Loading...
PC MINS 20051213 Appro ed January 10, 20 6 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 20301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Karp led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Karp, Gerstner, Perestam, Vice Chairman Knight, and Chairman Tetreault Absent: Commissioner Mueller was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Schonborn, and Associate Planner Blumenthal. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chairman Knight stated that he had some questions regarding the item on the Consent Calendar, and therefore requested the item be removed from the Consent Calendar. The Planning Commission agreed to remove Item No. 1 from the Consent Calendar. COMMUNICATIONS Staff distributed nine items of correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 4. Chairman Tetreault reported that he had attended the City holiday party. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. General Plan Consistency Finding for the purchase of the "Portuguese Bend" and "Aqua Amarqa Canyon" properties (Case No. ZON2005-00633) Vice Chairman Knight noted that attached to the staff report is a map indicated the NCCP parcel, and wanted to make sure nothing was misrepresented on that map, as it appears the Upper Filiorum area is a part of the NCCP parcel. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the original map is colored and indicates that the Upper Filiorum area is identified as a proposed NCCP acquisition parcel. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Resolution for this item should be arriving at any minute, and suggested hearing the next item on the Agenda and coming back to this one once the Resolution has arrived. The Planning Commission agreed. 2. Height Variation and Grading Permit (Case No. Z0N2005-00067: 6409 Via Canada Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the reason for the continuance. He displayed a photo of the original proposed house and explained the proposed modifications to the new design. He explained that the modifications made to the house have lowered the overall height of the house to address the concerns of the neighbors. Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the modifications and the redesign and determine if the applicant's proposed modifications adequately address the Planning Commission's concerns as indicated at the October 25th meeting. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Raul Podesta (architect) explained his primary goal in modifying the design was to stay within the existing ridgeline and not go over that existing ridgeline. He stated that the entire roof has been modified and is now proposed at 1/2 inch than the existing roof, but 2 1/2 inches lower than the original proposed roof. He also modified the roof plane to accommodate the neighbor's view area. Lou Ropoii 6409 Via Canada explained that he wanted to be a good neighbor and had his proposed residence redesigned to accommodate his neighbor's concerns. Mrs. Mardicich 6408 Via Canada stated that she is very pleased with the redesign of the residence and no longer has concerns. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Chairman Tetreault stated he was very pleased with the redesign and that a nice balance was achieved between the right to develop a property and the concerns of the neighbor. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 2 Vice Chairman Knight agreed, and felt this was a better project which is more beneficial to the neighborhood. Commissioner Karp moved to conceptually approve the project as redesign and continue the item to the next meeting to approve the Resolution, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00230)1 27600 Alvesta Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. He stated that staff has reviewed the nine required findings for the Height Variation, and has determined that all findings can be made. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Height Variation subject to the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Knight noted that staff had felt there was not a problem with privacy because of the existing foliage, and asked staff who owns that foliage. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that staff does not have that information. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the foliage owner were to remove the foliage, would there then be a possible infringement of privacy. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that staff does the analysis, as the current situation exists, however staff felt that even if the foliage were to be removed the impact would be minimal because of the location of the second floor addition and the type of windows that are being proposed. Vice Chairman Knight noted that there is also a proposed balcony that could cause an infringement of privacy if the foliage were to be removed. Chairman Tetreault asked if the Planning Commission could condition an approval that the foliage be maintained if it is on the applicant's property. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the Planning Commission can find that the foliage is necessary in order to protect the privacy of the neighbors, and if the foliage is located on the applicant's property it must be maintained to the height of 16 feet. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Loma Gano (designer representing the applicant) stated she felt the considerations of the neighbors were taken into account when designing the project and was available for any questions. Planning Commission Minutes December '13, 2005 Page 3 There being no questions, Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp noted that this will be the only two-story structure in the neighborhood, and asked if the Planning Commission wanted to set a precedence for two-story homes in a single story neighborhood. He felt this should be taken into account during the deliberation. Commissioner Perestam stated that there are 2 two-story homes in the neighborhood, and noted their locations on an aerial photograph. He noted that the existing two-story homes are not very compatible with the neighborhood, while this proposal is much more consistent with the surrounding homes. However, he did share Commissioner Karp's concerns on approving a two-story home in the neighborhood