I have written to the editor of The Palos Verdes Peninsula News in response to a letter written in the edition I received this morning apparently written by someone who has little true knowledge about the The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan and what the City Council could have done, yet chose not to do.
To the Editor,
Even though previous Rancho Palos Verdes City Council members voted to approve student residential housing at Marymount College, that is not enough of a reason for the current membership to approve dorms.
However, it was legal and proper for the current membership of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to include on campus residential housing at Marymount no matter what the Planning Commission's recommendation was.
A Council member could have, at any time during their discussion, public hearing, and debate periods, brought forth a motion to have on campus residential housing included in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, which they approved by unanimous vote.
In fact, no representative of Marymount College, during a public hearing, asked any member of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to include a motion allowing for dorms to be built.
Over the last ten years there have been many changes within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes or just across the street from it. Trump National, Terranea, Ponte Vista, the increasing problems with San Ramon Canyon and the Tarapaca landslide, storm drain issues, and an increase in population may be just some of the reasons the City Council membership finds the situations different from previous members who approved dorms, even though Marymount chose not to go forward with them.
I feel all voters should learn the reasons why the City Council approved The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, which I support and why the members oppose The Marymount Plan and its initiative.
Mark Wells
Rancho Palos Verdes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whether my letter gets published or not doesn't matter as much as the realization that it seems far too many Rancho Palos Verdes residents still are unaware of the similarities and differences between The Project and The Plan.
It also points out to me, that Marymount's marketing of its initiative is going along better than the attempts by many to have the measure voted down.
Everytime we see letters to the editor or some other comment from folks seemingly ill informed about the problems with The Marymount Plan, it should give us pause to reflect that those in opposition to The Marymount Plan or its initiative are behind the education curve and it is time to put forth all reasoning why the initiative must fail and why The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project should be supported over The Marymount Plan.
The next Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting will fall just less than three months before the November 2 vote and Marymount has had plenty of time and money to get their points passed around the city.
It is much harder to re-educate people than it is to educate them, I feel and the opposition has the tasks of re-education, for too many and education for all. That is why I have been calling for those in opposition to The Marymount Plan and/or its initiative to now come forward with good, truthful, and appropriate information.
Marymount has had months and months to spill out their 'oil' and it is time we cap their well using the whole truth, reason, responsibility, and respect for our residents; something Marymount representatives have been unable to do themselves, in my opinion.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
To Compare Or Not To Compare, That Is The Question
Here is an article from The Daily Breeze.
LMU presents its master plan at public hearing
By Kristin S. Agostoni Staff Writer
Posted: 07/28/2010 06:34:21 PM PDT
Loyola Marymount University supporters and Westchester residents turned out in force Wednesday to comment on the private Catholic school's proposed master plan, a land-use document designed to steer campus development over the next 20 years.
The public hearing before a Los Angeles city planning officer drew hundreds to the Westchester Recreation Center gymnasium and essentially kicked off an approval process that will continue this fall.
The document has drawn objections from some residents of Westchester's Kentwood and Loyola Village neighborhoods, where relations with LMU already are strained, in part, because of past complaints about off-campus parties and a recycling facility that operates a stone's throw from
Westchester residents and supporters of Loyola Marymount University's 20-year master plan met to voice opinions at a public hearing at the Westchester Recreational Center.
But the master plan - which university officials see as key to attracting and retaining top students - on Wednesday afternoon had plenty of proponents, who were visible by the blue-and-white "I support a better LMU" stickers on their shirts.
A line of shuttle buses that had transported students and faculty from campus were lined up outside the Manchester Avenue rec center.
Longtime Westchester resident Kathy Nielsen, who serves on LMU's Board of Regents, said she supported the school's plan to expand its building space within the existing 142-acre campus footprint.
"If we're going to have LMU in our backyard, I'd like it to be the very best," she said. "We're not talking (about building)out. We're talking up and green. ... I, for one, want our community to be green."
Resident David Herbst, an LMU alum who lives in Westchester, said he learned as a student more than 20 years ago "what an asset LMU is to the Westchester community."
"It's time to move this to the Planning Commission and City Council for support," he said.
While the university doesn't plan to expand the campus beyond its footprint, the master plan lays out a framework for upgrading, demolishing and replacing buildings - many constructed from the 1950s to 1970s - along with sports facilities and other amenities.
The plan is to make incremental changes through 2030, starting first with a new life sciences building, and second, by moving the recycling operations near McConnell Avenue to another part of campus.
But with the planned upgrades comes increased density, as the blueprint pencils in an extra one million square feet of academic, administrative and residential facilities as well as indoor recreation space.
And that's a concern for many residents living along the campus boundaries - many of whom complain the plan doesn't include enough parking spaces, address concerns about signage and lighting, and require enough of a buffer along residential boundaries.
Residents of two local homeowners groups have fought for larger setback areas than what the university has proposed, but said Wednesday they have been unsuccessful in getting officials to make that compromise.
McConnell Avenue resident Richard Hofmeister asked Wednesday that the university provide a 20-foot natural buffer zone along its residential boundaries, agree to a 150-foot setback for facilities using amplified outdoor sound, and set a "reasonable deadline" for moving the recycling center, which has drawn odor and noise complaints.
While LMU has said the recycling center's move would be one of its first two projects, Hofmeister said "we don't know when this is going to happen."
Another McConnell resident, Alisa Drake, said she can close her doors and windows and still hear noise from sporting events behind her house.
"We're concerned that the value of our property will continue to decline," she testified. "We just hope that you can come to a mutual agreement with LMU for consideration."
The university earlier this year agreed to a list of concessions after hearing from residents - including extended setback requirements for taller buildings - and proposed them shortly before the Neighborhood Council of Westchester-Playa was to vote on the plan. The advisory panel in March recommended it win the Los Angeles City Council's approval.
Many people speaking Wednesday already had commented on environmental documents analyzing the master plan, but provided more testimony to hearing officer Jeff Pool, a Los Angeles city planner for the Westchester and Playa del Rey areas.
Staff members will eventually make a recommendation to the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, which could discuss the issue in September. It will then head to the City Council for approval.
kristin.agostoni@dailybreeze.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
What, if anything, might we learn about one private Catholic College's plans versus the plans of a more local private Catholic College?
First, I learned that Loyola Marymount College listened to many of the local residents such that the Neighborhood Council, representing many neighborhoods in Westchester and areas around LMU approved of the plans.
It also appears that representatives of LMU take seriously many of the comments from local residents near their facility and respond using reason and respect, I feel.
What did I read in the article? There seems to be complaints by local residents about not enough parking at both campuses and we already know that Marymount College is not going to provide the minimum number of on-campus parking spaces required under the current municipal codes. They are just going to try and have them superseded, just for themselves.
It is also curious that both colleges are trying to attract more students. It is reasonable but I have to consider that LMU probably provides a much better four year education that Marymount might. I have to use 'might' because as of today, Marymount hasn't begun classes in its four-year program.
So, might one be able to consider that The Marymount Plan is partly a competitive move by one private Catholic College to lure students from another private Catholic College?
Hum......
I don't really believe that there could be any real competition between Marymount and LMU unless there will be new sports at Marymount that will find fans from both schools attending events at Marymount.
I think The Marymount Plan is the last step in attempting to see if the school survives, whether it should or not.
I believe this because I have seen no indication that Marymount's representatives will go forward under the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and I am still waiting for Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President to issue a statement that the college would proceed with the Project if the ballot measure fails to find approval.
LMU has to deal with the Los Angeles City Planning Department and Planning Commission before whatever is approved is approved by a majority of votes of the Los Angeles City Council.
LMU has many more hoops to get through than Marymount would ever attempt to try to jump through.
It appears that more local neighbors of LMU accept and/or support upgrades to that campus while there is almost universal opposition, by residents local to Marymount's campus, to The Marymount Plan.
In the end I feel, there is no comparison truly possible. LMU has been a fine four-year institution much more highly regarded than Marymount College and probably has the means and the ability to provide students even a better education than they could receive at Marymount College.
Although I still believe that Marymount College could do well and I continue to support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
Please vote No on the ballot measure regarding Marymount College on or before November 2, 2010.
LMU presents its master plan at public hearing
By Kristin S. Agostoni Staff Writer
Posted: 07/28/2010 06:34:21 PM PDT
Loyola Marymount University supporters and Westchester residents turned out in force Wednesday to comment on the private Catholic school's proposed master plan, a land-use document designed to steer campus development over the next 20 years.
The public hearing before a Los Angeles city planning officer drew hundreds to the Westchester Recreation Center gymnasium and essentially kicked off an approval process that will continue this fall.
The document has drawn objections from some residents of Westchester's Kentwood and Loyola Village neighborhoods, where relations with LMU already are strained, in part, because of past complaints about off-campus parties and a recycling facility that operates a stone's throw from
Westchester residents and supporters of Loyola Marymount University's 20-year master plan met to voice opinions at a public hearing at the Westchester Recreational Center.
But the master plan - which university officials see as key to attracting and retaining top students - on Wednesday afternoon had plenty of proponents, who were visible by the blue-and-white "I support a better LMU" stickers on their shirts.
A line of shuttle buses that had transported students and faculty from campus were lined up outside the Manchester Avenue rec center.
Longtime Westchester resident Kathy Nielsen, who serves on LMU's Board of Regents, said she supported the school's plan to expand its building space within the existing 142-acre campus footprint.
"If we're going to have LMU in our backyard, I'd like it to be the very best," she said. "We're not talking (about building)out. We're talking up and green. ... I, for one, want our community to be green."
Resident David Herbst, an LMU alum who lives in Westchester, said he learned as a student more than 20 years ago "what an asset LMU is to the Westchester community."
"It's time to move this to the Planning Commission and City Council for support," he said.
While the university doesn't plan to expand the campus beyond its footprint, the master plan lays out a framework for upgrading, demolishing and replacing buildings - many constructed from the 1950s to 1970s - along with sports facilities and other amenities.
The plan is to make incremental changes through 2030, starting first with a new life sciences building, and second, by moving the recycling operations near McConnell Avenue to another part of campus.
But with the planned upgrades comes increased density, as the blueprint pencils in an extra one million square feet of academic, administrative and residential facilities as well as indoor recreation space.
And that's a concern for many residents living along the campus boundaries - many of whom complain the plan doesn't include enough parking spaces, address concerns about signage and lighting, and require enough of a buffer along residential boundaries.
Residents of two local homeowners groups have fought for larger setback areas than what the university has proposed, but said Wednesday they have been unsuccessful in getting officials to make that compromise.
McConnell Avenue resident Richard Hofmeister asked Wednesday that the university provide a 20-foot natural buffer zone along its residential boundaries, agree to a 150-foot setback for facilities using amplified outdoor sound, and set a "reasonable deadline" for moving the recycling center, which has drawn odor and noise complaints.
While LMU has said the recycling center's move would be one of its first two projects, Hofmeister said "we don't know when this is going to happen."
Another McConnell resident, Alisa Drake, said she can close her doors and windows and still hear noise from sporting events behind her house.
"We're concerned that the value of our property will continue to decline," she testified. "We just hope that you can come to a mutual agreement with LMU for consideration."
The university earlier this year agreed to a list of concessions after hearing from residents - including extended setback requirements for taller buildings - and proposed them shortly before the Neighborhood Council of Westchester-Playa was to vote on the plan. The advisory panel in March recommended it win the Los Angeles City Council's approval.
Many people speaking Wednesday already had commented on environmental documents analyzing the master plan, but provided more testimony to hearing officer Jeff Pool, a Los Angeles city planner for the Westchester and Playa del Rey areas.
Staff members will eventually make a recommendation to the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, which could discuss the issue in September. It will then head to the City Council for approval.
kristin.agostoni@dailybreeze.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
What, if anything, might we learn about one private Catholic College's plans versus the plans of a more local private Catholic College?
First, I learned that Loyola Marymount College listened to many of the local residents such that the Neighborhood Council, representing many neighborhoods in Westchester and areas around LMU approved of the plans.
It also appears that representatives of LMU take seriously many of the comments from local residents near their facility and respond using reason and respect, I feel.
What did I read in the article? There seems to be complaints by local residents about not enough parking at both campuses and we already know that Marymount College is not going to provide the minimum number of on-campus parking spaces required under the current municipal codes. They are just going to try and have them superseded, just for themselves.
It is also curious that both colleges are trying to attract more students. It is reasonable but I have to consider that LMU probably provides a much better four year education that Marymount might. I have to use 'might' because as of today, Marymount hasn't begun classes in its four-year program.
So, might one be able to consider that The Marymount Plan is partly a competitive move by one private Catholic College to lure students from another private Catholic College?
Hum......
I don't really believe that there could be any real competition between Marymount and LMU unless there will be new sports at Marymount that will find fans from both schools attending events at Marymount.
I think The Marymount Plan is the last step in attempting to see if the school survives, whether it should or not.
I believe this because I have seen no indication that Marymount's representatives will go forward under the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and I am still waiting for Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President to issue a statement that the college would proceed with the Project if the ballot measure fails to find approval.
LMU has to deal with the Los Angeles City Planning Department and Planning Commission before whatever is approved is approved by a majority of votes of the Los Angeles City Council.
LMU has many more hoops to get through than Marymount would ever attempt to try to jump through.
It appears that more local neighbors of LMU accept and/or support upgrades to that campus while there is almost universal opposition, by residents local to Marymount's campus, to The Marymount Plan.
In the end I feel, there is no comparison truly possible. LMU has been a fine four-year institution much more highly regarded than Marymount College and probably has the means and the ability to provide students even a better education than they could receive at Marymount College.
Although I still believe that Marymount College could do well and I continue to support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
Please vote No on the ballot measure regarding Marymount College on or before November 2, 2010.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Rancho Palos Verdes, A Charter City?
I am not alarmed with the news that our City Council has begun attempts to place a measure on the March, 2011 ballot regarding whether Rancho Palos Verdes becomes a charter city.
I know that three of the current members of the Council will end their tenure due to term limits in December, 2011 after another election.
I certainly feel extremely confident that Councilman Misetich and Councilman Campbell would shutter at even the thought that becoming a charter city would allow them to provide real salaries and other expenses throughout their terms, no matter how long they are.
I would also quickly suggest that any and all potential candidates hoping to win one of the three available seats in November, 2011 would state verbally and in writing that they would never seek to create salaries greater than what other Councils are given in P.V. Estates, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rolling Hills.
The news about the charter city of Bell, California is something we all need to learn from and make sure nothing like that is conjured into the heads of future Council members.
I do believe the voters of Bell were bamboozled into their plight and there will probably be campaign violations and other serious charges filed, but when we don't remember history, someone said we are condemned to repeat it.
Perhaps if things don't work well for many of us on November 2, 2010, I may change my opinion about voters in R.P.V., but I hope only a minority number of them will remain bamboozled by The Marymount Plan's representatives.
I know that three of the current members of the Council will end their tenure due to term limits in December, 2011 after another election.
I certainly feel extremely confident that Councilman Misetich and Councilman Campbell would shutter at even the thought that becoming a charter city would allow them to provide real salaries and other expenses throughout their terms, no matter how long they are.
I would also quickly suggest that any and all potential candidates hoping to win one of the three available seats in November, 2011 would state verbally and in writing that they would never seek to create salaries greater than what other Councils are given in P.V. Estates, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rolling Hills.
The news about the charter city of Bell, California is something we all need to learn from and make sure nothing like that is conjured into the heads of future Council members.
I do believe the voters of Bell were bamboozled into their plight and there will probably be campaign violations and other serious charges filed, but when we don't remember history, someone said we are condemned to repeat it.
Perhaps if things don't work well for many of us on November 2, 2010, I may change my opinion about voters in R.P.V., but I hope only a minority number of them will remain bamboozled by The Marymount Plan's representatives.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Bits and Pieces 6
It may be only a matter of sometime during the next 4 days that the "OPEN" neon light will be lit at Amalfitano's Bakery or so I truly hope so.
I haven't been able to confirm an opening date but please be assured that when I learn it, several of my blogs will get a posting to read.
While it should be mandatory for the first purchase by me be a cannoli, because they are so wonderful and so well loved for generations, I may opt for a chocolate chip cookie as the first treat to taste.
