Bits and Pieces 31

Two theatre (or theater) productions open in San Pedro this Friday evening.

Little Fish Theatre http://www.littlefishtheatre.org/wp/ opens "Italian American Reconciliation" at 8:00 PM.

It is still hard for me to believe that this is already the FOURTH production by the theatre company, this season.

My 'hole in the wall' apparently will be utilized with this production. So when you enter the theatre and if you haven't seen the new 'hole' turn around and look up. Lisa and Sara gave Phil and I permission to have me use my sawsall last year and the new access has been utilized in several shows, so far.

The Relevant Stage Theatre Company http://www.therelevantstage.com/ opens its third annual production of "I Love You. You're Perfect. Now Change." also at 8:00 PM at a NEW VENUE in San Pedro.

The production will take place in a new and intimate setting in the basement of People's Yoga and Health studio, on 6TH Street.

This third annual production has three of the cast members returning from the highly reviewed 2009 production and the recurring production is a true highlight for theatre goers in the area.

ILYYPNC can be thought of as akin to Little Fish's Pick of the Vine as being shows that are must attend.

Marymount College http://www.marymountpv.edu/ will open its production of "You Can't Take It With You" on April 28 at the historic Warner Grand Theatre, in San Pedro.

This show is also a 'must see' in my opinion. I think audience members will enjoy a company of talented and energetic players and technicians who will provide great entertainment in this comedy, based on an extended family's experiences.

The evening of April 27, 2010 sees the three-week, Wednesday and Thursday night production of "Stones In His Pockets" at Little Fish Theatre, in San Pedro.

What Little Fish Theatre is now considered by many to be is a 'black box' local theatre that continually offers the best comedies and dramas in the greater L.A. Basin.

Some of us are beginning to think that there small audience area of 65 seats is becoming a tougher seat to get, with all the excellent productions continuously produced there.

Most weekend productions in this season and the last have so many sellouts that folks need to order their tickets early or purchase 'anytime' tickets, packages of 10 tickets, or just by an entire season of tickets before all the tickets are taken up.

As a disclaimer, I haven't worked any Relevant Stage, Marymount, or Little Fish shows this season, but there are plans for Phil and I to work on a fall production with Little Fish.

Phil and I have worked with Mr. Rodney Rincon at Chadwick and we expect to work on "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", later this spring, at Chadwick.

Moving on.

After considering all that could or might happen should I videotape Marymount's production of "What the Butler Saw", I finally decided that I will not tape it.

What that does is frees me up to offer some tantalizing 'suggestions' I have recently heard about, when considering everything Marymount College.

What I am ready to report is still 'officially' unconfirmed, but it comes from multiple sources, on multiple levels of those involved with Marymount, and not necessarily considered bad by me.

Apparently World wide recruiting by Dr. Brophy and others is paying off. More than one individual has told me that the incoming Freshman Class will be the largest ever.

This MAY lead to a classroom shortage, especially for the upper classes of Juniors and Seniors.

The possible solution to overcrowding looks to be Marymount's possible acquisition of a building or buildings in San Pedro that might become an annex that will be used for classrooms for Juniors, Seniors, AND POSSIBLY IN THE FUTURE Masters' candidates!

The opportunity Marymount may take to open an 'annex' to its Rancho Palos Verdes campus means that the limits on the number of students allowed to attend Marymount College may continue within Rancho Palos Verdes, but College officials may consider that educating students in San Pedro does not go against the "793 students" limits in place on the Rancho Palos Verdes Campus.

You just might wonder what my current opinion on offering an 'annex' in San Pedro to educate upper division students and POSSIBLY graduate students, so here it is.

First off, I like the concept of having an annex in San Pedro.

Second, I need to repeat some concerns I have about housing students.

The repeated statements by Marymount officials that they would sell off the Pacific Heights off-campus student housing, will grow moot because that location may be the location Marymount will offer more housing to upper class level students.

Adding an annex will surely mean Marymount will continue to seek on-campus housing for students, but the officials will probably take on new reasoning for their demands for student housing in R.P.V.

With an annex in San Pedro, AND a new very large Freshman class, Marymount officials will state that their current student housing sites will not accommodate the influx of students needing housing.

Look for Marymount demanding on-campus housing for Freshmen students and some Sophomore students and that they will claim there will not be enough housing available to house upper division students on Marymount's main campus.

Having upper division students educated in San Pedro may mean jobs intended for local residents will be taken by students from Marymount College. Since job seekers want to work, it should be up to the businesses to decide who they hire and we know most College students need jobs during their education, at some point.

Setting aside the housing issues, I think a Marymount 'annex' in San Pedro might be a very good idea for a number of good reasons.

The Port of Los Angeles is now considering a long set of berths closer to the outer harbor becoming an educational location for a number of institutions. While I doubt Marymount would have its annex in that area, what is going on now with the port demonstrates an interest in improving educational resources in San Pedro, and I really feel that is a good thing.

An annex means that some new jobs would be created. A new annex means students wishing to be entertained, fed, and wanting to socialize may do those and other things in San Pedro, rather than in other communities. This may mean increased business, revenues, and tax collection in and for San Pedro and I certainly support the revitalization of San Pedro's downtown area.

I'd much rather have students 21-years of age and older walking to and from Godmother's over having students driving to and from establishments of Godmother's type.

San Pedro provides many fine arts opportunities, marine interest opportunities, better transit and transportation opportunities than Rancho Palos Verdes does.

I think it could be a win-win set of opportunities for Marymount College and San Pedro.

I don't know the current status of plans to improve the housing owned by The Volunteers of America which site right next door to the Palos Verdes North off-campus housing site Marymount College owns.

Perhaps there may be opportunities for Marymount in which they could purchase the condominiums from VOA so Marymount could house more upper division students in northwest San Pedro. I do understand fully that placing more students living at Palos Verdes North means more traffic on Western Avenue, but we would need to accept that and find workarounds, should that happen.

I don't know the tenant count of the two larger office buildings along Western Avenue, in Rancho Palos Verdes. I doubt that relations between Marymount officials and our City Council and staff would allow for consideration of a possible change of ownership of those two buildings such that an annex would be along Western Avenue.

There are plenty of empty offices closer to the harbor in San Pedro where Marymount officials might look for their annex.

Another consideration I can have positive thinking about, when thinking about an annex is about the construction of a brick and mortar library on Marymount's campus.

As we head straight into the future, more Colleges and Universities are moving into having virtual libraries. Virtual Libraries can be accessed be the public all the way 'down' to allowing only limited access to those who possess a login and password.

I believe contributions have been made specifically for a new 'brick and mortar' Library on Marymount's campus. It may take a rescinding of such contributions to create a much less expensive virtual library or the money set aside for a brick and mortar structure might be channeled into an improved media center and student-study areas.

A virtual library for Marymount means that upper division students being taught in San Pedro would have no need to visit a physical library, possibly anywhere.

Land not used for a brick and mortar structure on Marymount's main campus could be used for other things or just left with a garden-type setting.

I continue to support and encourage the construction using The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, but not The Marymount Plan.

I think with the creation of a Virtual Library over one approved in The Expansion Project, Marymount will be able to offer a much better package of information and study opportunities to a greater number of students, having more divisions of students than they currently have.

I will never support or condone student housing on the Palos Verdes Drive East campus of Marymount College. I would not mind having students of Marymount College living in apartments and condos along Western Avenue, even in the parts within Rancho Palos Verdes.

I will seek out and publish more information as I learn more.

Ponte Vista Update With Shared Post

I am writing identical posts on two of my blogs dealing with Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council is a great source of information dealing with the project proposed for 61.53 acres in northwest San Pedro, directly across the street from homes and a very large business in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Here is a very good link to the Council's site where information can be gathered.

http://www.nwsanpedro.org/pontevistaindex.asp

It appears that when the new Environmental Impact Report is published, HOPEFULLY VERY SOON, everyone will have a better opportunity to view the details and begin greater discussions and debates about having a large condominium project with access only along Western Avenue, built.

Expected are three 'Alternatives' that will have studies considered.

The primary 'Alternative' looks to be for 1,345 condominium and/or apartment units, some 'masquerading' as single-family units, but are legally identified as condominium units.

This Alternative provides for fewer than the "2,300" units published as the proposed Alternative when Bob Bisno was the Developer.

