Loading...
PC MINS 20090414 Approved July 28, 009 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 14, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:12 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: Commissioner Perestarn was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Principal Planner Mihranian, and Assistant City Attorney Snow. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed 19 items of correspondence regarding agenda item No. 1. Chairman Lewis, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Commissioners Knight and Tomblin reported that they spoke with representatives of the applicant for agenda item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non:ggenda !Lemsh None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. MarymountCollege Facilities Expansion Project Igase,No. ZON231 Conditional Use Permit o® 9-Revision 'E', Gradinq Permit and Variance: 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioners Ruttenberg and Tetreault stated that for reasons previously disclosed they would recuse themselves from this matter, and left the dais. Principal Planner Mihranian presented the staff report, summarizing the staff recommendations for the Commission's consideration. This included providing staff with direction on project issues for the various applications, providing staff with direction on the preparation of the Resolutions, and to continue the public hearing to May 26th. He reviewed some of the major components of the proposed project and key issues as identified in the staff report in terms of the Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Variance Permit, and Minor Exception Permit applications. He also showed several slides to help demonstrate these key issues. He also showed several slides of the athletic field net mock-up taken from several key areas. He then referred to the Tables that were previously provided regarding the various findings for the four applications. He explained that the Table breaks down the required findings for each of the applications and whether or not staff was able to make the finding. Commissioner Knight referred to the parking management plan and the list of options that are offered for parking mitigation. He asked if these options are to be given to the college to choose the options they want to pursue or does the Planning Commission direct the College as to the most suitable options. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that if the Commission felt there was a particular mix of measures that would mitigate the impact they could mandate those measures. The approach that staff and the environmental consultant took was that there are a series of different ways that could be combined in order to mitigate the impact and ensure that there would be adequate parking on site, and the idea was to leave the flexibility to the applicant but require the applicant to demonstrate compliance on a period basis to make sure the mitigate was effective. Chairman Lewis questioned, if the college is left to choose the mitigation measures for parking, how it would be shown that demand has been reduced by 23 percent and how, if necessary, would the neighbors show that compliance has not been achieved. He did not know how a 23 percent reduction is objective enough that several people can all agree as to whether or not compliance did or did not occur. Principal Planner Mihranian felt the best way to assess the effectiveness of this Mitigation measure would be the overflow parking into the street. If parked cars are beginning to show up in the neighboring streets that is a signal to staff that something is not being done correctly in terms of the parking mitigation. Commissioner Knight questioned the FLS program at Marymount College, how it works, and if they are required to have a Special Use Permit. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that based on previous discussions on this issue he would say it is considered a non-traditional degree program. He noted that in the staff report, staff requested that the college provide definitions for full and part-time Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 2 students and what a traditional degree program is and what a non-traditional degree program is. Staff would like to incorporate those definitions into the conditions. Commissioner Knight discussed the student caps set forth in the staff report, noting the increase for the weekend cap from 83 to 150. He asked staff if they anticipated any impacts based on this weekend student cap increase. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that the 83 student cap was established for the traffic study based on enrollment in 2005 and if the Commission increases the cap to 150 students, staff would want to ensure that it does not result in intensification of traffic impacts currently studied. One way to ensure this is to require the College do some additional counts during those periods to ensure that upper limits aren't being pushed in terms of what was studied in the EIR. Commissioner Knight referred to the parking on the east side, noting there are two segments. One is referred to as adjacent to San Ramon residents and the other referred to as the east parking lot. He felt it would be a good idea to articulate what the two areas are. Principal Planner Mihranian displayed a map and explained the San Ramon parking area are the parking spaces adjacent to the privacy wall between the college and the homes abutting the college. He stated that the reference to the east parking lot is specific to two properties located at 2742 and 2750 San Ramon Drive. Commissioner Knight referred to a December 2008 letter from the DiNardo's on Vista Del Mar, which addressed their concerns that the grading plans show drainage onto their property. He asked if this concern had been addressed. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that this issue has been addressed through the mitigation measures, explaining that the water will be drained to a catch basin and be diverted to the detention basin. Dr. Michael Brophy (Marymount College) stated he joins the staff in asking the Planning Commission give direction to the staff regarding the various applications. He hoped that Marymount has been a good neighbor and good citizens over the past several years in answering questions and accommodating requests from city staff and the Planning Commission. He hoped that the Commission makes its decision based on fact rather than conjecture. He stated that Marymount staff and members of the entitlement team are present and available to give the Commission and staff any feedback necessary as he wished to make as many decisions as possible at this meeting. Don Davis (Attorney representing Marymount) began with a discussion of what he felt were still open issues with the Planning Commission. This included approval of the residence halls in the manner and locations proposed by the college and adoption of conditions of approval with minor revisions and additions. He discussed the grading issues and the extreme slope and explained that when the college purchased the Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 3 property there were no extreme slopes in the areas currently proposed for construction of residence halls, and natural grade is not an extreme slope. He stated that these slopes are made of man-made fill and not adequately stable, and both the College's geologist and the City Geologist have recommended the removal and recompaction of the man-made fill. Therefore, in the absence of any extreme slopes at the time of actual construction of the residence halls, the Commission may find that an extreme slope variance is not required. However, given there is a Variance application before the Commission, he felt that the necessary findings can be made in a positive manner. He discussed visual character, comparing this project to the recently approved St. John Fisher project and others in the City. He stated this project is seeking to create a centralized campus, restore the natural slope contours, and provide a greater buffer between campus facilities and adjacent residences and streets. He discussed the issues involved with the Variance such as the distance to parking and other issues, feeling that the outstanding issues are minor and the findings clearly can be made. In discussing the Conditional Use Permit, he stated that findings can be made in the affirmative for the residence halls, east parking lot, and athletic field, and noted that the conditions of approval will minimize outstanding impacts. He discussed the