Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-03-06 . . -- CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 6, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. SCHEDULED MATTERS IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes of February 20, 1991 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Variance #6-90 (Reconsideration) 1140 Catalina Avenue Resolution No. 1609 VI. STUDY SESSION 3. Consideration of Municipal ~ Section 28=2407, Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Non-conforming Residential Buildings and Uses. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - At this time members of the pub! ic may address the Planning Commission regarding any item wi thin the subject matter of the Commission provided no action may be taken on off-Agenda items unless authorized by law. VIII. STAFF CONCERNS 4. Chevron Food Mart - 2950 Westminster Avenue IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS X. ADJOURNMENT . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF lIfARCH 6, 1991 MEETING The regularly scheduled Planning Commisslon meeting of March 6, 1991 was called to order by Chairman Fife at 7:30 p.m. ln City Councll Chambers. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by COmID1SS10ner Sharp. II. ROLL CALL Present: Chalrman Fife Commissioners Orslni, McCurdy, Sharp, Dahlman Present: Department of Development Services staff present: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Michael Cho, Intern Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary III. SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters agendized. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR la Approval of Minutes of February 20, 1991 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCurdy to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 with the following corrections: Page 7, paragraph 5: Add Wing" to rebuild. Page 7, paragraph 5: Add "zone" after ~residential low densitywa Page 8, paragraph 1: Add "If" at beginning. Page 8, paragraph 1: Change this sentence to read "a a. an 18 foot driveway or a 19 foot garage a..". Page 16, paragraph 2: Change "Telephone lines" to "Electrical Power Lines". Page 16, paragraph 3: Change the year 1890 to 1849a MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman . Page 2 - Plannlng CommlSSlon Minutes of March 6, 1991 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Variance 96-90 (Reconsideration) 1140 Catalina Avenue Resolution No. 1609 staff Report Mr. Curtis dellvered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Plannlng Department]. This Variance applicatlon has been continued from the February 6th and 20th Commission meetings. Specifically, the continuance from the latter meeting was to allow amendment of the applicant's request from providing less than the required front yard setback to providing less than the required front yard setback or less than the required garage depth and to allow staff to re-advertise the PubllC Hearing. Staff's recommendatlon changed from recommending denlal to recommending approval because new information surfaced. Reinspection revealed several propertles on the Hill WhlCh provide less than the required front setback, thus approving Varlance request #6-90 would not constitute the granting of a special privilege. Staff received a letter from Carolyn Gaw of 1110 Catalina against approval of this request [Attached]. . Commisslon Comments Commissioner Orslni said he wanted the installation and use of a roll up garage door to become part of the Condltions of approval. Commissioner McCurdy said he didn't thlnk that was necessary. Commissioner Dahlman indicated the roll up garage door makes lt posslble to have a shorter drlveway because people can park closer to their garage doors. This home will have a standard length driveway. Chairman Flfe was incllned to impose the roll up door as a Condi tlon of approval because it's not an unreasonable Condition, many people park in front of their garages and with a sWlng up door they park further back, and a roll up door is architecturally more satisfYlng. Public Hearing Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. . Susan Perrell * 1140 Catalina - Said they have planned to use a roll up garage door. Referencing the staff report, Ms. Perrell said she and her husband were surprlsed by (1) staff relteratlng their interpretation of Section 28-403. She felt, therefore, that fOllowing through on staff's logic they would not need any Variance. She asked the Commlsslon to consider whether they need a Variance or if the provisions of Code Sectlon 28-403 enables them to remodel without It. Their other surprise (2) was the addltion of Condltion #2 for the fire sprinklers to be installed throughout the existlng house and the proposed addi tlon. She asked the . Page 3 - Planning Comm1ssion Minutes of March 6, 1991 Commission to consider remov1ng Condition #2 from their Variance request because th1S one particular Uniform Building Code (UBC) specification should not be singled out for special consideratin. Sprinkler installation and retrofit will be done through the normal plan check process. She telephoned the Orange County Fire Department and 1ndicated the fire sprinkler issue 1S very complex. She indicated the City staff may not have the jurisd1ction to enforce the Orange County or Seal Beach Fire codes 1n this Var1ance request. She said IiS1nce the Code was enacted on fire sprinklers, very few homes have actually installed them and we really don't have enough data or 1nformation to understand what the sprinkler code is all about or why 1t'S here. I would really like to do more research on the issueli. She said the Variance does not preclude them from conforming to building codes and suggested treating the fire sprinkler installation and retrofit like any other building code. Mr. Curtis explained that staff, after consultation with the City Attorney's Office, bel1eved that the fact of creating a new non- conform1ty st111 brought them under the Variance process. Regarding the fire sprinklers, staff includes the verbiage in the Condit1ons of approval 1S to forewarn an applicant early on. The Condition, however, can be removed from the Variance. . Chairman F1fe asked staff for the various garage dimensions: Exist1ng garage = 18' wide x 20~' deep Current Code requires = 20' wide x 20' deep Resulting garage = 24' wide x 19' deep with the new garage non-conform1ty there 1S no front yard set-back non-conformity. commissioner Dahlman referenced Carolyn Gaw's letter of opposition, not1ng her complaint 1S short garages not accommodating larger cars. Ms. Perrell repl1ed that from her work with the South Coast A1r Quality Management Distr1ct (AQMD) she did not feel we will see big cars unt11 a way is found to make cars run on energy- efficient fuels which are non-polluting. No one wishing to speak further, Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by Dahlman to approve Variance 116-90 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1609 and with the removal of Condition #2 regarding fire sprinklers and with an additional Condi tion added to require the installation of a roll up style garage door. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 . AYES: Sharp, Orsini, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman . . . Page 4 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 Chairman Fife 1ndicated the act of removing Condit1on #2 regarding fire spr1nklers did not relieve them from any building or municipal code that is requ1red. VI. STUDY SESSION 3. Consideration of Municipal Code section 28-2407g Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Non-Conforming Residential Buildings and Uses. staff Report Mr. Wh1ttenberg presented the staff report, indicating this is the second study SeSS10n on municipal Code Sect10n 28-407. The first study Session was at the Plann1ng Commiss1on meeting of February 20, 1991. The purpose of the Study Sessions 1S to review the existing City standards regarding expansions/additions of eX1st1ng non-conform1ng structures. [Staff report on file in the Plann1ng Department]. From Comm1SS1on and pUblic input at the February 20th meeting, staff prepared suggested guidelines to Section 28-407 for further review and d1Scuss1on from the Comm1ssion and the public as to what approach is most appropriate to take from here. Staff proposed separate sets of standards for: 1. Slngle family and duplex structures which are non- conforming due to a part1cular situat10n on the property (density or parking) Suggestions: Be allowed to go through the Minor Plan ReV1ew process as usual with the allowable 10% floor area add1t1ons. 2. Triplexes and larger. Suggestions: If the structure meets parking requirements, they can add 10% through the Minor Plan Review process. If park1ng is not met, 11mi t the addition size under the Minor Plan Review process to 400 square feet. Any additions over 400 square feet would require Conditional Use Permit approval which would carry a Condi t10n for approval would be to provide one ( 1 ) parking space m1nimum per unit on the property itself. Cap vs. 10% Chairman Fife, referencing the cap proposed for expansions of triplexs or greater which are non-conforming due to parking, asked if 400 square feet is more than the allowable 10%? Mr. Whittenberg said no and referenced Al Brown's proposals for 123 8th Street and . Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 601 Ocean Avenue whlch were for 800 square feet on a 50 foot wide lot, and over 1,000 square feet on a 60 foot wlde lot. On a 25 foot lot, 400 square foot is right at that point but for larger lots it would be less than what would be allowed under the normal 10%. Maintenance and interior remodels can, for most items, be completed through the Buildlng Department directly over the counter and not come before the Commission. Parklng becomes an issue only when additional square footage of habitable living space is proposed. Two parking spaces per unlt are requlred for new construction. Letters Submitted For The Record Mr. Whittenberg introduced three citizen letters: Mrs. Leonard Fllnt, 210 13th Street - lndicating she feels two garage spaces per unit should be enforced In Old Town. Mrs. Linnemann, no address - lndicating she feels recent down zonings are unfair to properties developed years ago under a dlfferent set of standards. . Mr. & Mrs. Lindstrom, 215 14th Street - indlcates that garages should be used for parking purposes. Public Hearing Leroy Brown * 705 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach - Indicated he felt the staff proposals are not within the intent of the 1978 municipal Code changes when the City appeared to want single family dwellings and not apartments. He urged setting a cap (suggesting 100 square feet) on a per unit basis. He would like to see the 10% allowable expansion go down to the 2178 square feet for one dwelllng unit. He urged the Commlssion to take a strong stand against lncreaslng density and maintain the 1978 intent. Commlssion Dahlman asked Mr. Brown for hlS input on the percent of weight bearing walls that should be allowed to be removed under the category of minor enlargements? Staff has proposed to continue this figure at 50%. Mr. Brown said that if the expansion flgure was limited to his suggested 100 square feet per unit then the 50% bearing walls would fallout automatically. There would be no need to change the 50% flgure. If over 1000 square feet were being added to a structure you would need the 50% bearing wall figure or more. . commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Brown about the definition of "bedroom". Mr. Brown sald to use the 1968 Code. He urged llmiting expanslon of living areas whlch could turn out to be bedrooms with resultant parking problems. . . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 Density/2178 vs. 10% Allowable Mr. Whittenberg explalned the difference between two issues --- density/2178 square feet vs. 10% allowable additions. These are two dlfferent sets of numbers and should not be tied into the same issue. The 2178 square feet figure lS a requirement of the amount of land area that physically has to exist to allow one housing unit to be bUll t on the lot. The Slze limit c;>f tI:e structure is then based on a lot coverage requlrement WhlCh lS based on the size of the total lot. A builder is allowed 75% lot coverage for each floor that's allowed ln the particular zone. Then on a 37~ foot lot he is allowed a thlrd story on the rear half of the lot. In the three story sltuation, he is allowed 75% of the total land area of the lot for the first two levels and then 50% of the total land area for the third level. The two numbers do not correlate dlrectly --- one number tells you how many units you may build on a lot and the size of the structure bUl1t on the lot is based on the density standard. When using the 2178 square foot figure, it calculates to 20 unlts per acre of land in the RHD zone. Focus On Selected Issues Mr. Whittenberg commented on the 1978 Code changes to reduce density lndlcatlng that ln 1984 the City went through an extenslve process which has carried through to date. There are two confllcting goal statements --- one in down zoning and the other ln allowing expansions to pre-existing non-conforming structures. The two viewpoints don't mesh but have been adopted by the Clty as their POllCY. This Study SeSSlon is trYlng to deal Wl th concerns brought by the increaslng magnltude of additions proposed recently and to try to deal with the proposals ln a more effectlve manner. The Study Session is not proposing to go back and deal with all the issues that were dealt with in 1984 - 1985. The Ci ty' s position lS that the entlre issue does not need to be revisited but just the issue of how we deal wlth proposed expansions --- particularly for three units and larger structures. Definitlon of Rooms Chairman Fife noted staff's suggestion that if you propose to add bedrooms you cannot do it if you are non-conforming either by parking or denslty or both. Staff lS proposing that on the defini tlon of "bedroom" the language be struck on "for the purposes of determinlng parking" but leave the definition in as to what types of rooms are not classified as bedrooms. Foyers are non- habitable areas and thls should be added to the exclusions. Also, instead of using the word "hall" use "hallway". Now the term "bedroom" is "anything other than a living room" but there's no place in the Unlform Building Code nor the zoning ordlnance where it defines what a "11 ving room" lS. Chairman Fife suggested 11mitlng the use of the word "livlng room" --- once lt's used, it can't be used agaln on the same plans. Mr. Whittenberg said he felt that was the intent of the drafters of this section in the . . . Page 7 - Plannlng Commisslon Minutes of March 6, 1991 early 1960's. This sectlon was placed in the Code whe~ the c7ty had parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms ln a unlt. When the parking requirements were changed the City didn't look at the definitlon section again to revise it. Authority to Disapprove --- Not Only Approve Commissioner McCurdy, referencing page 2, paragraph 2 of the staff report stated the Planning Commission has authority to both approve and disapprove. Mr. Whittenberg, in outlining two different issues to be dealt wlth, said he spoke with John Baucke, a former Seal Beach Planning Dlrector. Mr. Baucke lndlcated the Minor Plan Review process was put ln place to act as an information system to alert the Plannlng Commission as to the types of proJects being proposed. Mr. Baucke felt then that the City would evolve to the pOlnt where lt is at now --- where proposals are put forth that really are not meeting the City's intent. H1S intent at that time was to have a cut-and-dried process --- a project meets Code requirements, it's in line with all the criteria, the project gets bUllt. The Minor Plan Review process is an information screening process where it says to the Commission "These types of things we will accept, but we want to look at it so we know what's gOlng on". Any time a health and/or safety concern is detected, the Commission has a rlght to deny the project. The health and safety concerns become very limited. Chairman Flfe asked if Commissioner McCurdy had ln mind expanding paragraph "ivn on page 4 to give the Planning Commlssion the discretion lt should have? Commissioner McCurdy said that would take care of the major concern, which is parking. The wording was suggested "And that the public health, safety and welfare of the community shall not be adversely affected in a materlal manner". Mr. Whittenberg pointed out that under existing State law the Commlsslon has that authorlty without stipulatlng it in the municipal Code. Chairman Fife agreed, but noted a problem that the public is unaware of State law when submitting thelr appllcations. They look at the Code and don't see anything about public health, safety and welfare and can be surprised when faced with Government Code law. Therefore, lt may be better to include the language ln the munlcipal Code to cut off problems, noting that because you technically meet the letter of the law doesn't mean that the Plannlng Commission is wholly without power to take a broader overview of It. Mlke Mundy * 704 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Indicated he was opposed to any additions lf all City requirements are not met. He noted that in the 1960's Seal Beach allowed building a four unit apartment building on a twenty-flve foot lot. He said that durlng that period Seal Beach became a party town. He felt the down zoning over the years has bettered Seal Beach by brlnglng ln families into slngle family dwelllngs. Mr. Mundy felt only a single family dwelling should be built on one lot. He said he owns apartments in Seal Beach and said "I think it's fine that they are allowed to remodel kitchens and keep them up. We have to keep our apartments up in order to keep our rents up. But ... I think it . . . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 can only be detrimental to the Clty to allow a guy with 5 units and 3 parking places to add square footage to his unit. I thlnk lt'S just contrary to what we would like to see in the city". Commissioner Dahlman told Mr. Mundy the Commission must take hlS input and apply it to the lssue before the Commission --- the Code section on minor enlargements and expansions which allows major construction not just maintenance work, and discussed the criteria for Mlnor Plan Reviews. One of the criteria is that if you plan to demolish more than 50% of the bearing walls then you can't be considered under the Minor Plan Review process and would have to come under another process bringing a project closer to Code requirements. Asked what he thought about that, Mr. Mundy said lf the Commission "kept lt simple by not allowing any square footage added to any units that don't meet all the new Code requirements then there are no percentages or criteria". Commissloner Dahlman said even that would still allow a remodel because "Theoretically you could knock down all but 50% of the weight bearing walls and even glven the rule you propose you could totally renew the entire buildlng as long as you didn't expand by one square foot. Do you propose to allow that?" Mr. Mundy said if any unit was torn down to remodel that must meet all new parking requirements. Mr. Mundy said he would not want to see a remodeling of that scale even without square footage. Otherwise it will continue to allow apartments in Old Town longer. Bruce Stark * Seal Beach - Mr. Stark made several points: continue Study Session Urged continuing the Study Sesslon to allow addltional time for citlzen review of staff report. Amendments To Apply City-Wide He felt the purpose of the 1978 down zoning was to completely change and redevelop Old Town as qlllckly as possible. The restricti ve ordlnances applying to Old Town speeded up deterioration. This was done to "... lead us to redevelopment and turning over property to some friendly developers". He suggested the Planning Commission would not be thinking about these amendments if they applied City-wide. Saying Old Town was not the only area of the City with legal non-conformlng structures, he said College Park East is legal non-conforming because it does not have curbs, gutters or sidewalks there. Chalrman Fife said they do have curbs, gutters and sidewalks but don't have parkway strips. Mr. Stark said College Park East has a larger lot coverage allowance than would normally be allowed lf demolished. Chairman Fife said some of the four bedroom, single story homes exceeded the 40% lot coverage requirement but most of the lots do not because they are not that model. Leisure World is legal non-conforming because . . . Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 there are no back doors and questlonable parklng for Ii... all those rental unltsli, intimating ownership of the unit would preclude eviction for pet ownership. Mr. Stark said the Marina-Hill area was also non-conformlng, noting too short garages. Density and parking He proposed the Commlssion do nothlng on amending additional ordinances for Old Town due to density and parking. He sald there has been no professlonal study of whether there's a parklng problem ln Old Town or not. He clted the Seal Beach Swim School as one appllcatlon where the Planning Commission requlred no parking be provlded and indicated it was needed. Reduce House Footprint on Lot Mr. Stark discussed the definition of "densi tyn versus building intensity, suggesting a solution to denslty would be reducing the footprint of a house on a lot, requiring a front or back yard. He felt Old Town's been ruined by monstrous houses being built on 25' x 117.5' lots because they increase density. He felt parking was increasing because the very large houses have 4 - 5 bedrooms wlth 4 - 5 bathrooms with only a 2-car garage. He felt more than one families live ln these homes and are advertised as such ln local newspapers. He urged having uniform ordinances City-wide without granting exceptions to certain areas, havlng a standard set of criteria for all non-conforming areas. "For a small community we don't have that many differences ln town". He urged the Commlssion to find out what the residents of Old Town want, saying he dld not want to live in a "velvet ghetto". Noting the City is "under the gun" to provide low cost housing, Old Town is the only place that has low cost housing. If Old Town becomes a "velvet ghetto" there will be no low income housing. "Not withstanding your ordlnances, they are routinely being 19nored by those wlth friends in high placesli and said he had showed the Commission photographs of outslde staircases. Garages Commissloner Orsinl asked Mr. Stark what percentage of garages were actually used as garages? Mr. Stark replied about 10%. Mr. Stark fel t that requiring people to have garage door openers would encourage people to use their garages because they wouldn't have to open the door themselves. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Stark about renting a garage separately from a house or apartment. Mr. Stark said, assuming there was a parking problem in the Old Town area, he didn't think requirlng a garage to be rented with the house or apartment would help the parklng because so many tenants use garages for storage. . . . Page 10 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 How Many Familles/Persons in a Single Family Home Chalrman Fife said he read two California Supreme Court decisions one of WhlCh took the pOSl tion that R1 zoning can't be used to preclude the occupation of a home by more than one family --- you can have two famllies in a home that is otherwise in an R1 zone. The other decision said you can/t, through zonlng, necessarily restrict the number of people who can live within a home. A one bedroom home could have ten people llving in it. If both of those kinds of decisions do become the law, it makes Mr. Stark/s comments on the large houses much more an issue in Seal Beach. Mr. Stark said there lS a problem of not being able to dictate how many un- related people can llve in a single dwelling. The way the Clty ordlnances read presently" you/d have a great deal of difficulty if somebody bought one of these houses and turned it into a rooming house". Mr. Stark said everyone lS interested in Old Town because the real estate lS very expensive, stating a 25/ x 117.5/ lot could not be bought for $300,000. So when an owenr pays that much money for a lot s/he wants as blg a house as possible. He objected to "... row houses ... we have a bunch of houses that practically look the same, out of cookle cutters ... houses are so deslgned as to lend themselves to apartments, as you well know because I/ve shown you photographs of them". He wondered whether these projects were approved by the Planning Department or the Plannlng Commission, saying "Somebody/s approving them. You people have sat here night after nlght and turned down outside stairways and if that/s the case, why are there so many new outside stairways around town? ... As Mr. McCurdy pointed out, somebody/s going to find the loophole in it and if you don't find the loophole ln it, then you go make your peace up on the second floor and somehow or other these things come out in the Clty. I think Mr. McCurdy's right. Take a long look at what/s being proposed, try to close the loopholes, try to come up with a uniform pOlicy and let/s define our terms" on parking and denslty. Mr. Whlttenberg sald to Mr. Stark that he wanted to get back to the issue of expansion of non-conformlng structures and asked if the existlng provlsions of the municipal Code which allow the 10% of the allowable floor area of the lot without any cap is what was intended at the tlme the hearings were held ln 1984 - 1985? Mr. Stark said that was the intent --- to allow a 10% increase in what was being allowed by other people. The cap was put on because of the "monstrosities" and maximum parking feasible was required. Mr. Stark said he is a proponent of rlgid helght llmi tations (notlng it was ignored as evidenced by the covered roof access dome/observatory on Sandpiper Drive), less denslty in Old Town. He objected to the Planning Commission/s allowing the minimum lot size in Old Town being reduced and that lncreases density. . . . Page 11 - Planning Comm1SS1on Minutes of March 6, 1991 outside Stairways Commissioner Dahlman asked staff about Mr. Stark's comment on building permits be1ng issued for outside stairwells. Mr. Curt1s replied that approximately two outside stairwell permits were issued in approximately the last two years. Both instances required the applicant to place a covenant on the title of the property allowing staff inspection at any time and also stat1ng that there's only one unit on the property. Bas1cally staff frowns on outs1de sta1rwells but the present Code does not give staff the author1ty to absolutely say no 1n a no situation and therefore, if people press the issue staff does require a covenant. That's the limit of staff's enforceability. Density Commissioner Dahlman sa1d he found a definition of "density" in the municipal Code Wh1Ch refers to the number of dwelling units per lot and is further addressed by zoning laws. Density, as addressed by Mr. Stark, 1S addressed by setback requirements. He noted that issue was not the 1ssue tonight except in the form that if somebody's non-conform1ng due to setbacks he's allowed to perpetuate that by this section of the Code. Mr. Whittenberg felt Mr. Stark was suggesting there should be a review of the development standards currently in place for new construction. Mr. Whittenberg sees that as being an 1ntensity of the use of the property as far as the size of the structure that can be built on it and the shape that structure takes on the property. That's a different 1ssue than dens1ty --- density tells you how many units can be put on the lot itself. The corresponding issue that Mr. Stark 1S discussing 1S how big that structure can be, how far must it be away from the property lines, what types of open space are provided on the property. Mr. Wh1 ttenberg said he saw those 1ssues are more 11ke development standards, building 1ntensi ty 1ssues which are not a part of the issue tonight but are issues the Commission can review at a later date. Commissioner Dahlman said this 1ssue is not only in Old Town but is be1ng seen on the Hill as a function of property values and the way the Code defines space. The tendency appears to be the more expens1ve the property the more every CUb1C 1nch should count. Mr. Whittenberg said several cities are facing sim1lar problems, for example, Beverly Hills is going through the "mansionizat1on" where owners are buying three or four lots, demolishing three or four slngle family homes and the new owners are proposing 12,000 to 15,000 square foot homes. The tendency 1S to get the most for the dollar. Cha1rman Fife asked if the Code lot coverage requirements d1dn't restrict this. Mr. Wh1ttenberg ind1cated in Old Town they are allowed 75% lot coverage. Codes Applicable C1ty-Wide Cha1rman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg to what extent were the restrict10ns applicable only to Old Town and not City-wide? Mr. Whittenberg sa1d there are very specif1c exemptions in the Code which exempt properties in the residential low density (RLD) zones . . . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 are non-conforming for the garage sizes, Section 28-403, which include College Park East, College Park West, Marina Hill. section 28-401 discusses lot coverage requirements in College Park East and there's a specific exemption in that area which allows (in additlon to the normal 45% lot coverage for the structure) an addltlonal 5% for patios. Leisure World is under a Planned unit Development (PUD) which operates as separate zoning system; they are not subject to the standards of residential hlgh density (RHD) zonlng. ThlS PUD process is similar to a Speclfic Plan, it sets up a separate set of design development criteria. Mr. Whittenberg referencing Mr. Stark's comment on lack of curbs, gutters, sidewalks said these are improvements on the public right of way and do not impact the definition of non-conforming on the property itself because they are City lmprovements on public land. Mltzle Morton * Seal Beach - Ms. Morton sald there were "dinky little apartments on the waterfront which were uninhabitable for people with money or wealth to live ln one of these crackerboxes. So that's one of the reasons we allowed them to expandli. Said the expansions started because many owners of duplexes along Seal Way wanted to expand to have an owner's unlt upstairs, plus a bedroom and bath. Ms. Morton said she felt 75% lot coverage in Old Town was too much because setbacks take the remalnder of the lot and there's no yard. She indicated that when the original down zonlng occurred it was generally believed there would be yards and lower density. It dldn't happen. She asked Mr. Whittenberg if garages had to conform to setbacks, stating some garages are rlght on the alley? Mr. Whittenberg sald "To be honest, the regulation before us doesn't address that lssue directly. I think what the intent of the Code in the past has been is that if you're not touching that particular portion of the structure lt could remain in its current location. Obviously, if you're re-doing that portion of the structure to meet the parklng requirement then at that point we'd require that it meet the setback requirement in addi tlon it. Ms. Morton sald the trouble with that is that that places a burden on the man across the alleyway where he can't get in and out of his garage. She indicated some people don't use their garages because they can't back in and out of them. Ms. Morton asked the Commission if there was such a thlng as a Clty with no lncome property? She thought lt would be unconstitutional to down zone a city to that point, feellng certaln lots would have to be zoned for multiple housing. She felt the City's population would continue to decrease as the down zoning contlnued and asked lf the City received State or Federal monies for our schools? Mr.Whittenberg lndicated the City recelves certain types of funds through different State agencies based on the City's population. . . . Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 The prelimlnary 1990 Federal Census flgures do not indicate the decrease in City-wide populatlon is focused primarlly in the Old Town area. It appears most of that decrease comes from Leisure World and staff feels those figures are not correct. The other residential areas of the City did not show a major drop in populatlon. Commlssioner Dahlman asked Ms. Morton if, during the previous study sessions or did she personally, envision gutting a property down to 50% of the weight bearing walls and rebuilding to what? Ms. Morton replied "We never thought about that. Frankly, we were so unsophlsticated in the early 1970's that the people who owned income property at that tlme ... if they had known by down zoning they would become legal non-conformlng they wouldn't have been for it. That It would have caused all these headaches --- they wouldn't have been for it". Chi Kredel * 1633 Seal Way. Seal Beach - Indicated the Planning Commisslon should not take actlon at this pOlnt. He said "You can't grant a Variance to a buildlng that's 18 inches from the alley. And, it seems to me, it would be against everybody's will to grant a Varlance on a piece of property that's on the property line. with the way this lS stated here, there's a possibillty of It. If you went ahead and acted on it you'd be perpetuating it". He said he was on the City Council in 1978 when the down zoning started. It was felt nobody would bUlld on these pieces of property but in the first year 17 people, about 30 years old, built homes on the properties and had families. Staff at that time felt people wouldn't build but they did. He felt something more strlngent lS needed and 10% should not be allowed. He objected to the wording "If they can't find the parking in It, they're allowed to build." Mr. Whlttenberg advlsed that that's an existing municipal Code provlsion in place now. Mr. Whittenberg said the issue is before us now because the existlng regulations allow a person to come into the City and request expansions, In the case of 123 8th Street and 601 Ocean, of over 800 square feet and 1000 square feet and because of the eXlsting configuration of the property not provide any additional parking. The Commisslon is concerned that that type of an approval was probably something that was not foreseen to occur when the standards were developed in 1984 - 1985. They are trying to address that issue to allow the City more leeway and discretion in reviewing proposed additlons of that magnltude. Mr. Kredel asked what happened between 1978 - 1984? Mr. Whittenberg said about flve changes to the ~ happened. Mr. Kredel said after 1978 the people could remodel. The problems began in 1982 when that City Council stopped all building. He questioned how a Variance could be granted for a property 18 lnches from the alley when all other garages set back 8 feet from the alley --- this doesn't make sense but there's the possibility it could happen. Chairman Fife explalned it's not the Varlance process but the Minor Plan Review process which allows an . . . Page 14 - Planning CommlSSlon Minutes of March 6, 1991 owner to perpetuate the non-conformity forever. Mr. Kredel said that was not the intent of the City Councl1 ln 1978. Mr. Fife asked what the City had in mind in 1978 when the down zoning was taking place? Mr. Kredel felt they thought that through attrition that eventually the whole downtown area would be upgraded. Mr. Kredel, referencing Commlssioner Dahlman's questions on how people felt about tearing down 50% of bearing walls and rebullding, Mr. Kredel said that should not happen because that's a whole new structure. He felt owners should not enlarge the building because they won't have the parking. He noted other speakers comments on lot coverage but himself could not picture one story houses belng built. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Kredel if he recalled if the allowance for 75% lot coverage in RHD put into the Code about the same time these other changes were made? Mr. Kredel said he was not certain but that Charles Antos would know. commissioner Sharp indlcated he was still concerned about the lack of public turnout at thlS meeting --- seven persons belng present. Mr. Whittenberg sald this study Session was advertised on television durlng the last City Council meeting intermissions. Mr. Whittenberg said the Code does not indicate what Ordinance adopted the 75% lot coverage. That provision was probably not changed in 1978 when the density was reduced. That was an existing provision that was kept and they reduced the actual number unlts on a lot. Staff will research this and report to the Commisslon at the next study Session. Chairman Fife said if people in 1978 wanted single family homes and push Old Town in the direction of a family style community they probably did have yards and open space in mind. And if thlS requlrement was qUletly lying in the Code and no one caught it, the land values forced the people to use all 75% and we're having a sltuation where the sky is being blocked out by building. Mr. Whl ttenberg said if that was an existing provision of the Code he doubted it was quietly overlooked because that I s what was belng builtin Old Town under whatever density standards were before. Mr. Whittenberg felt there is a tendency to build out when land values are so expensive. Commissloner McCurdy said Old Town has no solution to the 25 foot lots which should never have been zoned as such. He also said that people in the audience didn't speak against thlS proposal ln ltS entirety, perhaps certain parts. It does appear the people in the audience don't want any more increases in Slze in non-conforming properties. Mr. Kredel said when the Minor Plan Reviews are processed he felt the setbacks should be strictly adhered to. He used 1605 Ocean Avenue as an example, saYlng it sits 18 inches off the alley and they have no parking. They have rollout windows that reach the property line. He said staff needs a Code enforcement offlcer who can do something about problems. Mr. Kredel said he asked Barry Curtis about the rollout windows and was told they are legal because they are not attached to the building. Mr. Whittenberg said it was not alright to proJect over a property 11ne but you could proJect to a property line. Mr. Whittenberg informed . . . Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 Mr.Kredel that in 1978 the Code was changed to remove the provision that allowed for a Conditlonal Use Permit for an expansion of non- conformlng structures. In 1982 and 1983 there were other Code changes. Mr. Whl ttenberg asked Mr. Kredel if he felt that propertles which are non-conformlng due to parking and density should be able to have any expansion of llving area? Mr. Kredel said IINo. But maybe some exceptions could be granted". The Commission lndicated that's the problem --- no enlargements at all versus a certain size additlon up to a certaln pOlnt. That worked fairly well until the large addltlon requests came along and there were concerns expressed that that's not what was intended. We are trying to flnd a pOlnt where an owner can add a small amount to their structure without increasing the density of the structure but for anything larger than that come up to meet parking requirements or at least have one space per unit. Mr. Kredel asked staff how the 10% was determlned? Mr. Whittenberg replied that the 10% is based on the allowable floor area of the lot which is based on 75% lot coverage. For example, if you have a 2000 square foot lot you would be allowed 1500 square feet for the flrst floor, 1500 square feet for the second floor. That calculation was put in the Code in 1985. At that point placing a cap on Slze of additions was discussed and 300 square feet was discussed. A lot of discussion took place regarding an owner of a very small house. That owner could not add much based on the 10% up to 300 square feet versus another owner who has a larger house where that owner could add more because he's got a larger house to start with. Previous Mlnutes show the Cl ty decided to base addltions on the allowable floor area and the allowable floor area is based on the number of stories you can bUlld on the property. On a 25 foot lot you can build 2 stories, on a 37~ foot or wider lot you can bUlld 3 stories on the rear half. That's why staff is suggesting some sort of cut-off point where you can add a small addltion to deal with closets, bathrooms, expandlng an existing room but not addlng additional rooms which would lncrease bUllding intenslty without going through a different level of review. Commissloner Dahlman said he wanted more tlme to re-read the reports and previous Minutes and asked the study SeSSlon be continued. Chairman Fife asked staff to figure how, if at all, lot coverage and setback issues could/should be flgured into this equation. Bruce Stark * Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Said he would avoid absolute prohibltlons llke no additions if It'S non-conforming because the City may defeat the thlngs they are trYlng to encourage. The concern on why the public is not participating may be due to the many renters in Old Town who may feel this is not their problem. Regarding parking, he suggested the City contact USC or UCLA, any university with Planning courses, and see if one of their courses could be to do a study/survey to see If we have a parklng problem. Regarding non-conforming structures, there lS . Page 16 - Planning Comm1ssion Minutes of March 6, 1991 someth1ng seriously wrong in Seal Beach because we have so much non-conforming property. He suggested reviewing what is "non- conform1ng" and perhaps change that. Regarding garages used for park1ng, there 1S a cont1nuing problem of parking in the alleys and felt the alley parking should be prohibited as it destroys the setback. Regard1ng cement-filled poles in the alleys, he felt these poles destroys the alley setbacks and should be prohib1ted. No one wishing to speak further, Chairman Fife closed the Study Session. Comm1ss1oner Orsini said he rece1ved 15 telephone calls and 5 letters which all sa1d "No parking then no construction". But with some discuss1on, the callers felt perhaps some remodel1ng work could occur "with a cap but no bedrooms could be expanded, no major expans10ns and conform1ng to parking to large expansions. He said he liked Mr. Brown's idea of allowing 100 square feet per unit which would control that. He felt the Commission should look at the 75% lot coverage as grass is disappear1ng and planter boxes are be1ng bU1lt. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d "Bas1cally your setbacks w1II take up 25% of your lot". Mr. Whittenberg, referencing a comment that the C1ty should have one set of non-conforming standards, said the difficulty is that ~ there are three different types of res1dent1al areas in the C1ty: College Park East, College Park West and the H1II which are 5000 square foot, detached, single fam1ly tract homes, built primarily by slngle builders and during a relat1vely short time period. Old Town which was bU1lt from pre-1920 to the present day. Before 1933 there were no building standards in effect. And generally 2500 square foot lots which are half the Slze of the lots on the H1II or in College Park East/West. M1xed hous1ng with lots of d1versity. Surfs ide has 850 to 1000 square foot lots (some are 35'x 25' lots). Mr. Whittenberg said staff would prefer to keep working on this 1ssue at the next meeting. Chairman F1fe asked staff to research whether other communit1es had any system to ensure whether garage park1ng spaces are generally available for that purpose and do they have inspection programs which are justif1ed by health and safety concerns conducted through the F1re Department, what k1nd of privacy issues do they run into, has that approach been found to work or does it create more problems? -e . . . Page 17 - Planning commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 staff to research and report back. Mr. Whittenberg said the Code does have a provision that garages should be maintalned for use as such and the issue to be dealt Wl th is a concentrated Code enforcement effort. That would take a lot of tlme and work and would be a slow process. Commissloner Orsinl wanted staff to research how many slngle famlly dwellings, by percentage, ln Old Town excluding commercial buildings. Staff to research and report back. Chairman Fife, referencing a comment by Director Whittenberg that he would not like to see the diverslty of houslng ln Old Town eliminated, asked how this issue played against the State's requirement for low income houslng. The last Houslng Element committed the City to provlde more houslng and everything that has happened since then has headed toward providing less housing. Chairman Flfe adjourned the Study SeSSlon to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetlng of March 20, 1990. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Leroy Brown * 705 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Said he felt the zoning in Old Town should be changed to reflect what really can be bUllti change R3 to Rl. He felt the classificatlons (RLD, RMD, RHD) are mlsleading and we should word to ensure people understand what they're buying. Mr. Whittenberg explained that under the present density you are allowed 1 unlt for every 2178 square feet and when multiplied out allows 20 units per acre of land which is hlgh density. The RLD areas, College Park East/West and H1II areas, are low density but have a minimum lot size requirement of 5000 square feet which is 8 units per acre. If then the zoning in Old Town were changed to low density lt would be 8 units to acre or 1/4 house per lot. Reva Olsen * Seal Way. Seal Beach - Asked if two properties could be joined by a patio? Mr. Whittenberg said a lot merger would accompllsh that under Subdivision Act and it changes the property descriptlon to one large parcel. Secondly, she asked lf a 50 foot lot on a corner is non-conformlng? Mr. Whittenberg said yes, the Code requlres that corner lots have an additional 10% in width over the standard lot size. A home can be conformlng and the lot its on can be non-conforming. Thirdly, she asked what happened on the Catastrophe Clause? Chairman Fife, noting this question could take some time to research, asked for it to be discussed at the next meetlng. . . . Page 18 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 STAFF CONCERNS Chevron Food Mart * 2950 Westminster Blvd. - On March 7, 1990 the Planning Commiss1on approved CUP 1-90 where Chevron USA would remodel an existing automobile service station with a new canopy, relocation of the lube bay door and remodel the cashier area. During the past week members of the Commission expressed concern to staff that the remodeled cashier area may be a mini -mart. [Staff report on file in Planning Department]. Staff recommends considering the Chevron food mart to be in compliance with Code and the Comm1ssion hold Public Hearings to d1SCUSS provisions regulating establishment of min1-markets in the City. Comm1ssioner Sharp said "We are right back into the interpretation of what one bel1eves 1S what ... if that had been in the permit when it came before us and asked for th1S remodeling of the tanks, the stat10n and so forth, I am pos1t1ve that we would have denied 1t. At least I would have. Where I voted for 1t originally. I still feel that when they are going in the food business they are going 1n the mini-mart bus1ness and that's what we're trying to el1minate ... to perpetuate it isn't what we need to do ...". Cha1rman Fife sa1d he had similar react1on. The Commission clearly did not cons1der the food mart gOlng in at the Mobil Station on Seal Beach Boulevard as something that was simply an incidental sale of motorist items. The Comm1ss1on discussed the applicant's desire to sell alcoholic beverages and felt that would not be good for Seal Beach despite what his competition was doing. The Commiss1on subsequently found out that the Code definition of "automobile service station" did not include food marts. He said "I don't see enough of a d1fference between what the Chevron Station has done without the requirement for any input from us and what the Mobile station did w1th considerable debate to draw much of a distinction ... I'm concerned that this person could bootstrap from th1S to a r1ght to sell alcohol by getting the ABC on his side, by saying the City of Seal Beach allows me to sell food so why not alcohol given the ABC prohibit1on against discriminat1ng against a seller just because he also sells gasoline. Mr. Curtis said he didn't see any danger of that happening as presently worded --- to cons1der alcohol as an incidental motorist product. Mr. Fife said the ABC says you can't prohibit a food mart from also sell1ng alcohol simply because 1 t sells gasoline. Then 1f we have an establishment that the City doesn't call a food mart couldn't the ABC say "We don't care what you call it, 1t looks like a food mart to us, this man should be given a beer and wine 11cense". Mr. Curtis said staff feels that's a valid argument and that's why when service stations have come before the Comm1ss1on, staff has recommended includ1ng wording in the Code which strictly def1nes what a mini-market 1S, where they would be allowed to sell alcohol. And, working with the City Attorney, staff recommended making the condit1ons upon which alcohol could be sell at a service station very tightly def1ned. The City Attorney felt those would be adequate 1n addressing this. . . . Page 19 - Planning commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 Each tlme the Commission felt the eXlsting verbiage was adequate. Commissioner Sharp asked staff when they were aware, in the issuing of the permltted plans, that Chevron was putting in refrigerating equipment, coffee equlpment, shelvlng to put in this type of market that you didn't bring lt to someone's attention? Mr. curtis said thlS came before the Building Department approximately one to two weeks before the job was finaled. Commissloner Sharp asked was it being built before you knew about it? Mr. Curtls said yes, definitely. When lt came before the Planning Commlssion it showed an expanded sales area and at that time staff discussed with the property owner and they said normal service station supplies would be sold out of there. Commissioner Sharp said he stopped at the station and asked to see the 11cense for handllng what they were handling but could not find one on the board. A statlon employee said Chuck Feenstra (Cl ty BUllding Inspector) is the person we dealt with. commissioner Sharp said "I'm just really concerned on how things are run. When they come before us and are they approved one way and they end up something else when they're built". Mr. Whl ttenberg sald most of the equipment in the station is free- standing equipment that does not show up on building plans. Commlssioner Orsini asked if they showed an outside Vlew of the station when the CUP went through the Planning Commission? commissioner Sharp explalned their orlginal request, noting everything ln the applicatlon was discussed thoroughly. The sign "Food Mart II was not there. Mr. Ors ini then asked 1 f, when the plans came before the Building Department, if the sign "Food Mart" was there? Mr. Curtls said "I would have to