Bits and Pieces 57

Now that the bru ha ha has ended with the dog beach, I bet locals will go back to what they have done for years and continue to take their dog(s) to the beach and unbuckle the leash.

From now on it looks like there will again be fewer opportunities for enforcement types to be on the lookout for off leash dogs frolicking in the surf and on the sand.

I am feeling more comfortable with 463 being (sort of) equal to 463. Many of us have long considered that more on-campus parking spaces have been needed for some time, at Marymount College.

It looks like we may finally get our wish, whether we like the consequences or not.

With the approval of the "minor modification", we might actually see a Marymount footprint that looks absolutely nothing like the illustrations considered, for years, dealing with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Our council, by a 4-1 vote, has basically overturned years of consideration, plans, debate, counsel and votes. I think there is no question any longer about the conservative nature of this council and their willingness to change history-making decisions that Marymount officials probably never were really very interested in, in the first place.

Since the vote and now a physical admittance that it was ALWAYS about having on-campus housing at Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus, we all have learned to now only consider that whatever Marymount officials and supporters ask for is the last thing they will do at the college in Rancho Palos Verdes.

If does make for a more enlightened and calming setting for some of us, though.

You can throw away every illustration, made over the years, of the campus throughout each and every one of the proposed and approved phases of The Project.

Was the last ten years of dealings with city staff, the Planning Commission and various City Councils wasted? It certainly now looks that way, especially when you see the newest illustration of the 463 parking spaces proposed for the Marymount campus.

Money spent. Money gone. Time spent. Efforts wasted, in my opinion.

I do think we now have an opportunity to work together with everyone involved if we simply take what we all have learned, put it in the back of our minds and move on...knowing that what we thought we knew was bunk in the first place.

Lots of power pole work has been done and seems to be continuing along Western Avenue, recently.

I hope this means that our too frequent power failures find a very happy ending and homes and businesses using the same main circuits as the side of the street we live on, will end their decades-long short events of blackouts that have caused so many of us to have to reset our clocks and things, for the last 50 years or so.

For as long as I can remember, our side of the street and other specific sides of streets and houses and businesses sharing the same portion of the grid have had short spells of blackouts. I used to think that when the power went out, another car had crashed into a power pole along Western Avenue.

It has always also marveled us that our side of the street would lose power and we would look out across the street and power never seemed to be out, except in a major power failure that everyone suffers with.

I fee we have 'lucked out' this winter and spring as far as San Ramon Canyon and runoff goes. I don't know how long our luck will hold out and that is why I am supporting even an emergency 'fix' that might cost taxpayers a 'mere' 6 Million Dollars, while waiting for all the funds to come in for the permanent fix that MUST BE DONE.

I'm still wondering when the new Environmental Impact Report for Ponte Vista at San Pedro might come out.

Some may not know that the three model homes at Harbor Highlands are  now open and that 134-unit single-family, detached house, condominium project has homes for sale.

The starting prices begin in the "mid-500 K" range for the smallest of the three models.

So, there IS new housing construction going on. There are units sold and being sold at "360" along El Segundo Blvd. in Hawthorne.

Now, let's hope the jobs picture grows near all of us, sooner rather than later.

Youth productions continue to entertain lots of us, all around The Hill and below.

"Mame" opens this weekend at Miraleste I.S. and I have seen production notices from both high schools and from other youth groups in our area.

Please support all of the arts on The Hill and beyond.

The U.S.S. Iowa is heading to San Pedro in May! Work on it is ending at the port of Richmond, Ca and it will be towed to the inner harbor for more work and then being opened to the public, later this summer.

The good folks at The Pacific Battleship Center are looking for volunteers to work on the ship and on associated attractions and other things.

If you have the time, please consider helping out, if you can.

A Key Learning Illustrated

By Council action last night, please forget everything you think you know about The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, approved in 2010.

Below is legally and technically two illustrations that reflect what was approved for Phase One of the Expansion Project.

The top illustration reflects what was studied, argued about, debated, requested for by Marymount and otherwise dealt with for over 10 years.

The bottom illustration was created a couple of months ago to address the demand for placing 463 parking spaces on the main campus of the college and to ward off, in my opinion, the continued calls for Marymount officials to create a Traffic and Parking Plan that they promised to do, yet never was adequately initiated, according to many.

Behold! Both illustrations depict a main campus having 463 parking spaces, according to the Conditional Use Permit, approved in 2010 and both conform to the requirements.

Please click over illustration to increase its size for viewing.

Assume that whatever Marymount College officials seek to accomplish with their expansion project is the last thing they will request.

If you live by the rule apparently established by City Staff members in our city, everything becomes much clearer and there will be less anxiety on your part and on the part of others.

By Council action, you can now basically take most of what you thought you knew about what Marymount College officials were approved to build and throw that all away.

