My Encounter With A Petition Signature Gatherer

I finally was approached by a petition signature gatherer. It happened outside the door of Albertson's on Western near Westmont.

That location is in San Pedro and I have heard that signatures were being gathered in front of other stores in San Pedro.

The gatherer I encountered first approached me about a petition dealing with the maximum number of years a person can serve in the California Assembly, Senate, or a combination of both.

Currently the maximum length of time is no more than 14 years. The petition seeks to place on the ballot a measure that removes two years from the maximum. It is a State Constitutional Amendment initiative.

The fellow had three more petitions he talked to me about, so that proved to me that he was getting paid for each and every signature gathered.

I am a Board member of R Neighborhoods Are 1. This organization took the challenge L.A. Councilwoman Janice Hahn gave us because I think she thought there was no way it could be done.

Ms. Hahn stated in public that if at least 10,000 signatures were gathered demanding that the current zoning of Ponte Vista at San Pedro remained, she would work to make sure that happened.

Now you all need to know that not on petition signature gatherer with that drive received one penny for gathering signatures.

No human on this or any planet in our Solar System received even one penny for their signature.

At last count there are more than 11,000 signatures gathered from that drive.

So it should be no wonder that I feel that if Marymount needs to use paid petition signature gatherers for their initiative's petitions, what does that say about how much they are willing to spend to get the measure on November's ballot.

The Marymount Plan petition signature gatherer told me that want to gather at least 5,000 signatures and he purported to me that many folks have signed the petition.

Of course the petition I read has ZERO signatures under the wording.

The fellow also stated that, if passed, the measure would have 500 fewer vehicles on roadways.

Now that seemed really strange to me so I asked him again about it.

The fellow also said that the residence halls would house only first and second year students and that only first and second year students would live in on-campus housing should it be built.

He also stated that the measure was also dealing with the approval to have Marymount become a four-year college. Naturally I had to correct him on that misstatement of fact.

The fellow didn't hear about the tragedy that happened to the second-year student and that individual's death at his own hands by being drunk and losing control of his vehicle within earshot and eyeshot of the Marymount Campus. The gatherer also didn't know about the near fatal collisions caused by a Marymount student colliding with the car of a resident who lives near the Marymount campus.

I will say that the fellow knew and remarked that the construction plan was a 36 month plan but would be carried out over an eight year period. He gets kudos for that knowledge.

I suppose knew from the first words of this post that I didn't sign the petition and I hope you don't either.

The fellow was humorous because he stated point blank that there were just a very few "troublemakers" opposed to the petition and on-campus housing at Marymount.

I offered to him that he was talking to the person making the most trouble and all he did was smile.

This paid signature gatherer knew that he should just stand there and smile when he finds folks who disagree with the petitions he is seeking signatures for.

So Marymount has to pay to attempt to gather 5,000 signatures when a group of unpaid volunteers gathered more than 11,000 signatures dealing with Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

Perhaps some of the volunteers who worked so hard, for so long, without getting paid a dime will come back with a petition dealing with opposition to dorms being built at Marymount and we could see who collects the most signatures.

"What does common sense tell you?"

The title of this post is a quote from another mailing I received from Marymount College.

The mailer was not nearly as big or information filled as the Brochure and DVD that arrived days before.

This mailer was more to the point in offering that whoever paid for the mailer thinks it is common sense to have younger college students living on the campus of Marymount College.

Let me offer what my common sense tells me.

I never again want to read or hear anything like what happened last May.

Days before Marymount College was to hold its graduation ceremonies a true tragedy occurred.

A second year student was drunk when he drove his car past the Marymount Campus on Palos Verdes Drive East.

The drunk driver, who I do not believe was 21 years old crashed his car and the Marymount student perished.

Common sense tells me that I need to take whatever steps I can to try and keep that from happening again. I would have hoped that Marymount's administration, faculty, staff, and supporters would have considered that common sense should also tell them that a tragedy like this or the near fatal collisions that have occurred with other Marymount students involved directly adjacent to the campus should never happen again, either.

Sadly, too many of these folks may feel like perhaps more collisions, injuries, or even fatalities are acceptable to them just so younger students could live on campus.

Common sense also tells me that having students and staff living on the Marymount campus 24/7 means those residents must be fed and have other provisions provided. That means more large trucks driving up and down Palos Verdes Drive East. Common sense tells me that it is not common sense to have many large trucks on that steep, winding, and narrow road in too many places.

Common Sense also tells me that I can read and that most of the registered voters in Rancho Palos Verdes have not read the reports that state as fact the number of vehicle trips will INCREASE per school day and on weekends relating to Marymount College, no matter what the number of vehicles actually parked on campus and driven by students and others who reside in on-campus housing.

Common sense also tells me that if Marymount ever builds on-campus housing and it is completely occupied, Marymount officials would probably seek to increase the number of rooms in residence halls on the Marymount Campus.

Common sense should tell you that if dorms are added and with the new 4-year status for the College, it would be unrealistic to think that Marymount's officials and supporters would not seek to raise the enrollment cap.

Common sense should tell potential petition signers that skilled drivers of commuter vehicles run scheduled trips between the campus, off-campus housing sites, and to other destinations. I would hope that Marymount supporters would have enough common sense to realize that fewer van drivers are better than more younger students driving up and down The Hill.

Common sense also tells me that an unknown number of students who might live in the dorms will probably have jobs and that there are not many jobs available for students at or near the Marymount Campus.

So common sense should tell you that these young students and job seekers will go up and down Palos Verdes Drive East between where they live and where they work, play, or find entertainment.

Common sense should have been considered by the author of this latest mailer that the safety of the students attending Marymount and everyone else living in the area must be the primary concern of everyone.

Common sense tells me that everyone who considers signing the petition should read the facts completely and not be mislead by brochures, DVD's mailers, and petition signature gatherers who probably know much less about The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project than I do.

Common sense is tells me and should tell you that when you see a mailer that only tauts one portion of a much larger project, then there must be something wrong with that single portion.

Common sense should also tell you to remember: "If it seems to be too good to be true, it probably isn't."

And if common sense doesn't tell you that if on-campus housing is such an important item, why hasn't Marymount's administration and supporters furnished on-campus housing since the College opened up again and became co-ed?

I hope you will use common sense and read all the facts about both The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project before you consider further whether you want to sign the petition.

And when you do finally use you common sense to become truly educated on all the issues, you will do as I am requesting everyone does and:

Please don't sign the petition.

Saladish is OPEN!

Click over image to enlarge.
Click over image to enlarge.

Saladish, one of the eateries I have been writing about has actually been open for "a few weeks" according to Ms. Jee Lee, one of the owners.

Ms. Lee said that currently, the restaurant is open from 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM seven days a week and their Grand Opening is set for April 10, 2010.

Terri and I dined at a counter that looks like half a log. It is suspended from the ceiling and I think a group of mates could have some real fun chasing their salads and wraps as they make the counter swing from side to side.

Terri had the Thai Chicken Wrap and I had the Oriental Chicken Salad. Both of us agreed that they were huge portions.

Terri like less spicy Thai Chicken salads or wraps than the one found at Saladish.

I enjoyed my salad that included peanuts, carrots and didn't have too much dressing on it.

I bought one piece of Garlic Bread to try it out. Terri usually finds the Garlic Bread at Niccolo's to be her favorite. Tonight she shared mine and she told me she prefers the Garlic Bread from Saladish now more that the great bread at Niccolo's.

The most expensive single salad at Saladish is called "The Farm" and it is $8.75. If it is anything like the size of the salad I enjoyed, it is probably just as large.

Individual vegetarian and proteins can be added but there is not a whole lot of meat available other than a few pork-based items and, of course, chicken. The Turkey, Bacon, Avocado salad or wrap contains turkey and that wasn't hard to guess.

My first impressions of Saladish is that is offers tasty food that I can afford. The interior seating could be enlarged to include more tables and I don't know how long the swaying log is going to last. It is a fun thing to play on, but it may not be the most popular thing to eat on.

The staff is friendly and the meals are prepared in a clean environment and mixed individually for each customer.

There is no letter grade posted on the door yet. When the space was occupied by Nona's Kitchen, the highest letter that restaurant could get was a "B" because of venting issues that Mrs. Palazzolo had with her ovens not venting directly up and out of her kitchen. I don't know if that will still be an issue.

So between all five eateries I have been writing about for several months, Saladish was the first to open its doors and I hope their doors remain open for a long time to come.

Saladish is located at 28901 S. Western Avenue in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Their phone number is 310-521-0030.

Their fax number for ordering is 310-521-0324.

Saladish is located on the lowest level of The Terraces shopping center.

Denny's Opening This Sunday!

The much anticipated opening of the new Denny's Restaurant is scheduled for sometime on Sunday according to the head manager at the restaurant.

