Loading...
PC MINS 20071127 Approved January 22, 2008 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Karp led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Perestam, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: Commissioner Tetreault was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas and Principal Planner Mihranian. Dave Snow from the City Attorney's office and Glenn Lajoie, Rita Garcia, and Paul Martin from RBF Consultants were also in attendance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed three items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Appeal of Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2007-00143): 30057 Via Victoria Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining that that this is a Resolution memorializing the decision made by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. The consent calendar was unanimously approved as presented. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Revision "E" to Conditional Use Permit No. 9 (Case No. ZON2005-00395): 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioner Karp recused himself from the public hearing and left the dais. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that before becoming a member of the Planning Commission he had expressed his views regarding this project to the local newspaper and the City Council. He explained that as a Planning Commissioner he felt that he could look at this project in an unbiased manner and follow the laws of the City, however he did not want to have his participation in this matter to create the appearance of impropriety, and therefore he recused himself from the public hearing and left the dais. Principal Planner Mihranian began his staff report by explaining the purpose of this meeting is to receive comments on the content of the draft EIR, and that the discussion of the actual merits of the project will be held at a later meeting. He also noted that the Traffic Safety Commission will be holding a meeting in December to hear comments specific to the traffic and circulation section of the draft EIR. Mr. Mihranian gave a brief description of the proposed project and displayed a site plan of the proposed project. He explained the planning process involved and that this meeting is part of the environmental review process. He explained that public comments relating to the merits of the project will be heard when considering the actual planning applications for the project. Glen Lajoie (RBF Consulting) briefly explained the environmental review process, explaining the next step is to gather all written and verbal comments received by the January 4, 2008 deadline and to respond to each of the comments. He explained how the draft EIR is organized and how the final EIR will be prepared. Rita Garcia (RBF Consulting), referring to a power point slide, gave a brief overview of the draft EIR topic sections. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Chairman Gerstner noted that the applicant has requested, and was granted, 30 minutes for their presentation. Michael Brophy (President of Marymount College) explained that the goal of this project is to modernize the campus while addressing the concerns of the neighbors, and that the draft EIR demonstrates that they have succeeded in achieving this balance. He was generally pleased that the draft EIR identified only three potentially significant environmental impacts created by the project: temporary construction noise, a perceived view impact to non-General Plan protected views from along the south slope Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 2 of the campus, and some additional cumulative traffic at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South. He stated that since the potential impacts are limited, he planned to similarly limit his comments to those three issues, along with a discussion of the split campus alternative, adding that more detailed written comments would follow in the coming weeks. He discussed what the draft EIR refers to as the academic campus/living campus alternative, or as referred to by the college as the split campus alternative. He felt this alternative would cause a permanent division of the campus and agreed with the draft EIR that this alternative does not fully satisfy CEQA requirements that it is an environmentally superior alternative and fails to meet most of the project's objectives. He described the basic project objectives, including on campus,housing for freshmen, an enhanced learning and living environment, and ensuring the college's reputation as a distinguished institution. He explained that for Marymount College to fulfill its educational and religious mission students and faculty must live in a community and be able to relate to each other both inside and outside the classroom. Therefore the student residences must be built in close proximity to academic buildings, not miles away in another city. He stated that the plan will also allow Marymount to fulfill their mission by providing centralized facilities for secular activities, including sports. He stated that the split campus alternative and the no project alternative would separate the living environment from the learning environment in a manner that runs contrary to the college's overriding objectives and basic principles of catholic education. He felt the alternatives were counter-intuitive and runs contrary to the spirit of most people in the room. He stated that he looks forward to working