03/12/2002 Planning Commission Minutes 03/12/2002, 2002, March, Planning, Commission, Minutes, Meeting, Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained that, pursuant to CEQA, a scoping meeting provides an additional venue to solicit public comments on environmental issues that should be considered or analyzed as part of the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. He noted that the City’s consultant hired to prepare the Environmental Impact Report would be making a presentation on the CEQA Guidelines. He stated that this meeting occurs within the comment period for the project’s Notice of Preparation, therefore in addition to receiving public comments at the meeting the City will continue to accept written comments for the EIR until March 28, 2002. He stated that to date the City has received 8 comment letters pertaining to the Notice of Preparation The 03/12/2002 RPV Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2002

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

PLANNING COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC COMMITTEE

JOINT MEETING

MARCH 12, 2002

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

FLAG SALUTE

Chairman Jones of the Traffic Committee led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL

Deputy City Clerk Jackie Drasco swore in the new Planning Commission.

Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Cote, Long, Mueller, Duran Reed, Tomblin, and Chairman Lyon

Absent: None

Traffic Committee

Present: Committee members Shepherd, Schurmer, Wall, and Chairman Jones

Absent: Committee members Hildebrand and Reuben were absent. Committee member Covey was recused.

Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Mihranian, Public Works liaison Jules, and Recording Secretary Peterson.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Without objection, the agenda was approved as presented.

COMMUNICATION

Director/Secretary Rojas distributed one item of correspondence relating to the Marymount project.

Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting the new Planning Commissioners were appointed, and he welcomed the new members. He reported that interviews for the Chairman position would be held on April 2 and that the joint meeting with the Finance Advisory Committee, City Council, and Planning Commission regarding the Crestridge properties would be held on May 7.

Commissioner Cartwright reported that the president of Miraleste Hills HOA had called him and explained that she would not be able to attend the meeting and asked him to report that the board had no additional issues or concerns with the Marymount EIR.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Minutes of February 26, 2002

Commissioner Long noted clarifications and typos on pages 4, 12, 13, and 15.

The minutes were approved as amended, (4-0-3) with Commissioners Cote, Duran Reed, and Tomblin abstaining since they were not at that meeting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. Marymount College Facilities Expansion – Environmental Impact Report Scoping Meeting: 30800 Palos Verdes Drive South

Chairman Lyon began by explaining that tonight’s joint meeting with the Traffic Committee was being held for the sole purpose of identifying issues and questions that should be addressed in the project’s Environmental Impact Report and that the merits of the project would be discussed at a future meeting. He gave a brief summary of the role of the Planning Commission and what the Planning Commissioners are charged with doing and the process involved in hearing an item before the Commission.

Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained that, pursuant to CEQA, a scoping meeting provides an additional venue to solicit public comments on environmental issues that should be considered or analyzed as part of the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. He noted that the City’s consultant hired to prepare the Environmental Impact Report would be making a presentation on the CEQA Guidelines. He stated that this meeting occurs within the comment period for the project’s Notice of Preparation, therefore in addition to receiving public comments at the meeting the City will continue to accept written comments for the EIR until March 28, 2002. He stated that to date the City has received 8 comment letters pertaining to the Notice of Preparation. These letters pertain to environmental concerns that should be analyzed in the EIR with respect to geology, noise, traffic, visual impacts, air quality, and grading. Mr. Mihranian emphasized that the intent of the meeting was to receive public comments on potential environmental issues that should be addressed in the project’s EIR and discussion on the project merits should be held until public hearings on the project applications are considered.

Glenn Lajoie with RBF Consulting explained he was serving as the project manager for preparation of the environmental documentation and process for the Marymount project. He stated that his responsibility was to serve as an extension of City staff and provide an objective review of potential environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA guidelines. He stated that his efforts were focused on the legally sound process and to provide the proper checks and balances of the projects issues in order for the public, reviewing agencies, and the City to have a clear understanding of potential impacts and the significance of impacts. He explained that he was currently proceeding with the preparation of the Draft EIR and gave an explanation of the EIR process and what would be examined. He explained that this meeting was intended for him to better understand the communities environmental concerns and noted that the comments received during the 30-day review period would be considered. He stated that the purpose of this meeting was to focus on remarks with regards to environmental concerns.

