Expected And Somewhat Pleasantly Surprising

Marymount College officials delivered to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes 4,876 signatures on petitions dedicated to qualifying The Marymount Plan initiative for either being approved by the City Council exactly as written or mandating that the Council call for a vote by the registered voters of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Many of us at least fairly knowledgeable with the issues fully expected and were even provided comments that the signatures would be turned in by the close of business on April 27. Turning the signatures in to be validated as being from residents of Rancho Palos Verdes qualified to sign them on that date pretty much guarantees that the measure will be on the General Election ballot at the November 2, 2010 Election Day.

I was personally informed by one of the paid petition gatherers that he was told that Marymount College expansion plan supporters and college officials wanted to turn in 'at least 5,000' signatures to be able to go well over the minimum number of about 2,700 valid signatures that would be needed to have the Council act on either of the two directives they must vote on within 30 days of the City Clerk or Election Officials certify that enough valid signatures had been gathered.

What I saw in this morning's The Daily Breeze item on the turning in of the signatures is that the number of signatures turned in by Marymount was 4,876 signatures with associated names and addresses.

So it appears to me and hopefully others that Marymount's goal of turning in "5,000" signatures fell a little short of that goal.

Now, what might that indicate after ALL of those commercials on the television during the time the local area commercials are shown on cable television channels?

First I think, it means that no matter how much Marymount's contributors spent on the flashy mailers, advertisements, DVDs and other media, there still was a shortfall in the number of signatures the contributors wanted and a number Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President may even have guaranteed to those who shelled out the dollars for all that media.

I am not saying Dr. Brophy or others at Marymount stated as fact they would get 5,000 signatures, but they may have offered a much rosier picture that what actually happened.

I can understand that many of us opposed to having residence halls built on the Palos Verdes Drive East campus of the college would be somewhat surprised and not unhappy that Marymount may have failed to attract at least 5,000 folks in a city of about 27,000 registered voters to sign their petition.

It means they could not persuade even 18.5% of the registered voters to sign a petition.

I am encouraged that there may be a crack in their armor they have placed to have the electorate approve the one item that is different than what the City Council will eventually approve by May 28.

I will recite the difference countless times before November 2. I will continue to repost the fact that Marymount officials removed consideration of residence halls from the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project voluntarily, by the Planning Commission. With residence halls out of the hands and votes by the Planning Commission, the City Council never took up the matter of residence halls on March 31, 2010 when they basically and with one exception completely approved just about each and every wish and item Marymount officials wanted.

As a matter of fact, there is still the issue of the placement of the soccer field on Marymount's campus and I am very confident that our City Council may demand a bit more mitigation in order to allow the soccer field to be built on the west side of the campus.

I hope at least one voter at a time learns the real facts and the truth that Marymount College officials and supporters, along with Dr. Susan Soldoff created The Marymount Plan for what can only be considered as the single biggest demand an strongest issue concerning Marymount College and that issue revolves around residence halls on the campus.

Now I also expect Staff members of the city, along with the City Attorney will draft a report that will finally detail the taxpayer expenses that will be needed just to add the initiative to the November ballot and the followup processes during that election cycle.

During the campaign that will move forward to oppose the initiative once it qualifies for the ballot and the City Council votes to call for the vote, I will again post the taxpayer costs associated with what would be required if The Marymount Plan's initiative is successful and stands up through the lawsuits that would be filed IF it is passed.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, when it is finally and completely approved of by the City Council is a Project I support and I hope it can be done, if Marymount finds the money to complete it as eventually approved.

After the issues of the placement of the soccer field is complete, I seem to be one of (I hope) many, many residents of Rancho Palos Verdes supporting The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

For safety reasons I have published on this blog several times and I will repeat an unknown number of times between now and November 2, I oppose construction of any on-campus housing for students and/or staff of the college.

By May 30 I am very confident that the ONLY DIFFERENCE between the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan are the residence halls.

I now have to state that there are technical differences between the two and language in The Marymount Plan would see that the Specific Plan Zone for the college would allow Marymount's rules and many codes supersede municipal law and that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes would have to deal with very little oversight with Marymount's elements outweighing city codes and laws.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project's approval does carry instructions that the roof height of the gym be a bit different than what The Marymount Plan wants.

Every other element besides those listed above are in both The Project and The Plan that has basically already been approved for construction.

So, because so much of the two are so similar, Marymount officials have caused yet another delay in implementation of The Project because of their wish to see The Plan voted on.

I can consider that had Marymount accepted The Project instead of creating The Plan, they might have started getting permits to begin phase one during this summer.

Now, no matter what the outcome of the election might be, Marymount officials created what just could be a one-year delay in getting started between this summer and next summer.

Back to admissions of consideration and thought.

Since The Plan is The Project plus residence halls, and that is now without debate or discussion necessary, everyone can now see that residence halls has always been, for the entire life of The Project, the singularly most important item for Marymount.

When you saw the illustration of the library, gym, and other illustrations and then a quick shot of one residence hall, you were supposed to believe that those other items were at least more important than dorm on campus.

It was a marketing ploy I feel, for the commercial to rush by the dorms and seemingly place other academic or physical fitness items above the dorms. Sadly, there were far too many registered voters living near Western Avenue who bought the lines, ads, and statements by Marymount petition gatherers.

Along with my unorganized opposition to the initiative and the portion of The Marymount Plan dealing with dorms, Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME), the original opposition group to The Project and The Plan, there is now Save Our City III (SOCIII).

SOCIII was founded by one of the first mayors of the city and there will be a fairly good number of former mayors in that group, I believe.

When Marymount trots out two former mayors who approve of having dorms built at Marymount, SOCIII will offer many other former mayors who served our city well and oppose the notion of a private entity using the ballot box to create a single beneficiary business that is provided what they want at the expense of too many residents and the usurpation by Marymount of some city codes and municipal laws, I feel.

Tomorrow is a new day and it is one day closer to November 2. So much more to come.

Random Odds And Ends

This blog was never intended to be a one-issue blog. I know it seems like all I write about is Marymount, Marymount, Marymount. But there is so much more going on on the eastern side of The Hill that folks living in the Miraleste and Eastview areas might be more interested in than Marymount.

Asaka Grill Express has its informal opening last Friday and its Grand Opening was last Saturday.

Have I mentioned yet that no sushi is on the menu at that brand new restaurant?

Click over image to enlarge.

I was only able to scan the outer piece of the menu before my scanner decided it was done scanning for perhaps the rest of eternity.

The menu is very interesting starting from the Soy Bean appetizer and Sweet Potato Fries to the most expensive item on the menu which is the Salmon Teriyaki for just $8.95.

I feel it is only fair to offer a real review of Asaka Grill Express after it has been open for several months so the bugs have a chance to be completely worked out.

I will offer some comments from our first trip there just last evening (Monday).

What I found shocking is that the menu contains no mention of sushi or sashimi! If you head over to Asaka Grill Express hoping to sample a California Roll or some other sushi products you can certainly do so by walking about 75 yards north to Kobe Grill where there are many sushi pieces on their menu.

The photos of the items as Asaka Grill Express make the food look inviting. There is a variety of chicken, beef, pork, and fish dishes. Terri selected the chicken teriyaki burger for $3.75 and a side of sweet potato fries for $1.95.

I stuck with my usual chicken bowl with steamed rice/no vegetables because having that allows me to compare similar dishes from different restaurants.

Asaka Grill Express is just about midway between Kobe Grill and Maui Chicken in the Western Plaza shopping area.

The wait staff was very friendly and we waited what seemed to be an overly long time for our food to arrive which I expected because the restaurant hadn't been open for very long.

The booth at the restaurant have very high backs and the seats are so high I can't put my feet on the floor when I am sitting at a booth. There are also a few tables and chairs.

I think anyone who knows where Asaka Grill Express is knows that the restaurant has a very huge strike against it because of the almost non-existent parking in the lot due to Denny's being so popular and directly next door.