According to Mr. Don Davis, an attorney representing Marymount's interests, there are no longer plans to demolish any buildings according to Phase One requirements, unless an extension of the 'drop dead' date to have that Phase completed, is extended. He said it. I heard it and even one councilmember questioned him about it.

One clearly stated goal though, is that Marymount officials PLAN to have the 463 parking spaces built by this September 30.

***NOTE*** Please don't actually plan on viewing those 463 parking spaces, because Mr. Davis also stated that the college would come before the council in the near future to request and extension of Phase One of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, even though the "minor modification" approved of at last night's meeting may actually have physical work begun on it, this year.

Now, I need to explain why I feel 463 does not really equal 463.

In all the previous discussions about placing up to 463 on campus parking spaces wherever they might be, it must be remembered that the number requires a variance to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code for parking space requirements.

If the college was ever required to actually build parking spaces according to the code, there would have to be a goodly number of more parking spaces created on campus.

So I think and feel it is fair to state that our city has been at least more than fair in allowing Marymount a variance to the law of our city.

While 463 parking spaces is 463 parking spaces, please take a look at both illustrations again and if you can tell me what might happen to some of those parking spaces should the college actually go ahead with Phase Two and Phase Three that were approved in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

My point here is to get everyone back onto the page that suggests that the parking configuration illustrated in what was approved is as permanent as Mr. Davis and others claim it is to be and therefore there will never be a new athletic building built on the campus and whatever you thought you 'knew' about the Expansion Project is trashable.

I did and continue to support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project even though the council voted to basically do away with many of its approved requirements, if you get my drift.

I have always supported and like the idea of having 463 parking spaces on Marymount's campus even though that may never truly happen.

When I spoke about this matter at last night's meeting I tried to get across that whatever actions the council takes related to whatever Marymount officials throw out is that we all need to consider what possible results might be geologically to the areas on and near the campus.

If councilmembers are comfortable with making decisions that might eventually find our city liable for damages caused by large scale grading or drainage issues, then that will be their legacy.

I have been assured by a very reliable source that all the "T"s will be dotted and all the "I"s crossed with these new plans for the 463 parking spaces, before permits are granted.

There is some consideration that it appears that most, if not all of the members of our council now are willing to acknowledge by vote or public comment, OR LACK THEREOF, that they believe much of what was approved of in The Project will never be built on Marymount's main campus.

This acknowledgement, whether verbalized or not, seems to reflect a ever growing common belief that Marymount never intends to build according to the plans approved of in 2010 and their latest votes seems to be a physical confirmation of that. They may disagree with me and you publicly, but since they were willing to approve PERMANENT parking spaces in place of where the athletic building, pool and other facilities are approved to be placed, I think they all telegraphed their beliefs.

I can't condemn any of them on that because I have felt from the date the Project was approved that it was not what Marymount wanted or ever intends to build. They wanted dorms. But since they seem to have also acknowledged that they will never happen on the main campus, they will be going ahead with whatever they wish to try and do.

The William H. Hannon Library at Marymount College seems to have been provided funding not related to other facility issues.

The William H. Hannon Library at Loyola Marymount College is a beautiful building filled with all kinds of educational elements. It's been around for some years.

In closing, it should provide some comfort in learning that all you thought you knew about The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is wrong and illustrated above and that you should not worry or consider anything other than what Marymount officials request, from this day forward.

If you wish to remain concerned about Marymount's future in R.P.V. please remain concerned. But also please no longer fret when college officials offer plans for study you have never seen or considered before.

Let's all try to 'see' a ribbon cutting ceremony for 463 parking spaces at Marymount College.

Bits and Pieces 56

EDCO and the City of RPV are sponsoring a free document/paper shredding event on Saturday, April 14, 2012 from 9 a.m. to noon at the RPV City Hall Parking lot located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. Rancho Palos Verdes residents (EDCO and UWS residential customers) can safely dispose of personal documents since the documents will be shredded on-site, leaving NO possibility for theft or loss.

Electronics waste will also be collected at the same time and place. Furthermore, free mulch will also be available to residents while supplies last. Please bring your own empty trash cans and/or sturdy yard bags and shovel.

For more information on this event go to: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/publicworks or www.rpvrecycles.com

The RPV City Council is set to discuss and possibly vote on expanded parking spaces at the main campus of Marymount College.

While there was no 'big' announcement that Marymount is going ahead with physical construction according to the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, the plans and drawings that will be reviewed are part of The Project's first Phase, and I am delighted that something is heading for reality, according to The Project.

Yes, there will be detractors to these drawings and parking space expansion. Look for some to argue that the college's grading plans are not sufficient.

I have been and will remain a strong proponent of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, as I have written and spoken out about, before.