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

Jeff Ray 11144 W. Olympic Blvd., L.A. stated he was the planning consultant for the proposed project and was not here to advocate the project. He stated the Marymount presentation was only a brief presentation to put the project into context. He briefly explained that Marymount was asking for a revision to the Conditional Use Permit to develop buildings, play fields, parking lots, and amenities to the property. He noted that a grading permit would be required as well as a Variance for the setbacks to allow greater distance between the student housing and student parking.

Dr. Thomas McFadden 30731 Ganado Drive presented a brief history of the college explaining the college moved to the Peninsula in 1960 and at the present site since 1975. He explained the mission of the College was to work with students for the first two years of their college experience to provide them with the skills needed to transfer to selective baccalaureate degree granting institutions, and felt they were tremendously successful in achieving that mission. He felt the school was so successful because of the small class size and the emphasis on the community. He discussed the enrollment and student population of the school, noting that Peninsula High School typically sends more students to Marymount College than any other high school. He discussed the proposed master plan stating it called for the addition of a library, athletic facility, residences for 270 students, and a Fine Arts classroom building. He stated that the plan had no proposal for an increase in enrollment, as enrollment was currently capped at 750 students and there was no intent to change the cap. He stated the plan was not an extension of the campus into the neighborhood, as parking would be moved on to the campus. He stated there would be a decrease in traffic, as students would be living on campus. Finally, he explained the reason Marymount was proposing the project was to provide a complete on campus college experience for the students.

Scott Boydstun 248 S. Mills Road, Ventura, stated he was the project architect working with Marymount College. With the use of a power point presentation he showed the current configuration of the campus and explained that the premise behind the new master plan was to create a pedestrian core for the campus and to reorganize the campus on the perimeter of the site and reconfigure it so that it is much more efficient to use. He displayed slides and drawings of the proposed plan and explained the new configuration of the campus.

Jim Jones stated it was his job tonight as Chairman of the Traffic Committee to give a brief overview of 4 ½ hours of work in session plus the hours of the individual committee members before and after their meeting, which took place on February 25, 2002. He explained the Traffic Committee’s methodology was to take areas of concern related to traffic and synthesize these concerns into bullet points, which was submitted to the Public Works Department. He explained that the way to judge a project such as this was on volume, access, and circulation and that there were five areas to the report: general traffic concerns, access, parking, circulation, and construction traffic.

Regarding general traffic concerns, the Traffic Committee suggested an accurate handle be achieved for existing and proposed student enrollment. Further, what was the projection for the number of cars and what was the usage forecast not only for the presence and absence, but also the times of travel in and out of the property and what is the credibility of those projections. How many students now own cars at Marymount and how many would give them up if they lived on campus? Are students likely to leave campus between classes and what trip generation during the day would be generated? Finally, how does the project traffic correlate with peak traffic hours in the community. He stated that the Traffic Committee would like to know the accident and incident traffic history within the Marymount campus vicinity during the last five years. They asked for new and authoritative data on all volume, movement, and speed counts that can be made available on Palos Verdes Drive East from Miraleste Drive all the way down the switchbacks to Palos Verdes Drive South. He stated that if the data is outdated, the Committee requests new surveys be conducted. In the area of access, the Traffic Committee was concerned with the propose entrance area. He noted that it was currently set at a 30-degree angle and it has been reconfigured to a right angle to the street. However, there is a proposed information kiosk in the middle driveway and the Traffic Committee was concerned about the lane crossing in the parking lot. The Traffic Committee requested the applicant redesign the entrance area. He felt that a single entry and exit area was a potential bottleneck and asked that thought be given to providing additional ingress and egress areas. He noted an existing chained exit that could be used immediately. He suggested an uphill right turn lane into campus be created and felt the existing roadway would accommodate that. He asked research be completed with the actual use of shuttles to the academic campus from the off-site housing locations. Chairman Jones suggested that to foretell what may happen with this project a study on the existing traffic patterns from the Palos Verdes Drive North housing facility should be analyzed to predict what student car use may occur.

