Thursday, January 29, 2009

Comments Regarding the R.P.V. Planning Commission Meeting on January 27, 2009 Part 2

This is a continuation of my thoughts that are posted in Part 1 immediately following this post.

I am thankful that one of the four Planning Commissioners able to continue deliberating about the Marymount Expansion Project is not able to attend the next regular meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission.

Because of the members absence from the February 14, Planning Commission meeting, it means everyone, including me has almost a month longer to ponder the issues and prepare more information for the Planning Commission, the two main groups one either side of the Marymount Expansion Issue, and the rest of us, "the public".

It appears that there may be only two or three more meetings of the Planning Commission necessary, dealing with the Marymount matters, to FINALLY find out whether Commissioners will certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), reject it, or have somebody call for ANOTHER continuation in the processes to deal with matters as yet unsolved.

So, Tuesday March 10, beginning at 7:00 PM, I hope everybody is prepared to try and sit through a Planning Commission meeting that may provide some fireworks, surprises, and new faces coming on board to voice their opinions.

Apparently during the March 10 meeting, the traffic portion of the Traffic and Circulation Section of the FEIR will be discussed. Oh boy!

I have already been witness to observations that either the College representatives of current or former representatives of the Staff of R.P.V. have made some critical errors in findings or they have used other methods to avoid dealing with a few extremely sensitive intersections, all very important to traffic issues regrading Marymount College.

How is it that of the two intersections within the Mira Vista Neighborhood that have cut-through traffic all day and all night, the Traffic Section only dealt with looking primarily at the intersection that has FEWER cut-through traffic than the other intersection/street?

How come the closest signalized intersection to the Palos Verdes North off-campus housing site, directly between Marymount College and its most populated off-campus housing site was practically ignored in the entire Traffic and Circulation Section?

Could it be that the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive North and Western Avenue is so congested already and can't be mitigated to any degree of improvement that either the College or City Staff didn't want to have to deal with it?

During the study portions towards creating the Traffic and Circulation Section of the EIR, a position was taken that regular, anticipated, and forecasted traffic growth would see vehicle traffic increase at a rate of .6% per year until 2012, and presumable beyond that.

In 2005, the Western Avenue Task Force, supported by the Los Angeles City Department of Transportation AND CalTrans produced a studied estimate that regular, anticipated, and forecasted traffic growth would be 1% and not .6% per year and their studies looked out to the year 2025.

Beginning with its initial, studied traffic counts, the approximate number of vehicles driving along Western Avenue anywhere between the intersections of Western Avenue at 25Th Street in San Pedro to Palos Verdes Drive North, just inside Lomita, was approximately 37,500 cars per day.

The Western Avenue Task Force worked with known development proposals at the time and the document was published after Bob Bisno bought the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site, but because the studies were conducted before the U.S.Navy sold Bob the property, nothing that might come with the development of that site was included in the Task Force's findings, other than an expected regular vehicle trip growth of 1% per year.

I am not disgruntled because, according to Marymount statistics, 40% of the added vehicle trips per day would pass directly by my home, but I have stated and continue to state that the figure is in error, and cannot be supported by any real facts as they have been, are now, or would be in the future.

If any of you live higher on The Hill than Enrose Avenue and you need to travel and you want to get to (at least) Western Avenue, there is a fairly good chance you will cut through my Mira Vista Neighborhood and use CRESTWOOD STREET and not Trudie to either turn onto Western Avenue or proceed to Peck Park or to Park Plaza Shopping Center.

Those are the facts, they have held up in numerous studies, and it certainly can be observed any day or night of the week.

When our beloved firefighters and our one Paramedic each shift need to get to Western from the Miraleste Station, they use General Street and CRESTWOOD to get onto Western Avenue, because it is CLOSER than Trudie Drive.

A representative of Marymount explained to me that the College would have had each and every intersection studied if only they had been instructed to by the Traffic Committee (at the time), the consulting traffic engineer, or the staff of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I have to take the gentleman's word as being a representative of a religious organization, but I need to inform both him and others of a few views that I have.

When I served on the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Commission, our group never dictated what intersections, roadways, driveways, or thoroughfares must be studied. I highly doubt that the Traffic Committee at the time had more rights and responsibilities than the Traffic Commission has today and last year.

Mr. Jack Rydell was the consulting traffic engineer for the Mira Vista Traffic Calming Plan and he was the arbiter of what should and need not be studied for streets like Trudie Drive, Crestwood Street, General, Enrose...

It would be extremely doubtful for me to believe that the consulting traffic engineer at the time would have Marymount study plans not include Crestwood as a cut-through street during the time he and others within the city were dealing with a very contentious group of residents within Mira Vista and from without Mira Vista who greatly debated traffic calming, and speed humps in my neighborhood.

I also find it very hard to believe that Mr. Siamak Motahari, the city's engineer would not call for Crestwood Street to be included more in the Traffic and Circulation studies.

Mr. Motahari worked closely with Mr. Rydell, city staff, and the residents of Mira Vista and other neighborhoods throughout the processes that now have many of you who are reading this pass carefully over our speed humps and slow down as you pass by Crestwood Street Elementary School.

I can certainly understand why Marymount and even many within city services want to avoid anything to do with the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive North and Western Avenue.

For those who haven't traveled through that particular intersection, it is the largest intersection, having six lanes on Palos Verdes Drive North pass through four lanes of Western Avenue, not counting turning lanes.

The intersection has turn arrows to help ease congestion, but during peak hours, the backup of several of those turn lanes grows onto regular lanes.

There is a double turning lane on northbound Western to westbound Palos Verdes Drive North, as I am sure you all already know.

This extremely heavily used intersection is directly in the path of not one but TWO routes to and from Marymount College and its Palos Verdes North off-campus housing facility.

Drivers coming from or going to the College have somewhat of a choice of turning south onto Western Avenue or continuing straight to Palos Verdes Drive East where they would get to deal with a hilly, curving, and mostly residential route.

I can think that there really needs to be some kind of information passed to the members of the Planning Commission, City Council, and residents of Rancho Palos Verdes why such an important intersection that Marymount students and staff use every day, was not included in the Traffic and Circulation Section with any greater relevance.

"The public".

Towards the end of the Planning Commission meeting, there were references to whether both representatives of Marymount College and CCC/ME were satisfied with the questions tables generated to help answer outstanding questions regarding the Expansion Project.

Several times during the meeting, it was opined that there are two groups dealing with the Expansion issues; Marymount College and CCC/ME.

Towards the end of the meeting, somebody stated that there are actually three; Marymount College, CCC/ME, and "the public".

I feel it is high time to reveal who may be part of "the public". It is also time for both Marymount College and CCC/ME to understand that if either of those groups do not realize how important "the public" may actually be, then neither of those groups may get what they want.

Naturally I include myself as being a member of "the public". There are quite a few residents living on the east side of Rancho Palos Verdes and in parts of San Pedro who have strong opinions regarding the Expansion Project that yet may get heard.

A large group of "the public" is represented by the seventeen-member Board of Governors of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council. It is within that Council's boundaries that the Palos Verdes North facility is located.

Each of the three Neighborhood Councils within the area of San Pedro, which is part of the city of Los Angeles, represent between 24,000 to about 27,000 households each.

With Northwest, there is the Palos Verdes North facility.

Inside the boundaries of Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council is the Pacific Heights off-campus housing facility.

There is at least one Board member of Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council that has commented on the Pacific Heights facility and problems recurring at that off-campus housing site.

I feel it is important for everyone to understand that though those three Neighborhood Councils are not specifically within Rancho Palos Verdes, many R.P.V. residents claim stakeholder status in at least one of the Councils and I do not feel it would be a good thing to get any of the Boards of those three Councils involved with the Marymount Expansion Project, except one.

I believe Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council should have been involved with parts of the Marymount College Expansion Project.

I can also contend that since Palos Verdes North is situated directly across the street from the boundary of one of the Neighborhood Councils in Harbor City, then that N.C. should probably have been contacted for discussion and informative reasons.

According to the EIR, about 65% of the added traffic would pass through parts of Northwest's territory.

The Living Campus/Academic Campus Alternative would directly impact issues within the purview of Northwest and that Council is keenly aware of issues regarding traffic along Western Avenue.