We watched as the left turn pocket on northbound Western overfilled with cars either being turned into The Terraces or attempting a U-turn so folks had a chance to find parking in the two lots on each side of Denny's.

We went around 5:00, walking there of course. The two parking lots were jammed for Denny's/Asaka Grill Express and there were plenty of parking spaces available at Marie Calender's.

At this point I have warm fuzzies for Asaka Grill Express and I hope they can survive the crush from Denny's patrons.

No, the drive-thru lane for Asaka Grill Express is not open and though the owners hope they can get it open one day, there is no timetable for that for reasons they didn't give me.

For those who may not remember, after Penguin Freeze was torn down at that location, Colonel Sander's Kentucky Fried Chicken was a long time business at that address and that is why there was a drive-thru in the first place.

A drive-thru spaghetti restaurant that served small portions of cold spaghetti and probably the worst garlic bread in the western hemisphere, P'Sketti was the immediate past occupant of that space and I still marvel at how long it lasted.

And now, without further ado, here is the semi-nude house in Rancho Palos Verdes!

There are plenty of cities and communities that have semi-nudes on the interior of a building, but Rancho Palos Verdes can boast of having a real semi-nude on the exterior.

This house, built in 195o needed a great deal of repairs when the owner first began removing a decaying wooden fence on his way to an entire remodel.

Times got tough and it appears the owner has abandoned the remodel after living in the house in its present condition for an unknown number of months.

If you want to enlarge the photos or even download them and try to zoom in on the side of the profile or under the living room window, you should see some of the original wallboards used in the construction of all 215 houses in the Western View tract of homes.

The wallboards that look a little like drywall but have plaster oozing out through holes in them are called button boards.

I think it was a pretty new material used in the tract instead of traditional lathe and plaster and it was probably less expensive than the wood for the lathes.

The kitchen cabinets in the houses were steel and I considered them to be leftover materials from WWII, along with the steel window frames that were originally at the houses.

You can see with the profile that the under drawers of the semi-nude are also visible.

I can imagine that this was one of the model homes used when folks started buying houses and moving in around May, 1950.

The house is located on the corner of Trudie Drive and Highmore Ave.(?) and is in the first tract of homes constructed west of Western Avenue in the then unincorporated area of Los Angeles County.

If you have a good eye, this next picture depicts where that house was as part of the brand new Western View Homes.
I have this photo along with the associated article published in the San Pedro News Pilot from May, 1950.

The buildings at the bottom of the photo are of the Channel Heights apartment complex. It was built as 'temporary' housing for shipyard workers and/or military during WWII/

The large building in the lower left is the Channel Heights market. By the time this photo was taken the apartment complex which was much larger than this picture shows was a project for lower income residents.

The market sits about where In and Out Burger now stands.

The canyon to the left of the market burned at least once every summer and we grew up knowing when we smelled the smoke, we knew pretty much where it was coming from.

The top of the photo shows homes in the Miraleste area. Those homes were also part of unincorporated Los Angeles County until about the time in 1973 or so when Rancho Palos Verdes became a city and the original city fathers wanted the higher-income residents of Miraleste in their city, while they seemingly held their noses at the other tracts that completed the Eastview section by 1975.

It wasn't until a vote by the registered voters in the Eastview area along with the other register voters in R.P.V. allowed for the Eastview section to become "somewhat" part of Rancho Palos Verdes.

What should be obvious to folks who are familiar with this part of town is that the homes around the Crestwood area and the housing tract named Mira Costa Terrace hadn't been started by May, 1950. Those two areas would become the second and third tracts of housing and the area just to the left (south) of Western Veiw Homes may be the actual site of the original Eastview or East View tract of homes. I haven't found confirmation of that yet but I know the names of all the other single-family housing tracts in that area so it may just take a process of elimination to figure out where the first Eastview is/was.

The most original looking house in the Western View Homes area is the 3-bedroom "Keenan" family home and it is very easily found and viewed by hundreds if not a thousand every day.

The "Keenan" family home is located at the northern end of Bayend Drive on Trudie. it is a yellow house with white trim and it is one of only a very, very few homes that still have the original window screens still on their frames.

Western View Homes consisted of 215 houses. 200 of them were two-bedroom, one-bath houses with attached single car garages.

15 of the houses were three-bedroom houses with a detached two-car garage.

I think there are still almost half of the 15-three bedroom houses still left in the tract.

With the two-bedroom houses, there were three different floor plans with obverse and reverse plans for each of the three.

My dad selected our house because it was the largest of the three basic floor plans for the two-bedroom model. in 1964 he added a third bedroom, 3/4 bath and walk-in closet.

I first arrived at the house viewed in the photo having yellow lines outlining the placement of my backyard on May 4, 1955. I was brought over the front door sill at the age of one-day old.

Across the street and one house down if the home of Mr. and Mrs. Graham. Mr. Graham was a merchant seaman from Scotland during WWII and when his ship made a call on San Pedro, he felt he was home and he brought his bride Lizbeth over from Scotland and they may be the only two original residents of the Western View Homes tract that were the original owners.

For those of you who don't know about my blog dealing with the Ponte Vista condominium development project, I post a weekly "Odds and Ends" post dealing with many things along Western Avenue in eastern R.P.V. and northwest San Pedro.

You are most welcome to follow that blog at: www.pontevista.blogspot.com. Now that a newer version of the old financial team is purportedly running the project, there may be some movement on that project that was considered to be a condo project of at least 1,950 condos in its last lifetime.

For all of you reading this that also travel along Western Avenue, I have a sour feeling that the problems now occurring with the left turn pocket on northbound Western at The Terraces will continue to get worse and there will be many accidents to further clog up traffic that usually is at a standstill from about 2:30 every weekday afternoon until at least 7:00 PM in the evening.

Please be very careful and slow down because there will be crazy folks who want to flip a U-turn thinking they have plenty of time and space but didn't figure that time and space would run out sooner than they had guessed.

Western Avenue is a State Highway so anything that needs to be studied or done with trying to mitigate the situation has to go through Caltrans. I think our Council let me know at one of their meetings I spoke about the problem at that they don't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole and I should go to Caltrans for help.

Have you been to the Terrace Cinema yet. Tuesday's and Thursdays all 2D movies are just $4.00 admission any time, any show. 3D movies are two dollars more than whatever the regular admission is. No ticket is more expensive than $9.00 or $11.00 for 3D and most of us got two for one coupons and free tiny popcorn coupons. Both of them expire on June 30 and I expect that since so much money was spent to place all new seats in every theatre, have digital projection in every theatre, and a remodeled lobby and concession stand, that on July 1, the admission prices may just go up at least somewhat.

The spectre of having a 200-foot wide, up to 500-foot deep hole dug somewhere along Western Avenue still cannot be let go.

The Clearwater Program of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts is slowly ramping up to have a replacement Joint Outfall tunnel system built for the two existing outfall system tunnels that run basically far under and along the path of Western Avenue to the ocean off of Royal Palms.

More than 99% of knowledgeable folks surveyed about where they want to see the giant hole for the placement of tunneling equipment and the removal of dirt and the drop off site for the materials used to build the tunnels want that giant structure built on Terminal Island, away from residential areas.

There were about 16 sites selected in the scoping process for further study and selection for the location of the Outfall System above ground construction site.

Besides Terminal Island, Eastview Park, an R.P.V. managed park near the intersection of Western and Westmont, and on land owned by the Sanitation Districts is one of the sites.

So too on land near the intersection of Western Avenue at Palos Verdes Drive North inside the Defense Fuel Supply Point.

Peck Park is also in the running as are Averill Park, Royal Palms, the Upper Reservation of Fort MacArthur (Angels Gate Cultural Center). Ken Malloy Park/Harbor Lake, and some others that would also cause chaos for at least eight years.

