Bits and Pieces 29

Hopefully, (I need to repeat) hopefully, the rainy season has ended.

It appears that the runoff of water and debris along San Ramon Canyon was not too bad and that there was fewer road closures during March than during other months where a large amount of rain fell.

The repair of the canyon's walls and the construction of a permanent fix is still tops on my list of things that need to remain most important in our city.

Terri recently viewed someone sitting in a chair outside Marie Calender's, apparently conducting a traffic count.

Since the traffic counts for Ponte Vista at San Pedro were completed some months ago, I continue to wonder whether this latest counting of vehicles has something to do with cars exiting the Western Plaza strip mall, using the two driveways on Trudie Drive and attempting to immediately turn left onto Western Avenue, from Trudie Drive.

Since Amalfitano Bakery is so wonderful and successful, more folks going to that unit and other units of the strip mall are creating a larger problem of exiting that mall's parking lot and then using Trudie Drive to turn onto northbound Western Avenue.

This problems gets far worse during the mid to late afternoon hours when there are many more drivers attempting to use Trudie Drive to access Western Avenue or Capitol Drive.

In too many cases, drivers attempting to turn left onto Western Avenue after just leaving the easternmost driveway of the strip mall, proceed to block off the right portion of Trudie Drive at its intersection with Western Avenue.

I have suggested a solution to the problem being one that would have the easternmost driveway to the strip mall, on Trudie, closed off while still marking the other driveway as an in-only access point. I would have the strip mall's owner provide signs that provide that drivers attempting to access northbound Western Avenue do so by using the signalized intersection of the southernmost driveway of the strip mall, Western Avenue, and Park Western Drive.

There are three driveways for the strip mall along Western Avenue, with two of them having right turn only (southbound) egress to Western Avenue.

Leonard Aube, the Executive Director of The Annenberg Foundation wrote a letter to the Editor of The Daily Breeze and it appears in today's edition.

I believe Mr. Aube's letter and I think The Annenberg Foundation has been a beneficial member of our communities for years.

I do not applaud or particularly approve the current plans for "Discovery Park" and I have written repeatedly that I have some disdain for the repeated full page advertisements in at least two local newspapers regarding The Annenberg Foundation's "Discovery Park".

I have a most uncommon set of considerations for "Discovery Park" and what The Annenberg Foundation could and should consider. I feel that there should be a very limited number of buildings constructed on the lower portion of the Point Vicente Reservation of Fort MacArthur and only a small enlargement of parking spaces near PVIC and the "Discovery Park" site.

I continue to believe that a compromise could be reached in which the public would be provided a wonderful city of Rancho Palos Verdes owned park and nature area and that buildings and sites for animal study, education, and participation should be constructed on the upper portion of that Reservation, with some emphasis on construction of elements working well with a new City Hall and city government services.

I feel there is enough space in the area currently housing the City Hall site that can effectively include a new City Hall, new city services structures, an enlarged parking lot, and facilities for animals currently planned at "Discovery Park" being located in the upper portion with a pedestrian trail and bridge between the upper and lower parts of the Point Vicente Reservation of Fort MacArthur.

I also think The Annenberg Foundation could help restore some of the former military site locations on the upper portion of the Reservation and that would allow the public greater access and education dealing with this historical element of the Fort MacArthur complex.

There doesn't appear to be any historical military elements at the Lower Fort MacArthur Reservation, but there are plenty of elements and much evidence dealing with the four other Reservations of Fort MacArthur which are the Middle Reservation, (current Air Force Personnel housing and parade grounds), Upper Reservation, (Angles Gate Cultural Center, military museum, Battery Osgood and Battery Farley, and other facilities including a new San Pedro High School annex and the Point Fermin Outdoor Education Center) White Point Reservation, (Nature center, Nike missile complex, two gun batteries, White Point Nature Preserve).

I do not wish to have candidates for three City Council seats elected or not elected because of their stand on "Discovery Park" or The Annenberg Foundation.

Sadly, too many neighborhoods in our city have at least one defendant in a pending criminal case associated with it.

Sometimes we find neighbors confronting fear and great concern for their own safety and the safety of others if they find that they feel they have been negatively impacted by whatever they are dealing with, concerning the criminal defendant.

My neighborhood is one of them, at this time. One of my neighbors was arrested and is charged with at least one felony count dealing with charges the person may be eventually found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and that the assault was conducted against another neighbor.

We now have too many neighbors living with too much fear and that is never a good thing in any neighborhood.

Most regular readers of this blog know that my wife and I welcomed someone into our home for a period of three months, who was later convicted of First Degree Murder with Special Circumstances.

This individual came to stay with us from a few days after she murdered her husband until she attempted to live permanently in Chicago. The murderess was always considered a suspect in her husband's murder but the Sheriff's Department told us we were in no danger and we never felt in danger. My wife contended for those months that her friend could not have possibly killed her husband, but I had my doubts early on, but used the information I learned from detectives to allay any fears about our safety.

Although I now have experiences that most others do not, I am still not well settled on the activities of the current criminal defendant or the family of that defendant.

It is more than strongly believed that the charged neighbor visits the home that is shared with the defendant's parents, which is in violation of a Protective Order In Criminal Proceeding (CLETS).

I do not wish to play 'policeman' and use resources to 'catch' the defendant violating the Order, but I also will not continue to allow fear becoming greater in my neighbors who are in fear for their safety and well being.

I also know and appreciate that criminal defendants have rights and that I need to continue to support our Constitution and the rights granted to everyone by that document. I have been somewhat in the background when dealing with events and proceedings associated with the defendant and how fear continues to grow in our neighborhood.

However, I do not like being 'flipped the bird' by anyone riding in any vehicle associated with the defendant's family's address and I do believe I saw the defendant violating the Protective Order.

I think it was pretty darned stupid of that passenger to 'flip the bird' while the driver of a vehicle waited until Terri and I left our front yard before she proceeded past our residence.

Did the 'idiot' in the passenger seat think I wouldn't watch the vehicle pass by from inside my home after I notices the female driver staring at Terri and I while we were outside our home?

I have been flipped off before. I have been called a 'thug' in print and by other means. I will not tolerate any longer my neighbors that have young children becoming more fearful because of anything related to the criminal defendant or that defendant's family.

