Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1992-04-15 J . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA APRIL 15, 1992 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of April 1. 1992 2. Minor Plan Address: Applicant: OWner: Request: 3. Minor Plan Address: Applicant: OWner: Request: IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS Review #91-17 1621 Seal Way Ralph Hanson Ralph Hanson Cover and enclose second-floor deck conforming duplex. an of existing a non- Review 192-8 (Architectural 16 Cottonwood Lane K. S. Designs Frances Little Two-story cabana Review) 4. Growth Management Element of General Plan Receipt of "Issue Paper" and "Technical Report" 5. Communication from Richards, Watson & Gershon to Supreme Court of the State of California re Kaufman & Broad. etc.. Inc. vs. City of Modesto v. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Minor Plan Address: Applicant: OWner: Request: 7. Conditional Address: Applicant: OWner: Request: Review 192-7 (Height Variation) A-36 Surfside Sears. Young Architects Reed & Hernandez Construction of a Covered Roof Access structure (CRAS). Use Permit 192-1 909 Ocean Avenue Sharon Good Linda Farah Beer & Wine License J. . . . Page 2 - Planning commission Agenda - April 15, 1992 VI. VII. VIII. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of APRIL 15, 1992 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 1992 was called to order by Chairman Fife at 7:30 p.m. in City Councl1 Chambers. Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner orsini led the Pledge of Allegiance. Afterward he asked for a moment of silence in honor of Joe Hunt. Roll Call Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Orsini Staff Present: Department of Development SerVlces: Lee Whittenberg, Dlrector Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Consent Calendar 1. Minutes of April 15, 1992 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve the Planning commission Minutes of April 1, 1992 as presented. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: ABSTAIN: 5 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, Dahlman Law 2. Minor Plan Review #92-17 1621 Seal Way Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Ralph Hanson, requested approval to cover and enclose an existing second story deck on his non-conforming duplex at 1621 Seal Way. Staff recommends approval subject to three conditions. Mr. Curtis read into the Record a letter opposing this request from Thomas and Josi Greeley of 1629 Seal Way, Seal Beach (attached). commission Comments The Commission asked if municipal Code Section 28-2407(2)(d) prohibi ted roof additions over balconies. Commissioner Orsini read the Section and said he interpreted this Section to mean that if the applicant extended the roof he could not enclose the balcony and porch. Mr. Curtis said he had discussed this matter with the Clty Attorney's Office today and was advised an appllcant could put a roof over any balcony or porch (of any size) as long as it's not . . . Page 2 - P1anning Commission Minutes o~ Apri1 15, 1992 enclosed. Once it's enclosed, it falls under section 28-2407(c) which says "... enclosures of balconies and porches which do not increase the square foot floor area greater than 10% of the allowable floor area". The City Attorney's Office felt this was the proper approach and staff followed that advice. Commissioner Dahlman asked what the property's non-conformities were and would this application bring those non-conformities into closer Code compliance? Mr. curtis sald the non-conformities are density, parking and setbacks and the application would not bring the property closer to Code conformity. Commissioner Dahlman asked if previous alterations had been made to this building, to meet the ~ restriction of a one-time 10% cumulative addition to a non-conforming structure? Mr. Curtis said the City's records show no discretionary actions on this property. Mr. Whittenberg advised the current regulations on the expansion of non-conforming structures took effect in 1984 and city records do not indicate any alteratlons from 1984 to date. commissioner orsini asked if this structure had had an interior remodel? Mr. curtis said no, the house next door was remodeled. Commissioner Sharp, referencing the Greeley's letter, asked Mr. curtis if this project would adversely affect the view, light and air as claimed? Mr. curtis said he had not looked at this property from the neighbor's second floor but since the enclosure would be malnly glass he didn't feel it would completely block their view. The glass would be within their view range. The roof would be extended out approximately seven (7') feet. Commissioner orsini said it was not solid glass, it was sections of glass with dividers. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Fife to hold a Public Hearing on Minor Plan Review #91-17 because people in the audience wanted to speak on this subject. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Orsini, Fife, Law, Dahlman, Sharp Chairman Fife asked how much of the existing exterior wall would be removed? Mr. curtis said none. Chairman Fife asked if the number of windows would effect Title 24 glazing requirements? Mr. Curtis said no. Chairman Fife asked if this would be considered a bedroom (referring to prior Commission discussions on the definition of "bedroom")? Mr. curtis said this area does not meet Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for a habitable room. Mr. Whittenberg said staff understands the plans propose a sunporchi . Page 3 - Planning Commispion Minutes of Aprl1 15, 1992 the UBC does not recognize those as habitable rooms because of the types of proposed windows and walls. Dallas McCurry. Contractor * 29665 Jura Court. Menifee. CA Mr. McCurry introduced himself as the applicant's contractor. He said Mr. Hanson asked him to appear before the Commission on his behalf. He stated their project complies with UBC, Title 49 requirements and the wall and doors between the house and the patio enclosure will remain. He read a statement from Mr. Hanson: . Mr. Hanson purchased the building, which has two units, in 1972 and lived there himself for eight years. During that time the structure was extensively remodeled according to plans approved by the City of Seal Beach and the Coastal Commission. The structure currently has a two bedroom - two bath unit downsta1rs and a one bedroom one bath unit upstairs. These units have been in this configuration since 1978. The focus of the current proposal is to open the deck area of the upper unit facing the ocean. This deck, which approximately 24 feet wide and 7 feet in depth, is totally uncovered. Below it is the liv1ng room area of the lower unit. In spite of numerous attempts to waterproof this deck area there have been one or more occasions every year since 1978 when there has been leaks into the lower unit during rain storms. The end result has been constant maintenance efforts to waterproof the deck area and repair the interior unit due to water damage. The plans being reviewed will resolve these problems by fully enclosing the upper patio deck area. This should eliminate the problems due to leaking while maintaining most of the open air uses of the deck. At the same time the proposed changes should not negatively affect either the surrounding property or the aesthetics of the area. Also, the proposed work should not impact the density in the area. No additional bedrooms will be added to either unit. And the structure currently has off-street parking, uncovered, for four cars. These four spaces have been and should continue to be sufficient to accommodate the occupants for both units. Chairman Fife asked if there would be electrical service, wiring, forced air heating to this area? Mr. McCurry said none at all. Chairman Fife asked what the owner's attitude would be on not having drapes or blinds or other glass coverings which would obstruct view? Mr. McCurry said Mr. Hanson's intention is to leave the unit completely open, as a protection for the room below and as a patio area. . Chairman F1fe asked about glazing requirements. Mr. McCurry said the glazing requirements have been met and referred to Title 49, ~ Page 4 - P1anning Commission Xinutes of Apri1 15, 1992 UBC. Chairman Fife asked if the owner plans to remove the window insert sections during the summer? Mr. McCurry said the window inserts slide open for ventilation and have screens. It's not necessary to remove them but they can be removed. Mr. McCurry showed the Planning Commission photographs he took this afternoon of the area. (Not submitted for the Record). Mr. Whittenberg read UBC Title 49, definition of 'patio cover': . Patio covers are one-story structures not exceeding twel ve feet in height, enclosure walls may have any configuration provided the open area of the longer wall and one additional wall is equal to at least 65% of the area below a minimum of 6'8" of each wall measured from the floor. Openings may be enclosed with insect screening or plastic that is readily removable, translucent or transparent not more than 0.125 inches in thickness. Patio covers may be attached or detached to other buildings as accessories to Group M, Group R, Division 3 or to single dwelling units in Group R, Division 1 occupancies. Patio covers shall be used only for recreational outdoor living purposes and not as carports, garages, storage rooms or habitable rooms. UBC Sectlon 409 defines 'habitable space (room)' as "... space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space in similar areas are not considered 'habitable space'''. Mr. Whittenberg advised the Commission this was not a habitable room, not a bedroom. It's defined very specifically in the UBC as a patio cover. Because it's a patio cover it is not a room. Reva Olsen * Seal Way, Seal Beach Ms. Olsen said she was concerned with view loss along Seal Way. Many of the Seal Way structures have upper deck patios. If they were all to be enclosed no one would have a view. While she appreciated the applicant's problems with water leakage from rain, she said all the owners on Seal Way have leakage problems but no matter what was used as enclosures it would obstruct views. She didn't feel that's what the people on Seal Way want. She agreed with the Greeley's opposing letter and urged the Commission to not pass this request tonight and to study the situation more thoroughly. . Nancy Kredell * 1633 Seal Way, Seal Beach Ms. Kredel said she was opposed to a non-conforming property being allowed to expand. She agreed with the Greeley's opposing letter. ~ Page 5 - p~anninq Commission Minutes of Apri~ ~5, ~992 No one wished to speak further for or against this application; Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. commission Comments Chairman Fife asked Mr. curtis how far the patio enclose would extend to the property 11ne? Mr. curtis said the proposed enclosure would be right near the lot line, about 6" to l' from the lot line. The required setback is zero (0') feet. The majority of the second floor decks on that portion of Seal Way are open. Commlssioner Orsini said he was not in favor of this applicatlon based on the possibility of view loss. He advised that if this porch is enclosed with glass it will be hot in the summer and the owner will have to shade the room with somethlng. Once shaded, that will kill all the views. That would be taking away 100% view of the pier and the ocean. . commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Whittenberg if the Planning Commisslon could deny this application on the view lssue, as it can with a CRAS? Mr. Whittenberg said the Code section allowing this type of expansion is permissive, saying "... may be approved ..." and a denial of the request would need to be tied to an impact on the health, safety and welfare of the public. He urged the Commission to be careful ln proceeding with a denial based on a view issue when enclosing a patio, especially in the beach area. The Commission may be telling beach residents that what they've got built now is all they're going to be able to build because they're going to have a problem regarding blocking Vlews. Commissioner orsini asked if a denial could be based on density, parking and setback non-conformities? Mr. Whittenberg said that would be more difficult because those are existing situations which are there now and would not be created by approving this application. commissioner Orsini said he sympathized with the applicant's water problems and favored approving the roof extension. He suggested the owner could enclose the lower portion of the deck where the railing is. Mr. Whittenberg said the water drainage would have to be taken care of through a drainage system to eliminate a sheet overflow under the railing. . Chairman Fife said that area is pristine, most of patios are not enclosed and he would be inclined to make a finding that enclosing this one patio might open the dike where everyone encloses their deck and that's detrimental to the welfare of the whole street. Commissioner Law asked if there would be a ruling prohibl tlng everyone in that area from enclosing their decks? Chairman Fife said the applications should be considered individually. Chairman Fife felt a domino effect would be created once one neighbor's view is destroyed he might as well enclose his patio too; there must be a better way to deal with leakage problems. ~ Page 6 - P~anning Commission Minutes of Apri~ 15, 1992 Mr. whittenberg indicated the Commission may approve extending of the roof only. The applicant would have the right to appeal the Commission's action to the City Council. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Dahlman to continue the Public Hearing on Minor Plan Review #91-17 to the May 6, 1992 Commission meeting. The applicant is invited to consider whether he would want to amend his plan. The public is invited to speak on this issue. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Fife, Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Orsini *** 3. Minor Plan Review #92-8 16 Cottonwood Lane . Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, K.S. Designs for Francis Little, is proposing to construct a new two-story cabana around the existing trailer. Staff recommends approval subject to six condi tions of approval. Mr. Curtis read, for the Record, a notarized letter from Greg Albright (attached), dated April 1, 1992, stating he withdraws his application for a two-story cabana at 15 Cottonwood Lane to allow Ms. Little to apply. commission Comments Chairman Fife asked staff if the structure would have a foundation? Mr. curtis said yes, it's bolted down to address seismic concerns. commissioner Law asked if both 15 Cottonwood and 16 Cottonwood could be built as two-story cabanas without adjusting space between the trailers? Mr. Curtis sald there is adequate space between the two structures. There are some problem areas to achieve the required twenty feet between two-story trailers necessitating a small second story for 15 Cottonwood Lane. commissioner orsini said no side setbacks are shown and asked what the actual lot width is? Mr. Whittenberg noted there are no lot lines ln the Trailer Park, only distances between trailers. The Redevelopment Agency has requested the City Attorney's Office to explore the possibility of requirlng lot lines in the Trailer Park for each leased area; that research is on-going. Staff talked today with the state Department of Housing and Community Development in Sacramento. They will be contacting the City Attorney's Office to provide additional information. Staff hopes to have something back to the Redevelopment Agency at their May meeting. . commissioner Dahlman told Mr. Whittenberg he was surprised Barry Curtis didn't tell him the Commission discussed this subject at the ~ page 7 - P1anning Commission Minutes of Apri1 15, 1992 last Commission meeting. The actual wording with regard to 'accessory buildings' in mobile homes parks is that they will be three (3') feet from the lot lines. And another portion of the code says there will be lot lines and numbering. Mr. Whittenberg said that's what the City Attorney's Office is investigating with the State, to determine whether or not the lot lines that are referenced in Title 25 are referencing exterior boundary lines or interior lines which have never been recorded as part of a parcel map; the issue is whether or not they have been recorded. The City has a plot map of the Park which shows leased areas for trailers but that map was never recorded. Commlssioner Orsini questioned staff on the leased area's measurements, claiming the applicant was picking up footage and asking where it was coming from? Mr. curtis said the trailer is 19' wide with 3' setbacks on each side, measuring 25'. The wall of this structure will be six (6') feet from the wall of the next trailer; a one (1') foot projection for architectural features (chimney, bay windows) is allowed. The steps and deck entry is not considered part of the structure itself. ~ MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to grant Minor Plan Review #92-8, subject to the six (6) conditions of approval set forth in the staff report. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Orsini, Law *** SCHEDULED MATTERS 4. Growth Management Element of General Plan Receipt of "Issue Paper" and "Technical Report" ~ staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Reports on file in the Planning Department]. Mr. Whittenberg told the Commission the purpose of presenting these reports to the Council and Commission is to pave the way for future documents as the City prepares a Growth Management Element to the City'S General Plan. The Growth Management Element is required by Measure M, adopted in 1990. The Issue Paper and Technical Report were presented to the City Council on April 6, 1992. The Commission will hold a Public Hearing on the Growth Management Element at its May 20, 1992 meeting. Once the Commission has reviewed the document it will be forwarded to the City Council for final Public Hearings and adoption. Chairman Fife questioned Mr. Whittenberg about growth management areas and where and if Seal Beach was located in those areas. He asked if Seal Beach would receive enough monies to justify the cost . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 15, 1992 , of this work? Mr. Whittenberg said yes, about $450,000 to $850,000 per the first year per the two growth management areas within which Seal Beach is located. That number is determined by the number of miles of roadways, population and other factors. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to receive and file the Issue Paper and Technical Report. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Law, Orsini *** 5. Communication from Richards, Watson & Gershon to Supreme Court of the State of California re Kaufman & Broad, etc.. Inc. v. City of Modesto . Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg provided lnformatlon on this communication from the City Attorney's Office. [Document on file in the Planning Department] . MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to receive and file the communication from Richards, Watson & Gershon on Kaufman & Broad, etc., Inc. v. City of Modesto. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Law, Orsini *** PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Minor Plan Review #92-7 A-36 Surfside Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Sears-Young Architects for Fred Reed and Cheryl Hernandez, requests approval of a height variation for construction of a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in conjunction with the construction of a new single family residence at A-36 Surfside. Staff recommended approval. . commission Comments Commlssioner Sharp said he was disturbed that the architects don't seem to acknowledge the Commission's problems with CRAS's and the fact the Commission will not allow a room to be built as a CRAS. He said "... They keep submitting plans and taking the time of the Department and our time and everything else when it's just useless as far as I'm concerned. As far as I'm concerned we should just deny the whole thing and make them come back in again". ~ Page 9 - P1anning Commission Kinutes of Apri1 15, 1992 Commissioner Dahlman echoed Commissioner Sharp's comments, saying "It's a shame to waste a lot of time in something where we most likely will have to look at a better set of plans. Also, I'd like to comment, Barry, that the square footage shown in this CRAS is 200 not 177. The diameter is sixteen feet not fifteen feet according to my ruler. Were you measuring inside?" Mr. curtis said he was measuring outside dimenslons. Commissioner orsini said "Mr. Chairman, I don't see any difference in this one and the one we turned down on First Street. It's the exact same stairwell setup". Mr. Whittenberg indicated this is a Public Hearing and the testimony should be listened to before the Commissioners indicate their positions on the particular project. Mr. Whittenberg, referencing Commissioner Sharp's comments, said staff did meet with the applicants and their architect about the size of the structure. Staff told them the Commission denied the First Street CRAS where they had the large "U" shaped stairway and staff felt this project would not be received favorably by the Commission. Staff suggested several different proposals. The applicants have decided to bring the application before the Commission in its present format. ~ Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. Brent Sears * Sears-Young Architects * 3517 E. Broadway, Long Beach,CA Mr. Sears said he did not intend to waste the Commission's time but he was employed by persons who wish to construct this residence. Mr. Sears discussed several issues: CRAS roof materials: These are consistent with the whole structure. Height of structure: This is not an issue. It was designed as low as possible and was lowered to 39'2". The chimney is at 41' 2" and is wi thin the allowable heights. Not an observatory: They are aware of the touchy nature of CRASs. The architect has discussed this with his cllents. He presented pictures of neighboring structures with CRAS. ~ Size: Mr. Sears showed the Commisslon a magazine picture of a stairway which his client's presented to him and asked him to design into their new house. He discussed the stairway, UBC requirements for a winding stairway, al ternati ves discussed. Mr. Sears corrected Commissioner Dahlman, indicating the staff report was correct, the area is 177 feet not 200 feet. There were no dimensions . page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 15, 1992 on the plans the Commission reviewed because they were working drawings. Vlew: Mr. Sears presented a drawing showing the winding stairway and the rear stairway. He felt the rectangular CRAS were ugly for the most part. The difference in length between a rectangular CRAS and the circular CRAS is two ( 2') feet. Mr. Sears presented a plat map showing the subject property and adjacent lots. The circle represents the winding stairwell CRAS and the box represents the rectangular CRAS, indicating the views. He stated he does not think the project impacts any primary view. The scope of the view in the area is great. He noted that the view from lot #1 would be worse with a rectangular CRAS because it would be closer to the structure. The circular CRAS is 4~' above the height limit, not the allowable 7'. Liveability: This is not a room. The actual floor area in the CRAS is 74 square feet. There is a six (6') hole ln the center. The stairway steps is only four (4') feet wide. The round shape is more appealing than the rectangular shape. . commissioner Dahlman sald the Commission has extensively reviewed the issue of size at great length. He said "It needs to be built below the height limit. It's just too big to be above the height limit ... I think we haven't approved anything above 70 square feet ... it's just huge in comparison". He agreed the view arc from B row would be more obstructed by a rectangular CRAS because of its location in the rear. Commissioner Law said Surfside was not allowing building over 35'. Mr. Whittenberg said he was not sure what Surfside Colony's position is. They have dlfferent ideas over what the municipal ~ allows. Mr. Whittenberg asked Mr. Sears the utilization of a spiral stairway from the third floor to the CRAS area versus the winding stairway; what diameter would that be? (Staff's alternative 3: Terminate the circular staircase at the thlrd floor and have smaller spiral stair as access to the third floor). Mr. Sears said he did not have a way to structurally support a smaller spiral stairway. Alternates 2 and 3 are not viable options aesthetically he could not stand it, it would be 'cras'. Commissioner Dahlman asked if an elevator could be installed in the stairway's center hole? Mr. Sears said the height of the shaft would exceed the height of the stairwell. The client's wish is to preserve the cylindrical shaft. He had considered building it in glass but was not sure he could engineer it safely. . Chairman Fife asked if the maximum height would be the same with a rectangular CRAS at the rear of the house? Mr. Sears said he . . . Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 15, 1992 thought that could be cut down. The client's have young children and want to have the CRAS stairway at the front of the house, near their bedroom, so they can control access to the roof deck. Also, for guest access, the main (winding) stairway is in the front of the house and the client's would prefer not to have to walk to the back of the house for access. Joyce Parkay * Sunset Beach Ms. Parkay said Cheryl Hernandez and Fred Reed could not be present tonight. Ms. Parkay spoke in favor of this application. No one wished to speak further in favor or against this proposal; Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Fife noted the letter in opposition from Bob Montgomery, President of Surfs ide Colony Board of Directors (attached). Commission Comments commissioner orsini said he was bothered by the project on First Street which the Commission denied. The applicant's pictures further demonstrate why a CRAS of 177 square feet should not be allowed. If this were allowed, and the Commission were denying them in Old Town, it would not make any sense. He said CRASs were to be a way of getting to the roof, not a big part of the roof. Chairman Fife said he did see differences between this project and the First Street house. Mr. Sears' argument is persuasive, the rectangular CRAS being closer to the origination of the view arc has a greater blocking effect than the circular staircase at the front of the property. commissioner orsini sald he was not addressing the Vlew issue. He