More Affirmation Of My Assertions

Did you open up The Palos Verdes Peninsula News to view a full page copy of the letter Dr. Michael Brophy sent to the Mayor and the other members of the City Council Rancho Palos Verdes?

More costs to Marymount attempting to do basically two things; have residence halls approved and potentially restrict government oversight on some aspects of The Marymount Plan.

But you already know it has always been about having up to 250 college age students live overlooking the long curve of Palos Verdes Drive East heading towards the switchbacks and other reasons Marymount will tell you and what they won't tell you.

My assertion about dorms on campus being the most important aspect of The Marymount Plan is affirmed when I read the full page ad, the mailer similar to it, and all the rest of the marketing, knowing full well that the Rancho Palos Verdes will (hopefully, but you need to know that the latest Staff Report wasn't 258 pages long like the last Council's meeting dealt with....it is 493 pages long!) vote to approve two Resolutions that pretty much make up what Marymount College has been seeking for the last ten years......except dorms and potential restrictions on government oversight.

What more proof does one need? I have asked Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President, to fully explain using truth, honesty, and clearness of statement, why he feels Marymount must have on campus housing for students. So far, what you have read or heard or seen is nothing like real openness, in my opinion. Also so far, we haven't publicly heard how important having parents and others of up to 250 college students, pay in the neighborhood of $39,000.00 per year to have their child live on the campus of what was a Junior College.

Now I know perfectly well that Marymount has been approved to offer three four-year degrees and it will be interesting to see how many of the graduating Junior College students continue on with the four-year program or whether any new students attend Marymount seeking the four-year degree that may be offered for study to them.

I think this August will be interesting IF Marymount actually begins offering classes towards the four-year degrees or they seek to wait until voters have a chance to approve or oppose the college's attempts to have voters act as the representative THEY ELECTED to serve them with these types of decisions.

My assertion about what might happen to Marymount College if approval of on campus student housing is not approved within the next year or two still holds firm with no reason to rethink it.

My assertion is that if Marymount College cannot obtain approval to build residence halls on its campus, they will end operation at the Palos Verdes Drive East campus with classes for students and they MAY offer online classes, credits, and degrees while regrouping or the college may fail again and be relegated to history and become the stuff of over development legend.

Since The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is so very similar to The Marymount Plan and the Project has just one more City Council meeting, perhaps, before the Resolutions allowing construction to begin being passed, what other reasons could there possibly be for voters to approve The Marymount Plan during the November 2, election?

Marymount College's officials and its supporters seem to have been given a set of talking points that shy away from real reasons why Marymount College officials and supporters want on-campus housing.

What is also very interesting is that these same folks either tell you they now nothing or very little about the ordinance in the initiative that would provide Marymount College rights over its Plan that preclude city government from enforcing or providing variances to items within The Plan. I guess they don't want you to know about that subject.....or they have no clue themselves.

By June 9, 2010 we should all know whether we need to put on our battle armor and begin to watch Marymount's wealthy supporters deluge us with marketing items seeking to have less knowledgeable voters approve the initiative.

It is a real opportunity for students to live on campuses during their college years, but this must not be the case at Marymount College, in my opinion.

While I sympathize with the parents of potential dorm residents of Marymount, I also sympathize with the parents of the underage-almost having enough credits to graduate,but didn't-Marymount student who had a blood alcohol level of between 0.14 and 0.18, according to a Sheriff's Deputy assigned to Ranch Palos Verdes, who lost control of the car he was driving while drunk and ended his life and placed his passenger's life in peril.

I also sympathize with the local resident who was severely injured in a traffic collision cause by a Marymount Student in the same area where Marymount officials have now offered to help pay for a concrete barrier because of several conditions, one being the "hazardous" potential condition stated in the Environmental Impact Report.

For me again, I cannot get beyond my personal conclusions that having college students living on the Marymount campus is a safety risk and I will not support dorms on campus because of my support for students, faculty, staff, visitors, local area residents, vehicle operators on Palos Verdes Drive East, and everyone else who travels by or near the Marymount Campus, having the safest environment possible.

As I have for months, I continue to offer to discuss and even debate anyone about safety issues related to having students live on the Marymount campus.

I would, of course, have data from the California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, the Harbor Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Marymount College, various Web sites offering statements from former Marymount Students, various Web sites dealing with on-campus housing of students, my over 39 year history of driving a motor vehicle along Palos Verdes Drive East-South-West-North, my over 44 year history of riding bicycles and walking on those same roads, and my greater-than 55 year history of being a passenger in motor vehicles on those same roads.

Since I still haven't heard or read from anyone having a personal history in what is now Rancho Palos Verdes ever offering opinions or facts dealing with The Marymount Plan, I will be fascinated when Dr. Brophy produces a person who could attempt to refute my claims and assertions and having the history of living in this area as long as mine.

It's been over two years now, so waiting for me is no problem at all.

Confirmation? Perhaps.

You can click on the image to enlarge it, if you wish.

I wonder how many Rancho Palos Verdes residents it took for Dr. Brophy to come up with this latest wrinkle?

I must write that I appreciate Dr. Brophy announcing that the will pay all the costs incurred for their Marymount Plan initiative being on the November 2 ballot.

But it certainly looks to me that Dr. Brophy just confirmed my assertion that taxpayers' funds would have been used to have the initiative on the ballot while all the assertions by Marymount that The Marymount Plan would be accomplished at "no taxpayer expense" now can only come true when Dr. Brophy announced the college would pay all the costs.

That's a start, Dr. Brophy. But there are more costs to taxpayers' funds that you might want to pick up so your assertions could be as true as mine seemingly are being confirmed by you.

I know you said Marymount would pay its "fair share" on the mitigation of traffic at three intersections in Rancho Palos Verdes.

It would now be nice, to keep taxpayer funds from being spent on those intersections' mitigation, to follow up on your assertion that The Marymount Plan would be completed "without taxpayer expense, if you would completely fund the three approved projects.

But wait! You did repeatedly tell me that you believe there would be no signals placed at the intersection of Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East. I hope you are correct.

But with The Marymount Plan and the recently approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, both of them have the signalization as part of the mitigation required to complete either issue.

