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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment