Loading...
PC MINS 20081028 Approved December 1 , 2008 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Lewis at 7:10 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Lewis. Absent: Chairman Perestam was excused Also present was Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Glen Lajoie and Rita Garcia from RBF Consulting, and Assistant City Attorney Dave Snow. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed six items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1. Vice Chairman Lewis reported that he had conversations with opponents and proponents of the Marymount project, not on the merits of the project only on the conduct of the meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Marymount College facilities expansion project— review of Final EIR (Case No. ZON2003-00317: Conditional use Permit No. 9 — Revision `E', Grading Permit, and Variance): 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that for reasons previously expressed, he will recuse himself from this public hearing, and left the dais. Director Rojas presented the staff report, stating that this meeting is for the Planning Commission to review the final EIR for the Marymount project, receive any public testimony, but not to certify the EIR. He also noted that this meeting is not the deadline for the public to give comments on the final EIR, as comments can be given at any time as the hearings continue throughout the year. He explained that at the previous meeting, the Planning Commission agreed to begin hearing the Marymount project at the December 9t" meeting. However, because of the large number of public speakers, staff is recommending that if the Planning Commission feels they need an extra meeting to fully discuss or question the final EIR, that an extra meeting be added on November 13, 2008. Glen Lajoie (RBF Consulting) briefly discussed the review process for the draft EIR and the CEQA requirements for the final EIR. He discussed the contents of the final EIR, including the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts and an explanation of a statement of overriding considerations. Rita Garcia (RBF Consulting) discussed the revised site plan, which is the project that was analyzed in Appendix A of the final EIR. She explained that Appendix A involved preliminary analysis and arrived at preliminary conclusions in several areas, including land use planning, light and glare, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise impacts, geology and soils, drainage and hydrology, public services, and biological resources. She stated that the changes to the plans were not considered substantial, did not require major changes to the draft EIR, and did not result in significant environmental impacts. Director Rojas explained that the draft EIR together with the final EIR represent an informational document that assesses the proposed project as a worse case scenario and that the Commission could rely on to help make decisions on the project and applications. He stated the EIR does not approve a project but supplies information that can be used for guidance when hearing an application. Assistant City Attorney Snow added that the revised site plan exhibit in the final EIR tends to be a work in progress and as the Commission works through the application process and modifications are made to the project this component of the EIR will be updated to consider any changes. Commissioner Knight questioned whether or not the EIR discusses water quality issues at the site. Ms. Garcia explained that the project will be subject to NPDES water quality criteria during both the construction phase and operation phase. Therefore the project's compliance with NPDES criteria will address water quality issues. Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 2 Commissioner Knight referred to HYD-5 in the final EIR and asked if it referred to construction only or if it was also for operations. Ms. Garcia answered that it should be under long term operation and not under construction. Don Davis (Land Use and CEQA Council Marymount College) stated that the purpose of the presentation is to reinforce many of the good aspects in the EIR and also to point out some of the worst case scenarios and try to give a more realistic view. He noted that the project is now found to be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies, including Urban Policy 11. With respect to the issue of Code consistency, he noted the final EIR points out that granting the applicable Variances will render the project consistent with the Code. Discussing traffic, he noted that RBF pointed out that it takes very few trips to create the impact that would require mitigation; therefore, a project much smaller than this will likely create traffic impacts. He also noted that many of the forecast trips are non-project trips generated by local residents using this facility, and that is not clearly specified in the EIR. He noted that the EIR does not exclude in the traffic analysis trips by students living on the campus and the college's offer to restrict vehicles permitted for students living on campus to 125 maximum. He felt that there was no need to conduct any additional studies or analysis to address comments that the trip generation may be understated. With respect to parking, he felt the analysis overstates parking demands. He stated that the addition of 120 parking spaces will eliminate the need for street parking. He stated that the final EIR finds that the compression of all construction activities into one three year period would have the same impact on noise as under the proposed phasing schedule. He disagreed with a finding regarding the residence hall noise, stated that the noise analysis was based on amplified sound at 110 dBA, which is greatly exaggerated. He did not think this was a hypothetical that would encourage windows to be closed in the dorms, which is contrary to Urban Policy 12 and city green building standards. He felt that the college's proposal is the correct proposal and that noise issues can be addressed through code enforcement, if necessary. He discussed what he called myth vs. fact, which included the statement that no community colleges west of the Mississippi offer on-campus housing, the