Loading...
PC MINS 20090331 Approved July 28, 2009 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MARCH 31, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:15 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: Commissioners Perestarn and Tetreault were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Principal Planner Mihranian, Assistant City Attorney Snow, Paul Martin and Rita Garcia from RBF Consultants, Chris Grey, and Joanne Itagaki the City Traffic Engineer. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed 16 items of correspondence for agenda Item No. 1. Chairman Lewis reported that he discussed procedural issues with the applicant for agenda Item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project (Case No. 200 00317/Conditional Use Permit No. 9 ® Revision 'E , Grading Permit Variance: 30800 alos Verdes Drive East Commissioner Ruttenberg recused himself from this item for reasons stated at previous meetings, and left the dais. Principal Planner Mihranian began by introducing the City's environmental team to the audience and Planning Commission. He stated that this meeting will focus on the project EIR, with an emphasis on the response table and the traffic and circulation section of the EIR. Paul Martin (RBF Consulting) stated he prepared the traffic and parking analysis for the proposed project. In discussing the traffic analysis, he explained the days of the week and times of day when the analysis was performed, noting peak morning and afternoon hours and the number of trips generated during that time. He stated that as part of the analysis he must look at the project components, in this case a junior college addition with the addition of dormitory rooms. He stated that there were two impacts identified, Palos Verdes Drive East at Miraleste and Western Avenue at Trudie Drive, and noted the mitigation measures for these areas that were identified in the traffic studies. He stated these two mitigation measures will be implemented by the applicant. Mr. Martin also noted the impact to Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South forecast for the year 2012, and the mitigation for this intersection as discussed in the EIR. He stated that this intersection is considered partially mitigated. Therefore, significant unavoidable traffic impacts remain. He discussed recent public comments, explaining that the traffic study utilized the ITE junior college rate rather than the university category. However, he did not feel the university category did not represent the proposed project. He also clarified that the traffic analysis and Tables in the document trip generation for one hour at any intersection. He noted that the traffic study included, in the appendix, some data collected but not used in the analysis in regards to 24 hour counts in the driveway. He explained that during the analysis it was felt this data was not needed, as those trips collected were not comprehensive of all of the trips to the school and the more accurate data collected was the visual observation. He also noted that there has been quite a bit of discussion regarding weekend and summer program student enrollment. He stated there are traffic mitigation measures for the weekend traffic. In regards to the summer program, he explained that it is recommended that traffic analysis be done at the time a specific program is requested to better understand the impacts and ensure that no further traffic impacts occur. Chairman Lewis questioned if this is an improper deferral of quantifying the impacts and describing potential mitigation for the impact. He asked if the City is required, during this certification process, to identify the impacts and describe the mitigation efforts during the public hearing process. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that the distinction in this case is the EIR studied a particular level, its identified impacts, and mitigated those impacts. What is Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 2 being suggested is an additional condition that would allow for or require additional studies to ensure the actual outcome is consistent with what the conclusions are in the EIR. Commissioner Knight stated that throughout the EIR there are potential future discretionary actions and suggested Planning Commission conditions that can be added to mitigate future impacts. He felt there may be a nebulous line between the discretionary future impacts and what is considered a certifiable mitigated EIR. He asked if the City Attorney's office was comfortable with the suggested conditions of approval. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that the overall structure and approach recommended by staff is that when it is known what will and will not be approved as part of the project, then staff will update Appendix A to the final EIR which will discuss what the final project is that the Planning Commission is willing to consider. That document would explain what the environmental conclusions are, based on that project as revised by the Commission and applicant during the deliberations. Chris Gray, who prepared the third party review of traffic study, added that it is important to differentiate between the weekend and the summer programs. He noted in the peer review that the one impact identified for the weekend period is actually mitigated, and once that impact is mitigated one can potentially increase the weekend enrollment cap. The issue he did not study or review was the issue of the summer program. He felt it was important to differentiate between adjusting the weekend enrollment cap based on a mitigation that will be done as part of the project versus the summer program which generally was not addressed within the EIR. Principal Planner Mihranian clarified that existing summer programs have been addressed and accounted for in the EIR. What was not specifically addressed in the traffic study was the proposed summer day care program, and additional traffic studies would be needed for this one component. Commissioner Tomblin discussed the traffic study in terms of the proposed dorms, and asked if there was a reason why the traffic study did not address the hours between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., as he felt traffic during these hours would have an affect on the surrounding neighborhoods. Rita Garcia explained that the traffic study focuses on a peak hour impact analysis. Therefore what is presented is a worse case analysis of the traffic volume. Therefore, the traffic volume between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. would be significantly less and hence the impact at the studied intersections would be significantly less. Commissioner Tomblin stated that one suggestion had been that Freshmen in the dorms would not be allowed to have cars. He asked if the impact of zero cars for Freshmen had been analyzed and if this affected the traffic study. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 3 Mr. Martin explained that the analysis performed conservatively assumes that all of the students that live in the dormitory have a car and park on the campus. Commissioner Tomblin asked if that would be considered a flaw in the study. Mr. Martin stated that the traffic analysis assumes all students living in the dorms have cars, and if there are restrictions placed on the students and the use of cars, less traffic would be generated and there would be lower impacts at the intersections. Principal Planner Mihranian added that the offer from the college to restrict Freshmen students from having cars came after the traffic study was done. Commissioner Tomblin also noted that if Freshmen were to be prohibited from having cars on campus, the college has stated that there will be additional buses provided for transportation. He asked if these buses were considered in the traffic study. Mr. Martin answered that the use of college provided shuttle busses exists in some form already and was inherently in the data collection. Increased uses of the shuttle was considered as a mitigation measure, but eliminated because shuttle uses did not reduce the impact to traffic. Mr. Martin then discussed the parking analysis, explaining the analysis was done for the campus and streets near the school. He also explained the methodologies used to do the parking analysis. He noted that the parking ratio in the report accounts for students, faculty, staff, and guests observed parking on campus. He explained that what the analysis found for the existing proposed project was that there will be a deficiency during the weekday of approximately 200 cars on the campus. On the weekends he noted that there was no parking deficiency, but rather a surplus of approximately 37 cars. To address the weekday deficiency he noted the parking mitigation measures suggested which included prohibiting dormitory guest parking during the week, institute parking management strategy for weekday reduction, an annual review by the City, and to limit student enrollment to 793 students during the week and 83 students on weekends. He also discussed potential parking management strategies which included provision of"carpool only" parking spaces; pricing campus parking permits; remote parking; increased shuttle services; financial incentives; restrict dormitory residents; and restrict Palos Verdes Drive North facility residents. Mr. Martin also briefly discussed a parking permit program where the City Council could consider restricting parking along Palos Verdes Drive East, adjacent to the college, to ensure potential overflow parking on city streets. Principal Planner Mihranian added that the Traffic Safety Commission has reviewed these recommendations and they are recommending the Planning Commission certify the traffic circulation section of the EIR. Commissioner Knight asked at what point would the traffic mitigation for Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive East would be triggered and implemented. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Martin answered the report recommends the fair share contribution would occur prior to certificate of occupancy. Commissioner Tomblin referred to the recommended reduction of 23 percent, and asked staff what would happen if it didn't work and there was a problem. He asked what the steps would be to correct the problem and how long it would take to correct the problem. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that this would be a condition as part of the Conditional Use Permit and any time conditions are not being met the applicant can be taken before the Planning Commission for review of these conditions. He felt this could be done quickly, noting that adequate public notice of the meeting must be given. Principal Planner Mihranian added that the annual reports will be very important, as they will create dialogue between the City and the college as to what is working and what is not working and needs to be changed. He explained that every July 1st the college will be required to submit a parking program for the upcoming academic year. Commissioner Knight asked staff to review the impacts on parking created bythe community uses, such as AYSO, of the athletic fields and gymnasium. Mr. Martin displayed a graph showing the weekday parking forecast. He explained that campus parking peaks at 11:00 a.m. and there is an extra supply of parking on the campus in the afternoon and evening hours to accommodate AYSO or other activities that are beyond the peak hours of the campus. Commissioner Knight noted that many activities, such as AYSO, will happen on the weekends and asked if the analysis allowed for no on-street parking. Mr. Martin displayed a graph for weekend parking forecast showing more than adequate parking available on weekends. Principal Planner Mihranian moved the Staff presentation to the Table that was generated by questions on the EIR from the Commission, the college, and the public. He explained that the Table covers a wide range of topics that were covered in the EIR .and each question is followed by a response from staff. He stated that it is staffs opinion that all of the issues covered are adequately addressed in the EIR. He noted that Appendix A to the Final EIR was developed in response to project revisions that were submitted by the college after the release of the draft EIR and the closing of the comment period. He also explained that this is a draft version of the Appendix that addresses the revisions to date. He explained that the reason it is a draft is so that if the Commission makes modifications to the project, those modifications can be folded into and addressed in the appendix and provided to the Commission at the time the Commission decides to take action on the project EIR. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 5 Commissioner Knight noted that the City Geologist has stated the bentonite soils on the site can be relocated on the site provided that there is no development put on that area. He asked if staff would be keeping track of where the bentonite soil was being placed so that if development is proposed in the future, there is some record of whether or not there is bentonite at the site. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that all soils reports for this project are kept by the City and in the event future development is considered, those reports are referred to by the geologist. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff to clarify comment No. 30 in the Table. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that the comment came from the college, noting that the college was making the statement that the City's General Plan and Housing Element encourages the use of affordable housing, and the college feels the residence halls are an opportunity for the City to add affordable housing units to its inventory, as 10 units within the residence halls would be dedicated as affordable housing. He noted that the trigger for affordable housing for this project is the construction of the residence halls. If that component of the project is not approved, then the project does not trigger the need for affordable housing. Commissioner Knight referred to comment No. 24 and asked staff how Ordinance No. 463 changes Policy 11 of the Urban Environmental Element. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that Ordinance No. 463 focuses on residential development in a residential zone, and this project is in an Institutional zone, and therefore is an inappropriate use that staff is now correcting. Chairman Lewis referred to a letter submitted by the attorney for CCCME which suggests that the EIR does not adequately address mitigation for the EI Segundo Blue Butterfly, and cited a case. He asked Mr. Snow if he had any comments. Assistant City Attorney Snow responded that the biological assessment in the draft EIR references two site assessments and neither of those surveys identified the EI Segundo Blue Butterfly. The second survey, however, did identify a plant that could potentially be a host plant for the EI Segundo Blue Butterfly. In light of that, the assessment recommended a mitigation measure to require a further site assessment before the site is disturbed. He suggested that additional performance standards be built into the mitigation measure in the event that on the third study the butterfly is found on site. Vice Chairman Gerstner referred to comment No 39 regarding the operable windows for the dorms versus fixed windows. He asked staff to clarify what type of windows are currently proposed for the dorms. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that staff is suggesting a requirement that the windows be fixed and not opened on a regular basis, and that there be some type of Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 6 alarm system hooked up to the windows when they are opened. He noted that the Fire Department will be involved in terms of emergency egress for the windows. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if the Code requires the windows be operable in an emergency in terms of being on a hinge or slider as opposed to simply being broken in an emergency. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that was something he needs to verify with the Building Official. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff to clarify construction trailer and modular building use on the site during construction. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that in order for the college to continue operating during construction, the college is requesting to have modular buildings to use as temporary classrooms during construction. It is assumed that one of the modular buildings would be used as the construction office. Dr. Michael Brophy (Marymount College) stated that he has the members of his team at the meeting and available to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. He discussed the use of the campus facilities by guests, noting that if outside groups want to use the facility they will be directed to the City and be instructed that they must have a Special Use Permit from the City. He stated that the College has no plan to request an increase in the number of students enrolled in classes and does not anticipate any major increase in faculty or staff to support the students. In the interest of time, he asked for members of the audience who are in support of the Marymount improvement program to rise. Don Davis (attorney representing Marymount College) stated that the purpose of an EIR is to identify significant impacts and identify ways to mitigate, eliminate, or reduce the significant impacts. He felt that there is only one significant project related impact, that of aesthetics and visual character. He noted the EIR states that the evaluation of aesthetic impacts is a subjective exercise. However, under CEQA and the General Plan, the significance of a visual character impact must be based solely on the impact to a view corridor, which is a view experienced by the majority of the populace. He displayed a picture from Palos Verdes Drive East, and stated that is the only view that the Planning Commission must make their determination on as to whether or not there is a visual impact. When the Commission is making its determination of significant impact he felt it must be consistent with other non-residential projects, such as Terranea. He showed several photographs of Terranea taken from different vantage points. He stated that when comparing Marymount to Terranea it is difficult to understand how an EIR can conclude the Terranea project had no impacts on visual character, yet Marymount does. He also showed photographs of some large residential developments recently approved in the City that are upslope from a major view corridor. Mr. Davis noted that the EIR states that the athletic facility itself does not have a significant visual character impact. It is only when combining the athletic facility with the Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 7 residence halls and moving them up the slope will there be a finding of significance. He stated there was an issue of view impact from one home in the neighborhood, and he noted the architect has proposed some modifications to the athletic facility to lower the roof height and add articulation, as suggested by staff. He stated that the college is legally entitled to develop the southern portion of its property, and the extreme slope issue is irrelevant to the visual character analysis. He stated the extreme slope is a manufactured slope and is a very small area. He also noted that Marymount could build its housing closer to the road like other residential developments in the City. Mr. Davis discussed traffic and noted that the traffic analysis is extremely conservative and more than adequate for CEQA. He felt there were multiple conservative assumptions made in the traffic study, and noted that the study is forecasting over 1,500 new trips a day for the project. He stated that is the equivalent of adding 1,300 new students to the school. He stated that all project related impacts can be mitigated. With respect to parking, he noted the college is adding 120 more spaces as well as the implementation of the parking management program that will ensure adequate capacity. Mr. Davis briefly discussed the split campus alternative. He noted that the split campus alternative fulfills CEQA's alternatives analysis requirement, however he did not think it was a feasible alternative. He stated the alternative does not meet the college's project objectives and he did not think it has any overall environmental benefits. He questioned how the entire athletic facility, including tennis courts, swimming pools, and fields as well as a significant amount of housing on a site of approximately 8 acres. Mr. Davis stated that the college was asking that the Commission revise the findings on visual character impact to less than significant after mitigation and make a revision to the weekend program enrollment cap to 150 participants. Lois Karp (CCCME) stated that she will be discussing the letter submitted by the attorney representing CCCME, and noted that the letter should be made a part of the record. She felt that the spirit, purpose and intent of CEQA is being denied with this project, and one must stop and consider the additional tasks that are outlined in the letter before proceeding. She stated that the EIR in its current form is not certifiable. She noted several important excerpts from the letter, which included the statements that the City may certainly deny the project without certifying the EIR; that any decision by a City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the General Plan; and that a statement of overriding consideration cannot be adopted for significant impacts stemming from the project's inconsistency with the General Plan. She listed several aspects of the project that she felt were inconsistent with the General Plan, including the height of the buildings being proposed, the required buffering between the school and the residential areas, the bulk and mass of the project in regards to neighborhood compatibility, noise impacts on adjacent land uses, and building of the extreme slope. She stated that CEQA requires public agencies to deny approval of a project with adverse effects when a feasible alternative or feasible mitigation can substantially lessen the effects. She noted the EIR states the living campus/academic campus is feasible. She also noted that courts have prohibited the deferral of mitigation measures, Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 8 noting there cannot be meaningful scrutiny of an EIR when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time the project is approved. She also stated that there can be no "to be determined" items used as mitigation. Mrs. Karp felt that significant new information requires recirculation of the EIR if the agency