with the City and the neighbors to reach decisions and compromises that will enhance the college and the community. Richard Grotz (Vice Chairman of Board of Trustees of Marymount College) submitted to the Commission for incorporation into the record of proceedings a detailed summary of Marymount's entitlements, including applicable resolutions, conditions of approval, environmental assessments, and staff reports. He discussed the history of Marymount College, noting that having a residential college campus in the City is not new to Rancho Palos Verdes, nor is having a residential educational institution on this specific site new to Rancho Palos Verdes. He noted that nearly 30 years ago over a three year period the City reviewed and endorsed Marymount's plan to establish a residential campus for 200 students based on the findings of no significant environmental affects. He read from a past Planning Commission approval to allow dormitories at the Marymount College site, noting passages which state that the proposed dormitory .structures are permitted in the Institutional zone since they are part of and necessary to the function of the educational facility. With respect to traffic in that 1978 decision, the City's traffic engineer found no traffic related reasons to deny construction of dormitories on the campus. He stated that as a member of the Board of Trustees and a Rancho Palos Verdes resident he felt that after a thorough review, the Planning Commission will be able to certify the EIR with appropriate mitigation measures that will allow the campus to proceed with its improvements as proposed. Michael Laughlin (project manager and planner representing Marymount College) noted that the draft EIR identified only three significant impacts from the proposed project: Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 3 construction, aesthetics, and traffic. He stated that while Marymount College is pleased that so few potentially significant impacts have been identified, the college also strongly believes that the facts and analysis presented in the draft EIR do not support the proposed findings of significant. Scott Boydstun (project architect) discussed the different phases of construction proposed for the project, and the need for these phases. He explained that the first phase, which consists of grading and demolition, will be done in a three month period and anticipated that a large amount of the construction related noise will be happening during this time. He proposed that this work be done in the summer while the college is out of session. He stated that the second phase will be the actual building of the buildings on the prepared sites, and the third phase would be the building of the residence halls and some minor additions throughout the campus. He noted that, in discussing noise, the draft EIR correctly refers to the site as a "soft site", however uses a rate to study noise which is typically applied to "hard sites", which are highly urbanized and consist of reflective surfaces. He felt that by using the hard site rates, the draft EIR has added 10 to 15 decibels to the sound decibels, thereby artificially raising the noise level beyond the 70 decibel threshold. He referred to the Long Point noise analysis, and noted that, despite a relatively similar proximity to residences and the finding regarding the potential for short term excessive noise levels, the EIR for Long Point concludes that such impacts were exempt due to their short term nature and the requirement for adherence to the City's noise regulations. He did not think the City could apply different standards to Marymount's project, a religious use, than those it has applied to a commercial project such as Long Point. He also explained that over the years the City has given the college approvals for many improvements on the campus which have included grading and the creation of artificial fills and man made slopes, which are now described in the draft EIR as extreme slopes. He stated that with this new project the artificial slopes will be removed and graded down to natural grade, resulting in no buildings being built on artificial fill or extreme slopes. Don Davis (attorney representing Marymount College) discussed the project in terms of the General Plan consistency, including a discussion on Urban Element Policy 11. He stated that the College will conform to the Policy by using certain structural techniques to conform to the terrain when building the residence halls and athletic facilities. He showed pictures of homes that have been approved on hillsides, which he felt are similar to the proposed development at Marymount. He felt that when looked at more carefully, the conclusion will be that the project is consistent with the General Plan Greq Moscetti stated that the draft EIR found that there will be no General Plan designated viewing areas that will be impacted by the proposed construction, no impact to designated vistas, no impact to views of structural focal points, or impact to views of bridges, the ocean and Catalina Island, and no mitigation measures were recommended. He discussed the visual character, noting that the General Plan states that the view is observed from a route used by a majority of the populace. He noted that the City regularly approves projects that are very prominently visible from public rights-of-way, and showed pictures of some examples. He compared the Marymount Planning commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 4 EIR to the