HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 4257 1993-09-13
RESOLUTION NUMBER ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING MINOR HEIGHT VARIATION 93-1
TO ALLOW A COVERED ROOF ACCESS STAIR,
DENYING VARIANCE 93-3, AND ESTABLISHING
AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR A NON-
CONFORMING OBSERVATORY DOME AT THE
PROPERTY GENERALLY KNOWN AS 1305
SANDPIPER DRIVE
I'
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
FIND, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. On February 4, 1993, Mark and Elizabeth Thompson ("the
applicants") submitted an application for approval of an existing, non-conforming covered roof
access stair ("CRAS") which exceeds the maximum height limit applicable to the property
generally known as 1305 Sandpiper Drive ("the subject property" or "the site"). The applicants
seek approval ofa minor height variation pursuant to Section 28-2317(4) of the Code of the City
of Seal Beach ("the Code") or, alternatively, a variance to exceed the maximum height limit
pursuant to Section 28-2501 of the Code, to permit the existing, non-conforming structure to
remain. The applicable maximum height limit for the zone (Residential Low Density Zone), in
which the site is located, is 25 feet.
Section 2. A duly noticed public hearing to consider the application was held
before the Planning Commission on April 7, 1993 and continued to April 21, 1993. In order
to allow complete consideration of this matter, staff also noticed a public hearing pursuant to
Section 28-2405(a) of the Code to determine an appropriate time limit for the abatement of the
nonconforming structure if it were not unconditionally approved or if the applicants elect not to
comply with any conditions of approval. Written evidence was submitted for and against the
application. At the public hearing, the applicant and 5 persons spoke in favor of the request and
6 persons spoke in opposition. Three letters in support of the application were received into
evidence, as were 9 letters in opposition to it.
I
Section 3. Based upon the evidence, the Planning Commission conditionally
granted the minor height variation, denied the variance, and established an amortization period
of three years from the date of construction to remove the non-conforming observadome. The
Commission's approval also permitted the applicants sixty days to comply with the conditions,
including the removal of the observadome,
Section 4.
The Applicants appealed the decision of the Commission to the City
Council.
I
Section 5. A duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal was conducted
by the City Council on August 23, 1993. Written evidence was submitted for and against the
application. At the public hearing, certain persons, including the applicants, testified in favor
of the appeal, and certain persons, including two adjacent property owners, testified in
opposition. Letters supporting and objecting to the appeal were received into evidence.
I
I
I
Resolution Number p~
Section 6.
The record of the hearing indicates the following:
(a) The subject property is located in the Residential Low Density Zone and
is surrounded by residentially zoned and occupied properties. The property is similar in size
and shape to its neighbors and to other uses in the zone and has roughly the same, small degree
of slope as other properties in the zone.
(b) On June 6, 1989 the Planning Commission approved Minor Plan Review
13-89 for a remodel and expansion of the subject residence. The conceptual plans submitted to
the Commission indicated a roof deck with a CRAS topped by a dome. The CRAS and dome
protruded above the 25-foot height limit by approximately seven feet, as permitted for
nonhabitable architectural projections. The Code allows certain nonhabitable architectural
features, such as domes and spires, and covers to interior stairwells used to access roof decks,
to exceed the maximum height limit. Subsequent to the Commission's action, the applicant
provided constructioJ;! drawings which indicated that the dome was not merely spherical as the
conceptual drawings had indicated, but included a protruding door and a functional mechanism
to open and close the dome. These plans were not submitted to, or approved by, the Planning
Commission. The dome's utility as an observatory is not consistent with the intent of Section
28-2317(4) of the Code, which permits architectural projections, including CRAS's, to exceed
the height limit only if they are not habitable. The height exception was not intended to allow
the expansion of living or useable space for any purpose. Rather, it was intended to provide
protection against the elements and allow access to roof decks from the interior in the highly
dense areas of Seal Beach.