But if I walk in and find that they are selling cookies with chocolate chips and any nuts of any kind, well readers, those are NOT chocolate chip cookies and I will turn towards a cannoli, straight away.
Chocolate chip cookies with nuts is like chili with beans, neither food is real and should be avoided, IMHO.
____________________________________________
The Board of Education of PVPUSD approved a steering committee's request to begin seeking contributions to put stadium lighting at Palos Verdes Peninsula High School, along with a new speaker system.
I don't really have a dog in this fight. Eastview residents still have their property taxes for public school education going to LAUSD and we can't vote in PVPUSD elections even though if it was not for the fact that approximately 80% of our school-age kids attend PVPUSD schools, there would probably be only one, overcrowded high school in PVPUSD and Miraleste I.S. could be closed.
This is at least the third attempt to have permanent light standards installed at the high school in the past 50 years.
With all but about 8 nearby residences being in Rolling Hills Estates, where the high school is actually located, the remaining hundreds of homes surrounding the campus are in Rancho Palos Verdes.
___________________________________________
By now, lots and lots of folks have viewed the following letter or heard or read its contents.
You can click in each page to enlarge them for easier reading.
I wonder IF anything will be different in the way representatives of Marymount campaign for the ballot measure.
I haven't been able to confirm an opening date but please be assured that when I learn it, several of my blogs will get a posting to read.
While it should be mandatory for the first purchase by me be a cannoli, because they are so wonderful and so well loved for generations, I may opt for a chocolate chip cookie as the first treat to taste.
But if I walk in and find that they are selling cookies with chocolate chips and any nuts of any kind, well readers, those are NOT chocolate chip cookies and I will turn towards a cannoli, straight away.
Chocolate chip cookies with nuts is like chili with beans, neither food is real and should be avoided, IMHO.
____________________________________________
The Board of Education of PVPUSD approved a steering committee's request to begin seeking contributions to put stadium lighting at Palos Verdes Peninsula High School, along with a new speaker system.
I don't really have a dog in this fight. Eastview residents still have their property taxes for public school education going to LAUSD and we can't vote in PVPUSD elections even though if it was not for the fact that approximately 80% of our school-age kids attend PVPUSD schools, there would probably be only one, overcrowded high school in PVPUSD and Miraleste I.S. could be closed.
This is at least the third attempt to have permanent light standards installed at the high school in the past 50 years.
With all but about 8 nearby residences being in Rolling Hills Estates, where the high school is actually located, the remaining hundreds of homes surrounding the campus are in Rancho Palos Verdes.
___________________________________________
By now, lots and lots of folks have viewed the following letter or heard or read its contents.
You can click in each page to enlarge them for easier reading.
I wonder IF anything will be different in the way representatives of Marymount campaign for the ballot measure.I did read the article where Dr. Brophy made comments as he remained on vacation until August 1. I wish he had shown enough civility in the past to believe he and his flock will become civil.
Whether we will see anymore attempted attacks on members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, Planning Commission, City Staff, or representatives of groups formed to oppose adoption of the ballot measure, remains to be seen.
It would be wonderful to not have to offer any complete truths rather than having to reveal any suspected deception in the IDEOT offerings from Marymount's representatives.
As long as IDEOT offerings come up, please visit this blog for the complete truth, even if it doesn't look for the opposition.
___________________________________________
If Dr. Brophy is allowed to address the City Council at its next regular meeting, I think it would only be fair if representatives of Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion and Save Our City III were provided equal time each to address the Council members.
I also hope the City Council or some other entity challenge Dr. Brophy to a series of debates that would allow voters to receive important information to help them decide which way to vote on November 2.
I am quite sure that informed voters will vote the measure down for a good number of reasons and because the measure is simply unreasonable on its face, now that the City Council has approved every single building request brought before it, by Marymount's representatives.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Another Development Announces Trouble.
San Pedro's Vue Complex in Receivership is the headline of an article in tomorrow's Daily Breeze. Below is the link:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_15593727
For those of you at least a bit interested in Ponte Vista at San Pedro but don't normally visit my Ponte Vista blog, this article and many other factors tend to suggest why Ponte Vista is not moving forward right now and I don't think anyone should be wondering why.
The real estate market is still in big trouble and I have been told that it will be at least somewhere into 2011 that we might see enough of a nudge to suggest that the nightmare may be winding down.
Some others suggest we are in for another 3-4 years of real problems.
The real point about drawing anything out of the article and then pondering Ponte Vista is the issue of unit sales versus leases and rental units.
It now looks clearer than ever, had Bob Bisno found no opposition to his original plans for Phase 1 of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, we might now be passing one completed building among a debris-strewn construction area and the completed units, originally considered to be for sale Senior Housing, would most likely be leased or rented units to any age persons.
Bob would have gone belly up sooner than he did and there would be no need for even a project trailer remaining on the site, I believe.
Yes, the 245 duplexes are a terrible sight and many of us have called on the city of L.A. to enforce codes at Ponte Vista they don't seem to wish to enforce.
But please remember, first responders from all over California and from many parts of the country come to Ponte Vista to exercise their skills in urban environment tactics. So the owners of the site are doing good while they are doing nothing and the goats don't seem to mind that, one bit.
Unless the coyotes run amok among them.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_15593727
For those of you at least a bit interested in Ponte Vista at San Pedro but don't normally visit my Ponte Vista blog, this article and many other factors tend to suggest why Ponte Vista is not moving forward right now and I don't think anyone should be wondering why.
The real estate market is still in big trouble and I have been told that it will be at least somewhere into 2011 that we might see enough of a nudge to suggest that the nightmare may be winding down.
Some others suggest we are in for another 3-4 years of real problems.
The real point about drawing anything out of the article and then pondering Ponte Vista is the issue of unit sales versus leases and rental units.
It now looks clearer than ever, had Bob Bisno found no opposition to his original plans for Phase 1 of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, we might now be passing one completed building among a debris-strewn construction area and the completed units, originally considered to be for sale Senior Housing, would most likely be leased or rented units to any age persons.
Bob would have gone belly up sooner than he did and there would be no need for even a project trailer remaining on the site, I believe.
Yes, the 245 duplexes are a terrible sight and many of us have called on the city of L.A. to enforce codes at Ponte Vista they don't seem to wish to enforce.
But please remember, first responders from all over California and from many parts of the country come to Ponte Vista to exercise their skills in urban environment tactics. So the owners of the site are doing good while they are doing nothing and the goats don't seem to mind that, one bit.
Unless the coyotes run amok among them.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Intentional Deception Expressed to Omit Truths
Intentional Deception Expressed to Omit Truths (IDEOT) is a term coinage I have been pondering for just a little while to try and offer a word or phrase to expose what I believe is deliberate deception and manipulation of the whole truth when discussing and debating matters between all sides of an issue.
IDEOT is not intended to be personal to any individual and it should be considered as oral, written, or recorded statements that do not inform all with the complete truth of a statement or statements.
Yes, IDEOT is supposed to be pronounced like 'idiot' because I intend to demonstrate that the more knowledge of the whole truth that is offered allows everyone the opportunity to become better informed and more intelligent on the matter or issues.
Naturally I will use IDEOT to offer more truths about The Marymount Plan and the initiative than supporters, marketers, Marymount Administration officials and others have been willing to offer, support, acknowledge, and not deny.
Here is the first IDEOT example with the rest of the truth followed using a different colored font:
The Marymount Plan will add a brand new library at the campus.
This statement is true, but is certainly not complete.
Here is a non-IDEOT example: The Marymount Plan will add a brand new library at the campus and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has already been approved to go forward with that exact same new building.
Now, using many of proclamations from various Marymount-sourced materials, I am going to offer what I consider IDEOT statements followed by more truthful and complete statements to demonstrate why voters and others must not be propagandized by IDEOT proclamations.
Construction of The Marymount Plan will take 36 months.
Construction of The Marymount Plan will take 36 months over an eight year period of construction time, unless more time is necessary, should the initiative pass.
The Marymount Plan will be completed at no taxpayer expense.
The Marymount Plan will be completed at no taxpayer expense except for taxpayer expenses required from the city's general fund or other tax-based revenue streams to complete required mitigation not completely paid for by Marymount College and/or its supporters.
Voting to approve The Marymount Plan means that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes will still be able to oversee The Plan during its construction and into the future.
Voting to approve The Marymount Plan means that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes will still be able to oversee The Plan during its construction and into the future unless codes and ordinances of the city are not overridden by the new municipal code that allows Marymount's Administration to overide city codes that conflict with The Marymount Plan.
IDEOT is not intended to be personal to any individual and it should be considered as oral, written, or recorded statements that do not inform all with the complete truth of a statement or statements.
Yes, IDEOT is supposed to be pronounced like 'idiot' because I intend to demonstrate that the more knowledge of the whole truth that is offered allows everyone the opportunity to become better informed and more intelligent on the matter or issues.
Naturally I will use IDEOT to offer more truths about The Marymount Plan and the initiative than supporters, marketers, Marymount Administration officials and others have been willing to offer, support, acknowledge, and not deny.
Here is the first IDEOT example with the rest of the truth followed using a different colored font:
The Marymount Plan will add a brand new library at the campus.
This statement is true, but is certainly not complete.
Here is a non-IDEOT example: The Marymount Plan will add a brand new library at the campus and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has already been approved to go forward with that exact same new building.
Now, using many of proclamations from various Marymount-sourced materials, I am going to offer what I consider IDEOT statements followed by more truthful and complete statements to demonstrate why voters and others must not be propagandized by IDEOT proclamations.
Construction of The Marymount Plan will take 36 months.
Construction of The Marymount Plan will take 36 months over an eight year period of construction time, unless more time is necessary, should the initiative pass.
The Marymount Plan will be completed at no taxpayer expense.
The Marymount Plan will be completed at no taxpayer expense except for taxpayer expenses required from the city's general fund or other tax-based revenue streams to complete required mitigation not completely paid for by Marymount College and/or its supporters.
Voting to approve The Marymount Plan means that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes will still be able to oversee The Plan during its construction and into the future.
Voting to approve The Marymount Plan means that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes will still be able to oversee The Plan during its construction and into the future unless codes and ordinances of the city are not overridden by the new municipal code that allows Marymount's Administration to overide city codes that conflict with The Marymount Plan.
The city did not approve on-campus student housing at Marymount College.
The city did not approve on-campus student housing at Marymount College because that portion of The Marymount Plan was never brought before the City Council for debate, after Marymount College officials intentionally removed that portion prior to voting on The Project by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission.
The city did not approve on-campus student housing at Marymount College.
The city did not approve on-campus student housing at Marymount College. However, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council approved for construction every single building proposed by Marymount College officials, with only a lowering of roof height of the Athletic Building and requiring the exact same sized Athletic Field moving just 60 feet away from the original request.
There will be more parking spaces at Marymount College with voter approval of the measure.
There will be exactly the same number of parking spaces added at Marymount College with either The Marymount Plan or the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. Both totals will continue to be lower than the current municipal code requiring more spaces than Marymount College would be required to provide without the variance included in both The Plan and The Project.
The Marymount Plan consists of:
•New parking facilities to take student, faculty and visitor parking off residential streets
•New on-campus housing for students and and adult supervisors requirements
•New state-of-the-art library (William H. Hannon Library) and lecture hall
•New indoor athletic facility
•New pool
•Relocation of existing athletic facilities
•New art studio and maintenance building
•Improved administration building
•Upgrades of existing academic buildings
The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has already been approved to consist of:
•New parking facilities to take student, faculty and visitor parking off residential streets
•New state-of-the-art library (William H. Hannon Library) and lecture hall
•New indoor athletic facility
•New pool
•Relocation of existing athletic facilities
•New art studio and maintenance building
•Improved administration building
•Upgrades of existing academic buildings
New concrete center median barrier along 1,000 feet of Palos Verdes Drive East.
No new ordinance that could restrict the authority and rights granted by voters to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
These are just my first examples of IDEOT statements and more complete and truthful statements that go further to explain what is more truthful and less deceptive, in my opinion.
Although I was encouraged with Dr. Brophy's statements in Ms. Melissa Pamer's article from The Daily Breeze, I must offer this post in anticipation of forthcoming ads, statements, marketing ploys and tools, and assertions from those representing Marymount that may continue the pattern that Dr. Brophy seems to now be trying to steer away from.
The proof will certainly come out with the first post-opposition Resolution vote by the City Council advertisements concerning the upcoming vote and The Marymount Plan.
Should any of us view statements that are clearly established as being an IDEOT statement, then we need to consider that the points in the advertisements or statements are rendered to continue the pattern established during the previous advertising campaign to get the measure on the ballot.
Should we see IDEOT comments coming forth, it is also an indication, in my opinion, that Marymount Officials are unwilling to carry through on any pledge made in the article to adhere to more civil debate and discussions using truth over propaganda.
I also need to adhere to providing the full truths in my opinion and on this blog and I believe I have continued to do so since its beginning.
If Marymount were to offer to voters the real truth, the whole truth, and be willing to confirm that almost everything within The Marymount Plan has already been approved for development, then that may go quite a long way to end some of the harsh tones coming from all sides of the issues.
However, for Marymount to now come along and attempt to adopt a more 'civil' attitude while they have already produced advertisements, statements, letters, and using other means to steer away from the complete truth and should they continue to cloud the waters of the discussions and debate with accusations and potential threats, I guess we will all see what Marymount's Administration and Marymount's supporters really think about your city's government and their true attitude towards voters.
I shall attempt to walk softly while holding a much larger stick of truths than Marymount has been willing to carry.
San Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project Meeting Notes
I attended my second meeting regarding the San Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project, last evening.
This second meeting was much better than the first, in my opinion. Gone from this meeting were so many negative comments from residents directed towards the geologist at the prior meeting and others who presented the first meeting.
Again I applaud Councilman Anthony Misetich for participating in the second meeting just like he participated in the meeting back in May. He demonstrated that our City Council is extremely interested in doing all the problem solving necessary to repair the drainage of San Ramon Canyon and work to avoid any disruption of traffic on the switchbacks.
There were two points of major importance brought up during the progress report section of the meeting that are very positive and I feel are very good to now know.
First, there are already plans underway to really deal with any interim problem that could force the closure of Palos Verdes Drive East, at or near the switchbacks.
City Staff, working with other agencies and contractors have identified the possibility that some time of interim roadway stabilization could come much sooner than any permanent repair of the canyon and any new drainage system.
Several times, the use of 'soldier columns' I think referring to long steel beams supporting large pieces of lumber could be reasonably quickly sunk into the failing canyon wall to stabilize the roadway above. Even core samples have already been taken to determine if that is a good option during the time the rainy season officially begins on October 15 and when the permanent repairs are completed, sometime in the future.
The second piece of news is that the original 'best guess' estimation for the cost of a permanent repair was about 19.5 Million Dollars.
At last night's meeting the Project's Leader suggested that any of the three alternatives now being considered for further study would probably come in at a total cost of around 10 Million Dollars or almost half of the original estimate.
Presenting the status meeting were the Project's leader, a contract geologist, several members of our City Staff, and other contracted representatives who had experiences with the other major canyon problem, corrected not that long ago and a person who worked quite a bit on the Blue Bird Canyon disaster repair in Orange County.
Statements during the meeting suggested that the Initial Study may come out this coming fall and that four alternatives will be studied.
In every Initial Study, under normal circumstances, the "No Project" alternative is legally required. It must be studied and both the pros and cons must be discusses for doing nothing to fix the problems.
Currently, Alternative #1 seems to be tauted by those giving the meeting as the best repair fix now being considered.
This alternative would have a tunnel constructed, beginning just above the Tarapaca landslide area and ultimately ending with an outfall into the Pacific Ocean, all constructed on and under land with the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Alternative #2 has the canyon being cleared of debris and then placing a large pipe at the bottom of the canyon, hooked into the existing drainage pipes that run under 25Th Street and through an old system located within Los Angeles, again with its current outfall into the Pacific Ocean.
Alternative #3 is a combination of a tunnel or piping system beginning at the base of the top of San Ramon Canyon and continuing down the canyon to then hook with the existing system, again within Los Angeles.
Alternative #1 provides the greatest amount of construction, responsibility, and authority within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The tunnel would go under the switchbacks and once it crosses under 25Th Street/P.V.D. South, the tunnel becomes and open culvert until a second tunnel takes the water and debris to the Pacific Ocean, at the bottom of the cliff.
