Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2003-02-05 . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA for February 5,2003 7:30 p.m. Distnct 1 - Ellery Deaton District 2 - Jim Sharp District 3 - Gordon Shanks Distnct 4 - David Hood District 5 - Phil Ladner . Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney Mac Cummins, Associate Planner Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary CI City Hall office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and Fnday 8.00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Closed noon to 1 :00 p m. CI The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting (562) 431-2527. CI Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4'00 p.m. CI Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404 . CI Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each agenda Item are on file In the Department of Development Services and CIty libraries for public inspection. . . . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission · Agenda of February 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda structure: AGENDA APPROVAL: The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the items on the agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS' Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only on items not on tonrght's agenda, may do so during this time penod. No action can be taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless agendized. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information IS found in the actual agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, you should have enough copies for all Plannrng Commissioners, City staff and the public. Please give one to the secretary for the City files The documents become part of the public record and will not be returned. CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that normally do not require separate consideration. The Planning Commission may make one motion for approval of all the items listed on the Consent Calendar. SCHEDULED MATTERS. These items are considered by the Planning Commission separately and require separate motions These transactions are considered administrative and public testimony is not heard. STAFF CONCERNS. Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services (Planning and Building Departments) are presented for information to the Planning Commission and the public. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Items of concern are presented by the Planning Commissioners and discussed with staff. All oroceedinas are recorded. . . . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda for February 5, 2003 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II ROLL CALL III AGENDA APPROVAL By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to (a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda, (b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda, and/or (c) ProvIde an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to request an Item IS removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action IV ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Planning CommIssion regardIng any Items wIthin the subject matter Junsdlctlon of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authonzed by law V CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless pnor to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public requests a specifIc Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate actron 1 Approve Planning CommIssion Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2003 2 RECEIVE AND FILE' AB 1866/AB 2292 Legislative Requirements 3 Minor Plan Review 03-1 12273 LIghthouse Lane Applicant/Owner Request Kent Nasser To have a bUilt-In BBQ and fire ring located In the rear yard setback area Solid bUilt structures In the rear or side yard setback areas require Minor Plan Review approval from the Planning Commission Recommendatron Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolutron 03-4 VI SCHEDULED MATTERS 4 STUDY SESSION Addltron and Expansion Standards for Non-Conforming Residential Uses VII PUBLIC HEARINGS 5 Height Vanatlon 03-1 207 - 6th Street Applicant/Owner Randy Allison / John Powelson & Myra Maher 3 . . . City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission · Agenda of February 5, 2003 Request Recommendation 6 Height Vanatlon 03-2 209 - 6th Street AppllcanVOwner Request Recommendation To construct a non-habitable architectural feature In excess of the 25- foot height limit Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a covered roof access structure to exceed the height limit by 5 feet, 7 feet IS the maximum height vanatlon permitted Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-2 Randy Allison I John Powelson & Myra Maher To construct a non-habitable architectural feature In excess of the 25- foot height limit Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a covered roof access structure to exceed the height limit by 5 feet, 7 feet IS the maximum height vanatlon permitted Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-3 7 Conditional Use Permit 03-1 347 Main St, #8 AppllcanVOwner. Request Recommendation VIII STAFF CONCERNS IX COMMISSION CONCERNS X ADJOURNMENT Roya MOlnlpanah I Don Robertson To have outdoor dining at an eXisting restaurant. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the ability to have 3 two-person tables In front of their restaurant, on the pnvate sidewalk, which IS located between the storefront and the parking lot Item to be continued to meeting of February 19, 2003 4 . Feb 19 Mar5 Mar 19 Apr9 Apr 23 May7 May 21 June 4 June 18 . July9 July 23 Aug 6 Aug 20 Sept 3 Sept 17 Oct 8 Oct 22 Nav5 Nav 19 Dee 3 Dee 17 . City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission · Agenda of February 5, 2003 2003 Aaenda Forecast Conditional Use Permit 03-1 - 347-B Main St (QUlzno's Minor Plan Review 03-2 - 12295 Old Harbor Court Vanance 03-1 - 250 Ocean Avenue Minor Plan Review 03-3 - 250 Ocean Avenue 5 ,. ," . . . TO BE SCHEDULED: [J Study Session [J Staff Report [J Study Session [J Study Session Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98) Undergroundlng of Utilities ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms Parking Issues In Old Town 6 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of February 5, 2003 Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 5, 2003. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1 ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Hood, Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp Also Present: Deoartment of Develooment Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Mac Cummins, Associate Planner Absent: None. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairperson Hood requested that the minutes of January 8, 2003 be removed from the Consent Calendar. Mr. Whittenberg recommended that Item 4 be moved to the end of the Agenda after the Public Hearing Items. He also noted that Item No. 7 is to be continued to the meeting of February 19, 2003. MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Agenda as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Hood opened oral communications. 1 These Minutes were transcnbed from audiotape of the meeting. Z:\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2003\02..QS..Q3 PC Minutes doc 1 . . . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of February 5. 2003 Mr. Warren Morton stated that a single-family umt is being constructed at 1110 Electric Avenue, but not according to the plans approved by the Planning Commission (PC) for this illegal non-conforming use. He said that instead of a double garage, which is required, only a single-car garage is in place. He stated that the garage size might have been changed due to the sewer line running underneath the existing property. He asked if the Planning Department had ever considered an easement for utilities when this illegal non-conforming structure was presented to them. He said that the Associate Planner was currently looking into this matter. He noted that there had been a similar situation a few years ago at 1220 Central Avenue where one unit was constructed and another was added immediately atter this. He recommended that the PC carefully review requests for modifications to illegal non-conforming properties. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. RECEIVE AND FILE: AB 1866/AB 2292 Legislative Requirements 3. Minor Plan Review 03-1 12273 Lighthouse Lane Applicant/Owner: Request: Kent Nasser To have a built-in BBQ and fire ring located in the rear yard setback area. Solid built structures in the rear or side yard setback areas require Minor Plan Review approval from the Planning Commission. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-4. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None 4. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2003. Commissioner Shanks noted an error on Page 1, Line 7 and Chairperson Hood stated that he would abstain from voting on this item, as he was not present at the meeting of January 8, 2003. . 1 2 3 . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .. CIty of Seal Beach Planmng CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of February 5, 2003 MOTION by Ladner; SECOND by Sharp to approve Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2003 as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 4-0-1 Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None Hood Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 03-4 for Minor Plan Review 03-1 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Height Variation 03-1 207 - 6th Street Applicant/Owner: Randy Allison I John Powelson & Myra Maher Request: To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a covered roof access structure to exceed the height limit by 5 feet; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-2. Staff Report Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and stated that the proposal is to construct two, new single-family homes with part of the proposal to build a non-habitable Covered Roof Access Structure (CRAS) similar to many of those approved in the past by the PC. He then outlined the findings for approving such an application as outlined on Page 3 of the Staff Report. He stated that this application meets all of the criteria and Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Questions None. Public Hearing Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. Z.\Cannen_data\PC Mlnutes\2003\02"()5"()3 PC Mlnutes.doc 3 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 it 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2003 Mr. Randy Allison recommended approval of his application. He said that the design is a far safer form of construction for a third floor deck. Mr. Warren Morton stated that he does not approve of CRAS. He said that it allows people easy access from their roofs where they can look down onto their neighbors. He questioned how the CRAS would be constructed to provide a view from the homes at 207 and 209 6th Street, as there are many trees in that area. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Deaton stated that the project appears to be appropriate for the neighborhood and she does not believe that it will obstruct anyone's view or create a problem. She said it would be an improvement on the property. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve Height Variation 03-1 and adopt Resolution 03-2 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None Mr. Whittenberg noted that the adoption of Resolution No. 03-2 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 6. Height Variation 03-2 209 - 6th Street Applicant/Owner: Request: Randy Allison I John Powelson & Myra Maher To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a covered roof access structure to exceed the height limit by 5 feet; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-3. Staff Reoort Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He stated that the request is for the second single-family home to be constructed and is identical to the application presented for 207 6th Street. He Z'\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2003\02-QS-Q3 PC Mlnutes.doc 4 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 i 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of February 5, 2003 said that the project meets all of the criteria and Staff IS also recommending approval of this application. Commissioner Questions None. Public Hearina Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. Mr. Randy Allison recommended approval of his application. He said that the design is a far safer form of construction for a third floor deck. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments None. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve Height Variation 03-2 and adopt Resolution 03-3 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 03-3 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 7. Conditional Use Permit 03-1 347 Main St., #8 Applicant/Owner: Request: Roya Moinipanah I Don Robertson To have outdoor dining at an existing restaurant. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the ability to have 3 two-person tables in front of their restaurant, on the private sidewalk, which is located between the storefront and the parking lot. Recommendation: Item to be continued to meeting of February 19, 2003 Z:\Cannen_data\PC Mlnutes\2003\02-GS-G3 PC Mlnutes.doc 5 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2003 SCHEDULED MATTERS 4. STUDY SESSION: Addition and Expansion Standards for Non-Conforming Residential Uses Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He stated that the Planning Commission (PC) had been provided an extensive written Staff Report along with a large amount of attachments in order to provide a detailed background of the processes the City has gone through, most recently in 1992, to look at the issue of what would be acceptable in town for additions and expansions to non-conforming residential structures. He said that City Council (CC) had requested that this matter be scheduled for a Study Session after CC had determined to deny a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a major expansion to a non-conforming, 4-unit apartment building at 1210 Electric Avenue. He stated that the PC had considered this request and based upon its determination had approved the request, which was later appealed to the CC, who ultimately determined to deny the request. He explained that tonight is probably the beginning of at least two study sessions that the PC may decide to conduct on this issue. He then proceeded to describe the attachments, which include a copy of the existing code provisions that deal with the allowable types of additions and expansions that the City is now Willing to consider either by a right under just a Building Permit or under a Minor Plan Review (MPR). He noted that a MPR is a Consent Calendar item at the PC level that limits the size of an addition to a specific number of square feet, subject to the size of the property. He said there is a square foot cutoff point if it is one or two-units on a property, and for 3-umts or more on a property there is a smaller size per unit allowed and a maximum cap on the number of square feet on a property that has 3 or more units as allowed under the MPR process. He indicated that a large majority of the applications considered by the City over the years have been in the MPR category where they fall under the size limitations set forth in the Ordinance. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there is another process that allows for a major expansion under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process and that process places no limit as to the size of an addition, and on these types of request the PC has to make an evaluation of the use as to whether or not it meets the criteria in the code, and since there is no cap on the size of an addition, this is usually not an issue. He said it usually comes down to the issue of being compatible to the neighborhood and not causing a detrimental use or affect to adjoining property owners. He noted that these types of determinations are fairly subjective in nature, and this was the issue with the last case that was approved by the PC, but denied by CC. He stated that the Commissioners had been give a summary of every MPR or CUP that has been granted in the City for expansions or additions to non-conforming uses from 1985 up to this last application for 1210 Electric Avenue. He noted that within the body of the Staff Report there is a summary table that deals only with properties having two or more units on the property. He stated that also included with the Staff Report is a summary of the different amendments to the Zoning Ordinance provisions that occurred between 1974 and 1997, when the last revision to Z:\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2003\02..QS..Q3 PC Mlnutes.doc 6 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 it 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 .. City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2003 this section of the Code was adopted. He commented that this issue is one that over the years has caused a lot of controversy and increased workloads at both the PC and City Council levels, and lots of people have different ideas as to what they should or should not be able to do to a non-conforming residence that they own or to a residence that might be next door to someone that lives in a conforming residential situation. Mr. Whittenberg then described the options for consideration by the PC as follows: [J Establish a maximum size cap on additions to non-conforming residential structures under the CUP process. Under the MPR process for 3-unit and other properties up to 144 square feet per unit may be added with a maximum of a 400 square foot addition total for all units on a property. [J Require a reduction in the number of non-conforming units or increasing the number of non-conforming parking spaces when considering a proposed expansion of a non-conforming residential structure. [J Eliminate the provisions allowing for any expansion of a non-conforming residential structure. The general position of most cities in the Southern California region is that they do not allow any expansions of non-conforming uses at all. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Deaton stated that what was presented for 1210 Electric Avenue was entirely different than the case for 226 Fourth Street. She said that there are a lot of decisions that the PC makes that are subjective in nature and this should be kept this way. She stated that the purpose of the PC is to bring its expertise and experience as residents and the opinions of neighbors to the forum to allow the public to participate in the process. She said that she would not be in favor of eliminating the provisions that allow expansions for non-conforming structures. She stated that she believes that interior modification should always be allowed, but with regard to non-conforming structures, she believes that the City should not give longer life to a structure that is already creating a problem. She said she like the recommendation made by Staff that the City ask residents to do something about the non-conformance of their property to include enough parking. Commissioner Deaton noted that the City should create a better vision of what Old Town should look like. She stated that if the public wants to maintain an eclectic appearance to Old Town, rather than cookie-cutter, there still needs to be some order to it. She recommended that this item be continued to a future PC meeting to allow for input by the public. She indicated that she favors Option No.2. Commissioner Shanks stated that he found the comments related to the application for 1210 Electric Avenue very interesting as they are recorded in the City Council (CC) minutes of December 9, 2002. He stated that although an eclectic look is encouraged this leaves both the Planning Department and architects with no specific guidelines as to what will ultimately be acceptable to the PC and CC. He noted that there is an element in town that would like to see all nonconforming buildings reach a severe state of deterioration that would require total demolition and allow for new conforming structures to be constructed on these properties. He stated that he did not see the new legislation (AB 1866 and AB 2292) related to allowing "granny units" affecting the City Z.\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2003\02..QS..Q3 PC Mlnutes.doc 7 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 .. City of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of February 5, 2003 very much because there is no land available for this. Commissioner Shanks then commented that he objects to the term "density" being used in different ways. He said in AS 1866 and AS 2292 density refers to the number of units on a particular lot, but the City also uses density to refer to the size of the buildings on a given lot. He emphasized that he would like to see a codified definition of "density" that would be clearly understood. Commissioner Ladner stated that all of the older home on the nonconforming properties will eventually age to such an extent that they will have to be demolished and replaced with "cookie cutter" homes. He noted that the nonconforming structures do add some diversity to the look of Old Town. Commissioner Sharp stated that only the District One Planning Commissioner deals with the problem of nonconforming structures. He recommended that a separate committee made up of Old Town residents be formed to review this issue, and provide feedback to the PC and CC. The Director of Development Services stated that this was a good suggestion, but would require CC concurrence and approval. He recommended talking with the City Attorney to discuss how best to proceed. Mr. Whittenberg then noted that very rarely is a property nonconforming due to density outside of "Old Town," He said that the City refers to density by the number of units on a lot. He stated that most of the lots in Old Town measure 25 feet wide by 100 or 117.5 feet deep and each of these lots can have one house on it, and a 50-foot wide property can have two homes on it. He said that in the 18 years he has worked for the City he has never seen the multi-story apartment buildings constructed during the mid-50's through mid-70's be demolished to make room for a single-family residence. He explained that the economics of the rents that can be charged in this area make it highly unlikely that these structures would be demolished even if expansion of these uses were prohibited. He stated that most of the demolitions in town have been for properties with one or two units on them that may be nonconforming or are beach cottages that were constructed in the 1940s and 50s. The Director of Development Services noted that the cookie cutter homes might be the result of the smaller, 25-foot lots, which limit the design alternatives for the size structures allowed. Commissioner Shanks stated that based upon the new legislation if a 25-foot lot has two or more cottages and these structures are demolished to construct one new house, would this present a problem for the City in the future? Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would have to clarify this with the City Attorney. He noted that in all likelihood this legislation would have very little impact in Old Town and Surfside as most of the lots are already built out, making it difficult to meet all of the City Code requirements were second units to be constructed on any lot. He stated that this new legislation could impact Marina Hill and/or College Park East and West in the future, but this would have to be determined after meeting with the City Attorney regarding this. He said that he would prefer not to divert the discussion to AS 1866 and AS 2292 at this time, but would rather return the focus to the topic at hand. He stated that the main issue that arose with the project at 1210 Electric Avenue was that sufficient parking would not be provided. He explained that currently for major expansions the Code provisions require Z:\Cannen_data\PC Mlnutes\2003\02..QS..Q3 PC Minutes doc 8 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of February 5, 2003 at least one space per unit. He suggested that the PC might wish to require 1.5 spaces per unit, which might require losing a unit in some cases to do this, but at least this creates the potential for reducing the parking impacts to the neighborhood. Commissioner Deaton agreed with Mr. Whittenberg suggestion and carried it further by recommending that the City acknowledge that there is a parking shortage and encourage owners of nonconforming uses to ensure that their units are not contributing to the problem. She also commented that although she liked the idea of forming a committee to study this issue, she would prefer to have this issue be open for discussion to all residents of Seal Beach. She stated that she is certain that the residents have a good idea of what they want the city to look like and she would like to hear their comments. Mr. Abbe provided a brief description of AB 1866 stating that this legislation reduces the City's discretion to disapprove second units, and AB 2292 reduces the City's discretion to downzone a particular parcel. Mr. Whittenberg noted that when the PC had gone through the 1992 discussions on this issue, the study sessions were advertised in the local newspaper by 1/8th page ads, and in reviewing the minutes for these study sessions, there were probably 8 to 10 members of the public present, and quite often are the same members at each meeting. He explained that because of publishing deadlines, the earliest that Staff could advertise the study session would be for the March 5, 2003 PC meeting date. He noted that a copy of the notice to be published and a copy of the Staff Report for tonight's meeting could be made available to the public on the City's website. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to continue this study session to Wednesday, March 5, 2003, to publish in the Sun Newspaper public notice of the study session, and to make this notice available on the City website along with the Staff Report for tonight's study session. Direct Staff to create a Staff Report that incorporates size caps into the standards for additions or expansions to nonconforming residential uses based upon the provision of adequate parking. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None Mr. Whittenberg pointed out that the issue of parking is probably a 98% Old Town issue, as there are very few nonconforming properties due to density or parking outside of Old Town. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that the Planning Commissioners had received a copy of the Boeing Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). He noted that the public comment period ends on Monday, February 10, 2003, followed by the City's response to comments and the Final EIR, which will go before the Environmental Quality Control Z \Cannen_data\PC Mlnutes\2003\02.CJS.CJ3 PC Minutes doc 9 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of February 5, 2003 Board (EQCB) for their review and recommendations as to whether the EIR is adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), followed by public hearings before the PC. Commissioner Deaton asked when the PC would have an opportunity to recommend changes to the plans for the Boeing Project, if necessary. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this would take place during the public hearing phase of the project. Commissioner Deaton inquired if the PC did recommend changes, would the EIR have to be rewritten. Mr. Whittenberg stated that if the amendments to the plan would create fewer impacts than what have already been identified, the EIR would probably not have to be rewritten. Commissioner Deaton asked if there were an increase in the planned commercial development, would this create more traffic and necessitate rewriting the EIR. Mr. Whittenberg stated that if the changes were to create substantially different impacts it might be necessary to prepare a supplemental EIR for public review and comment. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Sharp inquired about the Sunrise Assisted Living project. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the building is now under construction. He said it is anticipated that the facility will be ready for occupancy by December 2003 or January 2004. Commissioner Sharp then inquired about John Laing Homes. Mr. Whittenberg reported that California Coastal Commission (CCC) is still in the process of reviewing this project. Commissioner Shanks inquired regarding upgrading Gum Grove Park. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the dedication has not yet occurred, but all of the deeds are prepared and ready for execution. He said that the property is still owned by Hellman and under the provisions of law regarding reinterment of Native American remains, this can only occur upon the property owner's property, so Hellman must retain title to the park should it be determined that there be some reburials within the area of Gum Grove Park. Chairperson Hood thanked the Engineering Department for completion of the bike lanes along Lampson Avenue. He also recommended that rather than run the Staff Report for the study session again that the Commissioners keep tonight's copy for use at the meeting of March 5, 2003. He then requested that Staff follow up on the 1110 Electric Avenue project. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would check on this and provide a status report at the next PC meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Z.\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2003\02-oS-03 PC Mlnutes.doc 10 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2003 Respectfully Submitted, ~k)"l'-~~^- ~~ Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary Planning Department APPROVAL The Commission on February 19, 2003, approved t~e Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, February 5, 2003. C' L-.. Z \Cannen_data\PC Mlnutes\2003\02.(J5.(J3 PC Mlnutes.doc 11