That Alternative, along with anything built at the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site would impact both residents living in Northwest's area, but also residents of the other two Neighborhood Councils in San Pedro.

With regard to the Marymount Expansion Project being in Rancho Palos Verdes, I feel it would have been courteous to include Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn's office as being part of "the public". Whether their is precedent or not to include lawmakers in other cities being informed or consulted with regards to major expansion projects in an adjacent city, it should probably have been a polite thing to consider Ms. Hahn and her office with regards to what impacts construction and other future traffic might be an issue in her jurisdiction.

Let's be honest, many folks residing near 24Th and Cabrillo Avenue in San Pedro and many folks dealing with the Marymount Expansion Project want nothing better than seeing the Pacific Heights off-campus housing site closed down and sold.

Also, I can make a very convincing argument that any expansion or increase in student residential units at the Palos Verdes North off-campus site would never happen unless Marymount also bought existing dwelling units from the Volunteers of America, also along Palos Verdes Drive North.

The Living Campus/Academic Campus Alternative needs to be removed from real consideration because I doubt that anybody want to deal with the city of Los Angeles, especially when they are going through tremendous fights regarding the over development that has gone on for far too long in that city.

I cannot imagine that Marymount Expansion proponents want to have anything to do with the requirements and funding needed when dealing with L.A.Planning and Transportation.

It appears to me that CCC/ME wants on-campus housing disapproved and that more students should live at Palos Verdes North.

There is already somewhat of a growing opinion that folks on The Hill dump problems onto San Pedro.

Many San Pedrans have a history of feeling of being dumped on by the processes that led to the approval of the original Ocean Trails Golf Course. Many believe that San Pedro and its interests, needs, and opinions were deliberately left out of the Ocean Trails proceedings.

Now that Terranea is well along with construction, there is yet another large facility that will increase traffic though San Pedro and is that fair?

With Ocean Trails/Trump National and Terranea, perhaps Rancho Palos Verdes has asked enough of San Pedro and San Pedrans. Increasing traffic in parts of San Pedro or attempting to increase the Palos Verdes North facility, all the while many of us are trying to work with San Pedrans to keep the Ponte Vista site to the lowest density possible, creates a particular period of time where residents of Rancho Palos Verdes need to work much more closely with our San Pedro neighbors and not further attempt to push something on them they do not want.
---------------------------------------------------------------

It is now time to write what I have been dreading, but I feel must be commented on.

It involves Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College.

First I will comment that I have met Dr. Brophy on several occasions. My wife Terri is a Library Aide at Miraleste Intermediate School and during the beginning of the school year I volunteered to help get textbooks tagged and distributed to students.

One of the library student helpers during the period I volunteered was Master Sullivan Brophy, the son or Dr. and Ms. Brophy. 'Sully' is an incredibly intelligent 8th grader who helped out in so many ways at the library.

He greatly helped incoming 6th graders who seem somewhat fearful of trying to check out books and he freely offered his opinions on the many books he has read.

Dr. and Ms. Brophy have a wonderful son.

Dr. Brophy also has a quick smile and a friendly nature, I feel. He is very willing to greet and talk with folks who do not share his opinion concerning the Marymount Expansion.

It was with so much goodness towards Dr. Brophy that I was more than stunned when he gave his presentation before the Planning Commission on Tuesday evening.

His comments seemed on the very edge of deception and he sounded disingenuous to me with regards to the opposition to the Expansion Project.

Dr. Brophy used the Palos Verdes North site to attempt to analyze what might be found with on-campus housing at Marymount.

This analysis and his comments about not crime being committed was not only flawed, but I felt it played towards a lack of intelligence by members of the audience and the Planning Commission members.

As a matter of fact, there have been over 400 'infractions' dealing with drugs, alcohol, or other things over the past three years, combining students at both off-campus housing sites and government statistics back that up.

Dr. Brophy stated that there has only been one complaint by a residential neighbor of the Palos Verdes North facility.

Dr. Brophy did not admit that the Palos Verdes North facility has housing set back from the six-lane major thoroughfare that separates the student housing from any other residential dwellings.

Dr. Brophy also left out that the facility is completely surrounded by fencing and that the access to the six-lane highway is via a guarded gate.

So as Dr. Brophy continued his comments regarding the off-campus housing site he was willing to compare to what might be found on-campus, I quickly considered he was only talking about one of the TWO off-campus housing facilities Marymount owns.

What about the students, student conduct, and reactions by neighbors of the Pacific Heights off-campus facility?

Dr. Brophy, students are students whether they reside in a completely fenced, guarded and gated facility separated by a highly used six-lane roadway or they live in an apartment building directly next door to neighbors in an area of less than comfortable parking.

I know Dr. Brophy and others want the Pacific Heights facility closed and sold, and I can even imagine a great number of neighbors living in that area may make up the majority.

But student actions must not be ignored at Pacific Heights by trying to analyze Palos Verdes North. I have considered the brain trust of the audience members attending the Planning Commission meeting and I need to state it was quite awesome to listen to everyone and understand that if Dr. Brophy was really attempting to 'talk down' to anyone, it failed miserably.

Dr. Brophy, we get it. Marymount College needs the Expansion Project because as a business, it needs to increase its market position. You said it, I read it (very quickly) and I understand.

But I doubt that Marymount College, an institution owned by a religious group is subject to taxes that are needed to support the infrastructure required to operate a residential facility 24/7.

I know that the Planning Commission has seen the slide, several times, that purports to show what benefits Rancho Palos Verdes residents get from having Marymount in Rancho Palos Verdes. I just happen to believe those benefits are enough to compensate for the imposition placed on residents of eastern Rancho Palos Verdes, northwest San Pedro, southern Rancho Palos Verdes, and other areas, and all the problems on-campus housing would create.

I also feel it is disengenuous to attempt to equate Marymount College to any four-year institution. There are more differences between a two-year college and a four-year college than there are similarities in housing, infrastructure needs, and other area.

I hope everyone can consider one item that came up via comments at the Planning Commission meeting.

Currently and for a period of time, Marymount College has been on an academic warning because of several factors.

Wouldn't it be better to have Marymount College be removed from academic warning and keep that status for a period of time before it attempts to get expanded to increase its market position?

What good is enlarging a failing institution?

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Comments Regarding the R.P.V. Planning Commission Meeting on January 27, 2009 Part 1

Marymount College needs its Expansion Project approved because it needs to increase the College's market position. More about this further down this post.

I don't think I got the above statement close enough to be a quote, but that is one thing Dr. Brophy stated and showed on a very quickly changing Power Point slide during his comments before four members of the Planning Commission.

Dr. Brophy is the current President of Marymount College in Rancho Palos Verdes. His comment was just one of an amazing number of comments I heard coming from all sides of the issues related to the Marymount College Expansion Project.

The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission was continuing its hearing on the proposed project that will bring massive changes to the campus, if all the proposed items are approved.

The Commission normally has seven members dealing with planning issues, but three of the members have apparently recused themselves, with the latest Commissioner recusing himself at the beginning of the meeting.

The meeting began with two items unrelated to the Marymount Expansion project, but both of them revealed something many would find remarkable.

If you live in a 'regular' city the issues of where to cut branches on a neighbor's tree would not be anything worth bringing up to any size group.

This is NOT the case is Rancho Palos Verdes.

The Planning Commission spent about 20 minutes dealing with staff reports, illustrations, photos, and comments dealing with the very strict view ordinance that Rancho Palos Verdes has.

Folks in 'regular' cities would probably watch each other as heads exploded all around and laughter is replaced by screams of, "get on with it!!!"

In the end, I think the matter was tabled until more information about what should be cut from the tree between 15 feet from the ground and about 17 feet from the ground.

As I was pouring my brains back into my skull, the matter of a permit to add a pool, spa, and deck area next to a 8,500 square foot house was being considered.

The problem seems to have been with a 2% difference in the footprint of the improvements to the land and how much the shared driveway brought to the discussions.

Again, my head exploded, but I scooped up the matter and shoved it back in while the Commissioners dealt with the applicant's issue.

When the four Commissioners who remained to deal with the Marymount issue got ready, the evening's festivities got under way.

It looked like the Commission was going to try to tackle only several of the remaining issues regarding their attempts to either certify the Final Environmental Impact Report or vote is down. This is something that looks like it will take another two months or so to get final resolution from the Planning Commission, so time still keeps ticking along.