(c) When the applicants installed the dome structure atop the CRAS, the owner
of an adjacent property contended that the mechanical dome with its protruding door violated
the City's zoning ordinance. Thereafter, the applicant removed the dome structure, but
reinstalled it in early 1990. Based upon a number of factors, including the fact that the
construction was, for the most part, complete, the City permitted the dome to remain. In a
June 18, 1990 letter to applicants, the City's Director of Development Services stated that the
City would finalize permits without prejudice to the City's right to abate the dome, and that, by
allowing the dome to remain, no inference should be drawn as to the issue of whether the
construction complied with City requirements. That letter also placed applicants on notice that
the City would be considering establishing an amortization period for the observadome.
(d) The applicant testified that he uses the dome structure as an observatory.
To do so, he climbs 'into the structure using a pull-down stair, is seated upon a bench, and
utilizes a portable telescope, which he also uses outside the dome. He testified that he often uses
the telescope in his back yard.
(e) The dome structure is comprised of metal and does not conform to the
pitched, composition roof of the remainder of the house.
(f) The CRAS is located on an exterior wall of the house.
(g) The applicant testified that the dome structure is placed entirely above the
remainder of the CRAS and that the area below the dome, if covered with another roof, would
be consistent with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code for headroom.
(h) The dome is unlike any other structure in the residential zones of the City
and its mechanical appearance is more characteristic of commercial and industrial uses in the
City.
(i) Neighbors testified that the observadome looms over their properties,
affecting their views. A smaller roof for the CRAS would have lesser impacts on views from
neighboring parcels, especially those to the north which are situated at higher elevations and take
views over the site toward the ocean.
Resolution Number ~~j1
,
(j) Neighbors testified that the observatory interferes with their privacy and
use of their property. Evidence was submitted that the observatory has an adverse impact upon
surrounding property values.
(k) The applicant testified that he purchased the dome from a previous user
for $7000 and that he spent $2100 to install the device. City building and planning staff estimate
the salvage value of the dome, if removed from the house, at one half its purchase price, or
$3500. No reason appears why the dome could not be reinstalled on a structure located in a
more appropriate setting, without exceeding the height limit and intruding upon the rights of
neighbors. The applicant offered to submit a contractor's estimate of $13,000 for the cost of I
removing the dome and replacing it with a new roof of some 42.25 square feet similar to that
which covers the remainder of the structure. Other participants in the hearing before the
Commission noted that this figure seemed quite high, as entire houses have been re-roofed
recently in the City for Icss than $10,000. The applicant was afforded opportunity at the public
hearing to provide additional data regarding the value of his investment in the dome, but did not
do so.
(1) Staff suggested that the value of the dome be calculated as the sum of
acquisition cost, installation cost, and re-roofing cost, less the salvage value of the dome. The
applicant was afforded an opportunity at the public hearing to offer another basis upon which
to value his investment in the dome but he did not do so.
Section 7. The City Council hereby affirms staff's conclusion that the subject
application is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., by virtue of 2 Calif. Code of Regs. Section
15301 (Existing Facilities).
Section 8. Section 28-2317(4) of the Code authorizes the City to approve
CRAS's in excess of the 25-foot height limit for the Residential Low Density Zone only if the I
City finds that the CRAS is appropriate for the architectural style of the building, appropriate
for the character and integrity of the neighborhood, and does not significantly impair the primary
view of nearby properties. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated
in Section 6 of this Resolution, and pursuant to Section 28-2713(4) of the Code, the City Council
hereby finds as follows:
(a) The dome structure is not a "non-habitable architectural feature" which can
be permitted above the 25-foot height limit pursuant to Section 28-2713(4) of the Code because
it is designed and used as useful space. If the dome is removed, however, the CRAS would
constitute a non-habitable structure within the scope of Section 28-2713(4).
(b)
building because:
The mechanical dome is not appropriate for the architectural style of the
(1) its metal .surface and industrial or commercial appearance are
inconsistent and discordant with the pitched, composite roof on the remainder of the house;
(2) the CRAS is located on the peripheral wall of the structure, thus
increasing the adverse aesthetic impact of the mechanical dome on neighboring properties and
views from those properties;
(3) the CRAS, as covered by the mechanical dome, is not limited to I
the minimum vertical area necessary to cover the stairwell, as the dome structure is admittedly
in excess of the area necessary to provide headroom for the stair consistent with the uniform
building code.