Through an information source, the Terminal Island site has become somewhat out of favor, replaced by somewhere closer to the route the two existing tunnels have. That means closer to Western Avenue.

The newest Outfall System tunnel was built in 1957. For what seems like an eternity work has been done on a replacement pumping station on Western at Avenida Aprenda. Residents living near there have been told that the fence may be gone within several months, but that has been said many times over a very long period.

Now some useless trivia:

"The Monster", Seaport Luxury Homes, the new multi-story structure on Fitness Drive is NOT part of Ponte Vista and was built having 136 units to be for sale condos. No major zoning changes were necessary because the area was zoned for commercial when the tennis club was located there. It is now not yet completely filled with folks who lease or rent.

If you ever travel along Gaffey Street, south of Capitol, the big area of land having grading and dirt work done there is planned to have 134 'patio-style" condos built there after all the contaminated soil from the old petroleum storage facility is gone and the lawsuit filed by Y and S Auto if over with.

Western Avenue was and still may be the longest continuous Avenue in the world. It begins at its intersection with Paseo Del Mar, by Royal Palms and it continues to a curve where the asphalt becomes Los Feliz near on of the entrances to Griffith Park.

Western Avenue is also found north of Griffith Park near the Burbank area.

Rancho Palos Verdes is home to the fastest moving roadways in the Western Hemisphere.

The 0.8 mile Portuguese Bend slide area sees constant movement of Palos Verdes Drive South and what remains of Cherry Hill Lane.

Older and even some current maps show Cherry Hill Lane north of Palos Verdes Drive South. Now that same lane is south of Palos Verdes Drive South.

The taxpayers of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes are responsible for the continuous repair of the roadbed.

Two of the now four large supermarkets in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes are located along Western Avenue. Trader Joe's and Smart and Final ar the two.

The two other large markets in the city are the Ralph's Fresh Faire on Hawthorne and the brand new Trader Joe's on Hawthorne just by its intersection with Palos Verdes Drive West.

Palos Verdes Drive South becomes Palos Verdes Drive West at a point on the curve at Point Vicente.

Technically, all four corners of the intersection of Trudie Drive/Capitol and Western are in the city of Los Angeles, but only a very few feet on the west side of Western Avenue.

From Palos Verdes Drive North and to the north of that and all the way to Summerland Avenue, Caltrans is responsible for the intersections that have signals.

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) controls the signalized intersections of Western Avenue begining at 1st Street to 25th Street.

Approximately 80% of the school age children residing in the Eastview section of R.P.V. attend Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District schools while the two Los Angeles Unified School District schools located within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes have the remaining approximately 20% of elementary and intermediate school age students.

About 600 students are bussed every school day to and from Dodson Intermediate School from communities including Wilmington.

Dodson has a performing arts magnet program so students from other communities including Lomita and Harbor City can attend.

Only ONE metro bus route runs along Western Avenue. It is Line 205 and its northernmost terminus along the Harbor Freeway at the Imperial Metro Station of the 'Century' Freeway.

There technically is no "Century" freeway in the Los Angeles basin. The 105 freeway is the Glenn M. Anderson Freeway named after a long serving Congressman who sought money for the multi-decade project.

O.K. Now you see what it is like to have the author of this blog on Phentermine to help me lose weight. I usually write almost endlessly. Now on what is really an 'upper' I truly write endlessly.

Where oh where is there an editor for me?

Open Letter To Dr. Brophy

Dr. Brophy,

I hope this post finds you and your family well.

Given recent events, I certainly expect the City Council to allow us, the public, to comment on these matter in a appropriate place and at an appropriate time.

I feel the "Catholic institution" (your words, not mine) needs to rise to the occasion and set the tone for civil debate.

Unfortunately Dr. Brophy, the many mailings, television commercial and signature gathering discussions has provided from your institution, far too many half-truths, incomplete information, and what can be considered by some as misrepresentation of the facts.

When we swear as a witness in a trial, aren't we compelled to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Is that a standard that the "Catholic institution', again your words, is not obliged to keep as we basically conduct a trial concerning the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and/or The Marymount Plan?

Why do you still condone the statement that The Marymount Plan will be accomplished "at no taxpayer expense" when you and others representing the College know full well that The Marymount Plan can not be fully accomplished without an as yet unknown amount of taxpayer-funded dollars for some community elements required in both the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan?

Also, every statement made in all the advertisements revolving around the construction time of The Marymount Plan is a half-truth at best and it may be considered by many as deceptive and misrepresentative.

Sir, we had this discussion in the hall outside the Council Chambers and then as it is now, you still have not denied that I may be absolutely correct about this.

All I have to do is remind you that when City Council members, during the March 31, 2010 meeting, discussed the issues, several of them asked you and/or your legal counsel Mr. Davis whether you two thought the Project could be completed within six years and both of you stated, on the record, that you did not believe The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project could be complete in even as little as SIX YEARS.

Since you and I both know that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project was approved for an eight year time frame and that Project does not include the residence halls that were removed from consideration at the request of Marymount's officials, the residence halls included in The Marymount Plan will add additional time to the overall time frame. Why do you still not allow potential voters the information that is most correct, truthful, and honest as easily as they are provided marketing elements sponsored by Marymount?

Are you, or the marketing component of The Marymount Plan, ever going to publicize the similarities between The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan? Potential voters would have the opportunity to learn what has already been approved within the scope of The Marymount Plan by the approvals given to the bulk of the elements Marymount requested with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. The public which include the registered voters you hope would vote to approve the initiative sponsored by Marynount would find out that the only major difference between the two are the residence halls and associated construction necessary for students and supervisorial staff to be accomodated. Might you not trust the voters with the most complete information possible to allow them to vote having all the facts?

Also, why must the Specific Plan zoning sought within the proposed initiative have wording that would allow that zoning to supersede current and possibly future municipal codes?

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project was approved to include the variance in the number of parking spaces that are planned for even though that number still fall short of the minimum number of parking spaces according to the city's municipal code. You don't need to have the element within The Marymount Plan that you want that states that the municipal code for the number of parking spaces required on the campus would not apply for Marymount College and only for Marymount College, and no other business or institution, Catholic or not.

It is so unfortunate that an institution you head, a religious institution for higher learning, has offered Emails that appear sanctimonious and disingenuous, I feel.

I believe if you truly wish to live up to what you are advertising as being a good neighbor in our community, you have the moral duty, business responsibility, and should have just plain common sense to address all issues using truth over half-truths, admissions of true purposes over seeming misleading statements, and honor above all else to your institution, your church, your community, and everyone associated with Marymount College.

Regards,

Mark Wells

aka M Richards

A Pause To Review and Confirm

Last night I began considering that I should provide information about my position and affiliations I have and do not have regarding the issues surrounding Marymount College. So here goes.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of Concerned Citizens' Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME).

I do communicate with several of that group's members when I offer them facts and opinions and I am provided with fact-checking and documentation I seek from their vast files that have been growing for ten years now.

I did not support the Appeal of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and I was pleased that the City Council also almost completely denied the Appeal and approved the elements of The Project currently approved that is fairly identical to what Marymount College's representatives have been seeking.

I also continue to challenge their stance on The Living Campus/Academic Campus Alternative the group supports but which was also not approved of by the City Council on March 31.

I am not now, nor will I ever be a member of or have affiliation with "Save Our City III". (SOC III).

That new group will not take a position on support or opposition of both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan.

The group is opposed to the particular initiative and seems to be opposed to the initiative process that focuses on only city-wide initiatives and/or business-created initiatives that benefit only the business or organization sponsoring the initiative.

I hold stakeholder status in all three of the Neighborhood Councils within the San Pedro area.

I was a Board member of The Mira Vista Homeowners' Association however, that organization has basically been disolved.

I was and still hold Board Member status with R Neighborhoods Are 1, the main opposition group to past plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro condominium project.

