Loading...
PC MINS 20090127 Approved March 10\, 2009 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES J2- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestarn at 7:10 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Assistant City Attorney Dave Snow, Principal Planner Mihranian, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Associate Planner Fox APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Perestarn suggested moving items agenda items 5 and 6 ahead of agenda item No. 4. The Commission unanimously agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the January 21, 2009 meeting, the City Council continued the Valero zone change request to April to allow a zone text amendment to be processed by the Planning Commission that would only allow conditional uses in the CL zone. He also reported that the City council held off on adopting the Resolution approving the St. John Fisher project and that the appeal hearing of the Commission's denial of a new home on Cayuse Lane will be held at the February 3rd Council meeting. Director Rojas distributed 2 items of correspondence for agenda item No. 2 and 9 items of correspondence for agenda item No. 4. Commissioner Knight reported that he and Commissioners Gerstner and Tetreault met with the applicant for the proposed affordable housing project. Vice Chairman Lewis and Commissioner Tomblin reported that they met with Steve Kuykendall to discuss the survey results related to the Marymount project. The Vice Chairman also met with Don Davis and Jack Karp to discuss procedural issues related to the item. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT ALN A 1. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. Z 2007-00243): 30359 Hawthorne Blvd. Commissioner Perestarn moved to approve the Consent Calendar, thereby adopting P.C. esolutiion 2009-02 which conditionally approves the Conditional Use Permit, as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0-1)with Vice Chairman Lewis recused. CONTINUED USINES 2. View Restoration Permit (Case No. VRP 203) Interpretation Review Hearin_ Commissioner Tetreault noted that he had previously recused himself from hearing this item and would continue to do so. He left the dais. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, giving a history of the application and the reason for the interpretation review hearing, He noted that the Planning Commission, at the previous hearing, directed staff to prepare a Resolution identifying certain trees that had specific limbs to be removed to comply with the Planning Commission's intent. He displayed photographs taken to depict the new foliage to be trimmed and noted that the tree owner has concerns that removing the lower limbs of the tree, as suggested by staff, would create a gap in the tree that would not be aesthetically pleasing. He also noted that on a recent site visit staff noted that two trees on the property have grown into the view, and therefore needed to be addressed. Commissioner Knight asked if the view the Commission originally approved included the Pittosporum trees, or if they have since grown into the viewing area. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that the two trees were not in the view at the time the Commission was originally considering this application, and have subsequently grown into the viewing area. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if any foliage on the Pine tree recommended for trimming was below 16 feet in height. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 2 Senior Planner Alvarez answered that all foliage recommended for trimming is above the 16 foot height mark. Commissioner Knight noted a branch that staff had recommended be removed, and asked if that particular branch is above the 16 foot height level. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that a portion of the branch is below the 16 foot level. He explained that the City's View Restoration Guidelines allow for trimming below 16 feet for the reason of balancing out the tree, provided that the tree owner provides consent. He did not think the foliage owner objected to balancing out the tree. Mrs. Aelony (applicant) was disappointed that an Ordinance that has been approved by the voters has, in her case, taken four years to implement. She requested that this process be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible so that she may once again enjoy her view. Paul Kuliis (foliage owner) explained his concern with removing the bottom branch was that it would make the tree unbalanced. He stated that the original Resolution and decision was about balancing the tree value and aesthetics with the view. A picture was displayed of the tree in question and he explained his proposal to remove specific branches that would open the view for the Aelonys. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Kuljis if he would consent to the removal of any foliage below the 16 foot level. Mr. Kuljis answered that he would have to see where that specific vegetation is from his property before agreeing to the cutting of vegetation below 16 feet. Mrs. Aelony reminded the Planning Commission that straight across from the tree is Catalina Island. Chairman Perestarn asked Mrs. Aelony if the trimming suggested by Mr. Kuljis would make a difference in her view. Mrs. Aelony answered that any cutting will make a difference in the view. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that the City cannot make the foliage owner cut foliage below 16 feet in height, and it appeared that he was not consenting to cutting any foliage below 16 feet. He agreed with staff's recommendation for the trimming of foliage above the 16 foot height level. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-03 directing the foliage owner to do additional trimming to the foliage on the Monterey pine tree above the 16 foot level but going no higher than what is shown in Exhibit B to restore the applicant's view, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS . Conditional Use Permit Revision and Site Plan Review (Case No. Z N20 00598® 3231 Palos Verdes Drive South Commissioner Tetreault returned to the dais. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the applicant's request for additional development on the property which would increase the lot coverage to 31 percent. He explained that lot coverage is calculated differently in the Seacliff Hills development than if is elsewhere in the City, with lot coverage limited to 25 percent. He stated that staff believes the required findings to approve the requested revision to the Conditional Use Permit can be made. He added that the property abuts the City's NCCP preserve and the proposed improvements have no impact on the preserve. However, based on recent experience with the Fire Department's fuel modification requirements, staff believes a condition should be included that stipulates that any future fuel modification that the Fire Department might require that encroaches into the NCCP area would be the financial responsibility of the property owner. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit revision as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight noted that close proximity of the pool to the NCCP area and questioned what provisions will be taken if it is necessary to drain the swimming pool. Associate Planner Fox explained that there are allowances to allow pool water to drain into storm drains after dechlorination and to allow pools to be drained directly into the sewer. He stated staff can add a condition of approval that the pool cannot drain into the canyon but must be drained in accordance with provisions in the Building Code. Chairman Perestarn opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault asked if other homes in the Seacliff Hills area have applied for variances to exceed the 25 percent lot coverage restriction. Associate Planner Fox answered that there have been many instances of residents in the Seacliff Hills development that have requested and been granted an application to exceed the lot coverage restriction. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he has a concern with the request and the lot coverage. He explained that the house under construction is a fairly large house, and that with proper planning, a house, landscaping, and a pool could have been accommodated on this lot that would have met the lot coverage restrictions for the tract. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's concern about not dealing with this issue with the original application. However, he noted that this request Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 4 is to expand lot coverage by only 2 percent, and therefore he felt he could support the request. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit revision and Site Plan Review as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Knight was also concerned about the way this project was piece- mewled together. He noted there are two additional vacant lots next to the subject lot that could also ask to exceed the 25 percent lot coverage in the future. He was concerned with the incremental affect of this request. He realized that other homes in Seacliff Hills have been granted a variance to allow more lot coverage, and stated that he would feel more comfortable if the Commission were to continue this public hearing to allow staff the time to research these other properties where exceptions were made and whether or not the exceptions made are similar to this request. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he can make all of the necessary findings to approve this request and therefore was supporting staff's recommendation. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-04 thereby conditionally approving the requested Conditional Use Permit revision and Site Plan Review as presented by staff was approved, (5-2)with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of November 1112008 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault® Approved as presented, (7-0)with Chairman Perestarn abstaining from voting on Agenda Item No. 2. 6. Minutes of November 25, 2008 Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault® Approved, (6-0-1)with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 4. Marymount College facilities expansion project— review of final EI R (Case N . ZON2003-003179 Conditional Use Permit No. 9 — Revision `E'g Grading Permit and Variances: 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioner Ruttenberg and Chairman Perestam recused themselves from the public hearing for reasons previously expressed. They left the dais. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 5 Commissioner Tetreault stated that he and other people have questioned the EIR with respect to the traffic circulation study. At a previous meeting he raised a question regarding the project's traffic circulation and the potential traffic impact to Via Colinita if this project were to be approved. He stated that his questions in this regard were prompted by a desire to end up with a better and more complete traffic study, not by a belief on his part that approval of.the project would create an adverse traffic impact on Via Colinita. Regardless, since he lives on Via Colinita, the City Attorney has recommended he recuse himself from further participation in this project. He felt it was very important that any vote by this Commission be considered to be free from any bias, and for that reason he will recuse himself-from further participation in this project. He left the dais. Assistant City Attorney Snow added that, given the events of this recent recusal, he cautioned the Commission that it should not take into consideration the prior testimony or participation from Commissioner Tetreault on this matter, but instead continue to consider information presented to the Commission and base their decision on that other evidence. Principal Planner Mihranian presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the proposed project. He explained that what is before the Commission at this meeting is consideration of the requested Grading Permit, Variance, Minor Exception Permit, and Sign Permit applications. As discussed in the staff report, he reviewed the different components of the Grading Permit, where the grading was proposed to take place, how much grading is proposed, and why the proposed grading is needed. He discussed and summarized the findings that must be made to approve a Grading Permit. He stated that staff believes all of the findings can be made with the exception of the athletic building and residence hall. He noted that staff believes the necessary findings for the athletic building could be made provided the applicant revises the project to move the athletic building away from the extreme slope and further set back from the top of slope. Regarding the residence hall, staff could not make the findings necessary for the approval of the Grading Permit, and reminded the Commission of the inability to make the CUP findings for the residence halls. Principal Planner Mihranian then discussed the four components to the proposed Variance; the extreme slope development, the parking lot location, the parking lot setback, and the athletic field netting. He stated that staff believes the required four findings can be made for the parking lot setback request and the athletic field netting. Staff however was not able to make the required Variance findings to recommend approval for the construction o the extreme slope and the distance between the parking lot and residence hall No. 2. In discussing the Minor Exception Permit application, Principal Planner Mihranian showed several illustrations of the proposed fencing for the project. He stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings to recommend approval for the Minor Exception Permit. He discussed the fourth application before the Planning Commission at this meeting, the master sign program, showing drawings of where the proposed Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 6 signs would be located and its general design. He stated that staff was seeking direction from the Commission as to when to schedule the next public hearing, suggesting the meeting of February 24th Vice Chairman Lewis stated that the Commission received an email of a January 27, 2009 letter from Marymount College touching on quite a few issues, including the Grading Permit and extreme slope Variance, and asked that after the applicant has given their presentation, he would like staff respond to the points raised. Secondly, he asked if any changes have been proposed to the project since the last public hearing, and if so, would these proposed changes,require a revision to the EIR. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that no new applications or requests have been submitted to the City that would require any modifications to the final EIR. Michael Laughlin (Marymount College) Asked the Planning Commission to look at all of the applications being discussed in the framework of the General Plan. He stated that the proposed use can be fully accommodated on the site, noting that in many cases under half the site is developed and the lower portion of the site could be developed without restrictions. In regards to the Grading Permit, he explained that they have attempted to balance the cut and fill and will remove the ribbon of slope over 35 percent. He stated that the EIR and geotechnical reviews have confirmed this can be done safely with mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Regarding the extreme slope variance, he stated the findings can be made since the slope affects only a small portion of the site, unlike residences in the City that are built on steep hillsides. In discussing parking lot distances to the residences halls, he noted that the Municipal Code states that parking lots for residential facilities must be located within 150 from the building served. He showed a drawing of the proposed residence halls, noting a connection tunnel. He showed the existing parking configuration and explained that this plan consolidates the parking along the perimeter of the site and immediately enter the pedestrian corridor. He stated that there are ways to bring parking closer to the buildings, such as making an alteration for parking on either side of the driveway to eliminate the variance requirement. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Laughlin to speak in more detail regarding the extreme slope variance, and why Marymount College felt they were exempt from this process. Mr. Laughlin explained that the college made its first application in 2000 and it included three residence hall buildings in the same area as the currently proposed buildings, and at that time they only had to apply for a Grading Permit, not a Variance for construction on an extreme slope. After the college filed their current application they were informed they needed an extreme slope Variance, which they filed in protest because they are a legally subdivided lot and should be exempt. He stated that in 2007 staff amended the Ordinance to include a tightening of the exemption clause under the Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 7 Principal Planner Mihranian clarified that the administrative draft EIR for the 2000 project, which was never released to the public but reviewed by the College, identified that a Variance application was requested for construction of the residence halls on an extreme slope. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the material that composes the extreme slope is competent material. Mr. Laughlin answered that the material in the extreme slope is not competent material and must be removed. He noted that the•fill materials that will be placed will be on a slope less than 35 percent. He explained it is their goal to restore the site to a more natural slope. Commissioner Gerstner asked how much attention has been given to alternate plans for the residence halls. Mr. Laughlin explained that the slide he displayed was intended to show that there is an undesirable alternative that would avoid the Variance and avoid the distance to the parking lot requirement. He stated that what they are trying to accomplish is a compact campus and in order to achieve that they do need the Variances. Vice Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Snow if the question of whether or not the Variance does or does not apply, based on the prior application, is a legal question rather than a finding that the Planning Commission should make. Mr. Snow answered that there is a code provision that applies to this project, regardless of when it was adopted, and it does not bear on the four findings that must be made to grant the Variance. Scott Boydson (Rasmussen & Associates Architects) stated that the recommendation by staff for the athletic facility is to provide a 10 foot setback from the 906 elevation. He explained that when the rough grading is done there will no longer be a 906 elevation, as that is the top of the extreme slope that will be removed. He therefore did not think there was any point in setting the athletic field back any further because there is no ridge line to get back behind. He stated there was also a recommendation to lower the roof height. He explained that in looking at the height of the building is in line with the existing top of the student union building and in line or below the existing tree line. He therefore did not think the impact to the view would be any greater than what is already out there. He discussed the Variance for the netting and the Minor Exception Permit for the fence and tennis court wall. He explained that they are trying to set the athletic fields down into the ground. He stated that there is only a very small portion of the netting at the tennis courts where the netting would be at 20 feet in height, with the majority of fencing being between 6 and 10 feet in height. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 8 Commissioner Knight noted that there was a comment by staff regarding the pedestrian flow and how students will have to walk through the athletic building. He asked if setting the athletic building back will help improve the pedestrian circulation. Mr. Boydson responded that there is a walkway proposed to go around the athletic building, noting that this is also required by the Fire Department. He also noted that it was anticipated that the use of the athletic field will happen during the daytime, and at that time the building will be open. Michael B (Marymount College) stated that the college was looking to address many of the comments shared at the December meeting. Therefore, the presentation is looking to address many of the quality of life issues that have been raised. He stated that this is a program 10 years in the making and the program has been adjusted in a number of ways. He stated that the costs have increased and will continue to increase the longer it takes to make a decision. He stated that the EIR states that most of the significant impacts are addressed, and only a small number of remaining impacts and variances remain. He therefore wanted to now focus on the residence halls. He knew that the Commission will be considering facts from the EIR, City laws and policies, precedent, the well being of the neighborhood, and the well being of the college. He stated that the college would like to present some validation of findings or claims, present some case study analysis and related research. Dr. Brophy explained that the residential Catholic college tradition to bring the students together for their whole development, provide an environment for worship, faculty mentoring, greater connection to the campus, and greater access to services. He felt Marymount has been challenged by not having residence halls on the main campus. He explained that there are currently students living at a facility on Palos Verdes Drive North and explained what happens at that campus now. He noted that in the last 4 years there have been no criminal offenses on the property. He therefore felt that the student code of conducts works. He stated that the college is working with students 18 to 20 years of age, and asked felt that one should be careful when making assumptions about this age group. He looked at four similar size colleges in similar type neighborhoods and noted that they too have zero criminal offenses on their property. He stated that with one campus housing they would be able to limit the number of cars, provide increased shuttle services in the evenings, drug counseling for students who were suspects of drug use, and establish community advisory groups with the neighbors. Dr. Brophy stated that the proposed residence halls would be made to order. They would have closed windows, more adult supervision, better monitoring with two check in desks at the residence halls, 24/7 campus safety in place, and one main entrance to the campus. He reminded the Commission of the good that students do throughout the community and also that Marymount anticipates being able to deliver 10 affordable housing units by 2014. He noted that the City has, in the past, approved residence halls at Marymount College. At that time the city deemed the proposed residence halls compatible with the neighborhood. He did not think the City could deny residence halls Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 9 based on quality of life issues as well as traffic, parking, and crime, as there is nothing in the EIR to support this. He also did not think the Commission could deny residence halls because of the age of the students, the Catholic mission, or that there will be any conjecture about the behavior of the students. He stated Marymount College has a very positive image in the community and according to their polls, 80 percent of the Rancho Palos Verdes residents are in favor of the plan and 58 percent of the residents from the local precincts favor the plan. Vice Chairman Lewis noted a table in the staff report that summarizes the questions that the Commission, the college, and CCC/ME have asked, and asked Dr. Brophy if he feels the table is complete or if he has any comments about the content of that table. Dr. Brophy felt that many of the questions are redundant. Don Davis (Marymount College) added that there are objections to many of the comments included by CCCME, as they are statements rather than questions, and statements shouldn't warrant a response. Lois Karp (CCCME) began by commenting on the staff report. She stated that the Coalition agrees that the Variance request to construct on an extreme slope is contrary to the General Plan No. 6 and No. 11 and building on an extreme slope will be materially detrimental to the public. The grading for the residence halls and athletic building is excessive and contributes to the massive appearance as viewed from the roadway and downslope homes. She did not think the findings could be made for the building of the residence halls and athletic building. She felt that construction on the south slope significantly impacts the visual character of the site. The site cannot accommodate the athletic facility and residence halls, and she did not think the residence halls are needed to preserve and enjoy the substantial property rights. She reminded the Commission that there is an alternative plan to the residence halls which is included in the EIR. She stated the Coalition agrees with the importance of the staff recommended Grading Bond to restore the site if the project is not completed. They are in full agreement that the detention basin and secondary basin must be lined and that no rock crushing be allowed on site. Tom Redfield stated the General Plan Policy No. 1 states that the City should develop controls to preserve existing significant aspects from future disruption or degradation. General Plan Policy No. 7 states the City should require developers to address treatments into their projects which enhance a view corridor. He asked if there is anyone who feels this massive development actually preserves this view corridor. He also asked the Commission to think of almost 8 years of construction in this view corridor and what that will mean to the public during that time. In discussing the netting for the athletic field, he explained that CCCME disagrees with staff that the findings can be made on Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 as they are made on questionable assumptions, logic, and comparisons. He noted staff's suggested mitigation that the field's use be limited to specific hours on weekdays and weekends to minimize the impact to neighbors. He questioned why staff assumed neighbors would be more or less impacted on weekends Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 10 versus weekdays. He asked why there is no mention by staff that Marymount plans to offer the fields to AYSO and other sport groups within the City. He asked what system of controls will be implemented to raise and lower the netting. He disputed staff's statement that the net variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant which is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district. He stated the other property owners are public schools, which the City does not have the regulation authority over. Further, none of these properties have fences along major artillery roads. He asked the Planning Commission to reject staff's approval of all four findings on this retractable netting. Lois Karp stated that the next point of disagreement is the reduction in the front side setback, which is not consistent with bringing past non-conforming items up