According to the gentleman, he wanted to have it open at a specific time on Easter morning, but he believes it will actually open for business at an as yet unknown hour, most probably on Easter Sunday.

I am asking all my San Pedro friends to dine at Denny's and I am sure many of my R.P.V. neighbors and friends will dine there, too.

I don't know the opening dates for Saladish, Asaka Grill, Pavich's Brick Oven Pizza, or Amalfitano's Bakery.

Nipping A Potential PR Ploy By Marymount In The Bud

It is an undeniable fact that the majority of the members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council approved the construction of a new soccer field at Marymount College and within parameters of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

It is also an undeniable fact that Mr. Davis, the Attorney for Marymount College requested that the City Council ultimately deny allowing a soccer field to be built at Marymount College.

Anyone who states otherwise is not telling the truth.

The soccer field was approved for construction on the eastern side of Marymount's campus in roughly the same area as the current large playing field is located.

Marymount's Attorney for The Project went to the microphone just after the Council approved constructed of the soccer field and flatly stated that Marymount's administration will not build a new soccer field on the eastern side of that campus.

Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy and others want a new soccer field approved on the west side of the campus.

Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion want to have a soccer field built at the off-campus student housing site named, Palos Verdes North which sits in the San Pedro area of the city of Los Angeles.

Here are some undeniable facts, no matter what PR spin Marymount Plan supporters try to put on the actions of the City Council.

The City Council DID NOT DENY the construction of a soccer field on the Palos Verdes Drive East campus of Marymount College when it made is finding during the period of time the soccer field was discussed.

The City Council COULD NOT MANDATE the building of a soccer filed on the college's off-campus housing site along Palos Verdes Drive North in northwest San Pedro.

Marymount's Attorney for The Project, Mr. Davis stood up and stated into the microphone that Marymount's administration and supporters REFUSE TO BUILD A SOCCER FIELD on the eastern side of the campus.

No member of CCC/ME, Staff of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council AND Planning Commission ever considered denial of a soccer field being built on the campus of Marymount College.

Marymount's folks simply do not like the location the City Council approved for the construction of the soccer field.

If you had seen Mr. Davis' reaction is was akin to what I can believe is a child's reaction that when the child is told that he has to play somewhere else in his back yard, he states that if he can't play exactly where he wants to play, he won't play at all.

I expect a full throttle approach by The Marymount Plan supporters to be just as deceptive with this as I have demonstrated they seem to be on other matters.

They may simply state that the City Council has denied the college the right to build a soccer field and use that to gain more sympathy for their cause and more support to have on-campus housing built at Marymount College.

This is, of course, not a factual depiction of the truth and what was voted on by the City Council.

It is more truthful for them to state that the Council did not approve having a soccer field built where Marymount wanted it so they have elected to not build on at all.

In a truthful and technical sense, the City Council ultimately approved a denial of a soccer field because allowing the approval to remain would have created a significant and unavoidable problem with potential parking spaces on the west side of the campus. THIS WAS DONE AT THE REQUEST OF MARYMOUNT'S ATTORNEY AND BY THE OPINION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.

1. The Council approved the construction of a soccer field on the east side of the Marymount Campus.

2. Mr. Davis stated that no soccer field would be constructed on the east side of Marymount College.

3. With Mr. Davis' statement, the City Attorney concluded that there would be an added significant and unavoidable consequence to the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project because parking spaces that were considered to be built on the eastern side of the campus would have to be moved to the west side of the campus, creating a significant view issue that could not be mitigated beyond the level of unsatisfactory and would have resulted in the Council increasing to three the number of significant and unavoidable issues that could not be mitigated to a level of less than unsatisfactory.

4. To keep the parking spaces from being mandated on the west side of the campus, the City Attorney gave the opinion that the only way to do that without mandating them by the use of the approval of a statement of over riding considerations, was to deny a soccer field completely so that no parking spaces would need to be mandated on the west side of the campus.

5. The City Council accepted the City Attorney's and Mr. Davis' opinion that the only way to keep the statement of over riding considerations from having the west parking spaces as an added issue, the Council had to vote to deny the construction of a soccer field on the college's main campus.

While there is now some truth to a comment that would state "City Council denies soccer field at Marymount College" it is only partially true and was accomplished at the request of Marymount College.

But I suppose that the PR spin has already begun and that few people will take the time or energy to learn all the facts before signing a petition.

I did hear a request by Marymount's Attorney to deny a soccer field being constructed at Marymount College and that the City Council approved Mr. Davis' and Dr. Brophy's request.