I do have some affiliations with the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA which has the highest membership of the HOAs on the east side of The Hill.

I am a frequent volunteer at the Miraleste Intermediate School Library where I spend many hours assisting Terri, my wife and Melanie, her co-worker and helping to provide to the students the best library and textbook supplies possible.

I volunteer with two theatre companies providing set construction and stagehand support for a number of past, current, and future productions.

I continue to hold firmly that on-campus housing for students and staff at Marymount College must not be allowed or approved because of safety issues which I find cannot be overcome and I do not believe students, faculty, staff, visitors, residents, and others should be subjected to potential well-being concerns having on-campus housing along Palos Verdes Drive East would create.

I also have enough documentation, opinions, facts, and reasons to clearly feel that too many representatives of Marymount College and their supporters are not willing or able to discuss the many issues of both The Project and The Plan in a completely open, honest, and forthright manner. I can also point to a number of practices I believe can be viewed as deceptions by Marymount representatives seeking to achieve something they are not honestly presenting and for which they, in my opinion, are doing some harm to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Again to state my opinion that:

Unless Marymount representatives find a means and funds to build on-campus housing to attract a high percentage of out of state and out of country students of wealthier families to attend their programs, the college will fail again and will close its doors within the next 2-3 years.

I also feel strongly that Dr. Brophy, Mr. Davis, Dr. Soldoff, and others are not willing to be forthright enough to provide complete and open information to and consideration by the registered voters of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes concerning all aspects of The Marymount Plan and its associated initiative process.

I support reasonable, realistic, responsible and respectful development of residential housing and businesses and I consider myself a champion for Western Avenue in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes.

Administrative Bulletin #34, The Good, The Bad, The Ugly And The Pot Calling The Kettle Black

I have to agree with much of the outrage over the Administrative Bulletin the coordinator of our city's Neighborhood Watch sent out to all the Block Captains with instructions to provide the information contained in it to all the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Ms. Gail Lorenzen, instead of sending the information out simply as a resident of our city, she used her position within the city to offer her stance. This was completely unacceptable, in my view and I hope she was asked to resign from her position very early this morning.

As to the content of the bulletin, I found some of it poorly worded and inaccurate while a portion of it I found truthful and important.

Until 1:00 PM today, you could have viewed the Administrative Bulletin #34 on this blog. I have temporarily removed it from view and I have not decided whether I will republish it on any of my blogs.

I was also provided the letter/Email written by Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College who wrote to many individuals with Rancho Palos Verdes government and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

At this time I also choose not to publish it but I have some serious problems with it.

Now I am going to opine on the good, the bad, the ugly, and the pot calling the kettle black.

Although Ms. Lorenzen should have written what she wrote as being from a city resident and not as the coordinator for a city-sponsored program, much of her opinion found agreement in me.

The good:

Ms. Lorenzen was correct in my opinion, to offer her training and experiences as ways to confirm some credibility in her writing.

Ms. Lorenzen stated some opinions I strongly agree with and I feel are important for residents to learn about and understand. Perhaps I will use these opinions in a separate post.

The bad:

Ms. Lorenzen opined some issues that seem far too strong and derogatory to college students. She used ill concieved generalizations in a manner that suggested to me she was overly angry as she wrote the bulletin.

I think she went way overboard in attempting to cite all college students rather than signaling out the few who create most of the problems.

The ugly:

Ms. Lorenzen seemingly used her city position to offer what can be read as the city's stance on The Marymount Plan which the city does not have a stance on.

Nowhere has the City Council voted to endorse or oppose "The Marymount Plan". The City Council has voted to approve almost the complete bulk of what Marymount's supporters are seeking when they voted approvals of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project which is almost identical to The Marymount Plan, save for one major item.

It was very ugly for Ms. Lorenzen to place burdens on city government and organizations they must now work to clear and they should not have been placed in these positions because of Ms. Lorenzen's writings.

The pot calling the kettle black is Dr. Brophy's letter/Email he sent out this morning.

It is perfectly reasonable and warranted for Dr. Brophy to use harsh wording and call for immediate action from the leaders of the city, it should also be perfectly reasonable and warranted to expect from Dr. Brophy and others representing Marymount, the same level of action called for by Dr. Brophy.

Dr. Brophy, in my opinion, mounted his high horse to condemn the administrative bulletin, its author and then demand immediate action from city governors when, for so many years and on so many issues, Dr. Brophy and others representing Marymount have not been willing to provide equivalent actions requested by city government, city staff, and residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

While Dr. Brophy's letter/Email demanded retraction of the administrative bulletin, no one representing Marymount has been willing to offer what I refer to as 'the whole truth' concerning so many aspects of "The Marymount Plan" and prior to that, The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

I feel if Dr. Brophy demands actions and answers from Rancho Palos Verdes government and its residents, it should be the reasonable conclusion that Dr. Brophy and/or others provide truthful and complete actions and answers to a number of questions and points offered as reasons to support "The Marymount Plan".

I do not feel it is reasonable and respectful to demand from others what you yourself are not willing to provide.

While there is far too much dishonesty in Ms. Lorenzen's Administrative Bulletin #34, it is equally matched and in some ways far surpassed by the written advertisements, television commercials and frequent mailings dealing with the purposed initiative.

I hope and expect that our Mayor and City Council members will correctly distance themselves from Ms. Lorenzen's bulletin because it must not reflect any position by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

None of us needed this bump in the road when Marymount's supporters are trying their darndest to eliminate city government oversight to what they want at the campus. This only adds fuel to their fire.

I found Dr. Brophy's letter/Email completely over the top compared to his willingness to provide honest communication he demands from the city and folks not inclined to support his wishes.

Be An R.P.V. Council Member For One Day

That's right folks! Have you ever dreamed of sitting behind the arching desks inside the Chambers at Hesse Park and making determinations as to the future of our city?

Well now you can, courtesy of Marymount College and it supporters.

Just think, you can make law that benefits just one private entity that is not only a religious organization, but also exempt from paying most taxes that go into the funds that protect you, serve you, and provide all with reasonable infrastructure.

With Marymount's most recent mailer, you also have the chance to determine something that the current City Council has already approved or will approve by May 20!

Gee, just dream of listening to all the misstatements about how a 36-month construction will be accomplished. But you will do this knowing that it will take up to eight years or longer to see the project to completion.

Consider that you will get to vote on something that Marymount claims will be built at no expense to taxpayers other than those taxpayer funds required to have the measure voted on in the first place, funding mandated to provide a new set of traffic signals, street signage with striping, and the redesign and rebuilding of a heavily traveled intersection overlooking the blue Pacific.

Marymount wants you to play at being a Council Member for just about everything they want that has already been approved of by the current City Council!

Are you anxious with desire to do something that has already been done? Marymount hopes you are.

The mailer delivered today to my house (yes again, two mailers for one dwelling. Can you spell "wasteful spending"?) was all about the improvement sought for the athletic facilities at Marymount.

Oh, how nice. These improvements are really such a good idea that our City Council has already made initial approvals for the indoor athletic facilities, pool, and tennis courts.

It is going to take until probably May 20 or so for the Council to approve the placement of the soccer field on the west side of the campus, just like Marymount wants. But rest assured, they may require some additional mitigation, but the soccer field will eventually be approved where Marymount wants it while you are still encouraged to vote on something that will have been decided for several months.

Did you notice what was missing from the mailer? Sure you did. But now, with your new chance to vote on a package that will have found approval for all but one piece, you can be redundant and doesn't that make you feel special? I knew it would.

How many times must it take to remind everyone that The Marymount Plan is all and only really about residence halls on campus?

This is now a proven fact because the City Council has already approved almost everything in The Marymount Plan except residence halls.

And you truly know that Marymount's representatives were the ones who removed on-campus student housing from consideration by the Planning Commission. Since the Planning Commission wasn't allowed by Marymount to vote on whether residence halls would be built at Marymount, our City Council Members chose to go along with the certifications and recommendations of the Planning Commission almost to the letter.