campus site is like an amphitheatre, Marymount students living on campus will significantly increase crime, and Marymount student drivers present a significant safety risk. He offered rebuttal to each of these "myths". Michael Laughlin (representing Marymount College) stated that this is one of the few EIRs that he has seen that takes on the issue of aesthetics, which he felt is a subjective area. He noted that the EIR states this is a significant and unavoidable impact, and he would like to present the college's position that it is a mitigated impacted based on what has been done with landscaping. He showed pictures of residences built in the City that he felt are similar to what the dorms will look like when built. He showed several renderings of the applicant's proposal to use trees and landscaping to soften the look of the residence halls, with before and after pictures of the area. He noted that the EIR identified that proposed project does not block any General Plan specified significant Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 3 views. He asked that the Planning Commission revise the findings in Section 5.2.4.2 regarding long-term visual character after mitigation to less than significant impact. Dr. Brophy (representing Marymount College) stated that the college is very pleased and excited by the results of the final EIR and was hopeful that this was the beginning of the path towards approval of the project. He looked forward to being able to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Commissioner Tetreault referred to the email sent by Mr. Davis dated October 27, 2008, page 6 item no. 5. He asked, from a CF;QA standpoint, if Mr. Davis considered trips to and from the college by residents, rather than by faculty and students was treated differently. He felt a distinction was being made in the traffic analysis on whether the traffic was coming from residents rather than students or faculty. Mr. Davis explained that the proposed project is for the campus and the project will not change the programs offered on the campus. He stated that the City can regulate how Marymount can allow other people to use the facilities, and this is not an issue in this application. He stated that he would like it to be clear that the trip counts assumed some residential uses of the campus. Vice Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Davis to clarify the school's proposal on the parking cap. Mr. Davis explained that there are assumptions made in the EIR, such as every student arrives on campus in a car, which are not true. He explained that there are 250 proposed students for the residence halls and the proposal is to limit the number of parking spaces for those residence halls to 125. He felt that if necessary, students could park their cars at the Palos Verdes Drive North site and shuttle to the main campus. Commissioner Knight asked if the enrollment numbers in the EIR include the summer programs, and if there will be some sort of a cap on the summer program enrollment. Mr. Davis answered that summer programs are not addressed in the EIR, and that it should be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit. However, the college is voluntarily putting a cap on summer enrollment at 500 students. Lois Karp (representing CCCME) felt that the revisions made to the plans after the draft EIR comment period closed, and not addressed in the final EIR are significant and therefore the draft EIR should have been revised and re-circulated. She noted these significant changes include an additional 14,000 square feet of modular buildings, a new construction road, grasscrete in the parking lot that she felt violates the hydrology and geology mitigations, and the revised stating area. She stated there are forty eight mitigations listed in the final EIR, and questioned whether the City has the staff and the enforcement to follow up on all of these. She felt that in the past Marymount cannot police itself and things fall through the cracks. She stated that if all of the mitigation Planning commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 4 measures are not done it will result in a permanent degradation to the quality of life to the surrounding neighbors. She stated that several comment letters were submitted regarding the hydrology mitigation stating that all drainage should be done in phase 1 and that a certificate of occupancy should be addressed. She stated this was not addressed in the final EIR. She explained the concern is that if the basin and hydrology measures are not completed, parking lots are completed and the modulars are placed in the parking lot, then as the EIR points out, sheet flow can become a problem into a detention basin that may not be finished. She also noted that the modulars will be very visible to the neighbors for the entire length of the construction. She stated that the monitoring programs needs to be integrated into construction phasing. She also noted that she had commented on the construction phasing schedule in the draft EIR, however it has not been changed in the final EIR. She asked that the construction phasing schedule be much more detailed than the current schedule. She stated that the parking demand and the numbers presented for the parking don't add up, as there will be increased usage of the site with reduced parking on the campus. She stated that there is currently a shortage of parking on the campus. She felt that there is a problem with the youthful drivers and the EIR does not adequately address the situation. She felt that the proposed code of conduct and quiet hours is a hoax, as the reality is that there will be 250 students living on the campus with many areas of congregation, the parking lots, car alarms, and all of the noise a campus generates. She did not feel that asking the students to sign a code of conduct would solve any of the noise problems. In conclusion, she stated that the responses to the letters from the residents were totally inadequate and insufficient. She stated that the answer to all of this is the proposal for the living campus and the academic campus. She also noted that there are a lot of items marked TBD and she felt that these will be determined out of the public view, out of the