So, when we all find out the projected costs associated with the signalization, you and your supporters create an Escrow account and you can either put your 'fair share' into that account or better yet, put all the costs, including projected costs to taxpayers' General Fund, into that same account?

And you thought we were done?

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has a fourth traffic mitigation compliment and you know what it is.

For those who don't, it is the construction and maintenance of a center median concrete barrier of about 1,000 feet in length, being placed between the opposing lanes of Palos Verdes Drive East as that roadway goes around much of the Marymount campus site.

Dr. Brophy, no matter what your published reasoning was for offering to donate up to $200,000.00 towards that mitigation, I thank you for the offer.

Now since the projected costs for the concrete median might be about $285,000.00, how about you kicking in the 85 grand so you can continue to assert that The Marymount Plan will be accomplished with "no taxpayer expense".

Are you folks going to add that fourth mitigation to The Marymount Plan? If you do, then I expect that you might have to be seen with a red face as you try to tell potential supporters that taxpayer funds would be required to have the median constructed. That would blow your assertion about no taxpayer expense a bit out of believability, wouldn't it?

Now lets opine about the real differences between The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan.

Dr. Brophy asserts that Marymount would become a greater educational opportunity for students and I agree with that, to a point.

You all must realize or learn that the two issues are almost identical except for two major differences and a minor difference or two.

Everything that is in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has been approved and the necessary Resolutions should be passed, and I hope passed unanimously, by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, this coming Tuesday evening.

Everything that is in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project except on campus housing for students and some staffers.

Everything that is in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project except Marymount's wish to have a new municipal code passed by voters that would restrict government oversight in The Marymount Plan should it garner more than 50% of the votes cast relating to that ballot measure.

Everything that is in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project except currently, the fourth traffic mitigation issue relating to the construction and placement of a concrete center median barrier.

So what might that confirm from my assertions about Marymount that Marymount asserts for itself?

I think I can now truly believe that the entire ten year journey has always and only been about having on campus housing.

This apparent affirmation of a confirmation comes straight from Dr. Brophy's letter, even without Dr. Brophy publicly admitting it.

Since The Project, approved by the City Coucil, just doesn't involve on campus housing and the potential restriction of government oversight, it seems to me that Dr. Brophy's letter and charging forward to try and get the ballot measure passed by voters is all the real confirmation any of us need.

Why would Marymount spend all that money on advertising and seeking support for The Marymount Plan if it really was about everything other than dorms and the lesser or greater, potential restrictions of government oversight.

It's really quite simple to see through the complete haze Marymount is attempting to push over every one's head .

Dr. Brophy and other seem to assert that a large soccer field on the west side of the Marymount campus would not cause much harm to drivers or in the surrounding housing areas.

That assertion should be questioned when one learns that Marymount will require all incoming residence hall occupants, to have instructions in safe driving techniques be required of all incoming students desireing to live on campus.

Also, the Environmental Impact Report has a sentence about potential hazards because of errant balls coming off the field or tennis courts and landing along Palos Verdes Drive East.

Continuing, Marymount has agreed to increasing the height of the pole and retractable netting, increasing the height of the permanent fencing around the tennis court, and having the field closer to the gym than is what is illustrated in The Marymount Plan.

Marymount also offered up to $200,000.00 to assist the city with funds to install the center median barrier even though it is not part of The Marymount Plan and just might not be a real part of the show, depending on how the poles look.

I'll wake up tomorrow morning and add to this. Sleep well.

I Need Darkness To Write About Marymount Later

Well, it seems like the words some of us were attempting to have Dr. Brophy listen to finally sunk in.

He seemingly just acknowledged that had he not offered to foot the bills for the proposed initiative's processes through the voting, taxpayers would have had to foot the bills.

Isn't that what I have been asserting for some time?

OK, it finally sunk in. Its a start. Unfortunately, it is only a start.

What about the taxpayers' funds that will have to be utilized for the three mitigation for traffic in both The Project AND the Marymount Plan?

So far, Dr. Brophy want Marymount to pay only its "fair share". How nice. But what about the rest of the costs? They have to come from taxpayers' funds unless he does what he just wrote to the Mayor and then sent to registered voters that he and Marymount are now willing to pick up the taxpayers' fund's portion of the required costs.

Now I know Dr. Brophy told me several times that he doesn't think traffic signals will ever get placed at the intersection of Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East. I hope he is correct about that opinion.

So, in the interest of helping Marymount do what it stated over and over and over again that The Marymount Plan would would be completed at "no taxpayer expense" here is what I am now proposing.

Hey Marymount! It is time you offer to pay for ALL mitigation costs for the three traffic mitigation in both The Project AND The Plan and it would be dandy if you placed your 'fair share' or the total costs for Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East into an Escrow account on June 2, the day after the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council adopts the two Resolutions allowing The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project to go forward to the next steps that will eventually lead to the issuance of permits for The Project to get underway.

But wait, there's more! Now that the C.C. will approve the Resolutions, it is also time for Marymount to include the traffic and potentially hazardous condition mitigation of placing a concrete median barrier between the opposing lanes of Palos Verdes Drive East around the long arc of that roadway going around a good portion of the Marymount campus.

I am very grateful that Marymount has agreed to offer up to $200,000 towards the completion of that mitigation and I hope Marymount decides, as the good neighbor they claim to be, to cough up the remaining funds to complete that project, too.

I'll write another post in a while after I finish some more work on the set of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Musical" opening on June 11, 2010 at the historic Warner Grand Theatre in downtown San Pedro.

Where To Begin Because There Is Still No End.

Tonight, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council failed to vote on the two Resolutions they approved creation of dealing with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

At about 5:00 PM yesterday afternoon, the Marymount folks sent a letter to the City Council and City Staff and the public which was part of a 197-page document detailing many changes in the Resolutions Marymount was seeking at tonight's meeting.

I will admit that most of the changes were very minor and just entailed wording to make the Resolutions even better.

But the way Marymount's Land Use Attorney Mr. Don Davis offered those changes and several others he was seeking approval for demonstrated again to me, there is still something afoot that I feel is not in the best interests of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

The Council unanimously agreed to postpone the final votes on the two Resolutions that are the basis for going forward with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project or "The Project" as I will refer to it as for the rest of this post.