to code. She stated that the college is surrounded by residential homes that have been required not to encroach into their front yard setbacks, and the college should not be any exception to this rule. Jim Gordon discussed the Variance findings for the proposed parking area. He began with finding No. 1 on page 19 of the staff report which states that the reconfigured parking area will result in 120 additional parking spaces. He stated that the reconfiguration will not increase the parking spaces by 120 spaces. Full compliance with the 25 foot setback would result in 20 fewer spaces, not 120. He questioned why this was not revealed in the staff report. He stated that the rationale is totally misleading because in the only other representative staff case, the referenced Ner Tamid Temple case, was located within only 40 feet of the property line and founded in 1961. He did not think this was comparable with Marymount which has an existing building that is more than 115 feet from the front side property line. He stated that Marymount is proposing to vastly increase their utilization, which was not the case with the Temple. He also noted that St. John Fisher increased its street side setbacks in its modernization project. He felt in Marymount's case that staff is attempting to make precedent, not abide by it. He stated that in finding No. 3 staff stated that the reduction in the 20 foot setback requirement is not materially detrimental to the public or neighboring properties. He stated that what is materially detrimental is the failure of the city to uphold its own code requirements versus County codes. He felt this is an unprecedented deviation that cannot be compared to, or supported by, any other Institutional Zone situation precedent and serves to weaken the entire Code of the City by degrees. Regarding finding No. 4, he felt that the finding is unsupported, noting the referenced General Plan sections are not met by any reasonable standard. He noted the location of the parking proposed within the 25 foot setback is actually prohibited by existing Code provisions cited previously, and known in advance by the applicant. He was also very concerned that if the City approves or modifies the setbacks that the San Ramon boundary issue is kept in mind, which is subject to current CUP conditions. Lois Karp continued by saying the front of the parking lot is facing all residential homes. The front of the parking lots used as comparisons in the staff report are on a street in an Institutional zoned area and facing institutions. She stated that there are items missing Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 11 and not covered in the staff report, and questioned when these items would be discussed. She noted that a Grading Permit was being discussed, however the hydrology and geology have not been presented. She questioned how a grading permit with 102,000 cubic yards of grading can be discussed without that information. Vice Chairman Lewis referred toa Table in the staff report which lists all of the questions the Commission would like answers to before the EIR can be certified. He noted a number of questions regarding hydrology and geology, and asked Ms. Karp if her group has any additional questions beyond those in the Table. Ms. Karp answered that there are no additional questions she would like to add to those already in the Table. Ms. Karp stated that in the final EIR it says that pursuant to Code Section 17.26.040 buildings erected in the Institutional Zone buildings are limited to a height of 16 feet and not greater than one story. She noted that there have been discussions that the athletic facility is too large and too prominent, but questioned why we are not discussing all of the buildings, as they are all proposed at over 16 feet in height. She noted the situation with the grasscrete and the felt that should also be a topic of discussion. George Zugsmith questioned how Marymount will monitor the traffic issues, noise, and parking. He felt that these issues could be resolved if Marymount were willing to build this project at their site at Palos Verdes Drive North and Western Avenue. He was also puzzled by Marymount's claim that there have been zero criminal offenses reported on campus. He stated that the Office of Post-Secondary Education has record of over 450 incidents on campus. Finally, he noted that Marymount College has been on academic warning status from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges since January 2008. He felt that fact should be taken into consideration. Chris Venn stated that when he purchased his home on San Ramon Drive he was aware of the 1975 Conditional Use Permit for the college and assured by the following City Council Resolution that the development at the college would not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area. He noted that this project proposes planting in the eastern parking lot trees and shrubs as well as grasscrete to reduce the amount of paving. The number of parking places will be increased from 27 to 227 and traffic along this road will be increased substantially. The increase of planting in the eastern parking lot will severely affect his property, obstruct his views of open sky, and restrict the sunlight onto the property. Alicia Maniatakis stated she agrees with all of the concerns raised by the neighbors, and added why the needs and accommodations of a junior college whose students would only reside on site for two years would ever take precedence over the needs of the community and those who have lived in the neighborhood for many years. She was also concerned about the geology of the area, especially since the San Ramon landslide. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 12 Kay Finer stated she is the President and CEO of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce. She felt that the proposed Marymount expansion would advance its academic improvement program and serve as a valuable public resource, and the Chamber Board endorses this expansion. She stated that the Board feels the Marymount campus improvement program will play a critical role in providing the necessary training for the future workforce by offering a high quality education and on- going educational program. She felt the campus improvement would guarantee a competitive advantage for Marymount to recruit the finest students capable of filling critical positions in the workforce. Moreover, the students represent another critical facet for the community, actively contributing to the local economy. She also noted that the adult weekend education programs will be even more valuable to those who need training in other fields due to unexpected career job changes. She felt the final EIR warrants the Commission's support and certification, and on behalf of the PVP Chamber, she respectfully asked that the Commission certify the EIR and approve the campus improvement project as proposed