But you now have the chance to be a repetitive as I have to be. I like joiners. You will most likely have the opportunity to repeat what the City Council has already done and your tax dollars will fund the redundancy. Now are you happy?

So, according to Marymount's wishes, on the first Tuesday in November you get to be an R.P.V. City Council member for that single day and you won't have any of the responsibilities voters gave Council Members to worry about.

You won't have to deal with the whole truth and a great number of facts that Marymount doesn't want you to know.

You will be able to remain anonymous as you cast a vote that could mean tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars collected from residents living in Rancho Palos Verdes going to benefit a single private organization.

But wait! There's more! You can also consider yourself fortunate in that, again according to Marymount folks, you will be able to take in all the public activities The Marymount Plan advertises.

Naturally, college officials offered those exact same public benefits during the real Council's deliberations and the Council still went ahead and approved those, too!

Now be honest. How many of you out there have attended events and other things at Marymount since it first opened or first reopened after it failed?

I think you are getting the picture about what it will be like to be a Council Member for a day. I hope you will all be able to sleep nights when we are closer to November.

This is so exciting, isn't it? You get the chance to do something that will already be done months before you vote.

If presented the chance to be a Council Member for a day in early November, I will take that assignment seriously. I don't feel I need to vote 'yes' or 'aye' on something that has already been decided by folks our residents chose to represent me and others in Rancho Palos Verdes. So I will vote 'No' or "Nay" but that is still a vote from a Council Member for a day!

Point By Point: A Quick Read

I am quoting the button points I found on The Marymount's Plan Web site to illustrate what I think is good or should be opposed and why I personally fell that.

• "New parking facilities to take student, faculty and visitor parking off residential streets"
• The would be a good idea if the college actually was willing to provide on-campus parking spaces that the municipal calls for. Unfortunately not only have their been cars parking on public streets when there were and are parking spaces always available on the campus, but Marymount has no intention of providing the number of parking spaces on their campus that would meet the municipal code of the city. Marymount seeks to remove city over site from most of the project by creating a Specific Plan Zone where they can do pretty much what they want to do without City Council approval.
• "New on-campus housing for students and adult supervisors to reduce commuter traffic"
• I oppose on-campus student housing for safety reasons and only safety reasons. I am still waiting for anyone to discuss and debate me about the safety of having students living at Marymount's campus.
• "New state-of-the-art library (William H. Hannon Library) and lecture hall"
• This is absolutely fantastic, worthy, realistic, responsible and reasonable!
• "New indoor athletic facility and pool"
• I would not object in any way and I fully support Marymount's plan for a new indoor athletic facility, pool, and I now can support the building of a soccer field on the west side of the campus if the retractable netting is raised to 30 feet and a solid center median is constructed throughout the curve of Palos Verdes Drive South, adjacent to the campus.
• "Relocation of existing athletic facilities and a Student Union building to enhance the student bookstore and create a faculty dining area"
• This is another good idea that should be supported by everyone even if our city can't receive funds from Marymount being a tax-exempt institution.
• "New art studio and maintenance building"
• As a volunteer for two different theatre companies and someone who support the maintenance of campus, how could not be a good thing?
• "Improved administration building"
• I can't see anything wrong with improving the administration building. How might you oppose it?
• "Upgrades of existing academic buildings"
• I wish this was a higher priority than having on-campus housing.
• "New, environmentally responsible landscaping and greening of the property"
• This is simply a must and we should all be concerned about our environment and protecting our area.
• "68% of the 25 acres will remain open space"
• This is also a good idea, I feel. There are more acreage on the steep hill that could be used for building, but it is good thing to keep so much of the campus open.

All of the upgrades I support and approve of are in both the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project which continues to find almost total approval of by our City Council and The Marymount Plan the proposed initiative addresses.

I do understand and I can live with the City Council allowing a variance of municipal code for the number of parking spaces that are about equal between The Project and The Plan.

I strongly feel that the petition drive for the proposed initiative opens the doors for potential harm to come to residents of Rancho Palos Verdes because it could lead to a qualified measure on the November ballot that could allow others to attempt to find approval for a private entity seeking a unique approval of plans that really do not help our city's residents and could lead to some harmful outcomes that might cause real problems to our taxpayers and our City Council and City Government.

Please do not sign the petition.

Facts Omitted By Marymount

So, another mailer arrived from Marymount claiming what is written on the mailer are the 'Facts'.

Well, lets look as more 'facts' about the mailer.

Again we are all able to read the; "at no taxpayer expense". Of course what they won't admit is that just the simple fact that having the measure on the ballot will cost the General Fund of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is taxpayer funded, an as yet undetermined amount of money probably in the tens of thousands of dollars.

What is also omitted is the fact that Rancho Palos Verdes will be required to use taxpayer funds to partially finance the placement of a traffic signal system mandated by both the Project and The Marymount Plan at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive.

Marymount also won't publish that taxpayer funds will be used to change the intersections of Palos Verdes Drive East at Palos Verdes Drive South.

Marymount also won't publish in their advertising that taxpayer funds will be necessary to make striping and directional changes to the intersection of Trudie Drive at Western Avenue.

Now, about that 36 month "total" construction time in all the literature. Yes, it is 36 month, probably. But the fact is that the 36 months of work will be spread out over an eight year period.

How do I know that? Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College and Mr. Don Davis, the attorney for The Marymount Plan both stated on the record and on videotape that they will need eight years to get the Plan built and they both stated they did not believe it could be accomplished in as little as six-years time frame.

It is still simply not believable that the administration, Trustees, and supports of Marymount College will continue to keep the cap on enrollment if and when the multi-hundreds of million dollars the Plan and/or Project will cost will not seek higher enrollment for the simple fact that all the construction and maintenance will cost money and the only way to get more money is to charge more than the current up-to $39,000 a year for tuition and boarding or increase the number of students.

Even high school graduates can understand that there will have to be increases in fees or persons being charged fees for a completed project to be paid off.

Recently I heard the words; 'Visa Loophole Students'. These students are recruited from oversees by Colleges seeking wealthy parents funding their kids college experienced in the United States.

Parents of college-age students, many overseas, wish to have their kids educated in the United States so that those students can possibly continue on living in the U.S. and perhaps allowing for more family members immigrating to the United States as some point in the future.

With on-campus housing at Marymount, that college's administration could offer a better marketing plan to parents of prospective students with the ability to claim more control and monitoring of students/children that many parents are currently seeking.

Only about 1/3 of the students attending Marymount are from families who reside more locally in the L.A. Basin.

This is completely different from most other junior colleges and community colleges who normally find the majority of their student population gathered from local areas much closer to the school than from overseas.

It is a documented fact that many pregnant women normally living in South Korea come to the United States and stay in specialized housing until the birth of their child on U.S. soil, before returning back home with their newborn.

The child, born in the United States, automatically becomes a U.S. Citizen and would offer the reasoning that IF something were to happen between South Korea and North Korea, many South Korean families would be able to come to the U.S. more quickly than others because of their U.S. citizen child.

Personally I feel that if the unthinkable should happen, this is a reasonable and realistic way to save many thousands of South Korean civilians from harm. I am not all that opposed to it.

I won't state as fact or even much probability that I know that Marymount continues to market to parents of Visa Loophole Students, but they might and there are other colleges who probably do the same thing.

I do know that the number of foreign students attending Marymount College has been in decline for several years not. I also know that many folks want on-campus housing at Marymount.

I do know that for a time, the actual enrollment at Marymount was greater than the 793-student maximum, but it is nowhere near that now and may be more than 200-students fewer, at this time.

Back to the mailer.

"How will the plan benefit Rancho Palos Verdes?" The mailer claims that with the increased parking (the total number of parking spaces will still be less than what the R.P.V. Municipal Code call for) students, faculty and visitor parking will be gone from residential streets.