There were a few changes that Mr. Davis brought up that do need to be incorporated into the final Resolutions. There are other changes proposed by Marymount that seem to make it look to me like they are attempting to change some of the approvals already voted on by the Council.

One of the very interesting things Mr. Davis was trying to tell Council Members about is the Construction Time Frame.

The Council approved a "36 month" Construction period that we all know will be done within an eight year period of time.

Mr. Davis seemed to now be calling for a term longer than the "36 months" Marymount College claims they can construction the Expansion Project in their Marymount Plan, which I will refer to as "The Plan" during the remainder of this post.

Mr. Davis feels that certain pre-construction activities should not be counted as being part of the "36 month" period.

Mr. Davis also advised the Council that 'normal' building practices allow for up to four years to complete a Project the size of both The Project and The Plan.

This seems odd to me because I have read, heard, seen, and have been exposed to a large number of written, spoken, and televised representations that The Marymount Plan will take "36 months" to complete.

I think I was hearing from Mr. Davis that that statement might no longer be true and perhaps it never was.

The presentation of the 197-page document with an eight page letter offering many changes to the Resolution was drafted after (I hope) the Staff Report that offered the two Resolutions that were placed on the Consent Calendar for tonight's meeting, was made public just last Thursday.

The Staff Report with its 258-pages offered both Resolutions and their language along with statement of facts supporting each part of each Resolution.

Ms. Lois Karp, the leader of Concerned Citizens' Coalition/Marymount College (CCC/ME) was only given the document earlier this afternoon.

She stated during the Council Meeting that she hadn't been able to read it or have her group digest it and offer any changes they would like to see to it and the Resolutions.

The Council instructed Staff to work with Marymount and CCC/ME to find common ground and provide to the Council two Resolutions that are found to be the best written possible and most factually based according to the approvals reached by the Council at its March 31 meeting that ended at 12:35 AM April 1, 2010.

I also heard Mr. Davis state something as fact to the Council that believe is not factual and was not represented correctly by him to the Council. The matter regards the removal of Residence Halls from consideration by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission.

This was also basically repeated to me by Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President during a chat we had after the Council postponed the vote.

If I am remembering correctly, both Mr. Davis and Dr. Brophy claimed that Marymount was forced to remove Residence Halls from consideration by The Planning Commission because The Planning Commission rejected Residence Halls from The Project and Dr. Brophy claimed that The Planning Commission would not go forward with further consideration about The Project unless Residence Halls were removed by Marymount.

As I remember it, Marymount chose to remove Residence Halls from consideration or a legal vote by The Planning Commission BEFORE The Commission members were required to make a motion and vote to approve or reject Residence Halls from The Project and the Application.

There was a straw vote by Planning Commission members that had no basis in fact or legally required that did show that the majority of Commission Members were inclined to vote NO on any motion that could have allowed or rejected Residence Halls on the campus of Marymount College.

The statements made that suggest Marymount was forced to remove Residence Halls from Planning Commission consideration before a formal vote on the matter is not what I observed, read, or know to be the fact as I attended every meeting of The Planning Commission that dealt with their approvals and votes dealing with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Dr. Brophy is absolutely correct when he stated to me that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council can still vote to approve The Marymount Plan even after it votes on The Project.

This is one of the two options the City Council MUST consider if and when the City Attorney and/or City Clerk certify that the proposed initiative created by Dr. Susan Soldoff, a Marymount Trustee qualifies to be come a ballot measure.

Now here is something I agree with Dr. Brophy with.

When Dr. Soldoff or others were told, possibly by someone employed by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes or representing that city in some legal capacity that, to qualify the proposed initiative, "2,700" valid signatures collected from registered voters residing in Rancho Palos Verdes must be verified to represent 10% of registered voters in the city, a mistake occurred.

Since the proposed initiative was subsequently deemed to be required to be a "Special Election" 15% of the registered voters residing in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes must have their signatures verified on petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot.

15% of the registered voters is about 4,400 residents of R.P.V.

A petition gatherer stated to me that Marymount would submit "5,000" signatures. Marymount officials actually submitted 4,876 signatures for validation.

There are always signatures that get rejected from petitions for one reason or another and it is expected that some of the signatures collected on Marymount's petitions will be ruled invalid.

The problem as I see it is IF the number of verified signatures falls below the 4,400 signature level established quite late in the petition signature gathering process, I feel Marymount must have the right to have an extension provided to them to attempt to collect more signatures.

Naturally I continue to request that no one sign the petition.

However, if the initiative doesn't qualify because there are fewer than the about 4,400 signatures it needs AND someone employed by or representing the city of Rancho Palos Verdes made a mistake, I think Marymount should get an added number of days to attempt to collect valid signatures equal to the number of days between the time any error was committed and the date Marymount presented the signatures for verification.

I have quite a bit more about my conversation with Dr. Brophy dealing with taxpayer funds requiring that they be used for BOTH The Project and The Marymount Plan, but I will wait a day or two before I deal with that.

I will state that I asked Dr. Brophy directly if he has found anything in this blog that is not factual and he said "NO"! He did state and I agree that I do assert things, but so do he and others supporting The Marymount Plan.

I was also frustrated to see no 'regular' supporters of The Marymount Plan attending and thanking the City Council, Staff, and others who have worked for over TEN YEARS with Marymount and THEIR Application and THEIR Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

I think it say volumes about how neighborly Marymount truly isn't when after a decade of work and countless hours spent by employees of Rancho Palos Verdes, many elected officials withing the city, and the members of The Planning Commission, especially Mr. Jeffrey Lewis, the Chair of the Planning Commission during most of their studies, meetings, deliberations and votes concerning The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project which MARYMOUNT supported until just before the final voting by Planning Commission members.

Even though Mr. Davis and Dr. Brophy are in agreement with CCC/ME, myself, City Staff, and our City Council that it is time for a final vote on The Project, nobody from that College bothered to really acknowledge the hard work, excessive time, and all the efforts made by everyone associated with the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, except for some kind comments from Mr. Don Davis.

This lack of thanks, recognition of the hard work done by so many for the benefit of Marymount College, and the appreciation I feel is owed to many, many people by everyone associated and supportive of Marymount College. strongly suggests to me that no matter what the Council votes on, The Project will not see one shovel turned or a new Library built. Yes, this is my assertion.