It was also strongly suggested that these matters be taken before the R.P.V. City Council during one of is upcoming regular meetings to offer a status report to the members and get their first recorded responses and opinions about what could go forward.
Look for a third meeting in the fall, probably on or near the publication date of the Initial Study.
Work is being done on solutions to get a permanent repair for the drainage failure issues. Things have not been dormant, in any way, since the prior meeting, on an evening in May.
I see the project receiving the necessary support from City Staff and I hope the interest by all Council members is reflected well with the words provided by Councilman Misetich.
I do happen to be able to confirm that all members of the Council are very interested and concerned about all aspects with San Ramon Canyon and the surrounding community.
This issue must remain on the front burner and I appreciate that our Council also seems to believe that, too.
This second meeting was much better than the first, in my opinion. Gone from this meeting were so many negative comments from residents directed towards the geologist at the prior meeting and others who presented the first meeting.
Again I applaud Councilman Anthony Misetich for participating in the second meeting just like he participated in the meeting back in May. He demonstrated that our City Council is extremely interested in doing all the problem solving necessary to repair the drainage of San Ramon Canyon and work to avoid any disruption of traffic on the switchbacks.
There were two points of major importance brought up during the progress report section of the meeting that are very positive and I feel are very good to now know.
First, there are already plans underway to really deal with any interim problem that could force the closure of Palos Verdes Drive East, at or near the switchbacks.
City Staff, working with other agencies and contractors have identified the possibility that some time of interim roadway stabilization could come much sooner than any permanent repair of the canyon and any new drainage system.
Several times, the use of 'soldier columns' I think referring to long steel beams supporting large pieces of lumber could be reasonably quickly sunk into the failing canyon wall to stabilize the roadway above. Even core samples have already been taken to determine if that is a good option during the time the rainy season officially begins on October 15 and when the permanent repairs are completed, sometime in the future.
The second piece of news is that the original 'best guess' estimation for the cost of a permanent repair was about 19.5 Million Dollars.
At last night's meeting the Project's Leader suggested that any of the three alternatives now being considered for further study would probably come in at a total cost of around 10 Million Dollars or almost half of the original estimate.
Presenting the status meeting were the Project's leader, a contract geologist, several members of our City Staff, and other contracted representatives who had experiences with the other major canyon problem, corrected not that long ago and a person who worked quite a bit on the Blue Bird Canyon disaster repair in Orange County.
Statements during the meeting suggested that the Initial Study may come out this coming fall and that four alternatives will be studied.
In every Initial Study, under normal circumstances, the "No Project" alternative is legally required. It must be studied and both the pros and cons must be discusses for doing nothing to fix the problems.
Currently, Alternative #1 seems to be tauted by those giving the meeting as the best repair fix now being considered.
This alternative would have a tunnel constructed, beginning just above the Tarapaca landslide area and ultimately ending with an outfall into the Pacific Ocean, all constructed on and under land with the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Alternative #2 has the canyon being cleared of debris and then placing a large pipe at the bottom of the canyon, hooked into the existing drainage pipes that run under 25Th Street and through an old system located within Los Angeles, again with its current outfall into the Pacific Ocean.
Alternative #3 is a combination of a tunnel or piping system beginning at the base of the top of San Ramon Canyon and continuing down the canyon to then hook with the existing system, again within Los Angeles.
Alternative #1 provides the greatest amount of construction, responsibility, and authority within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The tunnel would go under the switchbacks and once it crosses under 25Th Street/P.V.D. South, the tunnel becomes and open culvert until a second tunnel takes the water and debris to the Pacific Ocean, at the bottom of the cliff.
It was also strongly suggested that these matters be taken before the R.P.V. City Council during one of is upcoming regular meetings to offer a status report to the members and get their first recorded responses and opinions about what could go forward.
Look for a third meeting in the fall, probably on or near the publication date of the Initial Study.
Work is being done on solutions to get a permanent repair for the drainage failure issues. Things have not been dormant, in any way, since the prior meeting, on an evening in May.
I see the project receiving the necessary support from City Staff and I hope the interest by all Council members is reflected well with the words provided by Councilman Misetich.
I do happen to be able to confirm that all members of the Council are very interested and concerned about all aspects with San Ramon Canyon and the surrounding community.
This issue must remain on the front burner and I appreciate that our Council also seems to believe that, too.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Much Adon't About Lights And Other News From The Council Meeting
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Counicl met at its regular meeting last night, but that was about the only 'regular' thing done during the more than five hour meeting that stretched until today.
It isn't my regular experience to see KCBS Channel 2 news doing a story prior and during a Council meeting, but since the topic was anything but 'regular' I guess something like that could have been considered.
The big bru-ha-ha which got the Council Chambers filled to overflowing was the report to the Council concerning adding stadium lighting at Palos Veredes Peninsula High School. Since that school has not the shortest name of any high school around, I will refer to it as "Peni" for the remainder of this post.
Peni was built without permanent lighting for its football field back before it was Peni.
The current Steering Committee supporting having four light standards erected on the 50-year old campus is making the, at least third attempt to bring night football games and other evening events requiring permanent lighting to the High School, located within the city of Rolling Hills Estates.
Now the last paragraph may have provided an indication as to where this issue cannot lead to.
Since Peni is in Rolling Hills Estates, but almost 100% of the single-family residential housing encircling the school and in the adjacent neighborhoods are within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, perhaps you can see where the entire issue is leading.
It was, is, and will be, leading just about nowhere with regards to any real decision-making authority by members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
But wait, as with so many things, there is more.
Since Peni is part of the PVPUSD and that District has the power to supersede rights and authorities granted to Rolling Hills Estates, even that city's Council may have absolutely almost no say in the matter.
After almost 27 public speakers, 15 of which supported adding stadium lighting, the Council voted to have a letter drafted by the city to make advisement to both the Rolling Hills Estates City Council and the PVPUSD Board of Education.
The supporters of stadium lighting at Peni noted repeatedly that new lights are now designed much better than old stadium lighting. The also said the broke sound system would be replaced by a state-of-the-art set of speakers, mounted on the four proposed light poles and that studies indicated the noise coming out of the speakers would be no louder, in surrounding neighborhoods that the sound coming out of a family's refrigerator. OK, laugh now, please.
The Steering Committee leadership also tauted the fact that the management of Peninsula Center has agreed to allow overflow parking on its property and that traffic would be controlled when paid persons, funded by revenues generated by ticket sales, would assist in traffic management.
Many speakers commented that since there has been no permanent stadium lighting at Peni, the varsity football home games had to be played during the afternoon when too many parents and other interested spectators have not been able to attend home games.
While I don't really consider that our residents living in eastern R.P.V. and Miraleste have a real 'dog in the fight' I can consider that we offer to either side of the discussion points that should be considered by all.
First, had Eastview students not been allowed to attend PVPUSD schools and had not done so in the numbers and percentages we see today, all discussion about stadium lighting would not be occurring due to the fact that there would be only one large public high school in PVPUSD and funding would have far fewer advantages than is currently considered.
Second, I think many residents on our side of The Hill understand that fog plays a large role in really affecting reflected lighting off of low clouds and that is something not mentioned by any speaker at last night's meeting.
As for sound, supporters and opponents pointed to the new speakers as being the biggest problem with sound amplification and noise and only a very few speakers spoke about noise issues not coming from the speakers. HELLO!
I guess PVPUSD football fans never honk their horns after a home victory. I guess the noises from the fans gathered together on the bleachers remain silent before, during, and after games. How sad is that?
I guess the one speaker who stated he know of no vandalism revolving around fans of either team playing never has happened or would happen at Peni. Really?
I guess traffic and parking will be completely mitigated by the management of Peninsula Center...well until at least the first trashing of the parking lot prior or after games.
Since this is at least the third attempt to bring permanent stadium lighting to Peni, I should have figured out that when I asked one of the members of the Steering Committee why previous attempts had failed, she would know why. But apparently she did not know all the reasons prior attempts had failed.
After more than an hour of listening to speakers and discussing the issue, the Council voted to have Staff draft a letter and send it out.
The PVPUSD Board of Education may vote as early as tomorrow night on whether to allow stadium lighting to go forward.
We will probably have a chance to read Ms. Ashley Ratcliff's and Ms. Melissa Pamer's articles in their respective newspapers in a day or so.
I was still at the Council meeting during and after the 11:00 Channel 2 news aired so I don't know if the stadium lighting package was produced during the broadcast.
Had the stadium lighting issue not taken so long, I think the entire Council meeting would have lasted no more than 2-1/2 hours, even with what I consider some long-winded comments on a variety of subjects from the Mayor and other Council members.
It was great to watch Ira, our Project Planner talk about the awards he and City Staff received because of their fantastic work with Terranea. Our city continues to shovel income in from that high-class resort and the great work of Staff and all the elected and appointed representatives of Rancho Palos Verdes deserve kudos for finally helping to get Terranea open and keeping it open and sending TOT revenue into city coffers.
With the stadium lighting discussions, the reflection about how great Terranea has been as a neighbor and how the debates and discussions between our city and Lowe's was just about the best possible, it was quite the contrast to then have to deal with the Council approving a Resolution stating the unanimous opposition, by the Council, to the ballot initiative.
Three speakers addressed the Council during public comment on the Agenda Item.
Ms. Kelly Curtis identified herself as the Director of Communications for Marymount College.
Strike one for being a paid supporter of The Marymount Plan.
Ms. Curtis may have never been to a prior City Council meeting when issues revolving around Marymount College came up because she offered many of the exact same points for approving the ballot measure as had already been approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the five gentlemen she was speaking to, with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
Councilman Douglas Stern inquired of her, after she finished her comments, whether just about everything she tauted as being on The Marymount Plan had already been included and approved with The Project. On at least two occasions, Ms. Curtis could only affirm what Councilman Stern knew was the truth, no matter what Ms. Curtis contended.
Ms. Curtis even attempted to chide, in my opinion, Councilman Stern's comments toward her.
Really! As the College's Director of Communications, she should have been much more savvy with the information she should have already known and what she was trying to push off onto the Council.
The third speaker was a former State of California legislator, Mr. Steve Kuykendall.
Mr. Kuykendall has been identified as a paid lobbyist representing Marymount College.
Strike two for using paid persons rather than unpaid volunteers to try and make points with the Council.
Mr. Kuykendall offered apologies because Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy was '6,000 miles' away at the time of the meeting.
(I wonder where he may be job-hunting?) Oops! My bad.
Anyway, Mr. Kuykendall spoke about several issues that again offered only a repeat of what had already been approved and then he noted that it looks like the issues are now getting 'political'.
HELLO!!!! When was a day ever that is wasn't political?
I seem to always submit my speaker's request before anyone else does when speaking about Marymount, so that meant I went first.
I get paid nothing to speak for anyone, by anyone, on any topic, for any reason, to anyone on Staff or elected within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I am not a paid lobbyist or paid employee of any College.
Strike three. Not only am I not paid for my comments, I continue to contend that my comments provide more proof, are more complete, and do not allow for miscommunication.
I also am able to continue to state that no one representing Marymount College has found anything I have written or said to be something refutable or untrue.
Even Dr. Brophy has told me that he can't find any remark in this blog that is not truthful.
It was the issues of the placement of the new field 60 feet east of where Marymounts really wants it that held up almost immediate unanimous approval of the Resolution.
Mayor Pro Tem Long stated that he would never lend his name to a Resolution that allowed for the reason of safety as being the reason the majority of the City Council voted to move the field 60 feet to the east.
With assistance from the City Attorney towards the authors of the Resolution, a change in wording allowed Tom Long to agree to become part of the unanimous approval of the measure.
I spoke to Ms. Curtis a bit, during a break in the Resolution's debate. She claims she know who I am. I stated to her that I would continue to bring forth misstatements made by her and other representing Marymount College and that I feel that not stating complete facts and only offering partial statements is miscommunication, in my view, deceptive, in my opinion, and not right for anyone, especially a Director of Communication in an institution identified so closely with a religious organization, should do.
I await her invitation or anyone Else's invitation to discuss and debate The Marymount Plan versus The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, which I strongly support.
I have plenty of Ice Cube trays waiting to help cool the underworld. They will stay in storage forever, I suspect.
It isn't my regular experience to see KCBS Channel 2 news doing a story prior and during a Council meeting, but since the topic was anything but 'regular' I guess something like that could have been considered.
The big bru-ha-ha which got the Council Chambers filled to overflowing was the report to the Council concerning adding stadium lighting at Palos Veredes Peninsula High School. Since that school has not the shortest name of any high school around, I will refer to it as "Peni" for the remainder of this post.
Peni was built without permanent lighting for its football field back before it was Peni.
The current Steering Committee supporting having four light standards erected on the 50-year old campus is making the, at least third attempt to bring night football games and other evening events requiring permanent lighting to the High School, located within the city of Rolling Hills Estates.
Now the last paragraph may have provided an indication as to where this issue cannot lead to.
Since Peni is in Rolling Hills Estates, but almost 100% of the single-family residential housing encircling the school and in the adjacent neighborhoods are within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, perhaps you can see where the entire issue is leading.
It was, is, and will be, leading just about nowhere with regards to any real decision-making authority by members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
But wait, as with so many things, there is more.
Since Peni is part of the PVPUSD and that District has the power to supersede rights and authorities granted to Rolling Hills Estates, even that city's Council may have absolutely almost no say in the matter.
After almost 27 public speakers, 15 of which supported adding stadium lighting, the Council voted to have a letter drafted by the city to make advisement to both the Rolling Hills Estates City Council and the PVPUSD Board of Education.
The supporters of stadium lighting at Peni noted repeatedly that new lights are now designed much better than old stadium lighting. The also said the broke sound system would be replaced by a state-of-the-art set of speakers, mounted on the four proposed light poles and that studies indicated the noise coming out of the speakers would be no louder, in surrounding neighborhoods that the sound coming out of a family's refrigerator. OK, laugh now, please.
The Steering Committee leadership also tauted the fact that the management of Peninsula Center has agreed to allow overflow parking on its property and that traffic would be controlled when paid persons, funded by revenues generated by ticket sales, would assist in traffic management.
Many speakers commented that since there has been no permanent stadium lighting at Peni, the varsity football home games had to be played during the afternoon when too many parents and other interested spectators have not been able to attend home games.
While I don't really consider that our residents living in eastern R.P.V. and Miraleste have a real 'dog in the fight' I can consider that we offer to either side of the discussion points that should be considered by all.
First, had Eastview students not been allowed to attend PVPUSD schools and had not done so in the numbers and percentages we see today, all discussion about stadium lighting would not be occurring due to the fact that there would be only one large public high school in PVPUSD and funding would have far fewer advantages than is currently considered.
Second, I think many residents on our side of The Hill understand that fog plays a large role in really affecting reflected lighting off of low clouds and that is something not mentioned by any speaker at last night's meeting.
As for sound, supporters and opponents pointed to the new speakers as being the biggest problem with sound amplification and noise and only a very few speakers spoke about noise issues not coming from the speakers. HELLO!
I guess PVPUSD football fans never honk their horns after a home victory. I guess the noises from the fans gathered together on the bleachers remain silent before, during, and after games. How sad is that?
I guess the one speaker who stated he know of no vandalism revolving around fans of either team playing never has happened or would happen at Peni. Really?
I guess traffic and parking will be completely mitigated by the management of Peninsula Center...well until at least the first trashing of the parking lot prior or after games.
Since this is at least the third attempt to bring permanent stadium lighting to Peni, I should have figured out that when I asked one of the members of the Steering Committee why previous attempts had failed, she would know why. But apparently she did not know all the reasons prior attempts had failed.
After more than an hour of listening to speakers and discussing the issue, the Council voted to have Staff draft a letter and send it out.
The PVPUSD Board of Education may vote as early as tomorrow night on whether to allow stadium lighting to go forward.
We will probably have a chance to read Ms. Ashley Ratcliff's and Ms. Melissa Pamer's articles in their respective newspapers in a day or so.
I was still at the Council meeting during and after the 11:00 Channel 2 news aired so I don't know if the stadium lighting package was produced during the broadcast.