Since there has never been a documented time or period other than a special event that the parking lot has been completely filled, how will adding cars owned by drivers living in on-campus housing not add to the problem.

Students, faculty, and visitors have been observed, counted, and located parking on private streets even though there were open parking spaces on campus. Those are the facts documented in studies taken for the Environmental Impact Report. It wasn't something Marymount supporters said, stated, wrote, or opined. It was a third party objective study.

The mailer also states that having on-campus housing would reduce commuter traffic. The Environmental Impact Report used objective observations, counts, and studies to disprove that notion that Marymount still claims as fact.

With on-campus housing, the campus would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and Marymount has no plans to restrict entrance to or exits from their campus at any time of any day.

There would probably be students, living in residence halls, who have jobs not located on the campus of Marymount. Those students would probably drive to and from their jobs beginning and ending at the Marymount campus at all hours of the day or night.

Furthermore, with residence halls necessitating eating halls, truck and supply traffic would increase to and from Marymout using Palos Verdes Drive East. How would you like to get stuck behind a bob-tail delivery truck on any portion of Palos Verdes Drive East?

I wonder if the most recent mailer was produced because there still isn't the number of signatures college supporters want to have before they turn them in.

Please remember that we all need to be very concerned about the safety of the students, faculty, staff, visitors, and everyone else who drives by or lives near the Marymount campus. This must be first and foremost in our thoughts and there have been too many cases where the lack of safety and responsibility on the part of Marymount students has led to harmful and tragic situations to students, local residents and others.

Just imagine IF a 'Visa Loophole Student' would attend Marymount, from a home overseas that is not built in the environment similar to where Marymount is located. Would you not feel some kind of responsibility if you backed The Marymount Plan and that student faced harm or tragedy because he or she is not familiar with the area and inexperienced in driving or riding a bicycle? I am not willing to accept that, on-campus housing is more important than the safety of everyone, including that student.

A Primer About Marymount

I want to try to help readers learn some basic facts about what is going on with Marymount College these days.

I need to start by illustrating what the two ideas are and some history behind each idea.

In 2000 the Administration and Board of Trustees of Marymount College, a private junior college located on Palos Verdes Drive East in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes submitted initial applications and necessary paperwork for the following program.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. For the purpose of this primer, I will use the term "The Project' when referring to this idea that was introduced to go through all the necessary studies and approvals by a great number of people and ending with a series of votes by the members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.

As of this writing, all but one piece of The Project brought to a vote by the City Council has found preliminary approval for construction.

The one remaining issue that the City Council needs to vote on is where a regulation size soccer field will be constructed.

All the issues brought to the City Council for a vote were planned and agreed upon by the Administration, Board of Trustees, and supporters of Marymount College.

Earlier this year, Dr. Susan Soldoff, a member of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College submitted paperwork to begin the qualification process for a proposed initiative now known as: The Marymount Plan. For the purposes of this primer, I shall refer to this as "The Plan."

Included in The Project up until May, 2009 were two residence halls to be built on the Marymount campus having a total of 128 rooms with sleeping quarters for up to 250 students and 5 advisers/staff members.

What happened to the residence hall segment of The Project?

In May of 2009, the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission was hard at work going through the entire Environmental Impact Report, having many meetings, staff reports, and long discussions concerning the various pieces of The Project.

During an earlier 'straw vote' by the entire seven-member Planning Commission, the result of that vote indicated that there was not going to be approval by the voting members of the Planning Commission to approve residence halls on Marymount's campus.

Between the time the 'straw vote' was taken and the actually voting on The Project by the Planning Commission, two of its members recused themselves from voting for various reasons.

By May, 2009, everyone attending meetings of the Planning Commission knew that they would approve every piece of The Project and send to the City Council a certified Environmental Impact Report, except for residence halls on the Marymount Campus.

Tragically and somewhat days before the commencement ceremonies for graduates of Marymount College, a second year student, driving while drunk along Palos Verdes Drive East and with a passenger in his car, lost control of his vehicle and in a single-car collision, the driver lost his life. The passenger was injured and recovered.

So, by late May with both a certain denial of on campus housing by the Planning Commission and what I personally feel was a very terrible PR situation, Marymount's President Dr. Michale Brophy along with Trustees and supporters voluntarily removed from consideration, any and all residence halls being built on the campus of Marymount College.

The Planning Commission ultimately approved the plans Marymount submitted, but without residence halls and sent their certification and approvals to the R.P.V. City Council to make the necessary municipal codes and variances necessary to allow Marymount College to proceed with their Facilities Expansion Project.

As happened so many times during the almost 10 years that The Project has been alive, Marymount College's President, Trustees, and Administration caused another delay by applying to the Western States College Accreditation Association to become a four-year institution and being granted the ability to offer three Bachelor's Degrees through a four-year program.

Editor's Note: It is my personal belief and something that Dr. Brophy has never denied that the real reason Marymount sought to become a four-year college is to secure the right to build dorms or residence halls on its campus.

It is well known that very few two-year colleges have on campus housing for students. There is a college in the Mojave Desert that had a residence hall for all of their students. it is more of a farm program college and very distant from towns and places where students could live elsewhere.

However, there are very few, if any college that offer four-year degrees that do not have either on-campus or campus adjacent housing for students.

I continue to not hear any denial that the real reason the Marymount sought acceptance to become a four-year institution, was and is expressly for the purposes of doing whatever is necessary, even filing lawsuits, to secure approval for on-campus student housing.

The application caused the city to seek what became known as "Appendix D" of The Project. That new Appendix was ordered to determine if there would be significant changes to The Project if Marymount became a four-year college.

The Appendix was also created to deal with studies and answers to an organized group of citizens who oppose The Project in part, or in hole.

The Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount College (CCC/ME) is a group of homeowners from several areas, predominantly closer to the College who firmly objected to residence halls, a large soccer field, and a gymnasium being built on the college's campus.

One of the Alternatives to The Project and one vigorously supported by CCC/ME was to have the off-campus housing that is situated along Palos Verdes Drive North, between Western Avenue and Five Points and called "Palos Verdes North" enlarged. CCC/ME also sought to have the soccer field, the gymnasium, and the entire athletic department built at Palos Verdes North.

This Alternative could not be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council because in the opinion of the City Attorney, neither group has the jurisdiction to mandate or authorize anything that is on land within the city of Los Angeles.

So, now let me write about The Marymount Plan.

The Marymount Plan is almost exactly like The Project in size, scope and what would be included with The Project.

All the new buildings approved of by the City Council in The Project, are in The Marymount Plan. The soccer field, by May 2010 will be approved to be in the same place with both The Project and The Plan.

The gymnasium, library, and many other pieces of The Project are identical in The Plan.

What is different between The Project and The Plan?

On campus housing for students.

Also, with The Plan, Marymount would be able to have powers to overrule city municipal codes that would apply to everyone else, but not to Marymount.

With The Project, Marymount would be granted a variance to the municipal code for the minimum number of parking spaces required. With The Plan, Marymount would ignore the municipal code and do as it pleases.

The ultimate number of on-campus parking spaces is identical in The Project and The Plan.

The Marymount Plan seek to have the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes vote on approving everthing already approved of by the City Council.

The Marymount Plan would also allow the construction of residence halls taken out of The Project by Marymount.

Voter approval of The Marymount Plan would also take all control and approvals made by the City Council Members and nullify everything the Council has decided and would be able to represent Rancho Palos Verdes residents as they were elected to do.

The Marymount Plan is for the benefit of one single private organization.

It is expected that the proposed initiative will qualify for the ballot.

An opposition group has been initially organized to combat The Marymount Plan.

The group, "Save Our City III" is organized to oppose this initiative process for a number of reasons.

Save Our City III members do not want an initiative that benefits just one business, organization, person, or party to find approval with voters.