There will probably be "Alternative 2" which might include a proposal to construct condominium and apartment units in the 800-850 units range.

As a reminder, The Gardens is a 1,100-unit development that was first offered as owner-occupied condominiums on 80 acres of land almost adjacent to the Ponte Vista site.

Using the number of units constructed and the acreage, the dwelling density of The Gardens is 13.75 dwelling units per gross acre of land.

If the figure of 13.75 dwelling units per gross acre is applied to the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site, up to 846 dwelling units, maximum, to equal the dwelling density of The Gardens.

It is true that many of the 'condominium' units at The Gardens are now rental or leased out units and that actually changes the traffic count numbers when owner-occupied units become rented or leased out.

The new developers at Ponte Vista at San Pedro have proposed one of the building being constructed to contain "392 Apartment Units" but after they breath, they will tell you they expect and/or 'hope' that those Apartment Units would become owner-occupied units.

Here is where I need to mention that I still have two acres of The Moon up for sale and if you really believe 392 Apartment Units will eventually become owner-occupied units, you are someone I really want to talk to about unloading an acre or two on The Moon I have been trying to sell for years.

Alternative 3 will most likely be the legally required "No Project" Alternative.

This Alternative is legally mandated to be studied and included with Environmental Impact Reports and it is the Alternative that uses the idea that no zoning changes are made to an existing site and what the current zoning on the site is, is what new construction must utilize.

In the case of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, it was zoned by the city of Los Angeles to be "R1" which means single-family, detached dwellings on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet in size. The other zoning existing on some of the site is O1 or OS1 (Open Space), plus there is some land that is not suitable to have new housing constructed on it.

The "R1" designation on suitable construction land at the site allows for the construction of up to 429 single-family units.

Currently there are approximately 245 'duplex' units constructed for military housing purposes and when they were constructed for the military, no city zoning requirements or restrictions applied to military housing there.

The current zoning would not allow for refurbishment of existing residential units on the site.

The current developers have suggested and stated that they do not wish to apply for any 'density bonuses' on the 22 lots that comprise Ponte Vista at San Pedro. If density bonuses were applied for and approved, the number of proposed units could be increased by up to 35%.

What they have stated in one for or another is that they will be seeking new municipal codes from the Los Angeles City Council that will change the current zoning on the site and provide entitlements on lots that they would probably try to sell to others rather than actually contracting any firm to build new housing on their behalf.

What impresses me and what impressed other opponents of over development in our area is that the new development team seems to have greater understanding and they seem to be much more willing and able to sit down and discuss just about everything related to Ponte Vista at San Pedro and local neighborhoods in all the communities near the site.

R Neighborhoods Are 1, the communities-wide organization that worked hard and helped by a weakening economy to keep Bob Bisno from going further with his plans, has not gone anywhere.

Records illustrating the fact that more people signed petition sheets demanding that the Ponte Vista site remain R1 than Councilwoman Janice Hahn was looking for to help her decide her stance, remain on file.

More information will be provided when it becomes available.

"Annenberg Sets the Record Straight"

Here goes!

I am posting the information contained in a TWO PAGE advertisement in last Thursday's PVP News, written, I mean signed by Mr. Leonard J. Aube, Executive Director of the Discovery Park opportunity funded by The Annenberg Foundation.

I am doing to so present Mr. Aube's statements that can be used as a 'fact check' against opponents of the project's statements and 'facts'. I want to post everything I feel is important on all sides of the issues to provide a more open and honest debate.

I have posted my comments and feelings about the Discovery Park Project on multiple posts and you are free to search out my thoughts.

Here is the text of Mr. Aube's advertisement:

"To the Community:

In a letter to the editor last week, someone asked us to ponder "Why is the Annenberg running so many Ads? What are they trying to sell us?" I'm glad she asked because she and others who continue to spread contentious and misleading misinformation deserve a response.

Frankly, certain statements in her letter go right to the heart of why we decided to initiate the ads. Some opponents have succumbed to the axiom that "'if you sling enough mud some of it will stick,"' Those tactics set out to intentionally confuse people and serve to purposefully obscure the truth.

