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?