.
The only consistency in the entire process since 2006, has been the inconsistency of Dr. Brophy and many of his claims and remarks.
I don't know why Dr. Brophy felt he had to resort to using his wife in a 'personal' letter and it once again demonstrates to me what steps he will go to and what people he will use to try and get Measure P passed.
If the mission of Marymount College is to provide education so that graduates can go out into the world and help people so those people can live, how about starting right here in Rancho Palos Verdes?
The vast majority of the good and wonderful service Marymount students perform does not take place within the community they claim to be so supportive of.
What we have seen over the years, is basically the exact opposite.
When representatives of Marymount College do the things they have done, attempting to get dorms approved, it really flies against the purpose and the mission of Marymount College it imparts on students.
And about Dr. Brophy and others' recent claims about dorms from 1978 and dorms now, they continue to attempt to equate a small box of apples to a shipping container filled with oranges.
The dorms approved in 1978 needed approval from ONLY the Planning Commission and the City Council did not even need to take up that matter.
The on-campus housing was approved for 200 students at a time when the entire enrollment at Marymount was about 250 students.
This clearly indicates that Marymount was seeking housing for 4/5 of its student body and that also means Marymount College is really administered by individuals who seek out of L.A., out of California, and out of U.S. students at their campus.
When what Congressman Kuykendall claimed that currently "15-25% of the students currently enrolled at Marymount grew up locally and are classified as 'local students' it means that 75-85% of those currently attending Marymount come from other areas on the planet.
The facts as stated by Dr. McFadden, Marymount's immediate former President, Congressman Steve Kuykendall and many others is that Marymount IS NOT and WILL NOT provide any education to a majority of students who live in the local area and that Marymount is actually using the World Community as its base and NOT the Rancho Palos Verdes Community, it claims it represents.
If you haven't already, please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Saturday Rally To Get The Tanks Moved
Click on image to enlarge it.This should be an important event for everyone living on the east side of The Hill or anyone who needs to get head east off of The Hill and/or get to and from the 110 freeway.
Although it would take an earthquake of an estimated 7.6 magnitude to break one or both tanks, there are other factors that could lead to the failure of one tank followed quickly by the failure of the other tank.
If either tank goes, the other one would quickly fail and the results could see the joining in of the refinery very near the tanks current location.
The sky is not falling but promises have fallen on deaf and dead actions by the companies responsible for the tanks.
At least is could get your mind off of Measure P, The Marymount plan for a wee bit of time.
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.
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.
The First 'Thing', And A Question
Click on image to enlarge it.Today's first gathering dealing with Measure P, The Marymount Plan was not a debate at all.
I don't really know what to called it besides a videotape 'thing' where basically talking heads get up, not actually addressing each other and provide their reasoning why voters to vote their way.
It really isn't worth mentioning the details because during Dr. Brophy's talk, nothing new was reported out except for the fact that instead of soccer players crashing into chain link fencing should they run off the field, they could crash into a concrete wall, if Measure P passes and IF Marymount actually sees a new field built as it only "MAY" build one but is under no obligation of any language in Measure P, The Marymount Plan, to do so.
Instead of Dr. Brophy participating in this evening's event at the Los Verdes Country Club, I have been informed that former Congressman Steve Kuykendall, a paid lobbyist for Marymount's campaign, will take part on the pro "P" side in what is now billed as more of a debate than today's 'thing'.
The public is invited and they are also invited to offer written questions during the debate.
I thought about my question and because I have witnessed evidence that Congressman Kuykendall really does not know all that much about the language contained in Measure P, The Marymount Plan, I wanted to have the opportunity to see my question which hopefully will be asked tonight. I want his handlers to have the chance to try and come up with any excuse as to why he probably can't or wont's be able to answer my question honestly.
Question for Congressman Kuykendall.
Since there is no language contained in Measure P and The Marymount Plan that a new library, maintenance building, athletic center ,residence halls, and gallery “will, would, or shall” be built if Measure P passes, but only they “MAY” be built, when do you believe students and residents might find a new library opened, new residence halls opened, or when might supporters be able to begin to enjoy a new athletic facility, including a new field?
In Today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News
In today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News anyone and everyone now has the clear opportunity to read for themselves the desperation contained in the extremely misleading, deceptive, falsehood-filled letter to the editor by Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College.
I lead with this because it offers a very disturbing portrait of a failed campaign which cannot use even 1/4 of the whole truth, as written in the languages of both Measure P, The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
I am going to post Dr. Brophy's entire letter to the editor with actual real and reliable facts from either of the two documents, in a different font color so you can easily see how and why Dr. Brophy's letter is just what it appears to be; One of the last writings of a desperate person who most likely has less than one week left with his current employment.
"To the Editor
The Palos Verdes Peninsula News is entitled to (its) opinion, However, these are the facts: The college did not get everything "it asked the RPV City Council for."
Every single element of what Marymount College's representatives and Dr. Brophy himself brought to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council for a vote was approved unanimously and to add to that, an Appeal filed by Concerned Citizen Coalition/Marymount Expansion was denied.
The facts are that not only did ALL building and parking requests presented to the City Council by Marymount were granted, with just a very few minor changes from Marymount's original language. You will see them below.
"The (Rancho Palos Verdes) City Council did not even approve what (its) own Planning Commission recommended to them."
Factually, the City Council provided MORE to Marymount than recommended by the Planning Commission in the way of safety, views, and the denial of the Appeal.
"Instead, the council reduced the new athletic center by 25 percent - without good reason, limiting its usefulness for students and residents."
First, everyone needs to understand that carried within the language of Measure P, The Marymount Plan, new Athletic Facilities "MAY" be built and there is factually and actually no written language that states that is would, will, or shall be built, should Measure P pass.
Secondly, reducing the overall height of the roof of the athletic center cannot possibly reduce is floor, wall, active, and residual space by 25%. There could be an up to 25% loss of volume of air in the building but unless one wishes to have objects hit the ceiling inside the gymnasium, it might be a rare occurrence that any balls hit the ceiling and then it would be unintentional.
Dr. Brophy's letter does not indicate any particulars of any changes so I feel it is reasonable and responsible to inform readers that the 'change' in a building that "MAY" be built, is in the overall height of the roof as compared to the concrete foundation slab of the proposed building.
"They moved the playing fields to a location that severely diminished their practicality."
Actually and factually, the playing "FIELD" was moved 60 feet away from the edge of the campus so as to have every single square inch of the size Marymount requested, be a bit farther away from Palos Verdes Drive East.
Truthfully, not one single centimeter of overall size of the ONE FIELD MARYMOUNT ASKED FOR was changed.
The location of two of the tennis courts was changed for what City Council members considered "safety" reasons but all four tennis courts retain their exact same size and functionality as requested by Marymount.
"The council made it clear that they never would approve student housing."
Marymount had every single right and opportunity to bring the issue of student housing to member of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council however Dr. Michael Brophy and others representing Marymount College REFUSED to take the student housing issue before the City Council and this was done VOLUNTARILY when there was no legal, moral, or ethical reason Dr. Brophy could not have taken the matter of student housing to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
"The City Council disregarded the fact student housing would make our streets safer."
That sentence is an out and out lie on more than one level.
Since the City Council was NEVER presented any official project request for on-campus student housing, there was no chance whatsoever to "disregard" anything about dorms.
Marymount offered NO REGARD about dorms to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
The streets of Rancho Palos Verdes WOULD NOT be safer having student housing on the campus of Marymount College and as someone who should use honesty and the truth on a daily basis as a College President, Dr. Brophy should know that his statement is not truthful in any way.
Not only would traffic increase, in the form of daily trip generation, as documented in the MARYOUNT FINANCED Traffic and Parking Section of the Environmental Impact Report, daily trip generation would become a 24 hour per day, seven day a week occurrence, something that IS NOT being done by Marymount students, currently.
In fact and according to the first set of daily trip generation forecasts, again paid for by Marymount College, there would be a weekday INCREASE of daily trips to and from the campus of up to 1,591 trips PER DAY.
That number itself was INCREASED in a subsequent study associated with Appendix D of the Environmental Impact Report.
"They made arbitrary changes that did not serve the college or the community."
Every single "change" in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Plan was well thought out and debated, sometimes heatedly (I was there so I know) and very careful consideration was deliberated and voted on, mostly with non-unanimous votes.
"The City Council did not approve what we asked for."
Factually, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council approved MORE than what you asked for.
A concrete center median stretching 1,000 feet along the curve of Palos Verdes Drive East was hotly debated in then added to every single element offered for a vote with the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
In addition, the City Council approved language requested by Marymount in terms of the timing of The Project and how long Marymount would have to construct the expansion.
All negotiated time requirements between Marymount and the people of Rancho Palos Verdes has been eliminated in Measure P, The Marymount Plan's language.
"A previous Planning Commission had determined that dormitories were "necessary to the function" of Marymount, that they would cause "no significant adverse effects to adjacent properties" and that they were "in conformance with the General Plan."
Dr. Brophy has deliberately kept out of his paragraph some very important information that demonstrates how deceptive his letter is, as compared to the whole truth.
First, dormitories were approved ONCE before for beds for "200" students at a time when the entire student population of Marymount College, Palos Verdes was about 200 students.