where there are all single story homes. Vice Chairman Knight agreed. He noted that this property is at the end of the cul-de- sac and would not be as visible, however he noted that once the door is open for two- story homes the door is still opened. He was also concerned with the tower looking structure at the front entrance, and did not feel it was compatible with anything in the neighborhood. Commissioner Gerstner stated he was also concerned that the neighborhood was predominately single story and there are ways to design two-story homes that do not appear to be large two-story homes. He felt a two-story home would be acceptable as long as the design were softened and made more compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Tetreault stated he was surprised when he visited the site as, given the scope of the project, the silhouette was not very imposing. He felt that because of the location of the property, the shape of the property, and the vegetation on the property the project did not seem as large as it could very easily have. He noted that this is not proposed to be a large home, but the two-story would be setting a precedence in the neighborhood. He did note that the entry area appeared to stand out from the house and was not sure how that feature would look when the house was finished. Commissioner Perestam noted that this particular lot is approximately 8,000 square feet while the other lots in the neighborhood average approximately 6,000 square feet in size. He felt that as the neighborhood begins to experience renovation these additions will go up to a second story, as there is not much room on these lots to build out. He therefore felt that the concerns of the Planning Commission be taken into consideration at this time, as what is decided on this property could be precedent setting for the entire neighborhood. Commissioner Karp felt that there was quite a bit of yard space on this property and questioned whether this proposed addition could go out rather than up. He also felt that this design could be softened, and felt that the design should be redesigned. He stated that he would like to see an attempt to make this a single story home. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Gerstner agreed that that it may be possible to design this addition as a single story house, given the size of the lot. He felt, however, if the single story design doesn't work on the property and the architect could show why it wouldn't work, he would be more open to the two-story design. Vice Chairman Knight felt that as the house is currently designed it is too massive and bulky for the neighborhood, and part of the reason for that is the two-story element. However, he was concerned about restricting this addition to a single story, as that may determine that this neighborhood is restricted to single story homes. He suggested expanding the first story as much as possible, and if the applicant then felt they needed additional square footage, to put that additional on the second story. Chairman Tetreault re -opened the public hearing. Chairman Tetreault asked the applicant's representative to return to the podium and asked Ms. Gano, having heard the concerns of the Planning Commission, if she felt there was further redesign that could be done to satisfy the Planning Commission's concerns and still satisfy her clients needs. Ms. Gano noted this is a very large lot and the impacts of this design to the street are very minimal. She also noted that there is an existing swimming pool and spa in the backyard, and to expand out would begin to encroach into the pool area. She stated that to expand out and add a modest second story addition, which she interprets as possibly one room, would not serve the client's needs. Commissioner Karp felt that there should be an attempt by the architect to see if she can accomplish the client's requirements as well as satisfy the Planning Commission's concerns. He noted that it may be determined that it is not possible to keep this a single story addition, but felt that the attempt should be made. Commissioner Gerstner agreed, noting that if the architect can show that a single story addition just won't work or creates a hardship for the owners, then he would be more receptive to a two-story addition. Ms. Gano stated she would prefer a continuance for the project to allow her time to meet with her clients to determine whether a single story addition will meet their needs and how to design that addition. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the next available meeting to hear this item will be on February 28Lh. Vice Chairman Knight moved to continue the public hearing to February 28th in order to allow the applicant and architect to redesign the project in such a way as Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 5 to attempt to address the concerns of the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont1 1. General Plan Consistency Finding for the purchase of the "Portuguese Bend" and "Aqua Amaraa Canyon" properties (Case No. ZON2005-00633) Director/Secretary Rojas distributed copies of the Resolution to the Planning Commission for their review. Vice Chairman Knight commented that this acquisition is exactly what the General Plan has stated and what the community has wanted to do in preserving open space, and he is very happy with this outcome. Vice Chairman Knight moved to adopt PC Resolution 2005-49 thereby finding that the City's purchase and acceptance of the 424 acre "Portuguese Bend" property and the 39 -acre "Aqua Armaga Canyon" property is consistent with the General Plan, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (5-0). RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005 FED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD JOINT MEETING 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL (Traffic Commission1 Present: Commissioners Lewis, Wright, Klein, and Meyers Absent: Commissioners Parfenov and Damon and Chairman Shepherd 4. EIR SCOPING MEETING: (CASE NO. ZON2005-00317): Marymount College / 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioner Karp stated that according to the Fair Political Practice Commission it is presumed that he has an economic interest in the outcome of the Marymount College hearing that might affect the value of his property, therefore he has been advised by the City Attorney to recuse himself from the hearing as a Planning Commissioner and left his seat. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 6 Director/Secretary Rojas explained this is an optional meeting in the CEQA process which gives the public an opportunity to verbalize their environmental comments regarding the proposed project. He stated that the purpose of the meeting is to receive comments from the public in terms of what issues should be addressed in the EIR. He introduced the EIR consultants from the firm of RBF, as well as Jack Ridel, the Traffic Consultant for the City, and Ron Dragoo who is the staff liaison for the Traffic Commission. He explained that all of the comments will become part of the official record and given to RBF who will be preparing the EIR. He stressed that this meeting is to address environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR and not the merits of the project. Senior Planner Mihranian gave a brief description of the project, explaining the current configuration of the college and the proposed upgrade of the campus. He then explained the estimated timeline for the public hearings for the project. Glen LeJov from RBF Consultants explained the EIR review process and the issues to be addressed in the EIR and stated that the public scoping meeting is very important in helping to understand the community concerns as he begins the analysis. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Thomas McFadden 30731 Ganado Drive (President of Marymount College) gave a brief history of the Marymount College. He noted that in 1979 the College had received approval from the Planning Commission to construct residence halls, however the college did not have the funding for the construction. He explained that the revised improvement program that has been submitted to the City addresses neighborhood issues while allowing for a safe, secure, and enriching college experience for the students. Dr. McFadden explained the scope of the proposed improvement program, noting that 68 percent of the campus will remain open space. He stated that there are three key revisions to the original proposal: 1) a reduced number of proposed residences by 1/3, from 3 to 2 residence halls; 2) repositioned buildings to preserve neighborhood view corridors, noting that new construction will now be kept primarily within the currently developed areas of the campus, and: 3) designated a location for Marymount College pre-school. He emphasized that on campus housing is about safety, as students are drawn from approximately 20 countries and nearly half of the States in the United States, and noted there are many private two-year colleges that do provide on campus housing. He explained that Marymount College was the recipient of approximately 11.3 acres in Harbor City through the Base Reallocation and Closure Act, and that over the past 6 years the college has used approximately 86 of those town houses on the former navy property. He explained that this is off campus housing as students cannot walk to class, utilize the library, recreational activities, the dining halls, etc., and while grateful for the housing, it is no substitute for on -campus housing. He explained that students living at the former naval site make two to three round trips per day to the campus. By having on -campus housing many of these multiple daily car trips to campus will be eliminated. Dr. McFadden further explained that Marymount College will not seek to lift or alter in any whatsoever the existing enrollment limitations on the Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 7 college. He stated that priority for on campus housing will be given to female students, primarily first year female students. He stated that students in on campus housing will be fully supervised by residential life staff and to reduce the noise the windows will be dual paned and sealed shut. In conclusion, he stated that the college has listened to the neighbors concerns and have made concessions and compromises. He stated that he wanted to improve Marymount College as a community resource through a new library and recreational facilities that will also be opened to the community neighbors. He noted that this meeting is to look at what is being proposed by the college and what affects the college's modernization plans will have on the environment, and this is the time to inquire and to begin asking questions. He was disappointed that a few members of the community appear to have made up their minds already without the benefit of a comprehensive review process. He trusted that all of the members of the community will approach the plans with an open mind and continue to work with the college in a non -confrontational and inquisitive manner. Lois Kam Ganado Drive, stated she was representing the CCC as well as herself. She stated that she was prepared to bring forth an alternative plan for the Marymount College expansion plan. She explained that the CCCME is a coalition of homeowners who reside in the area that immediately surrounds Marymount College. She stated that Marymount College is in an Institutional Zone controlled by a Conditional Use Permit and is surrounded by a sea of residences that were there long before the College. She stated that she has lived in her home since 1970, and at that time Marymount College was a K-8 girls school with approximately 60 girls and 3 nuns. Since that time only Marymount College has grown, not the neighborhood nor the infrastructure. She stated the neighbors have co -existed with the college for 30 years through many incremental increases in the size of the college and the student population. She explained there is a buffer open space corridor which runs south from the college from the entrance down Palos Verdes Drive East which separates the college from many of the neighbors. Ms. Karp explained that in 1975, when Marymount moved to the current site, the college had a projected enrollment of 275 students with a maximum of 75 cars to be parked on campus, and was given a Conditional Use Permit based on those numbers. Over the years the enrollment has increased as well as the number of cars parking on the street, as on campus parking is completely inadequate and has been a constant