Loading...
PC MINS 20090526 Approved July 28, 20, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING May 26, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Chairman Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Assistant City Attorney Dave Snow, Rita Garcia with RBF Consultants, Paul Martin with RBF Consultants, Jim Lancaster from Zeiser Kling Consultants, Principal Planner Mihranian, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved without objection. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas noted that at their upcoming June 2nd meeting the City Council will consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Variance on Seacove Drive. Director Rojas distributed four items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1 and ten letters of correspondence for agenda item No. 2. Commissioner Knight reported that he spoke to Tom Redfield about a meeting with staff and the Chairman regarding agenda item No. 2. Chairman Lewis reported that he met with staff and CCC/ME related to agenda item No. 2 and he also met with the appellant for agenda item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regard ing_nor -agenda items) Jody Rice spoke about the Planning Commission review process and how difficult it is to go through the planning process. Commissioner Ruttenberg objected to allowing this speaker's comments, as he felt that even though the item he is discussing is not on tonight's agenda, the item has been heard by the Commission and is scheduled for a future meeting. He felt that these comments were unfair in that the people on the other side of this item were not able to hear and respond to the comments. He did not think this was an appropriate use of the Commission's time and questioned if in the future there is a way to limit non-agenda items to items that truly are not on the Commission's agenda. Chairman Lewis asked staff to check with the City Attorney on this subject. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of Exotic Animal Permit (Case No. ZON2008-005 5824 Ironwood Street Chairman Lewis disclosed that one of the appellants has an office on the same floor in the same building where he works, however he noted he does not have contact with her and feels comfortable participating in the proceedings. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a history of the application of the Exotic Animal Permit. She stated the staff report contains a full analysis of the permit request, and staff believes the findings and criterion to warrant the approval of the Exotic Animal Permit were made within the Director's discretion and the appellant has introduced no new evidence or facts to warrant a change in the Director's decision. Therefore, staff is recommending the Planning Commission uphold the Director's decision. She had a power point presentation showing several pictures of the property and the animal involved in the permit. Commissioner Knight stated that there is evidence in the staff report that the applicant has other animals, and asked if there was any conflict with this permit in terms of the space needed for the particular animal in this permit or any conflicts that staff can identify by having other animals in addition to the pig. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that her research has shown that these types of pigs tend to get along well with other animals, and there were no other issues that staff was able to identify. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that staff has called this a Vietnamese Potbelly Pig, and asked how staff made that determination. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 2 Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the determination was made by the submittal of two different veterinarian medical charts where the pig was identified as a Vietnamese Potbelly Pig. The identification was also on the contract from the adoption agency that the pig came from. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned why there was not a condition of approval that the pig should be seen by a veterinarian at least once a year. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the contract between the property owner and the adoption agency specifies the pig is to be maintained and seen regularly by a veterinarian. However, the Planning Commission can add such a condition if they so chose. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if there are any other pigs in the City. Associate Planner Mikhail was not aware of any other pigs in the City. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted the various conditions of approval for keeping of the pig and asked staff what would happen if one or more of these conditions is violated. Director Rojas explained that, as with any planning approval, if a condition of approval is violated code enforcement will be notified and a warning letter sent to the applicant. Ultimately, after repeat violations, there can be a revocation hearing before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the Planning Commission has the authority to amend those procedures. Director Rojas answered that the Planning Commission does have that authority. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted allegations that the adoption of this pig did not comply with all of the current County regulations, and asked if this was something the Commission should consider. Director Rojas answered that the adoption procedures are not germane to the findings that have to be made. Commissioner Perestarn asked if the pig is required to have a license through the County, similar to that of a dog. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that she was not aware of the County registration or license requirements for a pig. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 3 Guy Butler (appellant) stated that the swine located directly next door is outside 24/7 to the point that he can no longer enjoy his backyard. He stated he has to endure the sounds, smells, and site of an over-size swine. He stated that this is not a miniature Vietnamese potbelly pig, and his research shows that the pig will continue to gain an undetermined weight for the next several years. He felt the permit process was severely flawed and biased towards the applicant without any objective medical expertise. He noted that the swine was on the property before a permit was granted, allowing him to endure a great nuisance and exposure to infectious diseases. Moreover, from October 2007 through February 2009 no vaccinations, boosters, or medical care is documented. He stated that the initial permit had the swine living indoors at night and outdoors during the day. However, a special addendum had to be issued which circumvented any medical findings of the swine living outdoors 24/7, including exposure to diseased rodents, birds, and drastic weather changes which can invoke sickness in the swine. Adding a dog to the property can also cause stress and sickness to the swine. He stated that an assessment was done comparing this pig to a large dog. He noted that dogs do not carry infectious diseases nor can they transmit infectious diseases. He felt very strongly that his complaints have fallen upon deaf ears and the City has failed him and his family from their livelihood and enjoyment of their household. He stated that he would have never purchased his house knowing there was a swine living next door, and he has feedback from other potential buyers that they would not purchase him home with the swine living next door. He then played a recording of the pig as heard from his backyard. Karen Zafran (appellant) stated she works as a scientific editor and her concerns are regarding the detriment to the public health, safety, and general welfare of her community and her family. She stated that most of her concerns are addressed in the materials that have been given to the Commission and were discussed by Mr. Butler. She felt it is the animal owner's responsibility to prove these concerns are invalid. She was concerned that this pig has had irregular veterinary care and not receiving all of the required vaccinations, and is not taken care of consistently. She stated that pigs carry viruses that move back and forth between species, not just pigs. She discussed the H1 N1 virus, noting that the virus is widespread in the State. She was concerned about those hardest hit by such diseases, and explained she has a small child, there is a neighbor who is HIV positive, and her mother has leukemia which has compromised her immune system. She felt the City is opening itself up to various liability law suits by allowing this species to reside in a residential area with such close proximity to humans. Commissioner Tetreault asked Ms. Zafran if she has found any reports or confirmation that a human in California has been infected by the swine flu through close proximity to a pig. Ms. Zafran answered that the current reports have not indicated that, however the CDC is currently weeks behind in their reporting. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 4 Commissioner Tetreault asked Ms. Zafran if she was aware of any other particular diseases in the United States and if there were any confirmed instances where a human has been infected directly by a pig. Ms. Zafran explained that in the 1930s, 1970s and in 1988 there were confirmed cases of humans being directly infected by pigs. Chairman Lewis stated that the other appellants relayed to him that the applicant has, in the past, thrown fecal matter over the fence and into her backyard, and asked Ms. Zafran if that was true. Ms. Zafran answered that fecal matter has been found in her backyard, and she does not have any pets. Chairman Lewis referred to the recording played by Mr. Butler, and asked if that fairly and accurately sounded like the pig as she hears it from her backyard. Ms. Zafran responded that the noise is much louder from her backyard. Scott Zafran (appellant) felt granting the permit for the pig will be detrimental to the general welfare by decreasing the valuation of properties in the neighborhood. He stated that if the pig were allowed to stay at the Waack residence, homeowners in the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods who decide to put their home up for sale would be required to disclose the fact a pig is living in the vicinity. He felt this would greatly reduce the number of serious buyers who would even look at the property for sale. He asked that the Planning Commission support the appeal and not reduce property values in the neighborhood. Allison Butler (appellant) stated that she and the other appellants have nothing against the pig. She explained that she first became aware of the pig when someone in the neighborhood found it wandering the neighborhood and asked her if it was her pig. Since that time she has noted the pig's smells and odors from her backyard and large black flies are everywhere. She stated there are three criteria that must be shown and proven by the applicant in granting this permit, and she can find no evidence that substantiates those three criteria. She discussed two previous Exotic Animal Permit applications that have been brought before the Commission and explained why these permits were denied by the Commission. She noted that her property is only six feet from the pig and asked the Planning Commission to grant the appeal and revoke the permit. Elizabeth Waack (applicant) felt that the appellants have the right to not want to live next to a pig, however she did not feel the neighbors' health was at risk in any way, and the pig and her dog are very well taken care of. She explained that she takes very good care of her pets, they are well provided for, and they are in no way mistreated. Regarding immunizations, she noted that when she adopted the pig at three months old he received his initial immunizations, and was not due for his next set of shots until the Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 5 next year. Those shots were administered this past February. The pig has had a clean bill of health, and to calm the fears of the neighbors she took the pig back to the vet and had the California Animal Health Food and Safety Laboratory conduct an influenza test, which came back negative. Regarding the use of her property, she explained that on Easter Sunday she hid 100 eggs in the backyard and her children and nieces spent the morning hunting for eggs. She stated that there were no flies, no foul smells, and the children were not stepping in feces. She stated the yard is well kept on a daily basis. She also explained that she works the night shift and sleeps during the day, and if the pig were noisy she would be the first to notice. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked about the incident reported where the pig had escaped into the neighborhood and asked how often the pig has escaped. Ms. Waack stated she only knows of one incident where the pig escaped, and since then she has added another lock to her six-foot gate to keep the pig in. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if there is a time of day where the pig is typically kept outdoors. Ms. Waack answered that the pig is usually outdoors while she is sleeping during the day, however when she is up in the afternoon the sliding door is open and the pig can come in and out as he pleases. She stated the he prefers to spend the majority of the day outside. Commissioner Knight asked where the pig stays during the evening and night hours. Ms. Waack explained that the pig goes to sleep right after his dinner at 6:00, and sleeps outside in his own house. Commissioner Knight asked Ms. Waack if she had any comment on the recording of the pig played by Mr. Butler. Ms. Waack did not think the recording was significant, as she could bring in recordings of dogs barking in the neighborhood. She further explained that the pig will make noises when he is fearful of something or if he is hungry. She stated this noise may go on for a minute or two, but never much longer than that. She stated that the pig goes to bed by 6:00 every night and does not get up again until 6:00 to 6:30 the following morning. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted in the materials he read that a pig may be more aggressive if there is only one pig rather than two pigs, and asked Ms. Waack to comment. Ms. Waack stated her three year old niece as well as her children play with the pig and she is not fearful that the pig would ever be aggressive. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 6 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked how big the pig will get. Ms. Waack explained part of that is how the pig is fed. She feeds her pig a healthy diet and his snacks are high in fiber and low in calories. Therefore, the pig should not become overweight if he is fed well. She also noted that her veterinarian feels the pig is full grown, as he will be two in July. Peter Waack stated he is the grandfather of the owner of the pig, and the pig has a name, which is Carson. He explained his grandson rescued the pig, researched all of the information regarding the pig, and paid for this permit application. He also stated that his grandson has trained the pig and spends quite a bit of time with him. He felt that the pig is very well taken care of and would never be neglected. Elias Flores stated he is the owner of the pig, and before rescuing the pig he did over a year of research. He stated pigs are very clean pets and do not like to be dirty. He also has books that he keeps as resources. Andrea Sanchez states she goes to the applicant's house very frequently. The yard is clean and the pig is well taken care of, and he makes very little noise. When the applicant goes out of town she is usually the one who stays at the house to be-with the animals, so they are not left alone. She stated she has kids, and if she felt her kids were in any danger from the pig, she would not go to the property to visit. Commissioner Knight asked Ms. Sanchez if she has ever noticed any flies or smell on the property. Ms. Sanchez answered that she has not noticed flies or smells and the yard is well kept. She also noted that when visiting the house they spend much of their time in the backyard and the pig makes very little noise. Jennifer Johnson stated she lives across the street from the applicant and that dogs in the neighborhood, including her dog, are louder than the pig. She explained that the one instance when the pig escaped, she had brought the pig home. She did not think the pig is at all viscous or dangerous. Allison Butler (in rebuttal) stated that other neighbors on the street have complained about the pig, as there is a westerly wind that can carry the smell down the street. She also stated that her research has shown the pig will not finish growing until 4 years of age, at which time it can become aggressive. Pig websites also state that dogs should not be left alone with swine due to the fact that dogs are natural predators. Commissioner Perestarn asked staff if they had received phone calls from any other neighbors complaining about the pig. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 7 Associate Planner Mikhail answered that she has not received any phone calls from any other neighbors, noting that she had received comments via email that were included in the staff report. Commissioner Tomblin was concerned about the pig living in a residential neighborhood and the fact that any neighbor selling their home would have to disclose this fact. Because of disclosure he felt there is an impact to home value, which was a concern to him. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they knew whether or not an agent is required to disclose a pig living next door as opposed to a 150 pound dog. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the appellant submitted a statement by a realtor who noted it would be required to disclose the pig, however they could not comment on the valuation issue. Commissioner Knight asked if the Commission is to take the affect of property values into account when making their findings. Director Rojas referred to the second finding which does discuss the material detriment to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of properties contiguous to the site. He stated that was the issue that staff looked at, and while the appellant did submit a statement from a realtor, it did not discuss valuation of the property. Therefore staff did not have any evidence that disclosing the pig would affect property value. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he views his job as following the code, and in looking at the two conditions he has to determine whether or not he can make the findings. In regards to the first finding, he stated that all evidence shows the pig is healthy and he did not think it jeopardizes public safety. He also could make the finding that the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. He noted that he visited the site and the backyard is much larger than he was led to believe, and far larger than the minimum needed by the pig. In regards to the pig being a detriment to the property value, he noted the realtor did not say the pig would lower property values, only that the neighboring pig would have to be disclosed. However, he did have an issue with the finding that discuses the use and enjoyment of the property, noting that he had a concern with the odor and flies, especially on warmer summer days. He suggested that this item be continued so that the Commission has the opportunity to visit the property on a warm day to see if there are flies and/or odor. Commissioner Perestam agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg's comments, however he did not think it was necessary to continue the item. He did not think that the City could do any more to manage the keeping of the pig, and that any complaints would become a code enforcement issue. Commissioner Perestam moved to uphold the Director's decision thereby denying the appeal, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 8 Commissioner Knight stated that he has read the staff report carefully and looked at all of the evidence submitted. He agreed with Commissioners Perestam and Ruttenberg's comments that the animal has been looked at and is healthy and that the lot is adequate in size and shape to support the keeping of the pig. In terms of affecting the neighbors, he heard conflicting testimony, however he did not think that there was enough evidence for him to deny the permit. He stated that there is a process in place, and if it turns out that the pig becomes a nuisance, just as a dog, this license can be revoked. Commissioner Tomblin was concerned that the pig will have an impact on the valuation of the neighboring properties, and therefore could not make the appropriate finding. He therefore could not support granting of the permit, but noted that his decision has no reflection on the owner of the pig. He commended the owner of the pig and the actions he has taken in adopting and caring for the pig. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that, based on the documentation that has been presented to him, he was comfortable that the health of the pig has been adequately established and is not a threat to the community. Regarding the nuisance of the swine, given the conflicting testimony presented he decided to defer to the director and staff and their multiple visits to the property. He therefore could support the motion to deny the appeal. Chairman Lewis stated that he would vote against the motion, explaining that the fact that there is a pig living next door that will have to be disclosed when selling a neighboring home will reduce the property values of adjacent homes. He therefore could not make the findings for finding No. 2. Commissioner Perestarn moved to amend his motion to include a requirement that the applicant provide to the City proof of annual required immunizations and vaccinations, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2009-22 thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision as amended was approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Ruttenberg, Tomblin, and Chairman Lewis dissenting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1 Marymount College facilities lXMsion project (Case No. ZON2003- 00317/Conditional Use Permit o® 9 — Revision 'E'. Grading Permi & Variance): 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioners Ruttenberg and Tetreault recused themselves from this hearing for reasons previously given. Commissioner Perestarn also recused himself from this hearing. He explained that staff goes to great lengths to segment the meetings so that Marymount is the only item on Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 9 the agenda, and since he is recused from the Marymount project he does not attend those meetings. He wanted to make it clear that his absence from the meetings that have only Marymount on the agenda is due to his recusal and not his omission of not attending the meeting. Commissioner Tomblin read into the record a written response to a letter sent by CCC/ME requesting he recuse himself from participating on this hearing item due to his name appearing, without his knowledge or consent, as a supporter of Marymount College. In the letter he states that he does not feel recusal is necessary, as he does not recall expressing support for the college or its projects in writing or otherwise. As he understands the situation, his name appears on a list of project supporters provided to the City by the college at the March 31, 2009 meeting. He does not recall ever agreeing to have his name included on a list of college supporters. Further, he has requested a copy of any documents the college has that they believed justified the inclusion of his name on their list of supporters, and the college has been unable to provide any records or documents explaining why his name appeared on this list. The only explanation he has received from the college is that they included his name because he was on another list compiled in 2001. The College has not supplied any details of the nature of the 2001 list and informed him they have no information on the criteria used to compile that list. To the extent that he has indicated any support for Marymount College in 2001, such support would likely have been only general in nature. Nonetheless, he does not recall signing or authorizing the inclusion of his name on any list at that time or any other time. Most importantly, he does not remember expressing his support for any specific expansion plans, and seriously doubts he would have done so, as he has had an open mind during these proceedings. He also noted that he did not become a member of the Planning Commission until after 2001. He stated that all interested parties can be confident that he will continue to approach this project with an open mind, as he has done throughout the Commission's consideration of the project and he will continue to listen and consider all evidence provided, regardless if it comes from opponents, supporters, or the applicant. Because the college could not provide documentation to justify inclusion of his name on a list of project supporters, he has requited his name be officially removed from any such lists and issue a public apology for including his name on this list without any documented basis or justification. Based on these facts, he does not believe he has to seize participation in the Planning Commission's participation of the project. Chairman Lewis reminded everyone