Long Point EIR in terms of aesthetics. He stated that the evaluation of aesthetic impacts can be subjective due to widely varying personal perceptions, and showed several photographs which he explained depicted how the views of the college from Ganado Drive and the area below the college will be screened by the existing landscaping. He concluded by stating that upon further review he felt that the City will find the potential change to visual character, as defined in the General Plan, not to be significant after implementation of the additional landscape screening recommended in the draft EIR. Don Davis stated that traffic is a major issue on the peninsula and was pleased that there would be meetings before the Traffic Safety Commission to discuss the traffic impacts of this project. He stated that there are three intersections that are potentially impacted by this project and there have been mitigation measures suggested for all three. He discussed current traffic counts and trip forecasts and questioned whether the numbers presented were real numbers or a question of methodology. He explained that using the widely accepted ITE rate based on enrolled students, the project would have no new trips because it's based on enrolled students and the student numbers are not changing. However, he noted that the EIR does not use that rate, but uses a rate for square footage, which gives 27 new trips per 1,000 square feet. He urged everyone to attend the Traffic Safety Commission meeting where he will have a full chance to review the traffic issues. Lois Karp (representing Concerned Citizens Coalition Marymount Expansion) stated that nothing could impact the neighborhood more than the proposed expansion of Marymount College, noting that the proposal would take the existing 92,000 square foot campus to one of approximately 210,000 square feet on a parcel of not quite 25 acres. She felt that this constituted a major change in the land use of the site, noting that the site will be used 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. She stated that Marymount College claims they need to have residence halls on campus to be competitive with other colleges, however she noted there are no two-year colleges west of the Mississippi River that have residence halls on campus. She explained that the neighbors have consistently complained about the 750 student cap, as it only takes into account the average of the spring and fall enrollment. She stated it has nothing to do with the other programs operated on the campus, such as summer school and weekend college. She stated the complaint of the neighbors is the number of people using the campus. She stated that at the scoping session Marymount promised they would not ,change the student cap and will take the cars off of the street. However, in reading the draft EIR neither come to fruition. She noted the statement on page 3-10 which says there are a 216 parking space deficiency and the inconsistency of page 5.3-24 where there is a 278 car deficiency. She stated that the student cap is more complex, as there are so many activities going on at the campus. She stated that there is a Conditional Use Permit that limits the use of the campus, however she did not think that Marymount looks at the CUP very often. She showed the Commission flyers advertising various camps and classes taking place at the campus, and questioned why the CUP has not be amended to reflect these activities. She felt that the college is much larger and is going to be larger than what is reflected in the CUP. She stated that CCCME has Planning commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 5 studied the draft EIR and feels there are constant inconsistencies and that many of the mitigations have no basis. She stated that there are three significant and unavoidable conflicts identified in the draft EIR and therefore felt that this EIR should not be certified. She noted the entire project needs variances and has massive amounts of grading, which will be unacceptable to the surrounding neighborhood. She noted that the San Ramon Canyon and South Shores Landslide are both directly adjacent to the college, and the neighborhood is very concerned that the constant vibration from the grading and construction could cause a landslide. She asked that the Planning Commission follow all of the codes and rules, and that the neighborhood is not asking for any special favors. She asked that the Planning Commission factor in the closeness of the surrounding homes and take that into consideration. She stated that bringing in the residence halls and large athletic facility degrades the neighborhood properties. She noted that the area around the college is like an amphitheatre, and neighbors can hear everything going on at the college now, and questioned what it will be like once the dorms and athletic facilities are built. She pointed out that one of the mitigations is a noise monitor and another is a student code. She stated that will do nothing for the noise. She stated that CCCME has never been opposed to the remodel and renovation of the present campus, noting that it is the adding of the residence dorms and large athletic facility that the neighbors are very concerned about. She noted that;the College has ample land in San Pedro to use for more residence halls, and will continue to use the ones that are already in place. Marc Harris was concerned with what he felt was a discrepancy on the grading plans, noting that if the numbers shown on one of