The defendant has elected to have the trial's opening delayed several times. Whether you believe the justice system is fair or not, I feel neighbors have a right to not live in fear, especially when those neighbors are parents of young children.

Bits and Pieces 28

I know I am not writing "Bits and Pieces" on a regular basis, but I bet that will change when I learn of more candidates lining up for the three seats on our City Council becoming available due to term limits.

Can somebody please tell the good folks at The Annenberg Foundation that many of us are sick and tired of their full-page newspaper 'propaganda' advertisements concerning "Discovery Park"!

I have been trying to let folks know that our residents are most certainly smart enough to understand what The Annenberg Foundation wishes to provide to the Lower Pointe Vicente Reservation of Fort MacArthur, and that "WE GET IT ALREADY!"

I have asked the current City Council membership to deal with this project in a timely enough manner so as to not make it a campaign issues by any of those seeking one of the three seats on our City Council up for grabs.

We need candidates who will offer their take on all the issues without any cloud of a giant special interest group like The Annenberg Foundation causing even more discourse during the campaign season.

If folks don't know what they feel they need to know about "Discovery Park" or what their opinions are about what should or should not be included, they have either been asleep at the wheel or they simply do not care enough to learn what they could have or should have learned by now.

I also don't appreciate 'outside' cities and individuals chiming their support for what The Annenberg Foundation is proposing to do in OUR city. If those 'others' support what Annenberg wants to do, have The Annenberg Foundation build what they want to build in THEIR city, not ours.

I have not heard or read much about my; "A Long Bomb" reference to the outcome of Measure C. I am pleased by that but I found Tom's statement about not revisiting the charter city issue for some time to come a bit odd. Well, more that a bit odd, I guess.

I do however, hope that no new charter city issues come up for quite some time and that even us 'lowly' residents have reasonable input into whatever comes back up, hopefully in a few years from now, concerning becoming a charter city.

I still need to be honest and let readers know that I do have a 'litmus test' regarding candidates for City Council seats and their support for approval of on-campus student housing at Marymount College.

As you should know by now, R.P.V. has been home to a wonderful College that has on-campus student housing for years. If folks want a second College having on-campus student housing, then let that College move to a city or area outside of Rancho Palos Verdes.

We may be the largest in size and/or population on The Hill, but that doesn't mean we must accept two Colleges with on-campus student housing, especially when I can offer all kinds of evidence that on-campus student housing at Marymount College is NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS OF R.P.V..

Oh, by the way of reminder, more than 68% of our registered voters voted on Measure P, The Marymount Plan and that Plan to approve on-campus student housing was defeated by more than ten points.

During these most recent rainstorms, my thoughts and imagination headed over to San Ramon Canyon and what was probably happening to 25Th Street. I know there is another rainstorm fore casted for this Wednesday and the long range forecasts are considering more rain, perhaps on Sunday.

Is it time to put the shovels into the mud to start the 'emergency' stabilization of the switchbacks? I originally wanted the Council to go ahead and do the 'emergency' repairs under current study. I now reluctantly agree that just having the 'emergency' plans 'shovel ready' might be good, but I wonder what more Mother Nature has in store for us, after this first full day of Spring.

I have a bit more information that the Environmental Impact Report for Ponte Vista at San Pedro may be coming out a few months sooner, even perhaps in a month or so.

The Traffic Studies used the correct I.T.E. trip generation tables for the various types of housing units planned for the site, but there are some problems cropping up with the times the studies were conducted and other formulas used.

There is a good number of us who have been to classes in how to interpret E.I.R.s, E.I.S.s and other planning documentation, so it is growing more difficult for developers to try and pull any wool or other fabric from animals over our heads.

I do feel that Rancho Palos Verdes Patch should be read daily and that it should be bookmarked. I think it offers more 'folksy' news and information other sources, including this blog, don't necessarily carry.

I am pleased it is available but I have learned there is no San Pedro Patch, so that might be one way a real writer/publisher might find a new way to make some money.

Spring has sprung.

The grass has riz.

I'm still looking for

Lots of sunshine.

The flowers will certainly come in bunches,

because of all this darn rain.

Some News From Our Next Door Neighbor

Most of us living on the East side of Rancho Palos Verdes have the opportunity to look out certain windows and view portions of our neighbor, our really bit neighbor next door, San Pedro.

While our city's residents may have just gone through an election, things in our neighbor-community of San Pedro have not slept while we debated.

Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn is still running for Jane Harman's former seat in Congress. It appears that the special primary election will be conducted in May to see which top vote-getters in each party stand for formal election to the seat.

It also appears that the Congressional District's lines will be redrawn, perhaps in time for the 2012 election.

For us, I have been told by a very reliable source that our current Congress member will be heading for reelection in a totally Orange County seat. This means we will either be placed into the 36Th C.D. which Ms. Hahn seems to be the front runner for election, or we might move into another's District.

But there is more news concerning our friends and neighbors to the east of us, that is also at least as important to those of living where we do.

"Harbor Highlands Homes" has been the commonly used name to identify a 134-home development brought into the San Pedro picture by JCC Homes.

The location of the proposed residential project is along Gaffey Street between Battery Street and Capitol Drive, basically.

The site was home to the old Kinder-Morgan petroleum site and has been a large mud pad for some time now.

Things have changed recently and our residents should know that the project is moving forward.

First, JCC Homes sold most of its interests and allowances to Standard Pacific Homes. There should be no real visible changes in plans to build 134 'patio style' homes on 11 acres of the site, but we now know a better timeline and more breakdown of the site.

A representative of the site's developer spoke last night at the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council meeting. Here is a bit more of what he spoke about.

There are 134 designated 'lots' or sites for construction of each single-family residential unit on lots of far less than 5,000 square feet. The 'lots' comprise a communal site so the dwellings, while viewed as single-family units, are actually parts of a condominium complex.

90 of the 134-lots are considered to be part of the 'West' portion of the development and will be developed first. The other 44 lots are part of the 'East' complex and will probably not meet eligibility to be formally purchased and built on for 18-24 months from now.

Meeting attendees were informed that the first of the 90 houses that are now slated for lots in the 'West' portion will see a family move in, in about two years.

Naturally, there will be construction phasing and the 'East' portion probably won't see new construction until most, if not all of the 90 other units are built.