that the Planning Commission's task this evening is not to approve any Resolutions. Rather, the Commission may make some motions and deliberate over project conditions, but the CEQA Resolutions have not been prepared. Because CEQA must be passed first, the Commission is not in a position to vote on any formal resolutions to certify the EIR or approve or not approve the project. Principal Planner Mihranian presented the staff report, explaining the Commission is being asked to review the project revisions prepared by the College, review Appendix A to the final EIR, review the draft Conditions of Approval, review the draft Resolution for the Planning applications, and continue the public hearing to June 9, 2009. He briefly Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 10 highlighted the components of the project revisions that have been prepared by the college, which is explained in the staff report. He explained that the revisions include elimination of the residence halls, revisions to the athletic building, an increase in the setback buffer at the lower tier of the east parking lot, reduction in the total grading, revisions to the drainage plan, and removal of the parking lot grasscrete pavers. He showed several drawings of the original and newly proposed components of the project, and reviewed the differences between the college's proposals and staff's proposals to the lower tier of the east parking lot. In discussing Appendix A, he noted that based on the analysis of the project revisions that were conducted as part of the project EIR, including staff's proposal to the east parking lot, the document concludes there are no new significant environmental impacts and in areas where there were impacts identified, such impacts could be mitigated to a level of less than significant. He added that there was a meeting held this morning with CCC/ME who submitted new concerns that were distributed as late correspondence to the Commission. He briefly highlighted these concerns. Commissioner Knight asked if part of the revised draft Resolution is the result of the college asking that certain things be taken out of the previous draft Resolution. Assistant City Attorney Snow answered that was correct and explained that in certain findings where the Commission was deadlocked in a 2-2 vote the ramification is that the finding is not made. The original drafts of the Resolutions provided some back-up facts that would support the ultimate outcome and did not represent that as the majority thinking of Planning Commission. However, the college has requested that information not be included, as it did not represent the thoughts of the majority of the Commission. He stated that the City Attorney's office is comfortable with that approach as well. Commissioner Knight asked if the Appendix A is a final version or a draft version. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that the transmittal of Appendix A is the final version. Commissioner Knight felt there are details in Appendix A of portions of the project which he did not think the Planning Commission had yet resolved. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that based on direction from the Commission at the April 14 th meeting relative to the Athletic Building, and the buffer area for the lower tier of the east parking lot, an analysis was done for the proposal submitted by the college and the proposal presented by city staff. Commissioner Knight referred back to the proposed buffer for the east parking lot and asked staff to explain how they came up with their recommendation for this buffer. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that staff looked to address the potential impacts to the property at 2750 San Ramon Drive and considered relocating spaces in the area where development is no longer proposed for the residence hall. Staff looked at the Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 11 dimensions for the parking spaces and the number of parking spaces to see if the area within the flat portion of the existing site could accommodate more parking spaces. Based on that, staff developed a plan that moves approximately 41 spaces and increases the buffer area at 2750 San Ramon Drive to approximately 261 feet. Commissioner Knight asked if the traffic study had been revised to account for elimination of the residence halls. Paul Martin explained that the traffic analysis was revised to account for the removal of the residence halls. The trip generation forecasts were also modified. He stated that all of the traffic impacts remain the same and therefore all of the mitigation measures remain the same. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff to explain how taking 250 students off of the campus in a 24/7 situation there could be the same number of cars and trips generated as if the students were living on the campus. Mr. Martin explained that the numbers did change, however the results of the analysis are the same. He explained the method used to forecast the traffic and trip generation, noting that the intersections that were impacted with the inclusion of the residence halls will still be impacted with the elimination of the residence halls and the impacts and mitigation measures remain the same. Commissioner Knight asked why a Statement of Overriding Considerations is still needed with this revised EIR. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that there are still some significant unavoidable impacts related to the project that warrant the Statement of Overriding Consideration. He added that those impacts include the cumulative impact issues at the intersection at Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive East, and short-term construction noise impacts. Michael Brophy (Marymount College) offered his apology to Commissioner Tomblin for mistakenly submitting his name as a supporter of the project. Don Davis (Marymount's land use counsel) began by discussing Appendix A and the letter he submitted to the Planning Commission. In reviewing the document, he finds a general concurrence with the revised findings that the revised project results in no new significant impacts after mitigation, has no significant impacts associated with the revised plans, and does not require any recirculation of the EIR. He stated that the college has spent quite a bit of money on preparation of the final EIR and Appendix A, the City gave the document to an independent consulting firm to provide an independent analysis of the document, and they have come forward with certain findings. He was unhappy and unsettled that City Staff continues to override some of those findings with what he felt were unsupported recommendations based on the facts. In reviewing the mitigation measures, Mr. Davis noted that PSU-1 calls for an annual Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 12 review by the Planning Commission of the campus safety plan. He felt that if there are not residence halls on the campus, that condition seems unnecessary. He noted that there are a number of reviews by the Planning Commission after each phase is completed, and those should be sufficient. In discussing the athletic building, he noted that Appendix A concludes that with the removal of the residence halls from the project and only the athletic facility proposed, there is no significant impact to the visual character of the south facing slopes. Despite this conclusion, City Staff maintains that there is some adverse impacts to properties to the south. He noted that nowhere in the staff report are those affected properties identified and no view simulations are provided. He also noted that he is not aware of any neighbor who objected to the view of the athletic facility alone, and there is no evidence that staff's proposed 10-foot setback would even be perceptible to the unidentified views from the unidentified properties. With respect to view impacts to 3302 Narino Drive, Appendix A finds that the proposed modifications to the roofline of the athletic building proposed by the college, and to the building height will result in no view impairment to the north of the campus, including this property. He explained that the college is in complete agreement with staff that there should be no view impairment to these residences, they just have a different way in asking for a flexible way to achieve the goal. In discussing the eastern parking lot, he noted the draft EI R found that with the college's proposed 50-foot buffer, there was no impact to views or from operational noise. He also noted