Planning Commission's view, and the residents have a right to know when they are going to change all of these things. She felt this final EIR was poorly done, unreadable, and needs much revision before it can be certified. George Zugsmith (cccme) noted that the draft EIR found that there were unavoidable impacts with respect to the General Plan, the Development Code, and long term visual character, as well as traffic impacts and short-term construction noise. He stated that the final EIR revisits some of those areas. Regarding the General Plan in connection with the steep slope, the final EIR suggested it was no longer significant because of a section in the Municipal Code and Ordinance 463. However, Ordinance 463 was intended as a piece of clean-up legislation and does not alter the significant impact with respect to the steep slope. With respect to the Development Code, the project requires many variances and/or Conditional Use Permit changes. He stated the long term visual impact remains the same, and is a very significant impact to the neighborhoods which cannot be mitigated. He disagreed with the college's statement that there will be a 10 percent impact to the traffic at Trudie and Western, as the final EIR stated there will be a 40 percent impact to traffic. He did not think that tax dollars should be spent on re- signaling certain traffic lights when it would not be needed if not for this project. He also questioned what is meant by "short term" construction noise and other significant impacts, especially if these "short term" impacts will be happening intermittently over an 8 year period. He disagreed with the statement in the draft EIR regarding police Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 5 protection and incidents. He explained that CCCME responded by bringing forth information which suggested there were 453 instances of criminal conduct, however the final EIR reports only 10 instances of criminal conduct on campus and did not report the criminal conduct by students off of campus. He asked that the statistics be revisited and addressed in the final EIR. He addressed the comments and responses in the final EIR, noting that in many instances the final EIR does not speak specifically to a comment or question posed by a member of the public, and cited some specific instances. Jim Gordon discussed the proposed soccer field, and pointed out that at the critical south west corner the field itself is lower than the finished grade and this should be recognized in the mitigations. He also pointed out that Marymount College is not a community college and should not be addressed as one or compared to other community colleges when discussing the need for on campus housing. He stated that no other two year private college in the United States has ever introduced a dormitory structure into an existing neighborhood situation. Kenneth Goldman discussed the geologic map shown in the EIR and stated that the college campus is located on unstable sandy loam and clay soil as indicated on the map, and immediately below the campus is the south shores landslide which includes the Tarapaca landslide. He stated that the City is currently working on stabilizing this slide. He felt that core samples are necessary to indicate the nature of the geology of the area of the Marymount construction and the potential for earth movement. Ted Mueller (representing EI Prado HOA) stated the final EIR fails to address several significant issues. The first issue is the primary impact of 250 students in a dormitory residing within an isolated residential neighborhood surrounding the college. Secondly, no attention is drawn to the impact of off-campus living practices of the resident student body, driving trips to and from the college, and visitors after 6:00 p.m. and throughout the night and on weekends. Thirdly, the national accident statistics for teenage drivers are totally ignored. He stated that teenage drivers have four times the accident rate of the average older driver. Finally, he stated that the noise, activities, night time lighting glare resulting from a 250 resident dormitory are not adequately addressed and he felt many of the conclusions in the final EIR are flawed. He noted that the variance to allow multi-resident housing within the single family residential neighborhood does change the character of the area. He stated the proposed parking plan is inadequate and improper. He stated that the issuance of parking permits for street parking is in violation of a city parking code requiring sufficient on-site parking. He stated that the time and expense of creating traffic control at Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive as well as at Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South are projected to be undertaken when sufficient funds are identified, and no time table is given. He concluded by stating that dormitories are inappropriate for the community and should be replaced by the academic and living campus alternative. Mike DeNardo felt that the noise generated by this proposal will be overwhelming from his residence, and the temporary modular buildings will add to this noise. He Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 6 questioned if the current motivation to reduce on-street parking will last for the duration of the project. He did not think the code of silence and quiet hours would work on the campus and questioned the enforcement procedures. He was concerned with the temporary issues, noting that eight years is a long time to consider something temporary. He was concerned about the temporary modular buildings, the construction roads, and the staging area. Gary Mattingly stated that he is already greatly impacted by noise from the Marymount facility on top of the hill. Regarding traffic safety, he stated that he sees an accident once every month, but very seldom is the sheriff's department called out. Pat Mathiesen explained four Marymount students have rented the house next door to him and there have been several parties a week and cars racing up and down the street. He stated that there is noise well after midnight every night at the house and the traffic on the street has most definitely been impacted. He felt that the college had a right to