Deceptive Advertising? Not Denied By Marymount's President

This post is not an April Fools joke, sadly.

During the City Council's deliberation concerning the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, I had a chance to talk directly with Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College about two issues I continue to have with the proposed initiative and the advertising enticing residents to sign petition to qualify the proposed measure for November's ballot.

Here is one example of what I believe is deceptive advertising that was not specifically denied by Dr. Brophy. This comes for the printed question and answer portion of the large brochure mailed to many R.P.V. registered voters.

"How long will the project take?

In total, it will take 36 months. The construction manager is R. Randall Fulton who managed the construction of The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. The Marymount Plan has been studied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for ten years and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified by the Planning Commission."

Now, it is my belief that the above question and anwer attempts to pursuade potential petition signers that the entire construction of all of the Plan will end 36 months after the beginning of construction.

This has never been the case.

According to several sources, the construction will take place for between 28 and 36 months, OVER AN EIGHT YEAR PERIOD.

Everyone who has more that just a small amount of knowledge about the Project or the Plan knows that it is not possible to do all the necessary construction, from start to finish, in a consecutive period of 36 months.

In fact and truth, not only did Dr. Brophy state to Council members that it is untenable to think that construction could be completed in 36 months from the date the first shovel of dirt is turned, Marymount's Attorney, Mr. Davis also stated to the Council that there is no way to guarantee that the processes could be completed even in six years' time.

When I talked to Dr. Brophy, I brought up the point to him that lay-persons, people he is trying to get signatures from on the petition that are informed that "in total, it will take 36 months" most probably are led to believe that once construction begins, 36 months later, it will be completed.

There is nowhere in any advertising, both written or verbalized, where supporters of Marymount's initiative admit that the construction time is 36 months over an eight year period.

This seems clearly deceptive on the part of Dr. Brophy and Marymount supporters and Dr. Brophy did not deny directly to me that is was not deceptive advertising.

Dr. Brophy even stated to me that he understood my contention that I thought it was deceptive advertising yet still, he did not deny that is was not.

Now about tax-payer funding.

In the same brochure and by listening to the voice-over on the television advertisement is basically the following;

"It preserves and modernizes and important Rancho Palos Verdes asset at no taxpayer expense."

As I stated to Dr. Brophy, if the ballot measure qualifies for this November's ballot, the General Fund of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, a tax-payer funded Fund will be assessed an, as yet unknown amount" for the purposes of having the ballot measure on the ballot and being counted and having other administrative costs associated with it.

In essence and in fact, the Marymount Plan, the one that seeks voter approval in and of itself will cost tax-payers residing in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and Dr. Brophy directly acknowledged that fact to me.

What Dr. Brophy and I agree on is that the tax-payer funds requirements are not known at this time, tax-payers fund elections, but we both agree that the portion that may be assigned to The Marymount Plan's portion of the ballot might not be as expensive as considered in other city-wide ballot measures.

I directly asked Dr. Brophy is he would have Marymount pay for any portion of the election related to The Marymount Plan and reimburse the city's General Fund, if the measure qualifies for the ballot and is voted on and he did not state that Marymount would cover the ballot measure's tax-payer funded costs.

Dr. Brophy did state to me that if and when the actual cost of The Marymount Plan's measure is known, he will address the required tax-payer funding of the measure at that time.

Dr. Brophy would not commit to reimbursing the tax-payer funded General Fund for any or all costs associated with The Marymount Plan appearing as a ballot measure in November.

There are more potentially deceptive items in the brochure that I did not discuss with Dr. Brophy.

As the brochure and other media have stated, "More than 2/3rds of Marymount's campus will remain open space" This is a true statement, but also it doesn't go far enough to be fair.

Much of the 24.7 acres comprising the area of Marymount College sits on land not suitable for building anything on. That is a fact stated within the Grading and Geologic portions of the Environmental studies, reports, and findings.

"Marymount will not increase its enrollment cap of 793" While this is currently a true statement, it is also deceptive in that there is not a follow up statement offering that Marymount has the right to go before the City Council and seek and enrollment cap increase any time it chooses and again, Dr. Brophy cannot deny that fact.

In the Brochure is this question and answer:

"Will the number of students enrolled change?

No. Marymount College will remain permitted for up to 793 students a year."

Again, while this is technically a true comment from Marymount, it can be viewed as deceptive.