The Nature of Philanthropy

The Annenberg Foundation is philanthropy. Our core practice is to elevate humankind. Imagine for a moment you wake up in the morning and your sole focus is to identify and support ways to imporve the life of other human beings. The's the very essence of our work. We are a nonprofit entity. The members of the board of Direectors authroize grants to other nonprofit organizations, schools and other public charities with absolutely no expectation of return for those investments. There is no hidden agenda, just hope and inspireation that people and communities are better off as a result of an Annenberg contribution.

So, with no agenda other than community benefit, it is troubling to hear and read some fo the egregious and erroneous things being said about the Annenberg Foundation's proposed public/private partnership with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and our intentions for Lower Point Vicente (LPV).

Debunking Some Misconceptions

First, let me address the assertrion that "plazas...and wide roads would pave over most of our park." Pure nonsense. Every park needs some infrastructure. In this case those "plazas and wide roads" provide critical access for public and life safety equipment and personnel. The don's exist becasue of a design whim or subjective decision making. Professionals from the local fire department have reviewed, advised and specified their requirements as part of the landscape design process. Life and public safety specifications are non-negotiable--as they should be.

Let's talk parking. Today, LPV, inclusive of its two asphalt and one overflow parking lots can handle about 125 vehicles. Back in 1996 and 1998 the National Park Service endorsed and the RPV Planning Commission approved, respectively, plans to expand parking at LPV to 207 spaces. Annenberg had absolutely no involvement in those decisions. Skip forward. The City with its already approved plans for expanded parking combined with the proposed Annenberg project would have a grand total of 198 shared spaces (that's a net gain of approximately 73 spaces over the current number). Moreover, approximately 27 of the spaces would be hidden from view by placing them under ground. A step better, the curreent, unsightly and heat-absorbing black asphalt would be replaced with state-of-the-art, eco-friendly product. The parking areas would be replete with pretty, native landscaping. Does that sound horrendous to you? Of course not, but the opponents want you to think so.

Also, consider this" the PVIC, a 32-foot tall structure above grade, already sits atop the landscape; the hardscape areas around the PVIC building, including the whale observation terrace, stone amphitheater as well as the asphalt service road, already exist; as previously stated parking for more than 100 vehicles already is there and plans for 207 parking spaces were approved in 1998. All of these condiditons exist today because LPV is zoned as open space recreation (a.k.a.- a community park).

Lower Point Vicente is NOT part of the City's 1400-acre nature preserve as some opponents want you to believe. The City Council specifically excluded LPV from the preserve. Therefore, LPV has the potential to becoma a Discovery Park, with more than 100 indoor and outdoor exhibits, world-class visitor and community amenities, more than two miles of new trainls and other activities that promost connecting with nature and outdoor recreation, funded by a $45 million gift from the Annenberg Foundation. The project aims to be LEED Certified, Gold.

When establishing its guidelines for park development, the City of RPV specified that buildings cannot occupy more than 10% of the land. The existing PVIC plus the proposed Annenberg facility would total 4% of the site -- 4% in the context of a site that covers more than 1.1 million square feet. That means 96% of the land remains open and most of that is beautifully landscaped with native plants as far as the eye can see, including the rooftops -- even the parking lots are landscaped and all of the existing lighting would be replaced to be Dark Sky compliant. Moreover, the Annenberg building, a unique and innovative design that rently slopes into the hillside would site 16-feet above the existing grade and less than 5-feet above existing grade at its lowest. Remember, PVIC sits 32-feet above existing grade.

The assertion that the Annenberg project is "mainly a companion anumal cehter and adoption facility with some educational displays and video" trivializes the brillian work of the Los Serenos Docent Exhibit Advisory Committee, as well as the other best-in-class designers, architects, project managers and advisors.

Facts You Should Know

Opponents are telling residents misinformation and collecting signatures on a petition based on false statements. Don't be fooled by things you've been hearing:

• The project would not house 300 animals. (There would be 10 dog and eight cat adoption suites).
• The project would not include an animal crematorium.
• Anndnberg does not want to buy the land. (The property would be leased from the City under an operating agreement).
• Wallis Annenberg has no desire to use the park for personal purposes.
• The porject would not conduct animal testing or research.
• LPV is not owned by the Federal Government. (LPV is owned by the City of RPV).
• The project will not pave significant portions of the land.
• The National Park Service and CA State Parks do not oppose the project. (The City's "Draft Application for Public Facility" is under review to be followes by a "Final Application" and public comment).
• If the Annenberg project is approved, "Whale of a Day" will not end. (The Annenberg project significantly imporves site infrastructure to support and potentially expand "Whale of a Day" and other community-wide events.