Had the stadium lighting issue not taken so long, I think the entire Council meeting would have lasted no more than 2-1/2 hours, even with what I consider some long-winded comments on a variety of subjects from the Mayor and other Council members.
It was great to watch Ira, our Project Planner talk about the awards he and City Staff received because of their fantastic work with Terranea. Our city continues to shovel income in from that high-class resort and the great work of Staff and all the elected and appointed representatives of Rancho Palos Verdes deserve kudos for finally helping to get Terranea open and keeping it open and sending TOT revenue into city coffers.
With the stadium lighting discussions, the reflection about how great Terranea has been as a neighbor and how the debates and discussions between our city and Lowe's was just about the best possible, it was quite the contrast to then have to deal with the Council approving a Resolution stating the unanimous opposition, by the Council, to the ballot initiative.
Three speakers addressed the Council during public comment on the Agenda Item.
Ms. Kelly Curtis identified herself as the Director of Communications for Marymount College.
Strike one for being a paid supporter of The Marymount Plan.
Ms. Curtis may have never been to a prior City Council meeting when issues revolving around Marymount College came up because she offered many of the exact same points for approving the ballot measure as had already been approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the five gentlemen she was speaking to, with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
Councilman Douglas Stern inquired of her, after she finished her comments, whether just about everything she tauted as being on The Marymount Plan had already been included and approved with The Project. On at least two occasions, Ms. Curtis could only affirm what Councilman Stern knew was the truth, no matter what Ms. Curtis contended.
Ms. Curtis even attempted to chide, in my opinion, Councilman Stern's comments toward her.
Really! As the College's Director of Communications, she should have been much more savvy with the information she should have already known and what she was trying to push off onto the Council.
The third speaker was a former State of California legislator, Mr. Steve Kuykendall.
Mr. Kuykendall has been identified as a paid lobbyist representing Marymount College.
Strike two for using paid persons rather than unpaid volunteers to try and make points with the Council.
Mr. Kuykendall offered apologies because Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy was '6,000 miles' away at the time of the meeting.
(I wonder where he may be job-hunting?) Oops! My bad.
Anyway, Mr. Kuykendall spoke about several issues that again offered only a repeat of what had already been approved and then he noted that it looks like the issues are now getting 'political'.
HELLO!!!! When was a day ever that is wasn't political?
I seem to always submit my speaker's request before anyone else does when speaking about Marymount, so that meant I went first.
I get paid nothing to speak for anyone, by anyone, on any topic, for any reason, to anyone on Staff or elected within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I am not a paid lobbyist or paid employee of any College.
Strike three. Not only am I not paid for my comments, I continue to contend that my comments provide more proof, are more complete, and do not allow for miscommunication.
I also am able to continue to state that no one representing Marymount College has found anything I have written or said to be something refutable or untrue.
Even Dr. Brophy has told me that he can't find any remark in this blog that is not truthful.
It was the issues of the placement of the new field 60 feet east of where Marymounts really wants it that held up almost immediate unanimous approval of the Resolution.
Mayor Pro Tem Long stated that he would never lend his name to a Resolution that allowed for the reason of safety as being the reason the majority of the City Council voted to move the field 60 feet to the east.
With assistance from the City Attorney towards the authors of the Resolution, a change in wording allowed Tom Long to agree to become part of the unanimous approval of the measure.
I spoke to Ms. Curtis a bit, during a break in the Resolution's debate. She claims she know who I am. I stated to her that I would continue to bring forth misstatements made by her and other representing Marymount College and that I feel that not stating complete facts and only offering partial statements is miscommunication, in my view, deceptive, in my opinion, and not right for anyone, especially a Director of Communication in an institution identified so closely with a religious organization, should do.
I await her invitation or anyone Else's invitation to discuss and debate The Marymount Plan versus The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, which I strongly support.
I have plenty of Ice Cube trays waiting to help cool the underworld. They will stay in storage forever, I suspect.
Directing Miscommunication
During the City Council's discussion about their enacting a Resolution in opposition to the Marymount ballot initiative, three persons rose to make comments.
I was the first to address the Council and I don't get paid one penny to address our City Council on any matter, at any time, or in any location.
The second person to comment identified herself as the Director of Communications for Marymount College.
The speaker got us and addressed the Council, telling them that The Marymount Plan would provide a brand new library on the campus and other amenities before she talked about dorms.
Councilman Stern asked the Director of Communications several questions including whether what she spoke about with regard to the new Library and amenities other than dorms had already been approved of, by the Council, with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
The woman hesitated a bit before she said "yes" in answering Councilman Stern's question about everything other than dorms she had been talking about had already been approved.
But when she stated that The Marymount Plan would be built at "no expense" to the taxpayers, I couldn't help making a not-so-nice sound because Marymount's Director of Communication made statements that were not factually true, and she knew it.
So, in 'honor' of yet another paid person getting up to offer her opinion about The Marymount Plan and the ballot measure AND the fact that she identified herself as being Marymount's Director of Communications, I now and into the future, dub the individual; Kelly, the Director of Miscommunication. From now on I shall refer to this individual as K.D.M. and I will await a response as to why she or anyone else feels I have misidentified her.
Did I misidentify her because she stated that The Marymount Plan will be built at 'no expense' to taxpayers?
Did I misidentify her because she claimed that Marymount will donate up to $200,000.00 toward a concrete center median on Palos Verdes Drive East?
Did I misidentify her because she claimed that The Marymount Plan would provide a brand new state of the art Library?
Well, no! I didn't misidentify here because she used the same falsehoods and misstatements we have seen and heard so many times and it should be a rather easy consideration to suggest that a Communications Director of a Catholic College would have higher standards to tell the whole truth and not use the same deceptive comments that have been used for so long now.
To refresh Ms. Kelly's thoughts, I suggest I assist her in clarifying what points she attempted to make that fell on ears that didn't believe one word that came from her during her comments.
First, how could someone who rises to the position of being a Director of Communications be willing to state directly to the City Council members that The Marymount ballot measure will provide a new Library when she should have known that the individuals who she was speaking to already approved the exact same brand new Library she supports and they did so months ago?
Second, where on any page of The Marymount Plan or on any of the 51 pages of the initiative does it state that under the guidelines of The Marymount Plan and its initiative that any concrete center median along about 1,000 feet of Palos Verdes Drive East will be built at all?
Hey Kelly, read The Marymount Plan. You know, the one you endorse. Then take a look at the provisions of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. You know, the one ALREADY APPROVED!
K.D.M., did you find where the concrete center median appears in The Marymount Plan. Oops! I guess it isn't there, is it. That is because it was never considered in The Marymount Plan and was not included in the original wording of The Plan, yet it is part of The Project. You, as the Director of Communication, should know that.
And another thing, when you claim that Marymount will put in up to $200,000.00 towards a barrier that may cost at least $280,000.00, just where do you think the remainder of the funds to construct the thing will come from?
OK folks, all together now. Let's inform Kelly where the remainder of the funds will come from.
Ready! Set! Go! Taxpayers! That's right. So, K.D.M. if you are so very sure that the concrete center median is part of The Marymount Plan, then you also must know, as the Director of Communication, that taxpayer funds, most likely from the General Fund of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, must be used unless grants or other revenue sources comes along.
Now about the rest of the 'no taxpayer expense' part she claimed would be, but certainly should know is not totally truthful. There are other mitigation requirements that Dr. Brophy (That's Kelly's boss) claims his College will pay its "fair share" for will also require taxpayer funds to get incorporated into The Marymount Plan, as it is currently written.
But in consideration of pondering on the past and towards the future and after listening to Marymount's Director of Communication have to state that what she was telling our City Council was redundant on its face and not completely truthful, in part, perhaps the individual speaking before the City Council during the meeting is the person who came up with 'talking points' that are clearly deceptive, outrageous, and can be shown to be not as truthful as they could be.
To a question that seemed to be offered to her about the fact that the only new construction not already approved for construction were the residence halls, the Director of Communication could only truthfully communicate that the answer is 'yes'.
And why aren't residence halls included in the new construction? Well in truth and fact, Marymount's administration pulled those items out of consideration during the meetings by the Planning Commission and there were no real votes taken prior to sending The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project to the City Council where is was eventually just about completely approved, with only several minor variations about a roof height, the placement of the large field, and the addition of that concrete center median barrier.
Then if I remember correctly, K.D.M. talked about how Marymount will provide more parking spaces and that there would be less traffic because of having residence halls on campus.
First, K.D.M. it should be your responsibility to know a great deal about the Environmental Impact Report you are basing you statements on.
Yes, there could be more parking spaces. But you should know that the total amount of parking spaces you support at Marymount is still fewer than are required under existing Rancho Palos Verdes ordinances and The Project has already granted Marymount a variance, that also makes The Marymount Plan redundant.
Now about more or less traffic. The original E.I.R. clearly stated that there would be an additional 1,591 weekday trips with on campus residential student housing included.
Now since K.D.M., and the Director of Communications already knows, students residing in off-campus student housing are more than encouraged to use the College's shuttles that have drivers trained to take passengers along the various curving and hilly roadbeds.
K.D.M. also should know that the addition of upper classpersons to a college that hasn't had them will actually increase the number of vehicle trips due to the fact that, as upper classpersons', those students tend to own more vehicles than Freshmen do.
Now Kelly also knows that up to 125 Juniors and Seniors might avail themselves of on-campus housing should it be approved and that means fewer Freshmen would have chances to live in the dorms, as opposed to not having upper classpersons at Marymount.
So she doesn't seem willing to admit that recent changes in the curriculum of the college could actually add more daily vehicle trips that even Appendix D's suggestion stated.
Originally I was taking some time to consider not being as mean to Ms. Curtis as it appears I have been in this post.
But then I got to pondering that she may be one of the chief instigators in spreading apparent deceptive information, half truths, and probably real falsehoods and she certainly seemed to continue that with her comments in front of the City Council.
To me, I think she may think our Council members are ignorant of the real truths concerning Marymount and she displayed a degree of being disingenuous towards the Council that made me laugh.
I was wondering how those men kept such a straight face when she offered her comments. I would not have been able to look at her and not smiled or smirked during her remarks.
As a Communications Director of an institution that is supposed to promote high standards of truth, morality, honor, intelligence, good regard towards the community and openness, especially when that institution is affiliated with a religious organization, Ms. Curtis did nothing during the meeting to suggest she works for an institution that does not deserve supportive votes by the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I call on Ms. Kelly Curtis to become open, honest, forthright, and completely truthful between now and November 2. I think as Marymount's Communications Director, she could provide honest debate and discussion rather than towing the lines that keep getting called out.
I call on the Communications Director to be the leader in attempting to get all other paid representatives of Marymount College to only provide truthful, complete, and honest comments that can't be torn apart as easily as we can do with all the comments that have come from Marymount's representatives over these last many months.
I expect those in positions like Directors to be responsible, reasonable, realistic, and respectful, toward all elements within the community and demonstrate a higher standard to reflect good standards on students who choose to attend Marymount College.
As far as debating the Director of Communications, now that might be far too easy, at this point.
After hearing her lay out old lines that were rebuked within moments by at least one Councilman, I don't believe she has studied the E.I.R. and viewed as many studies, facts, or talked to more folks on all sides of the issue than even I have.
But if her comments and the comments by Dr. Brophy are any indication of the things to come, I don't think she or Dr. Brophy are willing to debate anyone on these matters.
It now appears that too many representatives of Marymount are only willing to state their positions without backing them up with true and complete facts and they don't intend on really debating or discussing matters with those of us opposed to The Marymount Plan and its ballot measure.
After all, it's like Mayor Pro Tem Long commented, if I remember correctly; Every new building construction Marymount Supporters asked the City Council for, they received.
Yes, the field is about 60 feet to the east of where Marymount wanted it. Yes, the overall height of the roof of the athletic building is about 10 feet shorter. But the field is on the side of the campus Marymount demanded it be placed. The athletic building still has the exact same floor area that Marymount wanted.
Marymount received all that it asked the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council for and they were even provided more than they asked for, in the form of potentially improved safety for students and the community.
Vote NO on the initiative. It's not necessary, but it is redundant.
I was the first to address the Council and I don't get paid one penny to address our City Council on any matter, at any time, or in any location.
The second person to comment identified herself as the Director of Communications for Marymount College.
The speaker got us and addressed the Council, telling them that The Marymount Plan would provide a brand new library on the campus and other amenities before she talked about dorms.
Councilman Stern asked the Director of Communications several questions including whether what she spoke about with regard to the new Library and amenities other than dorms had already been approved of, by the Council, with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
The woman hesitated a bit before she said "yes" in answering Councilman Stern's question about everything other than dorms she had been talking about had already been approved.
But when she stated that The Marymount Plan would be built at "no expense" to the taxpayers, I couldn't help making a not-so-nice sound because Marymount's Director of Communication made statements that were not factually true, and she knew it.
So, in 'honor' of yet another paid person getting up to offer her opinion about The Marymount Plan and the ballot measure AND the fact that she identified herself as being Marymount's Director of Communications, I now and into the future, dub the individual; Kelly, the Director of Miscommunication. From now on I shall refer to this individual as K.D.M. and I will await a response as to why she or anyone else feels I have misidentified her.
Did I misidentify her because she stated that The Marymount Plan will be built at 'no expense' to taxpayers?
Did I misidentify her because she claimed that Marymount will donate up to $200,000.00 toward a concrete center median on Palos Verdes Drive East?
Did I misidentify her because she claimed that The Marymount Plan would provide a brand new state of the art Library?
Well, no! I didn't misidentify here because she used the same falsehoods and misstatements we have seen and heard so many times and it should be a rather easy consideration to suggest that a Communications Director of a Catholic College would have higher standards to tell the whole truth and not use the same deceptive comments that have been used for so long now.
To refresh Ms. Kelly's thoughts, I suggest I assist her in clarifying what points she attempted to make that fell on ears that didn't believe one word that came from her during her comments.
First, how could someone who rises to the position of being a Director of Communications be willing to state directly to the City Council members that The Marymount ballot measure will provide a new Library when she should have known that the individuals who she was speaking to already approved the exact same brand new Library she supports and they did so months ago?
Second, where on any page of The Marymount Plan or on any of the 51 pages of the initiative does it state that under the guidelines of The Marymount Plan and its initiative that any concrete center median along about 1,000 feet of Palos Verdes Drive East will be built at all?
Hey Kelly, read The Marymount Plan. You know, the one you endorse. Then take a look at the provisions of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. You know, the one ALREADY APPROVED!
K.D.M., did you find where the concrete center median appears in The Marymount Plan. Oops! I guess it isn't there, is it. That is because it was never considered in The Marymount Plan and was not included in the original wording of The Plan, yet it is part of The Project. You, as the Director of Communication, should know that.
And another thing, when you claim that Marymount will put in up to $200,000.00 towards a barrier that may cost at least $280,000.00, just where do you think the remainder of the funds to construct the thing will come from?
OK folks, all together now. Let's inform Kelly where the remainder of the funds will come from.
Ready! Set! Go! Taxpayers! That's right. So, K.D.M. if you are so very sure that the concrete center median is part of The Marymount Plan, then you also must know, as the Director of Communication, that taxpayer funds, most likely from the General Fund of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, must be used unless grants or other revenue sources comes along.
Now about the rest of the 'no taxpayer expense' part she claimed would be, but certainly should know is not totally truthful. There are other mitigation requirements that Dr. Brophy (That's Kelly's boss) claims his College will pay its "fair share" for will also require taxpayer funds to get incorporated into The Marymount Plan, as it is currently written.
But in consideration of pondering on the past and towards the future and after listening to Marymount's Director of Communication have to state that what she was telling our City Council was redundant on its face and not completely truthful, in part, perhaps the individual speaking before the City Council during the meeting is the person who came up with 'talking points' that are clearly deceptive, outrageous, and can be shown to be not as truthful as they could be.
To a question that seemed to be offered to her about the fact that the only new construction not already approved for construction were the residence halls, the Director of Communication could only truthfully communicate that the answer is 'yes'.
And why aren't residence halls included in the new construction? Well in truth and fact, Marymount's administration pulled those items out of consideration during the meetings by the Planning Commission and there were no real votes taken prior to sending The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project to the City Council where is was eventually just about completely approved, with only several minor variations about a roof height, the placement of the large field, and the addition of that concrete center median barrier.