point of contention with the neighbors. She questioned why, if the campus is doubling in size, are only 120 parking spaces being added. She did not feel that the proposed addition of 250 full time residents plus 100 cars now parked on the street adds up to increased on campus parking. She quoted Municipal Code Section 1726.040, which states that when an Institutional Zone abuts a Residential Zone additional parking requirements may be imposed by the Director or Planning Commission when warranted. She asked that additional on campus parking spaces be required. She discussed the enrollment cap for the campus and noted that in addition to the 750 full time students there are a maximum of 20 part time students each semesters. She stated that Marymount also has weekend college on Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday which is an additional 160 students. She stated these numbers are never included in the 750 -student cap and therefore the cap is not the true number of people going to and from the campus. She stated that in the new CUP it will be asked that a finite number be given which Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 8 encompasses all campus activity, and the EIR needs to determine how many people are truly using the campus. Ms. Karp explained the present expansion proposal increases the footprint of the college more than twice its present size. She stated that it includes buildings as high as 44 feet, which will be overpowering and not compatible with the surrounding single-family homes. She felt the adverse impacts of this expansion project cover a wide range including noise, pollution, traffic, and inexperienced drivers to geologic issues including the movement of 84,000 cubic yards of dirt and the eroding of a beautiful view corridor. She further noted that on the eastern border of the college is San Ramon Canyon, which recently the City spent over $4 million to repair a landslide, with no guarantee that it will be stable. She questioned Marymount's expansion causing additional geological problems in the neighborhood and increasing the risk to the City. She explained that the college at one time leased as much as 59 acres from the US Navy surplus land, which include 86 town homes, 11 four-plexes, and 7 six-plexes, all with two bedroom living units. At 2 students per bedroom it can house 416 students. Additionally, the college owns apartment buildings in San Pedro that house 108 students. In order to obtain the navy site, Marymount represented to the Department of Education that they needed this housing because they do not have space at their present campus to construct student housing. She also noted that the college has committed $3 to the navy to make significant improvements to the site. She questioned why the neighborhood is now confronted with this enormous project, including more housing, if the student camp of 750 students is not going to change. She was proposing that the EIR study an alternative plan in which Marymount College uses their extended campus at the navy land and thinks of this new project in two parts: an academic campus located at Palos Verdes Drive East and Crest Road and a living campus located at Palos Verdes Drive North and Western. She also proposed that part of the new project be built at the living campus, placing the new athletic facility, playing field, and swimming pool there where it will be easily accessible to the student housing area. The academic campus at PVDE and Crest can then be enhanced with the addition of the new academic buildings, library, art studio, and refurbish the administration buildings, student union, and other academic buildings. In conclusion, she felt that the alternate proposal of an academic and living campus would allow Marymount College to have all of the amenities they envision for their students and allow the neighbors to be free of the adverse environmental impacts caused by an inappropriate intrusion of a large institution in a quiet residential neighborhood. Mitch Hahn 21345 Ganado Drive stated he supports education, however does not support the expansion of Marymount College. He felt that Marymount is basically a high priced reform school, which he felt can be supported by Federal statistics. He felt that there is quite a bit of unreported crime which is handled by the student government, however the hard statistics are very painful for Marymount. He stated that within the last 3 years there have been robberies, burglaries, multiple aggravated assaults, illegal weapons violations, and drug and liquor law violations. He stated that this crime rate is 10 times higher than UCLA, USC, and Loyola Marymount. He also stated that major crimes flow over into the community and described an incident of attempted murder in the neighborhood by a Marymount student. He felt that Marymount is responsible for screening the students and now are asking permission to let these criminals live in his Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 9 community, He handed staff a copy of the Daily Breeze article and website references used in his statistics, Chris Hahn 31245 Ganado Drive stated she has done additional analysis and looked at colleges that have done similar expansions and those results. She stated that statistics show that students who lack commitment in regards to their education often get expelled from the dorms and obtain rentals in the community next to the college. Further, when there are issues in the homes that are being rented by the students it is not under the college regulations and local law enforcement has to handle the situation. She felt that the EIR should look at the national statistics to see the investment this will have on our local Sheriff's Department. Secondly, she felt that EIR should consider the impacts of the additional students on the local parks, especially in terms of crime rate and adverse activities in the parks. She felt that the public trails at Ocean Trails and open space at Friendship Park are at severe risk of not being useable for the community. Regarding land movement, as a resident of Ganado Drive she already has a house than leans and was very concerned that with the large amount of land movement proposed her particular part of the neighborhood may not survive. Therefore, if the project is approved and