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.