Without stating as much, Dr. Brophy and Mr. Davis, in my opinion, have once again signalled that it has always been and will always be about Residence Halls and everything else is nowhere near as important.

If that were not the case, I think Marymount would have offered more appreciation towards The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project which THEY applied for, THEY worked for over 9 years on, and THEY now want to make moot and have The Marymount Plan voted in that will just add Residence Halls but not the center median barrier approved with The Project.

When I spoke to Dr. Brophy about that, he did not and could not claim otherwise.

My Comments and Some Documentation Regarding the Staff Report

With this post I am doing something Marymount has done throughout the time I have been dealing with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan.

They seem to pick and choose the pieces that support whatever they want and pretty much avoid what looks bad for them.

I believe I can now more effectively illustrate that:

While Marymount claims the construction will take "36 months" that time will be over a period of eight years and,

Rancho Palos Verdes taxpayers will have an as yet unknown amount from their General Fund

used for either The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project AND The Marymount Plan, and,

A significant and unavoidable impact of both will not be dealt with until 2010 and,

The placement of the large field on the west side of the campus has been documented to cause a potential traffic hazard.

Again I must state that I FULLY SUPPORT The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and I OPPOSE The Marymount even though the two are almost identical with the exception of two very important items, in my view.

And to repeat, the two very important items I am concerned with in The Marymount Plan are its Residence Halls item and the potential for the institution of a new Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code: 17.30.100.050 which would ONLY apply to Marymount College and allow Marymount College to oversee The Marymount Plan without oversight allowed by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council or its Staff or much of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Government and Departments.

I will acknowledge that, according to The Project, approved by our City Council, there would be little traffic impact after The Project's completion, eight years after it officially begins and that parking on campus could allow for all vehicles that would normally park on public streets, be able to park on campus, should their drivers choose to do so, and that is not guaranteed.

Below in black is the actual wording found in the 258-page Staff Report which includes the two resolutions being voted on by the City Council at its May 18, 2010 meeting.

In dark red are my own personal comments.

I also acknowledge that Marymount is required to pay their "Fair Share" of funds for at least two of the traffic mitigation items, the rest of the funds must come from the city's General Fund, a TAXPAYER-BASED Fund.

Unfortunately, I have not found within the report, the potential TAXPAYER costs required to implement both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project or The Marymount Plan, both having identical traffic mitigation sections.

There are two Resolutions the City Council will vote on tonight. They are the CEQA Resolution, with CEQA being the California Environmental Quality Act and the Planning Application Resolution, both requiring approval before Marymount can begin The Project.

Marymount College seeks to make both Resolutions moot with The Marymount Plan, if it is approved and have a new municipal code created for its own purpose becoming the controlling code for The Plan.

CEQA Resolution

The attached CEQA Resolution accomplishes the following:

• Certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marymount College Facilities

Expansion Project that was approved by the Planning Commission, excluding the

residence halls, including Appendices A and D to the Final EIR;

• Makes environmental findings pursuant to the Californian Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA) and that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA;

• Adopts a Statement of Overriding Consideration for environmental impacts that

cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance; and,

• Adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Attached as Exhibit B to the CEQA Resolution is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting

Program (MMRP) which identifies the milestones and responsibilities for monitoring each

mitigation measure. The Applicant will have the responsibility for implementing the

measures, and various City Departments will have the primary responsibility for monitoring

and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures. The mitigation monitoring

and reporting program has been revised to reflect the analysis for the revised project, as

discussed in Appendices A and D to the Final EIR.

Planning Application Resolution

The attached Planning Application Resolution approves, with conditions, the project with

the exception of the Residence Halls. All other aspects of the proposed project are

approved, including the Athletic Building (with modifications), the Library Building, the

addition to the Student Union, the expansion of the Admissions Building, parking lot

improvements, athletic field and tennis courts (as depicted in Alternative D-2 of Appendix

D), and other site buildings and improvements based on the stated Findings of Facts.

Included as an attachment to the Planning Application Resolution are the Conditions of

Approval. The attached Conditions of Approval are the conditions adopted by the Planning

Commission with new revisions based on information raised to the City Council during the

appeal hearings. Staff is also providing the Council with a redline version that depicts the

revisions to the Conditions of Approval since the March 31st meeting. The redline version

identifies conditions as underlines for added text and strike outs for deleted text. In

summary, the revisions since the March 31st meeting consist of the following:

• Approving Athletic Field Alternative D-2

• Requiring a 30-foot retractable net around the north, south and west sides of the

athletic field

• Requiring a 20-foot chain link fence around the perimeter of the westerly tennis

courts

• Modifying the height of the Athletic Building per Council direction at the March 31st

meeting

• Modifying the landscape conditions per Council direction at the March 31st meeting

• Requiring a driver’s training course for incoming students

• Clarifying or adding more specificity to existing conditions of approval.

The Project would be constructed in three phases over an eight-year period.

Full implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce the

significant cumulative impacts to a level considered less than significant at the

following intersections for forecast year 2012 for both the Project and the Revised Project :

· Palos Verdes Drive East/Miraleste Drive;

· Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive South; and

· Western Avenue (SR-213)/Trudie Drive-Capitol Drive.

Accept the College's offer to pay $200,000 towards the City's construction of

a roadway median barrier along the curvature of Palos Verdes Drive East.

VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable

After Mitigation

A. NOISE

1. Construction Noise

Short-term construction related noise impacts are anticipated during the three phases of

construction, as more fully detailed in the EIR.

This next sentence deals with construction traffic during periods of the eight-year long time frame

allowed for the Project's completion.

Project traffic could cause a significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic

capacity of the street system and could exceed an established standard.

B. Cumulative Traffic Impact – Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes

Drive South.

(a) Findings

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that

avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft

EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure is imposed upon the Project or

Revised Project to mitigate the potentially significant cumulative traffic impact at Palos

Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South

Specific economic and legal considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation

measures or alternatives that would fully mitigate the cumulative impact at this

intersection, although the fair share payment offsets this Project’s portion of the

cumulative impact.