grading commences, she recommended the insurance obtained include the homes in her particular neighborhood. Stephanie Hart 2244 Daladier Drive stated she is in support of Marymount College's attempt to modernize the campus, including the addition of housing for some students. As a resident, she expressed her appreciation and thanks to Marymount for providing access to campus resources to all members of the community and for the cultural and enrichment opportunities that enhance the qualities of life through the concern and lectures series. She requested the EIR analyze the extent to which the entire City of Rancho Palos Verdes will benefit from the modernization plan. Franklin Melton 2950 Vista del Mar stated that he has been a victim who has incurred the wrath of young people running amuck, noting that he has had property damage to his home. He felt hat the concept of modernization of college campuses is overrated, noting colleges in the East are quite old. He stated that the entire community needs to be included in the EIR. Jack Karp stated that he has been recused from the Planning Commission because under the law it is the presumption that a project will have a material financial affect on any property located within 500 feet from the proposed project. Therefore, he demanded the EIR include a financial analysis of what this impact will be on the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. He discussed the grading quantities, and noted that the proposed cut and fill total yardage has not been defined. He questioned how many truckloads per day, per hour, per month will be needed and who will pay for the damage to the roads. He asked where the cut will be stored while doing the remedial grading and if it will impact the parking on campus. He asked about water availability, especially for the fire sprinklers in the buildings. He asked that a feasible engineering study be conducted to show what the water flow will be, how much water will be available, and how the water uses will affect related housing. He stated that the roofs of the project Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 10 will be visible from adjoining neighborhoods, and asked what roof penetrations will be made and how high will the roofs be. He discussed truck loading and asked how the trucks would be loaded, where they will park, where they will back up, and what hours they will be allowed to operate. Discussing fire and safety, he asked where the second and third squads from the fire department or paramedics will come from in high demand, and who will pay for the increase cost in fire protection. He noted that Marymount College is tax exempt and therefore how much more will the City have to pay for fire and sheriff protection. He questioned parking spaces and wanted the EIR to address parking using best parking practices. He demanded a topo map, to scale, including the property, the improvements, and 500 feet from the property showing how the dorms will affect the neighborhood. Earle Robinson 3234 Corinna Drive hoped this was not the first step in a pre- determined decision that will come out in the Fall. He stated that when driving on Palos Verdes Drive South the first thing one notices is the plants and trees that give the City its rural atmosphere, and also contribute greatly to the air quality. He felt that moving 250 new residents into the college the pollution area in his area has been doubled. He did not see any plans for planting an equal number of trees in the area. Regarding parking, he felt the campus needs 120 spaces just to park the cars there now and parking must be increased if the student load on campus is increased. He suggested that instead of housing moving to the campus that the campus move to the housing. DeDe Hicks 32859 Seagate Drive expressed appreciation to Marymount for the opportunities it affords to the City. She felt that Marymount gives the City cultural arts and opportunities on the playing field, and is a cultural as well as educational center. She asked that the EIR address how the expansion will impact these opportunities for the City's residents. She also asked the report examine colleges the size of and similar to Marymount and compare those with student housing on campus and those with no student housing and look at the police reports for the neighborhood to see if there are any differences in the crime rates. She felt the changes Marymount College is proposing will be good for the City as a whole. Christine Leible, Los Verdes Drive Los Verdes Drive, stated she supports the Marymount College Plan. She felt the Marymount College plan has carefully considered the visual and aesthetic impacts to all of the college's neighbors, and that the overall plan is aesthetically pleasing as it includes landscaping enhancements that will be attractive to the neighbors while retaining 68 percent of the campus open space. She asked that the EIR address how the college's landscaping and architectural plans will positively affect the surrounding community and to determine the extent to which Marymount will retain open space on its campus. Ron Stankey 6940 Starstone Drive stated that Marymount College represents another opportunity of enhancing the pride people have in this community. He stated he is very supportive of the plan to expand and rearrange the facilities which will result in a more positive impact on the community. He felt that Marymount represents a cultural and educational contribution, and overall has a very positive economic impact to Rancho Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 11 Palos Verdes and other surrounding cities. He felt the college has been a wonderful neighbor and community asset for many decades. He asked that the EIR address the improved aesthetic impact of the college plans as well as the greater opportunity for community youth groups to use the new expanded athletic facilities. Dorian Dunlavev Parkhurst Drive stated she is the owner of a piece of property on Vista Del Mar that shares the longest common boundary with Marymount College property. She stated that the issue which most impacts her property is the building of student residence hall, specifically the size of these buildings. She was concerned with the height of the buildings which will overpower the scale of homes on Vista Del