Save Our City III will offer not opinion on whether the organization approves or opposes the elements of The Marymount Plan, including on-campus residence halls.

Save Our City III is not affiliated with CCC/ME and the new group has a different charter and does not have the same opinions as CCC/ME has.

I am not, nor have I been a member of CCC/ME but I do correspond with several of its members and I oppose their contention that the Alternative called The Living Campus/Academic Campus Alternative, the one that enlarges the off-campus housing site along Palos Verdes Drive North is the Alternative that would be successful.

It is viewed that if Marymount College finds success with the probably November vote, it opens up the floodgates for others, such and Donald Trump, the York organization and others to attempt to have voters decide issues via the initiative process.

The members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council were elected by voters to represent their best interests in deciding issues and keeping our city alive and growing. Our votes for City Council members signify that we find them responsible to represent our wishes and they take on responsibilities not many of us would want to do.

Our City Council makes up the brain trust that deals with city-wide and more local city issues and they are expected to perform their duties with high standards and keeping the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes first and foremost.

When you read or hear that The Marymount Plan will not cost Rancho Palos Verdes taxpayers any money, just the taxpayer funds needed to have the initiative as part of the November ballot will cost the city's General Fund an as yet unknown number of tens of thousands of dollars.

The bottom line on The Marymount Plan is that is was written and supported for one purpose only: To take away the rights and responsibilities voters entrusted to their leaders on the City Council and to find approval to build on-campus housing at Marymount College.

Everything else in The Plan is basically identical to The Project which is almost completely approved by the City Council. By May, the two will be identical, I am sure......except for residence halls.

Why are residence halls so important to Marymount?

Survival is the one and only reason and I would challenge anyone who believes otherwise.

Marymount currently has a maximum of 793 students who can attend the college. Marymount claims that even with the granting of four-year degrees, they will not seek to raise the maximum number of students allowed.

When the studies were taken for the Environmental Impact Report, the student population was about 658 students.

I have been told that currently, there are about 575 students attending Marymount.

Marymount is also quite a different type of two-year junior college. About 90% of students currently attending are full time students. I believe there are about 37% of the current student makeup that are residents of local communities all with the greater Los Angeles Basin.

Marymount need to attract students from areas outside the Los Angeles area so they can remain open.

The students Marymount probably wants to entice have parents willing to pay upwards of $37,000 to $39,000 a year tuition with room and board at either of the two off-campus housing areas.

Dr. Brophy has never denied to me that if Marymount doesn't receive approval to have residence halls on the campus, it will probably ultimately fail.

The college has failed before.

Residence halls were approved by an earlier City Council but Marymount ran out of money to build them years ago.

Rancho Palos Verdes has welcomed a college with on-campus housing for years and years. The Salvation Army's Officers' College has on-campus housing for single students and even families.

Marymount College was on academic probation and was removed only one year after its two year probation was initially given.

I oppose on-campus housing because of safety reasons I have written about in previous posts.

While I do continue to approve state-wide initiatives, I oppose a city initiative that benefits one private entity over the residents of the city.

I oppose the Marymount initiative because is benefits an organization that does not support the city through taxes as Marymount is a religious organization which is not responsible for taxes other entities are charged.

I have found and documented what I believe are deceptive practices and utterances by those representing Marymount College, including and unfortunately its President Dr. Michael Brophy.

After more than a year of consideration and reading volumes of information, I found that I have little trust in the words and deeds of the College's Administration and too many supporters.

You are most welcome to make comments or send questions to me. If you want to reach me by Email, please do so at: mrichards2@hotmail.com.

Our First Visit To Denny's

Well, it took until the fifth morning for us to visit the new Denny's located on Western Avenue in Rancho Palos Verdes.

I don't feel it is fair to make a real review of the entire outing because today marked the first Friday the new Denny's has been in operation.

Some time ago, there was a Denny's restaurant on Western Avenue near the corner of Western and Park Western. When the Ralph's Shopping area was remodeled some years ago, the old Denny's closed.

That Denny's was thought of quite well by it customers and the opening of the new Denny's was highly anticipated for months now, even before most folks knew what was replacing the Planet Kids store.

As it happened, I talked to the assembled wait-staff and managers during a meeting a week ago on a Thursday evening. I wanted to know when the restaurant was opening so I could post that information on several of my blogs.

During a short conversation I had with the head manager and with many ears perked up because of the stranger attending the meeting, I told everyone in the room that their new work location was highly anticipated and they should expect to see large crowds from the opening of the doors.

The entire wait staff, cooks and managers seemed surprised and somewhat shocked when I told them the information. They were all also quite pleased smiles abounded all through the seating area.

As it came to pass, I was not wrong one bit. The Denny's has been packed.

By 8:45 this morning all the seats were filled and there were customers waiting for table openings.

The two sides of the restaurant have parking spaces. Naturally all the spaces were filled. I expect that when the Asaka Grill finally opens there will be an average of ZERO spaces for customers of that site, right next to Denny's.

It looks like the workers at both restaurants will have to park somewhere other than the parking lots for those two places. I hope they don't choose Trudie, Highmore, or Jaybrook, thank you very much.

As you may have expected, there were two cars in the Marie Callender's parking lot as we walked through it. You may want to enjoy Marie Callender's while it is still open because it certainly looks like their customer traffic has dropped off and will continue to drop off as Denny's becomes more well known (not like it really needs it).

Because I should not offer a real review of the place, I do want to share some impressions and comments with the opening week and I think it is going to take a couple of months before a true set of opinions can reveal what normal experiences at Denny's should be expected.

The restaurants hours are as follows;

From 6:00 AM on Friday and until 11:00 PM on Sunday, Denny's will remain open.

All other times Denny's hours are 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM.

It appears that the conditional use permit does not permit Denny's to post the "Always Open" sign found on just about every other Denny's.

Parking is bad and probably that won't go away in the forseeable future. I have seen times when there was parking along Western Avenue, even directly in front of Denny's.

The south parking lot is also going to be used by customers of Asaka Grill once it opens AND if Denny's customers don't take up all the parking. This lot also has some spaces it takes skill to get into and out of. They are the spaces sort of behind the restaurant and near the gate that we found closed preventing a throughway between the two parking areas. I hope Denny's management open the two sets of gates behind the restaurant and leave them open during business hours.

You will be greeted by friendly and I really mean friendly managers and those showing you to your seat. They are a bit rusty with their actions but since there is nothing "normal" about Denny's yet, that is quite fine with me.

I remember with other Denny's that once ordered, it sometimes takes an eternity for the food to arrive. Please be very patient during your visits to Denny's in the coming months. The food you get might be cooled off by the time it finally arrives, but I expect that when the Denny's finds its normality, food will arrive sooner.

We had to request from someone other than our wait staff for the bill. We ended up getting copies from two different employees and did I mention they were friendly?

There is absolutely no reason for Terri and I and whoever visits Denny's while with us, need to add another vehicle to the parking lots.

Since those of you who know what I look like know I still need to lose lots of weight, I was pleasently surprised by the make-your-own Grand Slam. That size of Grand Slam is not the size I remember and I never needed that amount of food I remember filled the plate.

My Grand Slam consited of two regular size eggs, amout the smallest portion of hash browns I have seen in any restaurant in R.P.V. and San Pedro, two sausage links and two pancakes, each about 1/4 to 1/5 the size of my beloved Fluffys enjoyed at Rex's Diner.

The price was $5.99 and other than the eggs being cool, somebody like me need to learn to live better with smaller portions and at a price I can live with.

It looks like tables and chairs could be added to the dining area if the C.U.P. allows for that. But with the parking lots full with the amount of tables and chairs there already, more tables might create problems.

I did write to officials and our city's Traffic Safety Commission about something I observed that I feel could be a safety hazard and a potential for liability with R.P.V.