The mitigation of this intersection is not planned to be accomplished until "2012" and throughout much of the time construction traffic and construction workers could use this intersection.

With all three required Traffic Mitigation issues (including the signalization of the intersection of Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East and possibly the intersection of Trudie Drive at Western, Marymount College is required to contribute their "Fair Share" and the rest of the funds required to implement both The Project OR The Marymount Plan would come from the city's General Fund, a taxpayer funded Fund.

5. Traffic Hazards

Project implementation could increase traffic hazards due to a design feature, in that the

proximity of the athletic field to Palos Verdes Drive East could result in errant balls

creating hazards for vehicles.

Since the entire Marymount College, assuming completion of the Project, is planned to

provide 463 parking spaces, a 177 parking space deficiency is forecast to occur based

on City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code.

As indicated in Appendix A, since the proposed Project is planned to add 120 parking

spaces to the existing 343 parking spaces, a six parking space surplus is forecast to

occur during the weekday peak hour based on the observed weekday parking ratio and

City of Rancho Palos Verdes Parking Code.

The following section includes wording about "Residence Halls" even though The Project does not have

these buildings included in The Project.

I have included this because it illustrates one big difference between The Project, which I support and The Marymount Plan which I do not support.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) advises that there could be an

increase in calls for service as a result of Project implementation, including from the

proposed Residence Halls (i.e., students living on campus resulting in 24-hour

operation). An increase in calls for service would place a greater demand on police

protection services. Although Project implementation could result in an increase in calls

for service to the Project site, it would not generate the number of calls that warrants the

construction of new police protection facilities, nor would it result in the need for

alteration of existing facilities. Further, the Project would not include the proposed

Residence Halls. Thus, the potentially significant impact is even less so with project

modifications. Nevertheless, recommended mitigation PSU-1 would require

implementation of a private security program at the campus, as well as the City’s

review/approval of the Marymount College Code of Conduct. Following implementation

of the recommended mitigation, the Project would result in a less than significant impact

with respect to police protection services.

I also contend that if Residence Halls are added with The Marymount Plan, Fire and other first response resources would be required to protect more residence without an increase in the number of First Responders and associated vehicles. Marymount College can not be required to be taxed for the additional services of First Responders and if any increase in the numbers of First Responders is found, it will be TAXPAYERS who would be required to pay the additional costs for them and the residence of any Residence Halls at Marymount.

Please refer to your own copy of the Staff Report and I hope you read it and understand fully the document. I feel The Project could be successful if Marymount's administration and supporters want it to be.

I do continue to contend that the reason that Marymount began the processes that led up to tonight's vote and now a possible vote on November 2, by registered voters has always been and will continue to be, first, formost, and completely about having on campus dorms so that students of wealthy parents, many not living in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area or this State or this Country can be sent to a very small college where monitoring of those students by the college and the actions and activities of those students can be better controlled to allow the parents to feel more secure and better about sending their kids to the Los Angeles area.

I also believe that if dorms are not accomodated on the Marymount Campus, the enrollment at the college will continue its current downward slide and the College will fail, again.

Staff Report for the May 18 City Council Meeting Regarding Marymount

The Staff Report for the final voting and Resolutions regarding the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is available for viewing or download at the city's Web site: www.rpv.com or you can try:

http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2010_Agendas/MeetingDate-2010-05-18/RPVCCA_SR_2010_05_18_03_Marymount.pdf

The documents make up a 258 page staff report including the wording of the proposed Resolutions the City Council will vote on at their next meeting on Tuesday May, 18, 2010 at Fred Hesse Park on Hawthorne Blvd.

I could not find any mention in the report of the possible costs of taxpayers' funds for the Special Election that Marymount wants on November 2, 2010 with their proposed ballot measure.

I am busy building the set for the musical, "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" opening on June 11, 2010 at the historic Warner Grand Theatre, in San Pedro.

Information about the show can be found at the theatre company's Web site:

www.therelevantstage.com.

I am the carpenter in residence for the theatre company and the 'residence' is absolutely NOT a dorm room.

Actually the set is being constructed in my back yard and the set is about 50 feet long and about 20 feet deep.

A New Link To An Important Site

I have added a new link to a site that is important and informative in dealing with the Marymount College Issues.

I urge every reader of this blog to visit Mr. Lewis' blog and learn even more of the truth about What Marymount College's administration and supporters are attempting to do.

http://palosverdestruth.wordpress.com/

The Similarities and the Differences

This post will attempt to offer the similarities and the differences between the two packages dealing with Marymount College's expansion project.

First I want to offer a type of glossary to use throughout the post.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project will be called "The Project" in this post.

It was recently passed by the members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council during two sessions where votes were taken on all the elements of The Project provided to the Council by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission for certifications and final approval.

Marymount College has been supporting The Marymount Plan, which I will refer to it as "The Plan".

The Plan is a proposed ballot initiative that has been created by Dr. Susan Soldoff, a member of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College.

Currently the Rancho Palos Verdes City Clerk is attempting to certify the signatures on petitions gathered to place the question before the City Council dealing with the potential for registered voters in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes the chance to vote for or against Marymount's plans.

If the City Clerk certifies that the proposed ballot initiative has received at least 15% of the signatures of valid Rancho Palos Verdes voters, the City Council has two options it must vote on before June 9, 2010 to secure a spot on the November 2 General Election or approve The Plan in its entirety as Marymount has created it.

If the proposed initiative is found to have enough valid signatures, the City Council members must do one of only two things is can legally do:

The Council can have a majority vote accepting all the exact provisions set out in The Marymount Plan and create the ordinances allowing Marymount to build its expansion according to Marymount's wishes, or

The Council can vote to call for a "Special Election" held on November 2 or another date within a certain time frame to call voters to vote yes or no to the ballot measure once it is written and approved for voting by registered voters.

The similarities between The Project and The Plan make up well over 90% of the two documents being identical.

There is little difference between both The Project and The Plan except where noted below.

Both have just about the identical construction phases and plans for the expansion of the Marymount Campus with the greatest construction difference being on campus student housing.

The on campus parking is basically identical in the number of spaces and the placement of those spaces.

The Library, Administration Building, Student Union, and classroom plans are identical in both documents.