Then if I remember correctly, K.D.M. talked about how Marymount will provide more parking spaces and that there would be less traffic because of having residence halls on campus.
First, K.D.M. it should be your responsibility to know a great deal about the Environmental Impact Report you are basing you statements on.
Yes, there could be more parking spaces. But you should know that the total amount of parking spaces you support at Marymount is still fewer than are required under existing Rancho Palos Verdes ordinances and The Project has already granted Marymount a variance, that also makes The Marymount Plan redundant.
Now about more or less traffic. The original E.I.R. clearly stated that there would be an additional 1,591 weekday trips with on campus residential student housing included.
Now since K.D.M., and the Director of Communications already knows, students residing in off-campus student housing are more than encouraged to use the College's shuttles that have drivers trained to take passengers along the various curving and hilly roadbeds.
K.D.M. also should know that the addition of upper classpersons to a college that hasn't had them will actually increase the number of vehicle trips due to the fact that, as upper classpersons', those students tend to own more vehicles than Freshmen do.
Now Kelly also knows that up to 125 Juniors and Seniors might avail themselves of on-campus housing should it be approved and that means fewer Freshmen would have chances to live in the dorms, as opposed to not having upper classpersons at Marymount.
So she doesn't seem willing to admit that recent changes in the curriculum of the college could actually add more daily vehicle trips that even Appendix D's suggestion stated.
Originally I was taking some time to consider not being as mean to Ms. Curtis as it appears I have been in this post.
But then I got to pondering that she may be one of the chief instigators in spreading apparent deceptive information, half truths, and probably real falsehoods and she certainly seemed to continue that with her comments in front of the City Council.
To me, I think she may think our Council members are ignorant of the real truths concerning Marymount and she displayed a degree of being disingenuous towards the Council that made me laugh.
I was wondering how those men kept such a straight face when she offered her comments. I would not have been able to look at her and not smiled or smirked during her remarks.
As a Communications Director of an institution that is supposed to promote high standards of truth, morality, honor, intelligence, good regard towards the community and openness, especially when that institution is affiliated with a religious organization, Ms. Curtis did nothing during the meeting to suggest she works for an institution that does not deserve supportive votes by the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I call on Ms. Kelly Curtis to become open, honest, forthright, and completely truthful between now and November 2. I think as Marymount's Communications Director, she could provide honest debate and discussion rather than towing the lines that keep getting called out.
I call on the Communications Director to be the leader in attempting to get all other paid representatives of Marymount College to only provide truthful, complete, and honest comments that can't be torn apart as easily as we can do with all the comments that have come from Marymount's representatives over these last many months.
I expect those in positions like Directors to be responsible, reasonable, realistic, and respectful, toward all elements within the community and demonstrate a higher standard to reflect good standards on students who choose to attend Marymount College.
As far as debating the Director of Communications, now that might be far too easy, at this point.
After hearing her lay out old lines that were rebuked within moments by at least one Councilman, I don't believe she has studied the E.I.R. and viewed as many studies, facts, or talked to more folks on all sides of the issue than even I have.
But if her comments and the comments by Dr. Brophy are any indication of the things to come, I don't think she or Dr. Brophy are willing to debate anyone on these matters.
It now appears that too many representatives of Marymount are only willing to state their positions without backing them up with true and complete facts and they don't intend on really debating or discussing matters with those of us opposed to The Marymount Plan and its ballot measure.
After all, it's like Mayor Pro Tem Long commented, if I remember correctly; Every new building construction Marymount Supporters asked the City Council for, they received.
Yes, the field is about 60 feet to the east of where Marymount wanted it. Yes, the overall height of the roof of the athletic building is about 10 feet shorter. But the field is on the side of the campus Marymount demanded it be placed. The athletic building still has the exact same floor area that Marymount wanted.
Marymount received all that it asked the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council for and they were even provided more than they asked for, in the form of potentially improved safety for students and the community.
Vote NO on the initiative. It's not necessary, but it is redundant.
Monday, July 19, 2010
San Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project Update Meeting
The information directly below is from rpvlistserver, today.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department is hosting an informational meeting for the public on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. to share the status of the San Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project now that field investigations are underway and alternatives are being studied. The meeting will take place at Miraleste Intermediate School, 29323 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275.
The Daily Breeze inadvertently printed the wrong meeting date in today's edition. The meeting is on Wednesday, July 21st, not today July 19Th. The remainder of the information is correct. We apologize for the confusion.
For More Information please visit the City’s website at www.palosverdes.com/rpv or contact RPV Public Works at: (310) 544-5253, Fax (310) 544-5292. RPV Website
Thank You.
RPV Public Works
------------------------------------------------------------
As far as we all should be concerned, the San Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project needs to remain on the front burner until we are all comfortable that there is zero chances that any piece of asphalt or guardrail along Palos Verdes Drive East has any possibility of falling into the canyon until 'H' 'E' 'double toothpicks' freezes over.
Land movement will always be a continuing problem in our city and this particular problem won't go away until some major steps are completed.
Having update meetings where the public can hear and speak is one way to move the issues forward towards eventual resolves.
Like the storm drain issues that found disaster in other canyon areas and like our 'old friend' the Portuguese Bend slide area, were are going to be connected at the hip with land slippage problems whether we like it or not and the San Ramon Canyon area is now the hot button we have to stop pushing towards the potential loss of a very important roadbed.
As long as our city sits on the type of ground it sits on and as long as The Hill continues to be a hill, we are not able to avoid and ignore simple truths that the ground moves and we must control that movement better to keep our city in reasonable working order and our residents in reasonable and realistic transportation options and safety concerns.
Not stabilizing San Ramon Canyon and the not working on the Tarapaca landslide area is something our city can no longer tolerate and none of our residents should tolerate it, either, I feel.
It is going to take money, but it is first going to take better understanding by all and more cooperation with other governmental entities and even some private landowners.
The uniqueness of what lies underneath parts of our city and the topography of parts of Rancho Palos Verdes mandate that our residents become more aware of the issues and how we all need to work better to keep our liabilities better in check.
I don't think the residents of all of Rancho Palos Verdes, even on the northwest and east sides wish to have our city government saddled with more dept due to lawsuits and payouts because of not dealing with land that moves when we don't want it to.
There are so many neighborhoods in Rancho Palos Verdes that have residents who could not care less about the area around San Ramon Canyon, P.V. Drive East, and parts of San Pedro.
To them it is out of sight and out of mind. We have seen and had our wallets and pocketbooks lose some funds because our residents looked the other way for far too long when not looking at storm drainage issues.
A great number of our city's residents have had their time and patience taken away from them when they were stuck in traffic along Western Avenue when storm drain failures caused massive transportation headaches.
We learned from years and years of inaction by previous City Councils that swept infrastructure issues under the table because of the wants by too many residents to keep those important issues from being dealt with when they should have been dealt with.
Now we have watched the Storm Drain fee increased and more dirt and debris has been delivered to 25Th Street and Palos Verdes Drive South. We continue to be required to pay for repairs on a 8/10 of a mile or roadway that moves faster than any other roadbed in the Western Hemisphere.
We are contending with dealing with land slippage that could cause a portion of Palos Verdes Drive East to break away from where it now lies and fall into the canyon, closing the very important route for who knows how long.
Whether we like it or not, the time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things and stabilizing the walls of San Ramon Canyon is just about the most important issues we must deal with in Rancho Palos Verdes.
It is important now and for the future of our residents, neighborhoods, and city.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department is hosting an informational meeting for the public on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. to share the status of the San Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project now that field investigations are underway and alternatives are being studied. The meeting will take place at Miraleste Intermediate School, 29323 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275.
The Daily Breeze inadvertently printed the wrong meeting date in today's edition. The meeting is on Wednesday, July 21st, not today July 19Th. The remainder of the information is correct. We apologize for the confusion.
For More Information please visit the City’s website at www.palosverdes.com/rpv or contact RPV Public Works at: (310) 544-5253, Fax (310) 544-5292. RPV Website
Thank You.
RPV Public Works
------------------------------------------------------------
As far as we all should be concerned, the San Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project needs to remain on the front burner until we are all comfortable that there is zero chances that any piece of asphalt or guardrail along Palos Verdes Drive East has any possibility of falling into the canyon until 'H' 'E' 'double toothpicks' freezes over.
Land movement will always be a continuing problem in our city and this particular problem won't go away until some major steps are completed.
Having update meetings where the public can hear and speak is one way to move the issues forward towards eventual resolves.
Like the storm drain issues that found disaster in other canyon areas and like our 'old friend' the Portuguese Bend slide area, were are going to be connected at the hip with land slippage problems whether we like it or not and the San Ramon Canyon area is now the hot button we have to stop pushing towards the potential loss of a very important roadbed.
As long as our city sits on the type of ground it sits on and as long as The Hill continues to be a hill, we are not able to avoid and ignore simple truths that the ground moves and we must control that movement better to keep our city in reasonable working order and our residents in reasonable and realistic transportation options and safety concerns.
Not stabilizing San Ramon Canyon and the not working on the Tarapaca landslide area is something our city can no longer tolerate and none of our residents should tolerate it, either, I feel.
It is going to take money, but it is first going to take better understanding by all and more cooperation with other governmental entities and even some private landowners.
The uniqueness of what lies underneath parts of our city and the topography of parts of Rancho Palos Verdes mandate that our residents become more aware of the issues and how we all need to work better to keep our liabilities better in check.
I don't think the residents of all of Rancho Palos Verdes, even on the northwest and east sides wish to have our city government saddled with more dept due to lawsuits and payouts because of not dealing with land that moves when we don't want it to.
There are so many neighborhoods in Rancho Palos Verdes that have residents who could not care less about the area around San Ramon Canyon, P.V. Drive East, and parts of San Pedro.
To them it is out of sight and out of mind. We have seen and had our wallets and pocketbooks lose some funds because our residents looked the other way for far too long when not looking at storm drainage issues.
A great number of our city's residents have had their time and patience taken away from them when they were stuck in traffic along Western Avenue when storm drain failures caused massive transportation headaches.
We learned from years and years of inaction by previous City Councils that swept infrastructure issues under the table because of the wants by too many residents to keep those important issues from being dealt with when they should have been dealt with.
Now we have watched the Storm Drain fee increased and more dirt and debris has been delivered to 25Th Street and Palos Verdes Drive South. We continue to be required to pay for repairs on a 8/10 of a mile or roadway that moves faster than any other roadbed in the Western Hemisphere.
We are contending with dealing with land slippage that could cause a portion of Palos Verdes Drive East to break away from where it now lies and fall into the canyon, closing the very important route for who knows how long.
Whether we like it or not, the time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things and stabilizing the walls of San Ramon Canyon is just about the most important issues we must deal with in Rancho Palos Verdes.
It is important now and for the future of our residents, neighborhoods, and city.
Bits and Pieces 5
"Hopefully next week." This was the answer Mr. Anthony Amalfitano provided to me when I asked him when he thought Amalfitano Bakery would open.
I believe there is at least one more inspection, with it probably being conducted tomorrow, before the new Bakery can open.
I think I knew it would not open today because there was not smell of freshly baked bread coming through our sliding screen door, earlier this morning.
____________________________________________
Although the chain-link fencing is gone from the area near the intersection of Avenida Aprenda and Western Avenue, there are still workers working on above ground items and there are probably workers continuing to finish up the two-story underground 'bunker' when the new pumping equipment was placed for the old Outflow System of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
After all these years and all this work, the Clearwater Program, the program to build a new Outfall System from Carson to the Pacific Ocean, is still in the future.
But the new pumping station will allow the old system, placed over 50 years ago, to continue to be of service until the new Outfall tunnel is constructed and all the new equipment is in place and running.
For more information about the Sanitation Districts' Clearwater Program and to view that nothing has really gone forward in some time, you can visit: http://www.clearwaterprogram.org/.
____________________________________________
Item #13 on the agenda of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting for Tuesday July 21, 2010:
Resolution Opposing Marymount College Initiative (Stern/Misetich)
Recommendation: COUNCILMAN MISETICH AND COUNCILMAN STERN RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2010-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL TAKING A POSITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE MARYMOUNT INITIATIVE CERTIFIED FOR THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010 BALLOT.
Councilman Douglas Stern 'volunteered' and Councilman Anthony Misetich was willing to volunteer to write a draft Resolution, as sub-committee members, to bring to the entire Council a Resolution to offer wording concerning the entire Council's opposition to The Marymount Plan's initiative in the Special Election, this November.
Under requirements of The Brown Act, the other members of the City Council will be able to discuss, debate, change, and vote on the Resolution only in the public meeting which is the regular City Council meeting, tomorrow night.
I expect that folks from all sides will want to speak to the Council unless Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy continues to have folks on his side of the issues remain silent so he can contend that it should be up to the voters who will approve The Marymount Plan.
This is what Dr. Brophy did when the City Council voted to place the measure on the ballot, a legal requirement, and then vote unanimously to oppose the measure.
Dr. Brophy was the only person to speak in favor of The Marymount Plan at that meeting while others used their rights to make comments in opposition to The Marymount Plans very few differences from The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, approved by the very same Council members who voted together to oppose The Marymount Plan.
I don't expect to hear about how new dorms at Marymount could be constructed and maintained at no cost to the College and then even having the College's treasury receive income from a third party's construction and operation of dorms on campus.
_______________________________________________________
If you were to bet that I will be speaking tomorrow evening to the City Council, I hope nobody takes your bet. They would lose and the payout would be less than nothing, I imagine.
I do hope to see a wider array of individuals representing a wide variety of groups get up and speak in opposition to the approval of the measure.
I can imagine that there are those who, in Sarah Palin's word usage, would "refudiate" Marymount's contentions as to why on campus student housing is so important to our community.
I think the rest of us would be more comfortable to repudiate Marymount's supporters' contentions.
_______________________________________________________
I am still waiting for someone from the Code Enforcement section of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes to come forward and tell all of us what will happen with the 'semi-nude' house on the corner of Trudie Drive and Highmore Avenue.
I have at least one photo of it on this blog.
_______________________________________________________
Starlight Cinemas is the owner of the multiplex theatres at The Terraces, in Rancho Palos Verdes.
The ticket prices are still probably the best in the South Bay.
I would recommend paying $11.00 for a bucket of popcorn and the largest size of soda as opposed to paying $10.50 for the largest bag of popcorn and the largest size of soda because with just the added $.50, you can get a refill on both the soda AND the tub of popcorn.
The movies are shown using all digital methods and there are up to two '3-D' movies playing.
The almost unbelievable ticket price for 2-D movies on Tuesday's and Thursdays for EVERYONE, ANY TIME is still $4.00. Seniors get that same ticket price on Wednesday's too. Seniors, like Terri and I still pay no more than $5.00 any time.
The only price difference still going on is that every 3-D movie ticket price is an additional $2.00.
The staff is friendly and all seem to be very good workers.
__________________________________________________
For Rancho Palos Verdes residents who like theatre, "Forever Plaid" opens on August 13 at the historic Warner Grand Theatre, in San Pedro.
"Dixie Swim Club" opens on August 13, also. This five-women play will be performed at the Little Fish Theatre, in San Pedro.
With theatre or theater performances at the Norris Theatre, Civic Light Opera of the South Bay, productions in Torrance and El Camino College, and maybe something enjoyable at Marymount College, there are entertainment opportunities in the local area that can entertain you, without having to drive to Hollywood or points beyond.
__________________________________________________
Now once again, here are four reasons, in my opinion, The Marymount Plan and its initiative are very bad for our city and surrounding communities:
Safety. Having college students living on Marymount's campus is a safety concern that I still have not been able to find compromise and reasonable understanding to support.
Land Use. Rancho Palos Verdes was created so that local residents could have the right to have realistic, reasonable, responsible, and respectable land use options brought to those they chose to represent them and then have those representatives provide leadership and responsibility to control land uses in Rancho Palos Verdes. That still hasn't changed.
Code Enforcement. The Marymount Plan includes a new municipal code that, if approved, would allow one private entity more rights and privileges to oversee itself rather than the representatives selected by the residents of the city having the authority to sue their representative powers granted to them by the electorate, to guide the city into the future.