(c) If re-roofed with a roof of a size consistent with the City's standards and
constructed of materials substantially similar to those used on the remainder of the roof, the
I
I
I
Resolution Number ~~
CRAS would be appropriate to the architectural style of the building because the only deviation
from the City's standards would then be the peripheral location of the CRAS. That location
would not alone cause significant aesthetic impacts which justify the cost of relocating the
structure.
(d) The mechanical dome is not appropriate for the character and integrity of
the neighborhood because its mechanical and metallic appearance is inconsistent with, not only
the adjacent residences, but the remainder of the subject house as well, and is more appropriate
to the commercial and industrial zones of the City. Further, the City received evidence
indicating that the dome has adverse impacts upon property values. If the CRAS is re-roofed
as described in paragraph (c) of this section, however, it would be appropriate for the character
and integrity of the neighborhood because it would be part of a coherently designed structure
with a residential design and appearance, and would be compatible with surrounding residences.
(e) The dome looms over adjacent properties and interferes with views. If re-
roofed as described in paragraph (c) of this section, the CRAS would not significantly impair
the primary view from any property located within 300 feet because the stair would be of a size
consistent with the City's standards and would be similar to other existing uses.
(f) The dome's utility as an observatory is not consistent with the intent of
Section 28-2317(4) of the Code, which permits architectural projections, including CRAS's, to
exceed the height limit only if they are not habitable. The height exception is not intended to
allow the expansion of living or useable space for any purpose. Rather, it is intended to provide
protection against the elements and allow access to roof decks from the interior, as opposed to
unsightly exterior "fire escapes" that would intrude into setbacks and interfere with light and air
space in the highly dense areas of Seal Beach. Using a CRAS as an observatory clearly violates
the intent of the ordinance. The height exception is designed to provide cover to those accessing
a roof deck; it was not intended to allow a "bonus" room over the height limit, or to allow one
to linger within the CRAS to peer through a telescope.
Section 9. The City may not grant a variance from the requirements ,of the
City's zoning ordinance unless it finds that special circumstances applicable to the property
would deprive the property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone
unless the variance were granted and that the variance would not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in Section 6 of this
Resolution, and pursuant to Section 28-2501 of the Code, the City Council hereby finds as
follows:
(a) No special circumstances apply to the site which would cause strict
application of the 25-foot height limit to deprive the site of privileges enjoyed by other property
in the same vicinity and zone because the site is similar in size, shape, and topography to its
neighbors, and its locations and surroundings are typical of the zone. Properties in the same
vicinity and zone are developed with residential uses having a full range of amenities without
exceeding the 25-foot height limit. Many residents use telescopes on their properties without
violating the height limits set forth in the Code. Indeed, the applicant admits that he uses his
telescope from other areas of his property, without violating the height limit. Thus, strict
application of the 25-foot height limit to preclude the maintenance of an observatory above that
height limit does not deprive applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties.
(b) The granting of a variance in this case would constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the application of the 25-foot height limit to other properties in the
same vicinity and zone because no other property in the zone is permitted to exceed the 25-foot
limit except for the construction of non-habitable architectural features which are compatible
with the architectural style of the building and the character and integrity of the neighborhood.
As found in Section 8 of this Resolution above, the mechanical dome structure is not such a
feature. To allow applicants to maintain an observatory in excess of the height limit would be
granting them a special privilege that no other property in the same vicinity and zone enjoys.
Resolution Number ~.:?S-7
Section 10. Section 28-2405(a) of the Code authorizes the City to determine
when a non-conforming use was established and to determine conditions and time limits for the
abatement of the non-conformity. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in Section 6 of this Resolution, and pursuant to Section 28-2405(a) of the Code, the City
Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) The non-conforming use was established by the applicants no later than the
date of the City's final inspection of the remodel of the house on June 14, 1990 and became
nonconforming no later than February 27, 1991, the effective date of Ordinance 1322, adopted I
by the City Council on January 28, 1991.
(b) Construing the evidence most favorably to the applicants, the applicants'
investment in the mechanical dome structure is no more than $18,600 calculated as follows:
applicants' acquisition cost ($7,000) + installation cost ($2100) + re-roofing cost ($13,000) -
salvage value of the dome ($3500). There is no record evidence that the present value of the
dome exceeds this figure or that the remaining useful life of the structure is such that a salvage
value of $3500 is inappropriate. The applicant testified, without providing any competent
evidentiary support, that there would be no salvage value, despite the fact that he purchased the
dome as used equipment.