We saw many Denny's customers heading north on Western making a U-turn from the left turn lane for the south entrance to The Terraces.

Normally, that turning lane is overflowing during commute times and the added number of customers choosing to not go into The Terraces but rather making U-turns will add to the congestion along northbound Western and probably more collisions.

I don't have a solution for my thoughts but I don't think drivers will heed NO U-TURN signs on the medians of Western.

Of course we saw a "true Pedro thing" when we visited Denny's. Even though the restaurant is physically located in Rancho Palos Verdes everybody knows everybody else who live in San Pedro so many of you will meet friends and/or family members when you go to Denny's.

It's just like the Target where many of us can't get through a visit where we don't greet somebody we know.

The consequences of having the new Denny's where it is makes me think that perhaps Marie Callender's will continue to be a very good restaurant for our elderly friends and neighbors.

Many folks who are up in their years find comfort when they take their meals at Marie's. I think it has been that way for years. Whether Marie Callender's can survive what I expect to be a big drop in business is something we won't know for some time.

As for Asaka Grill, I haven't found any notice of when it may open.

Denny's is now the new monster on the Avenue. Folks who eat there will hopefully do other shopping along Western in both San Pedro and R.P.V. I do hope they visit Marshalls' more than they visit Ross. I also hope they visit Trader Joe's more than they visit the store near Peck Park.

For dining pleasure similar to Denny's I hope they visit Coco's over Carrow's and Azteca over Taxco. I certainly don't folks visiting Domenick's and Niccolo's. Eating at Baja Fresh is a good thing. I hope you like the ice cream at 31 flavors more than Coldstone Creamery. All of the above eateries are wonderful, but some of them help our General Fund grow with portions of Sales Tax dollars that flow into R.P.V.

For the high school football and party crowds, having Denny's open all night on Fridays and Saturdays is a good thing. It allows revelers the chance to continue in a safe and comfortable environment and it also provides more food options to those who need to eat because they drank too much alcohol.

For me, sobering up at the IHOP many year ago when it was open late helped. I was all done with that by the time the old Denny's opened or I chose not to cross Western while drunk. It was easier staggering home from IHOP than just about anywhere else.

So please, ENJOY DENNY'S! When it becomes a normal "San Pedro" restaurant, then I think we can make fair reviews. I use "San Pedro" because that is where our hearts still side with.

My Meeting With Councilman Misetich

On Saturday March 27, I met with Councilman Anthony Misetich. I felt we had a very good meeting and we both shared many concerns, ideas, and thoughts.

Councilman Misetich asked me to not publish this post until after the Council voted on the 12 parts of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. Since neither of us had any idea of how the voting would turn out and what would crop up, I thought I should hold off. I should have published last week.

As you may know, I was one of the most outspoken opponents to the election of Councilman Misetich. It was based on my concerns about his support for Bob Bisno's plans for Ponte Vista.

Councilman Misetich supported Bob's plans for Senior Housing at Ponte Vista and I too, hope that there may be some Senior Housing at the site, as long as it conforms to my personal limit of no more that 831 total dwelling units at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

I don't know how many Senior Units Councilman Misetich still wishes to see built at Ponte Vista but both of us agree that it is going to be some time before anything move forward with the project.

As it turned out, I now feel that the election of Councilman Misetich was actually a good idea, keeping in mind the potential disaster in the San Ramon/Tarapaca canyon areas and the drainage problems there.

In the history of Rancho Palos Verdes, I don't think there has been any other Councilperson who was or is as able to work with other communities like Councilman Misetich does regularly.

Councilman Misetich has a wonderful association with businesses and government leaders in San Pedro and that is so necessary at this time because of the needs to work with many governmental agencies to end the drainage problems and provide a stable hillside to protect the switchbacks along Palos Verdes Drive East.

Councilman Misetich has already provided leadership in helping to bring various parties from different cities and Los Angeles County together to work toward finding and funding solutions in the area of the border of San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes.

During our talk we discussed many items and found agreement that we both need to find ways to encourage Eastview residents to become more involved in Rancho Palos Verdes Government and our city's issues.

We of course talked about Ponte Vista, but since it is in a limbo status, there really wasn't much more we needed to talk about. I told him about my thought as to why I felt 831 total units should be reasonable and he told me about his associations with The Gardens and how that is a successful housing area.

We talked a bit about Trump and Terranea and we both support the survival of Terranea that brings to our community many dollars.

Our talk concerning Marymount College was informative, I think, for both of us. I think we were pretty much in agreement about the issues and that was demonstrated very well, I feel, with his votes concerning the Marymount College FacilitiesExpansion Project during the Council's March 31 meeting.

Councilman Misetich made several votes that were different than the majority votes on the issues revolving around the soccer field at Palos Verdes North and the Living Campus/Academic Campus Alternative supported by CCC/ME.

What I found intriguing with his votes is that he knew he was voting on a moot issue and his votes, I felt were the correct votes on this particular part of the Project.

Council Misetich and I both shared the concern about errant balls bouncing onto Palos Verdes Drive East from fields and courts placed on the western side of Marymount College and that was reflected with his vote to place a new soccer field on the east side of the campus and not the west.

I don't understand Councilman Misetich's ideas surrounding zero-based budgeting so he and I could not really discuss that on any educated means. I need to learn more about that type of budgeting before I can say whether I like it or don't like it.

I do like Councilman Misetich's idea of a sharing of tax revenue by businesses to encourage growth in those businesses that will support growth in Rancho Palos Verdes. Councilman Misetich explained it to me and I think it is a good idea that could help struggling business in R.P.V. stay afloat and encourage more businesses coming to our city thereby increasing revenue.

I know we will not agree on everything. I do like Councilman Misetich's ideas to restore the number of volunteers wanting to work on various Commissions and Committees in our city. The number of members on practically all Commissions and Committees were cut and Councilman Misetich wants the number of members to be restored.

Since I was one of the Commissioners cut, I am pleased with Councilman Misetich's stand on this particular issue.

We didn't talk about the four remaining storm drains that haven't failed....yet, under Western Avenue and I hope neither of us have to deal with that in the future.

Our talk lasted well over one hour and I am thankful to Councilman Misetich for such a great meeting.

Councilman Misetich told me he wants to talk with many residents living in all parts of Rancho Palos Verdes and that can't be a bad thing.

We had our meeting at the Starbucks on Western at Westmont. Since we both consider ourselves to be Real San Pedrans, it wasn't that surprising how many folks greeted Councilman Misetich and how many folks I recognized during our chat.

Councilman Misetich received the most votes in the three precincts that make up the "Eastview" area of Rancho Palos Verdes and also he received the most votes of any candidate in the recent election, citywide.

Normally Eastview has about 11% registered voter participation in elections for our City Council. During the last election, 12.18% of the registered voters in Eastview voted. It is far too few in terms of participation, but it was a slightly higher turnout and that will hopefully be improved upon in the future.

Both Councilman Misetich and Councilman Brian Campbell joined the City Council at one of the most contentious periods in our city's history, because of the Monks case, San Ramon Canyon, Marymount, Trump, and the fiscal problems all governments are facing.

It appears that both of these new Councilman have jumped directly from the pan and into the fire with determination to serve our residents and help guide R.P.V. into the future.

*Additional Comments.

I applaud Councilman Misetich for his votes concerning Marymount. He stood with other members of the Council to provide what I feel is the best project, so far.

I know the issue of the soccer field was a major issue and I continue to feel that having the soccer field on the west side of the campus poses a greater safety problem for everyone.

I also applaud Councilman Campbell for his ideas concerning having the soccer field on the west side if the fencing on the northwest side was higher, the movable netting's height was increased from 20 feet to 30 feet, and the placement of barriers, such ad K-rails throughout the center portion of P.V.Drive East as it hugs the campus' borders.

I hope a reasonable outcome for the soccer field can be found before and during the May 4 Council Meeting.