by Marymount College. David Woodberry stated he supports the proposed plan submitted by Marymount College. He suggested setting up dialogue between himself (the Director of Residential Life) and the concerned neighbors. He felt a constant dialogue may help to get the project moving forward. Teresa Sun stated her support of the project. She noted that the college has opened their doors for the community's use and now is the time that the community return the favor with strong support for its campus improvement plans. She felt this improvement would allow Marymount a chance to align itself as an even bigger leader in the world of higher education through a state-of-the-art library, modernized athletic facility, and residence halls. She asked the Commission support the project and certify the final EIR. Nasrin Madani felt that a two-campus alternative is both illogical and digressive. She felt the two-campus alternative would increase the traffic and travel among the students and would make the Marymount's students an even bigger presence throughout the community with constant travel before and after class sessions and events. She stated her support of the EIR and the project as submitted by the college. Angie Papadakis stated the college was in existence 55 years ago when she moved to Rancho Palos Verdes. She feels Marymount has proposed a change for the better for their students and campus, and just as her homes needs some improvements after all these years, so does the Marymount campus. In discussing traffic, she stated that the only traffic she has found a problem is traffic at Miraleste, not at Marymount. She asked the Commission to certify the final EIR and support the campus improvement plan. Jane Jones stated her home is three blocks from the Marymount campus and has always enjoyed having Marymount as her neighbor. She stated that Marymount has been an excellent neighbor, and so have the students. She stated that she is speaking not only for herself, but for many neighbors and friends when she says that the new Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 13 x buildings and landscaping will greatly enhance the site. She felt that the net would only be up in the morning or afternoon when most of the local residents are at work, and wouldn't know the net is up. Furthermore, when driving on Palos Verdes Drive East, one should not be looking at the net, but rather at the road. Regarding the wrought iron fence, she noted there is one exactly like the one being proposed by Marymount on Palos Verdes Drive South, and she didn't think there have been any complaints about that fence. Bill Dunlap stated that he has a child who attends Marymount College and would like to address some of the comments regarding the behavior of the students. He stated that one of the reasons they chose Marymount College is because it is a dry campus and because of their efficient and effective manner in dealing with student behavior. He added that he is an alumnus of Menlo College which was a two year private junior college in a very affluent neighborhood. He stated that it went through a building expansion, which was supported by the community and the neighboring residents, and it made a wonderful campus environment. He felt it was important for colleges to have their students residents on campus to create their collegial environment. He stated he is in support of the project. Loyd Kenworthy felt this case has lingered on for too long, depriving students of their new campus experience. He encouraged the Planning Commission to certify the EIR and make a decision to approve the proposed project. James Jones felt that the task before the Commission is very difficult, and it is made so not by the volume of facts that must be dealt with, but by the high level of emotion and the effort by some to allege facts that are not in evidence. He asked the Commission to set aside emotion and prejudice and assume the responsibility of a jury in a trial and deal with the facts and evidence as they can best determine them. Dr. Sue Soldoff stated she supports the project and encouraged the Commission to certify the EIR. She discussed the proposed phasing of the project, and explained that during the construction students will have to attend classes and the campus will be used by many people. This must be taken into account during the construction and phasing of the project, which means that construction will not be going on constantly for 8 years. She asked the Commission take that into consideration when making their decision. DeDe Hicks discussed her experiences in going to a small college in a residential neighborhood, and questioned why this experience couldn't happen in Rancho Palos Verdes. Shane Armstrong stated that as the Dean of Students at Marymount College she is personally involved in the day to day activities of the students on campus. She also noted that she has lived in the residence halls with the students for the past ten years, and can say that the students are a brilliant group of young aspiring achievers. She felt this campus improvement plan will provide the high quality education that these students deserve and expect. Overall, students who attend Marymount College are Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 14 respectful of the community and the residents. While concern about student behavior is justified, labeling all young people who may drive unsafely along our roads as Marymount students is simply illogical and deserves closer scrutiny. More importantly, she stated it is something that can be monitored and controlled if the City chooses to do SO. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that it has been represented that these dorms will be "dry" dorms, and asked what that means in terms of alcohol use behind closed doors. Ms. Armstrong explained that alcohol is not permitted on campus, regardless of the age of the student. If alcohol is found, including alcohol behind closed doors in dorm rooms, these students will be dealt with. As an example, if a student is found with a keg in their room, they will be removed from student housing and could face removal from the college. Daniel Bernstein felt that college dorms in a residential neighborhood are a bad idea. He felt that the result of the dorms will be a lessening in the quality of life for the nearby residents. Dan Willens stated he is opposed to the Marymount expansion for all of the reasons presented by CCCME. Dorian Dunlavey did not think the expansion would be conducive to good living around the campus. She was particularly opposed to the project as she has two pieces of property giving her the longest common boundary with Marymount. She asked the Commission to reject the proposed project. Don Ott stated he is not against Marymount but is against the proposal for the dorms. He acknowledged the many supporters of the project, but questioned how many of them live in the immediate