Loading...
PC MINS 20090623 Approved August 4,1, 2009 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:11 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: Commissioner Tetreault was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rojas and Principal Planner Mihranian, APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Lewis asked the Director if there were any speaker slips submitted for items other than the Marymount project. Director Rojas answered that the only speaker slips submitted were to speak on the Marymount project. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to continue the non-Marymount items on the agenda to the dates recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the determination as to what matters were to be heard at this meeting should have been left to the Commission and not determined unilaterally by staff. He stated that the Marymount project is a very important project, however there are six other matters on the agenda and these matters are also very important. The motion to continue the non-Marymount items was approved, (5-1)with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas noted that at their June 16th meeting the City Council approved only minor clean-up language modification to the code section on allowed conditional uses in the CL zone. The City Council denied, without prejudice, the proposed zone change at the Valero service station site from residential to commercial. Director Rojas distributed 13 items of correspondence related to agenda item No. 1, three items of correspondence related to agenda item No. 5 and one item of correspondence related to agenda item No. 7. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Reconsideration of Height Variation, Grading Permit & Conditional Use Permit (Case No, ZON2007-00593): 5 Cayuse Lane Continued the public hearing to the July 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, as recommended by staff. 3. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2008-00186): 26325 Birchfield Avenue Continued the public hearing to the July 14, 2009 meeting, as recommended by staff. 4. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2008-00314): 30563 Calle de Suenos Continued the public hearing to the July 14, 2009 meeting, as recommended by staff. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Appeal of Coastal Permit & Lot Line Adjustment (Case No. ZON2008-00326 & SUB2008-00004): 3 Yacht Harbor Drive & 4194 Maritime Road Continued the public hearing to the July 14, 2009 meeting, as recommended by staff. 6. Revision to Master Sign Program (Case No. ZON2008-00637: 28368 Western Avenue Continued the public hearing to the July 14, 2009 meeting, as recommended by staff. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 2 7. Interpretation Hearing Request (Case No. ZON2009-00146): 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South Continued the public hearing to the August 11, 2009 meeting, as recommended by staff. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 1. Marymount College facilities expansion project (Case No. ZON2003-00317/ Conditional Use Permit No. 9 — Revision `E', Grading Permit & Variance: 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioners Ruttenberg and Perestam recused themselves from hearing this item for the reasons previously expressed, and left the dais. Principal Planner Mihranian presented the staff report, explaining the Commission was being asked to consider three items: the request for remedial grading; the adoption of the CEQA resolution; and the adoption of the planning application resolution, which includes the mitigation measures. He stated that at the May 26th meeting the college presented the Commission with a revised project. The revisions were reviewed and accepted by the Commission, and he briefly outlined those revisions. He also noted that as part of the project revisions the applicant included a request for remedial grading. He stated that staff believes, from a slope stability enhancement purpose, that remedial grading is acceptable and has been accounted for in the overall grading quantities. He discussed staff's recommendations regarding the removal of certain trees on the property as well as the recommendation to box some of the removed trees to re-use on other areas of the property. He explained the college's request for construction phasing, noting that the request is for phasing over eight years. He also noted that it is within the Commission's discretion whether to accept the college's request for eight years. He discussed the opportunity to construct a portion of the lower Palos Verdes Drive East Trail that is identified in the Conceptual Trails Plan. He stated that staff is seeking direction from the Commission as to whether it should be included as a condition. He also noted modifications to certain conditions that have been added since the May 26 staff report. Commissioner Knight discussed the construction phasing, noting that the original eight year construction phasing included the construction of the residence halls. Therefore, with the removal of the residence halls he questioned if phase three of the construction really needs to be as long as originally proposed, or if the duration of phase three could be reduced in any way. Principal Planner Mihranian requested that Commissioner Knight defer that question to the college, as the college has indicated in correspondence to staff that they are still requesting the eight year phased construction. Michael Laughlin (representing Marymount College) stated that all of his comments would be related to their letter submitted to the City dated June 9, 2009. He began by Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 3 discussing the trees, referring to condition No. 164. He stated that the college would like to retain some or all of the trees at the front of the campus because of the sense of permanence they lend to the college. He stated the college would like to trim the trees to enhance the views from neighboring properties, and asked that condition not be included in the conditions of approval. In reference to condition No. 165, he explained that the college's arborist has estimated the cost to box and replant the trees will be excessive. The college is proposing an alternative to condition No. 165, which is to implement their landscape plan using 24-inch box trees on the south slope in Phase 1. This will allow the trees to grow and mature as construction is going on throughout the campus. Regarding condition No. 45, he noted a suggested change in wording which the City Attorney has agreed on. Mr. Laughlin discussed parking, noting that as a result of Appendix A, it was found that the parking impacts were not going to be significant, and therefore mitigation measure No. 6 was removed. He proposed a voluntary condition that would allow the college to explore some voluntary measures for parking, such as increasing shuttle service, security policing of street parking, and other parking strategies. Regarding the PV Drive East Trail, he noted that the suggested improvement for thistrail is in the public right-of-way. He asked that this improvement not be placed as a condition of approval; rather, the college would like to work with staff as a separate issue to discuss this trail improvement. Vice Chairman Gerstner questioned the statement from the college's arborist/landscaper that the cost to box and replant each tree would be approximately $50,000. He stated that he has done this many times and the cost has been nowhere near that amount per tree. Don Davis (representing Marymount College) briefly discussed the fair share contribution regarding traffic. He noted that Appendix A stated that the project impact in regards to the cumulative traffic impact to the Palos Verdes Drive East/ Palos Verdes Drive South intersection ranged from 3 to 13 percent, which he felt is rather minor. Regarding the phasing of the project, he explained that, as with any large construction project, the phasing is necessary to allow the college time to get the financing in place for different components of the project. It has always been the hope of the college that this schedule can be compressed, as it will be advantageous to everyone involved. He pointed out that with the elimination of the residence halls phase 3 is fairly minor. Commissioner Knight asked, with the elimination of the residence halls, if there was any way to reduce the phasing time