expand and upgrade, but did not think it was appropriate to add student housing into the neighborhood. Ron Stankey stated that most of his comments would be taken from Don Reeves letter dated October 28, 2008. In the letter Mr. Reeves stated he supports the conclusions of the final EIR. He encouraged the Planning Commission to certify the final EIR and give the project the support it deserves consistent with the General Plan. Burt Arnold (Chairman of the Board for Marymount College) felt that the final EIR reflects the independent empirical analysis of experts, and makes the point perfectly clear that Marymount College can mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed campus improvement plan. He noted that this plan represents many years of dialogue and compromise with hundreds of community members and the process has undergone more public input and debate than any other project in the City. In discussing the proposed split campus plan, he noted that the EIR states that this plan is environmentally inferior. He stated that this alternative undermines the mission of the college, to provide a high quality campus education. He stated that the unified campus plan will allow the students to maximize their academic experience through closer engagement with faculty and staff, and can fully mitigate potential environmental impacts. He asked the Planning Commission to adopt the final EIR. Brian Cochran did not feel the students should be traversing the hill to Marymount College when they can have the opportunity to stay on campus with the proposed improvements, thereby enhancing their security as well. He stated the administration and trustees of Marymount College know what they need and know what their objectives are. He asked the Planning Commission certify the EIR. He was unsettled by the amount of antagonism over Marymount's desire to enhance the academic experience of the youth. He felt that the community should share a passion for Marymount's educational and community goals, and should support the business plan and facilities, and realize the improvements are improvements for the entire community. Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 7 Sister Mary Leah Plante stated she has been a religious educator for many years, and the quantitative ramifications such as environment and traffic have been discussed extensively. She stated that she was an advocate for the immeasurable and unseen gains which Marymount's improvement plan also addresses, which are the spiritual and religious components. She was opposed to any suggestions to split the campus, as centralizing the campus centralizes and makes accessible to everyone at Marymount a concentrated learning environment which fosters a dynamic academic experience. She stated the college's religious atmosphere supports, in a direct way, essential religious experiences. She stated that a single contained campus for religious resources, spiritual guidance, opportunities to be listened to and to speak are readily available. She stated that a young adults years in college are historically vulnerable years and access to and support of a close knit religious community are vital. Susie Martin (Chair of Physical Education Department at Marymount College) explained that proposed changes to the recreational facilities will markedly improve the physical education of the students and completely alter how the classes are taught. She stated that the current facilities are substandard and classes and events must share, and therefore compete for scheduling with activities held in the auditorium. She stated that the new facilities will allow proper techniques to be taught and reduce the number of injuries to students. She stated a split campus will force students to rush back and forth from one campus to another and make it difficult to accommodate many of the student's schedules. She also noted that faculty members will have to travel up and down the hill to attend meetings and advising office hours. She urged the Planning Commission to certify the final EIR. Angie Papadakis stated that she believes in education and Marymount College has a mission to educate. She stated that the college has a responsibility to their students to provide the best education possible. She sympathized with the surrounding neighbors, but felt that when one buys a house you buy in a location. She fully supported Marymount's plan for modernizing the campus and encouraged the Planning Commission to also support the project. Mary Taylor (student body president at Marymount College) asked that the Planning Commission adopt the final EIR and approve the campus improvement plan. She stated the EIR demonstrates through empirical analysis conducted by independent experts that the campus improvement plan can mitigate for all potential impacts. Further, the completed project would be of a substantial benefit not only to the students, but to the community at large. She felt the split campus alternative was an inferior alternative, as reflected in the final EIR. She objected to the label some of the residents have put on Marymount students, and explained that students chose Marymount College for the quality of its education and its Catholic values. She stated that Marymount is not a party school and felt it was offensive to students and faculty to suggest otherwise. Alexa stated she is a first year student at the college. She stated that, based on the final EIR, she did not think the split campus alternative would benefit Marymount Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 8 College students. She felt that if the campus were to be split students would be forced to drive more, would be less unified, and it would serve as a detriment to the small and personal atmosphere the school offers. She explained that currently she lives in Palos Verdes Estates and commutes to school. Because of her schedule she is currently driving to and from school twice and would prefer to live on campus. She felt that on campus housing would save students time and money and felt on campus housing was in the best interest of the student body and the community. David Draper stated he works on the campus and lives in the surrounding neighborhood and realized the need for improvement of