Second, at the time of approval, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council was not part of the decision-making process concerning dorms on Marymount's campus and as such, no elected representative of the people of Rancho Palos Verdes approved or disapproved on-campus housing at Marymount College.
Third, Measure P, The Marymount Plan is a vote to CHANGE the General Plan by adding to it a Campus Specific Plan Zone meant ONLY for Marymount College and no other school, including the Salvation Army Officers College.
Fourth, at the time of the approval of on-campus housing, the city of Rancho Palos Verdes was factually a smaller city in terms of overall area and population. The population living all over The Hill has increased since 1979 along with traffic, congestion, crime, housing and business development, and infrastructure.
"Measure P guarantees the property remains zoned for "educational - institution" use only. We can only build what you vote for: a new library, gym, pool, playing fields, and yes, dormitories, which have been completely studied and which will not impact traffic."
Factually, Measure P guarantees only the zoning of the property and it does NOT contain any language that states that anything will, would, or shall be built.
Factually, a new library, gym, playing field, pool, and yes, dormitories "MAY" be built or renovated, but there is absolutely no wording within the language of the Measure's 51 pages that indicates anything will be built, no matter what Dr. Brophy claims.
Using the whole truth, it is a fact that Marymount, once it receives entitlements afforded to it by passage of Measure P could intentionally and actually build NOTHING and or hold off for an indeterminate period of time the construction and or redevelopment of anything and everything marketed during the campaign.
While Measure P gives Marymount the rights to do things, there is no wording that states Marymount "will, would, or shall" do anything.
Dr. Brophy's assertion that passage of Measure P "will not impact traffic" can be taken as a sign that Marymount may not do anything on its campus other than offering it for sale because it would be an out and out lie to state that traffic would not be impacted if on-campus student housing was built for up to 250 students and up to five advisers, none of whom currently live on the campus of Marymount College.
"Marymount looks forward to continuing our positive relationship with the RPV community."
It is not truthfully "positive" when Marymount sued members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council on more than one occasion and there is nothing "positive" about the horrendous amounts of money Marymount's representatives have been spending on the campaign.
In truth and in fact, according to multiple long time residents and representatives of Rancho Palos Verdes, Measure P and its Marymount Plan has been the most divisive issues to come up in the city since its creation over 37 years ago.
"We want to be able to provide the finest-quality facilities to our students and the residents. WE want to keep our college competitive and functioning at the high standards you expect of us."
Marymount continues to function at a less than high standard as compared to other two year and four colleges in the Los Angeles Basin and the State of California.
In a recent ranking of Junior Colleges, Marymount ranked 218th in California and quite far down the list as compared to other Junior Colleges in the U.S.A.
Dr. Brophy may 'want' to provide the "finest-quality facilities" but there is no indication that Marymount 'will, would, or shall' provide anything, if one reads the acutal measure.
Factually, Marymount is seeking to become more competitive with Los Angeles area colleges who offer schooling to PRIMARILY non-local students as documented by Marymount and its less than one third local resident-student enrollment over an extended period of time.
The residents of Rancho Palos Verdes may "expect" something from Marymout that it historically, has not delivered.
" We can only do that if you vote "yes" on Measure P, the complete Marymount plan."
Dr. Brophy's sentence is the assurance and insurance all voters need to understand that Marymount College has no intention on building anything according to The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project it ACCEPTED within the 90-day time frame required for official acceptance of The Project's language.
Should Measure P pass, it means nothing with regards to what would be built and there is no reason to consider that Marymount won't just build the dorms, dining hall, and possibly the new gym, without moving the existing field or doing any other piece of The Marymount Plan it has been marketing.
All of this is contained within the 51 pages of the measure which allows Marymount to so something or NOTHING except be granted rights and authorities which would be different for every other business and every single resident of Rancho Palos Verdes.
"The half-measure provided by the City Council does a disservice to our students and residents who come to our campus for family events, recreation, continuing education or just to find a quiet place to read a book."
Dr. Brophy, what percentage of the residents of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes actually attend or visit Marymount College?
Fewer than 1/3 of the current approximately 750 full-time enrolled students come from homes located anywhere on The Hill, or from homes within a 10 mile radius of Marymount College.
If Dr. Brophy is attempting to claim that the buildings that are different between The Project and The Plan amount to one-half of either The Project or The Plan, he is making a factually misleading and deceptive statement.
There is not "half-measure" that came out from the City Council and suggesting that dorms, a new enlarged dining hall and a possible gallery make up as much as half of the new building and existing redevelopment is something very disingenious to the people of Rancho Palos Verdes.
"On behalf of all of us at Marymount, I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to read and make a thoughful decision. Our goal is to see that Marymount continues to make RPV proud and be a leading light for the next 50 years."
Dr. Brophy, you and other Marymount representatives are not welcome to spread the deception, falsehoods, misinformation, and misrepresentation you and your minions continue to do.
Yesterday afternoon a woman who eventually stated she owned a business in Redondo Beach dealing with paid polling and lobbying came to my door, asking to speak to my wife.
The nice woman had no real knowledge of Measure P, The Marymount Plan which she was advocating for and one of her first quotes to me was "They're going to replace the dorms in San Pedro" which is misinformation and a falsehood, and not factual.
Dr. Brophy, had you really been honest, you and your marketing team would have actually used words contained in Measure P, The Marymount Plan that would have shown the truth and the whole truth, instead of having innocent and somewhat ignorant folks, who don't know what so many of us know, that you and other representing Marymount College are using some of the worst tactics of campaigning for something that appears to be too good to be true.
By your entity's use of misleading and false advertisements, verbal language, doctored T.V. ads, and by other means, you have actually and factually demonstrated a contempt for the intelligence and reasoning of Rancho Palos Verdes residents.
The Measure P, Marymount Plan campaign has dishonored Marymount College, its administration, Board of Trustees, and the governors and residents of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. For that you should be ashamed and for that and many, many other reasons, I am asking everyone to vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
I lead with this because it offers a very disturbing portrait of a failed campaign which cannot use even 1/4 of the whole truth, as written in the languages of both Measure P, The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
I am going to post Dr. Brophy's entire letter to the editor with actual real and reliable facts from either of the two documents, in a different font color so you can easily see how and why Dr. Brophy's letter is just what it appears to be; One of the last writings of a desperate person who most likely has less than one week left with his current employment.
"To the Editor
The Palos Verdes Peninsula News is entitled to (its) opinion, However, these are the facts: The college did not get everything "it asked the RPV City Council for."
Every single element of what Marymount College's representatives and Dr. Brophy himself brought to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council for a vote was approved unanimously and to add to that, an Appeal filed by Concerned Citizen Coalition/Marymount Expansion was denied.
The facts are that not only did ALL building and parking requests presented to the City Council by Marymount were granted, with just a very few minor changes from Marymount's original language. You will see them below.
"The (Rancho Palos Verdes) City Council did not even approve what (its) own Planning Commission recommended to them."
Factually, the City Council provided MORE to Marymount than recommended by the Planning Commission in the way of safety, views, and the denial of the Appeal.
"Instead, the council reduced the new athletic center by 25 percent - without good reason, limiting its usefulness for students and residents."
First, everyone needs to understand that carried within the language of Measure P, The Marymount Plan, new Athletic Facilities "MAY" be built and there is factually and actually no written language that states that is would, will, or shall be built, should Measure P pass.
Secondly, reducing the overall height of the roof of the athletic center cannot possibly reduce is floor, wall, active, and residual space by 25%. There could be an up to 25% loss of volume of air in the building but unless one wishes to have objects hit the ceiling inside the gymnasium, it might be a rare occurrence that any balls hit the ceiling and then it would be unintentional.
Dr. Brophy's letter does not indicate any particulars of any changes so I feel it is reasonable and responsible to inform readers that the 'change' in a building that "MAY" be built, is in the overall height of the roof as compared to the concrete foundation slab of the proposed building.
"They moved the playing fields to a location that severely diminished their practicality."
Actually and factually, the playing "FIELD" was moved 60 feet away from the edge of the campus so as to have every single square inch of the size Marymount requested, be a bit farther away from Palos Verdes Drive East.
Truthfully, not one single centimeter of overall size of the ONE FIELD MARYMOUNT ASKED FOR was changed.
The location of two of the tennis courts was changed for what City Council members considered "safety" reasons but all four tennis courts retain their exact same size and functionality as requested by Marymount.
"The council made it clear that they never would approve student housing."
Marymount had every single right and opportunity to bring the issue of student housing to member of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council however Dr. Michael Brophy and others representing Marymount College REFUSED to take the student housing issue before the City Council and this was done VOLUNTARILY when there was no legal, moral, or ethical reason Dr. Brophy could not have taken the matter of student housing to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
"The City Council disregarded the fact student housing would make our streets safer."
That sentence is an out and out lie on more than one level.
Since the City Council was NEVER presented any official project request for on-campus student housing, there was no chance whatsoever to "disregard" anything about dorms.
Marymount offered NO REGARD about dorms to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
The streets of Rancho Palos Verdes WOULD NOT be safer having student housing on the campus of Marymount College and as someone who should use honesty and the truth on a daily basis as a College President, Dr. Brophy should know that his statement is not truthful in any way.
Not only would traffic increase, in the form of daily trip generation, as documented in the MARYOUNT FINANCED Traffic and Parking Section of the Environmental Impact Report, daily trip generation would become a 24 hour per day, seven day a week occurrence, something that IS NOT being done by Marymount students, currently.