It is deceptive in my view because it makes it appear that Marymount's administration will never ask for an enrollment cap increase. There is no followup stipulation that Marymount will keep the enrollment capped permanently with no written guarantee that it won't seek an enrollment cap increase as some point in the future.

It is misleading in my view because it seems outrageous to believe that Marymount would make this giant redevelopment Plan, complete it, and not seek higher enrollment to help repay the costs associated with The Plan or seek higher enrollment for a newly upgraded campus so that more students can be offered an education at the redeveloped and expanded campus.

Dr. Brophy is a College Professor. Dr. Susan Soldoff, the maker of the initiative has been a College Professor. They and many others associated with Marymount College are well educated professional.

So that means they all knew what they have included in all written, oral, and visual advertising for The Marymount Plan.

For any one of them to attempt to claim that there is not some deception in advertising seeking to acquire enough signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot is ridiculous on its face.

These folks knew what they were writing and saying when they did it.

I do expect higher standards from a religious institution that I do from a secular institution. Unfortunately, it appears that the standards used by folks associated with this particular institution fall to at least the level of secular institutions, if not lower.

Deliberate and implied deception is foul in all cases and particularly foul when a religious entity is involved. For me it is not about which religion does it, but that a religious organization does it in the first place.

Now here is the basic fundamental reality I feel strongly we all must own up to and accept some responsibility for.

Marymount College's administration and supporters have spent the last ten years seeking the addition of on-campus housing at the site.

I believe that is singularly the most important requirement for the College to remain open. This has been demonstrated time and time again with a multitude of statements even though no one from the College will publicly admit that one simple fact.

I need to "own" the responsibility that as I oppose the construction of on-campus housing at Marymount, I am owning the possibility that Marymount will fail and I may assume some responsibility for its failure.

It is not a happy fact for me, but it is a fact I must live with. Marymount's administration and supporters have made it very clear even without admitting it and they have never denied that the College would probably fail without on-campus housing.

I oppose the construction of on-campus housing because of safety concerns that I do not choose to overlook or overcome.

I believe the loss of another life associated with Marymount College is too tragic of an possible outcome to change my consideration that the failure of Marymount College at its present location would not be a better final outcome.

As for the results voted on by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on March 31-April 1, I believe that they made the correct decisions.

I am concerned that Marymount officials have adamantly stated that they will not build a soccer field on the east side of the campus, even though the Council denied the College's request for building a new soccer field on the west side of the campus.

Battles will continue to be fought and it appears more likely that the end of the war will see the failure of the College at its present location. Unless Marymount has deep enough pockets to last through the next several years that will probably include a great deal of litigation, I think more of us can see where the future will lead all of us.

The Council Has Decided!

I attended the March 31, continued Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting and listened and learned while the members offered and voted on motions related to The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

I entered the meeting hoping that the Council members would vote to accept the Planning Commission's findings, certifications, and comments and rejecting the Appeal filed by Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME).

As it ultimately turned out, I was probably the only member of the audience that received so much of what I wanted enacted.

The Council voted to, in essence, certify what the Planning Commission and City Staff recommended, with only a few exceptions and they rejected most of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.

If you are familiar with the Expansion Plan, and what the Planning Commission recommended, then you know much about what the City Council approved.

Since on-campus housing was removed by the Applicant prior to the vote on the Project by the Planning Commissioners, the City Council did not take any action related to on-campus housing.

There were twelve areas that the City Council voted on. There is one area that was 'hotly' discussed, voted on, and then dealt with in other ways.

The placement of the soccer field seemed to be the most hotly debated of the twelve areas and I doubt anyone left the Chambers happy with the final outcome.

Three members of the Council voted to keep the soccer field on the east side of the campus. When that vote was taken, Mr. Davis, the Attorney for Marymount got up and stated that Marymount will not have a soccer field on the east side of the campus, no matter what the majority of the members of the Council voted for.

Later on and during more debate about on-campus parking spaces, another vote was taken and approved to ultimately deny Marymount any soccer field on the east side of the campus because it would interfere with parking spaces Marymount wanted in that area and in other areas where it did not want parking spaces.

Here is my interpretation of what I believe the Council agreed to, with the twelve different areas:

1. Parking Spaces. The Council agreed with the Planning Commission's and Staff recommendations concerning the number of parking spaces on the campus of Marymount College and with the College's proposal for where those parking spaces will be constructed. The Council rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.

There was another consideration about a set-back of some parking spaces and the relocation of some parking spaces but later in the evening, the Council agreed with Marymount's placement of parking spaces on the east side of the campus.