adds significant new information to an EIR prior to certification but after consultation with the public and other agencies. She noted the many items that have been noted at this meeting alone that have been referenced in the appendix. She displayed a chart of findings that cannot be made, which included findings for building the residence halls and athletic facility on the south facing slopes. She stated an approval of a CUP or Variance must be based on substantial evidence, noting that the residence halls are not needed to preserve and enjoy a substantial property right. Commissioner Knight asked Mrs. Karp if she reviewed the responses to the CCCME questions in the table prepared by staff. Mrs. Karp answered that she had reviewed the Table and has submitted a letter in response, which is included with the staff report. Pat Carroll (CCCME) stated that the public has been told there are three remaining mitigatable traffic considerations, to which he disagreed. He discussed the intersection at Western and Capitol, explaining that students would certainly use that intersection. He reviewed the mitigation proposed for the intersection and explained why he did not think it would work. He did not think enough attention has been given to the Crestwood neighborhood and Mira Vista neighborhood as areas that may need mitigation measures in terms of traffic. He felt that the Crestwood intersection at Western will become extremely congested, noting that Peck Park and a shopping center are at that intersection. He stated that if the Planning Commission believes there may be a viable potential for serious traffic problems at Western Avenue and Crestwood that the matter be referred to RBF for further study and more plausible traffic mitigation measures. George Zu sg mith (CCCME) stated that CCCME feels that they have been heard, but few are listening. He did not feel that City staff or the City Attorney or RBF weighs and considers what has been presented either orally or in writing. He discussed the Traffic Commission and their review of the traffic study. He questioned how such a decision can be made without the Traffic Safety Commission having read the draft EIR, the final EIR or the staff report. He felt that the Traffic Safety Commission merely delegated their decisions and recommendations to the staff. He did not think this could be considered functioning as a decision making body. He did not think the City could get it right if nobody knows what the facts are, and he did not think RBF is giving the public the facts. He explained a Table he distributed in which he felt RBF was inconsistent or not forthcoming about certain information regarding crimes or violations committed on the campus or committed by students. He asked the Commission to ask the City Attorney if he has read the letter, if he has read the cases and the Code sections, if a General Plan conflict can be resolved by an overriding consideration, and if there are significant impacts which cannot be mitigated and there is a feasible alternative then is the City mandated to chose the feasible alternative. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 9 Commissioner Knight noted that the chart given by Mr. Zugsmith includes crimes committed off campus. He asked Mr. Zugsmith for clarification on what "off campus" includes. Mr. Zugsmith explained that it is not specified in the information from the Office of Post- Secondary Education. He stated it could be generally off campus, it could be at Palos Verdes Drive North and Western, it could be at the apartments in San Pedro. Principal Planner Mihranian added that on page A-38 in the attachment there are footnotes provided by staff based on the website for the Office of Post-Secondary Education that defines what is non-campus. Jim Gordon discussed Mr. Martin's comments, noting that the problem with the junior college status used in the chart and that Marymount is not a junior college code, but rather a community college code. Therefore in doing research one is not looking at students who are not the same age group as the students at Marymount College and are not the full time students that Marymount College has. He therefore felt that when looking at Table 5.3-7 there are 135 students that haven't been accounted for. He felt that the data is available to make an intelligent proration of traffic and it is not.necessary to go outside and get an external inapplicable code from ITE. He felt that code is deficient in coming up with a number of trips, quoting several statistics from the Table. Tom Redfield thanked the Planning Commission for their perceptive questions regarding parking at the site. He hoped that the Commission agreed with him and many others that the answers by staff and RBF were, in too many cases, that it had not been completely studied, hadn't been looked at, or that down the road these things will be looked at if needed. He did not think the answers the public and Commission were getting regarding the parking situation were satisfactory. He discussed comments made that this project is smaller than Terranea, and pointed out that Terranea is not surrounded on all sides by residential neighborhoods. He pointed out that Marymount may not like the split campus alternative, however they don't have to like it as long as it's doable. Jack Karp stated that it doesn't take an EIR to understand that 255 youths living in dorms in a residential neighborhood is not a compatible use. He stated that the City parking code as it now exists requires 972 parking spaces while Marymount is showing 463 parking spaces. He questioned the shortage of parking spaces. He felt that Marymount should meet the parking requirements or change their plan. He stated that the Conditional Use Permit rides with the land, but the mitigation is Marymount. Therefore, if Marymount leaves, the mitigations leave. He questioned if the next occupants would have the Palos Verdes Drive North campus to use for parking. He felt that approving this project would be creating a functionally obsolete facility before it's even built. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 10 Ken Goldman stated that at the end of the Traffic Safety Commission meeting early in January, the three Commissioners summed up their comments and each stated their concern regarding traffic safety due to the proposed dormitory freshmen teenage drivers able to drive freely on Palos Verdes ®rive East at any of the night and on the weekends. He stated that Marymount has no restriction on drivers leaving the campus at any hour of the night and weekends. He stated that, unfortunately, these comments were not included in their recommendations. However, the Chairman did request that City staff resolve the parking mitigation. Mark Wells stated that it is unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrealistic to think that the intersection at Western Avenue and Crestwood Street was not included in greater detail in all of the traffic studies related to the project. He stated that it is common knowledge that this intersection has more cut-through traffic than the intersection at Trudie ®rive and Western Avenue. He questioned why the intersection with the highest volume of cut-through traffic was not considered needing mitigation or sufficient study. He requested the Planning Commission disapprove the current Marymount College expansion plans and not certify the EIR. He added that the proposed living campus / academic campus alterative will find a great deal of opposition from those living in Rolling Hills Riviera, eastern Rancho Palos Verdes, Lomita, Harbor City and northwest San Pedro. Further, the Marymount campus