In fact and according to the first set of daily trip generation forecasts, again paid for by Marymount College, there would be a weekday INCREASE of daily trips to and from the campus of up to 1,591 trips PER DAY.
That number itself was INCREASED in a subsequent study associated with Appendix D of the Environmental Impact Report.
"They made arbitrary changes that did not serve the college or the community."
Every single "change" in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Plan was well thought out and debated, sometimes heatedly (I was there so I know) and very careful consideration was deliberated and voted on, mostly with non-unanimous votes.
"The City Council did not approve what we asked for."
Factually, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council approved MORE than what you asked for.
A concrete center median stretching 1,000 feet along the curve of Palos Verdes Drive East was hotly debated in then added to every single element offered for a vote with the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
In addition, the City Council approved language requested by Marymount in terms of the timing of The Project and how long Marymount would have to construct the expansion.
All negotiated time requirements between Marymount and the people of Rancho Palos Verdes has been eliminated in Measure P, The Marymount Plan's language.
"A previous Planning Commission had determined that dormitories were "necessary to the function" of Marymount, that they would cause "no significant adverse effects to adjacent properties" and that they were "in conformance with the General Plan."
Dr. Brophy has deliberately kept out of his paragraph some very important information that demonstrates how deceptive his letter is, as compared to the whole truth.
First, dormitories were approved ONCE before for beds for "200" students at a time when the entire student population of Marymount College, Palos Verdes was about 200 students.
Second, at the time of approval, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council was not part of the decision-making process concerning dorms on Marymount's campus and as such, no elected representative of the people of Rancho Palos Verdes approved or disapproved on-campus housing at Marymount College.
Third, Measure P, The Marymount Plan is a vote to CHANGE the General Plan by adding to it a Campus Specific Plan Zone meant ONLY for Marymount College and no other school, including the Salvation Army Officers College.
Fourth, at the time of the approval of on-campus housing, the city of Rancho Palos Verdes was factually a smaller city in terms of overall area and population. The population living all over The Hill has increased since 1979 along with traffic, congestion, crime, housing and business development, and infrastructure.
"Measure P guarantees the property remains zoned for "educational - institution" use only. We can only build what you vote for: a new library, gym, pool, playing fields, and yes, dormitories, which have been completely studied and which will not impact traffic."
Factually, Measure P guarantees only the zoning of the property and it does NOT contain any language that states that anything will, would, or shall be built.
Factually, a new library, gym, playing field, pool, and yes, dormitories "MAY" be built or renovated, but there is absolutely no wording within the language of the Measure's 51 pages that indicates anything will be built, no matter what Dr. Brophy claims.
Using the whole truth, it is a fact that Marymount, once it receives entitlements afforded to it by passage of Measure P could intentionally and actually build NOTHING and or hold off for an indeterminate period of time the construction and or redevelopment of anything and everything marketed during the campaign.
While Measure P gives Marymount the rights to do things, there is no wording that states Marymount "will, would, or shall" do anything.
Dr. Brophy's assertion that passage of Measure P "will not impact traffic" can be taken as a sign that Marymount may not do anything on its campus other than offering it for sale because it would be an out and out lie to state that traffic would not be impacted if on-campus student housing was built for up to 250 students and up to five advisers, none of whom currently live on the campus of Marymount College.
"Marymount looks forward to continuing our positive relationship with the RPV community."
It is not truthfully "positive" when Marymount sued members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council on more than one occasion and there is nothing "positive" about the horrendous amounts of money Marymount's representatives have been spending on the campaign.
In truth and in fact, according to multiple long time residents and representatives of Rancho Palos Verdes, Measure P and its Marymount Plan has been the most divisive issues to come up in the city since its creation over 37 years ago.
"We want to be able to provide the finest-quality facilities to our students and the residents. WE want to keep our college competitive and functioning at the high standards you expect of us."
Marymount continues to function at a less than high standard as compared to other two year and four colleges in the Los Angeles Basin and the State of California.
In a recent ranking of Junior Colleges, Marymount ranked 218th in California and quite far down the list as compared to other Junior Colleges in the U.S.A.
Dr. Brophy may 'want' to provide the "finest-quality facilities" but there is no indication that Marymount 'will, would, or shall' provide anything, if one reads the acutal measure.
Factually, Marymount is seeking to become more competitive with Los Angeles area colleges who offer schooling to PRIMARILY non-local students as documented by Marymount and its less than one third local resident-student enrollment over an extended period of time.
The residents of Rancho Palos Verdes may "expect" something from Marymout that it historically, has not delivered.
" We can only do that if you vote "yes" on Measure P, the complete Marymount plan."
Dr. Brophy's sentence is the assurance and insurance all voters need to understand that Marymount College has no intention on building anything according to The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project it ACCEPTED within the 90-day time frame required for official acceptance of The Project's language.
Should Measure P pass, it means nothing with regards to what would be built and there is no reason to consider that Marymount won't just build the dorms, dining hall, and possibly the new gym, without moving the existing field or doing any other piece of The Marymount Plan it has been marketing.
All of this is contained within the 51 pages of the measure which allows Marymount to so something or NOTHING except be granted rights and authorities which would be different for every other business and every single resident of Rancho Palos Verdes.
"The half-measure provided by the City Council does a disservice to our students and residents who come to our campus for family events, recreation, continuing education or just to find a quiet place to read a book."
Dr. Brophy, what percentage of the residents of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes actually attend or visit Marymount College?
Fewer than 1/3 of the current approximately 750 full-time enrolled students come from homes located anywhere on The Hill, or from homes within a 10 mile radius of Marymount College.
If Dr. Brophy is attempting to claim that the buildings that are different between The Project and The Plan amount to one-half of either The Project or The Plan, he is making a factually misleading and deceptive statement.
There is not "half-measure" that came out from the City Council and suggesting that dorms, a new enlarged dining hall and a possible gallery make up as much as half of the new building and existing redevelopment is something very disingenious to the people of Rancho Palos Verdes.
"On behalf of all of us at Marymount, I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to read and make a thoughful decision. Our goal is to see that Marymount continues to make RPV proud and be a leading light for the next 50 years."
Dr. Brophy, you and other Marymount representatives are not welcome to spread the deception, falsehoods, misinformation, and misrepresentation you and your minions continue to do.
Yesterday afternoon a woman who eventually stated she owned a business in Redondo Beach dealing with paid polling and lobbying came to my door, asking to speak to my wife.
The nice woman had no real knowledge of Measure P, The Marymount Plan which she was advocating for and one of her first quotes to me was "They're going to replace the dorms in San Pedro" which is misinformation and a falsehood, and not factual.
Dr. Brophy, had you really been honest, you and your marketing team would have actually used words contained in Measure P, The Marymount Plan that would have shown the truth and the whole truth, instead of having innocent and somewhat ignorant folks, who don't know what so many of us know, that you and other representing Marymount College are using some of the worst tactics of campaigning for something that appears to be too good to be true.
By your entity's use of misleading and false advertisements, verbal language, doctored T.V. ads, and by other means, you have actually and factually demonstrated a contempt for the intelligence and reasoning of Rancho Palos Verdes residents.
The Measure P, Marymount Plan campaign has dishonored Marymount College, its administration, Board of Trustees, and the governors and residents of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. For that you should be ashamed and for that and many, many other reasons, I am asking everyone to vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Actual Measure P, Marymount Language and My Considerations
I have specific issues with specific elements of the Campus Specific Plan proposed by Marymount College and its Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
What I have done is re-read through the entire document twice during a recent evening and brought out language I have problems with. I am going to input my concerns using a different color of font when I think it needs it as a way of helping me and you understand what Marymount is trying to get into the General Plan of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC" or "Municipal Code")
and the zoning map are amended to create Specific Plan District V, referred to generally as the Campus Specific Plan and herein as the Specific Plan, and to apply it to the Specific Plan area.
A new Section 17.38.100 and related subsections, as described below, are added to Title 17, Chapter 38 of the Municipal Code, as set forth below.
17.38.100.020. Uses and Development Permitted.
O. Temporary special uses and developments.
We all know the other uses and development Measure P would permit to ‘possibly’ be built but item ‘O’ stands out for me because it doesn’t mention what types of “Temporary special uses and developments” would be allowed. There is no language within the Measure that would exclude any third-party entity from sub-leasing facilities at Marymount College to do whatever they want to do.
17.38.100.040. Development Conditions and Limitations.
Development within the Specific Plan area shall be subject to the Campus Requirements
listed in Attachment F, which include provisions relating to restrictions and limitations upon development and operations within the Specific Plan area.
The Campus Requirements are on file in the office of the director. The city shall have available to it for enforcing the Campus Requirements the same enforcement mechanisms as it would have for conditions of approval of other development projects, except that the city shall not have the power to revoke, repeal, amend or stay the Specific Plan or any or all of its components. The city may also substitute equivalent measures, without the need for a vote of the people, subject to the consent of the Campus owner.
17.38.100.050. Applications for Development.
If an application for development consistent with the Specific Plan is submitted to the city, and is also consistent with all applicable city grading and building standards, then the application shall be issued ministerially. Certificates of occupancy shall also issue ministerially provided only that construction conforms to applicable building and grading requirements for issuance of such certificates, and to the provisions of the Specific Plan.