The Project was approved several years ago after almost 10 years of discussions, stops and restarts, arguments and ultimately, the elimination by Marymount College officials, of their demand for on-campus student housing.

The more vehicles associated with those attending or visiting Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus that are not parked on public roadways, the better, I feel.

I hope this signals a true turn towards working much more on The Project and that college officials really are willing to work towards rebuilding Marymount's campus, according to The Project's goals and guidelines.

As for my personal 'work' with a Catholic University, I am very proud and pleased to let folks know that I will again volunteer my services, experiences and talent to a bunch of great students at Loyola Marymount University's School of Film and T.V.

This weekend I will be shooting my FOURTEENTH project for both undergraduate and graduate students, since last August.

I also have worked on student projects for a growing number of schools as I continue to build my background/extra/featured player resume with both volunteer and paid work.

Tomorrow marks the two-week anniversary of our welcoming Tessa into our home.

Tessa is a mixed mutt, mostly rat terrier that we found at the Harbor Animal Shelter. She picked us rather than we choosing her, it seems.

She will be 5 months old on April 26 and we have not had a real puppy in our home for so long that Tessa is teaching us what it is like having a young one around.

She has been 'fixed', licensed, received all her shots, tagged and loves to walk in our neighborhood in RPV.

When Summer rolls around, we plan on taking Tessa to both Huntington Beach Dog Beach and Long Beach's off leash beach and we never really considered the now defunct dog beach that was considered near Frump's place.

Yes, it will be a drive for us to get to and from both off leash beaches. I feel it is worth it and our city has so little sandy-ish beaches, it probably is for the best that dogs are not allowed on what little we have to offer our residents and others.

I have still found nothing regarding the possible or probable release date for the 'new' Environmental Impact Report for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

The last study I did about that project and its backers is that iStar Financial continues to sort through its bankruptcy as it tries to emerge from it to continue whatever plans remain.

If and when the EIR comes out, I hope it shows that the 'Proposed Project' includes a number of dwelling units significantly fewer than the 1,135 originally suggested by the new management team.

Craig Huey...oh, fooey!

My Clearwater Program Comments

The clock wound down on the Comment Period for the EIR/EIS of The Clearwater Program of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Tomorrow is the proposed deadline for comments.

I included my comments below. After going through a great number of pages of the over 3,300 page Report, most of my issues with the Proposed Project's placement of a new Joint Outfall System Tunnel are no longer of much concern.

I continue to have a great deal of problems with the Traffic Section of the Report and the 'new' problem, not dealt at all in the Report, concerning the loss of Paseo Del Mar, in San Pedro.

It is my opinion that further work on the Proposed Project needs to have a 'time out' to deal with making sure that Paseo Del Mar is restored to having motor vehicle traffic on it and a more clearly stated and studied route for dirt haulers and other construction traffic, be done.

Here is my set of comments:

Date: April 9, 2012

Mr. Stephen Highter, P.E.

Supervising Engineer, Planning Section

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County

Facilities Planning Department

1955 Workman Mill Road

Whittier, CA 90601

RE: SCH# 2008101074, Clearwater Program, EIR/EIS CC H # 20 0 81010 74C H # 20 0 81010 74

DearMr. Highter:

This is my set of comments for The Clearwater Program and more importantly, the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant’s, (JWPCP) proposed new Outfall Tunnel System.

I am in great support of The Cleatwater Program and I have stated as much in interviews by staff members of The Clearwater Program, at various times and in various ways and in talking with representatives of my city and local residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and San Pedro. I believe it is necessary to upgrade the Los Angeles County Sanitations Districts’ Joint Outfall System (JOS) and I have been interested in learning more about The Program since I first learned of it, over five years ago.

My biography includes growing up very close to the two existing Joint Outfall Tunnel Systems under Western Avenue in the San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes areas. I continue to be a concerned resident of the area in which my wife and I reside.

I believe a new Joint Outfall Tunnel System is now necessary and should be welcomed by all those who would benefit from its construction and usage. My concerns lie not with the need or desire for this new construction, but rather the location of the new Tunnel System and a few of the aspects of the consideration of the Proposed Project’s alignment and construction of the new Joint Outfall Tunnel System.

I have studied the Environmental Impact Report and even though I find myself not as objectionable to the Proposed Project’s planned alignment of Alternative Number 4, as I was initially, both new and existing issues still plague me, with this Alternative and Alternative Number 3.

One of the most important issues I have with further work towards the construction of a new Joint Outfall Tunnel System with both Alternatives 3 and 4 is the fact that damage done to Paseo Del Mar, as a result of landslide activity, will create many new problems not previously considered, even in the EIR/EIS.