was built as a day use campus and he felt it would be a safety hazard to have dormitories built on campus. Gary Mattingly stated he agrees with the comments made by CCCME members, and he especially objects to waking up and finding a dormitory directly across the street from his home filled with 250 very young people. Bob Kollar stated he is not in favor of the dormitories or the athletic facilities and he supports the remainder of the project. He questioned how many of the supporters of the project actually live in the neighborhoods surrounding the college, and questioned the surveys and polls taken by Marymount. Mark Harris stated that whether or not the residents halls are approved, he is assuming the parking lots will be consistently full or near full, with traffic continuing until midnight. He stated that noise from the residence halls can reach as much as 90 dbs at the source and 66 dbs at the nearest residence in addition to the significant parking lot noise of slamming car doors, radios, and conversations. He asked if the EIR measured the cumulative noise impacts from residence halls and parking lots for San Ramon and Vista del Mar residents, or is it two separate measurements. He strongly opposed a parking lot near his property. Gregory Lash urged the Planning Commission to insist on a better parking plan. He stated that 66 parking spaces are proposed along San Ramon ®rive without a buffer. He was also concerned that these students will stay on campus until midnight when the library closes. He also objected to the use of parking permits for residents on San Ramon ®rive. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 11 Ari Reguicha felt that the Marymount proposal has two very bad ideas; one being the request to put 250 kids into a neighborhood where there isn't anything to do that doesn't involve driving, and the other is putting a soccer field near a main road full of cars and bicycles. He felt that the college has proposed band aids for these solutions that will not work. He questioned the methods used in the traffic studies and other sections of the EIR and he felt that the conclusions were no better than a guess, or what he referred to as an unwarranted extrapolation. He asked that the Commission reject the dorms and move the soccer field. Mr. Requicha also objected to the use of parking permits for residents. Bill Dunlap stated he is the parent of a current Marymount student, and one of the reasons he sent his daughter to Marymount College was because of the academic excellence the school provides and the community it provides to the students. He stated the environment created at Marymount is similar to the school he attended, which was in a residential neighborhood with Atherton on one side and Menlo Park on the other. He recommended staff review Menlo College as a model of what can happen to a college that integrates itself into the residential neighborhood and has dormitories on the campus. He reminded everyone that not only students, but adult residents can be accused of having one drink too many, and felt it was unfair to start accusing people of behaviors. He also explained that this project is moving towards a green building certification. He stated this facility will be built under a highly critical environmental requirement to get a green approved building which will be a moniker for the neighborhood and the City. Ward Harmon stated he lives in the vicinity of the college and encouraged the Commission to certify the EIR for the entire plan as proposed by the college. He stated that he believes in higher education and that the college is an asset to the community. He felt the proposed expansion will greatly enhance the ability of the college to provide quality education and further serve the community. Marian Amini stated her daughter is a full time student at Marymount College and asks the Commission certify the EIR and approve the project as proposed by the College. Duncan Tooley stated his property backs up against the proposed parking lot. He felt that Marymount has been very accommodating during this process and enjoys having them as a neighbor. Based on the understanding that all mitigation measures specified in the EIR become requirements for the Conditional Use Permit once the EIR is certified, Mr. Tooley stated he is in support of the project and would like to see the EIR certified. Karsten Lemke stated he is a neighbor of Marymount and his son attended Marymount. He also has recently hosted seven students at his home and he felt these students were of excellent caliber and he would highly recommend these students to any other family. He fully endorsed the Marymount expansion. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 12 Arline Grotz stated she is an immediate neighbor of Marymount College and explained that she and her husband believe the most important thing one can do for their country is to help educate the populace. She`stated over the years she has met many of the students from the school and they are good kids, not anything like the picture her neighbors have presented of bad kids having wild parties. She noted several events she has attended where the auditorium has been filled and she saw no evidence of parking or traffic problems. She encouraged the Planning Commission to certify the EIR and grant the college their permits. DeDe Hicks stated she wholeheartedly supports the Marymount expansion plan. Kay Finer stated she is the President and CEO of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce and is speaking on behalf of the Palos Verdes Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors to ask the Commission to certify the EIR and approve the Marymount College campus improvement plan. She stated that the Chamber believes that the Marymount Campus improvement plan will play a critical role in providing the necessary training for our future work force. The campus improvement plan will guarantee a competitive advantage for Marymount to recruit the finest students capable of filling critical positions in the work force. She noted that with students located on the peninsula they will be available to avail themselves of many non-profit organizations that can utilize their services as well as the intern programs with businesses that become available. She also stated that the Chamber acknowledges that Marymount College is an important community partner, offering free cultural and business education programs to the public at large. The additions to the infrastructure of the campus will enhance the quality of education and services to the community and the EIR warrants the Commission's support and certification. On behalf of the Palos Verdes Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors she asked the Commission certify the EIR and approve the project as proposed by Marymount College. Jon Heise stated he enthusiastically supports the Marymount proposal. He stated that for his entire life he has lived within five walking blocks of a college or university and has never been badly impacted by them. He feels the Marymount students give an enormous amount to their community and are a real service to the community. He asked that we now move forward rather than cling to the past. Martha Gallegos stated she has been an employee of Marymount College for the past 18 years. She discussed the many fundraising projects the students have participated in. She felt the students are wonderful people and she supports the project. Nasrim Madani stated she has several children attending Marymount College and encouraged the Commission to support the Marymount campus improvement plan. Arash Shahi-Meghani stated he is an alumnus of the college and fully supports the project. He stated that approximately one-third of the students at the school grew up in Palos Verdes, as he did. He stated the college helped him develop into the person he is today. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 13 Parvin Madani expressed her support of the project. Maloos Ferasat stated she has two students at Marymount at is in full support of the expansion project. Dr. Brophy (in rebuttal) noted a letter that the Commission received from a neighbor of the college who is in support of the project, but wished to remain anonymous. He stated that the College has consistently polled the public and the Commission has the results of that poll. He submitted a list of almost 900 supporters from Palos Verdes and noted that there are 120 people who live in close proximity to the college who support the college's plans. He explained that at the December and January meetings, the Commission asked the college and CCCME if there were any more questions, and both groups stated that all of their questions had been asked. Yet today there seem to be more questions, and he felt that a pattern was beginning to form. He felt that the same questions are being asked repeatedly waiting for the answer they want to hear. He felt that his staff has been fully answering the questions that have been put forth to them. He noted that the City approved the construction of residence halls on the campus in the 1970's and that when all is said and done he hoped that the City will see how reasonable the Marymount's campus improvement plan is. Commissioner Knight asked staff to comment on the traffic analysis that was done on the intersection at Western Avenue and Crestwood Street. Mr. Martin explained that the traffic analysis did study the Western Avenue and Crestwood Street intersection. He stated that the public comments focused on the changing traffic volumes while the traffic impacts are based on the level of service and how that intersection is operating. To determine if there is an impact, a study is done to see if those operations change dramatically or exceed the threshold. The Crestwood intersection showed that it was within what the thresholds allow and there were no significant impacts in the analysis, therefore no mitigation was recommended. Commissioner Knight noted that a statement was made that the Statement of Overriding Considerations cannot be made for General Plan consistency, and asked staff to comment. .Assistant City Attorney Snow explained there are two different concepts to consider. There is the General Plan consistency requirement which the Planning Commission will have to make the finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan in order to proceed with the Conditional Use Permit. In that context, even if the Commission did override a General Plan consistency impact in the EIR, they would still be precluded from approving the Conditional Use Permit because of the General Plan consistency requirement. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 14 Commissioner Knight stated there was quite an extensive presentation made by Marymount regarding the view corridor impact and asked staff for feedback on what was presented. Principal Planner Mihranian clarified that from a visual character aspect the final EIR is stating that both the athletic facility and the residence halls along that southern slope do result in a significant unavoidable impact. In regards to views, the EIR does state that from certain view corridors the project does not create significant view impacts. He explained that there are two different components to consider: view corridors and visual character. He stated that subsequent to the preparation and release of the EIR there was a view impact with the athletic building identified from the viewing area at 3302 Narino Drive. In regards to the College's references and comparisons to the Terranea project, he clarified that the Terranea Resort is in a different zoning district than the College; Terranea is zoned as a Commercial Recreation (CR), a visitor-serving destination and is designated similarly in the City's Coastal Specific Plan and General Plan Land Use Map; it is located on 102 acres, most of which are developable; and was the home to the former Marineland. And for these reasons should not be compared to the College. He added that the homes also referenced by the College are located in areas zoned for single-family residences, unlike the institutional zoning designation of the College and the majority of the homes referenced were developed as residential planned developments that set forth specific development standards for the tract. Therefore, when much of the analysis was done for the EIR, all of these factors were accounted for. Finally, he noted that the final EIR identifies four significant unavoidable impacts. The impacts are the land use and the construction on an extreme slope, the noise impact from construction activities, the visual character on the slope, and the traffic impacts. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that there was a letter and some discussion this evening regarding parking. He stated that there is a large discrepancy in the parking numbers that were generated by RBF and those generated by Mr. Gordon. He asked staff why the two numbers are so different and what assumptions are made that are different to cause such a discrepancy. Mr. Martin answered that the values the speaker identified was the daily traffic generation associated with the University category. He stated that the discussion began with the daily traffic generation from the ITE University category. The differences may also be due to the way the traffic was counted and the methods used to perform the calculations. He stated that the information used in the traffic study is based on peak hours and peak traffic data. Commissioner Tomblin noted that comments have been made that there are continuous changes made by the College and that the EIR should not yet be certified. He asked staff to comment. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that the EIR looked at a worse case scenario and much of the analysis and studies conducted in the EIR looked at a 24/7 operation. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 15 Therefore, the EIR inherently analyzed activities that occur at night and mitigation is suggested to address those potential impacts. Assistant City Attorney Snow added that a component of the question is what is appropriate as far as modifications to the project through the process versus the CEQA principle of a finite and fixed project description. He noted that one of the aspects of CEQA is to complete the analysis early enough in the process so that it can help inform how the project is ultimately configured. He felt some of the modifications made through the process were designed to address impacts that have been identified in the environmental document, which is something CEQA strives to achieve. Chairman Lewis asked where in the traffic study he would find the information that there would be no impact to the level of service at the Crestwood and Western intersection that would warrant further study or mitigation. Mr. Martin answered that in the body of the EIR there are multiple intersections analyzed and there is a column in the Level of Services Tables which discusses this intersection. Commissioner Knight stated that in going through the staff report, there are so many elements that are variable in terms of recommendations that the Planning Commission can and cannot recommend to mitigate, that he would he would like to see a formulation of all of the conditions put into Appendix A of the EIR so he and the public can get a feel for all of the different elements involved, and to know what is and what is not being mitigated. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed, adding that it would be helpful to have all of the issues laid out. He began with traffic, explaining that given what he has heard at this meeting in regards to traffic, he would be comfortable certifying the EIR in regards to traffic and parking. The only specific issue he had in regards to parking is the manner in which the City will handle the mitigation for the amount of parking that exists. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with the Vice Chairman in terms of traffic and parking. He explained that his concerns and issues dealt more with hours of operation and other operational issues that might be cleared up with a comprehensive Appendix A to the EIR. Commissioner Knight felt that there are enough potential mitigation factors to address the parking. He added that there are other aesthetic issues to address, such as where students will be parking. He had an issue with the EIR not doing an analysis on the effect of the dormitories and the students being there 24 /7 and the traffic after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, after 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and no analysis done on Sundays. He did not think it was unreasonable to think that once classes are over or on the weekend that students may want to leave campus. He felt that since currently the land use does not have any students living there, and therefore there is still a factor of the change of land Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 16 use that could create a potentially significant difference. Without this information in the EIR he could not make a decision. Chairman Lewis stated that in terms of traffic and parking he was satisfied with the City's consultants and school's response that there is enough information to certify the EIR as to traffic and parking. He noted that certifying the EIR is a long way from approving the project. He felt that to move forward it would be beneficial to poll each Commissioner to determine if there are any other questions that are still open and have not been resolved that would be a barrier to them to not certify the EIR. Vice Chairman Gerstner referred to the first page in the FEIR and the format of mitigation monitoring and reporting, and since this might form some of the basis of Appendix A, there are some words that would not be his choice and he would like to bring those up. Referring to the chart on page 3 of the FEIR he began with item AES-3 which stated the area shall be hydro seeded and revegetated. His preference was to say hydro seeded or otherwise revegetated, as opposed to demanding someone use a specific manufacturer's seed product to revegetate. In item AES-6 he stated he was not aware of 42 inch light ballards along the San Ramon side of the parking lot, and felt that 42 inch light ballards do not work too well in a parking lot. He was concerned that a specific solution to a problem was being suggested and that the proposed solution may not work. Principal Planner Mihranian was concerned that if the light fixtures are raised in height a new impact could be introduced. He stated a 42 inch light ballard will illuminate the area adjacent to a parking stall but may not illuminate the actual driveway area. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he was pointing out the potential for not meeting a two foot candle coverage on the parking lot. He stated that he would still certify the EIR with the 42 inch light ballards, however it might be opening up the college to challenges down the road. He also noted that the chart states the "proper" use and selection of fixture components and shielding accessories. He questioned the use of"proper selection", as one does not usually make the selection improperly, just with different values. He stated that AES-8 refers to minimally reflective glass, and later in the paragraph it refers to glass with no greater than 25 percent reflectivity. He clarified that the City was stating that minimal is reflectivity of 25 percent. He referred to TRA where it states "debris would occur on the college campus." He felt it should say "debris is to .occur". At TR-2 he noted that the language says "prior to any certificate of occupancy". He explained that in a multi-phased document this would be very restrictive and suggested modifying the language. In TR-3 he noted language that it will be the responsibility to have the intersection restriped. He stated that would involve working with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, City of Los Angeles, and Cal Trans. He did not think it should therefore be the responsibility of the applicant, as it is very difficult to control the government organizations in terms of getting the work done. He suggested the applicant pay a certain sum of money to the City and the City then take the lead in having the intersection restriped. In TR-5 he noted in the fourth line the word "prohibits" and suggested using the word "limits", as he did not think it was realistic to prohibit Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 17 guest parking. In AQ-1, the second bullet from the bottom discusses street cleaning in the surrounding area, and he questioned what the surrounding area is. He felt that the "surrounding area" should be defined. In AQ-3 he referred to contract standards specifications and felt that it should be referring to the applicant rather than the contractor or construction manager. In AQ-5 there is a statement that "the contractor shall include the following measures in the grading plan. . . ." He stated the contractor does not draw the grading plans, the civil engineer does. Therefore, the civil engineer decides what is in the grading plans or the college will decide what to direct the civil engineer to put in the grading plan. Referring to NOI-1, the third bullet, there is a reference to a disturbance coordinator. He asked if the Disturbance Coordinator is the person that complaints are registered to, and if so, that should be clarified. In N01-2 there is a referral to standard land use noise compatibility guidelines for adjacent residences. He questioned what that is. Ms. Garcia explained those guidelines are provided in the body of the noise section of the EIR. Chairman Lewis stated that when reading this information there was not much detail in terms of mitigation measures, and hoped that when this comes back to the Commission there was more detail provided. Vice Chairman Gerstner continued with NOI-3, the second bullet states that all mechanical equipment shall be "properly" selected. He noted the previous discussion regarding the word "properly". In NOI-4 there is a reference to "feasible" as well as "greatest extent possible". He felt this was a setup for failure and it should be defined in a way that is strict but can be accomplished, with objective criteria. Referring to NOI-5 there is a reference to "project impacts". He felt that project impacts are very broad and should be better defined. He referred to GEO-1 where it states "in each phase of the project". He felt that these phases should be defined or outlined, as the phases may change. In GEO-2, the first bullet states that "irrigation shall be prohibited along the eastern", and suggested using the word "controlled". He stated that if there is vegetation it should somehow be watered and the irrigation of the vegetation should be controlled and not prohibited. Referring to HYD-2 the last word is "college" and he felt that "applicant" should be used to be consistent. In HYD-3 the issuance of"any" building permit should be looked at. Chairman Lewis added that he would like to see a more detailed explanation for the mitigation measures for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly. Commissioner Knight asked where in the list of mitigation measures the modular buildings are. Principal Planner Mihranian explained the mitigation measures reviewed were released prior to the submittal of the modular buildings. The modular buildings are discussed in Appendix A of the final EIR. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 18 Commissioner Knight stated that in tonight's staff report (page 3) it was stated that the new numbers will include all parked cars and not just student cars. He asked if that will change the numbers in TR-6 and TR-7. Principal Planner Mihranian referred to TR-6 and the discussion in the second set of bullet points. He felt those points could apply to students, faculty, staff, and visitors. Commissioner Knight referred to N01-2 and asked if those guidelines would be available for public review. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that the guidelines are in the EIR and could be summarized in the mitigation measure. Vice Chairman Gerstner suggested that the Guidelines be dated, as they do change periodically and this is not intended to be a moving target. Commissioner Knight asked if the netting for the athletic field is addressed in Appendix A. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that the athletic field netting is addressed in Appendix A. Commissioner Knight felt that an integrated pest management plan for the landscaping should be included in HYD-4. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he would limit his comments to the two areas of concern, the dormitories and the athletic field netting. In reference to the dormitories, he did not see any restrictions on signage in the windows of the dorms. He also did not think there was any discussion to address the lighting issue of the dorms in terms of how the interior lights of the students rooms would affect the surrounding neighborhoods and the environmental impact of student life to the surrounding neighborhood. In regards to the dormitories and the traffic, he questioned what would happen or how it would be handled when a student wants to leave campus at 1:00 a.m., as college life does not end at 10:00 p.m. He questioned the traffic flow late at night and if busses would be allowed to run late into the night. He stated that he currently does not have a problem with the proposed athletic field, but he does have concerns regarding the netting and the visual impacts of the netting. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that in order to certify the EIR a statement will have to be prepared regarding the significant and unavoidable items. In order to certify the EIR, he would prefer to see that statement in advance. Assistant City Attorney Snow stated that staff can take a first cut at proposing what staff sees as the benefits of the project and it will be at the Commission's discretion to review and modify those statements. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 19 Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that a Statement of Overriding Consideration was warranted in regards to the Palos Verdes ®rive South and Palos Verdes ®rive East intersection. He also felt that in construction related noise is significant and unavoidable. He questioned if the issue of construction on extreme slope issue is a significant and unavoidable issue or if it is a Variance issue. Ms. Garcia explained that the approach regarding construction on an extreme slope was correlated with the visual impact analysis. She stated that the consistency with the zoning code alone is not the basis for the significant and unavoidable impact, but rather it is correlated to the conclusion of significant impact on the visual character of the south facing slope. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated the significant and unavoidable impact is the south facing slope and exists whether or not there is an extreme slope underneath it. Ms. Garcia stated that is a true statement. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if the extreme slope in and of itself is a significant and unavoidable impact, but becomes significant and unavoidable only in the sense that if a building is to built there a Variance will be needed. Ms. Garcia stated that the extreme slope becomes significant and unavoidable because of the secondary impact associated with the visual character to the south facing slope. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he has wrestled with the issue of long term visual character, as it has the greatest impact. He stated that for quite some time he has said that he felt the south facing slope in particular could be mitigated with significant vegetation. He stated that he has suggested that the entire hill be planted in a forest of trees such that they would grow to a height where one would never be able to see the dormitories from the roadway. He stated that this would change the environment of the slope. Given that could be done, there is therefore a mitigation in his mind that would allow for the visual character to be mitigated. He felt that this type of planting would obscure the buildings, the neighbors would not be looking up at the school, the students in the dormitories will not be looking down at the neighbors, it will have some mitigation for sound, it will help mitigate light, and will help solve many other problems. Commissioner Tomblin felt there was some merit to the Vice Chairman's comments. He referred to the comments he made about the environmental impact to student life and need to mitigate some of the things that will naturally happen with students living on campus. Commissioner Knight stated that he would not be able to certify anything until he has reviewed Appendix A. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that the recommendation is to continue the public hearing to April 14t", which has been set aside to discuss the outstanding issues Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 20 regarding the planning applications. He felt that staff will need additional time to address some of the issues raised on the EIR issues. Director Rojas recapped that the Commission was directing staff to begin drafting a Resolution of certification of the EIR, noting that in doing so the Commission was in no way certifying the EIR at this time. He stated that with this Resolution staff will address the comments with regards to certain mitigation measures. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he would like to see the applicant install a mock-up of the athletic field net before the next hearing, and the Commission agreed. Principal Planner Mihranian added that staff would suggest the mock-up be of a net material at the proposed height, and be installed prior to the April 14th meeting. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing tote meeting of April 14, 2009 and directed staff to begin drafting a Resolution for certification of the EIR and to add and amend certain mitigation measures, and direction to the applicant to install a mock-up of the athletic not before the next hearing, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 2. Pre-agesda for the meetinq of April 14, 2009 The pre-agenda was unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:27 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 31, 2009 Page 21