Title 17 of the RPVMC is hereby amended to create and include Section 17.96.1202 as
follows:
17.96.1202 - Campus Specific Plan
D. Zoning Code; Conflicts with Specific Plan
Except as may be otherwise expressly set forth in the Specific Plan, the standards and definitions of the Specific Plan shall govern in lieu of any provisions of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and all related zoning regulations and definitions that conflict with any provision of the Specific Plan.
A. Campus Specific Plan.
The only zoning district that is consistent with this Specific Plan is Specific Plan District V.
2. Demolition, Repair and Reconstruction Permitted
The Specific Plan allows for the demolition of any building, structure or other facility within the Specific Plan area. Only a demolition permit, and no other permit or discretionary process or approval, may be required for the demolition, repair or reconstruction of any building, structure or other facility within the Specific Plan area as of the date the Specific Plan becomes effective.
Only building permits and other ministerial permits and processes will be required for the completion of the renovations expressly permitted by the Specific Plan as set forth herein. No discretionary permits, approvals, or processes will be required.
No discretionary permits, approvals, or processes shall be required for any new facility or program expressly permitted within the Specific Plan.
A total of 463 off-street parking spaces are required prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any new building including 391 standard parking spaces and a maximum of 72 compact parking spaces.
This is FEWER parking spaces than what is required under the current municipal codes of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, WITHOUT a variance.
4. New Facilities Permitted
The Specific Plan permits the development of the following uses and facilities within the Specific Plan area:
Library. A new 26,710-square foot library and lecture hall may replace the existing
4,072-square foot library that is connected to the existing academic building, and would include a partial remodel of the facade of the existing academic building.
The Residence Halls, Athletic Facilities, and Gallery are the other new facilities that MAY be permitted but there is no language in the text that states any of these ‘would’, ‘will’, or ‘shall’ be constructed at any time.
B. Ministerial Modifications
1. The applicant for any building permit or other ministerial permit shall have
the right to deviate from the development standards and conditions required in
the Specific Plan as follows:
(a) Adjustments of not more than 5 percent to the locations and footprints
of land uses and facilities on the Specific Plan Land Use Plan may be
permitted by right.
(b) A deviation of not more than 5 percent from any regulation of the
Specific Plan may be permitted by right, except with regard to building
height, parking, fixed classroom seating, setbacks, and maximum
permitted net new development square footage for which no
Ministerial Modifications are permitted.
2. All ministerial modifications shall be reviewed as part of plan check for the
underlying permit, and shall not be denied by the city unless the requested
ministerial modification fails to comply with this Specific Plan.
C. Administrative Modifications
3. The Director of City Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the
Director's designee(s) shall have the authority to approve deviations from the
development standards and conditions required In the Specific Plan as
follows:
a. The maximum permitted 118,000 square feet of net new
development may be exceeded by not more than 15 percent.
h. Adjustments of more than 5 percent and not more than 15 percent to the locations and footprints of land uses and facilities as described in the Specific Plan Land Use Plan are permitted. Any such adjustment may not increase any view impairment.
c. Except as may be permitted as a ministerial modification, a
deviation of not more than 15 percent from any regulation of the
Specific Plan may be permitted.
E. Relationship to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
The provisions of this Specific Plan are in addition to those set forth in the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") and do not convey any rights not otherwise granted under the provisions contained therein, except as specifically provided for herein. Whenever provisions of this Specific Plan differ either in being more restrictive or less restrictive from provisions contained in the RPVMC, or any other land development ordinance, statute, regulation or policy, this Specific Plan shall supersede those other provisions. Whenever this Specific Plan is silent with respect to a matter, the provisions of the RPVMC or any other land development ordinance, statute, regulation or policy shall apply. Any ambiguity shall be resolved in favor of the goals and purposes of the Specific Plan.
This is the language that Measure P was created for so as to permit Marymount extraordinary rights and authorities greater than any other business and every resident of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes
F. Interpretation
Whenever any ambiguity or uncertainty related to the application of this Specific Plan exists so that it is difficult to determine the precise application of these provisions, the Director of City Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or his or her designee shall, upon application by the Campus owner, issue binding interpretations of the Specific Plan requirements consistent with the purpose and intent of this Specific Plan. Ambiguity between the Specific Plan and RPVMC shall be interpreted in favor of and consistent with the goals and purposes of this
Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan shall control even if the applicable Municipal Code provision is more recent or more restrictive.
These two portions of Measure P are what sets it apart from a measure that would simply approve the construction of on-campus housing and the language gives Marymount the right to do pretty much whatever it wants according to its Specific Plan which is can change just about any time it wishes to.
The language also supersedes language in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project that set construction phasing and time limits on Marymount College’s construction program and eliminates timetables and all calendar requirements insofar as when demolition must begin, what new construction is begun and when, and the language allows Marymount to just build the on-campus housing, dining hall redevelopment, student union, and whatever athletic facilities it really “MAY” plan to build, none of any of this would necessarily become any kind of useful benefit to local Rancho Palos Verdes residents or the public in general.
SECTION 5: INTENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS MEASURE
A. Determining Consistency.
To ensure that our intent prevails, and to ensure that development of the Specific Plan is subject to express, objective standards that cannot be changed through subsequent discretionary actions or interpretations, words shall be interpreted according to the intent expressed in this initiative measure, and shall be applied according to their plain meaning, rather than according to the contrary provision of the RPVMC. Determinations of consistency of the Specific Plan and of any proposed construction with the General Plan and zoning regulations of the City, shall be limited to a determination of consistency with the Specific Plan, as adopted by this initiative.'
F. Severability.
If any word or words of this initiative measure, or its application to any situation, are held invalid or unenforceable, in a final judgment that is no longer subject to rehearing, review or appeal by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the word or words are severed, and the remaining parts of this initiative measure, and the application of any part of this initiative measure to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect. We, the people of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, declare that we would have adopted this initiative measure, and each word of it, irrespective of the fact that any other word, condition, or application to any situation, be held invalid. It is our intent that any portion of this initiative measure that can lawfully be implemented be implemented, even if doing so would not permit development of the Specific Plan and even if doing so would otherwise appear trivial or inconsequential.
This lets Marymount ‘off the hook’ in terms of providing a “state-of-the-art library available to Rancho Palos Verdes residents.
CAMPUS REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
2) The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall be authorized to
approve minor modifications to any of the Campus Requirements if such
modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance
with such Requirements.
Say goodbye to City Council oversight.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
11) All on-site construction and grading activities shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
a Haul Plan shall be submitted by the campus owner to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits.
Provisions contained in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project call for no large hauling of earth materials to or from the campus. This provision does not appear anywhere in the language contained in this document.
OPERATIONAL
116) Unless an earlier time is specified in these Campus Requirements, campus
facilities open for student, participant, and public use shall close by 10:00 p.m.
with the exception of the Library, Auditorium, Student Union and Athletic Facility
which shall close by 11 :00 p.m. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the campus
operator may hold up to six (6) student activity events, such as dances, within a
calendar year in which campus facilities for such events may remain open until
midnight provided that at least three (3) weeks before the event, the campus
operator provides written notice of the special event to the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement. All such events shall also be posted on the
campus website.
All this means is that Marymount must inform the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of the events but does NOT provide that Director having any oversight or control over any and all events of the nature in the paragraph.
117) Residence Halls shall be subject to "Quiet Hours" from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
daily. Late night driving shall be discouraged by requiring Residence Hall staff
approval for those drivers wishing to leave the campus between 11 :00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m., and by staff monitoring and recording of any resident vehicle returning
to the campus between 11 :00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
All persons residing anywhere they are not physically confined by court order or arrest are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to come and go as they please and there is no legal way Marymount can actively prohibit individuals, including adults living on Marymount’s campus from leaving or returning to any residential room on Marymount’s campus, at any time, on any day that that person pays to occupy the dorm room.
118) The following areas of the campus shall be closed for all use between sunset and
sunrise and such hours of closure shall be visibly posted in the applicable
location, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained:
• Athletic field
• Rose garden
119) Use of the outdoor pool shall be prohibited between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on Saturday and
Sunday, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained.
“Special Use Permits” according to language in Measure P’s documentation are ministerial in nature with the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and basically MUST be granted over and above any municipal code in effect within every other part of Rancho Palos Verdes, EXCEPT on the campus of Marymount College, Palos Verdes.
124) A Neighborhood Advisory Committee shall be established consisting of one
representative selected by each of the following neighboring homeowner's
associations: EI Prado, San Ramon, Mira Catalina, Seacliff Hilltop, and
Mediterrania; two at-large representatives who live within 3000 feet of the
campus (one of which shall be selected by the Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement and one by the campus owner); and a representative from
City Staff (non-voting member). The Committee shall meet, at a minimum of once
every fall and spring term, to review any campus operational and neighborhood
concerns. Reports on the meetings shall be provided to the City Council and the
Planning Commission.
No action of any kind may be given towards any entity or person representing Marymount College because of any and all problems considered by the Neighborhood Advisory Committee or with and by the report to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
PROGRAMS I STUDENT ENROLLMENT
125) The following academic and recreational programs and related activities may be
conducted on campus:
• Traditional Degree Programs
• Non-Traditional Degree Programs
• Continuing Educational Programs, such as but not limited to English as a
Second Language (ESL)
• Recreational Activities
• Summer Educational Programs
The use of the campus by groups or organizations unaffiliated with the campus
owner or operator for educational and recreational programs that would have
more than 100 participants or visitors present on campus at one time or would
occupy more than 20% of the 463 required parking spaces during such use shall
require a Special Use Permit.