The geometry of Harbor Highlands Park, along Capitol, will change when an road is placed towards the south side of the park for access to the development from the west.

The Neighborhood Council has worked with the various development team members to seek and find the best development possible for current and future residents of the area.

What is most important to us is the fact that in about two years, we will be in traffic along Western that will have new residents from the new area to our east, even if that number of residents is not all that great and they are welcomed over an extended period of time.

I have written much of what I know about the JCC Homes project on my Ponte Vista Blog, but I think it is time to share the fact that new housing is 'officially' coming to our area and we now have dates available.

But then again there is Ponte Vista at San Pedro!

I didn't learn much more than I already knew about the current plans and events dealing with the project last night, when the meeting featured some comments from the Land Use Committee Chair of Northwest S.P.N.C., but I did learn one important thing about the current view towards the Environmental Impact Report.

I have been writing recently that it appears that the new Environmental Impact Report for what can only be described as the 'scaled down' P0nte Vista at San Pedro Project, will be available in 3-4 months.

The Traffic Study portion of the EIR has seen its field studies completed.

It now looks like the EIR will contain three 'Alternatives', meaning that the development team will offer EIR studies for three different building scenarios:

The largest Alternative will be for up to 1,135-units consisting of one 392-unit (apartment) building, more multi-family unit buildings and some single-family detached residential units built on lots of far less than 5,000 square feet.

I was intrigued by a statement made last night that one other Alternative will be of a project of "about 820-units", according to the Committee Chair.

This falls in line with my call for no more than 831-total units, which brings the dwelling density at Ponte Vista equal or just under the dwelling density at The Gardens, the 1,100-unit two-story multi-family dwellings along Westmont Drive.

The final and mandatory Alternative is normally titled the "No Project" Alternative. This alternative is mandated for every EIR and states that the site remains with its current residential and open space zoning, whether anything is built on the site, or not.

The 'No Project' Alternative keeps the residential zoning at "R1" which allows for up to 429-single family, detached residential units on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet in size.

The Ponte Vista at San Pedro site has always held provision to build housing according to its current zoning since it was purchased by Bob Bisno, back in 2005.

As expected, the Committee Chair commented that the current development team expects to be granted entitlements and then have other companies actually build housing on designated parcels and that there could be several different construction companies developing portions of Ponte Vista.

What this also probably means is that the largest Alternative for up to 1,135-units actually carries the legal abilities to consider density bonuses on parcels or the whole property site.

When certain criteria is met with proposed developments, an up to 35% increase in the number of units entitled on the site, could actually be built.

What this means is that the 1,135-unit entitlement, could see up to 1,533 units constructed and the "820-units" Alternative could allow for 1,107 units.

The current development team have repeated stated they do not with to have density bonuses applied while they control development, but if they 'sell off' parcels to other entities, it does not look likely those other developers are legally required to keep from using density bonuses that could be granted to them as a result of the sale to them, of parcels.

I will be writing more posts about the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project on my www.pontevista.blogspot.com site, probably ramping up again in the nearer future. Please visit that site for the best news, comments, and information about the big development on our border.

It appears that the westbound lanes of Weymouth at the intersection of Western Avenue will be re stripped AGAIN.

So many drivers never learned that there was an elimination of one lane able to turn north onto Western, so the city's traffic folks will soon change the lanes back to 'normal' where there will again be two lanes having allowances for drivers to turn right onto northbound Western Avenue.

You know those really, really big twin tanks that are near Gaffey Street? They are the two tanks that have been fought about for years and should have been moved or removed decades ago.

The most recent study dealing with the effects of a catastrophic failure of both of the tanks suggest a damage zone of 6.8 MILES!. What this means is that just about all of us living on the East side of The Hill won't need to worry much about escape plans or moving anywhere if the worst-case scenario plays out. We just would no longer be.

There will be a new "land" in San Pedro, shortly. Yogurtland is coming in to the site of the old Hollywood Video store in the Ralph's shopping center on Western Avenue near Park Western Drive.

This will be at least the third frozen yogurt sales facility within a mile, along Western from Summerland to Caddington. That's not counting any frozen yogurt sold at markets or our 31 Flavors.

Coming To, I Mean FROM Our Wallets And Purses, Shortly

Now, let's consider not one, but TWO fees or taxes increases or establishments that deal with what we flush, every day.

Going back to at least the 2010-2011 Finance Advisory Committee Work Plan, we see a section regarding the possible establishment of a City-wide sewer fee.

In the review of the Committee's Mission Statement and Recommendations, we find that: "In June, 2009, the City completed its Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update, which identified needed improvements to the sanitary sewer system in the city.

Now, I am stopping to review a form notice that came in yesterday's mail.

A "Notice of Public Hearing" piece of mail form the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Property owners in Rancho Palos Verdes and other communities that are part of District No. 5 should have also received the announcement.

The Public Hearing is to take responses to the fact that the three-year contract for providing sanitary sewage treatment, and the current fees associated with that, are expiring.

Basically, the District wants to increase yearly fees from $130.00 per year, per single residential parcel and gather a two dollar increase each year, for the upcoming three year contract.

According to the notice, single family residential parcels have a current charge of $10.83 per month or $130 per year.

The suggestion is to raise the monthly fee by seventeen cents in the first year, bringing the monthly charge to $132.00 per year. In the second and third years, the charges will increase by two dollars per year, each. The final year's charges are suggested to be $136.00 per year.

It may be small increase, especially when considering the property values in our city.

Within the long, double sided notice is the statement that Cities can also impose fees or taxes for improvements in sanitary sewage elements within that city and that those fees or taxes are not associated with the increase rate requests documented in the announcement.

I checked our City's Web site and did not find any report or Council agenda item regarding more discussion about a city-wide sewer improvement fee or tax. But I know our city's staff has been tasked with creating a full report dealing with what would become a ballot measure for a municipal ordinance establishing possible a new fee or tax for our city's sanitary sewer improvements.

This is not a new idea and it does reflect a history with this current Council membership where members considered prior Councils to be less than active regarding infrastructure issues and some of our 'retiring' Council members have been outspoken about the lack of infrastructure improvements considered by prior Councils.