that all of the homes along San Ramon Drive have had a parking lot adjacent to their homes for over 30 years, and will continue to have a parking lot adjacent to their homes. His objection to the staff's proposal goes back to the question of what is the impact and what is staff trying to mitigate. He also has a legal disagreement with staff over what is considered rough proportionality. He explained that under CEQA one is only authorized to mitigate consistent with constitutional standards. He felt that the setback proposed is more than sufficient and more than mitigates any aesthetic or operational impacts. However, the staff proposal takes a 24,000 open space area that is useable and desirable to the college and shifts it to this corner of the campus next to Mr. Harris' home. He felt this large, flat area will become a place where students will congregate and will become, essentially, an attractive nuisance. In discussing the proposed conditions of approval, he referred to his letter to the Commission. He noted, however, that he has not had an opportunity to review the comments by CCC/ME and was not prepared to respond to those comments. With respect to the project Resolution, Mr. Davis stated he has a slightly different view than that of Assistant City Attorney Snow. He explained it wasn't just a request from Marymount College, but rather it is a legal issue. He stated that under law when there is a tie vote there is no affirmative finding, and it is a non-action. However, to then include a number of prejudicial findings that were not found by the Commission was improper. He stated he has reviewed the revised draft, and felt there are still a number of conditions in the document that he did not think the Commissioners found, and he asked that those who did not make those findings direct staff to strike them. Dr. Brophy stated that the college has issues with the CUP as it relates to the residence halls, and in particular the institutions that Marymount is compared to not being like, Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 13 specifically St. John Fisher, Crestmont College, and the Terranea Resort. He explained his objections to these comparisons, and asked that it be reconsidered. Commissioner Knight noted that it was mentioned that by taking 10 feet off of the athletic building it would lose some functionality. He asked Dr. Brophy to clarify. Dr. Brophy explained that taking away the 10 feet would mean losing approximately 2,600 square feet of area in the facility, taking away some program spaces in the weight room and activity room. Douglas Carstens (representing CCC/ME) began by requesting the draft EIR be re- circulated now that it includes the Appendix A, all of the impacts are now disclosed and understandable, as well as the inclusion of a clear project description. He discussed the CCC/ME's request that Commissioner Tomblin recuse himself from the Marymount hearings based on the fact that his name was included on a list of Marymount supporters, He felt that it was important to have a clear explanation and disclosure as to why there was a perception of support that translated into adding Mr. Tomblin's name to a list of supporters. He still felt there is an appearance of conflict which causes him to renew the request for recusal. Mr. Carstens discussed the inclusion of remedial grading, and objected to the grading for the sake of slope remediation that for 19 years has not been deemed necessary on a stable and safe area. He questioned the need for the remedial grading, and could find no justification in the findings for the remedial grading. He stated that Appendix A discusses traffic and he has found that Appendix A does disclose more severe traffic impacts in terms of numbers. He stated that when the severity of an already severe impact is increased, that is a new impact that requires re- circulation and analysis. That, along with the grading and the differences in this project that CCC/ME identified in their April 10th letter require recirculation of the EIR. He also felt that the traffic impact is still significant and this impact is unmitigated. Therefore, he does require a Statement of Overriding Considerations and for that reason the split campus alternative is feasible. He stated that it has not been shown that the split campus alternative is not a feasible alternative. He urged the Commission to re- circulate the EIR. Lois Karp (CCC/ME) stated CCC/ME would like language added to the CUP that states that all items that were previously in the CUP should be included unless they are deleted. She stated No. 9 and No. 13 are items she specifically wants kept in the CUP. She also stated that it does not say in the CUP that Marymount is a private two year liberal arts college. She requested that the Commission ask staff to add this language into the CUP. Discussing the neighborhood advisory council, she explained that the point is to have people represented from all of the other areas that do not have representation by a HOA, and CCC/ME encompasses all of those people. She stated CCC/ME has been involved with this project for nine years and there should be no question that CCC/ME be part of that advisory committee. She also felt that the advisory committee be the place where neighborhood grievances be heard, rather than having residents pay the City to have a hearing before the Planning Commission. Further, if the advisory committee feels that the grievance is something that should go Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 14 before the City, the fee to do so should be waived. She asked that some type of recommendation be included in the CUP. She discussed the weekend college, and noted that the way the conditions of approval are written there could be weekend college held every weekend, which she felt would be a great increase in the use of the campus and she didn't think this was the intent. She noted there is a condition in the conditions of approval regarding night school being held five nights a week on the campus, which was not in the project description and hasn't been discussed in the changes. Ms. Karp discussed the dangerous roads, especially at night, and noted that Marymount is requesting the library and athletic facility be open until 11:00 p.m. She felt this would allow young drivers to drive at night at their risk and everyone else's. She felt this was totally inappropriate. She did not think the library or athletic facility needed to be open until 11:00 p.m. especially since there will be no dorms on campus and felt this needed reconsideration. She discussed outdoor lighting, and felt that it should be specifically noted that the pool and tennis court should not have lighting. She stated that the eight year phasing is the most important thing, as this project has just been cut back tremendously by not building the dorms. She questioned why the construction time has not been reduced with the elimination of the dorms. It was her understanding that the modular buildings were only going to remain for six years, however the latest documents show them on site for eight years. She stated that the CCC/ME's environmentally superior alternative has been removed, and explained that the alternative did not just include the dorms. She explained that the alternative was an all encompassing alternative that included the athletic facility and a resource center. Just because the dorms have been eliminated on campus she did not think the consideration of the CCC/ME's alternative should be taken away. She stated that there has been discussion from day one that there will be no parking allowed on the street, however there is no mention of that in the conditions of approval. She has been told that is not in the Commission's purview, however she stated that the Commission is a body who can recommend and she felt that it should be recommended that the streets are to be used for student parking. Mark Harris agreed with staffs recommendations for the lower tier east parking lot setback buffer. He noted that Marymount can put this parking area almost anywhere on the campus and asked why they would choose to keep it close to an existing residence. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Harris if the college has met with him regarding the parking lot, and if so, what were the results of that meeting. Mr. Harris answered that there was a meeting, and the results were that Dr. Brophy seemed amenable to removal of the lower tier parking lot and the 80 foot setback, however wanted to wait to see how the removal of the dorms from the project affected the parking count. Petra Schneider stated she has collected signatures from the residents in her neighborhood to see who is in favor of and who is opposed to the Marymount expansion. Of the 32 residents who responded, 28 were opposed to the expansion and 4 were in favor. She stated that she plans to continue speaking to others in the Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 15 neighborhood. She explained that the biggest objection, other than the dorms, is the expanded athletic facility and the soccer field. Craig Whited distributed pictures showing views from his home of accidents that have occurred on Palos Verdes Drive East. He asked that the Commission please consider that fact that the daytime students would be best served if they are back in their dorms and off of the dangerous roads around the campus before dark. He asked that no nighttime activities, other than night school, be permitted on campus after dark. Bruce Kines stated he lives approximately 1/2 mile from the college, is an employee of the college, and is a student at the college. He offered his support to the college and the expansion project. Angie Papadakis stated she believes in education and believes in Marymount and their mission. She stated she is very proud of the college and encouraged the change. She stated her support for the project. Dennis McLeod stated his objection regarding the impact of noise and visual impact of the athletic fields from his residence. He stated he has provided staff with pictures taken from his residence to demonstrate the impact. He did not think the noise issue has been studied in any scientific manner and there is no information regarding noise and visual impact from Corinna Drive in the EI . He felt that the project has changed so much that it is virtually impossible for the residents to understand what the current project is, and it is vital the community understand what the project is and to be able to respond to it. Patricia ®illigan stated she is an avid supporter of Marymount and its powerful impact on the community. Karsten Lemke stated he believes in education, the future, and the efforts of Marymount College. He asked the Commission give Marymount the full support that they deserve. Hans BozIer stated that most of his objections had to do with the dorms, and hoped they would continue to stay out of the picture. Gary Mattingly stated he is a very close neighbor to Marymount and if there are any questions regarding noise, visual blight, or major auto accidents he would be able to answer the questions, as most of it happens in front of his house. He stated he supports the comments of CCC/ME. Bill Dunlap stated he is a parent of a recent Marymount graduate. He felt this project has all of the merits to move forward and felt the Commission has all of the needed information to make a decision. He expressed his support for the project. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 16 Dorian Dunlavey asked the Commission to consider not permitting night classes on the campus, to not permit library hours until 11:00 p.m., and to not allow extra trips to the campus at night. James Gordon stated that the traffic impacts without the dorms are up, as shown in Appendix A. He stated that additional traffic is due to the fact that the college is increasing its facilities by 59,000 square feet. It also has a corollary increase to the parking demand which is not presently recognized in Tables 33 and 34 of Appendix A. He stated that the current table which shows a six car excess of parking over demand is in error and should be replaced, as the parking demand goes up with the new facilities. He felt that condition No. 13 should be included and maintained, and apply 45 spaces minimum as carpooling. Paula Petrotta felt that any part of this project that extends the hours of operation of the college and puts the students on the surrounding dangerous streets at night should be eliminated. Nasrin Madani stated she supports the Marymount improvement plan and asked the Commission to certify the EIR. Melika Amini stated she is a student at Marymount College and asked the Commission to support the improvement plan. She felt that having proper facilities on campus and having access to those facilities is convenient and necessary to the success of the students. Duncan Tooley asked the Commission to approve the revised Marymount project. Marcy Mobin asked that the Commission support the revised Marymount improvement project. Dr. Brophy (in rebuttal) stated there have been far too many unsubstantiated criticisms of the college by CCC/ME for him to generally consider them a constructive partner. He therefore asked the Commission to not include them as part of the neighborhood advisory committee, He felt staff has put forward a reasonable solution in terms of hearing the concerns of neighbors in the immediate neighborhood. In response to the concerned speakers that this project has changed, he explained that this project has changed to respond to every possible question that has been posed. He did not think there was a question on record that the college hasn't tried to respond to. He asked that the Commission not put them in a situation where they are forced to recirculate the EIR and are put into an unending loop. Commissioner Tomblin noted that traditionally there is no public swimming pool on the peninsula that has lighting, noting that none of the high schools have lighting at their outdoor pools. He asked Dr. Brophy if he was satisfied with a condition that the outdoor pool not be lit. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 17 Don Davis stated there is no proposed lighting at the athletic fields and minor lighting around the pool area. He noted that the college would like to have the flexibility to have temporary lighting available for a special event at that area. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that staff can add language that would prohibit lighting at the tennis courts. He clarified that there is lighting around the pool area and the pool is proposed to be open until 10:00 p.m. so there will be a certain degree of lighting to allow the facility to be operable until that time. Chairman Lewis asked Assistant City Attorney Snow if he had any comments in response to comments made by the attorney for CCC/ME. Assistant City Attorney Snow began by stating there was a request for recirculation of the EIR, which he did not feel was necessary. With respect to the project description, he agreed that the project has gone through certain modifications which he felt is the appropriate outcome and CEQA envisions that. Further, many of the revisions made have been in response to issues identified either during the public hearings or through the Environmental Impact Report. With respect to Appendix A, there was a claim that it identifies more severe traffic impacts. He explained that although it may be true that there could be increases in traffic levels, the traffic consultant has stated the traffic impacts will be largely the same. There are also mitigation measures that eliminate or mitigate to a level of less than significant all of the project specific impacts. He then addressed the split campus alternative, explaining it has been included in the environmental analysis as a feasible alternative. However, he explained that staff has determined the split campus alternative is legally infeasible in the sense that this Commission or the City Council can actually adopt that alternative as half of the alternative is in a jurisdiction other than the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. He noted that the end result of that alternative could still be reached by the Commission through the Conditional Use Permit by approving only parts of the project on the Marymount campus. Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Snow what his response is to Mr. Davis' letter regarding the plan to shift 41 parking spots and the requirement to proportionality. Assistant City Attorney Snow felt this goes back to the Conditional Use Permit findings, as there are findings with respect to impacts on neighboring properties. If the Commission believes that a setback as suggested by staff is necessary in order to be able to make those findings, he felt it was within the Commission's discretion. Chairman Lewis suggested the Commission begin by reviewing the items outlined by staff and provide staff with direction, as requested. Vice Chairman Gerstner began by discussing the revisions to the athletic building and the one foot shift to move the building off of the extreme slope and modifying the roof to eliminate the view impact from the residence on Narino Drive. His recollection was that he had commented at past meetings that it was important to protect the view to the Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 18 residents on Marino Drive and he did not know if that meant moving the building one foot or ten feet, only that it should be moved so that the view not be obstructed. He did not remember if the Commission voted on visual impacts on the downslope or voted to move the building ten feet back further than it is right now. He did not think the building caused a significant impact in the location shown (shifted one foot back). He could not say for sure that the ridgeline shown on the plan would definitely preserve the view and would like to see a methodology to ensure the view is preserved. He stated he was not in favor of reducing the building by ten feet, as he did not think it would accomplish much. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with the Vice Chairman's comments. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the Commission voted to move the athletic building back ten feet. Director Rojas noted that the draft minutes, which are prepared from the tape of the meeting, reflect that the motion was made to reduce the building ten feet off the slope and lower it ten feet in height. The motion was approved 3-1 with Vice Chairman Gerstner dissenting. Commissioner Tomblin stated that in that vote he was looking more at the height than at the setback from the slope. Chairman Lewis acknowledged the vote, however the points raised in the college's recent letter about giving them the discretion with the added expense of flagging and possibly having to return to the Commission if there is a dispute accomplishes what he felt the Commission was trying to accomplish. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that his view of the votes taken previously were straw polls in order to give staff direction on what Resolution to return to the Commission for a final review. He therefore felt there was still the ability to modify the Resolutions and consider all options. Commissioner Tomblin moved to accept the college's recommendation that the athletic building be moved back one foot and the ridgeline of the building be reduced from 4 feet to 10 feet, as presented in the renderings, and that prior to receiving a building permit there be a silhouette erected with the goal that there be no significant view impairment of Catalina Island from the primary viewing area of the home on Narino Drive, seconded by Chairman Lewis. Approved, (3-1) with Commission Knight dissenting. Commissioner Knight explained that he still preferred to see the building reduced 10 feet from the slope. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 19 Vice Chairman Gerstner then discussed the proposal to increase the setback buffer by at the lower tier of the east parking lot and the various proposals that have made for the setback. Commissioner Knight asked staff to review their reasoning for their proposed setback for the parking lot. Principal Planner Mihranian explained the staff's proposed setback buffer was designed to minimize the impacts to the property at 2750 San Ramon Drive. He stated that staff looked at the area to see if the proposed parking spaces could be shifted and relocated elsewhere to address the Commission's comments to increase that buffer in order to make the CUP finding. He explained the visual and operational impacts of the close proximity of the parking lot to the residence. Chairman Lewis felt that one of the benefits of not having the residence halls on the property was to allow more room to arrange or rearrange the remaining property elements, and one of the dividends of eliminating the residence halls was to allow the project to be pulled in and make life a little better for the neighbors. He stated that he was inclined to agree with staff's proposal for the parking lot. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that 80 feet is a fairly significant buffer, especially given that all of the other houses along San Ramon Drive have the parking lot within 10 to 15 feet of their homes with the exception of these last two, which have the parking lot 80 feet from their property line. In addition, the parking lot is lower at this location and is capable of being screened with vegetation. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with the Vice Chairman's comments. Commissioner Knight did not think 80 feet was enough of a buffer for the Harris residence, however he wasn't convinced that a 261 foot buffer was necessary, He asked staff if it would be possible to reconfigure some of the parking spaces to make a buffer area somewhere between the two proposals. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that parking spaces could possibly be reconfigured. He pointed out that the college is regrading the entire area in question and lowered 6 to 8 feet from the existing contours. He also noted that there is a condition of approval that parking in the lower tier of the eastern parking lot shall be prohibited between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he has no problem approving a parking lot where there is no parking between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. that has a proposed 80 foot buffer to the neighboring property line Chairman Lewis stated that the fact the parking lot is closed from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. was something that was lost to him earlier, and with this closure he can support the college's proposal. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 20 Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he, Chairman Lewis, and Commissioner Tomblin feel that the 80 foot buffer is adequate provided the parking lot is closed to parking from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 am., however Commissioner Knight feels a greater buffer is necessary. The Commission then discussed the proposed remedial grading. Commissioner Knight asked the City Geologist if he felt there was a geological necessity and if he felt the proposed remedial grading was appropriate. Jim Lancaster (City Geologist/Zeiser Kling Consultants) explained that remedial grading is the grading needed to make something stable, based on the plan proposed. He briefly discussed the proposed remedial grading and stated that the remedial grading is necessary to support the fills and the structures that will be placed on the fill. He stated that the proposed remedial grading appears to be reasonable and prudent. He added that if the Planning Commission wanted the college to redesign and pull things back and raise grades, much of the grading on the slope could be eliminated. However, doing so would require a very substantial change in the plan that is shown. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Lancaster his opinion on removal of the bentonite from the property. Mr. Lancaster explained that the college's consultant has recommended that any bentonitic clay that is found be removed from site. Commissioner Knight recalled a discussion that the bentonite could be relocated on the site in non-structural areas. Mr. Lancaster stated that is suitable as well, provided it be placed a minimum of five feet below grade and nowhere where a structure is to be placed. Principal Planner Mihranian noted that the grading permit conditions do not allow for any export or import, therefore if any bentonite is found it will have to be redistributed on site in areas where no development is occurring, as discussed by the city geologist. Commissioner Knight asked if there will be records kept of where the bentonite is placed so that if any future development is planned there is a record of where that bentonite has been placed. Mr. Lancaster answered that can be done as part of the conditions of approval, noting that geologists on site can make note of the sites the bentonite was placed and be included in the as-built report. He noted that the bentonite being discussed is seams of bentonite that are most likely not that prevalent. He noted the bentonite only showed up a few times in the borings and many of them were deep in the bedrock. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 21 Chairman Lewis suggested the Planning Commission direct staff to add the tracking of the placement of the bentonite as a condition of approval of the grading permit. Vice Chairman Gerstner supported the suggestion, however he was concerned that not knowing how much bentonite there is on the site, he was uncomfortable saying that the college must bury it on site. He was concerned that this may cause the college a substantial amount of additional grading. Chairman Lewis agreed and suggested that the condition may be expanded that if the applicant finds a substantial amount of bentonite that there be the flexibility to be able to go to the Planning Department to request it be exported. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that staff can work with the applicant to modify condition No. 66, which already requires a certified as-built grading plan. He explained that language can be added that specifies that as part of the as-built plan they identify where the bentonite has been located. He also noted that the EIR analysis and the conditions of approval are based on balanced grading with no import or export. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed, however he noted that the reality of construction is that, even on balanced sites, certain materials must be hauled off of the site. He noted that materials that can stay on site must stay. Director Rojas clarified that balanced cut and fill means that all materials, even the large rocks, have to stay on the site. He noted that there have been projects where the applicant has asked that the large rocks be exported and the City has not allowed it. He added that it also depends on the quantity of export proposed. Vice Chairman Gerstner suggested that the distribution of bentonite on the site be tracked, and if the college runs into a large quantity of bentonite that needs to be removed from the site they can approach the City to request a modification to their CUP in order to export it from the site. Assistant City Attorney Snow added that the EIR assumed a balanced grading project, however certain exceptions were noted. He felt that there is clearly disclosure of construction related traffic and truck traffic, and in the event that there is some export that is small enough, arguably that is covered in the scope of the overall construction traffic. Mr. Lancaster highly doubted there was going to be that much bentonite found at the site. At the same time, he noted that even 1,000 cubic yards would most likely generate an additional 100 truck loads of export. He added that he did not believe 1,000 cubic yards of bentonite would be found. The Commission agreed to direct staff to add language that the bentonite on the site be tracked. Additionally, if the college found during construction that there is more bentonite than anticipated, they will need to request an amendment to their CUP. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 22 The Commission then discussed Appendix A, specifically the chart on page 341. Vice Chairman Gerstner referred to AES-6 noting the language states that the light bollards are not to exceed 42 inches in height. He did not see how that would work, however if staff and the college felt it could be accomplished. He noted the requested changes had been made to AES-8 and TR-1. Commissioner Knight asked staff to ensure the language that construction related trucks not be allowed to idle before the construction hours specified be included in the language. Vice Chairman Gerstner continued, noting the requested changes made to TR-2 and TR-3. With regards to TR-3, he questioned the language stating the applicant is to coordinate with separate agencies. He questioned what will happen if the City of Los Angeles or Cal Trans refuses to let the college restripe the intersection, yet this is a mitigation required by the City. Principal Planner Mihranian clarified that these improvements are all within the City's jurisdiction and any coordination with the City of Los Angeles and Cal Trans is more of a courtesy. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if that meant that the City of Los Angeles and Cal Trans then has no authority to deny this, only that they need to informed of the work that will be taking place. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that was correct. Paul Martin (RBF Consultants) added that this language was intended to be a courtesy to the other jurisdictions to ensure they had no issues with the work. He explained that he has had discussions with City staff to ensure this is approvable, and Public Works indicated that this measure is something they believe is feasible with the other jurisdictions, that there is a good relationship with these jurisdictions, and they anticipate no problems. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked what will happen if the work cannot be done because of refusal or issues with one or both of the other agencies. Assistant City Attorney Snow stated that it was his understanding that the City has the authority to undertake the proposed improvements in this area, however it should be verified that is the case. He explained that if the agencies request the project be modified in any unsubstantial way and the intent of the mitigation measure is met, there should be no problem. If Cal Trans or the City of Los Angeles has some sort of veto authority over this area, and that occurs, this mitigation measure would not be implemented there could be a significant unavoidable impact. Assuming they do have that authority, the mitigation measure should be required but acknowledged that it may Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 23 or may not be fully implementable because of the other agencies that have jurisdiction. It would then be a new significant unmitigated impact and would then require the adoption of a statement of overriding consideration. He stated again that he would seek confirmation from Public Works that the City of Los Angeles and Cal Trans has no authority to deny the work being proposed in the intersection. Vice Chairman Gerstner continued reviewing the changes to TR-6, AQ-1, and AQ-3. In AQ-3 he suggested that "construction contract" be changed to "contract documents", that "standard specifications" be struck, and that "to be carried out by the applicant construction manager" be struck. The Commission agreed. Vice Chairman Gerstner continued the review of changes with AQ-5, NO1-2, NOI-3, and NOI-4. In regards to NOI-5, he felt that language should be inserted that that specifies that the noise is being reviewed as it relates to neighbors or potential noise impacts off site. He noted the changes made to GEC -1 and GEO-2, and questioned added language in GE®-2. He asked staff to review this added language and explain why it was added and pointed out areas of concern. He continued with HYD-1, and asked for further clarification as to the statement that the diversion area not impacting the storm drains. He felt that more or less water in the storm drains will impact the storm drains, and questioned if the wording should be "exceeds capacity of the storm drains". Rita Garcia (RBF Consultants) stated she would request further clarification from the consulting hydrologist. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted requested changes be made to HYD-2, HYD-3, and PSU-4. Chairman Lewis noted that the College had requested elimination of the annual review of their security program, and noted PSU-1 requires an annual review of the school's annual security program. With the elimination of the residence halls from the project, he would be in favor of eliminating the language requiring an annual review of the security program. The other Commissioner's agreed. Chairman Lewis noted that in PSU-6 there is a reference to the residence halls that should be eliminated. Chairman Lewis stated that the next task was to review the conditions of approval, however given the late hour he did not feel it was prudent to begin this task. The Commission agreed, noting that they felt there was still work to be done by staff on these conditions of approval to ensure the record is clear and there are no misunderstandings. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to June 9, 20099 seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved without objection. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 24 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Minutes of March 31, 2009 Automatically continued to 6/9/09 4. Minutes of April 14 22009 Automatically continued to 6/9/09 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda forte meeting of June 9. 2009 No discussion ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2009 Page 25