The Monday meeting seems to have dealt with grading issues, setback issues, some parking issues, and the Athletic Building. Some other issues regarding sign placement was also on the docket.

But what seemed to become the most important issue to discuss and debate was the proposed screen/fencing (netting) around the large athletic field.

Keeping balls off of Palos Verdes Drive East is a real safety issue and it is going to be important.

Whatever anyone wishes to call it, some of the netting will be permanently placed and some of it will be able to be raised and lowered.

A comment made by a College representative was that the netting would provide 80% of its area able to be seen through.

Many questions were asked about where the netting would be higher than in other areas and there were quite a few questions and comments about the section of netting that could be raised to a height of 20 feet off the ground and lowered when the fields are not in use.

Comments, questions, and speculative answers were offered throughout the evening regarding the temporary raising of the netting and what the other heights for netting around the field might be.

NOBODY, I mean ZERO folks seemed bothered that the poles for any and all the netting would be permanent and would not go up or down. HELLO!

Folks were so worried about what the netting would do to their views they didn't seem to consider that the netting cannot be supported by hooks and wires attached to clouds.

Folks, the poles that the netting will be attached to will obstruct views all around about 3/4 of the circumference of the large field. It is still kind of tough to look through steel poles unless you were born on the planet Krypton.

The College wants a variance to build a residence hall about 450 feet from the closest parking space to it. The code indicates that the distance must be no longer than 150 feet in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

The hall in question is named Residence Hall No. 1 for the purposes of identification.

Much was made about the concept that students could walk to Hall No. 1 by going through Hall No. 2 that would be located within the 150 foot limit.

Codes will be codes though and Hall No 1 would not meet the code for its "Primary Entrance".

There were comments and questions about that by the public and Commissioners to members of the staff of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Nobody commented though that going from the parking lot to the "Primary Entrance" of Hall No. 1 would require students to walk outside a distance longer than a football field.

How many of you would want to have that walk carrying books, bags, and food while it is raining or cold or foggy?

The College stated a plan to deal with how far Residence Hall No 1 would be from the parking lot.
They came up with the concept that only freshmen would live in Residence Hall No. 1 and freshmen would not be allowed to have cars on campus.

This plan was only a thought and is not in any formal proposal that the College would be mandated to stick by.

So, if you attend Marymount as a freshman and live on campus, when you return for your second year you would be housed in the other Residence Hall.

Wait a minute! Residence Halls. Many Colleges supplement their income by welcoming groups of students with Summer programs that have visiting students reside in on-campus Residence Halls during the period when regular students would not be attending college.

Nobody brought this up during the meeting.

If Marymount got Residence Halls and you believe what is written at the top of this post, might Marymount Administrators use the Summer to bring in groups that they could house on-campus and provide some type of classes or other instruction?

Cheerleader camp? What about Band camp? Anybody consider the distracting nature of having several hundred cheerleaders and drill team members doing their thing on the large athletic field? I doubt that the netting would hide the views from the local high school boys that would park along P.V. Drive East to ogle.

What about a wonderful, residential Band camp? Just imagine the revenue that Marymount might receive by having a great summer music program on campus. Noise? Oops, I don't think anyone though of that.

According to the R.P.V. Staff Report and just about every other report about Residence Halls, they would be built on fill dirt.

There is an issue concerning an extreme grade area in the area where the Residence Halls are proposed. The way that the College wishes to get around that is to use the cut and fill methods to eliminate the extreme grade condition.

The second speaker for the College stated at the beginning of his comments that the Staff Report was incorrect in that the Residence Halls would not be built on fill.

Later during a question and answer period between that person and a member of the Planning Commission, the speaker answered a question by stating the Residence Halls would be built on fill dirt.

Now about cut and fill. It is remarkable that the College proposes to cut 51,000 cubic yards of material for their Expansion and fill 51,000 cubic yards for their expansion.

I think I need to call Ripley's.

I spoke to a representative of the College who explained to me that there would not need to be any dump trucks traveling up and down roads in R.P.V. and San Pedro because all the material cut from the site would be spread out over the site and that all the fill needed would come from the material cut from the greater site.

What I still don't know and what I don't think anyone knows right now is how much bentonite is within the soils to be cut.

Bentonite is clay formed by the alteration of minute glass particles derived from volcanic ash and cannot be used for fill, so it could be spread out over land that won't have any building on it, but it can't be used under any new buildings.

What is they find about 150 tons of bentonite? What would they use for fill when the cut amount equals the fill amount?

Might this mean that a number of trucks would need to lumber around R.P.V. and San Pedro roads to bring more fill dirt onto the site?

What about the large rocks and boulders that must not be crushed on the Marymount site. Would dump trucks be needed to move that material off the property?

How many trips might dump trucks make? What routes would they take? What jurisdictions might need to become involved (San Pedro) because of an unknown number of trucks traveling on streets that are already clogged by regular traffic?

The President of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce spoke that the group supports the Marymount Expansion Project and hopes the Final Environmental Impact Report can be certified.

This is not an unexpected thing but I have it on pretty good authority that Madam President may not like what will be coming forth.

The President stated that students attending the College would actively contribute to the local economy.

I hope that the students living on-campus, if they are, are only dropped of at Ralph's Fresh Faire, Golden Cove Shopping Center, or along the west side of Western Avenue. These sites make up the bulk of the businesses and sales tax revenue generation for the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, the host of Marymount College.

If shuttles drop off student-shoppers at Peninsula Center, the local Mall and all along Silver Spur, they will be generating sales tax revenue for the city of Rolling Hills Estates.

If the shuttle has a drop off at Park Plaza Shopping Center or downtown San Pedro, then sales tax revenue would be welcomed in the city of Los Angeles.

One of the issues I am still wondering about is what the benefits to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes might be by having the expansion take place.

The one slide that the College uses to attempt to illustrate whatever benefits they claim local residents might enjoy flashed by so fast I couldn't see what it stated.

I don't believe that Rancho Palos Verdes would have its residents benefit by the increased property tax and business tax revenues from Marymount because as I understand it, religious organizations do not pay taxes for the most part.

Placing 255 residents on-campus where the closest fire station has an engine and small vehicle to share with the College, parts of southern Rancho Palos Verdes and all of eastern Rancho Palos Verdes means those of us who pay property taxes would be funding the infrastructure of a new housing project that would have 255 more souls needing support.

Please remember, our fire station in Miraleste has a paramedic 24/7 on its engine by NO paramedic unit stationed there.

So, on-campus housed students would need to be supported by infrastructure they don't pay for and they will spend their money mostly outside Rancho Palos Verdes.

Might you see where I am going with this?

Since the College Administration has taken the position that it will be up to the Planning Commission and/or the City Council to determine whether managed groups are able to utilize athletic facilities and other facilities at Marymount, we still don't know whether AYSO soccer might come to the campus as a benefit to the community.

I did see a quick montage of students who donate their time to groups in the greater area, but I didn't see any slides that showed student contributions to groups specifically within Rancho Palos Verdes.

I did see some great students aiding groups in San Pedro and that is wonderful.

The main opposition group to the Marymount Expansion Project is the Concerned Citizens Coalition for Marymount Expansion (CCCME).

One of the positions of CCCME apparently is that one specific Alternative to the Proposed Project's plans be implemented instead of having on-campus housing allowed.

CCCME, by at least two comments during the meeting suggested that the Palos Verdes North off-campus housing site be enlarged and that the main athletic facilities be put there.

How can I put this mildly? Are they NUTS?

I have attempted for some time to get these folks to understand that there can be no enlargement of the facilities along Palos Verdes Drive North. I am quite sure Dr. Brophy and just about everyone else concerned with Marymount have no intention of going up against the city of Los Angeles, no matter whether a negative declaration is in place or not.

If CCCME wishes to continue with their attempt to get the Planning Commission to disapprove of having on-campus housing built in favor of having the Commission approve the Alternative which calls for enlargement of the Palos Verdes North facility, we all would see a bru-ha-ha that would last far too long and would end up with Marymount losing.

Marymount already has problems in San Pedro with their Pacific Heights off-campus housing site. San Pedrans don't want it and Marymount wants to get rid of it.