As far as the gym goes, the size, shape and programs for the gym is identical.

Both The Project and The Plan illustrate a large field of regulation size for soccer being constructed on the west side of the campus.

The differences between The Project and The Plan can be described by many as just being about one thing and one thing only: On campus student residence halls.

There are other differences not advertised by Marymount in its quest to find volunteers to sign the petitions and support The Plan.

One difference is that Marymount accepted a height reduction for the roof of the gym in The Project but there is no agreement or stipulation that the lowering of the roof height must be in The Plan.

The placement of the large field has a 60 foot difference between The Project and The Plan with

The Plan having the field almost directly next to the sweeping curve along Palos Verdes Drive East.

While The Plan now may include the heightening of the retractable netting from 20 feet to 30 feet, The Project is approved for the 30 foot height.

The Plan may add a heightening of the fencing around the tennis courts from 10 feet to 20 feet whereas The Project stipulates that there be two tennis courts between the large field and Palos Verdes Drive East and the fencing will not only be raised from 10 feet to 20 feet, a 20 foot height fence will be place along the entire sideline of the large field.

The Project now calls for a 1000, concrete center median barrier be placed between the opposing lanes of Palos Verdes Drive East as it makes the long curve around portions of the campus.

The Plan does not include any mention of a center median barrier or the lowering from four lanes to two, the number of lanes around that curve from the campus' entrance to closer to Ganado.

Even though the battle for or against the ballot measure and The Marymount Plan centers solely around on campus residence halls, the means that Marymount would use to acquire approval to build the dorms is the biggest difference between The Project and The Plan.

The Project has already been provided all the approvals Marymount requested after they removed dorms from consideration.

Resolutions and ordinances will be created and the City Council will enact those measures to allow Marymount to begin The project's physical phases, probably by this summer at the earliest.

With The Plan, voters who would vote on the ballot measure will actually be the ones to approve or disapprove at least one ordinance specific to Marymount College and its "Specific Plan" which is the instrument Marymount will use to authorize the construction of everything related to both The Project and The Plan, including dorms, but not including mitigation approved of by the City Council relating to the large field, the placement of a concrete center line median barrier.

If the majority of voters for yes on the ballot measure they are also approving a new section 17.30.100.050 to the RPV municipal code.

That new section of the municipal code will allow Marymount to build per The Plan without oversight and without "condition, delay, or review".

Essentially, Marymount would be provided with all the tools to go forward with what is in The Plan without having to seek or find approvals dealing with conditions and that must be done without delay by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and there would be no review of The Plan or further changes to The Plan or other construction themes Marymount wants to do.

It also means that the Planning Commission, City Staff, and the City Council will no longer have jurisdiction and/or review with anything on Marymount's campus.

Marymount will be allowed practically free reign over what it wants, when it wants it, without having to interact much with city government.

There are many people in Rancho Palos Verdes who are frightened that The Donald, York Properties, Terranea, or some other large business might attempt to use the ballot box to find approval for large projects when defeat the character of Rancho Palos Verdes and its creation because the increasing addition of population density in the city.

I will offer more opinion and facts in my next post.

Council Approves Field............Again

On Tuesday evening, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council approved the construction of a large athletic field on the western side of the Marymount College campus.

This was the second time the Council approved the construction of a field, first on the eastern side of the campus and then now on the western side of the campus.

During the March 31 City Council meeting when the elements of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project (The Project) were being voted on and mostly approved, the Council voted to allow construction of a regulation size soccer field on the eastern side of the campus.

Immediately after the vote was taken Marymount's Land Use Attorney, Mr. Don Davis rose to categorically state that Marymount would not build a new field on the eastern side even though the current field remains there.

Mr. Davis, along the Marymount's President Dr. Michael Brophy pleaded with Council members at that meeting to ultimately deny approval of the field due to their strong opinions that any new field must be built on the college's western side or no field would be constructed at all.

Also at that March meeting, Councilman Brian Campbell also sought to have increased mitigation items voted on if he was to support the new field being approved along the west side.

At the Tuesday meeting, Councilman Anthony Misetich and Mayor Stefan Wolowicz remained strong advocates for approving the new field on the east side of the campus, just as it was previously approved to be placed. Ultimately the two gentlemen offered "No" votes but they were in the minority when the final vote was taken.

Councilman Campbell originally talked about three mitigating elements he would like to see for a field on the west side:

Increasing the overall height of the retractable netting from 20 feet to 30 feet.

Increasing the overall height of the permanent chain-link fencing surrounding the tennis courts that were eventually approved to be located between the large field and near the curb of the curve along Palos Verdes Drive East.

The final element Councilman Campbell wanted was some type of permanent barrier along the one-thousand feet of the center median of Palos Verdes Drive East as it goes around the long curve of the western side of Marymount's border.

As it turned out, not only did Councilman Campbell get what he was calling for, but Marymount's Land Use Attorney offered the college's support for even more mitigation and even some help funding the barrier.

By a three to two vote, the City Council approved the following:

A regulation sized soccer field as an athletic field for multiple uses constructed on the western side of Marymount college but further east than what Marymount prefers and with two of the four tennis courts being constructed just to the west of the large field.

The height of the retractable netting from 20 feet to 30 and the Marymount supported condition that the netting be placed not only on the ends of the field but also along the western side of the entire field.

Also, the height of the fencing around the two ends of the western tennis courts was raised from 10 feet to 20 feet and fencing was approved to encase the entire tennis court on all four sides.

The wrought iron fencing that creates the physical boundary for the campus along the north, west, and southern sides along Palos Verdes Drive East had its height increased to six feet tall.

A provision was approved to decrease the number of lanes along Palos Verdes Drive East from what they are today to one lane in each direction. This provision is within the general recommendations of the recently completed study of the entire Palos Verdes Drive East roadbed and siding.

The final approved mitigation was the approval to seek studies and bids to construct a permanent concrete median barrier 36 inches tall along the center line of the curve within lines established by the city's Traffic Engineer.

Marymount officials announced on Monday that, although it has nothing to do with The Project or The Marymount Plan, the college is willing to donate $200,000.00 to help defray taxpayer costs for the center line median barrier.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has now been completely approved of at probably over 90% of the elements being identical to Marymount's preferred plan and elements.