was saying the square footage of the CRAS is too large. The issue is square footage. commissioner Sharp said he thought the design was beautiful but the Commission has been through the CRAS issue and the minimum size is set at what is necessary to get up to the roof. He objected to the large size. Commissioner Law said the size of the fireplace was not lncluded. The fireplace and the CRAS W04ld have to cut off the view. o Chairman Fife said the B row houses face the beach. A CRAS at the rear would not block the side view of a B row house. Brent Sears * Sears-Young Architects Mr. Sears restated his client's position. He stated the view question is relative. Regarding the size issue, the stairway's design configuration is built to minimum UBC standards. It's a different shape --- that's why they are requesting a variation. Short of complete denial, of the three staff options, Alternative . . . Page 12 - P~anning Commission Minutes of April 15, 1992 #1 would be the most favorable to him. The only other option he had not ellminated was the nearly all-glass CRAS. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Height variation #92-7 subject to staff Alternative 1: Use smaller rear stairwell as the roof access structure instead of the front circular stairway. The CRAS must have the minimum area necessary to provide the 6'8" head clearance. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Orsini, Dahlman, Fife, Law, Sharp Before the vote Commissioner Orsini asked if it was possible to require small round windows or any type windows be on all four sides of the CRAS? Mr. Whittenberg advised it was within Commission discretion but would require revised plans. Commissioner orsini said he would like to see windows on all sides. He added "I do like the round doghouse, don't get me wrong. The trouble I'm having is the size. The square footage ... there ... with what you're doing looks good. But I know what the repercussions in Old Town and it's amazing. It would be opening up Pandora's box allover again. There's just no way we can afford to do that at this time". The Commission discussed the windows and their possible sizes. Commissioner Dahlman said he could not Second the motlon because demanding glass on all four sides would stifle the architect's creativity. Commissioner Orsini said he would remove the glass mandate and just say he hoped the architect would design glass on all four sides of the CRAS. *** Chairman Fife called a short recess. 7. Conditional Use Permit #92-1 909 Ocean Avenue * Tootsie's Restaurant Commissioner orsini declared a possible conflict of interest and left the Council Chamber at this point. Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Sharon Good, requests 0 approval for an on-sale beer and wine license in conJunction wlth an existing restaurant at 909 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach (Tootsie's). Staff recommended approval subject to sixteen (16) conditions of approval [outlined in staff report]. Mr. Curtis said staff has had conversations with Joe Orsini who indicated a reluctance to immediately remove the garage due to cost concerns. Their lease with property owner Linda Farah is of a short nature and he wanted to get their lease renewed before he would agree to having the garage torn down to ensure a return on their investment of having the garage removed. Mr. curtis said the applicant would like to . . . Page 13 - P1anning Commission Minutes of Apri1 15, 1992 discuss the conditions of approval with the Commission because some of the conditions could/should be modified to better suit the needs of the applicant while still meeting the City's needs. Commission Comments commissioners Fife, Sharp, Law, and Dahlman stated they had received telephone calls in opposition to this application. The callers stated the City already has enough beer and Wlne licenses in Old Town. Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. Joanne Peretti * 6624 Fichot Way. Cypressr CA Ms. Peretti stated she is the manager of Tootsie's Restaurant. She said she received and reviewed the staff report. Regardlng the conditions of approval she had the following comments: #9. Removing the garage. She agreed to this condition but stated she has a 2\ year lease and requested tabling condition #9 allowing the garage to be removed upon renewal of the lease. #11. Landscaplng. She will clean up and maintain the landscaping. #1. License. This should be issued to "Tootsie's, Inc." and not "Sharon Good". #8. Hours. The hours of operation should be from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. seven days a week. commissioner Sharp asked Ms. Peretti who her lease was with? Ms. Peretti said it is with the land owner, Linda Farah. Chairman Fife asked Ms. Peretti if she had thought of renegotiating the lease with Ms. Farah now? Ms. Peretti said her understanding is that Ms. Farah will not discuss the lease until it is ready to be renewed. Ms. Farah maintains the property for her father and its up to him to make that decision and she will not make it for him. 1 Commissioner Law asked Ms. Peretti if she had discussed temoval of the garage doors with Ms. Farah? Ms. Peretti said no, she had just heard about this in the last couple of days; she was not aware of it. She thought the cost would be quite high. She did not want to take on that kind of expense for this type of license because she could not recoup the money in the time left on the lease. Commissioner Dahlman clarified the initial question. Ms. Peretti said she thought removing the garage doors would create much more of a hazard on a 24-hour basis. At night, an open doorway could provide a place for crime. For patrons coming out of the restaurant it wouldn't be safe. . Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 15, 1992 Chairman Fife asked Ms. Peretti if the parking spaces 1nside the garage counted toward the eleven space parking requirements? Ms. Peretti said her understanding 1S that she is two spaces over the required parking spaces because part of their restaurant is a take- out restaurant. They need nine and have eleven parking spaces. There are four garage parking spaces --- two in the outs1de garage and two in the 1nside garage which is attached to the build1ng. The two in the outside garage are not part of her parking requirements. . Mr. Curt1s said staff interprets the municipal Code to mean that once a restaurant becomes a restaurant, even if part of it is a take-out restaurant, the entire building is a restaurant. Therefore they are required to have eleven (11) parking spaces. The spaces are not required for public parking but they are required for the restaurant's park1ng. They could be employee only parking spaces. staff discussed this with Joe Orsini today and staff felt that the arguments about an open garage creating a dangerous situation was something to consider. During that discussion staff said it would be agreeable to staff for the outside garage to remain intact for 2~ years when the lease was renegotiated if the City would have the right to inspect the garages at any time. The garage was built in the 1950's and has plain wooden doors which are lift-up style. Chairman Fife asked 1f the Commission could cons1der a cond1tion of approval stating the outside garage be used for employee park1ng pending resolution of the lease 1ssue? Staff said yes. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Curtis how staff would deal with the lease issue? Mr. Curtis said staff would recommend granting the CUP conditional to the expiration date of the1r present lease --- with an ultimate termination date coinciding with their lease termination. Also having the traditional one year review of the CUP for beer and wine. Chairman Fife asked Ms. Peretti if she was prepared to comply with all the conditions of approval other than those she stated? Ms. Peretti said she saw no problems except those she noted. Mr. Whittenberg asked about condition #12, which requires a six inch curb to be installed around all landscaped areas. Ms. Peretti said her understanding was that that would be taken care of at the same time the garage was torn down. Ms. Peretti is requesting conditions of approval #9 and #12 be deferred until her lease is renegotiated and #1 to be revised to "Tootsie's, Inc." and #8 to be revised from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. seven (7) days a week. D . commissioner Sharp said he wanted clarification on who's applying and who's agreeing to what. Commissioner Dahlman agreed, saying that for a beer and wine license the city should know the name of the owner, if it's a corporation who owns the corporation, who might have substantial equ1 ty interests and what contingencies ~ Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of Apri1 15, 1992 there are and if those people are corporations, who owns them. Ms. Peretti said the majority interest in the corporatlon is owned by Ms. Peretti's mother, Alice Deem. Ms. Peretti represents Ms. Deem. The minority interests in the corporation are owned by individuals. Chairman Fife asked Ms. Peretti if Tootsie's Inc. has applied to the ABC for a beer and wine license? Ms. Peretti said yes. ~ ~ Chairman Fife asked Ms. Peretti if she had talked to Linda Farah about tearing down the garage? Ms. Peretti said no, she wasn't even aware of the condition to remove the garage until the last couple of days; there has been no conversation. Ms. Peretti stated she was told by staff Ms. Farah has no objection to its being torn down as long as Ms. Peretti pays for it. Mr. curtis said he had talked to Ms. Farah in late March and Ms. Farah said she had no objections to the garage removal. Ms. Farah believed that as the lease is written it would be the tenant's obligation, not hers. Chairman Fife asked staff how expensive it would be to get the portable concrete curbing around the landscaping? Mr. Whlttenberg said his cost was an old figure but it was about $5 - $10 for each section. It's less than pouring concrete. other alternatives would be redwood railroad ties. Chairman Fife said he would 11ke to see the landscaping defined to prevent people from stepplng in the mud and/or muddy runoff into the parking lot. Ms. Peretti said she would like to protect the public access to the beach and make it safe so people wouldn't trip over curbs. She felt she would have plenty of time to do this if it were done in 2~ years when the garage could be torn down. Commissioner Sharp said he could not see the Commission tying the landscaping into the garage time table. Ms. Peretti said she is talking about the curbs in 2~ years; she has hired a gardener to care for the landscaping immediately. Ms. Peretti said she had no idea how many lineal feet are involved. Thomas Stevens * 246 16th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Stevens spoke against this application, stating the City has enough beer and wine establishments. He thought Tootsie's looks (potentially) like another Hennessey's. The area is congested --- Tootsie's is across from the beach, has an apartment house next door, across the alley are ten ap~rtments, and two houses are next to that. There are four garages in Tootsie's but two df garage spaces are in the building and he asked how a car could be parked in there. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street, Seal Beach Mr. Antos spoke against this applicatlon, stating every eating establishment in the City wants a beer and wine license. He said that if the Commission was going to tie performance to land use (l.e., garages being demolished) he suggested the Commission defer this matter until something in writing was obtained from the land owner saying they have no objection to those removals and then . Page 16 - Planning commission Minutes of April 15, 1992 obtain bonding or something that at the time of lease renewal the garages are demolished. Conversations don't bind. Additionally, he suggested condition #16 be reworded to read: The term of the permlt shall be twelve (12) months, after which time the Planning Commission shall review and may extend the permit indefinitely provided that all conditions of approval have been satisfied and no significant police problems or other problems have occurred. Mr. Antos suggested this verbiage be used for every ABC/CUP application to the City. Mr. Antos said the City's Police Department continues to say they have no problem with Hennessey's but that establishment continues to have live entertainment and other events without any City approvals; they cause problems in the neighborhood which are not translated into police problems. . Nancy Kredell * 1633 Seal Way. Seal Beach Ms. Kredell spoke against this application and said she lives on Seal Way and also owns a piece of property within one block of 909 Ocean Avenue. She was concerned about the beer and wine license because alcohol is a major problem for young people. She noted Tootsie's was directly across the street from a City park. She noted problems at the pier with "unusual people" and graffiti. This application would another problem to the area. The neighborhood was very much disturbed when Senor Corky's was where Tootsie's is now. She felt restaurants, before they are granted a liquor license, should have to prove they're a good restaurant first. . Georgiana Brown * 212 14th Street. Seal Beach Ms. Brown spoke against this application. She asked the Commission if a beer/wine