the pages was correct, the proposed wall would completely block his view of Catalina Island and the ocean. He was also concerned that certain proposed landscaping would block his views as well. He discussed the lighting plan, noting the light and glare that would impact his property and there is no night visual simulation in the draft EIR. He stated that with the proposed lighting plan his night view of the lights at Avalon and Two Harbors will be lost. He discussed setbacks, acknowledging a five-foot setback, however recommended a structure setback of 20 feet for all of the homes on San Ramon Drive because of noise, view impairment, air quality, light and glare, and property value impact. He recommended that RBF Consultants produce an accurate, cohesive, and comprehensive to the City at no charge; that MAC Designs and Rasmussen and Associates provide to the City up-to-date accurate designs and data at no charge; Marymount College should provide plans that do not have significant and unavoidable consequences to the City's zoning codes and General Plan; and Marymount should hire a consulting firm that can deliver a smart growth strategy which includes a modernization growth plan. Sam VanWagner expressed concern with the project time frame of eight years presented by Marymount College, noting that Marymount is not proposing constant construction during that time, so that there will be periods of inactivity where the neighbors will be viewing a graded, partially built campus. He also stated that construction delays are not uncommon and therefore the construction time could be significantly longer than 8 years. He questioned the lack of contingency plans in case of Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 6 construction delays, using the new parking lot as an example and questioned where students and faculty would park if the new parking area was not complete in time. He stated that the draft EIR does have a contingency plan that parking will be provided at the north housing facility, and people would be bussed from that location. He was doubtful whether this would be a realistic plan, especially for the construction workers. He asked to see a realistic and complete contingency plan for this 8 year construction project. He was also confused by the reduced densities alternatives time of completion described in section 7.2, starting at page 7-6. If a slightly reduced project can be completed in two years, why is Marymount taking eight years to complete the proposed project. In addition, the hydrology section of the report at 5.7.4.1 on page 5.7-16 states the proposed project would alter drainage patterns which could result in increased erosion potential and runoff amounts. Neither the proposed storm drain watershed plan nor the phasing section delineate when this important piece of the project will be completed, even though the parking lots and the new entry drive, as well as other pieces of the project scheduled to be completed in phase 1, and would obviously exasperate the runoff problem. Finally, he noted that the plan shows the Health Center being eliminated in phase 1, but did not see on the plan where a new one would be located and built. George Zugsmith stated that his concerns center on the public services section of the draft EIR, specifically police protection. He created a handout which he stated shows a Table that represents an outline of that which is contained in the draft EIR versus what are actual facts. He questioned who would pay for the increase in service from the Sheriffs Department if needed. He stated that it would not be Marymount College, as they do not pay any taxes, and therefore it would be the residents indirectly through the City. He stated that the draft EIR suggests that the mitigation is a private security program together with a review of Marymount's code of conduct. He stated that there is Federal legislation which requires campuses to report criminal data, the failure of which can result in a loss of funding. He questioned if there is a Marymount Code of Conduct in place and what security is currently in place. He felt the draft EIR is flawed, not factual, unreliable, of dubious value, and should not be certified. Frank Melton stated that Vista Del Mar homes will be in the direct line of site of the proposed athletic facility, pool, soccer field, and tennis court, and just below the proposed residence halls. However, there is no presentation in the draft EIR regarding Vista del Mar. He was concerned about the noise generated from these facilities and .corridors that would directly affect the homes on Vista del Mar. He asked that the special conditions on Vista del Mar be looked at, including their higher wind rates and how that affects the sound from the campus. He also was concerned with the proposed 8 years of construction, and that the mitigations will not take care of the problems on Vista del Mar. John Feyk stated his concern was with the underlying geology of the project, as he did not want the grading or construction to trigger some type of land movement for the San Ramon or South Shores landslides. He compared this draft EIR to the one done for Ocean Trails, reminding the Commission that Ocean Trails did slide during construction. Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 7 He stated that the mere worry involves items such as hydrology, drainage during construction, years of construction where drainage may not be finalized, and vibration from the construction. He noted that the risk is low, however the cost to the residents if something should happen is very high. He stated that the City does not have the funding to compensate if something should happen. He pointed out in the draft EIR a statement that the height difference between the highest and lowest parts of the campus is 40 feet, when in fact it is closer to 150 feet. He also noted the statement that the campus is approximately 2.0 miles from the Trump golf course, while he felt it was closer to 1.0 miles. He stated he would like to see what the factor of safety is in the area of work at the college. Tom Redfield discussed and read from the hydrology section of the draft EIR and the major mitigation that will have to be put in place for the project. He stated that CCCME appreciates the 16 major draft EIR upgrades on hydrology that RBF Consultants created to replace the woefully inadequate hydrology submission by Marymount College. He stated that a senior executive consulting engineer believes that implementing all of RBF's hydrology mitigation measures may reduce some of the negative hydrology impacts to less than significant. He stated that nowhere in the 8 year phased plan at Marymount is any hydrology mitigation shown. He stated that the draft EIR is incomplete, as it states that watershed drainage will cut across the entire southern slope to get to the western slopes retention basin, however it is not shown on the various exhibits. He was concerned because the catch basins are designed to detain water a maximum of 96 hours, and questioned what happens if the catch basins overflow. He noted that the draft EIR states that Marymount should be required to maintain the catch basins, however he felt that the draft EIR should also require the City to periodically inspect the quality of the maintenance during the rainy season. He felt that prior to the issuance of any grading permit the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer should review and approve the revised storm water drainage plan and that all mitigating drainage steps must actually be employed. Dorian Dunlavev stated that she has two properties on Vista del Mar, and the dormitories would be in the back yard of those two properties. She gave a brief history of how Marymount College received the land in San Pedro, explaining that the CCCME proposal is to use the land Marymount received from the Department of Education as the living campus, and its present campus on Palos Verdes Drive East as the academic campus. She stated there is more than sufficient room at the Palos Verdes Drive North facility for Marymount to build three residence halls of 180 units to provide housing for approximately 358 students, an athletic facility, a health center, and a student center to include a cafeteria and computer lab. In addition, there is room for athletic fields, tennis courts, parking, and more. At the same time, the Palos Verdes Drive East academic campus can be remodeled and updated with the addition of a library and maintenance building, with sufficient room for parking that would remove all of the cars from the city streets. Dan Willens discussed the reduced density alternative and felt the draft EIR is inaccurate, contradictory, and defective by omission in its analysis of this alternative. Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 8 He noted several sections in the draft EIR reduced density section where there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies when compared to the geology and hydrology sections of the report. He also stated that the impact comparison does not comply with CEQA, it does not explain the criteria, and does not accurately determine the thresholds of significant. Mort Bauchman discussed the affordable housing alternative in the draft EIR. He felt that placing a City requirement for affordable housing as an alternative to the expansion plan is wrong and is not an alternative, but an addition to the plan. He stated that the alternative also builds 7 additional units not required by code. He noted that the college land is zoned Institutional and not zoned for apartments. Therefore a zone change and General Plan amendment would be needed to build these additional units, as they are not an ancillary use of the college. He asked when the hearings for these changes will be held. He questioned where in the draft EIR it was discussed where the additional parking would occur for these additional units. He stated that this affordable housing alternative is not a feasible plan and asked that it be removed from the draft EIR. Jack Karp stated that the proposed project could conflict with the land use plans policy and regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Development Code, requirements on extreme slopes. He felt that development of the project could substantially degrade the existing visual character and quality of the site and surroundings, creating significant and unavoidable long term impacts to the visual character of the site due to the introduction of the proposed athletic facility and residence hall. He felt the draft EIR is inadequate, does not fulfill its obligations and should be rejected. Karen Thordarson asked that the draft EIR do a better job in addressing traffic, as she did not feel the traffic study in the draft EIR made sense. Lynn Elliott asked that the draft EIR spell out what other locations in the City are available for affordable housing, and show the offset to those neighborhoods by having those units on the Marymount campus. Ari