athletic facility and did not feel there needs to be a condition as specific as 10 feet, as the college clearly intends to eliminate any view impacts to the home at 3302 Narino Drive, and was not sure that 10 feet was an absolute necessity. Regarding the use of the campus by outside groups, he stated a Special Use Permit will be needed and suggested there be some type of minimal number of participants. With the issue of landscaping adjacent to San Ramon Drive, he noted concern that there is enough space to build walls and landscape, and therefore it is more appropriate to landscape only. He stated that he disagrees with the interpretation by staff that the geologist recommended against grasscrete pavers and would like grasscrete pavers to remain an option subject to the City Geologist's approval. Regarding parking on San Ramon Drive, he stated that it was always the College's intent to enforce evening hour restrictions and staff restrictions and has also proposed partial closing of the easterly lot in the evenings. He stated that the tree removal on the south slope is a new issued, but would defer to the City's decision on that issue. He disagreed with the suggestion that ambient lighting be prohibited, as he felt special events might warrant the lighting. He felt the exterior stone on the residence halls for noise attenuation was a bit of an overkill and would be very expensive to install. Commissioner Knight asked who would be responsible for operating the athletic field net. Mr. Davis answered that would be the responsibility of the Athletic Director of the faculty running the program needing the net. Chairman Lewis asked if request for construction phasing is contingent on the construction of the residence halls, and if the residence halls are not approved would the project still need to be phased. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 4 Mr. Davis answered that phase 3 is for the residence halls, and therefore phases 1 and 2 would still be necessary. Amy Minteer (attorney representing CCC/ME) stated she would like to summarize issues she felt were most important to the Commission's decision on the project. She began by stating that the first issue is the actual certification of the EIR for the project. She stated that certifying the EIR certifies that the EIR adequately and accurately analyzes all of the impacts for the expansion project as it is proposed in the EIR, regardless of what project is actually approved. She stated that because the EIR finds the expansion project to be consistent with the General Plan, by certifying the EIR the Commission would be certifying that building residence halls and the athletic facilities on an extreme slope and operating them on the campus is consistent with all policies in the General Plan. She felt this would contradict the findings for a Variance, and noted in the staff report the statement that the construction of the residence halls and athletic facility on the extreme slope, as well as the 450 foot distance between the residence halls and parking lot would be contrary to the General Plan's Institutional Activity Policy No. 6. The staff report also found building on an extreme slope to be contrary to Residential Policy No. 11, which requires the City to control the alteration of natural terrain. She stated her letter submitted to the City also points out several other General Plan policies that this project is not consistent with when the residence halls and athletic facilities are included. Additionally, certifying the EIR would be certifying the residence halls and athletic facilities would not have a significant noise impact on the surrounding community, that the project would have a significant traffic impact at only one intersection, that the college will be able to significantly reduce the parking demand, that construction on an extreme slope will have less than significant geotechnical impacts, and that the project will not significantly increase the need for public services, She stated that members of CCC/ME and others have submitted a substantial amount of evidence to show why these findings cannot be made for a project that includes the residence halls and athletic facility. She suggested that if the Commission were to certify the EIR that it be specified in the Resolution certifying the EIR that it does not certify the EIR as it pertains to the residence halls and athletic facilities. Ms. Minteer stated that if the Commission moves forward with the expansion project as it has been proposed, that the EIR be recirculated, as is required by CEQA. She stated that recirculation of the EIR is required if significant new information is added to the EIR prior to certification. She explained that significant new information includes any substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that was identified after the draft EIR was circulated, even if mitigation measures could be included to reduce that impact. She stated that Appendix A acknowledges that the project changes proposed in the final EIR could result in greater aesthetic, geological, and hydrological impacts. She also addressed the findings necessary to approve a statement of overriding consideration. She stated that in order to do so, the Commission would not just be weighing the project benefits versus the project impacts. In order to adopt a statement of overriding consideration the Commission must be able to find that there are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that will reduce the project's significant impacts. She did not think these findings could be made, as the split campus Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 5 alternative discussed in the EIR is a feasible alternative that reduces the aesthetic impacts of the project. Additionally, reducing the residence halls from the project would also reduce the aesthetic impacts. Ms. Minteer addressed the planning applications required for the project. She noted that the Municipal Code prohibits the expansion of any non-conforming use. She stated that if an inadequate number of parking spaces are provided at a project site then the buildings and structures on the site are considered to be a non-conforming use and no physical change, enlargement, extension, or reduction which increases the degree or extent of the non-conforming use can be allowed. She stated that Marymount currently fails to comply with the City's parking requirements and the proposed project would significantly increase the parking deficit. This expansion is a non-conforming use and thus should not be allowed. She noted that specific findings must also be made to approve the requested Variance, and that the Commission must find that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. She did not think this finding can be made. She also did not believe the findings that the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right can be made. She stated that in order to approve a revision to the CUP specific findings must be made. She did not believe many of the required findings could be made, including the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, that there will no significant adverse affects on adjacent property, and that the proposed use is contrary to the General Plan. For this and other reasons identified in the comment letters submitted to the City, CCC/ME requests the on-site residence halls and athletic facility be eliminated from any project approvals. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify Appendix A and the need for re-circulation. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that Appendix A is designed to tie everything together at the end of this process when it is understood what, if anything, the Commission is willing to approve. Appendix A will explain how the environmental analysis adequately addresses what the Commission is willing to move forward. If changes were made that result in an increase in severity of an impact, or some other trigger for re-circulation, re-circulation will be addressed. Ms. Minteer stated that if there are changes to the project that would increase the severity of impacts, she believes re-circulation would be required, even if mitigation measures are proposed, so that the public has an opportunity to comment on whether those mitigation measures would be adequate. Chairman Lewis asked, if the Commission were to find that the split campus alternative was superior and feasible, wouldn't that be grounds for denying the project rather than becoming an obstacle to certifying the EIR. He also asked if a vote to certify the EIR is an equivalent of a finding by the Commission that every aspect of the proposed project is fully consistent with the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 6 Assistant City Attorney Snow answered that if the Commission finds the split campus alternative is feasible, it would be grounds for denying the project. He also stated that voting to certify the EIR is not the equivalent of a finding that every aspect of the proposed project is fully consistent with the General Plan. Ms. Minteer added that the certification of the EIR is separate from the Statement of Overriding Consideration. She stated that the Commission can certify the EIR but the Commission could not use the Statement of Overriding Consideration to approve the proposed project if the split campus alternative is a feasible alternative. On the General Plan inconsistency issue, as it is set out now the final EIR states that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, by certifying the EIR the Commission would be certifying that it is accurate and consistent with the General Plan. Assistant City Attorney Snow clarified that the speaker is implying that by certifying the EIR that reaches a conclusion of consistency with the General Plan, that means the project is consistent with every single policy in a General Plan, which is not the standard for General Plan consistency. Commissioner Knight noted the speaker's statement that since there is an alternative that may be feasible that there cannot be a Statement of Overriding Considerations used. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that CEQA requires that if there is a means to reduce the impact, that must be explored first before going immediately to a Statement of Overriding Considerations. He also explained that a determination must be made as to whether the alternative is actually feasible or not. Jim Gordon (CCC/ME) stated that it is his contention that the proposed project does not fulfill the basic requirements for approval upon which the previous CUP decisions were made. These include a number of very significant factors such as a 24/7 campus operation, there is a feasible alternative available, the safety hazards that have been documented, and the traffic increase. He referred to his February 20, 2009 letter to staff regarding the setback findings that he disputed based on evidence, and hoped the Commission took those objections to heart. He also felt the parking demand mitigation is very questionable, noting there is no documentation for the various charts presented showing the number of parked cars. He had concerns with the hydrology and geology issues and also questioned the phasing exhibit which he felt is incomplete and not able to provide for any reasonable estimate of time. He discussed student seats, and noted there is no provision in the Code that discusses classroom student seats. He stated the Code talks about every 5 student seats only. He discussed traffic and circulation data in the report, noting specific data that was not included. Jack Karp asked if having 250 students living in a residential neighborhood makes any sense and if they belong there. He did not think they do. He also questioned the parking and asked what will happen if Marymount isn't there. He asked what would happen if the area became another high school. He stated there would not be nearly Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 7 enough parking available and the kids would be bussed or dropped off by their parents. He stated Marymount has already had one campus they have given up to the Salvation Army, the enrollment at Marymount is down, and they have no financial ability to perform. He felt this is nothing more than a scheme to sell the property to another user and the other user will not have the benefit of using the Marymount campus on Palos Verdes Drive North. He felt that the City would be creating functionally obsolete building that is under-parked. Ken Goldman showed a slide which represented the 441 disciplinary violations committed off campus over a three year period by the Marymount students living at the Palos Verdes Drive North campus. He noted that at the February 10, 2009 response that RBF Consultants admitted that this data was inadvertently omitted from the final EIR. He explained that these violations were committed off campus in the surrounding community, and averaged one every other day during the school season. He felt that this data documents that Marymount cannot control the behavior of their students off campus. He stated these violations would occur in the RPV community surrounding the campus if students are permitted to live on campus. He felt that mitigation is required of this significant impact by not allowing residence halls on the Marymount campus. Bob Kollar stated that he cannot compete with the misinformation campaign that Marymount has funded. He felt that Marymount is closing in on forever changing the quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods and bring a 24/7 campus to what he felt was one of the last tranquil areas in the City. David Shirley stated he opposes the project in its current scope. He felt this is a land use issue and has a lot of relevance to how neighborhood visual character is maintained. He questioned why Marymount is being held to a substantially lower standard in terms of neighborhood visual compatibility than the citizens of the community. He felt the Marymount proposal is an egregious assault on the visual character of the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that the City has benefited from its policies in terms of maintaining visual character in neighborhoods and questioned why they would want to change that policy so dramatically for this project. Mary Ann Dillin stated that Marymount was intended to be a day use campus and they are now proposing to be a 24/7 campus. She stated she does not object to the remodel and upgrade of the campus but is opposed to the dorms and athletic field proposals. Ali Reguicha did not think the Planning Commission was aware of the degree of opposition that exists among the people who live in the neighborhood. He presented a letter to the Commission signed by 157 residents of the immediate neighborhood of the college who oppose the project. Mike DeNardo stated he is opposed to the project, and felt the overriding issue is the residence hails and their significant adverse impact on the neighboring residents. He stated he had never heard the crime statistics presented earlier, and if they are true that is a huge concern to anyone like himself whose property borders the campus. He Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 8 stated that the existing nets on the athletic fields are currently not being maintained, and questioned how Marymount can make the statement that the new netting will be maintained. Marc Harris stated he owns a property that will be drastically affected by a parking lot that is proposed to be in operation until midnight, seven days a week. He stated that a mitigating measure suggested limiting the parking in this lot to daytime only. He felt this was a thoughtful gesture, but not enough. He explained that this parking lot is five feet from several property lines, separated by shrubbery. He stated that, should the residence hall proposal be denied, he would like to see the eastern parking lot moved to where the dorms are currently planned. He also noted that, as proposed, one way road access direction on the lower parking lot access road is not indicated. If the cars are coming towards San Ramon Drive, the headlights will be a significant issue. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Harris what mitigation measures could be put in place if the parking lot were to be used for daytime parking only. Mr. Harris stated that daytime parking will have a huge impact. He felt that anything else put there with the proper setbacks will have less impact than a parking lot. Petra Schneider stated she agrees with all of the comments made in opposition to the project. She also called many residents in her HOA and found that 3 out of 4 people she spoke to on the phone are opposed to the project. Karsten Lemke stated he is a neighbor of Marymount College and is in favor of the project. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the expansion project as presented by Marymount College. Michael Moody stated there are three factors in play: the facts, the law, and fiction. In discussing what he considered to be fiction, he felt that traffic issues could be considered fiction. He explained that currently 250 kids go up the hill in the morning and down the hill at night, If 250 kids are transplanted to campus dorms, how will there be double or triple the amount of traffic. Regarding noise, he noted that currently he is speaking at about 20 dbs. Sound degrades at a very predictable rate and by the time conversations move 100 to 150 feet off campus they will be less than a whisper. Finally, he addressed the issue of crime and he felt it would be a great disservice to the students to have any of the fictional items to be involved in the Commission's decisions. Janet Thrall stated she is the parent of a Marymount College graduate. She discussed the two years her daughter lived in the dorms and how it taught her respect for others and other aspects of a value-based education. She discussed her four years at UCLA which borders very lavish and expensive homes. She stated that none of these neighborhoods were devalued because of their proximity to the campus. She could not recall one incident with students or neighbors regarding noise or unbecoming behavior. She noted that at Marymount character development is a central component of the Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 9 mission statement, the vision, and the core values of the campus. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the plans in full. Brian Marcotte felt that educational institutions of the communities should be a focal point of the community. He acknowledged that the issues being raised are of concern, however he felt the work being done by staff is extremely well founded and the mitigation factors have been very well put forward. He recommended the EIR be approved and the expansion and improvement plans for the college proceed as proposed. Timothy Psomas felt the residential component of the proposal is critical to mission of Marymount College, which is to promote the development of the whole person. He stated that parents have said they want their children to live on campus and the Board of Trustees, faculty, and administration are committed to maintaining high academic as well as social standards and expectations of the students. He hoped the Commission will see the vital importance of the residential nature that is being proposed for the expansion program on the campus. Don Reeves (statement read by Greg Noleski) discussed the character of the Marymount students, which he felt has been maligned both publically and privately. He discussed his work with student volunteers through the Rotary Club and the work these students have done to help those in need. He stated that rather than be criticized they should be thanked for their humanitarian work ethic and be allowed to enjoy the full college experience as proposed by the College. Martha Gallegos stated she is in support of Marymount College proposal plan. Richard Grotz stated that as a Trustee, he can say there is no plan to sell Marymount College. He stated the major purpose of this improvement plan is to provide a better campus so that the students will have a better learning facility and will increase the number of students who come to school. Angie Papadakis stated change is inevitable. She stated she enjoys having Marymount College in this City and what the school is doing for the youth is wonderful. She stated she strongly supports the college and their expansion project. Dennis McLeod discussed noise, stating he can hear conversations from the current Marymount parking lot while standing in his backyard. He stated that no scientific study has been done for noise impact and questioned why this hasn't been done. He invited the Commissioners to come to his residence to hear the noise he hears. He stated he does not object to Marymount College, but rather to the transformation proposed. Shohreh Taylor stated she supports the improvement plan and asked the Commission to certify the EIR. She felt that Marymount is an asset to the community. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 10 Bill Pratley stated that he has three letters authorizing him to speak for his immediate neighbors. He felt there will be impacts to the neighborhood because of the dorms and athletic facility, noting that there are some young people who do not use the best judgment at that age. He stated that he and his neighbors have no problem with Marymount but do vehemently oppose the residence halls. Bill Dunlap stated that he is a product of a two-year college in northern California that is in a residential neighborhood and has dorms on campus and has been there since 1927. He felt that dorms in residential neighborhood can work if residents and students work together. He also mentioned Mount Saint Mary's College Doheney Campus. He explained that campus is in the middle of the Adams Historic Zone, with intense scrutiny from the City and the residents. He stated that they have recently built a parking structure and dorms on the campus, and it has worked because the community and the college have come together to work out their differences. Marilyn Klaus stated she heartily supports the Marymount expansion project. She felt that the students and programs offered at Marymount are a great asset to this entire community. Duncan Tooley stated he purchased his home on San Ramon Drive because it is next to the college, and feels living adjacent to the college is a plus. He therefore supports the proposed plan. Nasrin Madani stated she is a parent of a Marymount student and asked the Commission to certify the EIR for the proposed college expansion plan. Faternmeh Namvar stated she supports the expansion project as proposed by Marymount. Tom Redfield explained that CCC/ME has never opposed Marymount College as it is has grown to be now. He stated that CCC/ME feels very strongly about why Marymount does not discuss why they went to the Government and committed to do certain things when they acquired the Government property for free. He stated that to destroy the quality of life in this neighborhood for 250 students, which Marymount has a safe secure piece of land in another location for them to live on, makes no sense. Chairman Lewis noted that in a meeting he had earlier in the week it was suggested that the suggested Neighborhood Advisory Board be limited to HOA representatives only, and asked Mr. Redfield if the inclusion of HOA representatives alone be sufficient. Lois Karp answered that there are a vast number of homes in the area that are not represented by an active HOA. She noted that Ganado Drive is one of the longest streets in the City, and only the first two short blocks are part of an HCA. She therefore did not think it would be a true representation to limit the Board to HOA members only. She stated that CCC/ME does represent a much broader group of homeowners. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 11 Maloos Ferasat stated she is the parent of two very successfully students of Marymount College. She stated she supports the plan as proposed by the College. Dr. Brophy (in rebuttal) stated that the college was approved for residence halls four different times in the 1970s and asked what has changed since 1978 that would prevent the City from approving residence halls at the college. He stated the college has responded to every question the City has put before them, and has responded to every request. He stated the College is now in the Planning Commission's hands, and felt that by not certifying the EIR the Commission is telling the College that they have been in incompetent and disingenuous hands with the staff, and he did not feel that was the case. He would like to think that by certifying the EIR the Commission is telling Marymount that, as a good neighbor and a good citizen, they have jumped through all of the necessary hoops and its time to make a decision on the application. He reminded the Commission that Marymount is a property owner and zoned for Institution use. Commissioner Knight noted in the staff report a statement that unaffiliated groups would need a Special Use Permit in order to use the College. He questioned if that also includes HOA groups that may want to meet at the college. He asked if there is some way to separate out these types of groups that may not need a Special Use Permit and just want to have a meeting at the campus. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that the Commission can specify what they want to categorize under that condition, but as currently written groups and organizations not affiliated with the college would be required to obtain a Special Use Permit to use the campus. Chairman Lewis noted that Mr. Davis had proposed a threshold of 100 persons and asked staff if they felt a numeric threshold was appropriate. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that staff would want to ensure the hours are restricted to after peak hours to ensure that parking and traffic are not impacted. Commissioner Knight asked if staff was concerned with lighting from the library and asked if, because of the upper clearstory windows, there would be a lighting impact to some of the neighbors on San Ramon Drive. Principal Planner Mihranian responded by explaining that staff did not think the lighting from the library clerestory windows would have an adverse impact on the neighbors. He pointed out that there is existing foliage that completely blocks the library from the adjacent neighboring properties on San Ramon. Commissioner Knight stated that he did not see a condition of approval regarding idling trucks, and asked if that condition was intended to be added. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that condition can be added. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 12 Commissioner Knight referred to a comment that at the wall along San Ramon Drive there is not enough room to have the recommendation made by staff. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that the construction plan indicates a wall ranging from one foot to three feet setback, approximately five feet from the property line. Staff's recommendation is, with that wall in place, the area should be used as a landscape planter to create an additional buffer between the parking lot and the neighboring homes. Chairman Lewis suggested reviewing the Table in the staff report regarding the planning applications before the Commission, beginning with the Minor Exception Permit (page A-4). Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that staff has found that all of the findings can be made or are not applicable, and he agreed with staff regarding the chart. Chairman Lewis and Commissioners Tomblin and Knight agreed the findings for the Minor Exception Permit can be made. Chairman Lewis suggested discussing A-1, the Conditional Use Permit findings for residence halls, findings 1,3, 4 and 6. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that finding No. 1 discusses the size and shape related to the proposed residence halls. He stated there has been discussion regarding the residence halls, the size of the property, and the proposed location. He felt there are other locations on the property for the residence halls, however the College has elected to put them where they are because they feel that for their purposes, and purposes for some of the neighbors, it is the best place for them. Therefore, relative to the size of the property being adequate for the residence halls, he believes it is adequate. He felt that the finding being not made by staff primarily refers to construction bulk and mass. He felt that the size and shape of the property being adequate is not related to the location that was selected being too bulky or too massive, but rather it is relative to whether the piece of property can handle something of that size. He felt this property can handle something of that size, and therefore regarding finding No. 1 regarding residence halls, he would be able to make that finding. Commissioner Tomblin supported Commissioner Gerstner's statements regarding finding No. 1. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify why they were not able to make the findings for finding No. 1. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that staff is not able to making finding No. 1 for the residence halls because the structure is proposed to be built on a slope. Staff feels that because the structure is not proposed on the relatively flat buildable area of the site leads staff to believe the site cannot accommodate the residence halls. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 13 Vice Chairman Gerstner clarified that, as far as size and shape of the lot is concerned, even though the area is not flat it is still acceptable per the Code to put a building on that area. Therefore, he was able to make the finding. He noted that he is not commenting on bulk and mass or building on top of a 35 percent slope, only that the size and shape of the lot can handle a building of this size. Commissioner Knight agreed with staff that the reason the building is proposed on the slope is that the lot cannot accommodate a building of that size. Chairman Lewis also agreed with the staff and cannot make finding No. 1. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he has no disagreement with finding No. 2. Commissioner Knight stated that he was concerned the EIR did not address the nighttime traffic related to the dormitories, however he could accept finding No. 2 based upon the technical aspect of the EIR studying the worse case scenario. Commissioner Tomblin and Chairman Lewis had no issues with finding No. 2. Chairman Lewis then discussed finding No. 3, which discusses significant adverse affect on adjacent properties. Staff has stated that in order to approve the CUP the Commission will have to determine there is no significant adverse affect on adjacent properties. He felt that the residence halls will introduce a new element into the neighborhood, a 24/7 use of the property. He has not heard anything from the College that would change or alter his analysis, and therefore he cannot make finding No. 3. Commissioner Knight agreed, adding this is a fundamental land use change on the property. He acknowledged the College has made some strong efforts to add conditions to mitigate the impacts to the neighbors, however there is still potential for impacts to the neighbor. He therefore could not make finding No. 3. Vice Chairman Gerstner disagreed in that given certain mitigations, specifically the addition of trees and vegetation on the slope, will help to block bulk and mass, noise, and visual impact from below. This significant additional vegetation, along with the mitigation measures discussed in the EIR would sufficiently mitigate the impacts so that he could make this finding. Commissioner Tomblin stated he cannot make finding No. 3, however he noted that the landscaping plan suggested by the Vice Chairman is something he could possibly support which may then allow him to make finding No. 3. Chairman Lewis stated that he agreed with staff regarding finding No. 4, as did the Vice Chairman and Commissioner Tomblin. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 14 Commissioner Knight stated that the rationale for Institutional zoning has been that because the Institutional zoning has Bed and Breakfast use and other uses that have overnight occupancy, that therefore an educational facility can have that too. He felt that when one begins to extrapolate other habitation uses in the Institutional district, it opens up a whole menu of uses. He stated that Institutional zoning has a specific category for educational, and in it states that the ancillary uses are to be a part of and necessary to the educational program. He questioned if the dorms are necessary to the educational component of the college. In looking at 2 year colleges in the State, on site dorms are a rarity. He did not feel that dorms on campus are necessary to the educational program, and therefore could not make the finding. Chairman Lewis explained that he felt the split campus alternative put forth by CCC/ME is a feasible and superior alternative, and for that reason he cannot approve the project as presented with the inclusion of the residence halls. Chairman Lewis suggested discussing the findings for the athletic facility, beginning with finding No. 1 and whether or not the size and shape of the lot is adequate. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that his comments are the same as his comments for the residence halls, with the addition that there is also view impairment issues.with regards to the athletic facility. Commissioner Knight agreed with staff's findings. Commissioner Tomblin did not agree with staff, as he felt the land could handle the athletic facility. He could therefore make the findings for finding No. 1. Chairman Lewis stated that he could not make the findings and agreed with staff and Commissioner Knight. He could not make the findings for Finding No. 1 in regards to the athletic building. Vice Chairman Gerstner discussed finding No. 3. He stated that he cannot make the finding based on the current design of the athletic facility. He stated if the building could be lowered or adjusted in a way so that it does not significantly block a view from Narinc, Drive he would then be able to make the finding. Commissioner Knight agreed that the view impact to 3302 Narino Drive is significant enough so that he cannot make the finding as the building is currently proposed. He agreed that if the building is adjusted to mitigate this impact, he may be able to make this finding. Commissioner Tomblin agreed that with the building lowered or adjusted he would be able to make the finding, but as currently proposed he could not make the finding. Chairman Lewis agreed with the other Commissioner's comments regarding finding No. 3. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 15 Chairman Lewis suggested discussing the east parking lot and the necessary findings. Commissioner Knight felt the east parking lot creates a significant impact to the Harris home that has decking and a spa that looks directly over the area proposed for the parking lot, and currently there is a natural look across the area. Therefore there is a significant adverse impact to this property and unless mitigated he cannot make finding No. 3. Vice Chairman Gerstner did not think that parking a car on an adjacent property is in itself an adverse affect. However, because of the use which includes evening use and that it is a public parking lot, it needs to be mitigated similar to what staff is suggesting by extending the wall. He stated that he is able to make finding No. 3. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he agrees with staff, Principal Planner Mihranian clarified that staff is not recommending a wall in the area of the Harris residence. The proposed wall stops when it gets to the north corner of the existing deck on the Harris property, and staff felt that if the proposed wall is extended it would block his view. Vice Chairman Gerstner discussed finding No. 4, in which staff cites the travel distance being contrary to the General Plan. He felt that given there is 150 feet and given the specific use and the type of people that will be using the facility, as well as the fact that he would prefer not to see cars driving all through the college campus, he would not have a problem accepting that in this instance the travel distance from the car to the dorms or to the athletic facilities be greater than 150 feet. He looked at the 150 feet as more of a guideline than a strict rule, and more to facilitate certain peoples in our community. Commissioner Tomblin supported the Vice Chairman on his comments regarding the parking distance. Commissioner Knight and Chairman Lewis agreed with staff's analysis regarding the 150 foot parking distance discussed in finding No. 4. used on the discussion, Chairman Lewis did not feel there was a clear majority of the Planning Commission to support the CUP findings necessary to approve the residence halls, the athletic building, or the east parking lot. Chairman Lewis moved to direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit needed for the residence halls, athletic building, and east parking lot, and approving the Conditional Use Permit as to the other items on the matrix contained in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 16 Commissioner Knight noted that if the athletic building is moved off of the slope by ten feet as recommended by staff, he may be able to make all of the necessary findings to recommend approval of the athletic facility. Commissioner Tomblin agreed that with certain modifications he too may be able to make the findings needed to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the athletic building. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Knight moved to direct staff to return with a Resolution for the Conditional Use Permit findings to deny the residence halls, to articulate how staff can make the findings for the athletic building if the building is moved 10 feet off oft the slope and lowered feet in height, and any possible mitigations for the east parking lot to address the concerns expressed by the residents, and to approve the other components in the matrix, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Chairman Lewis stated that, depending on how this information comes back from staff, he may be able to support this motion. Principal Planner Mihranian asked the Commission to clarify if they are discussing lowering the athletic facility by 10 feet, or if they are asking that the structure be moved ten feet back from the top of the slope. Commissioner knight clarified that finding No. 1 moves the building 10 feet back from the top of the slope and finding No. 3 is to lower the roof by 10 feet. With those two mitigations in place, he most likely can make the findings on the athletic building. Chairman Lewis did not think he could make finding No. 3 to approve the athletic facility, even with those two conditions in place, as he felt the athletic building will introduce more use to the neighborhood, even without the residence halls. He felt the athletic facility would change the character of the use and will result in a significant adverse affect on adjacent properties that moving it will not mitigate. Principal Planner Mihranian asked the Commission to clarify their suggestions in terms of modifying the east parking lot. Commissioner Knight stated he may be the only Commissioner concerned, but stated that in the daytime there is a tight parking situation on campus but questioned if there was some way to not have cars parked in the corner near Mr. Harris' property and instead put a landscape buffer or other mitigation in that area. Chairman Lewis and Commissioner Tomblin stated they shared those concerns. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 17 Principal Planner Mihranian clarified that the Commission was looking to increase the buffer between the property line at the Harris property and where the actual parking lot begins. Commissioner Knight's motion was approved, (3-1) with Vice Chairman Gerstner dissenting. Chairman Lewis suggested next discussing Table A-2 regarding the proposed Grading Permit, beginning with the residence halls. Commissioner Knight asked staff for clarification on finding No. 8 and staff's rationale for being able to make that finding. Principal Planner Mihranian explained this had to do with the close proximity to what could be the wetland delineation for the drainage. He stated that although preliminary studies were conducted, based on the EI , the EIR is recommending it be delineated prior to issuance of grading permits to make certain there are no impacts to biological resources. With respect to the residence halls, Chairman Lewis and Commissioner Knight stated they are in agreement with staff's recommendations regarding the Grading Permit as to all of the findings identified in the matrix in the staff report. Vice Chairman Gerstner and Commissioner Tomblin disagreed with staff in that they both felt 102,000 cubic yards of grading is not unreasonable given the scope of the project. They both were able to make that finding. Vice Chairman Gerstner discussed finding No. 2 with regards to residence halls, and felt that if mitigated by the vegetation he discussed earlier, that he could make this finding. Commissioner Knight could see where it would be possible to mitigate this, but it would take a lot of vegetation. He was not convinced that it could be mitigated. Chairman Lewis agreed with staff recommendations that even if the heavy vegetation were planted that, with respect to the residence halls, he did not think he would be able to make finding No. 2. He agreed with staff that with respect to the gym and other structures, he could make the finding. Commissioner Tomblin stated he was intrigued with the idea of heavy vegetation, and was able to make the finding. Vice Chairman Gerstner discussed finding No. 3 and explained that the staff report discusses many things with regards to this particular finding, including mass and bulk. He did not think that this is a finding that relates to mass and bulk, but rather preserving the natural topography. He noted that in protecting the natural topography it doesn't mean just protecting hillsides. The natural topography is both the hillside and flat Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 18 portions of the community and it becomes a matter of trying to preserve the character of the property. In the case of Marymount there is a very small sliver of land that constitutes a slope over 35 percent and it is all man made. He did not think the character of that 35 percent portion of that hillside makes that hillside more or less precious. From the point of view of preserving the hillside, there is no need to preserve that sliver of 35 percent man made slope. Chairman Lewis disagreed, noting that the 35 percent line may be arbitrary and the failure to distinguish between manmade and natural may be arbitrary, but it is the law. Therefore, he cannot make the finding because of the way the Code reads. Commissioner Knight felt that the Vice Chairman made some very good points, however he agreed with the Chairman that he has to make the findings based on what is in the Code. He therefore could not make the finding. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with the Vice Chairman. He understood the Chairman's statement, however he felt that the Planning Commission does have the ability within their scope to make interpretations. In this case, he felt that when looking at the entire scope of the project, building on the slope far outweighs building on the flat land. He felt the overall design preserves much more open space and is a much better use of the property. In discussing finding No. 8, Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed with staff that he cannot make the finding at the moment, but he would expect to make that finding with a favorable report, which would be the report the Commission will in all likelihood see. Chairman Lewis stated that he was able to make the findings for finding No. 8. Regarding finding No. 9, performance to grading criteria, Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that it talks about the 35 percent as well as the 2:1 slope shown as the backfill at the lower side of the residence halls. He felt that could be graded so that it is not 2:1, but felt it would be a less visual impact if it were graded at 2:1. Regarding the cut and fill over five feet, for a project of this size and scope he could not imagine doing less than 5 feet of cut to get a foundation in. He therefore had no objections, and could make the finding. All of the Commissioners agreed they could make the findings for finding No. 9. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated he could make finding No. 10. Chairman Lewis could also make finding No. 10 subject to staff's limiting language about the residence halls and the need for modifications to the athletic facility. Commissioners Knight and Tomblin agreed. The Commission then discussed the grading findings for the athletic building. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 19 Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that staff has stated they can make finding No. 2 based on the modifications of both lowering and setting the building back. He stated that he can make that finding with only lowering the building. Commissioners Knight, Tomblin, and Chairman Lewis agreed with staff that both modifications need to be made in order to make finding No. 2. Chairman Lewis asked the Commissioners if there were any other points of disagreement on matters on staff's matrix that have not been discussed. There being no comments, Chairman Lewis moved to the Variance application and began with the extreme slope, finding No. 1. Commissioner Knight stated that he agreed with staff in that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant him to make the finding. Chairman Lewis agreed with staff's recommendations. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt the extraordinary circumstance is that he would not want to see the residence built down at the bottom of the slope, within 20 feet of the residences. Therefore the concept of providing a Variance to build on 30 square feet of manmade 35 percent slope seems reasonable. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Vice Chairman Gerstner and Chairman Lewis agreed with Commissioner Knight's comments. Regarding finding No. 2 with respect to the extreme slope, Vice Chairman Gerstner commented that staff had represented that the residence halls are not a property right and not necessary for the enjoyment of the property. He disagreed, explaining in a development that has more than one facet, such as an institutional facility, everything is necessary and nothing is necessary. However, in looking at the residence halls as part of a complete college experience, he felt that residence halls are part of what makes a college campus. He explained that wherever the residence halls are built, some characteristic of the property will be preserved. He felt that much of what the issue comes down to is what one is looking at to preserve and what is being defined as having value. Chairman Lewis agreed, however he pointed out that Marymount is not a four year college and this is why he agrees with staff's recommendations on this issue. He felt that at a two-year college such as this a residence hall is an ancillary use and not necessary for this type of school. He therefore cannot make the finding necessary for the Variance. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 20 Commissioner Knight agreed with Chairman Lewis, noting that Marymount and other junior colleges in the area have been providing an excellent education to its students without the need for on-site residence halls. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that this is a Variance finding to build on an extreme slope, not the necessity of a residence hall to enjoy the property. He felt that building on an extreme slope is necessary, given the alternative locations for that residence hall. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with the Vice Chairman. He explained that if this were just a building, and in looking at alternative locations for this building, he felt that this is the better location to put a building. Vice Chairman Gerstner discussed finding No. 3, stating that he did not believe the building of this residence halls over the sliver of an extreme slope would be a material detriment to the public welfare and injurious to the property. Chairman Lewis stated that he was able to make finding No. 3. Commissioner Knight asked staff to explain their rationale for finding No. 3. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that staff's position in not being able to make the finding has to do with the impacts the residence hall would have to the down slope properties in terms of being materially detrimental to the public welfare, specifically their quality of life. Vice Chairman Gerstner understood staff's point, however he felt that issue was addressed in a different finding while this finding is relative to the act of building over a slope of 35 percent being detrimental or injurious to the property. Commissioners Knight and Tomblin stated that there were able to make this finding. Chairman Lewis next discussed finding No. 4, contrary to the objectives to the General Plan. He stated that he was somewhat confused by the analysis in the staff report, but felt he could make the finding in a favorable manner. Commissioner Tomblin and Vice Chairman stated they were able to make finding No. 4, however Commissioner Knight agreed with staff. Chairman Lewis then moved to the parking lot location, and finding No. 1. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that in each of the four findings staff noted that the reason the finding couldn't be made was because of the distance from the parking lot to the residence halls. Principal Planner Mihranian agreed, noting that the distance from the parking lot to the residence halls goes against what is required by the Code. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 21 Commissioner Knight agreed with staff in regards to all four findings. Commissioner Tomblin disagreed with staff regarding all four findings. Vice Chairman Gerstner added that this was a perfect example of when one would grant a Variance, as it is exceptional and extraordinary because of the scope and use of the project, and its unique characteristics that cannot be found anywhere else in the City. He also felt that the alternative solution would be detrimental to not only this property, but to adjacent properties as well. He could not see how walking this distance in an enclosed facility contradicts the General Plan. Chairman Lewis agreed with staff as to finding Nos. 1, 2, and 3, but disagreed with staff regarding finding No. 4. Chairman Lewis moved to direct staff to come back at the next meeting with a Resolution with respect to the Grading Permit, which denies the Grading Permit related to the residence halls and approves the Grading Permit with respect to the other matters identified in the matrix in the staff report, with the modifications recommended by staff regarding to the athletic facility, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The motion failed, (2-2)with Commissioner Tomblin and Vice Chairman Gerstner dissenting. Commissioner Tomblin explained that he is looking at the residence halls as a building rather than looking at it for its use. He questioned if this wasn't a residence hall, would it have the same impact on the vote. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked how the Grading Permit finding No. 1 for the residence halls is different from the Grading Permit finding No. 1 for the athletic facility. He asked how the athletic building is more necessary for the primary use of the lot than the residence halls. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that staff feels that because the use of the athletic building can be modified, the finding can be made. He added that there are classrooms in the athletic building, making it a part of the college educational program including physical education courses. He further added that staff is saying the amount of grading, with the modification, is so that the structure is set into the grade. The amount of grading can be justified as it is to address issues that have been raised. In the case of the residence halls, the entire slope has to be graded to accommodate the structure. Mr. Davis added to the discussion by explaining it is beneficial to the College to get as much of the project as possible. He noted the motion for the Grading Permit was for everything but the residence. While they certainly want the residence halls to be part of the approval, a vote will keep the project moving forward. He was not sure that further discussion would benefit either side. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 22 Chairman Lewis moved to renew his previous motion to direct staff to come back with a Resolution which denies the GradingPermit related to the residence halls and approves the Grading Permit with respect to the other matters identified in the matrix and withthe modifications recommended by staff in regards to the athletic facility, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, ( ®1) with Vice Chairman Gerstner dissenting. Chairman Lewis moved to grant the Variance as to the athletic fie!d net and the parking lot setback, and deny it as to the extreme slope and the parking lot location, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Mr. Davis again spoke to the issue of the proposed motion. He requested that the vote be taken on each item of the Variance. With that, Chairman Lewis withdrew his motion. Chairman Lewis moved to grant the Variance for the proposed athletic fie!d net, with the Resolution and conditions of approval to be reviewed at the May 26, 2009 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (4-0). Chairman Lewis moved to grant the Variance for the proposed parking lot setback, with the Resolution and conditions to be reviewed at the May 26, 2009 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (4-0). Chairman Lewis moved to deny the Variance forte proposed parkinglot location and to prepare the Resolution and conditions for the May 26, 2009 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The motion failed, ( ®2)with o missioner Tomblin and Vice Chairman Gerstner dissenting. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to direct staff to prepare conditions approval to approve the Variance for the extreme slope, seconded Commissioner Tomblin. The motion failed (2- ) with Commissioner Knight and Chairman Lewis dissenting. Assistant City Attorney Snow recommended that staff prepare Resolutions that acknowledge the two Variance requests have been requested, considered by the Commission, and a majority of the Commission could not make the findings. The Commission agreed. Principal planner Mihranian asked the Commission if there were any specific direction they wanted to give staff in regards to the conditions of approval, as part of the Resolution will be conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 23 Mr. Davis asked the Planning Commission for further clarification on the motion for the grading. He understood the concerns regarding the residence halls, but pointed out that phase 1 of the project does not involve the residence halls, but does involve grading in that area. He explained that it was planned to take parking lots out of the area, remediate the slopes, and do other work that is not preparation for the residence halls. He wanted to be clear that the motion does allow that work and only prohibits phase 3 grading, which would be specific only to the residence halls. Chairman Lewis asked if the phase 1 grading described by Mr. Davis is part of the application before the Planning Commission. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that it was staff's recollection that the Grading Permit before the Commission is requesting construction on the slope. The City Geologist would have to review the request to determine if the remedial grading on the slope is warranted for public health and safety reasons. Therefore, staff would have to further research the subject and address it in the Resolution. Chairman Lewis asked if there was anything in the motions made that would prevent the Commission from approving remedial grading on the slope. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that each of the motions were to direct staff to prepare a Resolution and are not final decisions of the Commission. These Resolutions will be presented to the Commission on May 26th and at that time the Commission will be able to look at the materials as they have been drafted and will able to consider any changes necessary. Chairman Lewis clarified that it was not his intent to prevent or authorize remedial grading on the slope. The Planning Commission then discussed the conditions outlined by staff, beginning on page 4 of the April 14th staff report. Chairman Lewis noted that Mr. Davis had submitted a letter with a Table with a number of comments and feedback on the conditions. Since he has not had a chance to review this letter, he asked that the Commission limit the discussion to what is in the staff report and defer to the next meeting any discussion regarding the information in Mr. Davis' letter. The Commission agreed. Vice Chairman Gerstner began on page 4 of the staff report and discussed enrollment. He did not have an objection to the conditions as stated in the staff report. Commissioner Knight noted that there was a staff recommendation to ask the college for definitions of student and various degree programs, and stated he would like these definitions. In regards to enrollment, he also requested clarification on how to separate out unaffiliated attendance at the college, specifically small HOA groups or other groups Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 24 that would like to hold their meetings on the campus without the need for a Special Use Permit. A discussion followed on hours of operation, noting that both staff and the college have submitted recommended hours of operation for certain buildings. Commissioner Knight noted that he agrees with staff's recommended hours. Commissioner Gerstner asked that at the May 26th meeting he would like to see specific hours listed that he can review. Dr. Brophy felt the Commission may run the risk of over-engineering the hours of operation. He stated that anyone can look at the College's file at City Hall to see how many transgressions the college has under their current CUP. He felt that the college and staff should be able to work together to determine hours of operation. If this hasn't been a problem in the past, why go into such detail at this point. He also suggested that if the community advisory board goes forward, there will be an opportunity every year to review any complaints regarding the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Knight stated that he was generally in favor of the college advisory committee, but the make up of the committee needs to be fair and should be clarified. Vice Chairman Gerstner continued his review of the various conditions as outlined in the staff report, offering clarifications throughout that can be discussed at the May 25th meeting. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to May 26, 2009 with the direction to staff to prepare the appropriate Resolutions and conditions of approval for discussion at that meeting, seconded by Chairman Lewis. Approved, (4-0) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 2. Pre-a-qenda for the meeting on April 28, 2009 Accepted w/o comment ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2009 Page 25