Loading...
PC MINS 20081209 Ap roved January 13, 9 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 9, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Lewis at 7:15 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight 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 and Commissioner Ruttenberg left after communications. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Principal Planner Mihranian, Assistant City Attorney Dave Snow, and City Geologist Jim Lancaster. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed 8 items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1. Vice Chairman Lewis disclosed that he had communications with the project opponents regarding the process. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Marymount College facilities expansion proiect— review of Final EIR (Case No. ZON2003-00317, Conditional use Permit No. 9 — Revision `E', Grading Permit & Variance: 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that for reasons stated previously, he will recuse himself from this item, and left the dais. Principal Planner Mihranian presented the staff report, explaining the Planning Commission is being asked to consider four staff recommendations, as explained in the staff report. He gave a brief report of the existing improvements and operation on the Marymount campus. He divided the proposed project into three groups; the expansion, the addition, and site improvements and gave a brief explanation of their locations on the existing campus. He explained the two-step planning process that this project must go through, the CEQA process and the planning application process and noted that the two do not have to occur concurrently. Director Rojas explained that since the last public hearing staff has received public comments expressing confusion with regards to the action the Planning Commission took or didn't take with regards to the final EIR. Given the direction from the Planning Commission at the last meeting to begin discussion of the project application, he felt that this would be a good time to get direction from the Planning Commission on the first recommendation in the staff report, which is whether the Commission wants to go back to the discussion of the final EIR or direct staff to bring anything else before the Commission on the final EIR before beginning the discussion on the Conditional Use Permit for the project. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he has sent staff an email with his concerns and questions regarding the EIR that is included in the staff report. Commissioner Knight felt that the primary function of the EIR is disclosure, and if there are issues that are not included in the EIR that have come forth that haven't been addressed, he felt it was important that they be addressed. Commissioner Tetreault also sent an email with his concerns and questions on the EIR which is also included in the staff report, and felt that these items should be addressed by the City's consultant. Director Rojas explained that some of the comments received by the public requested that the Planning Commission not start discussion of the applications before deciding whether or not the EIR is adequate. He also clarified that staff and the consultants delivered to the Planning Commission an EIR for certification, and if in between meetings staff receives comments from the public raising issues with the EIR or asking for additional analysis, staff is not going to have the consultant do the analysis without the Commission directing staff to do so, since the Commission is the body that would decide whether the EIR is adequate and must certify the EIR. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 2 Vice Chairman Lewis suggested that before proceeding with the hearing of the application that the Planning Commission identify questions from the public and Commission that the Commission feels need answers and direct staff to have the consultants answer these questions and issues. Principal Planner Mihranian noted the pages in the staff report where the additional comments and questions from Marymount College and CCCME have been listed regarding the EIR. Commissioner Gerstner felt it was important to consolidate the various comments and questions, decide which are important to the Planning Commission to have addressed, and have staff direct the consultants to address those issues. Commissioner Tetreault felt that, based upon the last public hearing, most people are prepared to go forward with issues related to the project rather than the EIR, and he was concerned about delaying the process. However, he fully understood the concerns regarding the EIR, and shared those concerns. He was not fully prepared to discuss these concerns, however, and also felt that it was important to consolidate the questions and concerns that the Commission felt the consultant should address. Commissioner Tomblin agreed that there are EIR comments and concerns that need to be addressed by the consultants. He also questioned the status of the Traffic Commission meeting and review of the project and when that meeting might occur, noting that discussions from that meeting will likely raise new issues that will need to be addressed in the EIR. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that Traffic Safety Commission is tentatively scheduled to meet on January 5t", and the Commissioners will be polled this week to see if there will be a quorum. Vice Chairman Lewis suggested the Planning Commission proceed by hearing the presentation prepared by staff, followed by a discussion by the Commission. Principal Planner Mihranian continued with the staff report, explaining the planning process, which includes the environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the planning applications. He noted there are four applications being requested by the applicant: A Conditional Use Permit revision, a Grading Permit, a Variance, and a Sign Permit. He displayed a site plan of the Marymount property and discussed the various components of the proposed project. He also displayed a table which summarized the Conditional Use Permit findings, and whether or not staff was able to make the findings for each of the project components. He reviewed the many components of the proposed project and discussed staffs concerns and recommendations, as written in the staff report. Commissioner Tetreault moved that before public testimony begins, each Commissioner take no more than three minutes to state any issues they may have that they would like addressed, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 3 Commissioners Gerstner and Knight agreed with the motion, but noted that without time to prepare and organize, it may not be a complete list of concerns and thoughts. Assistant City Attorney Snow noted that this is a public hearing and there will be public testimony, and that the comments from the Commissioners will be preliminary comments based on the information presented so far, and not any indication of pre- judgment. Commissioner Tetreault withdrew his motion, and the Commission agreed to proceed with questions to staff, followed by a brief period to explain their concerns and thoughts on the project, and then to hear public testimony. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify the drainage concerns on the property. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that currently the site does not have any storm drain system other than a catch basin at one location on the property. The current water run-ff sheet flows across the property, follows the natural drainage courses, and enters the city's storm drain system at the southern portion. He stated that according to the analysis in the EIR, the storm drain system south of the property is deficient in size. He noted that a detention basin is being recommended to detain the water run-off and to release the water run-off into the storm drains at current rates. Commissioner Gerstner noted that there are several places indicated on the plans where there is building proposed over extreme slopes. He also noted that there has been discussion on whether or not the slopes are the original grades or grades that have been created over the years. He asked staff to help clarify this issue. Principal Planner Mihranian identified on the plan the areas where development is proposed over an extreme slope. He explained that the applicant has stated that when the parking lot was developed on the property the earth generated from the grading was dumped and created the extreme slope condition. Regardless of whether the slope is man-made or natural, the grading findings clearly indicate that the man-made slope would be considered the natural slope whenever there is a project before the City. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the temporary structures proposed during various stages of the project's construction, and asked staff if the City has a definition of what a temporary structure is. Director Rojas read from the Code the definition of a temporary minor non-residential structure. Principal Planner Mihranian understood the concern, and suggested that if the Commission were to consider allowing the applicant to use the modular classrooms during construction, that conditions specifically identify the time duration the structures may be allowed to be used at the site and the conditions on which these temporary Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 4 structures may be used are included. Further, any modifications to such conditions would then have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault expressed his concerns with the project. His concerns included the appropriateness of having dormitories in a residential neighborhood, the issues and adequacy of the proposed parking, traffic impacts, drainage and runoff, the size and scale of the buildings and how they integrate with the neighborhood, and the large number of Variances requested for the project. He explained he hasn't made any decisions about any of these topics, but these are the topics he will be focusing on during the discussions. Commissioner Tomblin also had reservations about the placement of dormitories in a residential neighborhood. He would also like more information about other two-year colleges of this approximate size in a residential neighborhood that have dormitories. He also has not heard enough information on how the school plans to administer all of the restrictions that will be in place in order to have these dormitories. He was also concerned about the addition of raised safety netting placed around the athletic fields. He was anxious to see the traffic study and felt that this traffic study might answer many of his questions, or it may raise quite a few more. Commissioner Gerstner felt this project comes down to a land use issue, and everything else is a result of the land use issue. He felt that the land use issue that has the greatest impact on the most things is the residence halls. Therefore, at its core, his decision is whether or not the residence halls are an appropriate land use. He would like to make this decision before taking the time to decide the remaining issues associated with the project. Commissioner Knight was also interested to hear more information about the dormitories and their appropriateness in the residential neighborhood. He was also interested in clarification on the student enrollment cap. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed with the comments made by the Commissioners and added that he was very troubled by the dorms. He felt that these proposed dorms would change the character and use of the property dramatically by adding a 24 hour a day, 7 days a week element to the property. He was also concerned with the EIR's statement that the split campus alternative is not a viable alternative because it would have impacts to those outside of this City. He would prefer that the EIR identify the impacts within our City, identify the impacts outside this City, quantify those, and complete the analysis so that the Planning Commission can determine whether or not the split campus is a viable alternative. Finally, he referred to a letter written to staff by Commissioner Tetreault outlining a number of issues raised by Lois Karp in her November 9t" email, asking staff to respond or the consultant address these issues. He joined Commissioner Tetreault in those questions, and would like to see answers to those questions. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 5 Commissioner Tetreault asked staff, if the Planning Commission cannot make the findings to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the project, is it then necessary for the Planning Commission to certify or not certify the EIR. Assistant City Attorney Snow answered that if the Planning Commission decides not to approve any portion of the proposed project then there is no duty to certify the EIR. If, however, the Commission is inclined to approve some portion of the project, there would first have to be an environmental determination. Michael Brophy (President of Marymount College) began by stating there will most likely be many questions relating to the management of the student residence halls, he has advised his staff to take very good notes and when the hearing continues in January the college will be ready to present answers and responses to the questions and concerns. In terms of the process, he reminded the Commission that there is a process in place and asked that the Commission respect that process and uphold the one layed out. He didn't understand the logic of"cutting to the chase" and didn't understand the idea of not considering elements that have been before the Commission. He stated that Marymount is a landowner and this application has been very well studied and he asked that the Planning Commission consider giving the entire application the consideration it deserves and is assured to them by law. Don Davis (Land use and CEQA Counsel for Marymount) explained that when Marymount agreed to proceed with the concurrent processing of the final EIR and the application, it was done so with the understanding that to the extent possible the Commission would review, consider, and generally satisfy itself the legal adequacy of the EIR before delving into the project applications and approvals. He stated that Marymount concurs with the first recommendation in the staff report that the Planning Commission pause for a moment, reflect and deliberate more on the EIR itself before proceeding with all of the application discussions. He stated that the EIR is an informational document regarding the potential effects of the project, and is intended to identify ways to avoid or minimize significant environmental impacts. He did not feel certain issues could be isolated and looked at without considering the whole project. He therefore felt that there should be further discussion on the EIR to make sure the Commission is