Mar. She was also concerned with the proximity to strictly residential property. She noted that because of the proximity there will be added noise to the neighborhood. She stated that the dorms will be incompatible with the neighborhood because of the density of people living in the dorms. She was concerned with the construction of the housing on extreme slopes, as that is not allowed in the Development Code. She did not think the Variance to build on the extreme slope should be granted, as that building may cause geologic events that endanger not only her property, but also surrounding properties. She questioned how many years the construction would last, what the permitted hours of construction would be, what measures would be taken to maximize containment of dust and debris, and how the air quality would be protected. She was concerned with the geologic issues, specifically what impact the 84,000 cubic yards of grading and the demolition of the hillside would have on the geologic stability of the neighborhood. Vicki Hanger 2938 Vista del Mar stated she is currently the president of the Seacliff Hilltop HOA and has taken care to get recent comments from the members so that she knows she is not only speaking for herself, but for the Seacliff Hills community. She stated the particular concern was the location of the proposed residence halls, their height, and the impact on their properties. She noted the congregating areas for the students in the dorms, as it appears there are open steps where students can gather that will greatly impact the neighborhood. She too was concerned with the construction time and hours, and asked the EIR address just how long the construction would be and the hours of operation, as well as what might be done to mitigate the problems of dirt, debris, and air quality the construction would cause. Dwight Hanger 2938 Vista del Mar stated he was worried about setting a precedent for granting a variance to allow building on extreme slopes. He felt having cars parked on campus full time would be a magnet for crime and car theft. He asked what type of security would be provided in the parking areas on campus. He asked how 100 new parking spaces would service 250 campus residents. He also stated that there will be a certain number of students living on campus, but he did not see any numbers regarding the additional staffing that would be required. He noted that college students tend to live on a different clock than those living in residential neighborhoods, as they are quite often active until well after midnight. Therefore, the noise the residents would be hearing might also go until well after midnight. He did not feel two adults supervising 250 students was adequate. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 12 Karen Thordarson 29122 Whitespoint Drive stated she was in support of Marymount College. She asked the EIR to study traffic, as she understood the plan does not call for an increase in student enrollment and moving students from off campus housing to on site campus housing may reduce traffic, Nonetheless, traffic is a concern and should be analyzed carefully. Douglas Dethlefsen Ganado Drive stated the library will be considerably larger and will be open to the Rancho Palos Verdes residents and the playing field will include a soccer field and tennis court which will also be available to the residents. He stated that Marymount has also sponsored lectures and concerts to which the public has been invited. He strongly felt that the cultural and recreational facilities afforded the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will be very significant. Andy Losler 6542 Ocean Crest Drive stated he is in support of the expansion plan, and is happy to see the plan move forward. He asked the EIR address the real crime statistics associated with the college and its students. He was very confident the results will show that Marymount students are good kids and a credit to the community. Jennifer Gaston 30223 Via Victoria stated she is in support of the project and that other speakers have addressed her concerns, noting her main concern is the traffic. Heidi Knight stated she is in support of the college, noting the students truly need to be on campus. She felt the safety issues of living off campus are critical. She felt that the expansion will be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. She also noted that the expansion will benefit the students on campus as well as the residents in the City. Joel Gober 3326 Deluna Drive felt the proposed development is grossly incongruent to the low density community plan envisioned by City's founding fathers and the voter approved Proposition M. He felt the high density housing will degrade air quality and increase hydrocarbon and bioload runoff and disturb onshore and offshore habitat for endangered species, such as the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly and Gnat Catcher, and alter gene frequencies of the Black Bandits snails as well as abalone in the coves. He stated that development and overuse may destroy important wildlife corridors between Friendship Park, Forestall Quarry slide area, and Three Towers. He felt the project may endanger fragile predator / prey relationships between the many raptors that frequent that area, namely the hawks, falcons, and eagles and their prey that will destroy the natural diversity via food web interactions and the eco system processes that support their habitats. He felt that the project may jeopardize Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service habitat conservation plan land acquisition grants and future grants. He stated that the overly ambitious earth moving may exasperate all of the local landslides, including San Ramon Canyon, Portuguese Bend, Abalone Cove, and Klondike Canyon. He asked if the college will indemnify the City at large and local homeowners, and will the college indemnify the local species. He felt it would be foolhardy to grant all of the Variances requested by Marymount College. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 13 Liz Cantine 29415 Seaspray Drive stated she is very supportive of Marymount College, and during her daily commute would much rather drive by a college than a shopping center, movie theatre, or bank. She stated she has the privilege of having a college education, and a college education helps get you to what you want. She felt that anything that supports an institution of higher learning and making lives instead of messing up lives is crucial. She stated that the college education that she received not only in class, but in the dorms, in the library, on the athletic field truly made her a whole person, and that is what colleges do, make people whole. She requested the EIR look at the entire picture, the educational environment and the environment of education and what it will do and how children will benefit. She stated that in a world of trouble, terrorism and crisis anything that promotes tolerance and higher learning is much better. Dick Cantine 29415 Seaspray Drive stated he is a very strong supported for the proposed facility expansion. He stated he went to a very excellent college in the Midwest and many of the things that made it excellent are what Marymount College is trying to do here. He felt strongly that the college, to attract excellent students, needs to have dorms on camps. He asked that the EIR address safety issues for the students living in the dorms. He felt that the college has worked hard to minimize the visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. He felt the college has been a good neighbor in the past and is trying to do so now. He felt the EIR should analyze how this improvement plan will make changes to the neighborhood and how the neighbors will see the campus. Nancy Sanders stated she has been a full time employee of Marymount College since 1979 and, as many other residents, has concerns about the overall plan. She felt the college appreciates the residents bringing their concerns to the attention of the City and that many of the issues need to be looked at very carefully. Regarding the issue of noise, she stated that the college is aware of the issue and has tried to compromise, and felt the college had the same concerns. She did not understand the concerns with traffic, noting that if the students are living on campus they won't be making multiple trips up and down the hill every day. She stated that she likes the idea of being called a "reform school" in that students who leave the college after two years are much better people than when they came. She noted that the transfer rate at Marymount College is 90 percent, as compared to community college transfer rates in the single digits. She stated that the intent of the college is not to hurt anyone or damage the community. Robert Jvstad 3726 Coolheights Drive stated that Marymount College is not a foreign element and is part of the community, and there is a responsibility to the college and the well being of the students. He explained that his family is housing a Marymount College student and explained how he is a credit to this community. Regarding the EIR, he cautioned that any findings made in the document be supported by sound factual foundation and not be based on conjecture, speculation, bad science, etc. Lynn Elliott 3726 Coolheights Drive asked the EIR assess the positive economic impact the college makes on the community. She stated that she is sympathetic to the Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 14 neighbors concerns, however the college has been here for a generation and the needs of the overall community, including the college, need to be considered. Lovd Kenworthv 3071 Deluna Drive stated that Marymount College has always been a good neighbor and an asset to the community. As a concerned neighbor, he made a point to attend the first Marymount College planning meeting to learn the facts of the proposed improvement. At that time, many concerns were expressed with the initial plan and the current plan addresses those concerns and has made modifications and changes to minimize the impact to the neighborhood. He felt that the addition of on campus housing will reduce the traffic in the area just by the fact that students will not have to commute. Nevertheless, traffic is a concern in the neighborhood and the EIR should carefully address the traffic issues and impacts caused by this plan. Glennus Absmeir 85 Rockinghorse Road stated that since the college has committed to keeping the existing enrollment cap in place, it has to mean less of an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Laura McSherry 2714 San Ramon Drive stated that from the very beginning San Ramon residents have had a problem with Marymount College. She stated there was the traffic problem, the blocking of driveways on Sam Ramon Drive, and litter which prompted the need for permit only parking on San Ramon Drive. She explained that this solved the problems on her street, however it moves the problems to other streets. She stated from her house she can hear when the fields are being used and the tennis players. She understood the soccer fields and tennis courts will be converted to parking lots and parking will be allowed along the first 11 houses of San Ramon Drive. She was concerned that the entire neighborhood will now be subjected to hearing and seeing the cars coming and going, hear car alarms, and be subjected to the vehicle exhaust pollutants throughout the day and night. She discussed the different landslide areas and felt that adding students to dormitories on the campus as well as the use of a gymnasium will greatly impact the use of water. Erin Harris 2750 San Ramon Drive stated that if the proposed plan is approved her deck will be approximately 3 feet from the new parking lot and her Catalina Island view will be completely blocked. Therefore, she felt that this proposal will have a negative financial impact on her property value as well as others on San Ramon Drive. She noted that the noise from the parking lot will not only be during the day hours, but also late at night and early in the morning. She asked the EIR address this noise issue as well as the issue of light pollution, noting that headlights from the cars in the parking lot will shine into the houses on San Ramon Drive that face the school. She further noted that the glare from the windshields will reflect into their windows. She discussed the library, and noted that the library was proposed to be in the same location in 2003, however a geologic survey found the slope stability was not there. If the slope