(c) The applicants have enjoyed the use of the dome since at least June 14,
1990, a period of over three years and that time is sufficient to amortize applicants' $18,600
investment in the structure. Even if, contrary to the evidence, there was no salvage value, three
years is adequate time to amortize applicants' investment of $ 22,100. Further, even the shorter
period since the February 27, 1991 effective date of Ordinance No. 1322 is adequate to amortize
the applicants' investment. However, to allow the applicant more than adequate time to adhere
to the City's Code, the Council determines that an appropriate time limit for the abatement of
the non-conforming structure is one year from the date of this Resolution. In sum, applicants
will have had the full use and enjoyment of their nonconforming observatory for a total of four
years, three months.
(d) This amortization period is appropriate in light of the burden this
unaesthetic structure imposes on immediately adjacent properties, and on properties to the north
which take a view toward the ocean across the site, and the harm to the public.
I
(e) The applicants have had notice of the aesthetic concerns regarding this
structure, its potential inconsistency with the Code, and the possibility that the City would
impose an amortization period to abate the dome since before it was installed and have had
actual notice of the requirements of Ordinance No. 1322 since its adoption, as Mr. Thompson
attended hearings before the City Council on January 14, and 28, 1991 at which time that
ordinance was considered and 'he addressed the City Council with respect to the ordinance at
those hearings.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby:
(a) Approves Minor Height Variation No. 93-1 upon the condition that the
applicants remove the existing mechanical dome and install a pitched roof which is similar in
type and material to the remainder of the structure's roof and of size and dimension
commensurate with City standards within one year of the date of this Resolution, subject to the
approval of required plans by the Director of Development Services;
(b)
Denies Variance No. 93-3; and,
I
(c) Establishes a time limit for, the abatement of the non-conforming
mechanical dome of one year from the date of this Resolution. Accordingly, Applicants shall
cause the removal of the observadome, and re-roof the CRAS in a manner satisfactory to the
Director of Development Services, on or before September 13, 1994 or otherwise bring the
property into compliance with the height limit applicable to the property.
..
Resolution Number 4I.:zsl
Section 12. The time within which judicial review, if available, of this decision
must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and
Section 1-13 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, unless a shorter time is provided by other
applicable law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach
I at a meeting thereof held on the d day ofDtembe:~993 by the following ~ote: ~ ,
,. AYES, Coomcil_~".< ~,,~ *'I',:;id'-ff/r If
NOF'" Cooncil_*
ABSENT: counCilmember~J1 /
,
'--
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
}
} SS
}
~~AL/~.A~H'"
-Gwen Forsythe, May r
,,$'~\\\,
.:?'O~ SEAL 8: \\\11
.:=- ......0 ~ "
.iF...-\ .'-:'08'0'4";.. (}}l
ii).,'~\+ '0"';' \.
~...:, \~~
Z : l <~
~o~ .:_~
~"'. o.;:eli!
- . f' ~.. 9t!:;
1."1,' "0 1> " 0'"
''1'''Q;..~I, 21. \:>:~.#
,,~ ....... tr-"'-
'111\ ('OUNt'( ,c. $'
~~\\\\,,_-e."lll"<"
I
I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, Californi do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number ~ on file in the office of the City
Clerk, passed, approved, and ado my the City. ncil f he ity Seal Beach, at a regular
meeti ereof held on the _ day 0 , 1993.
I
Resolution Number ,/c:?5"1
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Orange
I am a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the County afore-
said; I am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to or inter-
ested in the above-entitled matter.
I am the principal clerk of the printer
of the SEAL BEACH SUN, a newspaper
of general circulfltion, printed and
published weeklv in the City of ~
Beach, County of Orange and which
newspaper has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of
Orange. State of California, under the
date of 2124f75, Case Number A82583;
that the notice of which the annexed
is a printed copy (set in type not
smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in
any supplement thereof on the
following dates. to-wit:
Ju1'~j /7
all in the.year t9~.