Requicha felt that adding residence halls to the campus is a huge change that will have a major affect on the neighborhood. He stated there is nothing within walking distance for these students living on campus to do, so they will have to drive. He also felt that there is not enough parking available now and will be even less with this proposed project. Mike DeNardo stated that the dorms would permanently damage the surrounding neighborhoods and change the nature of the neighborhood. He stated that 8 years of construction is not short-term, as stated in the draft EIR. He was concerned with the traffic situations, as well as the drainage and hydrology. He felt that the project will have a negative impact on the surrounding property values. He also felt that the college was asking the neighbors to dig into their pockets for 25 percent of their property values. He felt that the draft EIR is incomplete and should not be certified. Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 9 Kenneth Goldman (representing the EI Prado Homeowners Association) stated that the main concerns of the HOA are population and housing, land use and planning, and traffic circulation and safety. He stated that the proposed residence halls will add 255 people to this neighborhood, a significant impact of 6 percent. He noted the statement in the draft EIR which states that the proposed two-story residence halls are in direct conflict with the single-family residence policy in the community. He also noted that Palos Verdes Drive East is not a major street and cannot accommodate the extra traffic both during the week and on weekends. He stated this will have a significant impact on the urban environment. He felt that the proposed residence halls should not be approved. Laura McSherry also had concerns with the hydrology of the area, with specific concern around the San Ramon Canyon. She noted that the draft EIR does not mention the Tarapaca Canyon landslide, the landslide at Trump Golf Course, and the Flying Triangle, all of which were caused by failed hydrology. She stated that Section 5.79 speaks to urban runoff, and noted that the oil and grease from parking lots and landscape materials find their way to the ocean by existing and proposed draining patterns, which are unfiltered. She felt that Marymount College should obtain an insurance bond to pay for any damage done to neighboring homes in the event of failure of any part of their project. Neil Nichols did not feel that denial of the proposed project would in any way jeopardize the existing operation of the college and the neighborhood should not be compromised because the college wants to expand their operations. Mitch Hahn felt that the draft EIR understates and does not capture all of the crime in the neighborhood and on campus. He stated that he is currently having foundation problems on his residence and felt that it is associated with the drainage from Marymount, and felt this should be addressed in the EIR. Natalia Sookias (student at Marymount) understood the concern about traffic, however noted that residence halls on campus would decrease the number of trips students make daily because students living on campus would be able to walk to class rather than have to drive to the campus. She also felt that students living on campus would have more of a sense of community as the students could become more involved in activities on campus. Jim Jones felt that there was no benefit this proposed project would provide to Marymount College that was enough to overwhelm the negative feelings and fears of the neighborhood. He questioned what percentage of the footprint of the proposed facilities enhancement goes outside the footprint of the current buildings. He asked what percentage of the students commuting from the Palos Verdes Drive North facility operates cars, and what percentage of the students commute from home. Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 10 Suzanne Wright stated that in an EIR one cannot look at what the proponent of the project is saying is the scope of the project, but rather one has to look at what the reality is going to be, and what history tells you the reality is going to be. She stated that Marymount has said there are substantial uses of the facility that they are contemplating, including putting back in the pre-school that they are taking out. She did not think any of the environmental impacts or mitigation measures in the draft EIR analyzes the result the construction of a new preschool. She also noted that the campus is open several nights a week to the public and that there is proposal of a summer camp at the college, neither of which is analyzed or discussed in the draft EIR in terms of extracurricular activities. She stated that the draft EIR is insufficient because it starts with the wrong assumption based on the scope of what this project truly is going to be. She also noted that in the traffic analysis the draft EIR used a formula for apartments rather than a residential campus formula. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Snow commented that the college driveway count summary found in the appendix of the draft EIR is information gathered by the City's consultant, which was deemed inadequate for the reliance for the study the consultant was asked to complete. He stated that the consultant felt there were other methods available that were more accurate, and therefore the information was not included in the draft EIR. However, the applicant requested that this be included, even though the consultant did not rely on it, and was therefore included in the technical appendices. Commissioner Knight asked that it be made clear in the EIR that Marymount College is a junior college, which is a two-year college. Regarding the traffic study, he asked that it be clarified that the numbers used in the tables were the numbers taken from the week day and weekend traffic counts done by the consultant. He was concerned that the use of dorms would have an impact on traffic after 6:00 p.m. and weekends outside of the time frame used of 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., which was not included in the study. In discussing alternative transportation, he noted that the draft EIR included the Metro bus line and the PV Transit green line, neither of which stop at the Marymount campus, and questioned how that can be considered alternative transportation for the students. He also questioned how the number of stops was determined, based on the current bus schedules. He also noted that the gold and orange line schedules are geared for PV School District, and have very limited bus service. He was therefore concerned with some of the mitigation that suggests using these bus services. He asked for clarification in 5.3-33 regarding the assumption made that weekend students would not reside at the proposed on-site dormitory. Regarding the analysis of noise, he questioned if the analysis took into account different noise frequencies, especially the very powerful low frequency music that is readily available. He disagreed with the statement in the draft EIR that vegetation will help mitigate the noise. He discussed the hydrology and water quality and noted that the proposed drainage map indicates that most of the drainage goes into the NCCP preserve and ultimately down to the ocean, potentially impacting the inter-tidal zone. He was unclear in note 4 of the report if it is a canyon being discussed that drains down into a wetlands area in the Trump golf course, Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 11 and asked this to be clarified. He stated that he did not see a landscape chemical management plan or integrated pest management plan to mitigate the addition of nitrates, phosphates, pesticides, or herbicides in the water quality plan. He discussed the existing downstream drains, which appear to be hydrologically deficient and undersized and noted there is an increase in impervious surfaces from the project. He asked the EIR address mitigations for the increase in the resulting volumes of water, as well as the particular materials used in the storm drains. He felt a material that corresponds with the 50 year time line should be considered. He felt that demolition material diversion is an important part of the project, and suggested adding Downtown Diversion to the tables in the EIR. He noted that the draft EIR does identify the land at Marymount as neutral land per the NCCP plan, however what was not identified in the draft EIR was the high priority for acquisition or conservation easement under the NCCP, and asked this be considered in terms of alternatives. He also noted that in the NCCP maps there are mappings of the Coastal Cactus Wren within the switchbacks, and this is not mentioned in the draft EIR, as well as the Southern Cactus Scrub. He referred to 5.9-17 noting that only the Bio 1 mitigation is included, and questioned why the Bio 2 mitigation is not also included. Chairman Gerstner referred to AQ-5 mitigations and stated that there should be clarification about the general contractor putting certain notes and information on the grading plans. In GEO-1 there is a discussion on corosivity testing in the soil, and asked if that was applicable. In GEO-3 there is a discussion on the PV stone, and he felt that this needed to be clarified in terms of whether or not the stone helps support the structure or does not help support the structure. Referring to HYD-2 there is a reference to exhibit 5.7-4 which should be 5.7-3. He also asked for clarifications in PSU-2 and PSU-6 in terms of"divert the pavement" and recycling food waste. Commissioner Lewis stated that he agreed with the questions brought up by Paul and Suzanne Wright in their memo dated November 27, 2007 concerning the pre-school and cultural events and the real world actual uses of the campus as proposed to the uses described in the application. He also agreed with the comments made by Tom Redfield in a memo concerning hydrology and the failure to address the mitigations issues in the phasing. He asked that these questions be answered in the EIR. He stated that he will not be able to attend the Traffic Commission meeting and if Marymount College has anything in writing or in a power point presentation that they were planning to use at the meeting, he would appreciate a copy. Vice Chairman Perestam stated that he has read the draft EIR and will submit his written comments and questions regarding the document to the Director after he has had a chance to re-read the document. Director Rojas stated that the comment period ends of January 4, 2008 and all comments received, either in writing or verbally at this meeting, will be responded to in the final EIR. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 12 3. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of December 11, 2007 Commissioner Karp returned to the dais. The pre-agenda was unanimously approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2007 Page 13