the current outdated facility. He stated he would not support a plan that makes the traffic and living conditions worse for the surrounding neighborhood, as he also lives in the area. After reviewing Marymount's plan he is in full support of the plan to improve the campus. Addressing the split campus alternative, he noted that counseling offices would be relocated to the Palos Verdes Drive North location which is located 20 minutes from the main campus. He also pointed out that many students would not have time to get from any physical education classes back up to the main campus for other classes, therefore creating scheduling problems. He did not think the split campus alternative was feasible and urged the Planning Commission to accept the final EIR. Bret Prichard read a letter written by Nancy Young in which she stated she supports the certification of the final EIR. She stated that speaking as Marymount's resident grant writer and foundation manager she was very aware and familiar with the proposed plans and the EIR, and speaking from the perspective of the foundation manager, she stated that a majority of the significant philanthropic families and foundations on the Peninsula and in southern California support the project. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the EIR and the proposed project. Nassef Girgis stated that contrary to any discouraging trends or perceived notions, recent studies have shown that today's college students are interested in spiritual and religious matters. Therefore, the question for educators and college administrators and parents becomes, what type of opportunity is the college providing to assist the student in their search for meaning, purpose, and direction in life. He felt that Marymount provides many of these opportunities. He felt the split campus option will create a wide disconnect between student life, student aspirations, and campus resources. He asked that the Planning Commission certify the final EIR and approve the proposed project. Annette Guydan stated that she is one of the weekend students using Marymount College, and discussed how the program has allowed working professionals the opportunity to extend their knowledge and compete in the global workforce. She stated that on weekends the parking lot is not crowded and there is ample parking for everyone. She could not image denying anyone a chance for higher education. She felt the arbitrary cap of 83 students proposed is not supported by the facts, and she understood a third party reviewer hired by the City confirmed this point and suggested the cap be changed. In light of this, she felt the college's proposed cap of 150 students Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 9 is very reasonable. She asked that the Planning Commission revise the weekend program enrollment cap in the TR-4 and certify the final EIR. Nathan Adams stated he is a first year student and lives at the Palos Verdes Drive North dorms. He stated he is representing the Associated Students of Marymount College, the Entrepreneur and Financial Intelligence Society, and Marymount Lacrosse. He stated that having a split campus is very hard for those living at Palos Verdes Drive North and Palos Verdes Drive West, as it creates a constant stream of students traveling to the campus and back to the dorms throughout the day. He felt having dorms on campus would help reduce the flow of traffic. He asked that the Planning Commission certify the final EIR and approve the project. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Adams his opinion on the shuttle service offered by the college. Mr. Adams explained that the shuttles come at one hour intervals and if you miss the shuttle, you consequently miss the class you were going to. Other than missing the shuttle, however, he felt that the service provided is adequate. David Woodberry (Director of Residential Life at Marymount College) stated that Marymount currently has a split campus type of arrangement, however it is not fulfilling the college mission. He noted three college goals taken from the Mission Statement; to prepare students for active and responsible citizenship, to provide a caring and personal environment that is maintained through a residence hall, and to provide an extensive community of all Marymount constituents. He felt the split campus alternative makes these goals difficult to achieve since the students will have to travel to the main campus everyday by bus or car. He also did not think the current housing at Palos Verdes Drive North or Palos Verdes Drive West were designed for student life. He stated that the social, education, and spiritual programs are currently split between the sites and cannot receive full faculty and staff support. He also felt the traffic would be reduced by on site dorms, as students would not have to leave the campus between classes. He too asked the Planning Commission to certify the final EIR and approve the proposed Marymount expansion plan. Andrew Traub (first year student at Marymount College) stated he is a student and lives at the residence halls at Palos Verdes Drive North. He felt that the split campus alternative would force students to drive more and therefore cause more traffic and congestion. He felt that having a split campus takes away from the entire college community. Dorms located on campus promote student activity and student involvement in a safe environment. As a member of the residence hall, he stated that he feels disconnected from the campus and hindered from becoming more involved in activities on the campus. Further, on the average day he finds himself making at least two trips in his car to campus. He asked that the Planning Commission certify the final EIR and approve the project, adding that the student's main motives in this request are to not split the campus. Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 10 Greg Narleski stated he is the Director of Student Life and lives at the Palos Verdes Drive North facility. He explained that 85 percent of the college student's time is spent outside the classroom, which is what his office focuses on. He explained that the goal is to build a community on the campus for the students through several programs. He discussed the student code of conduct, noting that this code of conduct is taken very seriously. He also asked the Planning Commission to certify the final EIR and approve the current project. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Narleski what the definition is of quiet hours. Mr. Narleski answered that quiet hours begin at 10:00 p.m. every evening, which means that students outside of their residences must speak in quiet tones and no music is allowed to be played. Commissioner Tomblin questioned where students would go and how they would go back and forth from the campus to different activities after 10:00 p.m. if dormitories were located on campus. Mr. Narleski did not feel that the students would have to leave the campus, as everything they needed would be provided. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Narleski how he would feel if there were a requirement that students living on campus could not have their cars on campus, and any student having a car would have to park it at the Palos Verdes Drive North site. Mr. Narleski answered that there could be shuttles that run later in the evenings for the students. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Narleski if any consideration had been given to a system where all dorm students must be on campus by 10:00 p.m. and students could not enter or exit the parking lot unless they had a special reason to do so. Mr. Narleski was not aware of any such consideration. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if currently a resident could be evicted for violating the code of conduct. Mr. Narleski answered that a resident can be evicted and residents have been evicted for violating the code of conduct. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if the school practiced a zero tolerance program for drugs and alcohol on campus. Mr. Narleski explained that currently the college does not practice a zero tolerance policy but rather will enter the students into counseling when necessary. He stated that the repeat offenders of drug and alcohol incidents are very low. Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 11 Commissioner Tomblin asked if currently alcohol is allowed in the dorms. Mr. Narleski answered that Marymount College is a dry campus. DeDe Hicks stated that Marymount currently has activities on campus that can go into the evening. She felt that with the increased security on campus and with the enforcement of the code of conduct, that the noise from the campus will not impact the neighbors. She disagreed with the mitigation measure requiring the windows for the dorms be closed. She felt that, given the dorms are more towards the center of campus and that students listen to music on their iPods, that it is unnecessary. She favored a studied and gradual approach to noise mitigation, namely that if noise complaints are received and verified by noise monitoring, then the windows should be closed. She also felt that if there are noise problems they can be addressed through code enforcement or revisions to the Conditional Use Permit. She asked that the Planning Commission certify the final EIR without noise mitigation N018. Michael MacMenamie stated that as the Director of campus safety and security his job is to provide for the security of campus students, guests, and employees and to seek to bridge the gaps and establish harmonious relationships between the campus and the neighbors. He disagreed with statements made by community members that students at the college are socially wild or out of control. He stated the LAPD and LACO Sheriff's Department have not noted any significant complaints from the Palos Verdes Drive North or Palos Verdes Drive West resident's halls. Further, most of the calls made were generally for non-students of the campus. He explained that there is a distinction made between serious criminal offenses and college disciplinary action. He stated that numbers referred to by some residents were taken out of the disciplinary action, and these numbers also include non-student incidents. He asked that the Planning Commission adopt the final EIR and approve the project as submitted. Commissioner Knight asked what hours the security is on duty. Mr. MacMenamie answered that security is on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Hughes Simon stated he is a student at the college and resides at the Palos Verdes Drive North dormitory. He felt a dormitory on campus will discourage students from leaving campus and asked the Planning Commission to support the final EIR. Alicia Maniatakis stated she is very much in favor of Marymount College, however she pointed out that the college moved to the current site knowing that they did not have dormitories, and it was something that was never even considered. She felt the neighbors have been generous in support of the school, but she was not sure they could take this leap and support the dorms. She was very concerned with the geologic stability of the area, as it is immediately adjacent to the San Ramon Canyon slide. Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 12 Caroline Sayers (member of the Board of Trustees at Marymount College) felt that Marymount College is an asset to the City and an institution everyone in the City should be proud of. By allowing the students to live on campus and providing them with a new library and supervised living facilities, the campus will enhance educational and cultural resources for the students and residents. She stated that the project before the City is consistent with the General Plan and it fully mitigates all potential environmental impacts for the long term operation of the modernized campus. She asked that the Commission certify the EIR with the revision requested by Marymount College and approve the project. Petra Schneider addressed the quality of life enjoyed by the residents in this part of the City. She stated that this is a very quiet, rural area that the college fit into at one time. Now, however, the small college is becoming an institution which is busy and active 365 days a year that is changing the quality of life in the neighborhood. She noted that many of the people speaking in favor of the project do not live in the neighborhood and are not directly impacted