Possible we see again that the chickens have come home to roost with the consideration of making repairs and improvements not accomplished in the past, by others.

I knew this when I voted for Long, Stern, and Wolowicz in their first election and their reelection. It is one of the reasons I voted for the three members, both times. I do believe that prior Councils probably slept at the wheel of infrastructure improvements and we do have a sizable recent history of having to FINALLY deal with what should have been done, years ago.

Yet, we are now looking at increased charges from the Sanitation District and a vote to establish a separate sanitary sewer repair, maintenance, and improvement fee or tax.

Of course, whether we are a general law city or had we voted to become a charter city, any new fee or tax regarding new city fees or taxes must be approved by the voters.

My indications is that once the report is handed out by staff, the current City Council makeup will push to have the ordinance created and placed on the ballot, probably within the scope of this November's voting.

I will address both sets of increased charges or a city charge establishment in another post because I feel the residents of the Eastview area and those residents who know where Western Avenue is, have a larger need to learn more about than most others in our city.

One thing that will probably also add to the matters is that our city will replace the three Council members that originally campaigned on platforms surrounding the historical problems with infrastructure repair, prior to their election.

This being written, we will soon see a group of concerned residents campaigning to become members of our City Council.

I think it will be a good indication of how folks might consider each candidate is the stand those candidates take on a ballot measure establishing or increasing sanitary sewer fees or taxes.

I still can't get much information from city staff or others as to what a city-wide new fee or tax might be or look like. I do think it will come up soon, though.

The candidates for the upcoming Council election have more issues to contend with, as regards to other elections and other candidates.

Besides the aftermath of Measure C, here are some other issues candidates will need to have firm positions on, I feel:

Marymount's attempts to secure approval for on campus student housing.

"Discovery Park" by The Annenberg Foundation.

A new City Hall

San Ramon Canyon and other canyon issues.

Keeping city funds for city use

Ponte Vista at San Pedro

Other infrastructure issues

Land Use and Planning

Our General Plan

Relations with neighboring communities

Serving our residents first and foremost.

Everything else.

We seem to have become something of a 'scrappy' city, willing to take up issues other communities have no problem ignoring as long as they can. We saw that in our own past, it appears.

The best news out of all of this looks to be the fact that there are still residents who want and feel a need to join in the 'scrappyness' in Rancho Palos Verdes. It is just one of the things that makes us the best city on The Hill and in the South Bay. Those who care, really care.

We absolutely are democracy in action and I hope everyone is proud of that, whether I agree or disagree with positions taken by others.

Yes, we take the right and the responsibility to look inside a gift horse's mouth. We do that for the betterment of our residents and our city.

"Hand"y Eye

Quick note. The following two posts were written during the first day of a week-long period of lower physical activity due to two scheduled and minor surgeries.

I just had trigger thumb release surgery 9 hours ago and I get the little benign tumor'y' thing removed from my right eyelid, this coming Monday.

Everything is wonderful and made even more 'wonderfuller' because I don't think I will need more than a few vicodin tablets provided to me. No, you can't have any leftovers!

Something New From Marymount

I was waiting for more confirmation about a new survey/poll conducted on behalf of Marymount College before writing about it.

I must get independent information from multiple sources before I publish much of what I write on this blog, except for my personal comments, that is.

It appears that representatives of Marymount College recently conducted a survey or poll regarding members of our City Council, Planning Commission, and Marymount Plan matters.

My sources are not members of either the Council or the Planning Commission and includes someone with more personal knowledge about what was included in the survey/poll.

It is to the best of my understanding that respondents were asked to make comments on individual members of our City Council and Planning Commission.

Respondents were also asked about their opinions on aspects of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and/or The Marymount Plan.

I don't know if the public will get any view of any results of the survey/poll and it may have been conducted as a gauge mechanism regarding possible candidates for City Council seats and future attempts to have on-campus housing approved at Marymount College.

It is quite reasonable for supporters of plans to have dorms approved at Marymount College support surveys, polls, and other methods to gauge what new steps might be undertaken to secure approval of dorms under The Marymount Plan.

It is probably a fairly good time to have surveys and/or polls conducted because we still have plenty of time for candidates to come forward for possible seats on the Council.

With the latest survey/poll conducted, it is also responsible for me to remind readers of several facts Marymount supporters may or may not want you to know.

I supported adoption and continue to support the going forward of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. This is the Project moved forward by our Planning Commission and unanimously made into law by our current City Council members.

I think the facts that nothing has been done on forward movement under the Project's entitlements speaks volumes about Marymount's unwillingness to move forward under the Project's allowances and entitlements.

It's dorms or nothing for Marymount, which has now been demonstrated for almost one year!

When enough signatures were gathered to have The Marymount Plan mandated for action by our City Council, only two options were legally allowed:

Approve the complete language of "The Marymount Plan" including on-campus housing for 250 students and five advisers, or have Measure P placed on the ballot for voters to decide whether residents of R.P.V. approved construction of on-campus housing at Marymount.

The election was held. Unlike yesterday's 23.5 turnout of registered voters, the vote regarding Measure P, The Marymount Plan saw just over 68% of the registered voters of our city establish an answer to the question.

By little over a ten-point margin, the majority of the 68% or registered voters in R.P.V. voted down Marymount's wishes to have on-campus student housing in the vicinity of Palos Verdes Drive East.

In 2010, voters said "NO" to having dorms approved at Marymount while it appears quite certainly that the majority of residents of our city approve and support our Council's approval of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Dr. Michael Brophy is still the President of Marymount College. The College is legally NOT associated or legally affiliated with any religion or religious organization and remains a private, non-denominational four-year College.

Steps taken during the last several years of consideration of both The Project and The Plan include Marymount's acquisition of four-year college status and entrance into at least one large sports association.

There has been no indication that any representative of Marymount College has stated that Marymount representatives, supporters, financial backers, or others are abandoning attempts to secure approval for on-campus student housing the majority of voters voted down, in 2010.

Again, it's dorms or nothing at Marymount and nobody representing Marymount has challenged that statement.

It ONLY take "Yea" votes by three representative residents of Rancho Palos Verdes to approve the construction of on-campus housing at Marymount College.

When The Marymount Plan issues was sent to the voters, the only other legal option allowed was that, by a majority vote of members of the City Council, the exact content of The Marymount Plan's language would have been used in part to create ordinances allowing for construction of dorms at Marymount.