Livability. Must Marymount have more power to determine how local residents live, than those residents have themselves? Why must a private entity seek to take rights and authority away from local voters and have paying customers being provided with more options than local, tax paying residents might have?
____________________________________________
I believe there is at least one more inspection, with it probably being conducted tomorrow, before the new Bakery can open.
I think I knew it would not open today because there was not smell of freshly baked bread coming through our sliding screen door, earlier this morning.
____________________________________________
Although the chain-link fencing is gone from the area near the intersection of Avenida Aprenda and Western Avenue, there are still workers working on above ground items and there are probably workers continuing to finish up the two-story underground 'bunker' when the new pumping equipment was placed for the old Outflow System of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
After all these years and all this work, the Clearwater Program, the program to build a new Outfall System from Carson to the Pacific Ocean, is still in the future.
But the new pumping station will allow the old system, placed over 50 years ago, to continue to be of service until the new Outfall tunnel is constructed and all the new equipment is in place and running.
For more information about the Sanitation Districts' Clearwater Program and to view that nothing has really gone forward in some time, you can visit: http://www.clearwaterprogram.org/.
____________________________________________
Item #13 on the agenda of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting for Tuesday July 21, 2010:
Resolution Opposing Marymount College Initiative (Stern/Misetich)
Recommendation: COUNCILMAN MISETICH AND COUNCILMAN STERN RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2010-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL TAKING A POSITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE MARYMOUNT INITIATIVE CERTIFIED FOR THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010 BALLOT.
Councilman Douglas Stern 'volunteered' and Councilman Anthony Misetich was willing to volunteer to write a draft Resolution, as sub-committee members, to bring to the entire Council a Resolution to offer wording concerning the entire Council's opposition to The Marymount Plan's initiative in the Special Election, this November.
Under requirements of The Brown Act, the other members of the City Council will be able to discuss, debate, change, and vote on the Resolution only in the public meeting which is the regular City Council meeting, tomorrow night.
I expect that folks from all sides will want to speak to the Council unless Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy continues to have folks on his side of the issues remain silent so he can contend that it should be up to the voters who will approve The Marymount Plan.
This is what Dr. Brophy did when the City Council voted to place the measure on the ballot, a legal requirement, and then vote unanimously to oppose the measure.
Dr. Brophy was the only person to speak in favor of The Marymount Plan at that meeting while others used their rights to make comments in opposition to The Marymount Plans very few differences from The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, approved by the very same Council members who voted together to oppose The Marymount Plan.
I don't expect to hear about how new dorms at Marymount could be constructed and maintained at no cost to the College and then even having the College's treasury receive income from a third party's construction and operation of dorms on campus.
_______________________________________________________
If you were to bet that I will be speaking tomorrow evening to the City Council, I hope nobody takes your bet. They would lose and the payout would be less than nothing, I imagine.
I do hope to see a wider array of individuals representing a wide variety of groups get up and speak in opposition to the approval of the measure.
I can imagine that there are those who, in Sarah Palin's word usage, would "refudiate" Marymount's contentions as to why on campus student housing is so important to our community.
I think the rest of us would be more comfortable to repudiate Marymount's supporters' contentions.
_______________________________________________________
I am still waiting for someone from the Code Enforcement section of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes to come forward and tell all of us what will happen with the 'semi-nude' house on the corner of Trudie Drive and Highmore Avenue.
I have at least one photo of it on this blog.
_______________________________________________________
Starlight Cinemas is the owner of the multiplex theatres at The Terraces, in Rancho Palos Verdes.
The ticket prices are still probably the best in the South Bay.
I would recommend paying $11.00 for a bucket of popcorn and the largest size of soda as opposed to paying $10.50 for the largest bag of popcorn and the largest size of soda because with just the added $.50, you can get a refill on both the soda AND the tub of popcorn.
The movies are shown using all digital methods and there are up to two '3-D' movies playing.
The almost unbelievable ticket price for 2-D movies on Tuesday's and Thursdays for EVERYONE, ANY TIME is still $4.00. Seniors get that same ticket price on Wednesday's too. Seniors, like Terri and I still pay no more than $5.00 any time.
The only price difference still going on is that every 3-D movie ticket price is an additional $2.00.
The staff is friendly and all seem to be very good workers.
__________________________________________________
For Rancho Palos Verdes residents who like theatre, "Forever Plaid" opens on August 13 at the historic Warner Grand Theatre, in San Pedro.
"Dixie Swim Club" opens on August 13, also. This five-women play will be performed at the Little Fish Theatre, in San Pedro.
With theatre or theater performances at the Norris Theatre, Civic Light Opera of the South Bay, productions in Torrance and El Camino College, and maybe something enjoyable at Marymount College, there are entertainment opportunities in the local area that can entertain you, without having to drive to Hollywood or points beyond.
__________________________________________________
Now once again, here are four reasons, in my opinion, The Marymount Plan and its initiative are very bad for our city and surrounding communities:
Safety. Having college students living on Marymount's campus is a safety concern that I still have not been able to find compromise and reasonable understanding to support.
Land Use. Rancho Palos Verdes was created so that local residents could have the right to have realistic, reasonable, responsible, and respectable land use options brought to those they chose to represent them and then have those representatives provide leadership and responsibility to control land uses in Rancho Palos Verdes. That still hasn't changed.
Code Enforcement. The Marymount Plan includes a new municipal code that, if approved, would allow one private entity more rights and privileges to oversee itself rather than the representatives selected by the residents of the city having the authority to sue their representative powers granted to them by the electorate, to guide the city into the future.
Livability. Must Marymount have more power to determine how local residents live, than those residents have themselves? Why must a private entity seek to take rights and authority away from local voters and have paying customers being provided with more options than local, tax paying residents might have?
____________________________________________
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Proposed Resolution Opposing The Marymount Plan
At the next Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting, Item 13 on the agenda (Really! did the item have to be #13, a very unlucky number of a group of people as it will turn out) deals with the following proposed resulution hopefully voeted on and approved that evening.
The public is encouraged to make verbal and written comments about the proposed Resolution and there is no doubt in my mind that there won't be somewhat of a strong showng the meeting seeking to have the proposed Resolution not get passed by the members of the City Council.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDOM
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY CO~ MEMBERS
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLER~
JULY 20,2010
RESOLUTION OPPOSING MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
INITIATIVE
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY CO~ MEMBERS
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLER~
JULY 20,2010
RESOLUTION OPPOSING MARYMOUNT COLLEGE
INITIATIVE
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDATION
Councilman Misetich and Councilman Stern recommend the Adoption of Resolution No.
2010-_, a Resolution of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Taking a Position
in Opposition to the Marymount Initiative Certified for the November 2, 2010 Ballot.
DISCUSSION
On June 15, 2010, the City Council appointed Councilman Misetich and Councilman Stern
as the Subcommittee to draft a resolution, without the expenditure of public funds, outlining
the reasons to oppose the Marymount College Initiative with the resolution to be brought
back to the Council for adoption. Attached is the resolution that was prepared by
Councilman Misetich and Councilman Stern.
RPV City Council Resolution Opposing the Marymount Initiative
A Resolution of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council taking a position in opposition to
the Marymount Initiative certified for the November 2, 2010 ballot.
the Marymount Initiative certified for the November 2, 2010 ballot.
Whereas, the Marymount Initiative a voter sponsored initiative prepared by Marymount
College, a private liberal arts college was submitted to the City Clerk on Tuesday March 2, 2010.
Whereas, the City recognizes the right of the voters to use the Initiative process when it is used to advance the public health, safety and welfare;
Whereas, on June 3, 2010 the City Clerk certified that sufficient petitions had been signed to
qualify the Initiative for a special election;
Whereas, the City Council, at a public meeting on June 15, 2010, ordered a special election to
be held on the Initiative and consolidated the special election with the November 2, 2010
election;
Whereas, on June 15, 2010 the City Council received a report on the differences between the
Marymount Initiative and the City Council approved plan for Marymount. That evening the City Council received additional staff reports, presentations, updates and extensive public
comments thereon;
Marymount Initiative and the City Council approved plan for Marymount. That evening the City Council received additional staff reports, presentations, updates and extensive public
comments thereon;
Whereas, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on June 15, 2010 to consider
whether or not to take a position on the Marymount measure in light of the differences
between the Marymount sponsored Initiative and the Marymount plan approved by the City
Council and the effects of each upon the community;
Whereas, the City Council had reviewed extensive materials over the course of many additional meetings prior to June 15th, 2010, to fully understand the Marymount modernization plan, and had carefully considered the plan, obtaining significant public input addressing the positive and negative aspects of the plan, and the impact of the plan on the residents ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and various neighborhoods within the City.
Whereas, the City Council had previously granted approval to most of the Marymount plan on
June 1, 2010, folloWing many public hearings where public testimony was obtained;
Whereas, numerous members of the public urged the City Council to take an official position
against the Marymount Initiative because 1) the City Council was elected to act as the citizens
final voice on important land use issues 2) the Initiative has a direct impact on the City and its
operations, 3) the City Council has the resources and the experience to evaluate and
understand the complexities of land use issues and this Initiative's impact on a significant land
use issue and 4) and the City Council has devoted many hours reviewing detailed reports,
obtaining public input and evaluating and understanding the Marymount plan and its impact on the residents of the City;
Whereas, the City Council determined that taking a position on the Marymount Initiative is an
appropriate method of fulfilling its duty to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the
residents; and
Whereas the City Council has carefully considered the provisions of the Marymount Initiative
and determined that it does not advance the health, safety and welfare of our community;
NOW, THERFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1) That the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes is opposed to the Marymount Initiative on
the November 2, 2010 ballot for the following reasons:
A) The Initiative Interferes with the City's Self Rule. The City was incorporated 37 years
ago to gain oversight over local land use issues and to avert high density developments.
The Marymount Initiative takes away the City's local authority by creating a special
district where Marymount is not subject to any safety, aesthetic or geological
mitigations. The City Council has already authorized virtually all the modernization
requested by Marymount. However, there are 62 different items including high density
dormitories in the Marymount Initiative that differ with the project submitted by
Marymount and approved by the City Council. This is an abuse of the initiative power
and creates a precedent for the future high density developments in Rancho Palos
Verdes.
ago to gain oversight over local land use issues and to avert high density developments.
The Marymount Initiative takes away the City's local authority by creating a special
district where Marymount is not subject to any safety, aesthetic or geological
mitigations. The City Council has already authorized virtually all the modernization
requested by Marymount. However, there are 62 different items including high density
dormitories in the Marymount Initiative that differ with the project submitted by
Marymount and approved by the City Council. This is an abuse of the initiative power
and creates a precedent for the future high density developments in Rancho Palos
Verdes.
B) The Initiative Undermines Local Planning Laws. The City's General Plan, zoning laws
and other regulations form the basis for orderly land use development in Rancho Palos
Verdes that preserves a low density community. These regulations apply equally to all
properties in Rancho Palos Verdes. The Marymount Initiative amends and overrides
these important laws that protect the safety and quality of life in Rancho Palos Verdes,
making special exceptions for Marymount College. A private institution's polices and
priorities should not supersede those of the City and its residents.
C) The Initiative is Not Necessary to allow Marymount to Modernize its Campus. The City
Council carefully reviewed all aspects ofthe Marymount plan and granted Marymount
the right to modernize its campus with all the buildings, ofthe size requested, with all
the functionality and amenities that Marymount requested, except for high density
dormitories. However, Marymount did not request from the City Council that it be
permitted to build dormitories.
Council carefully reviewed all aspects ofthe Marymount plan and granted Marymount
the right to modernize its campus with all the buildings, ofthe size requested, with all
the functionality and amenities that Marymount requested, except for high density
dormitories. However, Marymount did not request from the City Council that it be
permitted to build dormitories.
D) Initiative places the Athletic Field in alocation that is Nearest to Palos Verdes Drive
East, Raising Safety Concerns that were Mitigated by the City Council Approved Plan.
The City Council granted Marymount the right to construct a new and improved athletic
field near to the Marymount requested location, but for safety concerns moved it to a
location slightly away from Palos Verdes Drive East to allow a greater safety buffer to
protect the public driving on Palos Verdes Drive East.
E) The Initiative Eliminates Conditions imposed to Minimize Negative Consequences of
the Project on the Residents. In order to protect the residents of the City, the City
Council imposed conditions to mitigate negative impacts of the Marymount plan. Some
of the mitigation measures are modified or eliminated by the Initiative, to the harm of
the residents of the City.
F) The Initiative Authorizes After-the -Fact Changes. The Marymount Initiative allows the
College to remove mandated conditions that are designed to increase safety and
necessary to maintain a reasonable quality of life in the surrounding neighborhoods.
These were determined after many hours of study and analysis by both the Planning
Commission and City Council with consideration given to both Marymount and the
residents. Should the Initiative be approved by the voters, Marymount will have limitless
authority to modify its' project such that what is presented under the Marymount
Initiative may not resemble the final development. The possibility that a "bait and
switch" might occur deprives the voters of their rights to know exactly the nature of the
project on which they are voting.
G) The Initiative Does Not Benefit the Local Economy. The Marymount Initiative is not
expected to result in any substantial increase in jobs in Rancho Palos Verdes over the life
of the Project.
H) The Initiative Leaves Many Unanswered Questions. The meaning of many aspects of
the Marymount Initiative will not be clear until after it is approved and the college
finishes the project sometime in the future. With unlimited time to complete the
project, it may be many years before the impact ofthe project is truly known if at all.
The City meanwhile will have limited oversight during construction. In addition, the City
will not have oversight capabilities regarding operations at the college that could affect
the quality of life for the residents and lor any safety considerations.
The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes encourages all Rancho Palos Verdes
registered voters to vote against the Marymount Initiative in the November 2, 2010
Special Election.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on July 20, 2010.
MAYOR
Attest:
City Clerk :
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) 55
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
County of Los Angeles ) 55
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2010-_ was duly and regularly
passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof he
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More later this weekend. Please absorb the proposed Resolution and think about what your opinion is and that you will share your oinions on this blog's comments section.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Open Letter To PVP Watch
To the Editorial Board and Members of PVP Watch.
This post is also an Email to PVP Watch.
Greetings, I am writing to establish your group's true position on The Marymount Plan and the upcoming initiative and I am doing so to see if your group departs from the marketing language used by representatives of Marymount College. I am trying to find out why a group such as yours supports a plan that so very few residents of Rancho Palos Verdes could actually benefit from versus the potential costs and problems placed on current residents of that city.
I am seeking more clarification on your group's stand versus what I have read in 36 newsletters from your group posted on your Web site: http://www.pvpwatch.com/.
I noticed on your group's Web site a goal stated in print and I wish to get your reply based on one of your stated goals. Here it is.
"•Take positions on ballot measure and elections as appropriate based on the stated Purpose and Goals."
Why is PVP Watch probably the only 'organized' group not directly affiliated with Marymount College, currently supporting The Marymount Plan and the initiative?
It can't truthfully be because the Plan benefits many residents of Rancho Palos Verdes because it clearly does not.
In fact and truth, the majority of students in the 2009-2010 academic year or planning to attend Marymount not only do not now live in Rancho Palos Verdes, they also do not come from homes on the peninsula.
It can't be because traffic in R.P.V. will decrease because there would be more vehicles used by residents of high-density housing driving along Palos Verdes Drive East then there are now and studies state that fact clearly.
It can't be because of many added jobs within the area because the only non in-home business in the neighborhood is at Marymount College, where all but five employees would have to travel by some sort of transportation to and from their jobsite.
It can't be because of all the new taxpayers creating more revenue for RPV because almost every students who would reside in dorms at Marymount will either not work or they would probably work in areas other than Rancho Palos Verdes.
It can't be because your group is one of a great number of groups that has gone public with support for The Marymount Plan and its initiative because it appears today that your group is just about the only group willing to offer support to something so many other groups oppose or are not willing to take a stand on.
It can't be based on stated goals because there has really been far too little explaination by Marymount Representatives as to why they want or need on-campus housing other than creating a more comfortable learning environment for students who, in the case of the vast majority, do not live in the community your group seems to represent.