But no matter what, attempts to get approval for anything new or bigger along Palos Verdes Drive North would bring in probably all three Neighborhood Councils within San Pedro and we would see Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council take the lead at fighting any and all attempts to enlarge Palos Verdes North.

Of course, there is also the Neighborhood Councils in Harbor City and the city of Lomita that would also wish to enter the fray.

If memory serves me correctly at this point, Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council alone represents about 25,000 households within its area of San Pedro.

The next post on this subject will deal more with details, revelations, questions, and arguments that should be shared. I promise that I will be less disjointed in my writing.

The next hearing by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission regarding the Marymount Expansion Project has been moved to Tuesday March 10, 2009.

I apologize for the ramblings of this post but I wanted to write it as soon as possible to keep it fresh. This last sentence was written at 2:29 AM on Wednesday January 28, 2009.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Free Performance For Seniors!!!!!

Do you want to see an off-Broadway comedy for FREE? Are you a senior citizen?

If you answer yes to those two questions, Ray Buffer and The Relevant Stage Theatre Company have a great deal for YOU!

The Relevant Stage Theatre Company (TRS) at San Pedro's Warner Grand Theatre in conjunction with the City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs, has partnered with Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council to present a special performance of the musical comedy that celebrates love and relationships: "I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change" , featuring live actors/singers and musicians - on Friday, February 13, 2009 at 1PM for Senior Citizens and other Social Services.

Admission will be FREE for this special daytime performance the day before Valentine's Day, to adults 55 and over.

This notice is meant to encourage groups to book in advance. There is no limit to the number per group, but groups are requested to make a reservation so that seats are held. For assisted care facilities that cannot provide transportation, buses may be provided by Councilwoman Hahn's office by contacting them directly.

TRS can provide you with more information after you express interest.

Please reply to this invitation by email or phone as soon as possible to secure your group's seats.

Duration of the performance is 1 hour and 40 minutes. Contact seniors@therelevantstage.com or call (310) 929-8129.Feel free to forward this notice to others who specialize in Senior Care and Assistance, particularly within radius to downtown San Pedro.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Free! How can you beat that!A funny comedy presented by a company that continues to grow and develop into a great company of actors, technicians, backstage personnel, and management.

Did I mention it is FREE on Friday February 13, 2009 at 1:00 PM. If you miss this FREE performance, then you'll be just like me and have to pay to see the play.

Planning Commission Meeting Regarding Marymount's Expansion

The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission will continue to take oral comments concerning the Marymount College Expansion Project at is meeting scheduled for Tuesday January 27, 2009, beginning at 7:00 PM, inside the City Council Chambers at Hesse Park.

You are also encouraged to contribute written comments to the Planning Commission and you may do that via Email, using the Marymount College Expansion Project in the subject line and sending the Email to: aram@rpv.com That address is for Mr. Ara Mihranian, the city's manager for the project.

The Expansion Project's most controversial aspect is the proposition of placing 128-on campus dormitory rooms to house 250 students and 5 faculty advisers.

I will posting this notice on three of my blogs and providing some different comments on each blog, depending on the blog.

For eastern Rancho Palos Verdes, adding over 1,500 vehicle trips every weekday the college is in session, with about 65% of the added trips going through portions of eastern R.P.V. begins to make it a slam dunk in my opinion, that the Expansion Project must be critically questioned.

40% of the added vehicle trips will turn at Crestwood Street and Western Avenue and head along Western Avenue.

It is my opinion that the college wants on-campus housing as a marketing tool that will suggest to parents of prospective students the college administration will have more control over the students' out of class living and doings.

Our friends living around the Pacific Heights off-campus housing near 24Th and Cabrillo, in San Pedro, would be more than grateful to have the students gone from that area and the building sold by the college.

Should residents and drivers in the eastern R.P.V. area be subjected to becoming caretakers and student-sitters of students attending a private college? I think not!

The education currently provided at Marymount College is very good and so much better than practically every other 2-year college in the greater L.A. area. But that fact does not mean we have to put up with young drivers on our streets when so many of us feel it is unnecessary, dangerous, and will do nothing positive for our neighborhoods and our residents.

It is my opinion that if some expansion is authorized at Marymount, it does NOT include any on-campus housing or making it a 24-hour a day site.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

The Golden State Pops Orchestra, www.gspo.com has become an institution in OUR community.

Residents from all over the eastern Rancho Palos Verdes have enjoyed concerts performed by this orchestra for years.

Every year the concerts get better and better and a wider variety of programs are being introduced.

The Orchestra has welcomed guest conductors whose music they created has been used in motion pictures. Guest soloists have provided outstanding music that cannot be believed to be coming from such local organization.

The overall talent demonstrated by all the members of the Orchestra combines musicians involved in education, movie and television production, live musical theater, other professionals, and others to create an evening of enjoyment for everyone.

Click over image to enlarge.

The Orchestra's conductor, Mr. Steven Fox goes out of his way to create brave new adventures in music enjoyment that are rarely heard anywhere else.

One of the concerts that is truly unbelievable is the recurring music taken from video games.

Conductor Fox probably only hoped for the great reaction he received when he ventured into an arena heard mostly by younger people, but appreciated so much by those of us who are not into video games.

As you read the schedule for both the Golden State Pops Orchestra and what will be produced at the Warner Grand Annex, I think you will find a larger array of music programs now scheduled.

One of the former criticisms of the programs was that not enough truly classical music was presented.

With the previous few programs that offered opera soloists and a program where a tenor brought the house completely down after the audience heard something nothing short of magic, it now looks like music lovers of many more types of music will have something to enjoy.

Now I have to admit, Terri and I have been to as many concerts as we possibly could have attended over the years and I even attended concerts in a wheel chair and on crutches.

I am not that objective when it comes to GSPO.

They are OUR Orchestra and I hope we continue to grow the audience numbers at both the Warner Grand Theater and at the Warner Grand Annex.

The GSPO season ends each year with the free 4th of July Concert at Cabrillo Beach. It has become a larger event every year and there is no stopping the pride and pleasure afforded by that Concert.

Monday, January 5, 2009

Traffic Safety Commission Hearing Regarding the Marymount Expansion Project-Part 1

Since this and additional posts will deal with the Marymount College Expansion Project, I will begin by letting you all know some facts and information that you might not already know.

This and future posts will be read by supporters of the plan to add educational facilities, dormitories, athletic facilities, and parking to the campus located on Palos Verdes Drive North AND will also be read by opponents of many or all of the plans, I feel I want you all to know this and to know more about me and why I feel I am qualified to write on these subjects.

My given name is Mark Wells and my most read blog is the "Ponte Vista Blog" at: http://www.pontevista.blogspot.com/

I first came to the home I live in on May 4, 1955 in the hands of one of my parents. I was all of one-day old at the time.

The home I reside in is in the original "Eastview" tract of homes, the first tract of homes built between Western Avenue and Miraleste Drive/Palos Verdes Drive East. Construction on the home my father bought while it was still under construction was in late 1948-early 1949.

I received my driver's license on May 3, 1971 and have driven countless miles all over the peninsula since then. I have also biked, hiked, and casually walked all over the area since I was a youth.

I left the home when it was still considered to be in "San Pedro" (although it technically never was because it was built in the unincorporated area of L.A. County) in 1976 when I joined the U.S. Air Force.

I returned to the home in July, 1998 with my second wife, but was a very constant visitor to the home during the time other members of my family lived there.

I was recently retired from AT&T after an almost 28-year career.

I am a Steering Committee member of R Neighborhoods Are 1, a group that is the primary watchgroup dealing with what is being proposed for the Ponte Vista project area in northwest San Pedro.

I own a copy of and have studied the Western Avenue Task Force binder that was a multi-year study dealing with Western Avenue from Palos Verdes Drive North, to Paseo Del Mar, in San Pedro.

I have attended a class in understanding and using the processes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and I have been involved in learning about and commenting on various Draft Environmental Impact Reports, (DEIR), Final Environmental Impact Reports (FEIR), Notices of Preparation (NOP), Initial Studies (IS) Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements, and other documents and processes involved with CEQA.

I have read and created comments on the Environmental Studies for the Marymount College Expansion Project.

From April, 2007 to December, 2008, I was a member of the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commission.