look at the approved plans. I don't believe that the "Food Mart" sign was even part of the request". Mr. curtis said the sign could be requested to be removed. Commlssioner Dahlman said he believed he had been told the City would not allow the sale of alcohol at gas stations because the City doesn't allow mini-marts at gas station. He agreed with Commlssioner Sharp that in looking at the pictures lt appears to be a mini-mart. commissioner Orsinl sald the shelves and coolers are empty to a large extent and he wondered what would be going in there. Mr. Whittenberg said that in order to get a license to sell alcoholic beverages they need to get City permission before ABC will lssue a license. Mr. Orsini asked staff what the difference was between a "mini-mart" and a "food mart"? Mr. Whittenberg said staff was struggling with the difference between a "food mart II or a IImlnl mart" or a service station that has candy and gum. Staff indlcated this service station's supplles may be more than the Commission is comfortable with. commissioner orsini said "But we do agree we are not allowing mini-marts?" Mr. Whittenberg sald "Not allowing mini-marts II . Commissloner Orsini said "I need to know what the difference is because I don't see the difference II . Mr. Whittenberg sald "That's the problem, there's no set definitlon as to what a . . . Page 20 - Plannlng Commisslon Minutes of March 6, 1991 minl-mart is. Some cities define them by a certain size of area that's available for the sale of good, some cltles deflne it by the types of goods that are for sale ...". Commissioner Sharp said he could understand a mini -mart in a rural area which would be approprlate. But ln Seal Beach there's markets all around where all those items can be bought. Concern on ABC's Positlon Chalrman Fife said he knew that they couldn't get a beer/wine llcense from the City without a permlt, but his main concern was the City's dlscretlon to wlthhold such a permit is restricted and cannot be based slmply on the fact that the establishment also sells gasoline. Mr. Whittenberg said "That's correct". Mr. Fife continued, if the ABC decided, in lt'S opinion, that that was a mlnl-mart, however it might define a mlni-mart, couldn't the ABC take the posltlon that Slnce the City of Seal Beach allowed the establishment to go that far, it would not have the dlscretion to refuse to issue a permit for lt to sell alcohol? Mr. Whittenberg sald "I can't give you a good answer to that questlon. I don't know if ABC has ever taken the formal posltlon of over ruling a city's determinatlon as to what constltutes food sales or a mini- mart. And that's an issue we'd have to explore. I don't know if that's been tested or not". Commlssioner Sharp said it was tested in the City of Los Alamitos. Mr. Whlttenberg said it was tested on a certaln clrcumstances and we would have to look at the background on that circumstance to see lf that's appllcable here. Chairman Fife said he agreed with Mr. Curtis' comment that there is no way to look at the sale of alcohol as an incidental to a motorlst's need because it's against the law to have open alcohol- containing containers ln an automoblle or to drink alcohol ln motor vehicle. Chairman Fife sald it didn't seem to him that that's necessarlly the approach the ABC might take. It seems the ABC takes the approach that if you're selllng food and you're also selling gasoline you can't withhold a liquor llcense simply because the station is selling gasoline and overlooks the incidental motorist need issue. Mr. Whittenberg said it may be true the ABC looks at issues differently but what staff is looking for is lf the Commlssion feels that the types and amounts of 1 tems they are selllng are sufficiently large to put them lnto something other than an lncidental motorlst category staff will take that directlon from the Commlssion and contact Chevron USA and indlcate they are not in conformance with the Conditions of their CUP. Chairman Fife indlcated that the approach may not be to inventory the ltems but to set a dollar amount of sales that they may not exceed per month. He felt the inventory approach could be manipulated ln various ways and would requlre too much staff enforcement tlmes. Chairman Fife sald he was not concerned with the ldea of having no minl-marts in the City of Seal Beach, as it's almost a coming thing, and could be comfortable with a change in the Code which says we would allow mini-marts on and North of Westminster Boulevard and maybe keep them out of the Old Town area. But he said he was more concerned about the City losing the right to control thelr destiny wlth . . . Page 21 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 respect the ABC corning in and preempting us. Mr. Whlttenberg said that issue will be explored wlth the City Attorney's Office and staff will report back to the Commission. staff will contact Chevron USA regardlng CUP #1-90 and get the food display areas reduced to a more reasonable level. *** Resolution No. 1611 and No. 1614 - Mr. Whittenberg lndlcated these Resolutions have been prepared to reflect the determinations of the Planning CommlSSlon on the Mlnor Plan Reviews at 123 Eighth Street and 601 Ocean Avenue. Staff wanted to present these to the CommlSSlon for reVlew and signature at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The City Council will be considering these matters on appeal on March 11, 1991. COMMISSION CONCERNS commissioner Orsini asked to be excused from the March 20th Planning Commission meeting because he would be attending the League of Californla cities meeting. Staff presented Chairman Fife Resolution Nos. 1612, 1613 and 1609 for signature. Resolution No. 1609 was not signed because of the changed Condltlons. ADJOURNMENT Chalrman Fife adjourned the meetlng at 10:50 p.m. Sincerely, ~C~ ~~__ J an Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department *** These Minutes are tentative and are subJect to the approval of the Plannlng Commission. *** The Planning Commlssion appro~e meeting on March 20, 1991. Minutes of thelr March 6, 1991 City Of Seal Beach Planning Comml~lOn SU8MITfED FOR RECORD By;). c.:Jrz7A.~ Date;:!'-!'?! u"'O fi ~(!lA~S:: If;;/ rDJlA/J rfk7 {!{ffl~'if~J -. /) '": i/'h'/i I, J' ' / J \/4\/1\ './"-f L..-O)V0"1 ,,-Q4 I .0" - . ~I "I U liP A{ /J ffr'~1jL)t~ /j~/jL~''-4 I l/' ---- i J ' /1-a,U( N ~()U v~ f&t ).:f7,-.. VI- f.. t \'";,r ,!7-E.A-'...-o I \. V v J ~j/~'-Ccr V~ /J"/.1 lC {- ~{)~~_-A LcL- k v-!!~__ flV-<>-e1Ll:- aLa-&<> AA-<-/ /?-€ ce-a-<1 /~-'/j v'e, r-1J'A7f.<<A..-- ,~A.. (j ~ "I. t tf'.A-A , ,r,~ 7! f-L<7 /,~.-1.. t.:."--Q , iv'c- f-,,-- i?. \14.. c)i",,:, I;) cIA_' J"-".....jJLiJ ,fd..-U<. c 'k..",(. f- "'^- vI,,-_ Whl-~'~c.e.. if vk "c_~_A-; ,(!.A~~ {,tA~f- ~ ~ JU! -'" -'Z ~oI....Q .~iAvA'-7f vo 4 ~(f 1 ~ Jo- '-fd(.CJ v,.~ f o..VI fVO-R..--c> ~ ~ .~./L~..J! ........ I'1^" ~-,,-k ~~ 1f~ !~ / d ,-h4<A~Q "crc",({ ~ ,&:'Pcr: ,;s-L..J!..._ ~d cf-,"::L~ 'Oltf ~~'fi-.-(f I ~-e." if'L- /?'Y~' Iv\': .d<, trode. .~t(/~ ~_P''-/t.., ,--tfc: --/;-p 4d t--?t-tb .. 'j !..,J/c..!L /('C t'1.- 'tI.~_ 0 {'{HI yz.v,.. '7; 10 'I ~l1.1~ v ( tU'vt L- I:H1.' 'f-C, -- -- ~ !1- ~J t.... c.e..\..ft-1; 0 -AA-:~ /1u... q 1/Iw S IIi.;J 04:""do 'fUf)A J D! j.) - 1/1" Sf; t:l.r~/1 J~~J /B-.e~~ c,L C It /0 "Ie.;- (:;; /h,1 jI - -;I. Q -' /I/?Z,tc"-. 5 -- I c.17 ~ . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECORD 'Sy.f~tIFnUJlrJ oatei1/..~