I certify (or declare) under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated at Seal Beach, California,
this n-:daYOf~,t9~.
Ckff~.J!.~1J
PUBLICATION PROCESSED BY:
THE SUN NEWSPAPERS
216 Main Street
P.O. Box 755
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(310)430-7555
This space for for the County Clerk's
Filing Stamp
I
Proof of Publication of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
............................ .
.......... ".".................
Nonce OF
" PUBUC HEARING
In Iho _l1hll batt Iho P\InlIing
CarlIn_. __ an HoigM
VIlria1la/l1ll-1 ond V_ 113-3
. tI011CE IS HEAEBV GNEN ... .r. upheld, d'tl Ippelllnll .r.
Iho 0\' _ IlIIho Clay of NqUOlllng to ...rtu,n .h.
S.a' Boach will hold a public '__ poriod tar ... oub)oo1
...,.,. an 1IDndar.""" 21.'. . ,'ruelur. 10 b, brought Into
al 7:00 p,m: In CII\' Counc" . _pl_ withlho "",...illno of
ChInan, 211 EiItIIh S..... 8eBI . ..,...-... ftf thIt t"'.IIV nf Sltlll ..m
-, CalIIom/a, . _ ... ..,ablo.h.d by Ill. Planning
-.- CarronuIan.
APPEALOFlHE
COIlDI1.oHl1 OF APP_AL
HE_VAlllATIONIII-';
1HE lIEIl1ALCFlIIoRIAIlCE"
I; AND 1lIE DElE_NATION
llF _TION PERIOD
'.IIA_ER_
.IlIu&
The appell.nll .r. ...klng
___a101110141\1
Varlltlon 8S-1 for an e.l.tlng
covered roof acce.. Ilruclure
_ a. 13Cl5 Sandplpllf Drivo
oondlllonallr .pproved br the
PIonNng CGmmIooIan an Apr\I2'.
IDDa, TIle app/lanll fD' Hoigh'
~"Iond V__
were 'iled 10 complr with tne
requ'rementl 01 CIty' Ordin..s
'S22,
S/louId tho elly Council approve
tho appoaIllI Hoiglll Vorfallon III-
l,no_ng.nJbolloldtar_,
the appealed ",...Iance or the
.,apeal" determlnaliDn of an
amortl.aUon parIoMI, Shoultlllle
Cnr Counal _tho oppoal cI
Vlrionco 113-3, no IIoanng .lil bo
1loId1l__1ho__a1
on_1lOIlIJd.
I
~",,:'"_.rnAnt.81 AIwI8w
TIle projoc:t 10 .....,....n, .-
"","CEaAlO_,
,...-..~.:
_I: 28-2311; 28-2401(A)181(b1;
52500 II 2&-2502; _ 28,4
&nrwIM1ll"
MorkondE_,"-
In lho ...m Ill. Clly Counctl llIalIt.
uphold. Ih. Planning san.
Commission's candldons of
: __....V_.I.tho 10'11Io abo.. U... and pia.. all
........... -... __ _lOd _ mor bo hoard il
die nnlal o. Vafl_ Ill.a 10 00 do.,rod. II you eIIa1longo lIle
porINI an _........ __ . pIOpIlIOd _..In COUll, you "'"
.., from tho IIoIgIn ~II be limited 10 raiolng CICIly 1110..r0I1he Relldlntlal Low Den.,ly IIIU'S rou or someone els.d
.... of P*'"Ing Ollb1cl: V" The raised al 1ha pUblic h.aring
..".aan- .,. .,....,m. 1D vII)' I described In 1h.s nOhcI, or in
torn tho IS 1o?i malmum IloIghl _ -...pondonco doliwrod
Imil . allow on ."'.lInO al "",. '..... CIlr of --....I'rior
, 1IIgII.......!IJ!I!,- _, ..,.. PubIIcHoanng.
. IM1BlTNa'"doylll.-.1_
_Voo.CIlrCloltl
. Clay a1__
~'
.- 17. I_
i'~In"__Sun
I
I
I
I
Resolution Number
4<5"7
I
This space for for the County Clerk's
Filing Stamp
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C,P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Orange
I am a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the County afore-
said; I am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to or inter-
ested In the above-entitled matter.