I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Mira Vista Homeowners Association and I was a member of that body during the time Neighborhood Traffic Calming was studied and instituted in the Mira Vista Neighborhood of Rancho Palos Verdes.

(The Mira Vista Neighborhood was the second of four neighborhoods in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes to receive traffic calming, including Speed Humps and I was very much in favor of that.

I have done a great deal of reading concerning the Marymount College Expansion Project, with emphasis on Traffic and Circulation sections and the concept of placing on-campus dormitories at the College.

I am very knowledgeable when dealing with traffic studies and have a keen understanding of issues related to Western Avenue and eastern Rancho Palos Verdes.

My wife works at Miraleste Intermediate School where I have done volunteer work for several years.

I feel very confident that I do know the issues revolving traffic and circulation as it relates to the Marymount College Expansion Project, its Alternatives, and items concerning living situations at the two off-campus housing sites the College operates.
---------------------------------------------------------------

The Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commission held a hearing concerning the Marymount College Expansion Project's Traffic and Circulation Section on Monday January 5, 2009.

Chairman David Kramer was joined by returning Commission Member Mr. Stanislav Parvinov for the first part of the meeting and also Mr. Shawn Jejad and Ms. Lynn Swank, two new members of the Commission.

Mr. Bryan Klatt, another new member of the Commission was absent.

Mr. Parvinov recused himself from the hearing part of the meeting due to his recent employment with a firm that did third party work on the Project.

I wish to congratulate Stan on his appointment to the post of Traffic Planner with his new company and I know he is a great addition to that organization. Having a real Traffic Planner on the Traffic Safety Commission can be nothing but a plus for that group.

The hearing took on the form of hearings conducted in the past on the Marymount Project, with the Traffic Safety Commission.

The city Staff presented the project's synopsis at the Hearing.

After that, Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President began a 30-minute presentation on the merits of the project and reasoning why it should be approved. Dr. Brophy was joined by others to present the project to the Commission members.

Concerned Citizens Coalition for Marymount Expansion (CCCME) was given 30 minutes to counter the presentation made by the proponents of the project.

The public was then allowed about 3-minutes each to provide their own comments about the project's Traffic and Circulation section.

There were four of possibly five individuals who spoke in support of the project, including having on-campus dormitories and opinions that there would not be any significant traffic and parking issues related to the project's approval.

I needed to write that there may have been five who spoke in support because one of the individuals wrote an Email in support, but during his time to speak, he seemed to counter some of the items in his Email.

I didn't count the number of individuals who spoke against the Traffic and Circulation or Parking section of the proposal. It was clearly more than spoke in support.

When it was my turn to provide comments, I certainly did.

After I mentioned my name, I stated that I would only use facts in my comments, which I did.

I initially stated the fact that Marymount College provides and excellent education to its students and I truly believe that. I then stated less loudly that it (the College) was just in the wrong place.

I mentioned that I lived in the Mira Vista Neighborhood, the only neighborhood named during the entire evening.

I gave the members a bit of my personal history.

The next part of my comments is very technical so I hope I can explain it for all to understand.

Background first. When the Mira Vista HOA applied for Traffic Calming in our neighborhood it signalled the start of a long process that included counting vehicles going into and out of the neighborhood from various intersections.

During the traffic counting process, two signalized intersections had numerous counts done and the findings were used to establish guidelines and warrants for traffic calming.

One intersection was Trudie Drive at Western Avenue. That intersection was used in the Mira Vista Traffic Calming studies.

The other intersection was Crestwood Street at Western Avenue.

During ALL of the studies, counts, and reports for the neighborhood, the intersection of Crestwood Street at Western Avenue consistently had higher traffic volumes than the intersection of Trudie Drive at Western Avenue.

Even after the Speed Humps were finally installed (AFTER THE TRAFFIC STUDIES FOR MARYMOUNT WERE CONDUCTED), it has always be reported that the intersection of Crestwood at Western Avenue has more vehicles, turns, and traffic than the intersection of Trudie and Western.

The intersection of Crestwood Street at Western Avenue HAS BEEN LEFT OUT of any traffic mitigation for the proposed Marymount Expansion Project.

In essence, the consultants omitted the one intersection in Mira Vista that actually would be more impacted by the Expansion Project that the one intersection in Mira Vista they actually included.

NO staff member was willing to answer any questions as to why the more impacted intersection was omitted.

I told the members of the Commission that my home was under the black dot on the figure that stated that my street would receive a 40% increase in traffic because of the Marymount Expansion Project.

I also pointed out that folks living around the 24th Street and Cabrillo off-campus housing for Marymount College would be happy to see dorms on-campus because it would relieve many parking and partying problems at that site.

Of course I mentioned that one would have to travel east of the Mississippi River to find another private College with on-campus housing.

I mentioned Columbia College in northern California. it is a public 2-year College with adjacent dormitories with signs calling for no alcohol at those dorms.

Continuing with that mention was the statement that most 2-year College students are under the legal drinking age in California.

I gave the URL of this blog and mentioned that I will follow up with more postings including photos of the Mira Vista area, Columbia College, and other things associated with Western Avenue and eastern Rancho Palos Verdes.

Chairman Kramer then conducted a straw poll of the audience. He asked all those in favor of the city's report on the project to raise their hands. One side of the isle had all the individuals raise their hands.

Mr. Kramer then asked all those who supported the comments made by CCCME members to raise their hands. There were certainly more of us raising our hands than those who supported the Expansion Project. (Please remember this.)

Chair Kramer then opened up the discussion by the members of the Commission so they could provide their own comments.

Both Mr. Nejad and Ms. Swank were very concerned about parking on the campus and potential for parking problems remaining on surface streets.

Mr. Nejad was concerned about local street parking and asked a specific question that was answered by staff about that. Mr. Nejad was also concerned that he didn't seem to know how the parking situation could be fixed and he wanted some more information and discussions within the Traffic Safety Commission to deal with parking and the Marymount Expansion Project.

Ms. Swank stated that she lives in an area where parking restrictions using tags on vehicles is done and that it is a problem, some of the time.

Ms. Swank also commented that when students get together in a dormitory-type living arrangement, "group think" can take over and behaviour is different.

When it was time for Chair Kramer to speak, he talked about bicycle traffic, parking, and he seemed to be approving of the staff report dealing with the Expansion Project.

Mr. Kramer opined that perhaps less parking on campus would necessitate the requirement for fewer cars going to and from the campus. "All colleges have parking problems", he stated.
(More later).

When the intra-Commission discussions were complete, something unique happened.

Ever since I began showing up at (then) Traffic Safety Committee meetings and all the while I served on the Traffic Safety Commission, I NEVER heard a motion brought up by the chairperson of either of those two groups.

During this particular hearing, Chairman David Kramer made a motion to recommend approval Staff Report supporting the Traffic and Circulation Section of the FEIR and pass that recommendation on to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council.

The motion was seconded and passed 3-0.

(Please look down to the post, Is The Fix On?)

Now here are some comments overheard or just things I want to post.

Many folks commented about "garbage in, garbage out" and didn't seem to believe much of the tables and items offered by the proponents of the project.

Dr. Brophy commented on the Code of Conduct by students at the College. I opined to him later that the Code didn't seem to work too well at 24th and Cabrillo.

Several folks mentioned that every year there would be a new crop of young drivers/students going to and from the campus at the top of switchbacks where fog can also be a problem.

The Palos Verdes North off-campus site has 86 units and "about" 300 students and faculty living there.

According to the Expansion Proposal, 128 dormitory rooms would be built on the campus for 255 students and faculty. (I think the ratio of the two sites seems a bit askew, don't you?)

The College is using Apartment residents for its trip generation numbers because the Institute for Traffic Engineering (ITE) does not have a table for on-campus dormitories.

Dr. Brophy tried to compare the campus to a home. He opined that if you think of the campus as a home and the number of folks living in the 'home' doesn't change, the number of cars and vehicle trips shouldn't change.

A professor from U.S.C. spoke that you simply cannot compare Marymount to any home because right now, Marymount has zero folks living there and if dorms were built, the dynamics would most definitely change.

Also, several folks brought up a very true fact; Right now Marymount operates as basically, a daily-use site with some use during the days on weekends.