Regarding access, Chairman Jones noted that garbage collection for the three proposed dormitories would impact other traffic on campus and asked how will the traffic from the new residence halls be moved to the trash pick-up points and how will the trash haulers then pick up that trash. He discussed a study prepared for the college by KAKU regarding parking and questioned the number of required parking places by City code versus the number required by the obvious use.

The Traffic Committee suggested a scale model or scale plans be prepared so that they could see what the traffic access and flow would be. He asked if there would be enough parking for both faculty and students. Regarding on-street parking, he asked for some feedback as to what the thought is on street parking and if there was something inherently wrong. He asked that traffic information at the intersections of Western and First Street and Miraleste Drive and First Street be added to the study currently being conducted of major intersections. He asked what the proposed haul route was for ingress and egress of construction vehicles, how much material was being exported from the site and how many truckloads could be expected, what times it would take place and for how long.

Chairman Jones noted a canyon near the campus and asked what the possibility was of putting in a temporary roadway that would come up on the proposed tennis court area as a pick-up and drop-off point for construction vehicles, thereby avoiding the campus area otherwise used by vehicles.

Lois Karp 31115 Ganado Drive showed a power point presentation and stated she represented the Concerned Citizen Coalition / Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME), which is an organized group of homeowners who reside in the area that immediately surrounds Marymount College. She stated there was an open space view corridor buffer which abuts the college along Palos Verdes Drive East and divides the college from neighboring residences. In order to maintain this open space buffer and the neighborhood’s quality of life, the CCC/ME would like to submit an alternate plan for consideration in the EIR. She gave a brief history of Marymount College on the Peninsula and their gradual expansion at the site. She disagreed with the enrollment numbers given and quoted sources which gave enrollment of the college at over 900 students. She felt the present cap of 750 students was a misrepresentation of the total number of students on campus and felt the cap must count all students and uses of the college and be a finite number. She stated the EIR needs to determine how many people are actually using the campus. She stated that the current proposal increases the footprint of the college almost two and one half times its present size, which will be overpowering and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that the adverse impacts of this expansion project cover a wide range from noise and traffic to inexperienced drivers on the dangerous roads to environmental concerns about the grading and the moving of 85,000 cubic yards of dirt. She noted that immediately east of the college was the San Ramon Canyon, which has experienced land movement that the City is in the process of repairing. She was concerned about the expansion of the college causing geological problems in the neighborhood.

Ms. Karp stated that Marymount College currently used 21.6 acres of United States Navy surplus land located at Palos Verdes Drive North, just east of Western Avenue, for student housing. She explained that the site has town homes which Marymount has refurbished and is presently using as dormitories for approximately 300 students. Also on the site are basketball courts, volleyball courts, and a game room. She proposed that the EIR study an alternative plan in which Marymount continues to use their extended campus on the navy land and to think of their new expansion project in two parts: an academic campus located at Palos Verdes Drive East and Crest Road and the living campus located at Palos Verdes Drive North and Western Avenue. She stated that this was not a new concept, as it was what the college was doing today. She felt there was ample room at the living campus to add an athletic facility, gymnasium, playing fields, pool, and a cafeteria. The academic campus could be enhanced with a new academic library, art studio, maintenance building, and refurbish existing buildings. She felt this alternate proposal would allow Marymount to have all of the amenities they envision for the students and allow the neighbors to be free of the adverse impacts of noise, traffic, and the inappropriate intrusion of a large institution in their neighborhood. It would also maintain the open space buffer she previously mentioned.

RECESS AND RECONVENE

At 8:35 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess to 8:50 p.m. at which time they reconvened.