period. Mr. Davis answered that the college did look at that possibility, however the college would like to maintain the flexibility with this small tail-end piece of the project. He pointed out that the majority of the construction will be completed by the end of phase 2, which is a five year period. Dr. Brophy thanked the Commission and staff for all of their hard work on this project. He felt that the college has answered or attempted to answer every question put before them. He stated the college has removed the residence halls from the plans and asked Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 4 that the Commission approve the revised plans and allow the college to begin the hard work ahead of them in terms of fund raising and breaking ground. Chairman Lewis asked Dr. Brophy if he was saying that, if this project were to be appealed to the City Council, that the inclusion of the residence halls would not be part of that appeal. Dr. Brophy answered that he did not say that. George Zuqsmith (CCC/ME) began by stating that some time ago the attorney for CCC/ME advised the City Attorney that where a feasible alternative existed no overriding consideration may be reached. He stated that Alternative No. 3 in the EIR is feasible, and was so stated in the EIR. Now, however, staff has said the alternative is not feasible because this Commission has no jurisdiction over this alternative as it is in another city. He felt this is an incorrect assumption that contradicts CEQA and California case law, and cited a case. He pointed out that there has been no information presented that states that this alternative is not feasible. He stated that CCC/ME wants to hear from the Planning Commission and the Commissioners opinion on the feasibility of the alternative and why they believe it is either feasible or not feasible. He stated that the dorms have not been removed just because they've been taken off of the current plans. He stated that CCC/ME's attorneys have stated that it is illegal to piece-meal this project, and he felt that if the dorms are brought back, the project is then being piece-mealed. He also stated that CCC/ME does not think the EIR can be certified because of so many unanswered questions, such as geology and hydrology. However, in the event the Planning Commission chooses to certify the EIR, CCC/ME is asking that the EIR be certified with the dorms not included, and that the Planning Commission specifically state that this EIR does not include the residence halls. Regarding the remedial grading, Mr. Zugsmith stated that there have been no health or public safety problems for twenty-five years in the area, and there is no reason to do remedial grading at the area. He noted that at a past meeting the city geologist had commented that he had looked at Marymount's geology reports and felt that some remedial grading should take place; however, there was never any discussion on what the city geologist had looked at, and therefore this was a concubinary statement. He felt the public was entitled to a bit more of a definition of this remedial grading. He stated that Marymount has said several times that there will be no on-street parking, and he asked that the City hold them to this. He asked that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that there be no on-street parking, even with the inclusion of the athletic complex. Finally, he stated there is an issue with Marymount's current CUP, noting that Marymount has been defined as a private two-year college and is a non-profit college. He stated that staff seems to want to wash that condition out of the CUP, and CCC/ME does not want that to happen. He stated there should be no commercial activities at the college and only activities that Marymount has for its own purposes. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 5 Jim Gordon (CCC/ME) presented pages 7 and 8 of the December 7, 2007 letter by Assistant City Attorney Dave Snow to the college regarding the alternatives and the fact that they are feasible and that the consideration of jurisdiction outside of the City had been considered in that decision. He stated this is an opposition conclusion from the one currently being presented. He stated that when staff states the alternative is infeasible because of legal consideration, it is a half-truth at best. He stated that legal issues are not an allowable reason under CEQA, as allowable reasons have to do with environmental impacts. He felt this issue is deserving of a great deal more consideration. Regarding parking, he felt it would be unjustifiable for this Planning Commission to approve this project without a traffic mitigation measure, knowing that there will be a 65 percent increase in traffic as shown in Table 3. He pointed out that there are 78 classroom seats that have been missed, and these seats are shown in the library and shown in the documentation that staff has presented. Taking those 78 seats and calculating out the additional parking spaces that are needed, there is now a parking deficit. Therefore, the parking mitigation should be restored, and these mitigations will also take the traffic into account. Commissioner Knight asked staff to speak to the issue of feasibility of the alternative plan presented by CCC/ME. Assistant City Attorney Snow began by explaining that the December 7, 2007 letter to Mr. Davis dealt with an issue with respect to alternatives in the Draft EIR. He explained that when dealing with alternatives there are two different questions. The first question is what are appropriate alternatives to include for analysis in a draft EIR. He explained that case law supports inclusion of alternative sites that are outside of the jurisdiction, and there are factors weighing into whether something outside of a jurisdiction is appropriate or rises to the level of being a potentially feasible alternative worthy of analysis. The conclusion in December 2007, over the objections of the college which requested that this alternative not be analyzed at all in the draft EIR, was that Marymount has control of the property at Palos Verdes Drive North, that they were using it for uses associated with the main campus, and that for reasons of analysis and to ensure there were enough alternatives analyzed, the determination was made that it was feasible enough to warrant review in a draft EIR. However, the question now becomes whether or not this Commission has the authority to adopt that alternative to implement it. He stated that the Planning Commission does not have the land use authority to approve projects in another City. He also noted that the draft EIR concluded that Alternative 3 was not environmentally superior and concluded that in Rancho Palos Verdes the impacts would be reduced from the proposed project, but that in Los Angles the impacts would be increased. Taking into account the impacts in both Los Angeles and in Rancho Palos Verdes, the conclusion was that Alternative 3 was not environmentally superior to the project. He understood CCC/ME's assertion that the Commission should be considering only the impacts to Rancho Palos Verdes, but it was his opinion that the Commission should consider all of the impacts regardless of the jurisdiction in which they occur. He also noted that the revised project that has been analyzed in the final EIR Appendix A, which reaches the conclusion that there are two significant unmitigable impacts; short term construction and cumulative traffic at Palos Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 6 Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South. He noted that Alternative 3 reaches the same conclusion, with the same two significant unmitigable impacts. Therefore, if Alternative 3 were adopted the same unmitigable impacts would be present. Finally, he noted that he has stated this several times at meetings and in writing, that if the Planning Commission prefers Alternative 3, it has the authority, depending on how it makes its findings, to approve only those elements in Rancho Palos Verdes that are consistent with Alternative 3. Chairman Lewis asked, if this Commission cannot find that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts, can the Commission still certify the EIR but deny the project. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained the Commission must decide if the EIR is sufficient, if it provides adequate information, and if it fully discloses the impacts. If the Commission determines that the EIR is sufficient, provides adequate information, and fully discloses the impacts but that the impacts are not outweighed by the benefits of the project, the Commission can decline to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations and not approve the project because of environmental impacts. Commissioner Knight asked if the geology report which discusses remedial grading is available for the public to review. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that the report is available at city hall. Tom Redfield (CCC/ME) asked the Commission to stop and think about what they are doing and the damage that can be caused by certifying the EIR. He stated that the macro issue is the total destruction of the quality of life in the neighborhood. He asked that the Commission not make a decision at this meeting, but rather schedule a meeting to discuss the alternative campus option. Ken Goldman stated that now that the residence halls have been eliminated from the plan the potential for student driving on the dark Palos Verdes Drive East late at night has also been eliminated. Unfortunately, the college is pushing for extended nighttime hours for the new library, as well as nighttime and weekend classes. He stated that Marymount is a two year college set in an isolated residential community. He also noted that CHP accident statistics for Palos Verdes Drive East indicate that the youthful drivers are responsible for 47 percent of the accidents occurring over an eleven year period. He felt that allowing extended nighttime hours of operation on the campus is tantamount to inviting additional accidents to occur. Ari Requicha felt that a project without dorms makes no sense, and the reason for all of the remedial grading is to make space for the dorms. He asked the Commission to keep this in mind. He objected to the approval of the EIR, and did not think it adequately covered the parking issues, traffic issues, and safety issues. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 7 John Feyk stated he is very concerned that the remedial grading and the eight year construction phasing are leaving the option open for inclusion of dorms at a later date. Bob Kollar stated that Commission Tomblin is the President for the Norris Center for Performing Arts, and on that same Board is the Chairman for Marymount College. Mr. Kollar felt Commission Tomblin should recuse himself from this hearing. Frank Melton stated he was speaking for his neighbor Michael DeNardo. Mr. DeNardo was concerned with the length of time for construction, noting that eight years is a very long time to live with the construction. He was also concerned with the modular buildings, which are only 20 feet from his property. Finally, Mr. DeNardo was very concerned with the decrease in his property valuation because of the close proximity of the college improvements to his property. Dwight Hanger stated he was asking the Commission vote for the environmentally superior solution which does not have the dorms and athletic facilities on the Palos Verdes Drive East site, no increase in the hours of operation, and the elimination of the safety hazard of balls flying over the nets. He asked where the proposed trail will end, as it looks like now it will end on his street. He asked for a guarantee of no on street parking and questioned why an eight year project phasing was still necessary. Dorian Dunlavey objected to the proposed remedial grading, as she felt it was paving the way for the addition of dormitories to the property in the future. She stated that the 24/7 operation of dormitories is not compatible with residential neighborhoods. She asked that the Commission deny Marymount's request for remedial grading and the eight year construction timeline. Dennis McCloud felt it would be a great service to the community if the Planning Commission were to consider the alternative suggested by CCC/ME. He did not think it made any sense to move the athletic facilities from their present location to a place where they were cause much more noise impacts, unless Marymount is still planning to construct the dorms. Gary Mattingly was concerned that, while the dorms have been removed from the plans, the grading necessary to build these dorms has not been removed from the plans. He stated that all neighbors lost a little of their quality of life when Marymount changed from a high school to a two year college, and were being asked to lose more of their quality of life during this long eight year construction period. Gregory Lash stated he agrees with most of the comments made by the public speakers and also supports the two campus alternative. He felt the single biggest asset Marymount currently has is the pre-school, but that will be gone to make room for the soccer field. Patricia Dilligan urged the Commission to adopt staff recommendations to certify the EIR and approve the construction of the revised Marymount project. She stated that Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 8 over the years Marymount has provided an excellent educational opportunity to the students on the Peninsula and she felt the quality of life and benefits to the entire community have been enhanced by having Marymount in the community. Marc Harris noted that in the June 9th staff report it was stated a screening wall shall be constructed adjacent to 2750 San Ramon Drive, however during staff's presentation this evening it was stated the screening wall will be constructed at 2742 San Ramon Drive. He hoped this was an error, as any wall at 2750 San Ramon Drive will impair the Catalina and ocean view. He stated the staff recommendation of a 261 foot buffer to the eastern parking lot moves 40 parking spaces to where one of the dorms would have been. He felt the college is preparing to ask for the dorms again in the near future. He added that the college is requesting an eight year construction phasing to help them arrange financing. However, the neighbors will have to bear the burden of construction noise, traffic, and property value degradation while Marymount works to find financing in one of the worst recessions in California history. He also noted that by the end of phase 1, every current Planning Commissioner's term will have expired. Principal Planner Mihranian clarified that the screening wall is proposed at 2742 San Ramon Drive. Dr. Sue Soldoff stated Marymount College fills an educational gap, noting that the campus is old and the buildings are worn. She asked the Commission certify the EIR and revised construction project. Duncan Tooley stated he has no objection to Marymount updating their facilities, however he does object to the dormitories. Now that the dorms have been removed from the plans, he supports the revised project. Erin Harris questioned if the college's future plan to attempt to gain approval of the dorms is the impetus that is the roadblock to the 260 feet of space between the parking lot and her back yard as proposed by staff versus the 80 feet that the college has proposed. Second, why are the extra parking spaces needed as shown in the plan if Marymount is planning to consolidate parking and use shuttles. And lastly, why is eight years needed for construction if the dorms have been removed from the plans. Paula Petrotta stated she supports everything that has been said by the speakers. She stated that the Commission has heard from the community, and a majority of the community does not approve of this project. Bill Dunlap stated he supports the Marymount project and noted this will be the first green building in the City. Don Davis (in rebuttal) explained that he felt the Commission has to make the findings in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. He explained that the reason the Commission has to make the Statement of Overriding Consideration finding is because there will be short-term construction noise, and that impact will be the same if there is Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 9 just a new library or the rest of the project. He felt that if the Commission could not make this finding, then the Commission is saying they cannot approve anything at this site. He also felt the impacts would be the same in regards to cumulative traffic impacts, and that any portion of the construction on the campus would have basically the same cumulative traffic impact. Dr. Brophy (in rebuttal) asked that the Planning Commission certify the EIR and give the college what it needs to move forward. Chairman Lewis moved to direct staff to come back with a Resolution that certifies the EIR and rejects the Statement of Overriding Consideration. Commissioner Knight asked the Chairman to explain why he is recommending rejection of the Statement of Overriding Consideration. Chairman Lewis explained that he cannot make the finding that the benefits of the expansion project to-the community outweigh the impacts of eight years of construction, noise, and traffic impacts. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Knight discussed some of the issues he has with the project as proposed. The first issue was the proposed 11:00 P.M. closing time for the library, athletic facility and auditorium, as he felt that it was rather late. He felt that was an unfair impact to the neighbors. Chairman Lewis added that he too felt that the proposed 11:00 closing time was unwarranted. Commissioner Tomblin agreed that 11:00 is rater late, however there may be the occasional reasonable exception. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt the issue is more the people in the parking lots after 11:00 rather than people in the various buildings at 11:00. Commissioner Knight suggested a 10:00 P.M. closing time rather than 11:00. He noted that there is the opportunity to apply for a Special Use Permit for special occasions where there is the need to stay open later. Commissioner Knight noted that the way the Neighborhood Advisory Committee is set up, is that a representative from each HOA is on the Committee. He wanted to ensure that all of the neighborhoods around the college are part of an HOA and will have representation. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 10 Principal Planner Mihranian stated that condition No. 138 lists specific HOAs that are adjacent to the college. He noted that the residents on Vista del Mar are included in the Seacliff Hills HOA, and that can be added in the condition. Commissioner Knight referred to condition No. 166, and wanted to ensure the language states that the trees shall be planted and maintained. There was no objection from the Commission. Commissioner Knight then referred to condition No. 67, noting that he has stated at past meetings that it would be wise to have a record kept of where the excavated bentonite soil, if any, is being placed on the site. Commissioner Knight then noted that the draft EIR identified some coastal sage scrub on the project site, and he would like to add a condition that if, for any reason, coastal sage scrub needs to be removed then the standard city mitigation ratio of 3 to 1 be implemented. Director Rojas stated that there is a plant on site, but it has not been determined by the biologist to consider the coastal sage scrub habitat. He explained that having a handful of plants that are identified as part of a coastal sage scrub plant community may not necessarily constitute the labeling of coastal sage scrub habitat. He noted that in this instance the biology report noted individual plants that happen to be the host plants of a protected species which warrant their own protection, however he did not believe that this would warrant the 3 to 1 coastal sage scrub mitigation if they are lost. Assistant City Attorney Snow added that his understanding of the EIR on this topic was that it looked at the plants on the site and concluded there is no coastal sage scrub, and the conclusion was that there would be no significant biological impacts even if some of the individual plants were to be disturbed. He stated that there is also a mitigation measure included, as it is unclear whether the ashy leaf buckwheat is or is not a host plant for the EI Segundo Blue Butterfly. In light of the potential that it is a host plant, the site was surveyed for the butterfly, which was not found at the site. A mitigation measure was, however, required for one additional survey before any site disturbance occurs. If the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly is found under that survey then remedial steps identified in the measure will need to be taken. As such, the assessment in the draft EIR of the ashy leaf buckwheat is related to its potential for serving as a host plant for the EI Segundo Blue Butterfly. Commissioner Knight stated that he was also concerned with the location of the athletic field. He explained that now that the dorms have been removed from the plans he was hoping the athletic field could be moved away from Palos Verdes Drive East. He felt the netting was a type of band-aid, as it is trying to fix something that probably shouldn't be there. He was concerned about the operation of the net as well as the lack of clarity as to what types of activities can occur on the athletic field. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 11 Commissioner Tomblin stated that he does not have major issues with the athletic field. He noted that he had questions regarding the athletic field net, however after viewing the silhouettes placed at the site he was surprised at how minimal the netting appeared. He therefore supports the athletic fields and netting as proposed. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that the issues with the athletic field and its proximity to Palos Verdes Drive East have been reasonably mitigated. Chairman Lewis stated he supports the athletic field, but would be open to suggestions of more restrictive conditions if need be. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to certify the EIR and the two Statements of Overriding Considerations as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Tomblin referred to page 4 of the Resolution, Section 2, paragraph 2.11, noting the vote on the residence halls. He noted that the language states that the Planning Commission vote was 2-2 and was unable to make a certain finding on the project with the inclusion of the residence hall. He clarified that the vote was actually 3- 1 on that issue. In relation to that, under paragraph 2.3.1 that particular vote, based on the same findings, was also 3-1. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that staff has looked at the record and minutes and found that Commission Tomblin is correct and the requested changes will be made. Commissioner Tomblin then spoke to the issue of his being the President of the Norris Theatre, noting that he does not take presidency until July 1St. He assured everyone that he will ensure there is never any discussion at the Norris board meetings regarding any Planning Commission issues. He noted that he has a daughter in college, and did not think that was an issue that would qualify him to be recused. He stated that the Planning Commissioners listen to all testimony and review all of the facts, and it is their job to review all facts and ask questions, and there are no pre-conceived notions. He also stated that there is a process to these meetings and to how city government is run, and his decision has to be made on the facts presented. He cannot make his decision on what may happen in the future. He stated it is a right of either side, based on the decision made by a government body, to follow the process and the law and use their rights to appeal. He felt that a property owner does have the right to make a decision with their property, make a change, and if there is a change in the government structure they have the right to bring that change before the new body. Commissioner Tomblin was supportive of staff's recommendation on removing certain mature trees and relocating them on different areas of the property. He agreed with the Vice Chairman that the cost should not be as prohibitive as represented by the college. In regards to the trails, he stated he would support adding that feature to the project. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 12 Chairman Lewis referred to the May 26th letter from CCC/ME and suggested discussing the items referenced in the letter. He began with the statement in the first bullet point of the letter that all items from the previous CUP should be included or specifically deleted, and numbers 9 and 13 should remain, the 463 parking spaces should be required to provide, at a minimum, the previous 45 car pooling spaces of condition No. 13. Commissioner Knight stated there was a review in the draft EIR indicating what conditions were from the old CUP and how the new revised CUP affects the conditions. However, in the latest draft of the EIR, this only goes up to revision C, and the Commission is looking at revision E. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that the Commission has heard quite a bit of testimony regarding parking, and the consultants have been pushed and challenged to confirm their numbers and make appropriate adjustments. He stated that at this time he is inclined to follow the recommendations of the traffic consultants. He did note that in regards to this specific issue, it appears that both the college and CCC/ME are asking these current mitigation measures remain in place. He stated he was therefore not willing to change the numbers presented in the EIR regarding parking, but was willing to support the mitigation measures as they relate to traffic and parking. Commissioner Knight noted that even though some of these mitigation measures have been taken out, they are now included as conditions of approval. Chairman Lewis stated that he agrees with the Vice Chair's comments and that there is no merit to adopt the lower number as set forth in the CCC/ME letter. Chairman Lewis then referenced the second point in the CCC/ME letter that Marymount is a private, non-profit, two year liberal arts college and this should be included in the EIR. He noted that this language has been added since the CCC/ME letter was written. Chairman Lewis read the next point in the CCC/ME letter, which is that CCC/ME has been excluded from the neighborhood advisory committee. He felt that CCC/ME should have at least one seat on that committee. Commissioner Knight felt that a member of CCC/ME could be on the committee if he or she is a member of a homeowners association. Chairman Lewis noted that there are areas around the college that do not have an active homeowners association, and these neighborhoods also need representation on the committee. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that the condition also says that three people within 3,000 feet of the college shall be on the committee. He added that CCC/ME isn't just representing those people that aren't part of an HOA. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 13 Chairman Lewis agreed, however he added that CCC/ME has an institutional knowledge of this project, and that knowledge should not be discarded. He felt there would be a value to having that knowledge represented on the committee. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with the Vice Chairman that members of CCC/ME can participate in this committee through their HOA or as one of the three who live within a certain radius of the college. Commissioner Knight asked who selects the members of this committee. Principal Planner Mihranian noted that according to condition No. 138 city staff would select one of three members who live within 3,000 feet of the college, with the college selecting the other two members. The HOAs would select their own representatives. Assistant City Attorney Snow pointed out that the language states that the college shall establish a neighborhood advisory committee consisting of one representative selected by each of the neighboring HOAs. He pointed out that there is no language that says the HOA has to appoint a member from their individual HOA. Commissioner Knight agreed with the Chairman that CCC/ME does have special knowledge and special interest and would like to see them on the advisory committee, but does not feel they are excluded by the conditions. Chairman Lewis agreed that CCC/ME is not excluded by the conditions, however the only way to guarantee them a seat on the committee is to amend the conditions as currently written. Principal Planner Mihranian noted that currently the committee would consist of eight members, which may pose a problem if votes are needed. He suggested reducing the total to 7 voting members by reducing the number of at large members to two, with the city selecting one member and the college selecting one member. Assistant City Attorney Snow suggested the language be modified to say that one member be selected by the Director rather than city staff. The Commissioners agreed with these suggestions. Chairman Lewis noted that it appears to be the will of the majority of the Commissioners to reduce the number of at large members to two, but not to change the language to ensure one member of CCC/ME is included on the committee. Chairman Lewis read the next item from the May 26th letter, which was a request that in the event the neighborhood advisory committee chooses to make a complaint regarding Marymount's non-compliance of one of the CUP conditions, that the city fee to do so be waived. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 14 Commissioner Knight stated that this request assumes that the neighborhood advisory committee will have the authority to file such complaints as a body. He questioned if this was the intended purpose of the committee. Principal Planner Mihranian agreed, adding that staff's vision of this committee is one that works together with the college to address any issues that arise and to find a solution to this issue so that it doesn't have to go to the City Council. The Commission agreed to not add a condition or language to waive the fees as requested by CCC/ME. Chairman Lewis read the next item in the letter, which was in regards to weekend college. CCC/ME questioned how a weekend college and night class was increased to be held every weekend throughout the year. CCC/ME felt that this request should not be approved, as it was not previously included in the project description. Commissioner Knight thought that the main control regarding the intensity of use of the property was being addressed through the cap on the number of students. He felt it was important that the Commission not micromanage the college by determining how many classes they could hold each week. Chairman Lewis agreed that was the function of the student cap, and did not see a need for a change in the conditions of approval. The Commission agreed. Chairman Lewis moved to the next point in the letter, where CCC/ME feels that nighttime activities at the campus should be curtailed and extending operation hours until 11:00 p.m. is unsafe and unacceptable. Commissioner Knight referred back to his recent suggestion of changing the closing time to 10:00 p.m. There was no objection from the Commissioners in changing the closing time to 10:00 P.M. Commissioner Knight answered that the 10:00 P.M. closing time would apply to the athletic building, the auditorium, and the library. Principal Planner Mihranian referred to condition No. 130, noting that staff will strike the language that the athletic building, auditorium, and library should close by 11:00 p.m. Chairman Lewis stated the next item in the letter was in regards to adding restrictions of no lighting at the pool and tennis courts. He recalled an earlier discussion where the Commission had agreed there would be no lighting at the tennis courts and pool, and asked staff if there was a condition of approval regarding this topic. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that there is a condition that the tennis courts not be lit, however there is no condition regarding the lighting of the pool area. He noted that there is a condition stating that the use of the outdoor pool area shall be prohibited Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 15 between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. He asked if the Commission would like to add a condition that states the lights at the pool area should be turned off beyond the hours of permitted use. Commissioner Knight questioned why the college would want the pool lights on after the pool is closed. Principal Planner Mihranian noted that condition No. 152 requires the lighting be reviewed as part of the six-month review. The Commissioners agreed to not add any new conditions regarding the pool lighting at this time and rely on the six-month review to see if additional restrictions are needed. Chairman Lewis stated the next point in the letter refers to the concern of the eight year construction phasing, especially in light of the elimination of the residence halls from the plans. Commissioner Tomblin stated that, per his previous comments, he does not have any issues with the proposed eight year construction phasing. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that eight years was rather long, however he wanted to make sure there was appropriate and adequate time to do what needs to be done. He felt that without evidence that this work can be done in less than eight years, and that it is reasonable, he was inclined to keep the eight year phasing of the project. He added that it is the nature of having phases that drives this project to eight years, not how big each phase is. Principal Planner Mihranian noted that earlier in the public comments there was an indication that the staging area is 20 feet from Mr. DeNardo's property. He explained that staff went to the site and took measurements, and there is 200 feet between the construction area and Mr. DeNardo's property, and the modular buildings are 600 feet from the property. The Commission agreed to make no changes to the conditions in regards to construction phasing. Chairman Lewis continued with the CCC/ME letter, noting the next point was that the modular buildings were promised to be removed by year six, and questioned why they are now scheduled to remain for eight years. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that it was always understood, as analyzed in the draft EIR, that the modular buildings would be in place through the completion of phase 3. He explained that in Phase 1 all of the modular buildings will be installed, and as the project moves along and structures are completed, those respective modular buildings would be removed. He showed a slide that demonstrated which buildings would still be Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 16 in place at the end of phase two, but removed by the end of phase 3. He added that he was not aware of any promise to remove the modular buildings after six years. He also noted that in condition No. 60 states that the modular buildings will be removed after seven years, which was an error, and needs to be changed to eight years. The Commission agreed to leave the conditions regarding the modular buildings as currently written, with the exception of the change to condition No. 60 as noted by staff. Continuing with the letter, Chairman Gerstner read the next point which asked about the definitive restriction on no parking on the city streets. CCC/ME felt that a recommendation to the City Council to prohibit parking should be a part of the conditions of approval. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that the Planning Commission cannot approve a condition prohibiting street parking, however the Commission can have a separate vote to recommend to the City Council to create parking restrictions along Palos Verdes Drive East. Chairman Lewis noted the last point in the CCC/ME letter was in regards to the height of the library. They noted the height of the building was listed as 44 feet in the Resolution, however they had previously been advised that the height of the library would be lowered to 39 feet. They asked for clarification. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that was an error in the staff report, and is correctly listed in the conditions of approval. Chairman Lewis then referred to the June 9th letter written by Mr. Davis, noting that item No. 1 discusses remedial grading. The college is asking the Commission accept the findings with the revisions to the tree retention condition proposed under finding 11. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that all of the plans that have been submitted for review are lacking in trees on the lower part of the slope. He explained that he would not require the college to box existing trees and move them to another location on the slope, but rather would require a greater number of new medium size box trees be planted. He felt these trees would have a better success rate and there would be more trees. Commissioner Knight felt that was a reasonable suggestion, and the Commission agreed. Chairman Lewis read the next item from the letter, requesting adoption of an additional overriding consideration with respect to remedial grading findings, that the Planning Commission also add the following language to the statement of overriding consideration: The revised project will improve the geotechnical stability of the site with the implementation of the proposed remedial grading. Chairman Lewis stated that at this time he cannot support any of the statements of overriding consideration before the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 17 Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff if the city geologist has said the remedial grading will improve the geotechnical stability of the site. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that the city geologist has said the remedial grading will enhance the soil stability. Vice Chairman Gerstner suggested added language that says the remedial grading will enhance the soil stability. Commissioner Knight questioned why this is even listed as an overriding consideration, and did not see the purpose in adding it as an overriding consideration. Chairman Lewis asked staff's opinion in including this finding in the statement of overriding considerations. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that this statement does not deal with the significant impacts that the statement of overriding considerations needs to consider. He stated the impacts are short term construction noise and traffic impacts. The Commission agreed to not make the additional finding in the statement of overriding consideration, as requested by Marymount. Chairman Lewis read point three in the Marymount letter regarding the mitigation monitoring plan and the identification of the college's fair share contribution for the cumulative traffic impact at the Palos Verdes Drive South / Palos Verdes Drive East intersection, noting that the findings show that the revised project's impacts are minimal. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff why they chose the higher of the two values in this situation, rather than the lower or a mean value. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that this is a cumulative impact. Therefore, the City, under constitutional principles, wouldn't have the authority to require the college to fund the full improvements at the intersection. The City does have the authority to require the college to mitigate the extent that they have an impact. He stated there are different percentage impacts that were calculated by the environmental consultants, based on different peak periods. One of those periods had an impact level of 13.2 percent, which was the highest level of impact during any of the periods. Therefore, staff felt that 13.2 percent would be the highest number warranted in terms of mitigation impacts, and recommends the City get the funding to the highest level warranted. Vice Chairman Gerstner did not see the need to change staff's recommended contribution for Marymount, and the Commission agreed. Chairman Lewis read the next item in the letter, which was in regards to the project resolution and the findings. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 18 Vice Chairman Gerstner felt this was in regards to the distance between the residence halls and the parking lot, and that the Planning Commission affirmatively decided that there was a problem with the distance between the parking lot and the residence halls, and that the Commission could not make that finding for the Variance. He explained that he felt he could make the finding for the Variance. His recollection was that he and Commissioner Tomblin could make the finding, and the Chairman and Commissioner Knight could not make the finding. Therefore, the finding was not affirmatively made. Assistant City Attorney Snow stated that could be modified or the statement could be deleted, as it is not a representation of a majority opinion. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated his opinion was that it be represented, as it was one of reasons the Commission specifically denied the residence halls. He felt that it was better to include what the Planning Commission said and felt, as opposed to just dropping things out of the record. Assistant City Attorney Snow suggested modifying Section 5.4.2 to say the Planning Commission could not reach a conclusion regarding whether the distance between the parking lot and the nearest residence halls was contrary to the General Plan. Chairman Lewis referred to the next item in the letter, which discussed finding 2.3.6. The letter noted that the parking management strategy that was originally recommended as part of mitigation measure TR6 was eliminated based on the revised parking analysis set forth in Appendix A. Marymount felt that the findings should be revised to note only the proposed enrollment limitations that are part of the current mitigation measure TR4. The Commission agreed that both sides think this suggestion is fine, and should be included. Chairman Lewis discussed the next point, finding 3.3.1. The letter stated that the amount of grading originally proposed was 102,000 cubic yards, and staff noted that correction has already been made. Chairman Lewis read the next point in the letter regarding the landscape plan and the language contained in condition No. 164. Principal Planner Mihranian added that the language in condition No. 164 was meant to address the view impacts to 2925 Crest Road. He explained that the intent was to box the pine trees that were in the viewing area and move them to an area on the property where they would not be in a viewing area. He added that the Commission could also allow the trees to stay, but require they be trimmed or thinned. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 19 Commissioner Tomblin did not think it inconsistent for the Planning Commission to implement some type of view restoration, however he did not necessarily agree that taking out the trees was the best solution. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed that these trees should be dealt with in a way that is consistent with any other view restoration case. He suggested that the college work with staff and the Director to come to a solution that will satisfy the neighbor. Director Rojas noted, however, that the code requires this view issue must be dealt with through this application and through a condition of approval. The Planning Commission will need to determine if lacing the trees will restore the view, or if the view can only be restored through removal of the trees. Commission Tomblin felt that the view could be restored through lacing of the pine trees. Chairman Lewis suggested language which says that existing trees should be laced, trimmed, or removed to the Director's satisfaction to restore the view of Catalina Island from 2925 Crest Road. This should be completed prior to phase 1 grading. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that mature trees over the parking lot will have a benefit to the parking lot. If the view can be restored without taking out all of the trees and making a barren parking lot, he would be very much in favor of that solution. Director Rojas agreed, adding that the condition would be better written to give him the flexibility of approving a combination of lacing and removal. The Commission agreed. Chairman Lewis continued with the Marymount letter, next discussing the tree replacement plan, condition No. 165. Principal Planner Mihranian suggested having the City Arborist make a determination as to which trees should be boxed and retained. He suggested revising the language to state that the tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and the City Arborist to determine the feasibility for removing and replanting the trees on the southern slope. Vice Chairman Gerstner questioned why the trees have to be boxed and retained. He explained that it is a very expensive process to remove a mature tree and replant it, and there is a reasonable chance the tree will die. Whereas, for the same amount of money and much less effort, more trees can be planted. He was in favor of the language suggested by Marymount, with the inclusion of language that the trees be replaced two for one, as well as the language suggested by Principal Planner Mihranian. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 20 The last item in the letter addressed parking and mitigation measure TR6. He asked staff if they felt the language proposed in the Marymount letter was sufficient. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that staff felt the language was satisfactory, with the exception of the language in the second bullet point regarding the implementation of parking restrictions for college students living in the residence halls. He stated that language should be stricken. Assistant City Attorney Snow referred to page 2 of the letter, noting a comment that there appears to be some language missing from A-79 (page 106 of the June 9th staff report) regarding CEQA. He noted that this is a correct observation, and read the language that was left out and will be included. Secondly, regarding condition No. 164, he wanted to clarify that the Planning Commission was agreeing on the first deletion as suggested by the college. The Commission agreed that was acceptable. Mr. Davis commented that with respect to the parking conditions, the second bullet point the Commission asked to be deleted is in regards to the college's off-campus properties. This was included so that the college can regulate the students travel behavior and use the college shuttle. Principal Planner Mihranian suggested adding language which states implementation of parking restrictions for students living in college owned off-site residential housing. Mr. Davis discussed the operating hours, stating that the 11:00 P.M. closing time is significant to the college. He stated that there currently are no hour restrictions on the campus and many of the facilities currently operate past 10:00 P.M., noting that the library has been open until 11:00 P.M.. He did not think the Commission would find anywhere in the record complaints about the current operating hours of the college. He would appreciate the Commission reexamining the hours of operation. He suggested allowing use until 11:00 P.M. and then addressing any problem during the review period. Based on these comments, Chairman Lewis asked the Commission if they would like to revisit the hours of operation on the campus and consider operating hours of 11:00 P.M. rather than 10:00 P.M. Commissioner Knight did not see a need to allow the operating hours until 11:00 P.M. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed with Mr. Davis, noting it would be easier to allow 11:00 P.M. operating hours now and if there are problems, to scale it back at the review. He did not realize that there are venues on campus that are currently open until 11:00 P.M. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if there are currently conditions in place that restrict the hours on campus. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 21 Principal Planner Mihranian answered that there are currently no restrictions for the hours of operation in place. Given that, Commissioner Tomblin supported the 11:00 P.M. closing time. Chairman Lewis stated he could support an 11:00 P.M. hour, subject to a six month review. Principal Planner Mihranian clarified that the 11:00 P.M. hour was for all three buildings. Chairman Lewis answered that it was for all three buildings. Chairman Lewis noted that there is a motion on the table to certify the EIR and adopt the statement of overriding considerations. He explained that if the motion were split he would vote to certify the EIR, however he cannot make the findings for the statement of overriding considerations. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to modify his motion to certify the EIR, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Chairman Lewis explained that what he would like to have happen at this meeting is that a vote is taken on approval or denial of the EIR, approval or denial of the statement of overriding considerations, and that staff be directed to modify the conditions of approval as directed by the Commission and bring those modified conditions back for approval at a subsequent meeting. Assistant City Attorney Snow clarified that certification of the EIR is saying that the EIR is sufficient to meet CEQA's requirements, the next question is whether or not the Commission can adopt statements of overriding considerations to approve the project, and the next step would be to take the action on the project itself. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-27 certifying the EIR was approved, (4- 0). Vice Chairman Gerstner clarified that he believed that there was more than ample representation of everyone's opinions, views, and analysis. He added that he does have some disagreement when it comes to the measure of some things, such as extreme slope and aesthetics. However, on a whole he felt the EIR did its job. Commissioner Knight agreed, adding that he had issues with some of the analysis in the report. However, it was not significant enough to not say that the EIR as a document fully analyzed the project. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 22 Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to approve the two statements of overriding consideration, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Vice Chairman Gerstner explained that he was going to vote against the motion, and referred to page 108 of the June 9th staff report. He read language that stated that making this finding the Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of the revised project against unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those impacts. He stated that he cannot make that finding. Commissioner Knight discussed one of the overriding considerations, which was the effects of construction. He stated that almost every project before the Commission has unavoidable impacts with respect to the affects of construction. He did not think it was possible to do a project of this size without some unavoidable impacts. He felt that the mitigations proposed for the Palos Verdes Drive South / Palos Verdes Drive East intersection are standard and adequate. The motion to adopt the portion of PC Resolution 2009-27 adopting the statement of overriding considerations was approved, (3-1)with Chairman Lewis dissenting. Assistant City Attorney Snow stated that he interpreted the first motion to also adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and asked the Commission if that was their intention with that motion. The Commission agreed that was also their intention. The Commission then discussed the proposed remedial grading, and Principal Planner Mihranian referred the Commission to the section of the staff report which discusses the necessary findings needed to approve the remedial grading. Commissioner Knight pointed out the section in the report which states the geologist concludes the remedial grading is not excessive and is needed to stabilize the slope. Chairman Lewis stated he cannot make the findings with respect to the remedial grading, as he is not convinced this remedial grading is necessary or will enhance the soil stability. Commissioner Tomblin stated he was able to make the necessary findings for the remedial grading. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to approve the remedial grading proposed on the southern slope as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (3-1) with Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Knight moved to direct staff to bring back a Resolution on the consent calendar of the July 14, 2009 meeting approving the modified conditions and the requested planning applications allowing the construction of the revised Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 23 Marymount College facilities expansion project, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Principal Planner Mihranian asked for clarification of several of the conditions of approval. He began with condition No. 26, regarding the student seat plan. He explained that based on several comments received, staff would like to add language to that condition that requires that the student seating plan prepared by the college substantially comply with the maximum number of student seats in exhibit 4 of Appendix A. The Commission agreed. Principal Planner Mihranian referred to the discussion regarding the athletic field and the types of activities allowed on the field. He asked for clarification by the Commission. Commissioner Knight stated that he did not think that golf or baseball should be allowed on the athletic field, and did not think the proposed nets were designed for such activities. Also, in regards to condition No. 175, he felt it was necessary to specify that not only does the net go up, but that it must be taken down once the activity has ended. The Commission agreed, and Principal Planner Mihranian stated he would add the appropriate language. Principal Planner Mihranian referred to condition No. 139 and the concern of commercial use of the college campus. He suggested adding language stating that sub-leasing the college campus for commercial purposes shall be prohibited. The Commission agreed. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that the last item has to do with the conceptual trails plan and the lower Palos Verdes Drive East trail segment. Since the trail would be located in the public right-of-way, and if it is acceptable to the College to construct this trail, staff would ask that the Commission include it as a condition of approval. He noted that it cannot be required without the college's acceptance. Chairman Lewis re-opened the public hearing for the purposes of this trail issue. Don Davis explained that the college's objection is that at this very late date the college is being imposed a condition, unrelated to their project, with no limitation on the cost. He stated the college is generally supportive of the trail, however he did not think it should be proposed as a condition. He stated that the college would be willing to work with the City on this trail issue, however as of now it is an undefined cost, there are no plans to refer to, and there could be liability issues. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that there is language, similar to what was used with the Terranea project, that the condition would be subject to the college's agreement to construct the trail. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 24 Chairman Lewis added that the language is clear that the school retains the right to not agree to retain the costs, and is subject to the agreement of the college. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. The motion to direct staff to bring back a Resolution on the July 14th consent calendar approving the modified conditions failed, (2-2) with Vice Chairman Gerstner and Chairman Lewis dissenting. Vice Chairman Gerstner explained that he voted no because he felt, and has expressed previously, that the project was reasonably acceptable with the residence halls. He voted no because he did not believe this was the only project that could be approved at this site. He felt there were mitigating measures that could have been approved that would have overcome the problems with the residence halls. Commissioner Knight explained that his policies in reviewing an application before the Planning Commission apply to every application on an equal basis. His consideration is based on the project, the nature of the site, the physical setting, and the designated zoning. His consideration attempts to balance the application request and the impacts to the surrounding environment, including the neighbors. He disagreed with the Vice Chairman, in that he did not think the location was adequate in size or shape to accommodate the residence halls, causing the application to fall out of compliance with the Development Code. There were the additional impacts of parking spaces, development over an extreme slope, and the change in land use that the residence halls would bring. Vice Chairman Gerstner responded to Commissioner Knight's comments by explaining that he felt the site was big enough to accommodate the residence halls, the construction over the extreme slope, the distance from the residence halls to the parking area, and the view of the residence halls from below could be mitigated. He did not think those three issues were the core of the issue, but simply issues that needed to be overcome. He felt the real issue was that of land use and the impact of residence halls to the neighboring community. He felt the core issue was how the residence halls would change the character of the neighborhood and how that is balanced against the benefit of residence halls on a college campus. Commissioner Knight moved to direct staff to bring back a Resolution on the consent calendar of the July 14, 2009 meeting approving the modified conditions and the requested planning applications allowing the construction of the revised Marymount College facilities expansion project, seconded by Chairman Lewis. The motion was approved, (4-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8. Minutes of March 31, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 25 Automatically continued to July 14, 2009 9. Minutes of April 14, 2009 Automatically continued to July 14, 2009 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 10. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on July 14, 2009 No discussion ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2009 Page 26