I am in agreement that the potential for new construction for any new Joint Outfall Tunnel System and Exit Shaft will not cause further damage to any area with landslide activity and I have confidence in the studies performed on the Geology of the areas, in the Report.

My major concern in this particular issue are the facts surrounding the possibilities that a major transit route for residents, visitors, construction teams and others has been eliminated from the areas near the sites for Alternative Nos. 3 and 4 and that there is no reconciliation of the landslide/road closure and there does not appear to be study or further analysis discussed between the Sanitation Districts and the City of Los Angeles, Department of Transportation, regarding these matters.

I feel very strongly that before much further study and work on the Proposed Project continues, everyone needs to feel confident that Paseo Del Mar will be restored to a viable thoroughfare long before any physical activity on a new Outfall Tunnel begins.

Another issue I found to be of concern is the routing of dirt haulers and other construction traffic related to the Proposed Project, Alternative Number 4 as it relates to routes not very well suggested in the EIR though the streets of San Pedro and/or the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I noted with the intersections where traffic counts were taken, they included intersections where construction vehicles might turn, but not necessarily through intersections that might see that particular traffic continue through, without turning.

One such intersection I found to be very lacking in study is the intersection of 25^TH Street and Western Avenue, in San Pedro.

Since it appears to me in the EIR/EIS, that construction vehicles MIGHT not utilize this particular intersection for turning, it was left out of much of the traffic counts provided for other intersections.

This alarms me because that intersection would be used exclusively for most, if not all vehicle traffic related to the Proposed Project, Alternative Number 4, in relation to the Exit Shaft and other construction planned for the Royal Palms area of San Pedro.

It appears that no truck route is truly suggested for ingress and egress of traffic related to The Clearwater Program in the area of Royal Palms in San Pedro. The Report does not state whether large construction vehicles will proceed along Western Avenue, turn east onto 9^TH Street, then north onto Gaffey Street, to access the (110) Harbor Freeway, as some have stated.

I feel this is a major issue at it relates to placing the Exit Shaft and other construction as proposed in Alternative Number 4.

Since there doesn’t seem to have been any ‘real’ documented study as to the routes through San Pedro, to be taken by massive dirt haulers and other construction vehicles, I find this particular portion of the EIR sorely lacking and in need of much further study long before any construction begins.

With the exception of residences and businesses in the ‘South Shores’ areas of San Pedro, most residents and businesses would not have any use for any new Tunnel System by the JWPCP, because the vast majority of those impacted during the construction period for Alternatives 3 and 4 use the city of Los Angeles’ Sewage Treatment Plant on Terminal Island.

While it is my strong opinion that a new Outfall Tunnel is necessary, I must conclude that there has not been sufficient study with potential traffic issues related to both the Proposed Project and Alternative Number 3. This is made much stronger since I learned via a person within The Clearwater Program’s representation, that little has been done between the Sanitation Districts and the city of Los Angeles concerning the entire scope of having lost Paseo Del Mar, in San Pedro, as a viable route and that this situation has the potential of becoming a permanent problem that was never studied, to this point.

I also feel it is unfair to task so many residents and businesses with the issues of having a major construction project for something they will not use. Those who would utilize the new Outfall Tunnel will benefit at the expense, for a period of time, of so many who would not only not have use of any new Outfall Tunnel, but would be encumbered with many negatives during construction periods and environmental issues that could linger even after a new Outfall Tunnel is finished.

While Alternative Number 1 is the most expensive and could take the longest construction period, I feel it remains the best Alternative for all and the aspects including close freeway access and potential rail transportation of diggings could be accomplished with Alternatives Numbers 1 and 2.

It was and remains my hope that the comment period of the EIR/EIS be extended or paused to allow for further study of the potential impacts caused by the unfortunate collapse of Paseo Del Mar and the now very necessary complete study and implementation of a positive resolution because of the unplanned loss of such a major roadbed.

I would also urge a much more thorough set of studies and information provision to all the residents and business owners near the areas of the Proposed Project’s route and Exit Shaft, so they are much more well informed about what representatives of The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts intend to do or participate in the resolution of the Paseo Del Mar situation and all the potential routes dealing with construction traffic related to the Proposed Project, Alternative 4 and the entire scope of possibilities should that Alternative be ultimately selected as the final route for a new Joint Outfall Tunnel.

I do understand that this EIR/EIS had many of its studies done several years ago. But things change and there has been at least one very big change since the Traffic Studies were done, several years ago.

Also troubling to many I have talked to is the fact that the EIR/EIS does not include enough information and study to indicate the possible routes of large dirt haulers and other construction traffic though San Pedro. I feel this should be a major concern to all those who live along any possible route where they will be impacted by construction traffic for an extended period of time.

Thank you for your considerations.

Regards,

Mark Wells
Rancho Palos Verdes Resident