If dormitories are built on the campus, it would become something it has never been. a 24/7 time of place where it would be in operation 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

One thing that wasn't mentioned by Expansion supporters is something buried in the FEIR. Discussions have been made about using the dormitories on-campus, during the summer, for activities like Cheerleader camps or other functions that would bring younger folks to the site 24/7, even during the summer.

One thing that was mentioned in my opinion, far too many times was the parking situation.

The Staff Report mentioned over and over again that IF the Expansion Project is approved the College would REMAIN out of code in terms of the number of parking spaces required.

Proponents of the Expansion Project came up with proposals for dealing with the problems that would use instruction as a main mitigation and limiting some on-campus parking.

One item was to restrict parking for visitors to dormitories during certain hours of the day.

HELLO! wouldn't those visitors simply park on the street and walk to the dorms?

All of the parking mitigation proposed would still not get the College out of Code violation. It would require a variance by the City Council to allow from fewer parking spaces than the Code requires.

One fact is clear but has quite a few opponents. The intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East does warrant a traffic signal being installed.

The attorney for the Expansion Project will get up and tell you out of one side of his mouth that the College would pay 100% of the cost of placing the Traffic Signal.

He will then sit down, get right back up and claim that since the intersection became warranted for a Traffic Signal before the Expansion Project got to this point, the College should only be required to pay its "Fair Share" for the signal.

Personal opinion here.....I believe as former TSC members Mr. Jim Jones and Mr. Barry Hildebrand and others believe that the intersection doesn't really need a traffic signal.

Having a signal there where there is such a very long pedestrian crossing of Miraleste Drive, the backup that would force folks to use Via Colinita or the Miraleste Plaza cut through, would be a hindrance for too many hours of the day.

On a future post about these matters, I will provide photos of Columbia College's just-off-campus dorms and the signs about no alcohol.

I will also provide more detailed photos and information about traffic, speed humps, and issues involving Western Avenue.

I have quite a lot of useful and useless trivia, facts, opinion, documentation, and resources and I would be glad to answer any and all questions you might have.

All of my blogs invite others to create their own posts that I would publish just like I publish the posts I create.

All of my blogs always invite comments from anyone and everyone. Knowledge is power and the more you know about the Expansion Project, the more wisely you can comment about it.

So now that I am coming close to the end of this first part, here is my basic summary of what I currently believe and some reasons I have found to believe them.

Once upon a time, parents of out of State and out of Country students attending Marymount went to the Administration of the College and told them they wanted more observation of and monitoring of their kids while they attended school in Rancho Palos Verdes.

The Trustees of the College hoping to attract even more out of State and out of Country students (and their parents money) thought of ways to have those students watched and controlled more closely.

How about we put them on-campus 24/7, make them use shuttles to get around, and keep them happy with more things to do while they stay at the top of the swithchbacks?

Now all we have to do is counter the opponents of the added monitoring and get the City Council to go along with residents being at least partially responsible for 'babysitting' the kids.

Perhaps we may need to change the makeup of the Traffic Safety Commission and change the Chair to one more favorable in approving the Project.

(Commissioner Parvinov was the Chair of the TSC prior to the recent shakeup where the members of the City Council appointed Commissioner Kramer as the new chair. Commissioner Parvinov had only been the Chair for several meetings before he was removed. Did I happen to mention that Commissioner Parvinov is a real Traffic Planner?).

My current thinking is that the current makeup of the City Council is finally sick and tired of dealing with the Marymount College Expansion Project that has gone of for so many years.

Perhaps they are now willing to allow approval, dispite the straw vote by the Planning Commission, so they can be done with the whole thing.

The Council may be tired of fighting with the College about the Administration's attempts to market their college to out of area students and their parents by becoming something that is unprecedented this side of the Mississippi.

I for one, do not believe Rancho Palos Verdes residents should have any part in more monitoring of the students attending Marymount. It is not our job and we will get nothing but more traffic, more collisions, and more trouble if we allow on-campus housing.

If the College's Administration cannot deal with students living off-campus, even with their "Code of Conduct", then it seems the failures lie with them and not with the residents of our great city and San Pedro.

It's too bad that all the buildings at the campus can't be moved to the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site. There is much better traffic circulation there, fewer switchbacks, its miles closer to the Palos Verdes North housing site, and more local residents might want to take up classes there.

Traffic Safety Commission Hearing Regarding the Marymount Expansion Project-Part 2

Part two of the process is my 'show and tell' portion where I provide the promised illustrations and documentation to back up my claim that the Traffic and Circulation Section of the EIR is flawed and it does not contain some very important information that affects east Rancho Palos Verdes residents and others who use the Mira Vista Neighborhood to transit from one area to another.

With all of the illustrations, to enlarge them for better viewing, simply move your cursor over the image and click.

The Mira Vista Neighborhood was the only neighborhood mentioned during the meeting by parties on all sides of the issues. Therefore it is important to learn about that neighborhood and some important roadways that hundreds and thousands of folks use every day.

The Mira Vista Neighborhood is comprised of approximately 600 single-family homes and are the oldest tracts of housing in the Eastview area.

The Mira Vista Neighborhood is one of two neighborhoods in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and the three other cities on the peninsula to have an L.A.U.S.D. school inside it.

Crestwood Street Elementary School has operated in the neighborhood since the 1950's when the area was part of unincorporated Los Angeles County.

The vast majority of students attending Crestwood live in the San Pedro area of Los Angeles due to the fact that students living within Rancho Palos Verdes, even directly across the street from the school are allowed to attend P.V.P.U.S.D. schools, which they do, to the tune of about 80% of all students living in the Eastview area.

The first illustration is of the area of the Mira Vista Neighborhood.

The neighborhoods boundaries consist of Western Avenue to the east, Miraleste Drive to the west, the canyon between Jaybrook and Caddington to the north and we share Summerland Avenue to the south with our neighbors in the San Pedro area of the city of Los Angeles.

The illustration includes colored routes associated with the TWO routes folks utilize to come into, out of, and cut through the Mira Vista Neighborhood.

The route colored in blue is associated with the Staff Report and EIR for the Marymount College Expansion Project. It is referred to as "Trudie" and it is the route suggested by planners as the ONLY route available from Western Avenue to Miraleste Drive via Via Colinita.

In red coloring is Crestwood Street, General Street, and Summerland Avenue. This route will be shown to actually have more vehicles using it than Trudie and it has been omitted from consideration in the Marymount College Expansion Project.

You also need to know that both the Trudie route and the Crestwood route contain speed humps on various streets.

Along Enrose, between Via Colinita and Summerland, the city of Los Angeles has placed one speed table, which is a little different from our city's speed humps.

In Mira Vista there are a number of speed humps on Trudie, Enrose, General and Fairhill, but there are no speed humps on the shared Summerland Avenue.

For many reasons, the Mira Vista Neighborhood received Traffic Calming in the form of some lowering of speed limits around Crestwood Street Elementary School and the speed humps now found in the neighborhood.

In fact, Mira Vista jumped over two other neighborhoods who had their residents request Traffic Calming before Mira Vista residents did.

Now to the next illustration.

The illustration above has the actual traffic counts before and after speed humps were provisioned in the Mira Vista Neighborhood.

The illustration shows the actual numbers of vehicles counted on the most eastern block of both Trudie Drive and Crestwood Street as they near Western Avenue.

In ALL cases, there are more vehicles counted using Crestwood Street at Western Avenue than there are using Trudie Drive at Western Avenue.

This document, and the studies were funded by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and they have not been found to be in error.

The table also informs everyone as to the dates the counts were taken and those counts have been in the possession of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes since 2005!

It is AMAZING to me to see that the figures concerning Crestwood Street were not included in any studies for the Marymount Project.

When I asked the Planner for the Marymount Project why Crestwood Street and its majority vehicle traffic through Mira Vista was not included, I received no answer.

The next two illustrations taken from the Mira Vista Traffic Calming Project reports clearly show that the most impacted intersection relating to Mira Vista is NOT Trudie at Western, it is clearly Crestwood at Western.