generally satisfied and agrees with some of the findings and conclusions, as they tie into some of the things that staff has included in their conditions of approval or reasons for denying portions of the project. He questioned if these are supported by the EIR and if there is substantial evidence to support such a determination or would the Commission's determination be arbitrary and capricious because the Commission failed to review or consider the evidence. He reminded the Commission that certifying the EIR is not approving the project, but rather certifying that the EIR is legally adequate and complies with CEQA requirements. He also noted that CEQA requires that the City complete and certify the final EIR within one year of the date the application was deemed complete, which was August 21, 2005. Mr. Davis stated that there are nine key parts to the EIR, one being land use and development planning. He stated that the final EIR has stated that the proposed project Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 6 is fully consistent with the General Plan of the City. In the aesthetic section, he noted the purported finding that the athletic facility and residence halls may create a change in visual character. He pointed out that the Teranea project, which is a much larger project than the Marymount project, had an EIR that was approved by the City with a finding of no significant impact. Regarding traffic and circulation, he noted the EIR finds no project impacts whatsoever, and the only impact noted is a cumulative impact at the Palos Verdes Drive East/ Palos Verdes Drive South intersection. With respect to parking, the EIR concludes there are no parking impacts because they can be mitigated, and in fact, Marymount has already implemented some of the mitigation measures. He discussed the noise issue, noting that the issue is directly related to the residence halls. He noted the final EIR states the residence halls create no daytime noise impact, and he disputes the findings that there is a night time noise impact. He explained that the EIR takes an extreme hypothetical about amplified sound and he disagrees with the hypothetical as well as the conclusion. Regarding geology and soils, he noted there are no unmitigated impacts, and on hydrology he objected to changing the drainage plans as the plans may change. Therefore there is no reason for Marymount to keep changing the grading and drainage plan until final decisions are made, noting that grading plans and the size of a retention basin are really a building department level approval normally not approved in the EIR. He asked that if there are any disagreements or concerns with his comments that he would like to have them brought out tonight so they can be addressed. Finally, he stated that the only other issue to be addressed is the alternatives and the question raised about some of the impacts of the proposed alternatives. He explained that CEQA does not require the same level of detail on these items as the actual project and that it does specify feasible alternatives. He did not think the split campus alternative is feasible, as it does not meet the school's project objectives of a unified campus and the residence halls, athletic facility, and playing fields will not fit on the San Pedro site. He displayed a slide that showed the seven items that Marymount has requested clarification on in the final EIR, with the key request being that the findings regarding aesthetic impact be changed. Mr. Davis also briefly discussed the proposed Conditional Use Permit revision to programs and enrollment, noting that he felt it was better to look at the Conditional Use Permit from a participant aspect rather than programmatic. He explained it is the number of people on campus that creates potential for traffic and parking impacts and not the nature of the program provided. Michael Laughlin (PSOMAS — representing Marymount College) began by discussing land use and relevant planning, and his opinion was that the staff report goes beyond the EIR to discuss how the use possibly may not be accommodated on the site. He disagreed, stating that the property is zoned and designated for Institutional use and has been since City incorporation. The proposed project structures meet all of the setback requirements, exceeds all yard requirements for structures, and that over half of the site will remain undeveloped. He felt that the architect has carefully designed the plans so that the fences, walls, and landscaping are appropriate to preserve views and maintain safety. Lastly, he discussed the finding that the residence halls and athletic facilities cannot be accommodated on the site and how those findings are inconsistent Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 7 with other developments within the City. He discussed the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section regarding parking distances for residential facilities, as well as other City's local codes for parking distances. He showed on a slide the proposed parking for the residence halls, as well as the proposed central walkway. He asked if the Planning Commission would prefer to see more parking or more landscaping on the site. He stated that Marymount is very interested to know the Commission's thoughts on views and aesthetics. He explained that the views of campus from the adjoining properties have been addressed in the EIR and as a result of that the east parking lot has been redesigned and modification made to the lighting. He did not agree with a redesign or further setback of the athletic facility as the slope below the building is only about 6 percent. He stated that the views on the project have been studied extensively over the past several years and are included in the EIR. He showed photos taken from 2742 and 2750 San Ramon Road, as well as 3302 and 3308 Narino Drive, explaining how the new project will affect these properties. He noted that these property owners generally support the proposed project. He discussed the athletic facility noting staff's recommendations to provide a 10 foot setback, lower the roof height, and add articulation of the elevation. He showed renderings of the athletic facility and how he felt there is already articulation of the structure. He also discussed staff's recommendations regarding the lighting plan, showing a lighting plan and explaining the concerns of eliminating lighting in certain areas because of safety. He explained that the lighting proposed is very minimal. He discussed the differences in the staff report regarding parking lot noise as compared to what is discussed in the EIR. He discussed the noise issues and felt that campus noise issues can be addressed through code enforcement and/or through a condition added to the Conditional Use Permit. He discussed the hydrology and water quality and stated that the EIR and CUP should not prematurely foreclose the use of grasscrete in certain parking areas, and the potential should remain subject to the city geologist's approval. He also stated that the size of the detention basins should be determined at the final project approval in Building and Safety. He felt it was pointless to update the plans prior to project approval and any redesign should be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval. Shahin Shahrestani stated he is a former Marymount student and explained how his education at Marymount helped him go on to USC. He explained how, as a foreign student, his drivers license would not allow him to drive without a parent in the car. Therefore, there were many trips taken up and down the hill to get him to school and back. He felt that residence halls on campus will help cut down on the amount of traffic going to and from school. He also felt that the project will give students longer and better access to the library as well as give the students a sense of community. Melika Amini stated she is representing the student body at the college. She discussed her reasons for.choosing Marymount and how this project will provide an opportunity to improve the educational experience of the students while not compromising the quality of life of the surrounding residents. She stated that students are in need of a healthier study environment which is close to the campus and accessible to the students needs. Residence halls will be beneficial to the students on an academic level. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 8 Shane Armstrong (Dean of Students) explained that Marymount students expect the college to deliver a comprehensive experience that meets basic college standards, such as a state of the art library, recreational facilities and residence halls. She stated that Marymount's campus improvement plan is nothing less than what students and their families have come to expect from a quality education. She felt that students have lived harmoniously with the neighbors, and when problems do arise, the college has responded promptly. The college has also opened its doors to the community for a variety of public activities over the past 30 years. She asked that the Planning Commission keep in mind that Marymount College is a religious institution of higher education that continues to serve its community purpose to educate and to offer its resources to the broader community. Lois Karp (CCC/ME) began by stating that staff has given the Planning Commission an EIR which they say is certifiable, however she could not see how this can be said when the hydrology and geology have not been completed and there has been no traffic information. She stated that she does not have answers to the questions she has been asking, and there are vital questions being asked that need to be answered. She briefly discussed the history of Marymount College at this site, noting that the City Council in the 1970's was concerned at the time about placing a college in a fully developed neighborhood. With that in mind, the City Council set three major conditions for the project, and if the project is approved as presented, all of these conditions will be violated. She then discussed comments specific to the staff report, beginning with the project grading. She noted the EIR and staff report both state no export from the site, however the geology report says the bentonite must be separated and exported from the site. She asked where on the property this separation will take place and how the bentonite will be hauled away. She discussed the phasing, stating that 8 years of construction is a burden to the neighborhood. Further, there is a possibility can be extended beyond 8 years. She noted that the phasing schedule in the final EIR was not upgraded or changed from the draft EIR. She stated that the college hours of operation is a big issue, noting that currently Marymount is considered a commuter school. However, bringing 250 students in to live on campus changes the use to a 24 hour operation, and this is a residential neighborhood. She stated that there are several Variances being requested, and she is adamantly opposed to Variances, and did not want building of any kind on any extreme slope. She asked that the Commission deny the parking Variances, and asked that the Commission ask Marymount to be a good neighbor and use their setbacks across the front and not park up to the street. She felt that if there is not enough parking there is always the option of removing some of the buildings on the plan. She asked about the temporary netting, when it will be put up, when it will be taken down, and who will maintain it. She felt that this temporary netting will be an eyesore. Ms. Karp stated that her comments for finding No. 2 will wait until the Traffic and Safety Committee hearing. She discussed finding No. 3, which states there is no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof. She felt this entire project has an adverse effect on all properties in the neighborhood, not just adjacent properties. She agreed with the staff report that the quality of life will be gone for the Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 9 neighbors and that the proposed project will change the operation to a 24/7 operation. She discussed the multiple impacts of the residence halls, stating that it is incompatible to put a high density project into a low density neighborhood. She asked that the prohibition of a commercial use condition be kept in condition No. 9 and that the enrollment be a finite number with monitoring of the enrollment. She asked the Planning Commission to apply the full code requirement for parking spaces of 847 to 972 spaces. Regarding the noise code, she felt his was an unrealistic mitigation measure. She did not think signing a code will silence 250 people living in one area. She stated that the geology and hydrology are very significant topics to the residents and was glad to hear that the Commissioners also had concerns. Regarding the bulk and mass of the project, Ms. Karp felt that the proposed project is much too large for a residential neighborhood of single family residence homes and do not belong in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Karp felt that the living campus alternative that Marymount says won't work is actually what they are doing now and have done for 30 years. She stated that the living campus existing on Palos Verdes Drive North won't change, as students will continue to live there and only 250 students will be living on the main campus. She questioned why the students couldn't all live at the Palos Verdes Drive North campus so that everyone can live in harmony. She didn't think the request to construct the library, the additions to the administration buildings, and other improvements are unusual things to ask for, however she objected to the changes in land use and the high density dorms. She discussed finding No. 4 which states that the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan. She disagreed, stating that the General Plan notes Marymount as a daytime school, the continuous use change is contrary to the low density City, and the overall bulk and mass is contrary to the General Plan. In addition, she noted items not mentioned in the staff report which she felt should be addressed. These items included that the project needs to be bonded for safety and completion; that there should be no manufacturing on site, such as stone cutting; the modulars need individual time permits; and provisions are needed to deal with unnecessary delays and extensions. In conclusion, Ms. Karp summarized by stating that all of the necessary findings cannot be made for the project, the project as presented is inappropriate and overbearing and will ruin the neighborhood, and CCC/ME is requesting the approval of the academic campus/living campus alternative as the best solution., Commissioner Knight noted on page 15 there is a list of key issues, and asked Ms. Karp if that is the total of the questions and responses that CCC/ME would like addressed. Ms. Karp answered that those are the ones that have been generated since September, but there are others. Because the comment period closed and Marymount changed the project, there are questions that were submitted since January 4th that have never been looked at. Therefore, she does not have a definitive list of all of the questions and comments. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 10 George Zugsmith (CCC/ME) began by questioning how Marymount can send out a mass mailing which says that everything concerning the project has been fully mitigated and there are no issues. He noted that in the final EIR and in the staff report, it is stated that traffic issues cannot be mitigated unless the City is willing to contribute to the signalization of Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive and is willing to pay for a reconfiguration of Palos Verdes Drive South at Palos Verdes Drive East. He stated that the staff report suggests there is no mitigation, as there is no money for the City to spend for this work. He requested that the Commission ask the representatives from Marymount about these mailers during the rebuttal period. He stated there is unstable geology that may not be able to be mitigated, and the staff report stated that the detention basin on the south facing slope has problems with drainage and hydrology. Further, both the EIR and staff report state that this project will result in an increase in law enforcement resulting in an increased cost to the City because we're a contract City. He stated that as a resident he is unwilling to spend additional tax dollars to signalize intersections, realign roads, and have additional sheriff's deputies just so Marymount can have dorms and athletic facilities at their site. He also noted that because of the extra signal, students will use Via Colinita to go up and down the hill, rather than Palos Verdes Drive East. He disputed Marymount's claim that there will be no long term visual affect from the project, noting that the EIR and staff report say that the long term visual character cannot be mitigated. He stated that the short term construction noise will create a significant impact, and the long term operational noise will be a significant impact to the community. He asked why Marymount makes these representations to the public when they are not true. Tom Redfield (CCC/ME) stated that eight years ago when the neighbors met with Marymount College regarding this project CCC/ME promised the trustees they would work as hard as they could for them to achieve every key objective for a successful Marymount Junior College. This has not changed, and the only issues are locations of some of the key buildings. He stated that at the CEQA workshop the attorney stated that all viable alternatives must be looked at, and he agreed. He stated that the living campus alternative is a very viable option, as Marymount already has more than enough land and there are already buildings on the site. He stated that this split campus alternative is a major win/win situation for everyone involved and will enable Marymount to achieve all of their goals. He asked the Planning Commission to continue to press staff and the consultants to look at the alternative site plan. Ken Goldman (representing EI Prado HOA) stated that the community has successfully coexisted with Marymount College for many years, however the proposed expansion project which include dormitories, would seriously jeopardize the well being of the community. He was very concerned with the parking and did not think there would be adequate parking on campus for the students living on campus as well as the students driving to the campus for classes. He was also concerned about the additional weekend and night trips generated by the students living on campus. He stated that a living campus on Palos Verdes Drive North already exists, and he felt this campus could be expanded. He agreed that the split campus alternative was the superior alternative. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 11 Marc Harris J2750 San Ramon) felt that Marymount has the unique opportunity to modernize the campus and unite the community. He noted that Marymount has said many times that every month of delay in the project is costing the college a great deal of money. He asked if it was too late to form an advisory committee with the heads of the neighbor associations, architects, higher education consultants, and a financial consultant. He asked if it was too late to remove the on campus housing and focus on the alternative housing already in use. He questioned if Marymount can buy additional housing at a fraction of the cost Marymount would have paid just one year ago. He felt it made smart business sense to look at all of the options available to make Marymount one of the best two year colleges in the State. Greg Mitre (3719 Hightide) disagreed with some of the statements made by Marymount in terms of the dorms. He felt that the decibel level that can come out of dorms can, and probably will, be equal to that of a rock concert. He stated that that type of equipment is easily accessible and bought and used. Regarding the issue of curfew, he noted that he currently is an assistant coach at USC and deals with student athletes on a regular basis. He stated that curfews are very hard to enforce and are usually enforced by resident advisors who are in the dorms themselves. He stated that there is also the issue of visitors and trying to contain the students. He also noted that there are been recent studies regarding college students and under age drinking that should be researched. He stated that he has been witness to numerous accidents on Palos Verdes Drive East involving students, many of which have been preventable. He did not think Marymount's enrollment would be harmed if this project, or portions of this project were to be denied. Becky Clark stated that this expansion project is basically a land use and zoning issue which must be deemed as compatible with the surrounding communities to proceed. She stated that the Commission must balance the benefits to one applicant against the burden to many. She asked that as the Commissioners balance the benefit to a non- resident applicant owner with a welfare property tax exemption versus the harm to the thousands of tax paying residents to remember there is a win-win solution that is on the table. She stated that, while there are other important issues to consider, she felt the primary issue is the incompatibility of the dorms in a residential neighborhood with no buffer to the surrounding homes. She also felt putting living facilities at the Palos Verdes Drive North site would be a win-win situation for everyone involved. She noted Marymount's plan is for the Sophomores to continue to live at the Palos Verdes Drive North site, while the Freshmen will live at the Marymount campus site. In these difficult economic times, she asked what guarantee the neighbors have that Marymount will finish their project, or what guarantee they have that Marymount will be able to obtain the needed bonds for the project. She felt the Planning Commission was well within its power as a planning body to deny the transient housing element in an Institutional zone abutting and surrounding an R1 zone. She discussed a California appellate case involving the City of Long Beach where the courts said the City of Long Beach could stop local Cal State fraternities from using and occupying fraternity houses in an R-4 zone, even though the