Now the City Attorney can draft resolutions and regulations that support the approved Project for final approval of the new codes and ordinances by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, perhaps within the next 30 days.

Now some comments.

I supported the Council's first approved location of the field on the east side of the campus. I fully understand and consider the comments made by Councilman Misetich and Mayor Wolowicz. I know they have safety of everyone as their primary concern and I could have lived very comfortably had a third member sided with the two others and approved the field construction on Marymount's eastern side.

I also supported Councilman Campbell's position that to approve the field for the west side, increased mitigation needed to be considered and also approved.

I feel Councilman Campbell and I got more than we were seeking to have the field on the side requested by Marymount and I agree with Councilman Campbell that we can all sleep comfortably with the approvals voted in by the Council.

I could have also slept just as comfortably if Councilman Misetich's and Mayor Wolowicz had found a third vote for their positions.

Since the entire Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project elements the City Council could vote on were approved and I agree with every single element and vote by the Council, I must be the only resident of Rancho Palos Verdes who got all that I wanted and even some other good things, too.

I hope we can finally demonstrate that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is the best Project for Marymount, its nearby neighbors, and all of the rest of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I will create a post about The Marymount Plan, how it is so similar to what has already been approved, and the newest complications Marymount has added to the quagmire it continues to sink into, because too many of those folks just are not willing to accept what they have been given and cause many of the problems themselves.

As it is, it is 1:57AM Wednesday morning and I need to get some sleep.

I would like you readers to know that a group of Rancho Palos Verdes residents are going to all parts of the city to enumerate Census questionnaires of residents who did not turn in their Census Questionnaires in time.

Please participate in this 23rd. decennial Census and get counted.

Thank you and....

Please don't sign the petition.

An Interesting Proposal From Marymount

At tonight's City Council meeting, beginning at 7:00 PM at Fred Hess Park on Hawthorne Blvd., the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will make their final approval to the only remaining element of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

The Council will take up and most likely approve the construction of a large athletic field on the western side of the Marymount campus.

At the meeting on March 31, when the other elements of The Project were approved, the placement of a regulation size soccer field was approved for construction on the eastern side of the campus.

Both Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy and the college's attorney, Mr. Don Davis, stated there would not be a field constructed on the eastern side of the campus and that it was better to actually and ultimately deny Marymount from building a new field on its eastern side.

Item number 13 of tonight's agenda will take up only one issue regarding Marymount and Mayor Wolowicz has been quoted that the council is not willing or interested in hearing about anything other than the placement and approval of a field on Marymount's western side.

During the March 31 discussion about the placement of the field, Councilman Brian Campbell stated he was not willing to vote to have the field on the western side of the campus without more mitigation being applied.

Councilman Campbell offered three items he felt would provide mitigation should balls or other objects coming from the large field or the tennis courts land on Palos Verdes Drive East within the long curve the road has around a good portion of the campus.

Councilman Campbell's three items were the heightening of the permanent fencing along the proposed western side and more northern side of the field and tennis courts, the heightening of the poles that support the retractable netting and that netting from the current proposal that they be 20 feet tall to 30 feet tall, and that the construction and installation of a permanent strong barrier be added in the center portion of Palos Verdes Drive East such that most vehicles would not pass into opposing lanes if their drivers became distracted by objects landing on or near vehicles traveling along the sloping long curve.

I am not the only one who likes the idea of a median of some type along that curve and I have opined that I thought Marymount College should help pay for something to prevent most vehicles from crossing over to the opposite side.

Yesterday, officials from Marymount College made the proposal that they would pay up to $200,000 dollars to help defray costs required to place a concrete median along the part of the road I described.

That is a stand-up thing Marymount is now offering. The article I published on this blog stated that is might cost 1.9 Million Dollars to have a median constructed.

I drove between Palos Verdes Drive North and Silver Spur Road on both Hawthorne and Creshaw Blvds yesterday and saw the real differences between the two medians on those portions of roads.

I would prefer having a concrete curb with short foliage being between closely spaced trees with trunk large enough to prohibit most crashing vehicles from going from one direction to another.

I thing having natural structures to prevent opposing traffic crashes is better than the barren but strong concrete structures seen along Crenshaw.

I also feel that everyone would prefer better views of the median that won't take up that much of the views of residents living above the area and I hope those folks like greenery as opposed to stark concrete that will eventually have skid marks and crash evidence throughout.

I wrote my comments for the item to the Council members and I won't speak on that agenda item at tonight's meeting. I am comfortable with whatever the majority of the members approve of and I think they will approve the construction of the large field on the western side of the campus and keep the certificate of occupancy on file until the median I believe they will approve is finished.

The Soccer Field Issue

The article below appeared in the Sunday May 2, 2010 edition of The Daily Breeze.

RPV council returns to Marymount field

By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer

Posted: 05/01/2010 07:11:58 AM PDT

Rancho Palos Verdes officials are hoping to avoid reopening a can of worms Tuesday when they again look at Marymount College's divisive expansion plans.

Most of those plans were recently approved by the City Council. But this week, the council will return to just one element of the private Catholic school's proposal: whether and where the college may build an athletic field, and what safety precautions should go with that.

"This is very specific," Mayor Steve Wolowicz said. "No other decisions related to this are open for discussion or reconsideration, and I'm going to be making that announcement during the meeting."

Dozens of past meetings on Marymount's proposal have included many hours of public comment, mostly from residential neighbors of the college who are opposed to the expansion.

Tuesday's hearing comes a week after the college submitted signatures in pursuit of a ballot initiative that would give it voter approval for the expansion, plus dormitories for 250 students. The campus housing element was dropped from the plans last year.

The athletic field re-examination follows the council's March 30 denial of the college's bid to put a soccer facility on the west side of campus, adjacent to a fairly tight curve on Palos Verdes Drive East.

That action was taken largely because some council members were concerned that soccer balls could fly into the roadway and cause a danger to drivers.

When the councilconsidered instead putting an improved facility to replace the current field on the east side of campus, the college said it would not build there, leading to the denial.

This week, the council will reconsider the field location and additional safety measures. A higher net around the field and taller fencing around adjacent tennis courts are also in question.