Three Council members, at anytime, could approve municipal ordinances approving something the majority of voters stated they did not want. Please remember this well, now and into the future.

We saw just yesterday that the majority of voters told all of us they didn't want our city becoming a charter city, with this charter.

We saw last November that the majority of voters told all of us they didn't want our city to have a second college with on-campus student housing in our city.

I think we will soon see that there will be a group of folks did not like what the majority of voters stated back in November are the same folks who think yesterdays vote by the majority of folks was a good thing.

What the recent survey/poll indicates to me is that Marymount is looking for new campaign tactics to use on voters, by helping candidates supporting on-campus student housing getting elected in November.

Of course I need to remind everyone that I am very biased with regard to on-campus student housing at Marymount and I do accept that I have a 'litmus test' regarding any and all candidates for City Council, regarding their support or opposition to having student dorms at Marymount. I have these First Amendment rights that you also have, and thankfully we will all protect them.

Will Ms. Sharon Yarber and/or Ms Erin LaMont run for seats on our City Council.

Who will join Mr. Ken Dyda as far as candidates go for City Council, opposing student housing at Marymount College?

I must state that I have been approached and had discussions with several residents about their thoughts on running for Council seats. I think we may soon know the names of more candidates willing to run.

What I am sure we are going to see is a nasty campaign, sadly. I am also quite sure that the candidates supportive of having dorms approved at Marymount will receive tremendous funding compared to candidates opposed to dorms at Marymount.

I have also heard the word "intimidation" used heard too many times recently. I don't think we are going to find relief from hearing that word during the upcoming campaign.

We must not fear that word and we must not be afraid to speak out, write about, and make other types of comments on candidates and issues we support or are opposed to.

So what if so-and-so is a lawyer or an accountant, or a builder, or anything else. If you like what someone supports or opposes you have every right to be heard and read. If you feel intimidated or fearful then you should probably sit back and let others fight your battles for you.

Whether you get burned or revel in victory means you take a stand and that is something we all should do to support our city, our community, our freedoms.

Politics is a dirty business and this campaign season will be one for the history books, I think.

We have three seats up for grabs and we are going to see candidates cloaking themselves in one issue while secretly working to get elected so they can deal with a completely different issue.

Again, I will continue to seek the truth, whether it swings my way or in opposition to my wishes. I think I still can claim honesty as central on this blog and that folks who try to consider me to be hypocritical on issues are those you must not trust, listen to, or support.

I don't fear being 'out there' and I hope you don't, either. If our city is to prosper we must have a divergent set of groups and individuals working apart and together towards the best future possible. We must have all sides reviewed by the most number of people.

Maybe, just maybe, if we can start from just about scratch, with real comments, meetings, and hard work by lots of folks, we MIGHT have a charter we could live under, coming for a vote, as early as March, 2013. I doubt it will happen that quickly, but it is something we can strive for.

Strap on your writing skills, listening skills, creative remarks notes, speaking talents, and strong opinions because our city and our residents need them all so we can have the best City Council makeup possible on the first Tuesday this December.

Pyroclastic Event!

Measure C did not 'go down in flames'. It was the victim of a pyroclastic event, it appears.

From the 'Final Results' on the L.A. City Web site for voting results comes the following:

Measure C

YES: 1,825 or 27.73% of the vote

NO; 4,757 or 72.27% of the vote.

According to the Web site there are 27,800 registered voters in our city. There will be a few more votes tabulated, but I don't think the difference in percentages will change all that much.

A total of 6,582 votes were counted, giving us a 23.67% voter turnout for the measure.

I am very comfortable with that turnout when considering the other ballot spots and I think the voters who were interested enough to vote, provided fine representative service to the rest of our residents.

I am not ready to consider all the whys and what ifs about the results right now. I don't know yet what the results truly mean but I think they will become more well know when we find out who is running for the three City Council seats.

I won't condemn Measure C as being rushed, but it was bulldozed through and that is probably just as foul as being rushed.

I don't know whether fear or mistrust really played any part in the defeat because the five C.C. members who supported it were voted into office by more than just the folks who clobbered the charter to super defeat.

Today, the city did not go broke, fall into any canyon, give more money back to Sacramento, or had blood smeared on Council Chambers.

Today, things got a bit more interesting because now we can put the charter to bed for a few years and start really talking about who will run for the three seats up for grabs.

This coming Tuesday there will be a meeting of our City Council with our city remaining a general law city. That same Tuesday we will still have millions of dollars in 'emergency' funds this Council helped establish and maintain.

This Tuesday MAY be the first 'real' public opening of comments regarding an most-probably vote on increasing sewer fees in our city. That means that we may get to finally hear or read the positions from our five Council members how they stand on placing onto the ballot a measure that would increase a tax or fee. This will be a hot item to add and I will have lots more to write about it, in the near and far future.

Yesterday, as Terri and I became the 15Th and 16Th voters to mark ballots, I asked Terri to watch me as I put my thumb and right index finger pinching my nose as I marked the YES circle on my inkavote ballot. It turns out that she voted YES also, but I didn't ask her to or ask her to vote NO.

I hope the vast majority of the 6,582 voters who were counted as voting on the measure did so with the best and most complete knowledge available. If that was done, then I think we can and should be pleased and proud of those who voted, using knowledge over fear or intimidation.

I think that when a new charter measure come up, probably in 8 years or so, we will have another majority of intelligent and interested voters voting on it and whatever the outcome of that vote is, it will be based on what is best for our residents, by our residents, and for our city.

Moving Forward

There's not much more I wish to write about concerning Measure C. I may post a photo of me voting while holding my nose, but then again, I may not.

Our 'usual' polling station, Crestwood Street School's auditorium is not going to be used for the March 8 election.

We get to combine our voting with a visit with my mother at the Palos Verdes Villa.

From there, we all must move forward, no matter what the results are.

There are a few truths that will last long after the County Registrar counts the votes.

San Ramon Canyon will still need repair.

More candidates for three City Council seats may quickly announce their candidacy.

By over a 10% margin, more than 68% of our city's voters told Marymount College that while they may all support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, the addition of on-campus housing at the site was not approved by the voters.