129) The campus facilities may also be used for "Summer Educational Programs."
Summer Educational Programs are educational programs for persons generally
14 years or older such as college-credit classes for local high school students,
Upward Bound, and international students taking ESL classes along with other
educational classes and recreational activities. Persons enrolled in Summer
Educational Programs are referred to in this Ordinance as "participants" for the
purpose of establishing enrollment limitations.
131) The following enrollment limitations apply:
C. The maximum total permitted enrollment in any combination of Traditional
Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs offered
concurrently during summer weekdays (June to August) is 600 students
and participants.
Can you say “ Residential Summer Band Camp” and “students residing in dorm rooms during Summer Cheerleading Camp”?
a Special Use Permit will only be required where, based on demonstrable evidence including, but not limited to, verifiable sound tests and reports based on similar past events and activities, a proposed special event or activity will exceed 65 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour at the applicable property lines.
Please remember, the Special Use Permit is ministerial in nature and must be granted because all the items mentioned in the Measure fall within the scope of the Campus Specific Plan which governs and supersedes municipal action.
TRAFFIC
143) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a newly constructed Library,
Maintenance, or Athletic Facility, the following improvement shall be
implemented:
Palos Verdes Drive EastlMiraleste Drive - Signalize the intersection. The
intersection traffic signal shall be designed to include a westbound right turn
overlap, which would preclude u-turn movement from southbound to
northbound Palos Verdes Drive East.
Western Avenue (SR-213)/Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive - Re-stripe the
eastbound Trudie Drive approach from one shared left-turn/through lane
and one de-facto right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one
shared through/right-turn lane. Implementation of this measure shall be
coordinated with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, City of Los Angeles,
and Caltrans.
The Campus owner implementing this improvement may be eligible in the future
for partial reimbursement from future projects that result in impacts on this
intersection.
144) Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Campus owner shall make
a one-time proportionate share contribution (13.21 % based on AM peak hour
cumulative impacts) to implement the following:
Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South - Modify the
intersection to provide a two-stage gap acceptance design for southbound
left-turning vehicles. A raised median refuge area shall be constructed for
vehicles to turn left from Palos Verdes Drive East to cross westbound
Palos Verdes Drive South while waiting for a gap in eastbound traffic to
complete the turn to eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South. Additionally,
the existing raised median shall be narrowed to provide an acceleration
lane along Palos Verdes Drive South to accommodate vehicles
accelerating to join eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South traffic flow.
Modifications to the Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South
intersection shall be designed taking into account truck turning radius
requirements and shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Since the Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South intersection
is impacted by the development anticipated in the Campus Specific Plan
for cumulative conditions, a proportionate share contribution (13.21 %
based on AM peak hour cumulative impacts) by the Campus owner
seeking the Certificate of Occupancy is applicable.
Traffic mitigation is mentioned in Measure P, The Marymount Plan as you can plainly read above. With Marymount’s 13.21% “Share Contribution” 86.79% of the remaining cost of the mitigation MUST be provided by funds NOT CONTROLLED by Marymount. The 86.79% funds can ONLY come from one source.
TAXPAYER FUNDS!
So, whenever you read “at no taxpayer expense” what Marymount is contending is that ONLY PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION ON MARYMOUNT’S CAMPUS “may” be done using no taxpayer funds.
Measure P, The Marymount Plan clearly and plainly states that some taxpayer funds must be used to accomplish the mitigation contained within The Marymount Plan, therefore, TAXPAYER FUNDS WILL BE USED should mitigation actually occur.
146) The total number of vehicles for those residing in the Residence Halls will be
limited to a maximum of 125. (allowed in Marymount’s parking lot.)
The language contained within Measure P does NOT INCLUDE any mention of students who may live on-campus and NOT park their vehicles on Marymount’s campus and who would have their personal vehicles either stored at an off-campus location or walk to and from their vehicles legally parked on local streets.
When Marymount asserts it will contribute “$200,000.00 towards the construction of a 1,000 foot concrete center barrier along the curve of Palos Verdes Drive East as it goes around Marymount’s campus, that mitigation is not mentioned anywhere in the wording of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
It may be advertised and marketed by Marymount as a community benefit, but it doesn’t appear anywhere in the document Marymount seeks voter approval for.
Please vote “No” on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
What I have done is re-read through the entire document twice during a recent evening and brought out language I have problems with. I am going to input my concerns using a different color of font when I think it needs it as a way of helping me and you understand what Marymount is trying to get into the General Plan of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC" or "Municipal Code")
and the zoning map are amended to create Specific Plan District V, referred to generally as the Campus Specific Plan and herein as the Specific Plan, and to apply it to the Specific Plan area.
A new Section 17.38.100 and related subsections, as described below, are added to Title 17, Chapter 38 of the Municipal Code, as set forth below.
17.38.100.020. Uses and Development Permitted.
O. Temporary special uses and developments.
We all know the other uses and development Measure P would permit to ‘possibly’ be built but item ‘O’ stands out for me because it doesn’t mention what types of “Temporary special uses and developments” would be allowed. There is no language within the Measure that would exclude any third-party entity from sub-leasing facilities at Marymount College to do whatever they want to do.
17.38.100.040. Development Conditions and Limitations.
Development within the Specific Plan area shall be subject to the Campus Requirements
listed in Attachment F, which include provisions relating to restrictions and limitations upon development and operations within the Specific Plan area.
The Campus Requirements are on file in the office of the director. The city shall have available to it for enforcing the Campus Requirements the same enforcement mechanisms as it would have for conditions of approval of other development projects, except that the city shall not have the power to revoke, repeal, amend or stay the Specific Plan or any or all of its components. The city may also substitute equivalent measures, without the need for a vote of the people, subject to the consent of the Campus owner.
17.38.100.050. Applications for Development.
If an application for development consistent with the Specific Plan is submitted to the city, and is also consistent with all applicable city grading and building standards, then the application shall be issued ministerially. Certificates of occupancy shall also issue ministerially provided only that construction conforms to applicable building and grading requirements for issuance of such certificates, and to the provisions of the Specific Plan.
Title 17 of the RPVMC is hereby amended to create and include Section 17.96.1202 as
follows:
17.96.1202 - Campus Specific Plan
D. Zoning Code; Conflicts with Specific Plan
Except as may be otherwise expressly set forth in the Specific Plan, the standards and definitions of the Specific Plan shall govern in lieu of any provisions of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and all related zoning regulations and definitions that conflict with any provision of the Specific Plan.
A. Campus Specific Plan.
The only zoning district that is consistent with this Specific Plan is Specific Plan District V.
2. Demolition, Repair and Reconstruction Permitted
The Specific Plan allows for the demolition of any building, structure or other facility within the Specific Plan area. Only a demolition permit, and no other permit or discretionary process or approval, may be required for the demolition, repair or reconstruction of any building, structure or other facility within the Specific Plan area as of the date the Specific Plan becomes effective.
Only building permits and other ministerial permits and processes will be required for the completion of the renovations expressly permitted by the Specific Plan as set forth herein. No discretionary permits, approvals, or processes will be required.
No discretionary permits, approvals, or processes shall be required for any new facility or program expressly permitted within the Specific Plan.
A total of 463 off-street parking spaces are required prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any new building including 391 standard parking spaces and a maximum of 72 compact parking spaces.
This is FEWER parking spaces than what is required under the current municipal codes of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, WITHOUT a variance.
4. New Facilities Permitted
The Specific Plan permits the development of the following uses and facilities within the Specific Plan area:
Library. A new 26,710-square foot library and lecture hall may replace the existing
4,072-square foot library that is connected to the existing academic building, and would include a partial remodel of the facade of the existing academic building.
The Residence Halls, Athletic Facilities, and Gallery are the other new facilities that MAY be permitted but there is no language in the text that states any of these ‘would’, ‘will’, or ‘shall’ be constructed at any time.
B. Ministerial Modifications
1. The applicant for any building permit or other ministerial permit shall have
the right to deviate from the development standards and conditions required in
the Specific Plan as follows:
(a) Adjustments of not more than 5 percent to the locations and footprints
of land uses and facilities on the Specific Plan Land Use Plan may be
permitted by right.
(b) A deviation of not more than 5 percent from any regulation of the
Specific Plan may be permitted by right, except with regard to building
height, parking, fixed classroom seating, setbacks, and maximum
permitted net new development square footage for which no
Ministerial Modifications are permitted.
2. All ministerial modifications shall be reviewed as part of plan check for the
underlying permit, and shall not be denied by the city unless the requested
ministerial modification fails to comply with this Specific Plan.
C. Administrative Modifications
3. The Director of City Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the
Director's designee(s) shall have the authority to approve deviations from the
development standards and conditions required In the Specific Plan as
follows:
a. The maximum permitted 118,000 square feet of net new
development may be exceeded by not more than 15 percent.
h. Adjustments of more than 5 percent and not more than 15 percent to the locations and footprints of land uses and facilities as described in the Specific Plan Land Use Plan are permitted. Any such adjustment may not increase any view impairment.
c. Except as may be permitted as a ministerial modification, a
deviation of not more than 15 percent from any regulation of the
Specific Plan may be permitted.