R-4 zone was zoned for apartment house. She discussed the Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 12 findings made by the court and how this can be applied to the proposed dorms at Marymount College. Before continuing with the public testimony, Vice Chairman Lewis noted that the City Geologist was available to answer any questions from the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Lancaster if there are any outstanding geological issues with the Marymount property. Mr. Lancaster answered that the applicant has covered all necessary items. From a grading standpoint he noted there are issues with export, noting that the soils report recommends the export of any bentonitic clay that is found on the property. He stated, however, that doesn't necessarily mean a home cannot be found for this material on the site. He also noted that there is no way to know at this point how much of this material will be encountered at the site. He explained that bentonitic clay usually adds costs to foundations because of the swell capacity of the soil, but it does not necessarily have to be removed. He felt that this would be an issue left to the applicant to resolve as it is a cost issue to them. He stated that another issue is the drainage issues on the property, and that it needs to be demonstrated that the one proposed detention basin can handle the flow. He noted that it is not a question of designing a system at this time, but rather being able to prove that all of the water that flows into the basin stays in the basin. Commissioner Knight asked if there was an issue in that this basin will be creating a new element because it is retaining water in a site that never has retainined water before. Mr. Lancaster answered that the basin should be lined so that water won't be going into the ground. He noted, however, that this should be addressed and confirmed before approving the system. He stated he was also asked to comment on the grasscrete proposed in the parking lot. He stated that his biggest concern is that once the applicant's proposed system is in place it can no longer be seen and cannot be monitored. He stated that, long term, if there is degradation or if there are issues with constructability when it's built, there could be water going into the area that could possibly adversely impact the South Shores landslide. Further, if it is going to be used as part of the storm drain system to pre-treat the storm water, much more water will be going through the system than normally would. He added that a grasscrete system elsewhere on the property would be beneficial, as long as it was maintained properly. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the area being discussed is currently a permeable surface. Mr. Lancaster answered that it is currently a permeable surface, however when adding grasscrete the area will then have to be watered. He noted that this area in question is not currently watered. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 13 Jan Van Leondred 31033 Hawksmore stated that his engineering background tells him that the hillside above his home is not stable to build on. He also noted hillside areas around the Marymount project that are not stable and have had trouble in the past. He stated that the area cannot support additional water and drainage issues. He stated that water pressure in the area is already low, and adding students in the dorms will decrease the water pressure even more. Ari Requicha stated that approximately a year ago he mailed a letter to the City with several questions regarding this project, and that these questions are still valid today. He briefly discussed traffic, and did not think a fair traffic assessment can be done as there are no similar colleges with which to make a comparison. He felt that the real issue now is the dorms, as the others can be mitigated in some way. He felt that before proceeding, a decision has to be made as to whether or not to allow the dorms at the site. He questioned who will benefit from the dorms, as the City won't benefit and he did not think the students would like living in such an isolated area. Dwight Hanger asked that the Commission look at how the lights on the sides of the dormitories will look at night, as they will be on until 3:00 a.m. In terms of the mitigations, he felt that the mitigations given seem to be very theoretical, not practical, and not enforceable. Carmen Mitre (3719 Hightide) discussed her objections to the proposed dormitories. She stated that the consequences of these dorms cannot be taken back, such as the additional traffic, the additional lights, and the additional noise in the neighborhood. Lisa Vavic stated she moved into this neighborhood for the peace and quiet that she has found. She felt that dormitories in a residential neighborhood are wrong. She stated that when Loyola Marymount wanted to do an expansion to their campus they hired an arbitrator and worked very closely with everyone involved to design something that everyone could live with. She questioned the motives for this proposed expansion and what Marymount is hoping to get out of the expansion and expressed her hope that Marymount would be upfront with the City and community so that everyone could work together to help Marymount achieve their goals. Bob Kollar stated that almost everything he wanted to say has been said. He felt that the process should be expedited by eliminating the dorms so that everyone can work together to help Marymount achieve the goals that will benefit the campus and community. Dan Bernstein stated that many supporters of the Marymount project do not live in the immediate neighborhood, and therefore cannot know the true impact of this proposed project to the quality of life of the neighbors. Petra Schneider voiced her support of the alterative campus. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 14 Mike DiNardo felt that the overriding concern with this project is the proposal for the residence halls. He questioned how a structure placed on the site for eight years can be called "temporary". He agreed with a previous speaker regarding the water pressure in the area and how the new dorms and added students will affect this already low water pressure. He was also concerned with the potential noise from the athletic facilities and the dorms. He did not think that a code of conduct was effective and would work. Pat Carroll stated that the reality of the situation with the dorms is that these students will be making numerous trips daily, and especially on weekends. The students will be going to Starbucks, or to any number of places, and to do so will require traveling on Palos Verdes Drive East in their cars. He stated that Marymount currently has a living campus that is only a 10 minute drive from the main campus and this should continue rather than adding students to the main campus. Clara Duran Reed pointed out that the proposed dormitory is located within a mile and a half of a liquor store. She felt that this, combined with the winding roads at night is a recipe for disaster. She was also concerned with noise, noting that even slight noise in the area is amplified. She stated that there are already some homes in the neighborhood that have students living in them, and there have been complaints of noise from these homes. She asked the Commission to multiply that noise by 250 students. She felt that the dormitories are a violation of neighborhood compatibility because they are a detriment to the