can't hold the weight of the library, how can it hold the weight of 100 3,000 -pound cars going in and out daily. Jim Gordon 3538 Bendigo Drive explained that in 2000 he had requested the college provide a list of junior colleges comparable to Marymount which have similar situations Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 15 to the situation which is now being proposed. He stated that there was a list of 35 colleges given to him, however he determined that none of the 35 colleges were in any way comparable to the process that Marymount is currently going through, particularly in respect to the dormitories. Mr. Gordon noted that Marymount College already has dormitories on campus and the college guarantees incoming freshmen on campus housing. He felt the EIR should include the minutes from the prior scoping session, the 1990 CUP staff recommendations, and the Marymount application for surplus Navy lands and the statements made therein. George Zugsmith Hightide Drive stated he moved to his home in 1972 because of the rural feel of the community. He felt that the enhancement of Marymount College to the community is not a relevant ingredient to an EIR, as an EIR deals with factors which impact the community, neighborhood, and people who live nearby. He did not believe the traffic situation will be better with on campus housing and felt the on campus students would be commuting off and on campus all day. He discussed the grading, and asked what responsibility the applicant bears in respect to the consequences. He noted the applicant pays no taxes and if litigation results because of damage to homes or neighborhoods, the applicant is judgment proof as a non-profit organization, and the cost will be borne by the City. Sam VanWagner 2763 San Ramon Drive stated he was very concerned about the expansion of the College. He felt that the expansion has a plethora of significant problems for the community and residence, from aesthetics, to noise, to traffic, and geology and soils. He stated he is most concerned regarding the geology and soils, as he is very aware of the land stability surrounding the area in which he lives, and is concerned the Marymount expansion could exasperate the problems and threaten public and private property. He requested the EIR rigorously examine and scrutinize the potential impact of moving 80,000 cubic yards of dirt. He stated this City has experienced too many land stability problems, and needs to proceed very cautiously, prudently, and judicially before moving on a project that has these kinds of problems. Director/Secretary Rojas explained the public hearing will be continued to the next meeting, and that this would be an appropriate time for any Planning Commissioners or Traffic Commissioners to include their comments for discussion in the EIR. Commissioner Gerstner thanked the audience for their attendance and assured them that he will be entering this process with a very open mind. He felt it would be helpful to include in the EIR how deep the students push into the community, their level of involvement as employees or volunteers in the community. Commissioner Perestam requested the EIR address and review some of the information, especially regarding traffic and geology, in the previous EIR prepared in 1990. Vice Chairman Knight asked the EIR address the impact the proposed application will have on the off-site housing facilities, the shuttle bus service, and understanding the Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 16 traffic patterns. He also asked the ER look at whether expanding the use of the existing off site facilities or the acquisition of more off site housing and the use of shuttle bus service be a preferable alternative to the current proposal and still meet the objectives of the applicant. He also suggested the EIR look at the actual student use patterns, day use and weekend use, to better understand the actual pattern of the college use. Lastly, he asked for a discussion regarding the impact to the General Plan on view corridors. Chairman Tetreault asked that when the EIR addresses the traffic it not only include the main arterials such as Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive East, but also traffic through residential neighborhoods. Secondly, he too was interested in the student integration and involvement in the community. Traffic Safety Commissioner asked that the issue of how long construction might take as he felt the Traffic Safety Commission will need to look at traffic patterns during the actual construction phase. Traffic Safety Commissioner expected the EIR would take into account the affect of traffic from moving all of the student on to campus and try to track the increase traffic for the proposed new use for the empty homes. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that this public hearing will be continued to January 10, 2006 to allow those who could not attend this evening's meeting a chance to speak. He stated that no new information will be presented by staff or the applicant at this second meeting. He also stated that written comments will be accepted by staff until January 10th. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10:15 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 10:30 p.m. at which time they reconvened. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 Approval of Minutes of November 22, 2005 Commissioner Karp returned to his seat with the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner recused as he was absent from that meeting and Commissioner Karp recused from Item No. 2 only. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre Agenda for the meeting of January 10, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 17 Director/Secretary Rojas explained that due to having only one meeting in December because of the holidays and the Marymount project taking up a lot of agenda time, there are quite a few applications that must be heard in January, and the next three meeting agendas are very full. After a brief discussion the Planning Commission felt it would be beneficial to begin the January 10th meeting at 6:00 in order to attempt to hear all of the items on the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:14 p.m. to January 10, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 18