Conservatives and liberals will still attempt to join together to make R.P.V. the best place to live, despite the State, National, and International issues that divide people.

A new 'tax' or 'fee' could and probably will be placed on a future ballot by our City Council, perhaps as early as this November to seek to increase revenue for improvements in our city's sewer system.

I feel the Annenberg Foundation will continue with its full page ads and lobbying efforts to redevelop the Point Vicente area.

Our City Hall and offices will continue to age and talk will increase about redeveloping that element of our city.

The newest Environmental Impact Report for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project will probably be published in late spring or early summer. I am getting information that L.A. City Councilwoman Hahn may not be as objectionable to having apartments and other leased units at the location. The current proposal for building 1,135 units might move down, only slightly.

Since Ms. Hahn is trying for a House seat, we will need to see how that goes in relation to her possible influence at attracting Federal funding for San Ramon Canyon repairs and whatever she feel is appropriate now, for Ponte Vista.

If Measure C fails, I now look towards March, 2013 as the earliest date for another election on a proposed charter but I also contend that it could take up to ten years before a final vote that would approve a charter will take place.

I hope our residents remember that Rancho Palos Verdes is not Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, or Rolling Hills Estates. While we may all share "The Hill" we are all unique for many reasons. We need to keep reminding ourselves that we aren't so much alike from the other three cities mentioned, as we are different. Comparisons between our city and the three other cities demonstrate who different our city really is.

I hope more residents, either as individuals or with new groups, watch what happens in our city in the coming months and years. We seem to have a more proactive government in our city these last few years and that means we need to look, listen, learn, and act more than perhaps folks in the three other cities mentioned.

We must do better at educating our residents rather than lobbying them with the use of special interest tactics and some of the worst forms of politicing we have seen recently.

Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes did not put their best feet forward as they could have done and as they should have done, in my opinion. We all should have done better and represented our city in a better light. The latest campaign demonstrated why there are those in our city who choose to not be involved or interested and there are plenty of reasons not to blame them for that.

Moving forward between March 9 and the first Tuesday in November will test the mettle of many residents, it appears. Recent information and a troubling campaign by both sides seems to indicate the campaigns for the three seats on our Council could become just as ugly as things we have seen, heard about, or read, recently.

We can't stop, step back, and attempt to go back to 'the way it was'. When we objectively look at history it tells us that what we may wish to remember is not what we should remember and what was not true.

There was a period of time our city's governors were not as proactive about infrastructure, goals, and other issues. We can't go back there anymore. We must move forward.

Another Outrageous Mailer

It was done once and even though the organizers of the "NO on C" campaign made some remarks discrediting the mailer sent out by the L.A. County and O.C. Building and Construction Trades Council, it doesn't look like their 'objections' were listened to by that disgusting group.

If you believe that this latest mailer is coming directly from the NO on C crowd, you can be considered a fool.

If you believe the organized groups within R.P.V. that oppose passage of Measure C did not do what they probably should have done to make sure this type of thing did not happen again, you are not all that foolish, in my opinion.

While the mailer is a factual mess, full of scare tactics that have nothing to do with our residents, and is so lopsided as to be totally unbelievable, I think not enough was done by both sides and our governors to tell that Trades Council to butt out of our affairs.

However, after what I learned about a meeting I did not attend and by listening to more from some associated with "No on C", I think we can see that in the dark, secret back rooms of the "NO on C" campaign, they may just be celebrating this latest mailer, stated as not being paid for by "No on C" organizations.

There are reasons to support AND oppose passage of Measure C but none of those reasons have anything to do with the mailer.

The mailer 'forgot' to contain the information that Redondo Beach and Torrance are also charter cities and it appears they used the ones they used for some racial motivation to get you to vote No (Compton, Santa Ana, Vernon, and Inglewood) while not offering true facts about all the cities in Southern California that are charter cities.

You are an idiot if you take any information from this latest mailer and apply any of it to decide to vote "NO" on Measure C. There are truthful and honest reasons, even within this blog, to find reasons to oppose passage.

Do not show the South Bay that our residents cave to fear and outrageous lies coming for a special interest group and are therefore untrustworthy and not intelligent.

Vote YES or NO for your own reasons, reasonibly provided by the organized groups on both sides of the issue.

If Ms. Sharon Yarber and/or any other known member of the groups organized to oppose Measure C fail to act on this latest mailer and any of them become candidates for City Council, I, we, and as many people as we can find, will seek to keep any of them from gaining a seat on our City Council. I know they claim they didn't have anything to do with the mailer, but I still wonder why, after the first one came out, there was not a larger stink made about it from the "NO on C" organizations. I think there are enough attorneys among those who are organized in opposition to Measure C's passage that could have and should have done whatever was necessary to make sure their groups would not be misrepresented again.

Barry Hildebrand's Email From March 2

Mr. Barry Hildebrand is a member of Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch, PVP Watch for short.

Barry's Email contained information created by Mr. Don Reeves, also of PVP Watch and it appears Mr. Reeves' comments were meant for the Ladera Linda HOA's meeting and for others to digest.

In my research concerning PVP Watch I have found through looking at their past newsletters and information on their Web site that they are primarily interested in matters regarding Rancho Palos Verdsa and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District.

I continue to find it hard to understand what the group is named as it is named because the group rarely focuses on matters within Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, and San Pedro. But that is just one of my issues.

You should know that I appreciate the discussions I have had with various members of PVP Watch, even though I disagree almost completely with every stand they take. I also want to recognize Mr. Barry Hildebrand who was a mentor for me while I was a Traffic Safety Commissioner and he helped provide and keep a large three dimensional diorama of the Palos Verdes Peninsula that still sits and is enjoyed by students and others at Miraleste Intermediate School's library.

But I do have issues with what Mr. Hildebrand provided via Mr. Reeves' comments.

Here is one thing I find totally absurd on its face, and quite contrary to the facts. It also seems to place blame on folks other than those actually responsible. Here is that portion of the Email:

"Frankly, our PVP Watch group missed the deadline for submitting and Against Argument-perhaps the voters were a bit pre-occupied with the Marymount and Annenberg issues."

NO! PVP Watch members had exactly the same ability to do whatever they wished, just like I did, since at least April, 2011. I attended the City Council meeting where the ballot measure was created and approved and there was plenty of time for those opposed to R.P.V. becoming a charter city, to create an argument against the measure AND a rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of Measure C.