neighborhood's safety and to the general welfare. She stated that the plans are not compatible with the neighborhood which is meant for small residential homes. Gary Mattingly stated that if the dorms are approved and built he will be looking out of his home at two large apartment buildings. He was also very concerned with traffic, and felt that one trip per day is unrealistic. He stated there are currently problems with noise coming from the campus, and it will not get any better with the construction of the dorms. Dr. Brophy (in rebuttal) stated that it would be difficult to respond to all of the public comments, however he felt that the college is in general agreement with some of the sentiment heard about the advancement of the college and the well being of the community. He was also in agreement with coming to a closure on the EIR. He stated that it is highly doubtful that everyone will be happy with the Commission's decision and the Commission will either abide by the law or interpret the law. He discussed the history of this project over the past three years and voiced his frustration that a defined list of questions regarding the EIR have not even been formed. He implored the Planning Commission to make a decision regarding the EIR so that the process can move forward. He stated that he and his team have kept track of the questions brought forth at this meeting and in January he will come back with answers to those questions. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff what the EIR says regarding the dormitories. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 15 Principal Planner Mihranian answered that the EIR states the dormitories will create a significant and unavoidable impact in regards to visual character. Assistant City Attorney Snow added that in regards to the project overall the EIR states that there are unmitigatable impacts with respect to traffic and circulation at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive East as well as short term noise impacts resulting from the project's construction. Commissioner Tomblin asked if he could vote to certify the EIR but vote not to approve the proposed dorms. Assistant City Attorney Snow recommended that the Planning Commission proceed and deliberate about the project, come to some sort of a consensus either tonight or at a future meeting, identify what projects the Commission is comfortable with, and then look at the EIR to make sure the projects identified by the Commission have been adequately analyzed in the current EIR. He stated that Appendix A can then be revised and modified so that it accurately describes and explains the project as it is being formulated and how that fits within CEQA requirements in the final EIR. He added that the Commission can take particular issues and conduct straw votes on those components of the project. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the EIR supports the construction of dormitories at Marymount. Assistant City Attorney Snow stated that it is a difficult question for him to answer, as ultimately that is a question for the Planning Commission to weigh. He explained that the project as proposed has three significant unmitigatable impacts and if the Commission were to certify the EIR, in order to approve the project the Commission would also have to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. He explained that this means that the benefits to the community of this project outweigh the negative impacts that have been identified in the EIR. He stated that the Planning Commission will have to consider and weigh whether this project will be more beneficial than the adverse impacts. Commissioner Tetreault suggested that the Commission first look at the aspect of the project that seems to stand out the most, which in this case he felt was the residence halls. He also suggested that the Planning Commission discuss and take a straw vote on the residence halls as to whether or not the Commission concurs with staff's findings regard the residence halls. He then reviewed the areas of the staff report that discuss staff's findings regarding the residence halls. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed, suggesting that each Commissioner voice their opinion regarding the proposed residence halls. Commissioner Tetreault began by stating the residence halls seem to be the prime issue of the entire project. He stated that he concurs with staff's conclusions in the staff Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 16 report, noting that he was not able to make the necessary findings in order to approve the residence halls. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he agrees with Commission Tetreault at this point, but noted that he has not completely made up his mind. He stated that currently he agrees with staff's analysis as outlined on page 25 of the staff report, and cannot make the necessary findings to support the residence halls. Commissioner Knight stated that an issue he has had with the EIR from the beginning was that traffic was only analyzed between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on week days and up to 1 p.m. on Saturdays. He felt this did not at all address one of the larger impacts of the residence halls, which is the after hours use of traffic on Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South. He felt the residence halls would have a tremendous impact on the neighborhood and change the character of the neighborhood. He therefore supported staff's position in terms of the residence halls. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he does not have as much discomfort in regards to the visual impacts of the residence halls as many of the residents. He felt that the appearance of the residence halls could be mitigated. With regards to significant impact to the neighboring properties, irrespective of all of the mitigations listed in the report, he felt that the residence halls will significantly change the character of the neighborhood. He explained that it was no one issue, but a combination of issues that have a cumulative effect that will change the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with the comments of all of the Commissioners, adding that he would support staff's opinions regarding the residence halls. Vice Chairman Lewis felt the next action would be for the Planning Commission to determine if they have enough information to certify the EIR, or if not, to give staff and the consultants specific direction as to any items that still need to be addressed before the Planning Commission can vote to certify the EIR. Commissioner Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Knight that the traffic study may be deficient, as the traffic study done during current hours of operation does not take into account the traffic during the proposed evening hours of operation, and that traffic impact needs to be looked at for the other hours. He added that study should be done on the effects of traffic to Via Colinita, as he is aware that street is used as a shortcut during various times of the day. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the Traffic Commission must first review the traffic impacts of the project, and they are not scheduled to meet until January. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot vote to certify the EIR at this time. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed. However, he wanted to avoid the situation where the Planning Commission has directed staff and/or Marymount to address certain issues, and when they return to with the responses, the Commission gives them three or four Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 17 other issues to deal with. He wanted to attempt to, as a body, develop a comprehensive list of concerns and questions at this meeting. Commissioner Knight referred to the mitigations, specifically TR9, and asked that there be clarification on this mitigation. He felt that clarification was needed with the student cap issue, noting that he did not think the EIR was very clear in its discussion. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he would like to see that the detention basin discussed earlier by the City Geologist be calculated for at least its ability to reach capacity. He was also interested in the numbers for average enrollment versus maximum enrollment as it relates specifically to parking. Commissioner Tomblin stated that the bulk of his questions and issues have to do with the traffic situation. He noted that there is no discussion as to the traffic for the site after 6 p.m. and that there could be a traffic study at the Palos Verdes Drive North site to give an idea of the traffic situation after 6:00. He would also like to see information regarding the possibility of not allowing Freshmen on campus to have a vehicle, and how these students would be transported off of the site if they did not have a car. He would also like to see information regarding the lighting of the dorm rooms at night and if there will be a lighting impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. He also supported Commissioner Knight's comments regarding the need for discussion of a student cap. He felt that the subject of a completion bond should be addressed, especially given the economic times. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if there was a consensus that all of the items discussed can be given to staff with direction for further input. There was no objection from the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that if he had to vote tonight to certify the EIR he would not be able to, as he did not think the EIR sufficiently details the alternative split campus that CCC/ME has proposed. He noted that on page 12-51 of the final EIR a conclusion is presented on the subject, but there is no analysis to support the conclusion. He requested more analysis on this issue or a statement at a later time from the City Attorney that no further analysis is warranted. Assistant City Attorney Snow understood the concern. He explained that the level of analysis of an alternative is not the same degree as is required for the project itself. However, if the Commission feels they would like more information regarding this alternative, it is within their purview to request it. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the applicant has not proposed the alternative as part of their submission and a party suggests an alternative to the project, does CEQA require the alternative be studied. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 18 Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that CEQA requires an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives, but does not require an analysis of every single alternative that can be identified. He stated that this particular alternative was determined to be one in the range of reasonable alternatives. Commissioner Knight did not think the EIR analyzed the parking needs of the gymnasium thoroughly enough, which he felt could have a significant affect on parking. He asked that this be looked at. He also did not think the best management practices for water quality was adequate. He also noted support for an integrated pest management plan. Commissioner Tetreault referred to a question raised during the comment period regarding the youthful drivers and the danger they may present to the community. In response to that, the consultant replied this was pure speculation and did not go into any analysis of it. He questioned that answer, and felt an analysis could be made on the number of accidents by age group. He asked that this be looked at and determine if it is appropriate to respond more pointedly to that request. He also noted that a new issue regarding water pressure in the adjacent neighborhood was brought up at this meeting. He asked if this was something that should be looked at and researched, questioning if this project was going to have the type of water demands that impacts the neighborhood and their water pressure. Don Davis (Marymount) appreciated the Commission's feedback, however he felt some of this additional work will take them back to what they wanted to avoid. He felt that the Commission has made its position clear with respect to the dorms and if the Commission is not inclined to approve the dorms then there is no nexus in regards to some of the items being requested. He felt that a number of the Commission's comments, such as the request to look at lighting in the dorm rooms or additional traffic study at the Palos Verdes Drive North facility, are irrelevant to what's needed to certify the EIR. He stated that Marymount will of course look at the entire list and will meet with staff to discuss the items. Commissioner Tomblin noted that the plans include a residence hall and therefore the EIR must address the residence hall. If the applicant wishes to remove the residence halls from the plans, then requests for additional information in the EIR with respect to the EIR would not be relevant. He also stated that he would withdraw his request for a traffic study at the Palos Verdes Drive North facility. Dr. Brophy stated his frustration in that he felt almost all of the questions raised tonight could have been raised in October 2007. He requested that the Commission put a solid date on when to expect a response to these questions back from staff, and then move on with the rest of the project. Commissioner Tetreault moved that all of the items that have been mentioned by the Commission be submitted to the consultant for response, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 19 Vice Chairman Lewis asked staff their position on a reasonable time frame for a response. Director Rojas stated that staff was considering February 10th to bring the requested information to the Planning Commission. He also proposed to consolidate the information that was to be given at the two meetings in January with the information presented at the February 10th meeting. Mr. Davis requested that the January 27th meeting remain, as he felt there are many issues that need to be discussed and he did not want to see any delays in the process. Principal Planner Mihranian noted that one reason staff was suggesting February was because of the upcoming holidays. He stated that staff was prepared to bring the applications to the Planning Commission and proceed down that path while the answers to the questions regarding the EIR are prepared. The motion to direct staff and the consultant to respond to all of the items mentioned by the Commission was approved, (5-0). Director Rojas noted that the public hearing for this application must be continued to a date certain. He explained that if the Commission wants the information on the Variances and other applications, staff can present that information on January 27th Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to January 27, 2009, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2008 Page 20