2. Grading. The Council accepted the Geologist's and Staff recommendations and rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.

3. Construction Activity. The Council agreed to accept a thirty-six month construction plan that would be done over an eight year period of time and rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME. This was a hot-button item because Marymount repeatedly claimed that they could not lower the eight year time frame to even six years' duration.

CCC/ME contended that actual construction would be 28 months since the months allocated for construction of on-campus housing was eliminated when the Applicant removed on-campus housing from the Application and consideration.

4. Athletic Building. The Council agreed with a Staff recommendation to lower the height of a portion of the roof line of the Athletic Building and rejected that portion of the Appealed filed by CCC/ME. There was additional comments and consideration that the adult trees near the site of the Athletic Building should be kept alive and placed in other suitable locations on the campus. The Council members do not want to have trees cut down if they can be utilized in other areas to shield views of buildings or offer better aesthetics on the campus.

5. Soccer Field. I wrote what the outcome of the soccer field placement was ultimately decided above in this post. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the outcome. The Council voted to have the field remain on the east side of the campus and accepted that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME. The Attorney for Marymount's Plan stated that there would be no soccer field on the east side of the campus.

6. Modular Buildings. The Council agreed with the Planning Commission and Staff reports concerning the location and placement of modular buildings on Marymount's campus and rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.

8. Environmental Impact Report. The Council agreed with the Planning Commission's certification of the E.I.R. but added language that allowed the analysis of on-campus housing be omitted since it was no longer included by the Applicant in The Project. The Council rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME and agreed with the Staff recommendation to accept the E.I.R. with the on-campus housing analysis eliminated.

9. Overriding Consideration. There are two areas of The Project that have significant and unavoidable outcomes that cannot be mitigated to a satisfactory point. The Project requirements are such that the Council had to make a finding and they agreed to allow The Project with the two areas included, according to the Planning Commission and Staff reports. They rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.

Had Marymount not stated that they will not build a soccer field on the east side of the campus, there would have been a third area (parking on the west side of the campus) that would have been significant and unavoidable according to Staff. That point became moot when Marymount's Attorney stated that no soccer field will be built on the east side of the campus.

10. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings. The Council approved the Planning Commission's and Staff recommendations related to this area and added one finding that was offered by Marymount's representative.

Marymount College's administration has offered to have every new student attending the college take a defensive driving course provided by Marymount on how to drive near the campus and throughout the peninsula and local cities.

The Council (and me) were very impressed with that offer and they included it in the CUP findings.

(This may also be an implied statement that Marymount's administration recognizes the aspects of having younger students driving in an unfamiliar area and accepts that there are real safety considerations related to young drivers on The Hill. This is just my opinion)

11. The General Plan of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Council agreed that The Project does fit within the guidelines of the General Plan and rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.

12. Split Campus Plan. With guidance from the City Attorney, the Council voted that it does not have jurisdiction to require Marymount to provide the Living Campus/Academic Campus alternative supported by CCC/ME and rejected that portion of the Appeal filed by CCC/ME.

This ultimately became a moot point because our city's government cannot mandate to another city what a private institution should do.

Other notes.

At the end of the meeting I talked to Councilman Douglas Stern about that portion of the E.I.R. agreed to by the Council that now mandates that a traffic signal system be placed at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East.

Earlier in the meeting, one portion of the C.U.P was voted out related to what entities are required to pay for the placement of the signal.

I think that Councilman Stern is in agreement with me that no matter who is required to pay for the signal system, as long as it remains in the E.I.R. and Project approved by the majority of Council members, it is mandated to be constructed.

I think Councilman Stern and I also agree that it is a matter that should be quickly and easily dealt with and he offered to the public that he does not wish to have signals placed at that intersection, either.

Also at the very end of the meeting which lasted to about 12:35 AM on April 1, Councilman Long stated that he believes that the proposed initiative should no longer go forward by Marymount and that potential litigation should not be considered on any side's part because of the action the Council took during the meeting.

Councilman Long is himself an attorney and I think he wasted a few seconds and breath making those comments because whether you call it The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project or The Marymount Plan, there is nowhere on the horizon of time that these matters will be concluded in the foreseeable future, many of us truly believe.

Again I wish to personally thank the Planning Commission members, the members of the City Council, members of CCC/ME and especially the hardest working Staff a city could hope for, for all the efforts that have been provided to me, my wife Terri, my friends and neighbors, and the other residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and northwest San Pedro.