PUBLIC HEARING (cont)

Barbara Covey 2742 San Ramon Drive stated that she was a member of CCCME as well as a member of the Traffic Committee, which she has recused herself from since she lives within 500 feet of Marymount College. She stated that the EIR should examine the potential dangers to the terrain surrounding Marymount College if the college were to grade and move 85,000 cubic yards of dirt. The EIR should also determine if it would be wise for Marymount to build a 2-story library and maintenance shop at the back of their property next to the known Southshore Landslide, which abuts the terrace where Marymount and San Ramon co-exist.

Vinita Penna 15328 U.S.S. Antietam, San Pedro stated she was currently a sophomore at Marymount College and felt that Rancho Palos Verdes and Marymount College are complimentary to one another and therefore whatever was good for Rancho Palos Verdes was good for Marymount College. She requested the EIR address the many ways Marymount College is a benefit to the Rancho Palos Verdes community.

Dr. Sue Soldoff 3414 Coolheights Drive stated that the CCC/ME does not speak for her or her husband. She stated that she does have concerns about potential noise emanating from the residence halls at night and the potential for additional traffic at odd hours. She asked that the EIR focus on these issues. She asked the EIR also address the impact of nighttime and weekend traffic around the current college residences and how does that compare with traffic around Marymount College at these times now. She expected the data to be collected and analyzed in an unbiased manner by RBF Consultants and was confident Marymount would resolve any problem areas set forth in the EIR to the benefit and satisfaction of the majority of neighborhood residents. She stated she supported Marymount and the Marymount improvement project and was delighted and honored the college was part of her neighborhood.

Mitchell Hahn 31245 Ganado Drive was concerned that there was quite a bit of crime on the campus that was whitewashed over and felt that should be assessed in the EIR. He was concerned that a dormitory atmosphere fosters crime. He felt the actual enrollment numbers should be known and the College should comply with the cap established in the Conditional Use Permit. He stated he was against the project because of its incompatible nature with the surrounding neighborhood.

Emil Stache 2912 Vista Del Mar stated he was the president of the Seacliff Hilltop HOA and the views he was presenting were those of the HOA. He stated he opposed the project for the reasons of devaluation of their homes, crime, and traffic, and the possible increased litter in the neighborhood.

William McGinn 28208 Palos Verdes Drive East did not feel that noise from the campus was a problem and felt the college was taking the utmost effort to subdue any noise problems. He suggested the EIR seriously consider what measures the college has taken, proposes to take, and should take in order to mitigate noise.

Jim Gordon 3538 Bendigo Drive distributed a handout to the Planning Commission and requested the EIR address the visual impacts of the proposed five large buildings. He requested a computer visualization, model, or other illustration showing the very large mass of the combined five buildings. He felt that the proposal by a two-year college for dormitories on campus was unique and unusual across the United States.

Tom Redfield 31273 Ganado Drive distributed a handout to the Planning Commission. His main concern was the view issue and the view corridor. He stated that the houses that now look down onto a beautiful hillside with ocean views would instead be looking down onto a parking lot, athletic field, tennis courts, field houses and buildings.

George Zugsmith 3746 Hightide Drive asked about the designation of a footpath just below the dormitories down to Palos Verdes Drive East. He was concerned that this would encourage student parking on Ganado Drive and the adjacent streets. He noted that the immediate area currently has very low traffic and kids have historically played in and around the streets. He was concerned that with students driving in the neighborhood there was a high probability that there would be a traffic accident or injury to a child or worse. He did not feel there was enough parking on campus to contain all of the vehicles. He asked that the EIR address this issue and the liability that can come from it.

Sam Van Wagner 2763 San Ramon Drive stated he was very pleased to see the City’s consultant agrees with many residents that this project has a plethora of areas with a potential for causing significant environmental impacts. He focused his comments on the geology and soils issue area and noted that the consultants had placed three of the four components of the issue area into the potentially significant impact category, the highest risk level under CEQA. He indicated on a slide where his houses was situated in relation to the San Ramon Canyon Landslide. He stated this was an active landslide adjacent to Marymount, and as the consultant clearly points out additional new landslides could be triggered by the project excavation. He was concerned about the project’s affect on his home as well as the homes of his neighbors. In addition, all residents of Rancho Palos Verdes should be concerned about the potential City liability for damages in the event of another landslide. He concluded by stating he looked forward to an extensive and intensive study and a full articulation of the geologic threats looming if the project is approved.