I strongly feel that the membership of PVP Watch was working so hard at seeking voter approval of Measure P, The Marymount Plan and whatever they were commenting on regarding the Annenberg Project, that they themselves simply failed to accomplish their own due diligence, if the members were truly concerned about the charter city measure.

To blame "voters" for the inaction and incompetence by members of PVP Watch or any other group or individual opposed to Measure C is ludicrous on its face, completely inaccurate factually, and offers a probably true glimpse and what some members of PVP Watch actually feel about some voters, including me. Really, Don? Really, Don!

I stand firm in my disagreement with PVP Watch that there has been any type of rush, rushing, a rush to judgement, or any term concerning speed with which the processes and discussion have gone forward.

I find the word associated with 'bulldozing' much more appropriate, because I have some pretty good evidence, supplied by many supporters of Measure C, that this a more accurate type of term to use.

While it is true with PVP Watch's complaint, shared by other associated with "NO on C", that at least one speaker was basically shot down by our City Council, when making comments regarding charter city issues, that fellow was not alone. I too, was someone basically told to take a hike by at least one member of our City Council when I spoke before that body and questioned the makeup of the City sponsored Committee that was being formed. At is turned out, the committee was created as more of a lobbying group in support of our city becoming a charter city.

I have spoken at City Council meetings, individually to some Council members and you can tell by this blog that I have a substantial amount of knowledge and opinions about both sides of the charter city discussions.

If I know what I knew then and know what I know now, it is implausible that others folks, representing PVP Watch and "NO on C" to think they did not have the rights and abilities I have and used, regarding Measure C.

I must remind everyone that during the period of time Mr. Reeves claims voters may have been distracted because of Marymount and Annenberg, I can assure you, via your opportunities at looking at my past blog posts, I was able to learn what I felt I wanted to learn and needed to learn while I was quite involved with Measure P, The Marymount Plan. Don and everyone else in PVP Watch have no leg to stand on if they continue to claim something that is absolutely untrue.

I agree with Mr. Reeves' comments about what is missing from this charter, even though I don't necessarily agree with what he feels should be in this charter as opposed to what I have written about dealing with what I feel should have been in this charter.

What is important to remind folks though, is that while I made recommendations as to what I feel should have been included in this charter, Mr. Reeves' comments, along with comments and statements made by others within the organized "NO on C" movement, there are only elements of what is missing and not what 'they' would include in a charter many of have stated that R.P.V. could become a successful charter city.

This is to me, a put up or shut up issue. 'They' will tell you what is not in this charter and question why things were left out, but 'they' won't provide voters with any real alternative to use to vote down this charter. Where is the courage to truthfully include what 'they' want to use as charter elements?

Well, I think one thing that is obvious, especially via the latest letter to the editor by Dr. Michael Brophy, is that the organized opposition to Measure C wants no restrictions in any abilities for Marymount College seeking future approval to place on campus housing at their site.

This is evidenced by the following from Don's comments: "Charter cities can (a) toughen requirements for initiatives, recalls and referendums...". Yes, this is true. Please view the word, "CAN" in the statement.

I think our voters last November, with a 68+% turnout that saw Measure P fail by about 10% have demonstrated that the majority of our residents do not want on campus student housing at Marymount College, no matter what Dr. Brophy, PVP Watch, "NO on C" and every other opponent of Measure C may wish. It appears that voters may actually want it to become harder for special interest groups attempting to have their ways as opposed to what our voters feel is best for our city's residents.

Mr. Reeves' comments contain many questions without his offering any reasonable answers. How come I can provide speculative answers that may or may not come to pass and think Mr. Reeves' avoidance of such answers is not something to find troublesome? He is part of an organized group of volunteers who have monitored the governance of our City since it became a city, almost 38 year ago. Surely he and his brain trust could have provided voters with more information as to what should be included in a 'good' charter. This is the biggest failing of the "NO on C" camp, I feel.

It is estimated that up to 45% of those choosing to vote on Measure C have already done so using their mailed ballot. Redondo Beach recently approved municipal vote by mail and that city will save taxpayer dollars by moving to that type of voting.

This is just one area both myself and the "NO on C" folks did not comment on when dealing what we feel is missing from this charter.

When Mr. Reeves wrote "good job voters" in commenting on the fact that we voted down an increase in TOT, he fails to mention that he, his group, the City Council, and many others were very much in support of handing Terranea taxpayer funds in the form of a partial rebate of the TOT for a period of time lasting YEARS. I feel anyone who supports handing taxpayer funds back to a business that does not necessarily serve the public good for residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, should hold their tongue, pen, and keyboard, as far a tax benefits or problems regarding Measure C.

Here is one of the last sentences in the comments Emailed: "Our advice is to not take a leap of faith – just say NO to Measure C and then maybe we can have a real conversation about the merits of a charter city."

I don't feel it takes any 'faith' to vote yes or no on Measure C. I think the history of PVP Watch being 'out there' and commenting on city matters is demonstration enough that there will and should be residents who watch was is happening and take interest in their own governance. Many of the issues within our city over the last 37+ years have met with great opposition from members of PVP Watch as they must continue to have the right to do.

On Tuesday evening I heard Councilman Wolowicz comment on something he inquired about, regarding a sewer line next to San Ramon Canyon. His inquiry was made first back in 2002.

How long did it take from the first inquiry about what would be built on the old Marineland site until Terranea finally opened.

How long did it take from the time representatives of Marymount College came to our city's staff and governors about the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and its associated plans, until that Project was finally approved? How long are the Marymount College representitives going to work on securing on campus student housing and how might they attempt to influence voters in the future?

How long have we been and how long do you feel the Annenberg Project discussions have lasted and will last until there is approval to build something or the Annenberg Foundation finally walks away? How many full page ads in the PVP News and other places are we going to see between the time they first appeared and the last time one is published?

How long did discussions and voting and then re voting take on the Storm Drain User Fee?

Take a short but revealing look at the years it takes to get anything done in Rancho Palos Verdes and then ask yourself if you want to do the same thing regarding becoming a charter city.