How the different configurations would affect the size and shape of college parking lots is a related consideration.

Marymount officials said they are pleased the matter is being re-examined.

"It's positive. We're glad that they did that," said Don Davis, the college's attorney.

But Davis said the possibility of placing a rotated field on the east side was not feasible and required a large retaining wall that would cause increased grading and visual impacts.

"They don't appear to be fully thought-

out alternatives," Davis said. "It's just a bad design."

Also on the table is a 1,000-foot barrier to separate northbound and southbound traffic on the roadway, at a cost of $1.9million, according to a city consultant's report. Building the same structure and reducing the traffic to one lane in each direction would cost $460,000.

Meanwhile, undoubtedly on city officials' minds will be the news last week that Marymount had submitted signatures for a November ballot initiative that could make the council's actions moot.

College officials touted their deposit of more than 179 percent of the number of signatures needed. But that figure was based on the belief that the college needed signatures from at least 10 percent of registered voters.

In fact, city officials said that under state election law 15 percent is needed - because a municipal vote in November would be considered a special election. (Regular city elections are in November of odd years.)

The college, which is now pursuing a broad advertising strategy in support of its initiative, needs 4,044 valid signatures, City Clerk Carla Morreale said. Marymount submitted 4,876 signatures, according to a preliminary count.

"We've shown that the people of Rancho Palos Verdes have shown strong support for" the initiative, said college communications consultant Ruben Gonzalez in response to the discrepancy.

City Clerk Carla Morreale said signatures would be verified within 30 business days - by June 9.

Want to go?

What: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council revisits athletic field for Marymount College

When: 7 p.m. Tuesday

Where: Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd.

melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I guess there is new reason why Marymount might take the city to court over the issue of needing 4,044 valid signatures as opposed to the approximately 2,700 they thought they needed.

That would make one more lawsuit added to an untold number of lawsuits that will be filed and adjudicated before any student brings their clothing into any residence hall room, if that ever happens.

I think I could be not uncomfortable having the soccer field approved for the west side of the campus if there was some kind of permanent concrete or steel railing separating the opposing lanes through the long curve along Palos Verdes Drive East.

I understand that the cost would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 Million Dollars. Perhaps Marymount would offer to share the cost with the city just as they are willing to share the cost of placing signals at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive.

I can also be comfortable with the installation of a permanent barrier being installed towards the very end of construction with the condition that the soccer field could not be used until the barrier was installed.

I don't think there would be a change in the height of the retracting netting that are in both The Project and The Plan. At twenty feet high, perhaps the poles supporting the movable netting are as tall as Marymount representatives and the City Council are willing to keep them.

Speaking about this topic is not so important for me because I agree and can easily support whatever Councilman Campbell supports. He is the member who brought up three items that I found acceptable but I don't think the Council will adopt an increased height of the retractable netting and the permanent fencing near the side of the field.

With the likely approval of the placement of the soccer field on the west side of the campus, The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project will be completely approved and more importantly, with the exception of the roof line of the gymnasium, completely in line with what Marymount's President and supporters asked for in that Project.

But differences between The Project and The Marymount Plan, the proposed initiative supporters are asking voters to approve, still exist.

The biggest difference is, of course, residence halls. Marymount removed them from consideration before the Planning Commission voted to certify the Environmental Impact Report and suggest approval of The Project by the City Council.

But small as they may be to some, other differences would allow Marymount powers no other business, resident, or entity have been given from government control.

There are two provisions in The Project that deal with having an examination of the expansion elements at a six month interval. This is in The Project to serve as a method of testing how the elements and processes are being done and how successful everything is going. It is a type of assurance that everything is going smoothly, with few setbacks and in line with expectations.

Also, The Project now allows for a 9 year period of time for the work to begin and then completely finish.

What this also means is that if and when you hear that construction will take "36 months" what you are not being told is that those months of construction begin at some point in time and then everything should be complete by the end of the ninth year.

With The Marymount Plan, they want the 36 months worth of construction over an indeterminate period of time with no maximum number of months or even years to reach the final completion.

Another small, but important difference is that Marymount wants the right to oversee its own Plan without interference from City and other government entities.

Marymount never offered to create the minimum number of parking spaces on its campus mandated by Rancho Palos Verdes municipal codes. With The Project, a variance has been approved allowing Marymount to construct the same number of parking spaces on campus they wish to do in The Marymount Plan.

As for the Plan, if approved by voters, Marymount would be granted rights to supersede municipal code at least as far as the number of parking spaces on the campus.

I believe there are other items and elements of The Plan Marymount demands control over, if the initiative passes.

So, for just a handful of items, issues, or elements, there are no other major differences between what the City Council will finalize with approvals and ordinances and what Marymount seeks voters to approve........except for the residence halls.

It is and always been about residence halls and there is no evidence left that it is anything other than residence halls that Marymount is desperate to have.

The continue to demonstrate that they may stop at nothing to secure the right to build residence halls and that is because, as I continue to feel more strongly about, Marymount officials know that without residence halls, the college will fail again.

By May 5, the new Library, gym, soccer field, tennis courts, pool, improved classrooms, administration building, exterior landscaping, grading, and all other elements of The Project will have been approved of. Everything except residence halls will be given the go by the City Council and voting for those things will be moot by voters.

Voters basically control whether Marymount gets the chance to build residence halls or as I believe, the college will ultimately fail. It comes down to that and only that.

I have listened to folks who support having residence halls built on the campus and I also have witnessed when those same folks refuse to listen to opposition of having up to 125 or more young drivers using Palos Verdes Drive East each a number of times per day.

No matter what folks really believe, the studies of colleges show that traffic increases when students live on campus. Believe it or not, students who have cars usually have jobs to pay for gas and those same individuals do not live in a monastery or convent so they also drive to socialize.

But we are bombarded with mailings, print ads, television ads, and signature gatherers stating some things that are factually incorrect or are only partially true and incomplete.

I hope the whole truth is something the majority of registered voters in Rancho Palos Verdes are willing to learn.

I truly feel that if and when the majority of registered voters learn the facts, the real facts, the complete facts, and the real truth behind why Marymount is using a unique action attempting to persuade voters to approve something that should never be approved, in my opinion.

Please do not sign the petition.