Neil Nichols 2823 San Ramon Drive questioned the additional cost of City services with the addition of the new residents in the dorms.

Daryl Creighton 3562 Heroic Drive felt the EIR should include the consideration of the entire Rancho Palos Verdes community both from a social and economic standpoint.

Ann Armstrong 30132 Via Borica stated she was also speaking on behalf of her husband and that they have been involved with Marymount College since their establishment on the peninsula. She felt a new and expanded library at Marymount would be one of Rancho Palos Verdes gems. She felt the EIR should contain information about the issue of enrollment and the enrollment cap.

Glenous Absmeir 85 Rockinghorse Road stated she was very impressed with the landscaping at Marymount as well as the absence of litter on campus. She asked if there would be the use of vegetation for noise abatement and would like to see the EIR address the issue of how the college building plan will affect the landscaping effort.

Reza Bavafa 30651 Ganado Drive discussed the concerts and speaker series on the Marymount campus and asked that the EIR consider the other aspects, as well as amenities and increased extra curricular activities the college has to offer to the community.

Earle Casta 3324 Narino Drive stated his main concern was that of view preservation and the projects potential to create a view impairment from his residence.

Linda Rawlings 29624 Grandpoint stated she was a member of the Miraleste Hills HOA, her son was a recent graduate of Marymount College, and is an Associate Professor at the college. She asked the EIR look into the history of the crimes associated with students at Marymount College and would there be a projected increase in crimes with the proposed project

Mary Bavafa 30651 Ganado Drive asked that the EIR address the following issues: 1) how real estate in the Mira Catalina area of Rancho Palos Verdes has been affected by having a college in their neighborhood; 2) has the cost per square foot of housing in the Mira Catalina area increased or decreased over the past few years; 3) how does the increase or decrease compare with other parts of the peninsula.

Felix Krasovec 30741 Ganado Drive stated he has coached many youth league teams and it is very difficult to find places to practice. He submitted to the Planning Commission an article from the PV News articulating the need for playing and practice fields. He understood the facilities proposed by Marymount College were primarily for the use of the students, however he asked the EIR to see if Marymount College would allow the proposed soccer field and basketball courts to be used on a limited basis by the youth leagues of the peninsula. He also asked the EIR to address the possible impact that such limited usage would have on the surrounding community.

Larry Ivins 28203 Golden Meadow Drive stated enjoys a beautiful view from his residence and would be worried about his view if he lived near the project site. However, he felt one should look at the architect’s rendering of the proposed buildings at the college and note what an improvement will be made. He noted that the school is there and will stay there, so it may as well be improved. He also noted the lecture series and entertainment offered by the college and asked the EIR to take that into consideration.

Loyd Kenworthy 3071 Deluna Drive stated that Marymount College has been an asset to the community and a good neighbor and asked that the EIR make note of this. He also stated that in regards to the new dormitories he did not see any service access available for trucks, trash, and fire department vehicles and asked the EIR to address this issue.

Dan O’Callahan 31127 Palos Verdes Drive East felt that Marymount College has been good for the peninsula, however he would like to see the college stay as it is because of the mass of the proposed project and the proximity to his property. He asked the EIR address whether or not students would stay on campus as well as property values in the immediate neighborhood. He also felt this project involved a quality of life issue and was also concerned with the traffic impacts to the neighborhood.

Dr. Nancy Sanders 6502 LeBec Place stated she was a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes as well as a faculty member at Miraleste College. She asked the EIR to consider and study the difference between having a commuter campus where the students come and go each day and the quality of life in the student community on campus.