by the project. She asked that the Planning Commission keep this in mind. Austin Robert Peterson stated he has lived in the neighborhood his entire life and fully supports Marymount College. He felt the proposed project, including the landscaping, will enhance the neighborhood. He stated that as a student of Marymount College he can say that the current residence halls are very controlled and self-contained, and noise is kept to a minimum. He disagreed with comments that Marymount students are misfits and party goers, and did not believe that a social prejudice should impede the academic and spiritual growth of students and the community. He asked that the final EIR be adopted. Dr. Sue Soldoff stated she lives in the immediate neighborhood and pointed out that there are many neighbors who are in support of the proposed project. She asked that the final EIR be adopted and the project approved, including the residence halls. Jack Karp (CCCME) stated that Marymount College was grandfathered into the institutional zone when it came to this site, and no study was done as to what should be at the site. He questioned why Marymount College was only talking about its Miraleste site when they already have a campus at Palos Verdes Drive North that will not be closing. He explained that Marymount College had told the United States Government that they wanted that land for dormitories, a health center, and a computer center. They also promised to sell their apartment houses in San Pedro, which is a promise they made which they did not keep. He was astonished that Marymount could ask for the facility they are requesting and not supply the necessary parking, which is not good planning or good land use. He stated that not mentioned in the EIR is the proposed gymnasium, which will seat up to 400 people. He stated that this parking is not accounted for and questioned where these 400 people will park. He asked how the City can certify a report with such a major error. He stated that since the Palos Verdes Drive North dorms will still be open and functioning, this on campus dorm will not solve any traffic or parking problems. He stated that the neighbors are not opposed to the Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 13 expansion of the college in terms of the library and classrooms, but are opposed to the proposed dorms and gymnasium. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Karp if the dorms had to have openable windows per the Fire or Building Code. Mr. Karp answered that he met with a representative of Los Angeles County Fire Department, and these dorms must have openable windows. Mr. Davis (in rebuttal) stated that the proposed modulars do not abut any properties and will be placed adjacent to the existing buildings and will be removed as part of the second phase, which is within three years. With respect to the windows, the EIR states that the windows should remain closed, however they will be operable, and therefore there is no inconsistency with Fire Codes. He stated that the college's application for the other property has been misrepresented, as that site cannot fit an athletic field, gymnasium, and housing. He stated that it is sufficient for housing and the college anticipates adding a small recreational area and other support for the students. Dr. Brophy stated that there were commitments made by the college as part of the acquisition of the San Pedro, and one will find nothing in the public records that indicates the college is doing anything but meet those commitments. He stated that as this process moves forward the college plans to work with the City enhance the college experience as well as preserve the quality of life for the neighbors. Commissioner Knight asked RBF how they came across the conclusion that there is no significant view impact. Further, he asked if the analysis was done before the changes to the athletic field. Ms. Garcia answered that the conclusion of significant impact was done based on the project description including the revised site plan. She stated that the conclusion of significance was not based on view obstruction but changes to visual character. Commissioner Knight noted that the college has mentioned that they felt it was improper to combine the Variance, extreme slope, and visual impacts and asked staff why they felt they should be combined. Ms. Garcia explained that in this case it was concluded that the visual impacts associated with construction on the south slope was the determining factor in the need for the Variance. She stated that the variance is being tied in with the visual aspects because it is at the same location as where the visual impacts are occurring. Director Rojas reminded the Planning Commission that staff was recommending the Planning Commission review and comment on the EIR, but not certify the EIR until the conclusion of the hearing process, as staff anticipates changes to the EIR and the site plan as a result of the public hearing process. Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 14 Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to December 9, 2008 to begin the discussion of the project applications, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Assistant City Attorney Snow noted that there had been discussion regarding the parking issues, and referred the Commission to page 12-24 of the final EIR where there is a discussion regarding parking. He stated there were a number of questions raised at this meeting by both the applicant and speakers that were noted by the consultants and staff, and written response to these questions will be provided to the Commission. Finally, he reminded the Planning Commission that it is ultimately their decision as to whether or not there are significant impacts, if mitigation is sufficient, and if additional mitigation is necessary. Director Rojas added that if this motion passes, it doesn't mean the consideration and discussion of the EIR is finished, and while the future meetings will be discussing the project applications, public comments will still be taken and heard on the EIR until the Commission certifies the EIR. The motion to continue the public hearing was approved, (5-0). ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 28,2008 Page 15