Marymount neighborhood. He felt everyone is entitled to an opinion, but suggested the opinions of those who live in the immediate Marymount neighborhood might carry a little more weight. Mary Ann Dillin questioned how and where the dorms are located will affect the quality of education that the students will receive at Marymount College. She was also concerned with noise and grading issues. Dwight Hanger questioned the parking analysis and how the numbers and conclusions were arrived at. He recommended the Planning Commission chose the two campus option and ask Marymount to put enough parking on their campus to get the cars off of the surrounding residential streets. Vicki Hanger felt this proposed project will change her life and those of the other residents in the community. She stated that there are at least five areas where the City would have to prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. These areas include the conflict with the General Plan, the conflict Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 15 with the zoning code, the impacts to the visual character at the south facing slope by the proposed residence halls and athletic facility, the impact to traffic, and the impact of construction related noise. She stated she was not in favor of the Commission certifying the EIR. Bob Kollar stated he is against the proposal and the expansion of the dorms. He also pointed to the proposed soccer field and asked where the soccer teams are going to stand, where the audience will sit to watch the games, and where the players and audience will park. Ari Reguicha stated that the Commission has heard over and over that this proposed project is too large. He felt that the dorms and the athletic facility are the two components that make the project too big. He asked the Planning Commission to not certify the EIR and reject the project. Mike DeNardo stated he is opposed to the project. He noted that currently he could fill this room with all of the soccer balls and other sporting equipment that has landed in his backyard. He felt that the poll conducted was terribly biased, questioning how 64 percent of the people in the immediate neighborhood support the project. He also questioned the property value figures in Malibu and Brentwood presented by the applicant. He did not think the neighborhood would benefit from this proposed expansion. Dennis McLeod stated that he is supportive of Marymount College, however the plan before the City is absurd and ridiculous and will have consequences on the neighborhood that cannot be mitigated. Kenneth Goldman (Director and representative of EI Prado HOA) stated that assuming the proposed residence halls are not approved as part of the Marymount expansion project, a significant number of issues disappear. This includes zoning for multi- residential housing, height and slope variances, the ramifications to the neighboring community of having 250 students living on campus, and traffic safety issues. He stated that four significant issues would remain, which must be addressed. These issues are drainage, soil grading, parking, and traffic intersection mitigation. Paula Petrotta stated that she supports the statements made by CCCME, adding that she found the comments made by Marymount College very disingenuous. She explained that she has called the Sheriff's Department several times because of loud noise very early in the morning. She also stated that she has witnessed students speeding up and down the hill at very high rates of speed. She asked the Commission to keep in mind that this is a quality of life issue. Gary Mattingly stated that he supports CCCME and their statements completely. Dr. Brophy (in rebuttal) stated that he will research the issues raised regarding the soccer net and shuttle service. He stated that no promises have been made to the Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 16 community regarding the use of the athletic facility, and the Conditional Use Permit will address that use. He stated that he will direct his staff to work with City staff regarding the Narino Drive issues. Commissioner Knight asked staff if there is a plan for the temporary buildings used in the construction phase. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that this was briefly discussed in the staff report under the Conditional Use Permit findings, noting that it is at the discretion of the Commission both for the modular buildings and the phased construction of the project. He stated that staff can bring additional information regarding that component of the project at the next hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff to display pictures of the area where the netting was proposed. He asked staff to clarify on the pictures where the netting would be placed and at what height. Principal Planner Mihranian displayed pictures and clarified where the netting would be placed and the height of the netting at various locations. He stated that he will work with the applicant so that at the next meeting he can present a visual simulation of where the netting will be placed and how it will look. Commissioner Knight referred to page 10 of the staff report, regarding mitigation measures to properly treat the storm water before entering the storm drain facilities. He asked if "properly treat" is referring to the volume of flow or if it is referring to the actual water quality. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that is referring to water quality in terms of the detention basin and how it serves the purpose of NPDES and the quality of water once it leaves the detention basin and enters the storm drain. Commissioner Knight questioned how the detention basin will work in terms of treating the water, and asked staff to follow up on that question at the next meeting. Commissioner Knight stated he would like to have a better understanding of the parking plan for the athletic field when outside agencies, such as AYSO, are using the facilities. He stated he would also like to have a clarification on the netting and how it will operate, who will operate it, and the general plan for the netting use. He then noted some corrections in the matrix for the EIR summary on page 151. He stated that he would also like to have a clear understanding of all of the uses and programs and uses of the facilities, including the summer programs. Commissioner Tomblin questioned if, geologically, the site could be graded down more to lower the net or eliminate the netting altogether. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 17 Principal Planner Mihranian explained that he could not answer that question from a geological standpoint, however he stated that staff will look into the suggestion and speak with the applicant. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there has been any discussion regarding the hours of operation of the dining facilities and if there is anything in the EIR in reference to additional student type of services, such as coffee houses and snack shacks and their hours of operation. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that there are these ancillary types of uses in the library and in the athletic building. In terms of dining for the residence halls, meals will be provided in the student union and there are food preparation facilities inside both proposed residence halls. In reference to the residence halls, Commissioner Tomblin asked about the hours of restriction and if there are proposed cut-off hours. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that there are proposed hours that have been established, but he did not have those proposed hours with him at this time. He stated that these hours are identified in the final EIR. Commissioner Tomblin asked if library hours will be restricted. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that staff suggested restricting the library hours and hours of operation for the various facilities in the December 9, 2008 staff report on the CUP findings. He stated that he can make note of these hours in a future staff report. Commissioner Gerstner reviewed staff's six items of recommendation in the staff report. Regarding the first item, which is for the Commission to review the findings for the requested Grading Permit and provide staff with direction, he felt that he has received everything he needs from staff, the applicant, and the public to make a decision. Commissioner Knight asked for clarification on whether or not the bentonite must be removed from the site. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that the bentonite must be removed from any location where there will be new development or construction, however the bentonite can be relocated on the site in non-structural areas such as fields. He stated this was clarified by the City Geologist at the last meeting. Commissioner Tomblin stated that once he receives the answers to his questions about the netting he will have sufficient information on the grading aspect of the project. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he will have enough information regarding the Grading Permit when he gets the answers to the questions posed in the Table. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 18 Commissioner Gerstner stated that the next item is in regards to the Variance findings, and as with the Grading Permit application, he is satisfied that staff has provided all of the information he needs in order to make a determination on the Variance findings. Commissioner Knight and Vice Chairman Lewis stated that have all of the information necessary for the Variance request. Commissioner Tomblin stated he too has everything he needs, other than the information on the athletic field netting. Commissioner Gerstner then reviewed item No. 3 in the staff report, which is the request for the Minor Exception Permit. Again, he felt he had what he needed from staff regarding the Minor Exception Permit request. Commissioner Knight stated that, per his questions asked at this meeting, he will need a bit more information for these particular findings. Commissioner Tomblin and Vice Chairman Lewis stated that they had sufficient information from staff regarding the request for the Minor Exception Permit. Commissioner Gerstner stated the next item is regarding the Sign Permit request. He noted that it has not been discussed much at the public hearings, but in reading the staff report he felt that he understood precisely what was being requested and staff's recommendation. He did not agree with staff's recommendation that a review of a more thorough and comprehensive plan be reviewed before issuance of the grading permit. He felt this review should happen before building permit issuance. Commissioners Knight, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Lewis agreed. Commissioner Gerstner reviewed point No. 5 of the staff report, the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that other than the questions raised in the chart in the staff report, he did not feel he needed additional information for the Conditional Use Permit request. Commissioner Knight agreed, adding that he has raised additional questions at this hearing. Commissioner Tomblin stated he has raised additional questions, and will follow up with an email to staff to make sure his questions are covered. Vice Chairman Lewis stated he needed more information from the applicant in regards to possible AYS® or other organizations use of the athletic fields. Commissioner Gerstner stated that the last item in the staff report is the scheduling of the next public hearing. He stated that he is favor of continuing the public hearing to the first possible date, however he noted that he will be out of town on February 24t". Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 19 Vice Chairman Lewis asked staff if it would be possible to prepare and distribute the Commission, applicant, and coalition, the answers to the questions in the table by February 24th. This will allow everyone time to read and understand the answers to these questions. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that staff would be able to prepare the answers to the questions by February 24th Dr. Brophy stated that it was his understanding that the Commission set a goal for the staff of February 10th, and he asked that staff meet that goal by releasing all of the information to answer the questions in the table. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that staff will have the information available by February 10th. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if all Commissioners will be available for a March 10, 2009 meeting. All Commissioners indicated they would be available on March 10th Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to March 10, 2009 and to direct staff to release the final EIR table, including the additional questions raised at this meeting, to the public on February 10, 2009, seconded by Commissioner Knight, Mr. Davis requested that staff also be directed to release to the public the proposed Conditional Use Permit conditions so that the college has time to respond to these items at the March 10th meeting. Vice Chairman Lewis felt it would be premature and an inefficient use of staff time to present conditions of approval until the Commission has had an opportunity to comment on the issues involved. The Commissioners agreed. George Zugsmith stated that the staff report indicates that the public and CCCME are one, and he wanted to request staff clarify there is the applicant, CCCME, and the public. The motion to continue the public hearing was approved, (4-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7® Pre-agenda for the meeting of February 10, 2009 No action taken Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 20 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2008 Page 21