Eric Randall 6528 Madeline Cove Drive asked that there be an objective evaluation of how property values will be affected by the proposed expansion.

Laura McSherry 2714 San Ramon Drive was concerned about the geology and the problems at San Ramon Canyon. She was concerned about what excavation will do to the entire slide area. She mentioned the noise issue and noted that there would be the added noise from car alarms and music from the parking lot abutting residences on San Ramon Drive.

Karen Thordarson 29122 Whitespoint Drive understood that Marymount College has plans that will improve the parking situation in the entire neighborhood and asked what those plans were and asked that they be reflected in the EIR.

Alberta Samuelson 6045 Via Sonoma asked that the EIR consider not only the immediate area surrounding the college but the entire community and the neighboring cities and the affects of the project economically, socially, and culturally.

James Reeves stated that he serves as Vice President of Student Services and College Operations at Marymount College. He asked that the EIR reflect staffing levels that are currently available to students both in the residence halls and on campus in support of student life. He felt it was important to accurately reflect the kind of parental adult supervision available to the students. He noted that if the EIR addresses crime data it could be found at the Department of Education where all educational institutions must report their crime data each fall.

Shane Armstrong 15290 USS New Jersey, San Pedro stated she was the Associate Dean of Students at Marymount College and it was her job to ensure that all students have a safe and supportive campus community in which to learn and grow. In light of this, she felt it was important that the EIR review how the college currently handles judicial matters.

Susan Garman 15370 USS Antietam, San Pedro stated she was the Director of Student Life at Marymount College and was responsible for finding concrete cultural, social, recreational, and intellectual programs for the college. She felt it would be important for the EIR to look closely at the level and quality of programs available to students both during the school week and on weekends.

Dr. Max Negri 40 Seacove Drive felt it was very important for the EIR to address parking on campus and in the residential neighborhoods surrounding the college.

David Bond 2343 Sunnyside Ridge Road stated he was fully in support of Marymount College and was anxiously looking forward to the improvements planned for the campus. He felt it was important to the students to have housing on campus. He was also confident that the City would deal with any geologic concerns before allowing any expansion of the college.

Chairman Lyon thanked the speakers and closed the public hearing.

Bill Schurmer from the Traffic Committee stated that he was concerned about the efficiency of moving vehicles into the campus off Palos Verdes Drive East. In his observations and talking to the head of security of the campus, there were several things he would like to see considered in the EIR. First, he would like a protected left turn signal considered on the westbound Palos Verdes Drive East. Secondly, the possibility of a dedicated right turn lane on Palos Verdes Drive East going into the campus. Also, he felt it might be beneficial to have a no right turn on red. He asked there be something in the EIR addressing the issue of incentive or ways to motivate students not to park on the street. He was concerned with the proximity of the soccer field as it is to the curb on Palos Verdes Drive East, and felt that soccer balls and other projectiles flying over the fence onto Palos Verdes Drive East would be a serious impediment to traffic and therefore felt the fence height should be taken into consideration. He asked that the EIR contain a profile of the drivers using the Marymount campus.

Commissioner Long asked that when staff prepares the staff report or the EIR is prepared, that a discussion be included on the possible violation of the existing Conditional Use Permit regarding student enrollment, and what affect if any this would have on the Planning Commission jurisdiction over the permit application. Secondly, because there is risk of geological disturbance, he would be interested in the applicant’s ability to procure adequate liability insurance which could be verified as not having any exclusion for land subsidence problems during the course of construction, with the City and potentially affected neighbors being named as additional insured. He discussed the parking report and the statement that the purpose of the project was to reduce the number of trips to and from the college, but at the same time the project includes the addition of parking spaces. He felt the two statements may not be consistent with one another and would like that issue addressed. He hoped that the Traffic Committee would look at and consider the impacts on traffic not only based on existing conditions of rampant illegal speeding on Palos Verdes Drive East, but also based on hypothetical conditions of more cars traveling at the speed limit. Finally, he noted that if Palos Verdes Drive East were narrowed he would like consideration given to the impact that will have on non-motorized traffic on Palos Verdes Drive East.