The facts have been in front of us for years. Crestwood Street is more impacted by traffic flow than Trudie Drive is, with or without any mitigation at either intersections with Western Avenue.
Now it is time to provide illustrations found in the Traffic and Circulation Section and Appendix for the Marymount College Expansion Project.
I have not been able to find traffic counts at intersections like the ones provided during the Mira Vista Traffic Calming processes, but there are illustrations of traffic count found in the Marymount Project documents using other forms.
Crestwood Street at Western Avenue has been studies 'somewhat' for the Project, but as you can view below, the Marymount Plans do not include Crestwood Street as being any type of route used by drivers cutting through the Mira Vista Neighborhood.
In fact as you can see, the illustration of Crestwood Street does not even show the fact that it intersects with both Western Avenue AND Enrose. There is also NO illustrations of either Summerland Avenue or General Street, both of them have traffic going to and from the Marymount Campus every day the school is in session.
The traffic counts used for illustrating Trudie are marked in a yellow-bordered box that has the number "7" associated with it. Crestwood is Number 8 on the illustration.
Now below, is some more proof that Crestwood is more impacted. This time the information was taken from the illustration shown immediately above and placed in a format that I found more easy to understand.

There is a total of ONE occurrence where Trudie Drive is more impacted by folks turning off of or onto Western Avenue, than Crestwood Street is.
Crestwood Street continues a very short distance to the east of Western Avenue and goes to the Park Plaza Shopping Center and into Peck Park.
Trudie Drive becomes Capitol Drive as the pavement is involved with Western Avenue. Capitol Drive continues east through a residential area in ends at Gaffey Street adjacent to the parking lot of the new Target Store that opened in October, 2008.
Now it seems everyone is tired of all the studies that have been done, even the severely deficient ones and many people want some kind of quicker resolution to the Marymount issues.
When the lesser impacted intersection is used and the more impacted intersection is virtually ignored, it seems that either somebody somewhere didn't look at the records for the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, or they deliberately withheld studies that would have demonstrated more problems with traffic than some want to admit.
Someone picked the lesser of two evils and it was probably for the benefit of the proponents of the College's Expansion Project. I simply can't prove that yet.
There surely is some demonstration of ignorance on the part of at least a few folks to not consider the Crestwood situation when it has been around since at least March 10, 2005.
Either somebody didn't look or they were told not to look or there was a suggestion to overlook some important information.
If the Expansion Project goes through and new dormitories are built, there will be more impacts to the intersection of Crestwood and Western as students, faculty, and others go between the campus and Western Avenue and nobody can prove otherwise.
Part three will allow folks to view photographs of a two-year college with adjacent dormitories, located in California.

Traffic Safety Commission Hearing Regarding the Marymount Expansion Project-Part 3

It is my opinion that the introduction of on-campus dormitories at Marymount College is both a marketing tool to attract more non-local students and as a method of monitoring and controlling of non-local students whose parents want college administrators to more closely follow their children's out of class activities.

I have not bothered to locate and photograph the closest 2-year, private college that has on-campus housing because I haven't been east of the Mississippi River since I served in the U.S. Air Force.

But I think the photographs below might give everyone some clues as to what could be expected when dormitories are placed adjacent to a two-year college.

May I introduce you to Columbia College near Sonora, California.

This College is a two-year public College that is nestled in the foothills of the western Sierras.
It is located in a hilly area and snow does fall and remain on the ground during most winters.

The college is not located in a residential area and it is outside Sonora a little bit.

Even though you will view in a photo below that the student housing is deemed to be 'on campus' the location of the housing is actually adjacent to the campus and not technically on the campus of the college.

Did you notice the silver pickup? Ah, drivers who are also young students.

This is a compilation photograph illustrating the placement of a sign on the building.
We have been reminded by many people that most 2-year college students are usually between the ages of seventeen and about twenty.
While there most certainly students attending two-year colleges who have reached the legal drinking age in the State of California, how many of them buy alcohol for persons under the age of twenty-one?
Columbia College doesn't appear to have switchbacks on roads around the site, but it is located in an area where many trees block views of oncoming traffic around bends in the roads.
I didn't notice many motorcycles in the parking lot, either.
I communicate with a wide number of people who live all over the San Pedro area. I have read, heard, and discussed issues surrounding the students who currently reside at the 24th and Cabrillo off-campus housing for Marymount College.
While Marymount College's President did talk about the Code of Conduct that students are to keep in mind wherever they are I have heard stories about events and issues at the southern San Pedro housing.
The Palos Verdes North off-campus housing complex contains 86 units of surplus government units that were deeded to Marymount College.
The housing complex contains four more units than is allowed according to city of Los Angeles zoning ordinances but a variance to that zoning was granted to the College so that no harm or foul would be considered.
One of the Alternatives to building on-campus dormitories at Marymount is to enlarge the housing at the Palos Verdes North facility.
I have worked for several years on issues dealing with the proposal to build a 2,025-seat senior high school on the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site and I have worked dealing with all the issues related to the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project and I can relate by experiences that there is no way that any Alternative that would need to have the bureaucracy of the city of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles City Planning Department, Department of Transportation, and any other agency in L.A. City government being dealt with would be granted at this time or for the foreseeable future.
I think I am now comfortable with the three parts of the report on the Hearing.
Now that I no longer represent the entire Rancho Palos Verdes community as a member of the Traffic Safety Commission, I can now devote more consideration to the particular portion of the city in which I live and love.
Eastern Rancho Palos Verdes would take almost the entire brunt of any further expansion on the Marymount campus and I feel we on this side of the hill should have a great deal of say in what is done at Marymount.
I hope you have learned a thing or two that you can use to better develop your opinions about the Marymount College Expansion Project.
Whether you are supportive of the Proposed Project of have grave doubts about it like I do, we need to have a say in the present and future of our city.

Saturday, January 3, 2009

Another Blog About Rancho Palos Verdes

Late last year, Mr. Jeffery Lewis began a blog also dealing with Rancho Palos Verdes.

You can find his blog, "RPV 2009" at: http://rpv2009.blogspot.com/

It is my feeling that sources of information and opportunities to comment should be afforded in the widest possible ways and to as many people as possible. Knowledge is power and having more and different information bases available is very good for everyone.

I welcome new blogs onto the scene and I feel it allows everyone a wider range of instruments to share their knowledge and opinions.

I also believe that blogs do have some power in 'advertising' to government officials and bureaucrats what the residents and others feel about how cities and elected officials are viewed.

Mr. Lewis is an attorney and he has offered his opinion on at least one of his posts. I hope he continues to offer his opinion and shares the opinions of others.

I have already added a link to Mr. Lewis' blog. I wish him good fortune in 2009 and beyond and happy writing and posting.

Friday, January 2, 2009

In the Future

This blog is still a newborn compared to several of my other blogs. I do want to let you know a little about what I am working on for this blog. Perhaps you can assist me and provide information that we need and want.

Currently I am scouring the Internet and other sources to be able to create a fairly extensive demographics profile of eastern Rancho Palos Verdes.

I will use Census tracts, Precinct information, voting information and a whole bunch of resources to illustrate who we are, where we live, what we do, and what we think, on our side of the city.

Southern Rancho Palos Verdes has the fastest moving roadway in perhaps, the entire country. It has our city's City Hall, views that are priceless, turmoil created by a greedy developer who has a terrible combover, and a 2-year College on its border with us.

Western Rancho Palos Verdes has the residences of most of the City Council members and many Commission and Committee members who feel they know what is best for all of us. One third of the major Supermarkets in our city is located in western R.P.V. and there are quite a few residential units in that particular area.

Northern Rancho Palos Verdes is unique in that it surrounds many businesses and residents located in Rolling Hills Estates and surrounds Palos Verdes Peninsula High School. There are not that many R.P.V. residents living in that area, compared to the three other areas, but they are impacted by malls, theaters, and shopping located in another city.

Eastern Rancho Palos Verdes has us! It has two-thirds of the Supermarkets located in the city. It has many types of housing and many income levels. it has many of the oldest homes in the city and it has the first tract of houses built above Western Avenue.

We have theaters, shopping, restaurants, and businesses that outnumber businesses in all other parts of R.P.V. and it is currently the sales tax revenue generation area for our city.

We have priceless views and we have concentrated traffic issues.

What we do not have is something we MUST work on, now and In the Future. We need to become more active in the affairs of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes!

Our hearts may continue to belong to San Pedro, but are brains need to focus on OUR city and what WE want and need from Rancho Palos Verdes government and bureaucracy.

Folks, In the Future, maybe the four remaining storm drains running under Western Avenue in our city will fail. Just remember what happened during the troubles incurred when the first three drains collapsed.