I am the principal clerk of the printer
of the SEAL BEACH SUN, a newspaper
of general circulation, printed and
published weeklv in the City of ~
Beach, County of Orange and which
newspaper has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of
Orange, State of California. under the
date of 2/24f75, Case Number A82583;
that the notice of which the annexed
is a printed copy (set in type not
smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in
any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
~~, )L..
all in the yeafJ 19..aa...,
Proof of Publication of
~ NOTICE OF PUBUC
HEARING
~lIIC7IIGE IS ""RESY _ "'II
o. CIty Caunal "'1110 CIty '" Seal
, _w11NId.JIUlIIIc--.an
. : MDnder, Augult 23. ,.. tit
. 7~.m, ~ o. C11y CaIn:I
'_.21IElg1l11-'_
I _, CllliIamIo,"_"
'~_:
_L OF THE CClIIDII1CINS
OF APPROVAL OF
_VARlAllllNlSo';
THE IlEHIAL OF V_NCE
IH'
MID THE IlElERilwAmN OF
AII011TlZAmN PERIOD
,__RDRIVE
, A_I, ___....
~__oIof
Haight Varill1lDn III-IIDr on ula1lng
_1IIIlf__re
_ ,"305 SancIplpor DrIve
,CllllldI_IrIlllP_"'''
:PIIInnIng_atl~
;21.1883, _oppIi_rar
HaIghIV_III-' ondV_
f!!:! -- filed .. CIlIllllIr wIlho.
__ oIC1tyOldlnanot
'822,
~"""'III1OC",_
I uphoIdo 1110 Plon'*'ll CalMlllllon"
Cllllldnlon. of _WI '" Haighl
,V_III-,...__..
~lMking ID o~m the denial of
V_lI3-3l11pennR....'-
....11IcI__ ID vary !tam..
-IloIQh1__of..
'_110I Law Donally ..... 01
I PIonnlng OI.trIcI V, _ oppollonll
... '"'lUII.ng.. VlIIY '""" .. 25
'.....mbimumhelg/llllmll.._
1.......'"Il8l.....hIgh_
1IIIlf__,
: ~ .. '_1 ""', bo1h.. PIomInO
Commlllion'l-' ... HoIIgR'
Variodbn 11I-1 and V__
..................-- ..
-"ng..--", '
_~Iian pariad 1Dr..1Ilbjoc:t
_.. 1Io........1mo
. aompI_ wi"'.............. 01
..,...-...ftfINt.CI"'nI~" -'-
~ _Iahad Dr........... '
, CommIulan,
_..C11y__"
-"'olHolghl V_1I3-1, no
-..gool4lllo_rar........
, __..,;....or..__
,_00_"'''_
~ pariad, _.. CIty CouncIl
f _...__oIVOIt....1I3-
8.no_ngwlallollold1D--'
..d-.nl"."..."'.._n
. pariad,
EnvIIOO.._.... Ani..: TlU proJocI
I .___,",,"CEO/I
.._,
Coda ~-.; 28-23'7;
28-2407(Al18Kb); 28-2500 III 28-
, 2502:_2GA
, AjIpoII....; _."d SIz_
I ThlImpaon
. Oonot: ......
I certify (or declare) under penalty of
pe.rjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated at Seal Beach, California,
this 12- day of 01 .Jf, 19..aa....
~.-;/
( Signat
PUBLICATION PROCESSED BY:
THE SUN NEWSPAPERS
216 Main Street
P.O. Box 755
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(310)430-7555
At.._..... and place"
, _lBd per....._ 110 hoard il
.d8Ilf8d, .,..,~..
I ..--........In_n,JOu_
1Io_1DroIaIngonlr-
Iuu.. IOU or"""""'" r1Iiaod
... pmIlC hUIIng d_ ~
II fUlnadct.<<lnwriaen
_pond_ doI_....
: CIty 01 SeaI_IiL" priol'1D.
. ... publIC hoOtIng,
, llIIIIcIItuI3Id dllJ 01 Augua~ ,883
I/JoonneV."
:, CltyClark,CIlyoISalll_
II BB-IOtP_Aug, 12,'11II3