It can't be based on positive economic outcomes for taxpayers living in Rancho Palos Verdes because infrastructure costs must go up to supply increases in first responders and increased costs related to have so many new residents who probably won't contribute financially to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
It can't be because of safety because The Marymount Plan offers a take-away of some safety-related items from the recently approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
So, why does your group support The Marymount Plan and its initiative? Please, in your own words.
Can it be because of 'all' the differences between The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project?
Your group must be aware that 'all' the differences include, but are not limited to the following:
On-campus housing.
A new municipal code that likely restricts the rights and responsibilities of our city's representatives elected by the voting residents of RPV to provide leadership and representation to ALL the residents of RPB and not just those who favor adoption of The Marymount Plan.
A concrete center median that would be designed to protect all drivers from encountering vehicles that cross over the double-yellow lines along the 1,000-foot curve portion of Palos Verdes Drive East.
The lowering of the overall height of the roof of the gymnasium by a 'whopping' ten feet.
Only the 'fair share' of costs associated with some traffic mitigation that will have their remanining costs paid for by taxpayers.
Absolutely no gurantee that should The Marymount Plan be enacted, the College could still seek to have its enrollment increased.
No guarantee whatsoever that representatives of Marymount College would ever go forward using The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, if no on-campus student housing is approved in the near future.
Sirs, here is also something I pulled off of a newletter item from your group.
"It has been pointed out that RPV's General Plan includes 'The City shall encourage the
development of institutional facilities to serve the political, social and cultural needs of the
community." RPV City Councils have long violated their responsibility to Marymount (and others) and the option left to Marymount is the initiative process."
It must not come as a shock to your editorial board that Marymount seeks to alter the city's Generap Plan and have special provisions enacted that specifically allow Marymount College representatives to bypass some current zoning requirements and other codes and authorities.
This special new position for Marymount could lead to private ownership and control of all residence halls by a third party and would not limit Marymount's ability to rent out or lease its facilities to an entity or group that would capitalize on Marymounst's sites and facilities to create profit-making events and offer high density entertainment in a low-density neighborhood with few wide and easy access points.
Here is another line from one of your newsletters I found confusing and not humorous:
"It is past time to end the "backroom" deals and demand greater transparency at RPV City Hall."
Gentlemen, I seem to recall your groups relationship with activities seemingly related to issues regarding PV on the Net and some of the late Dr. Peter Gardiner's allegations against other members of the City Council.
Wasn't there a Freedom of Information Act issue that required the city to use taxpayer funds to gather great amounts of information only to end up have the 'Plaintiff's" legal firm failing to recover a single document related to that issue, after many thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent doing what was legal and ethical and then having what I regard as your 'back room deal' with others in RPV, slither away into the night without any further litigation?
I am also still a bit confused about the name of your group and whether it may have been designed to create an thinking that has not be truthfully realized by your group.
As I understand it, your group is named "PVP Watch" and it leads us to presume that your group is "Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch"
However, in viewing 36 newsletters currently on your group's Web site, I first encounter a paragraph about issues related to something other that PVPUSD or the city of Rancho Palos Verdes only after reading the first 30 of 36 newletters.
I finally found a paragraph about something other then the two entities I wrote when I read something in the 31St newsletter.
Wouldn't it be more ethical to name your group "PVPUSD and Rancho Palos Verdes Watch"?
I did find some humor in various newletters dealing with Deputy Chris Knox and some trouble one of you Editors had by getting a ticket from Deputy Knox.
It seemed in reading the various writing that your group strongly supports law enforcement unless that enforcement has an Editor receiving a ticket for a 'small infraction'.
I guess a law is something that should be enforced on the rest of us, but not necessarily some of the members of your group, or so it seemed from the writings I read.
Now please remember gentlemen, before you go ahead and attack me like you seem happy to do with Tom Long and Doug Stern remember, if any of you live in a tract home and not in a custom home built in an area that is not in a residential tract, I arrived at my home before you arrived at yours and I think I can claim a longer tenure in this area than the majority of you can, no matter what age any of us are at.
Please do not attempt to use seniority or knowledge of this area as any reason to question my knowledge about Rancho Palos Verdes, its issues and the community. I feel I've got that pretty well covered compared to the vast majority of residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
But if you must attack, please know that I have already done a pretty good job on myself, about myself and it would probably be best if you would simply use honesty and truthfulness to justify your group's position concerning Marymount College's initiative. And please remember that I have already suggested that I do not find all initiatives to be bad things and that I opposed increasing the Terranea TOT from 10% to 12%.
I also am quite disgusted that the R.P.V. C.C. raised the Storm Drain User Fee. I know we all knew they would, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with it.
Thank you for your timely response to my request for clarifacation about your stand on issues regarding Marymount College.
Be well.
Mark Wells
aka M Richards.
This post is also an Email to PVP Watch.
Greetings, I am writing to establish your group's true position on The Marymount Plan and the upcoming initiative and I am doing so to see if your group departs from the marketing language used by representatives of Marymount College. I am trying to find out why a group such as yours supports a plan that so very few residents of Rancho Palos Verdes could actually benefit from versus the potential costs and problems placed on current residents of that city.
I am seeking more clarification on your group's stand versus what I have read in 36 newsletters from your group posted on your Web site: http://www.pvpwatch.com/.
I noticed on your group's Web site a goal stated in print and I wish to get your reply based on one of your stated goals. Here it is.
"•Take positions on ballot measure and elections as appropriate based on the stated Purpose and Goals."
Why is PVP Watch probably the only 'organized' group not directly affiliated with Marymount College, currently supporting The Marymount Plan and the initiative?
It can't truthfully be because the Plan benefits many residents of Rancho Palos Verdes because it clearly does not.
In fact and truth, the majority of students in the 2009-2010 academic year or planning to attend Marymount not only do not now live in Rancho Palos Verdes, they also do not come from homes on the peninsula.
It can't be because traffic in R.P.V. will decrease because there would be more vehicles used by residents of high-density housing driving along Palos Verdes Drive East then there are now and studies state that fact clearly.
It can't be because of many added jobs within the area because the only non in-home business in the neighborhood is at Marymount College, where all but five employees would have to travel by some sort of transportation to and from their jobsite.
It can't be because of all the new taxpayers creating more revenue for RPV because almost every students who would reside in dorms at Marymount will either not work or they would probably work in areas other than Rancho Palos Verdes.
It can't be because your group is one of a great number of groups that has gone public with support for The Marymount Plan and its initiative because it appears today that your group is just about the only group willing to offer support to something so many other groups oppose or are not willing to take a stand on.
It can't be based on stated goals because there has really been far too little explaination by Marymount Representatives as to why they want or need on-campus housing other than creating a more comfortable learning environment for students who, in the case of the vast majority, do not live in the community your group seems to represent.
It can't be based on positive economic outcomes for taxpayers living in Rancho Palos Verdes because infrastructure costs must go up to supply increases in first responders and increased costs related to have so many new residents who probably won't contribute financially to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
It can't be because of safety because The Marymount Plan offers a take-away of some safety-related items from the recently approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
So, why does your group support The Marymount Plan and its initiative? Please, in your own words.
Can it be because of 'all' the differences between The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project?
Your group must be aware that 'all' the differences include, but are not limited to the following:
On-campus housing.
A new municipal code that likely restricts the rights and responsibilities of our city's representatives elected by the voting residents of RPV to provide leadership and representation to ALL the residents of RPB and not just those who favor adoption of The Marymount Plan.
A concrete center median that would be designed to protect all drivers from encountering vehicles that cross over the double-yellow lines along the 1,000-foot curve portion of Palos Verdes Drive East.
The lowering of the overall height of the roof of the gymnasium by a 'whopping' ten feet.
Only the 'fair share' of costs associated with some traffic mitigation that will have their remanining costs paid for by taxpayers.
Absolutely no gurantee that should The Marymount Plan be enacted, the College could still seek to have its enrollment increased.
No guarantee whatsoever that representatives of Marymount College would ever go forward using The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, if no on-campus student housing is approved in the near future.
Sirs, here is also something I pulled off of a newletter item from your group.
"It has been pointed out that RPV's General Plan includes 'The City shall encourage the
development of institutional facilities to serve the political, social and cultural needs of the
community." RPV City Councils have long violated their responsibility to Marymount (and others) and the option left to Marymount is the initiative process."
It must not come as a shock to your editorial board that Marymount seeks to alter the city's Generap Plan and have special provisions enacted that specifically allow Marymount College representatives to bypass some current zoning requirements and other codes and authorities.
This special new position for Marymount could lead to private ownership and control of all residence halls by a third party and would not limit Marymount's ability to rent out or lease its facilities to an entity or group that would capitalize on Marymounst's sites and facilities to create profit-making events and offer high density entertainment in a low-density neighborhood with few wide and easy access points.
Here is another line from one of your newsletters I found confusing and not humorous:
"It is past time to end the "backroom" deals and demand greater transparency at RPV City Hall."
Gentlemen, I seem to recall your groups relationship with activities seemingly related to issues regarding PV on the Net and some of the late Dr. Peter Gardiner's allegations against other members of the City Council.
Wasn't there a Freedom of Information Act issue that required the city to use taxpayer funds to gather great amounts of information only to end up have the 'Plaintiff's" legal firm failing to recover a single document related to that issue, after many thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent doing what was legal and ethical and then having what I regard as your 'back room deal' with others in RPV, slither away into the night without any further litigation?
I am also still a bit confused about the name of your group and whether it may have been designed to create an thinking that has not be truthfully realized by your group.
As I understand it, your group is named "PVP Watch" and it leads us to presume that your group is "Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch"
However, in viewing 36 newsletters currently on your group's Web site, I first encounter a paragraph about issues related to something other that PVPUSD or the city of Rancho Palos Verdes only after reading the first 30 of 36 newletters.
I finally found a paragraph about something other then the two entities I wrote when I read something in the 31St newsletter.
Wouldn't it be more ethical to name your group "PVPUSD and Rancho Palos Verdes Watch"?
I did find some humor in various newletters dealing with Deputy Chris Knox and some trouble one of you Editors had by getting a ticket from Deputy Knox.
It seemed in reading the various writing that your group strongly supports law enforcement unless that enforcement has an Editor receiving a ticket for a 'small infraction'.
I guess a law is something that should be enforced on the rest of us, but not necessarily some of the members of your group, or so it seemed from the writings I read.
Now please remember gentlemen, before you go ahead and attack me like you seem happy to do with Tom Long and Doug Stern remember, if any of you live in a tract home and not in a custom home built in an area that is not in a residential tract, I arrived at my home before you arrived at yours and I think I can claim a longer tenure in this area than the majority of you can, no matter what age any of us are at.
Please do not attempt to use seniority or knowledge of this area as any reason to question my knowledge about Rancho Palos Verdes, its issues and the community. I feel I've got that pretty well covered compared to the vast majority of residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
But if you must attack, please know that I have already done a pretty good job on myself, about myself and it would probably be best if you would simply use honesty and truthfulness to justify your group's position concerning Marymount College's initiative. And please remember that I have already suggested that I do not find all initiatives to be bad things and that I opposed increasing the Terranea TOT from 10% to 12%.
I also am quite disgusted that the R.P.V. C.C. raised the Storm Drain User Fee. I know we all knew they would, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with it.
Thank you for your timely response to my request for clarifacation about your stand on issues regarding Marymount College.
Be well.
Mark Wells
aka M Richards.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Have You Noticed What's Not To Notice?
Existence as we have known it for years and through the change of decades has recently been altered in a fashion so many of us could only have dreamed about, yet thought would never happen.
Now there is no telling how long this new existence will last because we have seen at least one time when the change described in this post has been done, only to find things reverting back to the status quo.
If you noticed what can be passed by without much notice though not to notice what is no longer noticeable is probably a reasonable observation, should not be taken as any fault on your part.
For so very long the now unnoticeable had been noticed by so many that all notices were taken for granted and no real change was considered fathomable by a great number of us.
Yet in the dreams of many, noticing what is now reality, was something anticipated, hoped for, begged for, and demanded of.
The fencing around the pumping station has been removed.
Now there is no telling how long this new existence will last because we have seen at least one time when the change described in this post has been done, only to find things reverting back to the status quo.
If you noticed what can be passed by without much notice though not to notice what is no longer noticeable is probably a reasonable observation, should not be taken as any fault on your part.
For so very long the now unnoticeable had been noticed by so many that all notices were taken for granted and no real change was considered fathomable by a great number of us.
Yet in the dreams of many, noticing what is now reality, was something anticipated, hoped for, begged for, and demanded of.
The fencing around the pumping station has been removed.
Is It Time To Come Into The Light?
Coming out of the shadows and into the light may be more of a timing issue.
I am referring to wondering when and where both groups and individuals who support and oppose The Marymount Plan AND/OR the upcoming ballot measure will provide awareness of their positions on these matters.
We already know that Save Our Cities III (SOCIII) offers no opinion, at this time, on support of opposition to having on-campus housing at Marymount College via The Marymount Plan. But we do know that group strongly opposes passage of the initiative now approved for the November 2, ballot.
It is now in historical records that Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME) has opposed any on-campus student housing being built on Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus for ten years, at least.
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council is unanimous in their approval of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, without any on-campus student housing due to the fact that Marymount's own representatives pulled student on-campus housing from the Expansion Project's many items, long before the vote by the City Council.
That same body also is unanimous in their opposition to the passage of the ballot measure that would allow, if passed by voters, both on-campus housing for up to 250 college students and a new municipal law that would allow Marymount College to achieve a unique and special status that would grant representatives of ONLY Marymount College the right to have current codes and regulations superseded by new rights granted to Marymount College's representatives.
It may still be too early to know the positions of the many organizations, volunteer groups, large businesses, and other entities and their stands on support for on-campus student housing and/or a new municipal code that would have non-elected individuals be granted rights now only conveyed to our city's elected representatives who are charged with representing ALL residents of our city and not just up to 255 potentially new residents.
We now have some pretty good information that the Council of Homeowners Associations opposes The Marymount Plan. That group consists of many groups which come together and share common issues and concerns. If such a large group of homeowners associations oppose Marymount's quest for high-density housing in a low-density neighborhood, that should mean something to everyone, I suspect.
Naturally, individual homeowner associations having residents living more adjacent to the Marymount Campus are dramatically opposed to The Marymount Plan.
What is growing in intrigue is where to the members of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College personally stand on the issues.
It would be completely reasonable to expect that every member of that Board strongly supports having on-campus housing at the college, but sadly, we still haven't heard from the Board's Chairman and Vice-Chairman, in public, issuing strong support, that is, if they really do support.
It appears that all 'marketing' of The Marymount Plan and the Initiative coming from the Board of Trustees comes from Dr. Michael Brophy and Dr. Susan Soldoff. Both of them are more directly affiliated with campus activities and issues than many of the other members of the Board are.
We also haven't heard from the Sisters who are members of The Marymount College Board of Trustees. I have several good friends who are former nuns and they are never shy about offering their opinions on any matter they are asked about. I am sure the good Sisters who are also members of the Board of Trustees have strong opinions but we still haven't heard just about anything from them, in public at least.
There are political and social organizations on The Hill that might have opinions and I feel it would be helpful to know their positions on the very important matters revolving around Marymount College.
I haven't heard or read anything from many of these groups about their support or opposition to The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, now law in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Perhaps many groups are not willing to publicly offer their stand out of fear or for some other reason.
But maybe it is still to early in the calendar for most groups to come forward and offer their take on these matters.
Perhaps after the Labor Day weekend we will see a flurry of reports coming from the great assortment of groups, businesses, associations, and other entities and their take on The Marymount Plan, The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, and the Initiative.
I am referring to wondering when and where both groups and individuals who support and oppose The Marymount Plan AND/OR the upcoming ballot measure will provide awareness of their positions on these matters.
We already know that Save Our Cities III (SOCIII) offers no opinion, at this time, on support of opposition to having on-campus housing at Marymount College via The Marymount Plan. But we do know that group strongly opposes passage of the initiative now approved for the November 2, ballot.
It is now in historical records that Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME) has opposed any on-campus student housing being built on Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus for ten years, at least.
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council is unanimous in their approval of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, without any on-campus student housing due to the fact that Marymount's own representatives pulled student on-campus housing from the Expansion Project's many items, long before the vote by the City Council.