E. Relationship to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
The provisions of this Specific Plan are in addition to those set forth in the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") and do not convey any rights not otherwise granted under the provisions contained therein, except as specifically provided for herein. Whenever provisions of this Specific Plan differ either in being more restrictive or less restrictive from provisions contained in the RPVMC, or any other land development ordinance, statute, regulation or policy, this Specific Plan shall supersede those other provisions. Whenever this Specific Plan is silent with respect to a matter, the provisions of the RPVMC or any other land development ordinance, statute, regulation or policy shall apply. Any ambiguity shall be resolved in favor of the goals and purposes of the Specific Plan.
This is the language that Measure P was created for so as to permit Marymount extraordinary rights and authorities greater than any other business and every resident of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes
F. Interpretation
Whenever any ambiguity or uncertainty related to the application of this Specific Plan exists so that it is difficult to determine the precise application of these provisions, the Director of City Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or his or her designee shall, upon application by the Campus owner, issue binding interpretations of the Specific Plan requirements consistent with the purpose and intent of this Specific Plan. Ambiguity between the Specific Plan and RPVMC shall be interpreted in favor of and consistent with the goals and purposes of this
Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan shall control even if the applicable Municipal Code provision is more recent or more restrictive.
These two portions of Measure P are what sets it apart from a measure that would simply approve the construction of on-campus housing and the language gives Marymount the right to do pretty much whatever it wants according to its Specific Plan which is can change just about any time it wishes to.
The language also supersedes language in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project that set construction phasing and time limits on Marymount College’s construction program and eliminates timetables and all calendar requirements insofar as when demolition must begin, what new construction is begun and when, and the language allows Marymount to just build the on-campus housing, dining hall redevelopment, student union, and whatever athletic facilities it really “MAY” plan to build, none of any of this would necessarily become any kind of useful benefit to local Rancho Palos Verdes residents or the public in general.
SECTION 5: INTENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS MEASURE
A. Determining Consistency.
To ensure that our intent prevails, and to ensure that development of the Specific Plan is subject to express, objective standards that cannot be changed through subsequent discretionary actions or interpretations, words shall be interpreted according to the intent expressed in this initiative measure, and shall be applied according to their plain meaning, rather than according to the contrary provision of the RPVMC. Determinations of consistency of the Specific Plan and of any proposed construction with the General Plan and zoning regulations of the City, shall be limited to a determination of consistency with the Specific Plan, as adopted by this initiative.'
F. Severability.
If any word or words of this initiative measure, or its application to any situation, are held invalid or unenforceable, in a final judgment that is no longer subject to rehearing, review or appeal by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the word or words are severed, and the remaining parts of this initiative measure, and the application of any part of this initiative measure to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect. We, the people of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, declare that we would have adopted this initiative measure, and each word of it, irrespective of the fact that any other word, condition, or application to any situation, be held invalid. It is our intent that any portion of this initiative measure that can lawfully be implemented be implemented, even if doing so would not permit development of the Specific Plan and even if doing so would otherwise appear trivial or inconsequential.
This lets Marymount ‘off the hook’ in terms of providing a “state-of-the-art library available to Rancho Palos Verdes residents.
CAMPUS REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
2) The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall be authorized to
approve minor modifications to any of the Campus Requirements if such
modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance
with such Requirements.
Say goodbye to City Council oversight.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
11) All on-site construction and grading activities shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
a Haul Plan shall be submitted by the campus owner to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits.
Provisions contained in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project call for no large hauling of earth materials to or from the campus. This provision does not appear anywhere in the language contained in this document.
OPERATIONAL
116) Unless an earlier time is specified in these Campus Requirements, campus
facilities open for student, participant, and public use shall close by 10:00 p.m.
with the exception of the Library, Auditorium, Student Union and Athletic Facility
which shall close by 11 :00 p.m. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the campus
operator may hold up to six (6) student activity events, such as dances, within a
calendar year in which campus facilities for such events may remain open until
midnight provided that at least three (3) weeks before the event, the campus
operator provides written notice of the special event to the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement. All such events shall also be posted on the
campus website.
All this means is that Marymount must inform the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of the events but does NOT provide that Director having any oversight or control over any and all events of the nature in the paragraph.
117) Residence Halls shall be subject to "Quiet Hours" from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
daily. Late night driving shall be discouraged by requiring Residence Hall staff
approval for those drivers wishing to leave the campus between 11 :00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m., and by staff monitoring and recording of any resident vehicle returning
to the campus between 11 :00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
All persons residing anywhere they are not physically confined by court order or arrest are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to come and go as they please and there is no legal way Marymount can actively prohibit individuals, including adults living on Marymount’s campus from leaving or returning to any residential room on Marymount’s campus, at any time, on any day that that person pays to occupy the dorm room.
118) The following areas of the campus shall be closed for all use between sunset and
sunrise and such hours of closure shall be visibly posted in the applicable
location, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained:
• Athletic field
• Rose garden
119) Use of the outdoor pool shall be prohibited between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on Saturday and
Sunday, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained.
“Special Use Permits” according to language in Measure P’s documentation are ministerial in nature with the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and basically MUST be granted over and above any municipal code in effect within every other part of Rancho Palos Verdes, EXCEPT on the campus of Marymount College, Palos Verdes.
124) A Neighborhood Advisory Committee shall be established consisting of one
representative selected by each of the following neighboring homeowner's
associations: EI Prado, San Ramon, Mira Catalina, Seacliff Hilltop, and
Mediterrania; two at-large representatives who live within 3000 feet of the
campus (one of which shall be selected by the Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement and one by the campus owner); and a representative from
City Staff (non-voting member). The Committee shall meet, at a minimum of once
every fall and spring term, to review any campus operational and neighborhood
concerns. Reports on the meetings shall be provided to the City Council and the
Planning Commission.
No action of any kind may be given towards any entity or person representing Marymount College because of any and all problems considered by the Neighborhood Advisory Committee or with and by the report to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
PROGRAMS I STUDENT ENROLLMENT
125) The following academic and recreational programs and related activities may be
conducted on campus:
• Traditional Degree Programs
• Non-Traditional Degree Programs
• Continuing Educational Programs, such as but not limited to English as a
Second Language (ESL)
• Recreational Activities
• Summer Educational Programs
The use of the campus by groups or organizations unaffiliated with the campus
owner or operator for educational and recreational programs that would have
more than 100 participants or visitors present on campus at one time or would
occupy more than 20% of the 463 required parking spaces during such use shall
require a Special Use Permit.
129) The campus facilities may also be used for "Summer Educational Programs."
Summer Educational Programs are educational programs for persons generally
14 years or older such as college-credit classes for local high school students,
Upward Bound, and international students taking ESL classes along with other
educational classes and recreational activities. Persons enrolled in Summer
Educational Programs are referred to in this Ordinance as "participants" for the
purpose of establishing enrollment limitations.
131) The following enrollment limitations apply:
C. The maximum total permitted enrollment in any combination of Traditional
Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs offered
concurrently during summer weekdays (June to August) is 600 students
and participants.
Can you say “ Residential Summer Band Camp” and “students residing in dorm rooms during Summer Cheerleading Camp”?
a Special Use Permit will only be required where, based on demonstrable evidence including, but not limited to, verifiable sound tests and reports based on similar past events and activities, a proposed special event or activity will exceed 65 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour at the applicable property lines.
Please remember, the Special Use Permit is ministerial in nature and must be granted because all the items mentioned in the Measure fall within the scope of the Campus Specific Plan which governs and supersedes municipal action.
TRAFFIC
143) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a newly constructed Library,
Maintenance, or Athletic Facility, the following improvement shall be
implemented:
Palos Verdes Drive EastlMiraleste Drive - Signalize the intersection. The
intersection traffic signal shall be designed to include a westbound right turn
overlap, which would preclude u-turn movement from southbound to
northbound Palos Verdes Drive East.
Western Avenue (SR-213)/Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive - Re-stripe the
eastbound Trudie Drive approach from one shared left-turn/through lane
and one de-facto right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one
shared through/right-turn lane. Implementation of this measure shall be
coordinated with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, City of Los Angeles,
and Caltrans.
The Campus owner implementing this improvement may be eligible in the future
for partial reimbursement from future projects that result in impacts on this
intersection.
144) Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Campus owner shall make
a one-time proportionate share contribution (13.21 % based on AM peak hour
cumulative impacts) to implement the following:
Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South - Modify the
intersection to provide a two-stage gap acceptance design for southbound
left-turning vehicles. A raised median refuge area shall be constructed for
vehicles to turn left from Palos Verdes Drive East to cross westbound
Palos Verdes Drive South while waiting for a gap in eastbound traffic to
complete the turn to eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South. Additionally,
the existing raised median shall be narrowed to provide an acceleration
lane along Palos Verdes Drive South to accommodate vehicles
accelerating to join eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South traffic flow.
Modifications to the Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South
intersection shall be designed taking into account truck turning radius
requirements and shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Since the Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South intersection
is impacted by the development anticipated in the Campus Specific Plan
for cumulative conditions, a proportionate share contribution (13.21 %
based on AM peak hour cumulative impacts) by the Campus owner
seeking the Certificate of Occupancy is applicable.