Programs That Enrich and Restore

The design and programming wold attract people of all ages -- and abilities -- to a place where they will be able to exercise their minds and bodies. There will be places to be alone, take and early morning run across Lower Point Vicente and connect to the 1400-acre nature preserve. There would also be ways to join others for activities, such as group hikes, activities at the Native American (Tongva) village, or agility classes where dogs and their families exercise together. The new interpretive building would support and promote public interaction, education and outdoor recreation and activitiesl It also would include a coffee and snack counter, program and administrative support offices, animal adoption and husbandry space, including a state-of-the-art surgical suite where students interested in veterinary care and telemedicine can participate. The project would create temporary and permanent employment opportunities. Internships (paid and unpaid) and other volunteer opportunities would be offered for students, adults and seniors alike.

I want to thank the hundreds of community residents who have attended one of our more than 175 information sessions and the more than 5,000 people who have contacted the Annenberg Foundation with your interest in following the project. Your comments and feedback continue to shape the design process and ensure that the project reflects the mission, vision and values of the community.

Sincerely,

Leonard J. Aube

Executive Director"

More at

www.facebook.com/lpvdiscovery park

Or visit www.annenbergfoundation.org

Email us at info@annenbergfoundation.org

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'll have some comments associated with Mr. Aube's ad, probably in the comments section of this post.

New Goodwill Store Under Construction

Terri and I just passed by the new Goodwill Store now under construction on the top level of The Terraces.

Notices on the door state that there will be job interviews conducted, beginning on April 19, so if you want to seek employment at the new outlet, please visit the construction site for further details.

While many may feel our area might not be a good area to have a Goodwill Store, I think it can provide more job opportunities and provide a bit more revenue to our city, and I happen to like that.

We do hope there is a drop off location behind the store the a somewhat large area accessable from both the Western Avenue driveway and the Caddington access to The Terraces. I think our city's residents can be very generous with good they wish to give away and the location of the new outlet is very near all residents of the eastern side of R.P.V.

I don't have any opening date information available right now, but I think I am going to hold off any donations of items I am not considering sending to Japan, until the new store opens.

Naturally I hope everyone is doing what they can to support all those who need food, clothing, and shelter because of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, but some things you might wish to give away might be better donated to those seeking good items at very low costs at stores like Goodwill, Salvation Army, and other charitable thrift stores. Please also don't forget Harbor Interfaith Shelter's needs.

Bits and Pieces 30

Please make sure you are sitting as you read this.

Please visit Rancho Palos Verdes Patch at http://ranchopalosverdes.patch.com/ and read Mr. Don Reeves Letter to the Editor.

Again, please make sure you are sitting.

I agree with much of Mr. Reeves' letter! I'm waiting until you are provided smelling salts.

Are you feeling better? Good!

Mr. Reeves' letter is informational, factual, and reminds every reader that any new sanitation sewer fee approved in our city is NOT related to the existing Storm Drain Users Fee (Some will call it a tax and they may be right on.)

Mr. Reeves also reminds folks that there have been talks in the past, about a sewer fee because the lines within our city are owned by our city, and not necessarily maintained 'for free' by Los Angeles Sanitation District 5, which our city is one of many cities within that numbered entity.

I know you won't faint when I admit I appreciate and agree muchly with Tom Long's response to Mr. Reeves' letter.

Tom is also factual and poses reasonable questions and things to consider.

SO LET'S CONSIDER!!!

How many of you remember Measure C? You know, it's the ballot measure so many of us voted on, less than one month ago.

Did you hear and read all the fall-der-all from folks screaming there was a rush on with the measure and that they were not provided enough time and information to make a reasonable and responsible determination as to how they would vote?

I know that was all propaganda and none of it was true, if you were really interested and concerned about our city becoming a charter city.

You also should remember that all five Council members, all seven Planning Commission members, a majority of the Finance Committee (I don't remember if it was unanimous), and others in our city's government or volunteer groups all strongly supported passage of that measure.