In the Future, we must help deal with Ponte Vista at San Pedro because whatever is built there WILL impact all of us in one way or another.

We need to find candidates for City Council seats in R.P.V. I want to find someone I can support who lives on OUR side of the city. I could never be elected to even the position of deputy assistant-backup dogcatcher, and I don't feel qualified, but I know of several residents on this side of R.P.V. that could make good candidates to support.

Please continue to follow what is happening with Ponte Vista at San Pedro by visiting:

www.pontevista.blogspot.com

Thank you for visiting this new blog and it would be great to read your comments and learn more, from you, about eastern Rancho Palos Verdes.

Newness in Eastern Rancho Palos Verdes

If you haven't noticed yet, both Think Prime and the Chevron Station on Western Avenue are now open.

The Chevron Station currently doesn't have a stocked market, but now we have another choice along Western to purchase gas.

Think Prime is located on Western Avenue on the site of the notorious Tasman Sea.

The Tasman Sea Restaurant was one of THE places to go to find a type of entertainment that was enjoyed in one of the rooms of the Tasman Sea Motel, if you get my drift.

My parents never took my sister and I to the Tasman Sea Restaurant. For more 'upscale' dining in the San Pedro area, my parents took us to Olsson's and the Harbor Lite Restaurant in Park Plaza.

Well since the Tasman Sea Restaurant closed down decades ago, a goodly number of other restaurants attempted to survive in that location. None lasted.

It is fondly hoped that Think Prime will break the curse long held by many and that it will survive for a long time.

Several months ago, P'Skettie opened up next to Marie Callender's on Western Avenue. Jus think, an Italian restaurant on Western Avenue, in Rancho Palos Verdes no doubt.

This little restaurant is unique because it has a drive-thru where you can stay in your vehicle and purchase spaghetti and it seems to be closed between 2:30 and 4:30 PM weekdays.

But wait! Both Domenick's and Niccolo's restaurants are Italian restaurants and BOTH of them are in R.P.V., too! This is a good thing.

Usually on the first Friday and Saturday of the month, Domenick's has that darned 60 or so ounce Prime Rib dinner that I could never eat at one sitting.

Niccolo's have my most favorite Italian dish and it is even closer to my home than P'Sketti is.

Of course, eastern Rancho Palos Verdes also has Francesco's in Miraleste Plaza. We buy baguettes there far too often.

Writing about Miraleste Plaza and newness in 2009, we should all probably do our best to persuade the Los Angeles County Fire Department to put a Paramedic Squad at our beloved Station 83.

There has been a paramedic/firefighter assigned to Engine 83 for some time now, but we really need a Paramedic Squad for our station so we would not have to rely so much on "The Sixes" or Paramedic Squad 6 coming from Lomita. Whatever is built at Ponte Vista will cause a longer delay in getting Squad 6 to us, if we live close to Western Avenue.

Is The Fix On?

Since early December I have been attempting to find out if any of the three newest members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commission actually live in the eastern portion of our city.

To date, I have not been given an answer.

We should all have our chance to find out at the January 5, 2009 hearing by the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commission, and their attempts to deal with the Marymount College Expansion Project.

The hearing is open to the public and will begin at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park, where the City Council and other groups meet.

Hesse Park is merely 12 miles away from my home near Western Avenue, but it seems to be fairly close to where the newest members of the Commission might live.

So let's understand that Marymount College's administration and supporters have been trying for years and years to get an expansion project approved that would allow for on-campus housing of students attending a 2-year college.

To find another college with this type of arrangement, simply get into your car, buckle yourself in, and drive east of the Mississippi River to find a similar situation.

Also, the administration wishes to sell of the off-campus housing at 24th Street and Cabrillo Avenue and keep the off-campus housing it owns along Palos Verdes Drive North, in Lomita/Harbor City.

It took me quite a while to finally figure out why folks at Marymount want on-campus housing so badly.

I think I can safely state is that it is because so many parents of students who come from outside California, and particularly from across the blue Pacific, want to have more monitoring, control, and oversight of their children while they attend school. It also would create a draw for even more well-heeled overseas parents to want to send their kids to Marymount.

Do not get me wrong! Marymount College offers some of the best educational opportunities for any and all students in a private 2-year college. This fact is not in dispute and probably a very good reason overseas parents and out of state parents want their kids to attend such a fine school.

I do not believe that residents and others driving in the area of eastern Rancho Palos Verdes should be required to put up with more traffic caused by the Marymount College Expansion Project.

Some of us have learned that residents living in the area of 24th Street and Cabrillo Avenue in San Pedro, would sing high praises and enjoy it if the off-campus housing was removed from that area. I have heard tales of parking woes, partying, and a general lack of control that, it seems, parents of Marymount students now want from that school's administration.

I hope all five member of the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commission have some interest on our side of the city.

But it is back to the makeup of the Traffic Safety Commission.

It appears that Mr. David Kramer is the new Chair of the Commission. I worked alongside Mr. Kramer during our shared time on the Commission and he is an intelligent and caring person.

One of the reasons I was told that I was not allowed back onto the Commission was that I was a 'one issue' member. That is strange to me because I know Mr. Kramer is passionate about bicycle riders and their issues and he even wore is riding outfit at the last City Council selection process meeting where he was reappointed to the Commission.

I was told that I was a 'one issue' member by an individual who could not even correctly pronounce "Ponte Vista" and has continually demonstrated his lack of knowledge and seeming lack of care on what that development would do to our side of the city and he is a very high manager within the city's bureaucracy.

It is certainly true that I joined the Commission in 2007 with the full knowledge by everyone that I was greatly concerned by what could happen to our city and other areas if Ponte Vista at San Pedro was granted approval to build 2,300 or 1,950-units.

I also freely acknowledge that I am a member of the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Steering Comming.

But I also took a great deal of time learning about the Marymount College Expansion Project and all the other projects that would have traffic in all of Rancho Palos Verdes impacted.

I read about development plans within the city of Rolling Hills Estates and the facts that the area under consideration was almost completely surrounded by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I also learned about traffic calming throughout the city, with the emphasis on the fact that I worked to get traffic calming and speed humps for my Mira Vista neighborhood.

I also read and firmly supported traffic calming for the lower Toscanini area and found delight at the site of the speed humps FINALLY placed in that neighborhood.

But it seems that the Ranch Palos Verdes City Council doesn't like to have many residents of our area serving and representing the city.

I strongly believe that because the Eastview area voters have only about 11% of the eligible voters bothering to show up for non-presidential year elections, it can be viewed that we aren't really willing to participate in our own city's government or governance.

Now back to the 'fix'.

During a straw poll taken during a R.P.V. Planning Commission meeting, a anonymous vote demonstrated that none of the Planning Commission members want on-campus dormitories built at Marymount College.

According to the DEIR and FEIR for the Expansion Project, 40% of the traffic would pass through the Mira Vista Neighborhood (eastern R.P.V.) and that the most impacted intersection during peak hours would be the intersection of Trudie Drive and Western Avenue.

Now it just so happens that I live five houses above that particular intersection.

Is the R.P.V. City Council now sick and tired of dealing with years and years of folks from Marymount College demanding an Expansion Project be approved?

Is the City Council continuing to want us, the sleeping giant, to remain quiet during the processes dealing with Marymount?

So many great folks living in San Pedro 'have our backs' with regards to Ponte Vista. I feel we owe it to our own eastern Rancho Palos Verdes residents and our good friends in San Pedro to help dissuade our city fathers from approving on-campus dormitories and the added traffic it would bring to our area.

What is it going to take to get everyone on our side of the hill to wake up, take up actions, become more involved, and help out other residents of Rancho Palos Verdes?

One thing we can do to show our support to our area, northwest San Pedro, and other communities is to take a stand against the unprecedented plans currently under consideration dealing with Marymount College.

The vast majority of all traffic and transportation issues revolving Marymount College now and in the future revolve around the roadways in eastern Rancho Palos Verdes and WE should be the ones to demonstrate what we will tolerate and what we support or oppose.

We begin 2009 right off the bat with an important issue concerning Miraleste Drive, Palos Verdes Drive East, Western Avenue, and Palos Verdes Drive North and South, and neighborhoods impacted in all of our areas.

Shouldn't we have a good deal to say on these matters?