Please allow me to offer my take on the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
For Councilman Dyda's information, I first arrived at the home I currently live in on Trudie Drive on May 4, 1955. I was one-day old.
Here are some specific issues that are of concern to be regarding the Project:
The "Living Campus/Academic Campus" 'alternative' suggested, supported, and endorsed by CCC/ME must be deemed moot by our city. As we have little say in regards to Ponte Vista, so it is that we have little to say in regards to dealing with the off-campus housing sites on Palos Verdes Drive North and near 24th. Street and Cabrillo Avenue, both in San Pedro/Los Angeles.
I think it is also very important that the College be required to provide on-campus parking spaces for all students, faculty, staff, and visitors. Parking along Crest Road, P.V.D. East and other side streets, by those attending or visiting the College is something our city and the local residents should put up with.
I volunteer at the beginning and ending of the school year at Miraleste I.S. I work for my wife in the Library. I have a long history dealing with the intersection of Miraleste Drive and P.V.D. East. I have talked to many folks in the local area including parents of students, local residents to that area, and others.
I have a very strong feeling that there is not a real 'want' for a traffic signal at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and P.V.D. East.
I understand fully that such a signal is currently warranted.
I am concerned that pedestrians crossing Miraleste Drive at P.V.D. East could make the long walk in one signal cycle.
I am especially concerned about Middle School Students trying to cross during one cycle and not making it across, even though they might try.
Since there is a great deal of traffic through that intersection for only a collection of minutes before school and after Miraleste I.S. lets out, I think, historically, those of us who regularly use that intersection understand its dynamics and wish to not have it signalized, even though it is warranted at this point.
I live on the easternmost block on Trudie Drive. Trudie is one of the three streets whose intersection was dealt with more in the EIR.
Project plans call for the re striping of the Trudie Drive intersection with Western Avenue, eastbound. It is slated to have a left turn only lane and a right turn/through-way to Capitol lane.
This plan is really not in the best interest of me or, I strongly believe, neighbors and other who use that intersection.
We already know that if we want to continue east onto Capitol or turn onto Southbound Western, we do that from the curb side area of Trudie.
We also have the option of turning left or continuing east onto Capitol from the left area of Trudie's lane.
I feel re striping will increase the backup along Trudie and it will also interfere with the entrance to the Western Plaza shopping area on Trudie Drive.
I was, am, and will continue to be a strong opponent of any on-campus residence halls or facilities at Marymount.
I worked with CCC/ME to help them fight on-campus housing.
But I now break with CCC/ME and I consider the project as approved by the Planning Commission to be flawed but reasonable, realistic, responsible, and respectful.
I do take note that I do not believe the Project will truly benefit our city's residents in any way more than minimally, but I do think the Project should move forward.
Trudie Drive will have more Marymount-related traffic than just about any other residential street in the area where most members of CCC/ME live.
According to the EIR, 40% of the traffic associated with Marymount will pass my house and I live almost exactly 3 miles from the driveway to the College.
There is a flaw in the EIR because it does not take into account the great use of the intersection of Crestwood and Western by folks higher on 'The Hill', including Marymount. But that intersection is still located in our Mira Vista neighborhood, so we face more impacts than anyone living farther south on P.V.D. East than the College's driveway.
Yes it will cost our city more in infrastructure costs for a site that is not necessarily required to pay taxes. But that is not a sufficient reason, in my opinion, to deny the Project as it is currently planned.
Please reject the appeal by CCC/ME and approve the project with relevant and necessary changes I trust you can make for the benefit of all of us.
Mark Wells
aka M Richards
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have the strong feeling that CCC/ME is continuing to object to the Project primarily because of the new field and athletic facilities planned for the site.
The group continues to support placing those facilities at the 'Palos Verdes North' off-campus housing site in San Pedro.
Their 'Living Campus/Academic Campus' alternative they continue to call for is legally moot as far as our city goes.
R.P.V. cannot mandate onto the College that it place its facilities in another city/jurisdiction. I remain saddened that the group continues to call for something that cannot happen.
I suppose they just want the 'Academic Campus' approved at the site on Palos Verdes Drive East.
I am also growing more weary of many of the members of CCC/ME and others flouting their longevity in the city/area.
As of today, I have 54 years, 3 months, and 15 days being a part of this area and that beats just about every single member of CCC/ME and most of the other residents of the city/area.
Heck, we viewed the Dominator down on the rocks just after it ran aground. How many of the current R.P.V. residents can say they left their current home, traveled to the cliff overlooking the grounding site and then returned back to their current home to tell their neighbors what we all saw? The ship ran aground near P.V. Estates on March 13, 1961 and I was already in elementary school.
The Environmental Impact Report stated that my street and my neighborhood would face greater traffic impacts than many of the neighborhoods where CCC/ME members live and my house is 3 miles away from the campus!
The discussions, debates, and demands for on-campus housing at Marymount will remain as long as the College remains open at its current site. There will be plenty of opportunities to fight against on-campu housing and it was a major victory for CCC/ME to have when the plan for residential units for 255 souls was removed from the Project.
It will be interesting to find out who the seven candidates for the two seats coming up for election to, think about this matter. If they are 'politicians' I can expect they just may not be willing to offer and opinion before the current C.C. members disclose their opinions on September 12.
I would hope that 'non-politician' candidates weigh in and that just might give us a hint about who we may want to vote for on November 3.
I wish I could have heard from the candidates concerning Terranea during the August 18 City Council meeting. Maybe their Web sites will offer their individual takes on important specific issues in the city.