Traffic mitigation is mentioned in Measure P, The Marymount Plan as you can plainly read above. With Marymount’s 13.21% “Share Contribution” 86.79% of the remaining cost of the mitigation MUST be provided by funds NOT CONTROLLED by Marymount. The 86.79% funds can ONLY come from one source.
TAXPAYER FUNDS!
So, whenever you read “at no taxpayer expense” what Marymount is contending is that ONLY PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION ON MARYMOUNT’S CAMPUS “may” be done using no taxpayer funds.
Measure P, The Marymount Plan clearly and plainly states that some taxpayer funds must be used to accomplish the mitigation contained within The Marymount Plan, therefore, TAXPAYER FUNDS WILL BE USED should mitigation actually occur.
146) The total number of vehicles for those residing in the Residence Halls will be
limited to a maximum of 125. (allowed in Marymount’s parking lot.)
The language contained within Measure P does NOT INCLUDE any mention of students who may live on-campus and NOT park their vehicles on Marymount’s campus and who would have their personal vehicles either stored at an off-campus location or walk to and from their vehicles legally parked on local streets.
When Marymount asserts it will contribute “$200,000.00 towards the construction of a 1,000 foot concrete center barrier along the curve of Palos Verdes Drive East as it goes around Marymount’s campus, that mitigation is not mentioned anywhere in the wording of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
It may be advertised and marketed by Marymount as a community benefit, but it doesn’t appear anywhere in the document Marymount seeks voter approval for.
Please vote “No” on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
"MAY"! My, My, My
I have been reviewing the 51-page Measure P, The Marymount Plan documentation and during my second read through tonight, this little item popped out like a bolt of lightning.
"4. New Facilities Permitted
The Specific Plan permits the development of the following uses and facilities within the
Specific Plan area:
Library. A new 26,710-square foot library and lecture hall may replace the existing
4,072-square foot library that is connected to the existing academic building, and would include a partial remodel of the facade of the existing academic building."
If you missed it, especially all of you who are Measure P supporters, here is it again with one particular word highlighted.
4. New Facilities Permitted
The Specific Plan permits the development of the following uses and facilities within the Specific Plan area:
A new 26,710-square foot library and lecture hall may replace the existing
4,072-square foot library that is connected to the existing academic building, and would include a partial remodel of the facade of the existing academic building.
Do I really need to repeat it once again? I don't think so.
So, to all of you who have been enjoying your Kool-Aid as you read all the "Yes on Measure P" marketing, please become reaware of my assertion that the brick and mortar "state-of-the-art library" is not even mentioned as something that "would", "will", or "is planned" according to the 51-page document.
My assertion is that Marymount will never build a new physical library structure since it is very expensive to build something that is already obsolete in this age of virtual libraries and information providing storage sites all over the planet.
Their use of "may" is clever and continues to demonstrate a deception just about every supporter has stated as something that factually would be built when the fact is right in front of them that a library "may" be built, but that is all.
Please Vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
"4. New Facilities Permitted
The Specific Plan permits the development of the following uses and facilities within the
Specific Plan area:
Library. A new 26,710-square foot library and lecture hall may replace the existing
4,072-square foot library that is connected to the existing academic building, and would include a partial remodel of the facade of the existing academic building."
If you missed it, especially all of you who are Measure P supporters, here is it again with one particular word highlighted.
4. New Facilities Permitted
The Specific Plan permits the development of the following uses and facilities within the Specific Plan area:
A new 26,710-square foot library and lecture hall may replace the existing
4,072-square foot library that is connected to the existing academic building, and would include a partial remodel of the facade of the existing academic building.
Do I really need to repeat it once again? I don't think so.
So, to all of you who have been enjoying your Kool-Aid as you read all the "Yes on Measure P" marketing, please become reaware of my assertion that the brick and mortar "state-of-the-art library" is not even mentioned as something that "would", "will", or "is planned" according to the 51-page document.
My assertion is that Marymount will never build a new physical library structure since it is very expensive to build something that is already obsolete in this age of virtual libraries and information providing storage sites all over the planet.
Their use of "may" is clever and continues to demonstrate a deception just about every supporter has stated as something that factually would be built when the fact is right in front of them that a library "may" be built, but that is all.
Please Vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Newspaper Article About Two Debates.
Two Measure P discussions to be held in Rancho Palos Verdes
From staff reports of
The South Bay Daily Breeze
Two discussions on the November ballot measure to allow campus improvements and dormitories at Marymount College in Rancho Palos Verdes will be held Thursday.
The first program, hosted by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Coordinating Council, is titled "Understanding Measure P." Councilman Doug Stern and college President Michael Brophy have been invited to present their positions on the measure at the Peninsula Center Library.
The program will be held in the Community Room of the library, 701 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates. All are welcome to bring their lunch, or just come for the program. Lunch starts at noon, followed by the hour-long program beginning at 12:20 p.m. For more information, call 310- 377-0735 or 310-377-5347.
On Thursday evening, the Peninsula Harbor Republicans will host a similar forum with Brophy and City Councilman Brian Campbell.
The 7 p.m. event is at Los Verdes Golf Club, 7000 West Los Verdes Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes.
From staff reports of
The South Bay Daily Breeze
Two discussions on the November ballot measure to allow campus improvements and dormitories at Marymount College in Rancho Palos Verdes will be held Thursday.
The first program, hosted by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Coordinating Council, is titled "Understanding Measure P." Councilman Doug Stern and college President Michael Brophy have been invited to present their positions on the measure at the Peninsula Center Library.
The program will be held in the Community Room of the library, 701 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates. All are welcome to bring their lunch, or just come for the program. Lunch starts at noon, followed by the hour-long program beginning at 12:20 p.m. For more information, call 310- 377-0735 or 310-377-5347.
On Thursday evening, the Peninsula Harbor Republicans will host a similar forum with Brophy and City Councilman Brian Campbell.
The 7 p.m. event is at Los Verdes Golf Club, 7000 West Los Verdes Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes.
Absolutely Perfect!
I found this comment to the article I posted at 12:20 PM today.
I think it is absolutely perfect that there is nothing in dispute with any word of it.
Thank you so much to "RPV Guy":
:Maybe I'm missing the point...
Seems that the "Yes on P" crowd falls into two categories:
1) Those paid by (or employed by) Marymount
2) Those with an axe to grind against the city council
I've yet to hear a coherent argument as to why this is a good idea for the city. RPV voters: read these comments and make up your own mind!"
I think it is absolutely perfect that there is nothing in dispute with any word of it.
Thank you so much to "RPV Guy":
:Maybe I'm missing the point...
Seems that the "Yes on P" crowd falls into two categories:
1) Those paid by (or employed by) Marymount
2) Those with an axe to grind against the city council
I've yet to hear a coherent argument as to why this is a good idea for the city. RPV voters: read these comments and make up your own mind!"
Attack "Dog" Now Using Annenberg
Click on images to enlarge them.
Following his submission is my response.
Using The Annenberg Foundation's philanthropic efforts against the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council now seems to have allowed Marymount's President to sink into the abyss of desperation, anger, and loss of quite a bit of honor and believability, I feel.
If Dr. Brophy doesn't know that there are legal hurdles with Annenberg's attempts to bring something of truly greater benefit to our community than anything Marymount could possibly provide demonstrates either a complete lack of knowledge or a carelessness toward not only the residents and visitor of Rancho Palos Verdes, but to the thousands and thousands of folks who would surely benefit from what The Annenberg wishes to provide but live outside our city.
The big legal hurdle is the problem with placing the K-9 Assistant Training Center, part of the complete Annenberg Plan, on the lower portion of the Point Vicente site given to Rancho Palos Verdes by the Federal Government, with conditions.
One way to get beyond that big problem is to move the Training Center to possibly, closer to the current City Hall site further up the hill.
What does Marymount College's President have against the City Council discussing and working towards providing a K-9 Training Center, along with other benefits and amenities in a legal way and form just like they used when they unanimously approved every element of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project Dr. Michael Brophy and others representing Marymount asked for?
Why has Dr. Brophy now stooped so low as to bring into the fray a philanthropic endeavour that could bring jobs and revenue into our city in far greater numbers than what could be gained by passage of Measure P, over a long period of time?
Isn't it a really interesting tactic Dr. Brophy now seems to be using, this close to the election, getting The Annenberg Foundation and its really huge bank accounts into the debate?
Could it have been the members of Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch, a very small group of residents who are dead set against The Annenberg Project, who cajoled Dr. Brophy into creating the Email?
I wonder what the Marymount College Trustees are going to say if the good folks at The Annenberg Foundation find it a bad thing their efforts and name have entered the Measure P debate in this way.
At least when The Annenberg Foundation claims they will build their project without taxpayer funds, we can really believe that and not the misinformation coming from Marymount which has already relied on taxpayer funds with the lawsuit filed by Dr. Michael Brophy against the Rancho Palos Verdes City Clerk and the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters who both were represented by attorneys who are paid with taxpayer funds.
I have not seen the "No on P" signs that were stolen ALL replaced by Marymount as Dr. Brophy said they would be.
In fact, another sign disappeared from my neighborhood last week.