Take a gander at who is opposing Measure C and remember their names when all the candidates for the November election comes to pass. See who just might want to gain a Council seat so they can offer a charter, should Measure C be voted down.

I found the comments in Mr. Reeves' letter regarding the power grab by some on our City Council to be among the worst comments possible. Folks, Long, Stern, and Wolowicz will leave their seats on the first Tuesday in December, this December. It is ridiculous to consider a 'power grab' by those who will not have any Council voting authority less than nine months from today.

I do not believe for one second that Councilman Campbell and Mayor Pro Tem Misetich support Measure C because they will 'grab' more power. If that were the case, both gentlemen are at least, approaching the conservative political nature displayed by members of PVP Watch and others.

If anyone must be accused of trying to grant more power by the Council, it is me! I want our City Council to take whatever measures that are legal, necessary, and comply with the majority of voters from last November's election, to make any approval to build on campus housing at Marymount, from happening. If it means being called a NIMBY, so be it. The driveway of Marymount is almost exactly 3 miles from my driveway.

Protecting our residents must always be first and foremost in any discussion regarding charter city status. Attempting to protect their funds is equally as important, regarding charter city status.

In the end though, this charter may stink to high heaven, but it is the only one we will most likely get to vote on for the next 10 years or so. We have to realize that whether we vote to approve it or reject it.

We all must be sick and tired of the misinformation coming from both sides. We also must call out every scare tactic used by both sides and we must condemn everyone on either side who does not fully respect the intelligence of our city's residents and the resolve by many to watch, monitor, and comment on everything happening in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Tom Long's Email From March 2

I received two Emails yesterday that require my comments because of what is contained in both.

I will start with Tom Long's Email because its subject line made my head explode because of its total stupidity and non democratic and non Democratic approach.

The subject line read: "Is PVP Watch An Appropriate Part of RPV Politics?"

Tom, OF COURSE IT IS AND I AM ASHAMED OF YOU!!!

I may object to every single position taken by the members of PVP WATCH but you would be hard pressed to find someone who defend their right to speak out, especially about politics, than I absolutely am.

Individuals and groups have every right to make fools of themselves and say whatever they like. Yesterday is was announced that the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the completely indecent, disgusting, foul, obnoxious, hate-filled, 'worms' from the Westboro Baptist Church had the right to picket at the legal minimum distance from funerals of military members.

Tom, how can you sit anywhere and consider the question in the first place?

If you truly support our city becoming a charter city then you know full well that there must be individuals and groups willing to monitor the governance of a charter city as there has been while we are a general law city.

I know what it is to be foolish, be a fool and a clown and I know that I and others have a guaranteed Constitutional right to make fools of ourselves and represent groups that may not be welcome anywhere.

I need, Tom needs, and you need folks like those within PVP Watch watching and commenting on, whether you agree with them or not.

Actually, there must be more groups like and unlike PVP Watch in our community. A free and open government must allow, accept, and respect the rights of everyone to make comments, whether anyone likes it or not. I wish and hope to find a group to join that is quite on the opposite political bent than that of PVP Watch.

Of course I will address some of the ridiculous elements contained in PVP Watch's Email sent by Mr. Barry Hildebrand and based on comments created by Mr. Don Reeves, but Tom Long and everyone else on our City Council now and in the future are required to understand that individuals and groups have the right to speak their mind, demonstrate their beliefs in legal ways, and provide the necessary requirements to work at keeping our government and governors open, honest, and trustworthy.

Most of the content of Tom's Email dealt with the worst kept secret in our city, for a number of years. On advice of more than one attorney, I did not post anything about the particular matter on this blog. But there are a whole heck of a lot of folks who knew about it, as I came to find out. Being retired and on normally on a fixed income, I don't have the finances to defend my first amendment rights against any lawyer, at this time.

I think the Palos Verdes Peninsula News had a duty to at least mention the investigation and the outcome of it, but this morning's edition, but I truly believe the newspaper and its Editor and Publisher were more afraid of the fallout than they are of reporting with courage and conviction that the story was newsworthy.

I have a very real problem also with the last paragraph of Tom's Email. I am going to copy and past a portion of it below and comment in a different color font, to each point I find objectionable.

"The voters of RPV don’t need any “guidance” on Measure C in next Tuesday’s election." Really,Tom? Really, Tom!You have been one of the most prominent and influential guides towards making R.P.V. a charter city since at least April, 2010, from my memory. The Email I am using guides folks towards a certain agenda of discrediting PVP Watch and one of its members, in particular. I may happen to agree with much of what you wrote, but to claim you have not provided your own "guidance" on how voters should vote on C, is absurd.

"We just need the opportunity to observe the discussion, weigh the issues, and make our decisions. I admit I am biased in favor of Measure C. But I have gathered links to all of the arguments (pro and con) on my webpage, including Mrs. Yarber’s arguments and I have pushed hard for as many broadcasts of the Measure C debates as the city TV channel can handle." In this, Tom is correct. I do think that he is part of a group that uses talking points and has offered misleading comments in our city's Spring 2011 Newsletter and as our Mayor, I think he can be held to some responsibility as our Mayor for not making the article regarding Measure C, a better and fairer one.

"Consider all the arguments as you see fit and cast your vote on March 8th. I will respect your decision no matter what it may be. But I will not respect and will not associate with people whose standard of conduct is like that I see from Yarber, Capozzola and PVP Watch. I will do what I can to isolate such people." Tom and everyone else is legally entitled to do what he states as long as the steps he and other take are legal and Constitutional.

Tom and the other members of our City Council are legally mandated to 'associate' with anyone who speaks in front of the Council at meetings where a quorum is met. Nobody has to agree with anything said, but the people must be heard and listened to and I have defended that at a Veteran and I will continue to defend those rights as best I can.

I hope Tom's statements and recent comments about Measure C and those opposed to its passage don't sway the voters in November to place on our Council more conservative folks who favor Marymount College having on campus housing, any attempts to not make the necessary repairs to San Ramon Canyon and the Tarrapac landslide as soon as possible, and end all discussions regarding the Point Vicente area/Annenberg Project, and finding ways to build a new City Hall/Civic Center. Our city needs to progress. It takes progressive thought and action to move forward. Progressiveness in the name of benefiting the futures of all of our residents and businesses is necessary, in my opinion