That same body also is unanimous in their opposition to the passage of the ballot measure that would allow, if passed by voters, both on-campus housing for up to 250 college students and a new municipal law that would allow Marymount College to achieve a unique and special status that would grant representatives of ONLY Marymount College the right to have current codes and regulations superseded by new rights granted to Marymount College's representatives.
It may still be too early to know the positions of the many organizations, volunteer groups, large businesses, and other entities and their stands on support for on-campus student housing and/or a new municipal code that would have non-elected individuals be granted rights now only conveyed to our city's elected representatives who are charged with representing ALL residents of our city and not just up to 255 potentially new residents.
We now have some pretty good information that the Council of Homeowners Associations opposes The Marymount Plan. That group consists of many groups which come together and share common issues and concerns. If such a large group of homeowners associations oppose Marymount's quest for high-density housing in a low-density neighborhood, that should mean something to everyone, I suspect.
Naturally, individual homeowner associations having residents living more adjacent to the Marymount Campus are dramatically opposed to The Marymount Plan.
What is growing in intrigue is where to the members of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College personally stand on the issues.
It would be completely reasonable to expect that every member of that Board strongly supports having on-campus housing at the college, but sadly, we still haven't heard from the Board's Chairman and Vice-Chairman, in public, issuing strong support, that is, if they really do support.
It appears that all 'marketing' of The Marymount Plan and the Initiative coming from the Board of Trustees comes from Dr. Michael Brophy and Dr. Susan Soldoff. Both of them are more directly affiliated with campus activities and issues than many of the other members of the Board are.
We also haven't heard from the Sisters who are members of The Marymount College Board of Trustees. I have several good friends who are former nuns and they are never shy about offering their opinions on any matter they are asked about. I am sure the good Sisters who are also members of the Board of Trustees have strong opinions but we still haven't heard just about anything from them, in public at least.
There are political and social organizations on The Hill that might have opinions and I feel it would be helpful to know their positions on the very important matters revolving around Marymount College.
I haven't heard or read anything from many of these groups about their support or opposition to The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, now law in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Perhaps many groups are not willing to publicly offer their stand out of fear or for some other reason.
But maybe it is still to early in the calendar for most groups to come forward and offer their take on these matters.
Perhaps after the Labor Day weekend we will see a flurry of reports coming from the great assortment of groups, businesses, associations, and other entities and their take on The Marymount Plan, The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, and the Initiative.
Monday, July 12, 2010
A Flock of Birds Can Drop A Bunch Of *****!
From February 9-12, 2007, Mr. Robert H. (Bob) Bisno comissioned a telephone interview to be conducted to guage responses for the purposes of demonstrating support for building at least 2,300 condominium units at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
One of the questions asked by pollsters included the following 'factual' statement.
"The project would have 2,300 new homes, with a mix of single-family housing, condominiums and town homes affordable for middle-income families and first-time homebuyers;"
Did you notice, "with a mix of single-family housing,"?
I bet that made you think that single-family detached homes would be built at Ponte Vista according to Bob's original plans.
Have you seen something like that in regards to statements made by supporters of The Marymount Plan.
Here, let me remind you:
From http://www.marymountplan.com/
"How long will the project take?
In total, it will take 36 months. The construction manager is R. Randall Fulton who managed the constructon of The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. The Marymount Plan has been studied by the Ranch Palos Verdes' Planning Commission for ten years and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been approved."
Now I am sure you all know by now that Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College has stated before the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, in public, in private, and in other ways that it will take approximately EIGHT YEARS in overall length of time to complete "The Plan" and when he was offered six years by the Council to have the project completed, he stated to them there was no way in his mind the building could be completed in that short of a period of time.
Can you see how the 'facts' are not really completely true facts at all.
Bob Bisno never once had any intention of building single-family detached housing at Ponte Vista and up to this very moment, there is really no good reason to believe ANY single-family detached housing will ever replace the approximately 245 duplexes in northwest San Pedro.
Conversely, how can anyone claim in one sentence that The Marymount Plan can be constructed in 36 months without admitting that the months necessary for the actually building must be drawn out over an eight year period?
We caught Bob Bisno in his misstatement of 'fact' in his telephone poll and he did not and could not deny that he was misleading because he admitted he was the author of the specific question and possible responses for the question.
We also caught Dr. Brophy with his claim that the project will take "36 months" when he did not deny and could not deny that it can be viewed as very misleading by reasonable people.
No, folks, The Marymount Plan cannot begin on January 1 of whatever year and be completed by December 31, three years later. Dr. Brophy knows that but he has not been willing to admit that in marketing The Plan.
"Why can’t the College maintain a split-campus with housing and recreation off-campus?
It just makes sense that housing students on campus will reduce daily car trips on our residential streets. It will make our neighborhoods safer. Marymount College aspires to be a top liberal arts college and a unified campus will enable students and faculty to maximize their time and interactions."
That question and answer is also found on the same Web site.
Look closely at it and please tell me what is missing, if you can.
First, there is absolutely, positively nothing in The Marymount Plan or its Initiative that tells anyone that there were no, are no, and probably never will be any plans to close the Palos Verdes North off-campus housing site, whether dorms are built on campus or not.
Furthermore, all statements made by representatives of Marymount College prior and during Dr. Brophy's tenure as President stating that the Pacific Heights off-campus housing site will be closed and sold off have never been met with compliance by Marymount's representatives.
Now for the really big whopper, in my thinking.
During the school year, students living in off-campus student housing at both Palos Verdes North and Pacific Heights are very strongly encouraged to use Marymount-provided shuttle service, driven by trained drivers to and from the Marymount campus and the off-campus housing sites.
Not only are the shuttles used by many of the students residing in off-campus housing, now that upper classpersons will be attending Marymount, how many of them will have vehicles and jobs that require them to have cars no matter where they are living?
The facts are that, according to traffic studies paid for by Marymount College, average daily trip generation will increase if on-campus housing is built at the college. These are not my statistics, they are statistics provided in the Marymount-paid studies.
So how can anyone factually state or respect the intelligence of voting residents of Rancho Palos Verdes when they offer statements as 'fact' that can not be proven to be truthful by the very same persons who sponsored and wrote what they purport to be a 'fact'.
Dr. Brophy has never denied to me directly that the average number of daily trips to and from Marymount, with on-campus housing would be lower than it is now.
Bob Bisno mucked up the plans for Ponte Vista so much, in the opinion of thousands of local residents that he ended up being kicked off the project by the financial backers of the project who watched his antics and the crumbling housing industry take away all the work they did since 2005 when Bob spent 252% of the opening bid for the property known as Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I think we have seen some similar signs from Dr. Brophy and others supporting Marymount's plan to build dorm on its campus and have a specialized municipal code created especially on only for Marymount that could supersede many existing codes in the current books.
Whenever you read, see, or hear that The Marymount Plan will be completed at "no expense" to the taxpayers, you need to know that the statement is not based on total truth and it cannot be completely verified by facts that so many of us know are true.
If the statement were true, then we never would have heard from Dr. Brophy that Marymount intends now to pick up the tab for the Special Election, you know, the one taxpayers were going to have to foot the entire bill for.
You would also probably not have heard Dr. Brophy offer to help pay for the concrete center median that is slated to be constructed under the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
You do know that there are at least traffic mitigation items that will have Marymount pay 'their fair share' but they still do not intend to pick up the remaining costs of the mitigation. The remaining portion will have to come from funds provided by..........taxpayers.
So why in the world would an entity such as Marymount College with all its learned persons in a religious environment not be willing to admit that The Marymount Plan can not truthfully be completed without expenses from funds paid by taxpayers?
Again, Dr. Brophy could not and did not deny, personally to me, that taxpayers would not be exempt from paying at least a portion of The Marymount Plan should it succeed with the ballot measure.
Now, when Bob Bisno and Dr. Brophy try and tell you that their respective plans had little to do with land use issues, that folks, is something they have to cross their fingers behind their backs to tell you.
They also have to cross their toes, eyes, forked tongue (if they have one), nose hairs, legs, and other parts because that is also something untrue.
Both Ponte Vista at San Pedro and The Marymount Plan are completely about land use issues. The issues of how an entity or person make lots and lots of dollars of profits by changing how their land is used compared to the current uses and zoning of the land, is at the hallmark of both projects.
Marymount's supporters want to build high-density 'rental' housing in a low-density single-family, detached area. Ponte Vista supporters want to build a medium-density project on land currently zoned for nothing greater than single-family, detached houses on lots of not less than five thousand square feet.
Marymount and Ponte Vista are not that far different in their supporters' quest to change the makeup of their general areas when potential profit is considered by many a primary reason both areas are being considered for what I term as 'over development'.
The one thing Marymount has the opportunity to do, right now, is begin The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
The one thing the current backers of Ponte Vista have the opportunity to do, right now, is begin building up to 429-single family detached housing using the current zoning of R1 at that property.
There is one very well connected individual to the processes concerning Marymount College that has suggested that Marymount College could see their on-campus housing built and maintained at no cost to the college AND the college could receive up to or more than 20 Million Dollars in payments to do whatever it wishes to use that 'profit' for.
So when you think about Dr. Brophy, it is not that far from channeling Bob Bisno's activities and antics to try to get what he wanted.
Now I do not want to see Dr. Brophy or Marymount go bankrupt like Bob Bisno did, but I think Marymount's supporters have the opportunity to offer to new students, the new four-year academics, the community, and others that beginning The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project contains no fibs to attempt to defend and it can demonstrate the respect for the community that Dr. Brophy claims he has, but doesn't seem willing to offer the community the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
One of the questions asked by pollsters included the following 'factual' statement.
"The project would have 2,300 new homes, with a mix of single-family housing, condominiums and town homes affordable for middle-income families and first-time homebuyers;"
Did you notice, "with a mix of single-family housing,"?
I bet that made you think that single-family detached homes would be built at Ponte Vista according to Bob's original plans.
Have you seen something like that in regards to statements made by supporters of The Marymount Plan.
Here, let me remind you:
From http://www.marymountplan.com/
"How long will the project take?
In total, it will take 36 months. The construction manager is R. Randall Fulton who managed the constructon of The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. The Marymount Plan has been studied by the Ranch Palos Verdes' Planning Commission for ten years and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been approved."
Now I am sure you all know by now that Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College has stated before the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, in public, in private, and in other ways that it will take approximately EIGHT YEARS in overall length of time to complete "The Plan" and when he was offered six years by the Council to have the project completed, he stated to them there was no way in his mind the building could be completed in that short of a period of time.
Can you see how the 'facts' are not really completely true facts at all.
Bob Bisno never once had any intention of building single-family detached housing at Ponte Vista and up to this very moment, there is really no good reason to believe ANY single-family detached housing will ever replace the approximately 245 duplexes in northwest San Pedro.
Conversely, how can anyone claim in one sentence that The Marymount Plan can be constructed in 36 months without admitting that the months necessary for the actually building must be drawn out over an eight year period?
We caught Bob Bisno in his misstatement of 'fact' in his telephone poll and he did not and could not deny that he was misleading because he admitted he was the author of the specific question and possible responses for the question.
We also caught Dr. Brophy with his claim that the project will take "36 months" when he did not deny and could not deny that it can be viewed as very misleading by reasonable people.
No, folks, The Marymount Plan cannot begin on January 1 of whatever year and be completed by December 31, three years later. Dr. Brophy knows that but he has not been willing to admit that in marketing The Plan.
"Why can’t the College maintain a split-campus with housing and recreation off-campus?
It just makes sense that housing students on campus will reduce daily car trips on our residential streets. It will make our neighborhoods safer. Marymount College aspires to be a top liberal arts college and a unified campus will enable students and faculty to maximize their time and interactions."
That question and answer is also found on the same Web site.
Look closely at it and please tell me what is missing, if you can.
First, there is absolutely, positively nothing in The Marymount Plan or its Initiative that tells anyone that there were no, are no, and probably never will be any plans to close the Palos Verdes North off-campus housing site, whether dorms are built on campus or not.
Furthermore, all statements made by representatives of Marymount College prior and during Dr. Brophy's tenure as President stating that the Pacific Heights off-campus housing site will be closed and sold off have never been met with compliance by Marymount's representatives.
Now for the really big whopper, in my thinking.
During the school year, students living in off-campus student housing at both Palos Verdes North and Pacific Heights are very strongly encouraged to use Marymount-provided shuttle service, driven by trained drivers to and from the Marymount campus and the off-campus housing sites.
Not only are the shuttles used by many of the students residing in off-campus housing, now that upper classpersons will be attending Marymount, how many of them will have vehicles and jobs that require them to have cars no matter where they are living?
The facts are that, according to traffic studies paid for by Marymount College, average daily trip generation will increase if on-campus housing is built at the college. These are not my statistics, they are statistics provided in the Marymount-paid studies.
So how can anyone factually state or respect the intelligence of voting residents of Rancho Palos Verdes when they offer statements as 'fact' that can not be proven to be truthful by the very same persons who sponsored and wrote what they purport to be a 'fact'.
Dr. Brophy has never denied to me directly that the average number of daily trips to and from Marymount, with on-campus housing would be lower than it is now.
Bob Bisno mucked up the plans for Ponte Vista so much, in the opinion of thousands of local residents that he ended up being kicked off the project by the financial backers of the project who watched his antics and the crumbling housing industry take away all the work they did since 2005 when Bob spent 252% of the opening bid for the property known as Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I think we have seen some similar signs from Dr. Brophy and others supporting Marymount's plan to build dorm on its campus and have a specialized municipal code created especially on only for Marymount that could supersede many existing codes in the current books.
Whenever you read, see, or hear that The Marymount Plan will be completed at "no expense" to the taxpayers, you need to know that the statement is not based on total truth and it cannot be completely verified by facts that so many of us know are true.
If the statement were true, then we never would have heard from Dr. Brophy that Marymount intends now to pick up the tab for the Special Election, you know, the one taxpayers were going to have to foot the entire bill for.
You would also probably not have heard Dr. Brophy offer to help pay for the concrete center median that is slated to be constructed under the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
You do know that there are at least traffic mitigation items that will have Marymount pay 'their fair share' but they still do not intend to pick up the remaining costs of the mitigation. The remaining portion will have to come from funds provided by..........taxpayers.
So why in the world would an entity such as Marymount College with all its learned persons in a religious environment not be willing to admit that The Marymount Plan can not truthfully be completed without expenses from funds paid by taxpayers?
Again, Dr. Brophy could not and did not deny, personally to me, that taxpayers would not be exempt from paying at least a portion of The Marymount Plan should it succeed with the ballot measure.
Now, when Bob Bisno and Dr. Brophy try and tell you that their respective plans had little to do with land use issues, that folks, is something they have to cross their fingers behind their backs to tell you.
They also have to cross their toes, eyes, forked tongue (if they have one), nose hairs, legs, and other parts because that is also something untrue.
Both Ponte Vista at San Pedro and The Marymount Plan are completely about land use issues. The issues of how an entity or person make lots and lots of dollars of profits by changing how their land is used compared to the current uses and zoning of the land, is at the hallmark of both projects.
Marymount's supporters want to build high-density 'rental' housing in a low-density single-family, detached area. Ponte Vista supporters want to build a medium-density project on land currently zoned for nothing greater than single-family, detached houses on lots of not less than five thousand square feet.
Marymount and Ponte Vista are not that far different in their supporters' quest to change the makeup of their general areas when potential profit is considered by many a primary reason both areas are being considered for what I term as 'over development'.
The one thing Marymount has the opportunity to do, right now, is begin The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
The one thing the current backers of Ponte Vista have the opportunity to do, right now, is begin building up to 429-single family detached housing using the current zoning of R1 at that property.
There is one very well connected individual to the processes concerning Marymount College that has suggested that Marymount College could see their on-campus housing built and maintained at no cost to the college AND the college could receive up to or more than 20 Million Dollars in payments to do whatever it wishes to use that 'profit' for.
So when you think about Dr. Brophy, it is not that far from channeling Bob Bisno's activities and antics to try to get what he wanted.
Now I do not want to see Dr. Brophy or Marymount go bankrupt like Bob Bisno did, but I think Marymount's supporters have the opportunity to offer to new students, the new four-year academics, the community, and others that beginning The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project contains no fibs to attempt to defend and it can demonstrate the respect for the community that Dr. Brophy claims he has, but doesn't seem willing to offer the community the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)