The simple fact is that The Annenberg Foundation has come to Rancho Palos Verdes with a plan and project that is currently not able to be completely built but will be worked with by our Planning Commission and City Council.
Another simple fact is that for over ten years, Marymount College's representatives have created the situation where over 70% of the delays were caused by Marymount's actions and inaction and when our City Council finally got the chance to begin discussion on The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project MARYMOUNT"S REPRESENTATIVES THEMSELVES began a more than nine months worth of additional delays with the whole Measure P fiasco.
If something is too good to be true, it is probably untrue and we have plenty of evidence that The Annenberg Project was too good to be true but the majority of folks are willing to work hard with everyone else to try and make as much of it come true, something that will certainly benefit the community.
What is also truthful is that much of the real truth about Measure P, The Marymount Plan is not something Marymount's President and others representing Marymount want you to know.
What is truthful is that one particular Measure P supporter tried, with what I can only call clear desperation, to gain what would have been an illegal endorsement after his failed attempt last September.
I think I have said and written all that is needed about the Trustees, Administration, and 'unusual' ways Dr. Michael Brophy is attempting to gain support for Measure P.
All anyone need to do is read Measure P's language throughout all 51 pages. I am certain that when intelligent residents of Rancho Palos Verdes take their own time to use their own eyes and minds to read the language of Measure P, The Marymount Plan, they will vote "No" by November 2, 2010.
Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
That Was Quick!
Measure P mailer raises Marymount vs. Annenberg
comparison
By Melissa Pamer on October 26, 2010 5:57 PM
South Bay Daily Breeze
"How can the same City Council that wants to build a huge dog kennel on Point
Vicente be against the Marymount Plan?"
That's the question the Yes on Measure P campaign raises in a eyebrow-raising email
sent out today. Apparently a mailer that brings up a similar issue -- and visually compares a college student to a dog -- is set to be sent out soon.
It's a new twist in a fierce campaign that Marymount College is waging in its effort to persuade Rancho Palos Verdes voters to back expansion plans that include dormitories. (Most of the plan already has city approval and can proceed without voter backing.)
Asked about the e-mail, which addresses the animal-centered Annenberg Project
at Lower Point Vicente, college President Michael Brophy said the comparison is the first issue that voters raise with him when he's out campaigning for Measure P. "This is a fun one," Brophy said of the e-mail.
The City Council has largely been supportive of controversial plans for the Annenberg education center, which would be built on public land. The council has also approved Marymount's plans, but the two projects have received starkly different treatment, Brophy said.
"They're certainly expediting this project on public land and you just look across town at little old Marymount and -- you know the story," Brophy said.
But calling the Annenberg project "a big dog kennel" is clearly provocative.
The project would include animal adoption suites, but Annenberg Foundation
officials have bristled when opponents call the center a "kennel."
Councilman Brian Campbell, who said he shares recent concerns raised about
Annenberg's plans, called the e-mail "the dumbest political stunt in history."
The council has voted unanimously to oppose the initiative.
"They will lose this election and I bet you people will say this is what did it,"
Campbell said.
Asked about the word choice in the mailer, Brophy said: "Is it not a kennel?
I do know that people say that."
Brophy added that Marymount supports the Annenberg project. The full text of
the email follows.
“Dear ,
How can the same City Council that wants to build a huge dog kennel on Point Vicente be against the Marymount Plan?
We don't understand it either.
Apparently, the City Council has very different priorities than the residents.
That's why we decided to bring this directly to you--the residents and voters of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Ten years of study make it clear: This is a good project that will benefit our entire community. Measure P means less traffic, a new library, gym, pool and playing fields all at no tax payer expense.
November 2 is just a week away. Vote Yes on Measure P and keep Marymount a vibrant College and benefit for residents for another 50 years.
Thanks,
Michael Brophy
President, Marymount College”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What Ms. Pamer failed to include is the one item in The Annenber Project that has kept it from being approved at the location The Foundation wants and what is actually a wonderful inclusion that could benefit far more people than anything Marymount can do to benefit anybody besides providing money and contracts.
The Annenberg Foundations wants to build an eight-room K-9 Human Assistant Training Facility to teach dogs, handlers and recipients of K-9 Assistants all about the training of the dogs and how the receipient will use the real benefit.
This facility would provide jobs and education to community members and allow everyone the chance to learn about K-9 Assistants so everyone will have the chance to become more comfortable and willing to accept K-9 Assistants in places where dogs are not normally allowed.
I am now hoping that should space be found on the higher portion of the Point Vicente Reservation of Fort MacArthur, the actual name of both the site of the interpretive center and our City Hall, The Annenberg Foundation might find it in their interest in helping to fund a new City Hall complex that incorporates the Training Center, more educational facilities and a community-benefitting government and educational complex all residents and visitors can enjoy.
On the other hand, calling the building The Annenberg Foundation wants to build a "huge kennel" demonstrates the total CARElessness by Dr. Brophy towards our residents' intelligence, our City Council's character, and our nature of wanting to know the whole truth, no matter what the issue is.
Dr. Brophy, apparently with the Marymount College's Board of Trustees and the few seniors that make up Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch's approval have lowered the discussion and debate concerning Measure P, The Marymount Plan to a level no supporter of an institution of higher learning should ever let it slip to.
The lack of total honesty, whole truth, and elimination of misinformation and falsehoods shows all of us how low Dr. Brophy and Marymount's supports will go to try and find approval for something they delayed for over seven of the last ten years.
Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
comparison
By Melissa Pamer on October 26, 2010 5:57 PM
South Bay Daily Breeze
"How can the same City Council that wants to build a huge dog kennel on Point
Vicente be against the Marymount Plan?"
That's the question the Yes on Measure P campaign raises in a eyebrow-raising email
sent out today. Apparently a mailer that brings up a similar issue -- and visually compares a college student to a dog -- is set to be sent out soon.
It's a new twist in a fierce campaign that Marymount College is waging in its effort to persuade Rancho Palos Verdes voters to back expansion plans that include dormitories. (Most of the plan already has city approval and can proceed without voter backing.)
Asked about the e-mail, which addresses the animal-centered Annenberg Project
at Lower Point Vicente, college President Michael Brophy said the comparison is the first issue that voters raise with him when he's out campaigning for Measure P. "This is a fun one," Brophy said of the e-mail.
The City Council has largely been supportive of controversial plans for the Annenberg education center, which would be built on public land. The council has also approved Marymount's plans, but the two projects have received starkly different treatment, Brophy said.
"They're certainly expediting this project on public land and you just look across town at little old Marymount and -- you know the story," Brophy said.
But calling the Annenberg project "a big dog kennel" is clearly provocative.
The project would include animal adoption suites, but Annenberg Foundation
officials have bristled when opponents call the center a "kennel."
Councilman Brian Campbell, who said he shares recent concerns raised about
Annenberg's plans, called the e-mail "the dumbest political stunt in history."
The council has voted unanimously to oppose the initiative.
"They will lose this election and I bet you people will say this is what did it,"
Campbell said.
Asked about the word choice in the mailer, Brophy said: "Is it not a kennel?
I do know that people say that."
Brophy added that Marymount supports the Annenberg project. The full text of
the email follows.
“Dear ,
How can the same City Council that wants to build a huge dog kennel on Point Vicente be against the Marymount Plan?
We don't understand it either.
Apparently, the City Council has very different priorities than the residents.
That's why we decided to bring this directly to you--the residents and voters of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Ten years of study make it clear: This is a good project that will benefit our entire community. Measure P means less traffic, a new library, gym, pool and playing fields all at no tax payer expense.
November 2 is just a week away. Vote Yes on Measure P and keep Marymount a vibrant College and benefit for residents for another 50 years.
Thanks,
Michael Brophy
President, Marymount College”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What Ms. Pamer failed to include is the one item in The Annenber Project that has kept it from being approved at the location The Foundation wants and what is actually a wonderful inclusion that could benefit far more people than anything Marymount can do to benefit anybody besides providing money and contracts.
The Annenberg Foundations wants to build an eight-room K-9 Human Assistant Training Facility to teach dogs, handlers and recipients of K-9 Assistants all about the training of the dogs and how the receipient will use the real benefit.
This facility would provide jobs and education to community members and allow everyone the chance to learn about K-9 Assistants so everyone will have the chance to become more comfortable and willing to accept K-9 Assistants in places where dogs are not normally allowed.
I am now hoping that should space be found on the higher portion of the Point Vicente Reservation of Fort MacArthur, the actual name of both the site of the interpretive center and our City Hall, The Annenberg Foundation might find it in their interest in helping to fund a new City Hall complex that incorporates the Training Center, more educational facilities and a community-benefitting government and educational complex all residents and visitors can enjoy.
On the other hand, calling the building The Annenberg Foundation wants to build a "huge kennel" demonstrates the total CARElessness by Dr. Brophy towards our residents' intelligence, our City Council's character, and our nature of wanting to know the whole truth, no matter what the issue is.
Dr. Brophy, apparently with the Marymount College's Board of Trustees and the few seniors that make up Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch's approval have lowered the discussion and debate concerning Measure P, The Marymount Plan to a level no supporter of an institution of higher learning should ever let it slip to.
The lack of total honesty, whole truth, and elimination of misinformation and falsehoods shows all of us how low Dr. Brophy and Marymount's supports will go to try and find approval for something they delayed for over seven of the last ten years.
Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)