Commissioner Cartwright complimented the speakers and felt their comments were very helpful. He was concerned about geology, view impairment, traffic, and parking and felt most of that had been covered thoroughly as potential impacts in the Initial Study. However, he had not heard much about the impact of construction on the availability of parking and the impact of construction workers on the parking at the school.

Traffic Committee Chairman Jones felt that each of those points were very thoroughly examined and answers given by the architect and the college helped shape the Traffic Committee’s specific questions discussed earlier.

Commissioner Mueller complemented the speakers on both sides of this issue on being well prepared, which made it easy for him to understand their concerns. He stated that while he had concerns about high density housing that the dormitories represent, that issue had been identified by others and would be addressed in the EIR. He was also impressed by comments of the speakers regarding view corridors and was very familiar with the views across the property, especially those coming down Palos Verdes Drive East. He was concerned with the traffic on Palos Verdes Drive East and felt the Traffic Committee had done a good job of identifying those issues. He discussed the issue of parking and felt it had to be looked at very carefully. He noted the addition of walking paths on the south side of the property would open a new place to park on Ganado Drive and off Palos Verdes Drive East along the main road. He felt this issue should be looked at very carefully. He asked that the EIR address the issue that the dormitory buildings basically cap the canyon on the north side and a situation may have been created where acoustic noise would be deflected off of Palos Verdes Drive East back down the canyon. He felt the acoustic analysis should include noise generated from the soccer field and how it propagates down the canyon to the residents who live below and to the west of the proposed soccer field. He stated he would like to see fully scaled architectural plans at the upcoming public hearings.

Commissioner Duran Reed was also very impressed with the audience presentations. She asked for some type of scale model of the project as well as surrounding areas to better visualize the elevations and mass of the project. She was concerned with the issue of traffic and while there are proposed additional parking spots, she wished to know how the neighborhood would be impacted. She asked if there were plans to increase off-campus housing at the Palos Verdes Drive North facility, and if so, how this would affect traffic. She stated she was concerned with the geology of the area and was sure the EIR would thoroughly address any possible impact either through excavation or additional building on the property. She asked that the affect of additional housing on the utilities be addressed. She discussed noise and parking along the area near San Ramon Drive. It had been expressed to her that there would be foliage to minimize the amount of noise coming from vehicles parked by San Ramon Drive and that those parking areas would be limited to staff and faculty. Therefore, there would be no noise after 7:00 p.m. She asked that this be addressed in the EIR. She had also been informed by the people from Marymount that the hedge along Palos Verdes Drive East would reduce the noise levels and asked what type of foliage would be used and will the landscaping actually diminish the noise levels since there are homes in the adjoining neighborhoods that are substantially higher than the level of the street.

Commissioner Tomblin asked to see a comparison of dormitory situations on other campuses in the EIR. He too had a concern with the parking situation, particularly near the San Ramon Drive area.

Commissioner Cote appreciated the comments made by the various community members. She too asked that some type of model be developed so that the Planning Commission and the community could truly understand what was being proposed. She felt that it was important that the EIR not look at one issue such as noise, utilities, or traffic as separate issues, but rather all issues should be combined together and looked at as scenarios.

Chairman Lyon asked what the purpose of the trail leading down to Ganado Drive was and if that could be a catalyst for students parking on Ganado Drive. He too felt that the EIR should take a serious and intensive look at the geology of the area. He endorsed the inclusion of the Coalition’s alternative in the analysis by the EIR consultant.

Commissioners Long, Duran Reed and Mueller agreed that the Coalition’s alternative should be considered in the EIR.

ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS

Chairman Lyon suggested putting the Planning Commission orientation earlier in the Agenda, possibly as the first item.

Director/Secretary Rojas agreed.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that an item regarding the discussion issues for the joint workshop would be added to the agenda.

Chairman Lyon requested that the joint workshop item be the last item on the agenda.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.