OUCH! I needn't remind you of the outcome and I literally stood it the inkavote machine, held my nose with fingers on my right hand and punched the "YES" dot on my ballot. Measure C's loss didn't bother me at all, HOWEVER, we stand now with another prospect of a ballot measure that MIGHT be rushed and may be ill-timed and become a campaign issue it should not become.

Tom's reply to Don's letter stated he thinks a new sanitary sewer fee/tax, if approved by voters might be "likely to average around $25.00" according to Tom's reply.

Now let's jog your memory to just a few weeks ago. Don offered information about a proposed increase of fees charged to residential property owners by District 5. Property owners received a long piece of information about the proposal with the renewal of fees set at about $2.00 per year for the next three-year contract.

Currently property owners pay about $130.00 per year and the District proposes to increase the fees to about $136.00 per year in the third year.

I not going to opine on this, in this post.

What I will strongly opine on is the real necessity to bring an considered city fee to all of us, should have been done at the same time or just before the District's proposal was sent out.

I got basically nowhere with repeated inquiries about what has been talked about by some representatives in our city's government and staff, even when talking to individuals within city government or those who are in volunteer positions.

Tom's reply acknowledges that there has been talk I knew was going on, so why hasn't it been openly dealt with yet?

Now we have a real conundrum, I believe.

We have an upcoming election in November that will determine who sits in three of the five seats on our Council.

I do not want candidates using any proposed fee/tax as an issue because there are so many important issues those who win seats will have to deal with.

I do not feel having a Special Election on the matter could possibly be held before November's election because it would truly be a rush to first discuss whether the matter needs more study, have the most open and honest discussion on the issue, and then vote on the matter.

Remember, Special Elections are costly and if you don't believe me, talk to Dr. Brophy and his offering to have Marymount pay the $72,000 Measure P's vote cost.

Would any new fee have to include a one-time added cost for the Special Election or inclusion within a General Election?

Which Council should vote to place the issue onto a ballot? I'm sure Don and others want to see who the three new members are before any vote to place a new fee or tax occurs.

If candidates are given the opportunity to use any new fee or tax as an issue, might that one issue become too prominent in their campaigns? I sure hope not.

What would folks think if this current Council places the measure on a ballot of either a Special or General election, AFTER the first Tuesday in November?

Any new fee or tax to cover maintenance or other things related to sanitary sewer systems within our city requires a vote of the electorate. So we get the ultimate decision whether we apply a new fee/tax our ourselves, or not. That, at least, is a good thing.

What I also do not want to see is anything like we all had to go through with both Measure P, The Marymount Plan and Measure C, the Charter City debate.

We all tore our city up and none of it demonstrated how great our residents really are. We can't afford to do anything like that again and if we do it a third time, others will view us very negatively, I bet.

We must have a lengthy, open, honest, and truthful discussion and debate about this issue. We must not feel rushed. We must not consider District 5 or our city's sewer system as a Special Interest. We must be well educated about both the proposal to increase fees by District 5 AND everything regarding any proposition to create a new fee/tax at a time our city continues to have 'money in the bank' while too many homeowners are either unemployed, underemployed, or have their homes 'under water'.

The city might be in good shape, revenue-wise, but can we and should we say the majority of our residents are? I don't know the answer to that one.

I would like to see the issues agendized at the next City Council meeting. I don't know where this issue stands, but I think our residents deserve to hear from our Council members what their opinions are on this matter and whether they will have a staff report created or an update of one, if it has already been started. I can't find any information about it on the city's Web site.

I would be just as happy to hear that the current Council decides to open up the issues and vote to have it considered AFTER this November's election. That way we won't have to have candidates use it as a campaign issue, and we will have plenty of time to consider it, hopefully in a better economic situation for a larger number of residents.

I didn't get a speaking part from an audition I went to. I'll keep trying and working the technical side of things.

To remind folk about some specific prices and costs:

A standard barrel of crude oil contains 42 gallons.

The last time I bought gas, I paid $4.07.99 a gallon.

If a barrel of oil sells for $104.00 as it head towards refining, each gallon in the barrel sold for $2.4761. I know the costs of crude are artificially inflated and there are taxes galore on each gallon sold at the pump. But, COME ON!