license could be approved for take out restaurants? Chairman Fife said alcoholic beverages cannot be taken out of any restaurant. Commissioner Sharp clarified that several take out restaurants in the City do have beer/wine licenses --- for example, Baja Bills, Main Street Deli. Ms. Brown said Tootsie's is more a hamburger/hotdog place than a restaurant and wondered if a beer/wine license should be issued in this circumstance? She felt ,that since Tootsie's has a limited menu the major commodity on sale would be alcohol. Ms~ Brown asked what the required number of parking spaces? Commissioner Sharp answered f1) the ABC controls the restaurant and beer. The restaurant has to sell a certain percentage of food in order to maintain their ABC license; (2) regardlng the parklng, thlS is one of the few restaurants that has the required parking; (3) they are required to have eleven parking spaces and they have eleven --- whether they are using them or not. The parking requirement is based on the size of the restaurant. The spaces must be "available" to employees and patrons. Ms. Brown said it doesn't seem clear that these are actually useable parking places. Ms. Brown said she felt conditions of approval set 2~ years hence was a questionable practice. o ~ Pa98 ~7 - P1anning commission Minutes of Apri1 ~5, ~992 Reva Olsen * [No Address Given], Seal Beach Ms. Olsen spoke in opposition to this application. She said Old Town has been betrayed before when supper clubs end up being a honkey tonk. She asked what is the closing time? Staff advised State law allows several locations to stay open until 2:00 a.m. and open again at 6: 00 a. m. Ms. Olsen thought the Main Street establishments close at 10:00 p.m. Georgiana Brown * 212 14th Street. Seal Beach Stated there was an automatic one year review. ~ Joanne Peretti * 6624 Fichot Way. Cypress. CA Speaking in rebuttal, indicated it was her understanding that because of the parking problem in Seal Beach, there will be no new restaurants because there is no parking for any of them. So she saw no problem with future restaurants. She said she would have to overcome Senor Corky's reputation but she would run Tootsie's as a family operation --- her husband, son, mother and herself. They want a family restaurant, their menu is mainly breakfast and lunch. They want to accommodate people on the beach hence the take out window. They want to stay open to 11:00 p.m. to serve desserts and coffee --- when the other restaurants close the patrons can stop by for dessert. They are not orienting their business around alcohol sales. They want to be competitive with other restaurants in the area. Chairman Fife asked about condition #9, relocation of gas service. Mr. curtis said it's adjacent to the outside garage. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Fife, SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit #92-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 92-4 with changes to the conditions of approval as follows: 1. CUP 92-1 is approved for an on-sale beer and wine license at 909 Ocean Avenue and is issued to Tootsie's Inc. 8. wi th the applicant' consent, the hours of operation shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on week-days except on Friday and Saturday evening to 11:00 p.m. and on the condition that food be served until fifteen (15) minutes before closing. This> is wi thout prejudice to the applicant seeking an extension of hours at SUCD time as the CUP comes up for reconsideration in the future. At that time the commission can take into account whether other problems have been generated. 12. A six (6") inch curb shall be installed around all landscaped areas. A temporary separation or bordering material (acceptable to staff) will be re~ired. ~ . . .. Page 18 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 15, 1992 13. A locking gate shall be installed on the trash enclosure and continuously maintained. Said gate shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Development Services. 16. The term of this permit shall be twelve (12) months, after which time the Planning Commission shall review and may extend the permit. The date of expiration of the applicant's existing lease of the premises may be verified by delivery to staff of a true and correct copy of the complete lease. Thereafter. this CUP shall be extended indefinitely provided Ca) the existing two-car garage is removed. Cbl the parking lot is resurfaced and restriped as necessary to generate at least nine (9) uncovered spaces. C c) the tempora:r:y border material around the landscaping is replaced wi th a six (6 n ) concrete curb and, Cd) provided all conditions of approval have been satisfied and no significant police or other problems have occurred. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: 5 - 0 - 0 Fife, Sharp, Dahlman, Law Orsini Chairman Fife indlcated that Commissioner Orsini, as the law requires, abstained from all discussion and participation in this matter. Commissioner orsini took his seat. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Thomas stevens * 246 16th street. Seal Beach Mr. Stevens informed the Commission on Code enforcement issues: beer signs in windows are displayed on Main street at Taco Surf and Don Juan's restaurants, a flower shop on Pacific Coast Highway and Marina has merchandise for sale on the sidewalk. Mr. Whittenberg said this is not normally allowed. There is an encroachment process avallable through the Public Works Department. He was not sure if the flower shop had this permit and he will check. STAFF CONCERNS Bay City Village Signage Mr. curtis spoke on a memo to the Commission for a Commission determination on the size of real estate signs for Bay City Villas. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve two (2) twenty-five (25') foot project advertising signs for Bay City Villas. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Law, Fife, Dahlman, Orsini . . -. Page ~9 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 15, 1992 Next Commlssion Meeting Mr. whittenberg remlnded the Commlssion the next regularly scheduled meeting is May 6th, three weeks away. COMMISSION CONCERNS commissioner orsini had the following concerns: citizen Review Committee commissioner Orsinl requested staff agendize a Public Hearing for approval of a citizen reVlew committee which would be established to review liquor licenses for restaurants. Planning commission Institute * April 1992 Commissioner Orsinl said the Planning Commissioners Institute in Anaheim, CA was excellent. He added that he Joined a tour of Huntington Beach. The City of Huntington Beach plans to do a lot of building which will result in "a ton of traffic". Huntington Beach has already approved three traffic lanes on Pacific Coast Highway. Blue Ribbon Committee The City of Monrovia had a Blue Ribbon Committee, a small group of citizens, which meets with Planning Department staff and the applicants to review the applications to "... see how it goes, see how it fits into the neighborhood". This Committee has no power but gives input to the issue. "It saves a lot of time at Planning Commission meetings and they get a broader view". He will be contacting Monrovia for more facts. variances The Plannlng Commission Institute discussed variances and that they don't believe in them at all. They feel that instead of granting an lndl vidual variance an entire block should be rezoned. commissioner Sharp had the following concern: Honor J.oe Hunt Commissioner Sharp stated tha~ the memorial service for Joe Hunt will be on Friday, April 24 at Clubhouse A in~eisure ~ World. Chairman Fife said Joe Hunt served the City long and efficiently and with great dedication. Joe was an articulate man who put a trained mind to work on complex problems. He was especially adept at identifying the real issues and the real path out of a sea of confusion on many points. Chairman Fife had the following concern: Code Violation Chalrman Fife stated that at Seal Beach Boulevard and st. . . . Page 20 - Plannlnq Commission Minutes of April 15, 1992 (> 0 ~loud sidewalk (between the traffic lights) there 1S a telephone box in the middle of the sidewalk with no safety reflectors and there 1S a cylinder of nitrogen gas chained to a pole. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully Subm1tted, Qo~- Joan F1llmann Recording Secretary Note: These M1nutes are tentative until approved by the Planning Commission. Approval: The Plann1ng Comm1ssion Minutes of April 15, 1992 were approved by the Planning Commission on May ~O 1992. ~ 0_ o o () . . . 1629 Seal Wav Seal Beach, CA 90740 City of Seal Beac~ Ph"fllng Commission SUBMITTED FOI{ RECORD By G(eel~ Date tfR 1 5 ~ ~ r~!j Apn115, 1992 Re Mmor Plan ReVIew 91-17, 1621 Seal Way To Members of the Seal Beach Plannmg CommlSSlOn On Fnday, as we were prepanng to leave town for a few days, my WIfe and I received a letter from the Department of Developmental ServICes that a hearmg was scheduled for the followmg Wednesday for an adjacent property owner who wished to enclose hiS duplex's large second floor balcony Unfortunately, because of this extrememly short notice, we could not reschedule another pnor appomtment which confliCtS WIth the public heanng Therefore, we are wntmg thiS letter to the Plannmg Commission We are strenuously opposed to thiS application Our reasons are as follows . The lot itself is substandard, bemg one of the smallest lots m Seal Beach At Seal Wav alley, it is approXimately 13' 10" WIde ObViously trymg to park four car~ on thiS lot causes severe parkmg problems · The proposed additlOn will substantially adversely affect the View, light & air at the adjacent condommiUms that we own at 1623 Seal Way The View of the beach wdl be completely cut off · If the addition is permitted, it will not be m harmony With the other structures m the neighborhood With a few exceptions, almost every bUildmg between Electnc And Neptune or Seal Way has either open balcomes or is set back from the front property lme · ThiS property does not meet City codes for covered parkmg · Allowmg an expanSlOn of a duplex on a tmy lot is not m concert With the City'S general plan concernmg denSity m Distnct 1 · Accordmg to Code sectlOn S28-2407 -2(d) roof addltlon over balcome~ are not pernlltted . The structure already extends mto the 3' Side yard setback reqUirement, estabh.,hed by code, on both Side yards . . . Page 2- All of these ttems concern us very much We are also very upset about the short notlce gtven to us and entltlmg thIs a "mmor" plan revtew My wtfe lost and I have ltved m Seal Beach smce 1972 Seal Way tS regrettably becommg known for tts hodgepodge addltlOns (both legal and tllegal) to nonconformmg duplexes and tnplexes The Cttyneeds to carefully revtew tts process for mformmg the publtc about what tt constders to be mmor structural add mons We respectfully urge your dental of thts appltcatlon Yours very truly, Thomas Greeley lost Greeley cc Seal Beach Ctty Counctlmembers . ~\"\Y C)\=" SEl=\\ \2>EAC \-\ '? \ ~Y\J \'\.j \ tV b D 0_ PA e:-T 1"--'\ t:(~, . /"- ~H-'r -\-'\ ALL 2.1' ~ \ G\-\f\~ '"__-::;, SEP\\ beAC'r-. C.'A~\F C\D-l~D l'2J~) l43'''2.52.1 .-- ....,--- I f ~#y~ u ---- 0 ---"\\-If- }>\ At\) T\) I f\J 6 \>c p\', t,1y of Se.' ,,,,' PI,"",,,, Comm'M" 91l8MmrIJ FOR m1J~1J '1~~ Ilelll 'i - /1 - <f 2- ~B~C;HT N Y I\) Po i'-1 Ec \ -:::, G1L E Co, 1-\\ b Q \ b \-\-"\ +110D H 'Y Q~:::>\v\E\UT \ S \ S C c.'" \ ur0,,^-, ooD L ~ \\..) E ~ ()C \C1T~D AT , \r~ c:JcF\\ ~E-ACH ( ~ i: '" \ LE R- Y f-\ 1<.-\<",..... SU"",,,, \\1 E. D De \'ICVI\"\) c \ S . F\bo~ A Ycl'\ Q.. A~ 0 f\ i-.l'1l i=" A (, () -r- o'z f\ 1'-11 I\..) D lZ 'VI Vi \\J f:. E U \ ~ LV -+- r, '\ b "'-1-\ 12. f'1 f\ \" r lL()\j ~ 0 to Y --.-,., I::. D L\,f', 1<:\ H Er\.}"T t' ~ . <Dc ve lOPH1::r\n- SeE.,-' \ c to:::'"I. IA..\ ILL l'00"\ blO \.' OS! l'0 b ""T"r\E.SE::. 'Vll'i \\]<:.. ~ n \"\, V.\8:.E f\ I-'('I2.D\)c'O; 'lIJ SicRD...L \A..\ I LL. be su D(V-,"\T\ Ntl l\.l~l\J C>eSt~10 ?LP,<vs, FYI',\::..Q NY (\)~\q"bD,,-) l4R.S L"LEc ~\ \ L, L.c, 'u~v...\OOD LP,\\JE o e: \J c L 0 \'E. S II e:.Q. I\) e:. L'-.l """"\" "'--\ 0 _ ""--cD e.,\, C. P, b \iO, \\J A , 1'-'\ Y 0 e..:;, I b N c I:... II, A Q. L S c h ~ , '0 --r ~ 0'--", I D~s\ t:.t0S '\\A-s c.1A-V'\.:> ec?c~ ~\ n 5, T 1 Y\J S0 l'c 0_ ~ ~ S- \h f.::\""\ GO~LS. ~ Nee..\.DS p\ \~ C Lu ()e_-f::> \ ~ r0 .- +- () n..... ,'v\ '-.( ~ A IJ'./\, \ L '--.( V;::, \"\ ~ ? R. O'\> D'S A.; L, VIe W.o."'- 1='1 L L Oc,--, 1-'1 'e. <;, L, -n L E "\0 G", Po \'e"'D 0"--' 'r\..u~ P-LD \I"CI \~'\.l\') r- sr,-p,u.. . -- 51.) b lY'. 'I (+ (\) \:.\.0 ,D.p s \ c\ 1'-2 ~ "n" ':::X''''u...mC'.DN,Fo12.M \0 ALL C "\ 4 f:2:,C"L-D~YVCI~~E riAl \2.e.CI " I Q. '" e. '" TS, \.j D0 I/.. ~ "L'< , /,,-- Lr /l.M '" ~ . - - - -..- ---, "- ~\ t8) / y --- -~ ~ ( ~ Q: CJ I , I I I '--- -, I I I . :'yC I /~.p.~ I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ \ \- \ h. \ (/)'..... ~ '\ ..~~\ \ ~ \ \ r,., (\j rv C~) ..., tv 'I- ~ , ~ ..... I \j- t1' ....... , "- " @ ,86 E// --... ::t: ,= cf-. <0 N I ::: U- I! it: I IT" E 'v3 ='* <0 Q~i:r ~ co8 I .S w :t' c: ~ '"- :; IX .\lJl_~ o:e~~ .J::ClI <.J ~.., C m-a <S ~~~ ~ ~~~l ~ Q '"2 ~ ~i c.,) ~, G~\ I I I I I 917 10/ , V) ~ , I l() ~ , ~' ~ Q:: fO'\ ~~ ,6E' eel s @ @ @ Q:: .S ~ "- ~ \ ::::c I......J .~ I 1~ iC0 'll-., .C) h.. V) ~ ~ 06 06 r(\ r("I o r-J o 1.0 I~ I' l...j I I i~ I IV) ~ : (\J \'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ :t ~ Ij rAJ @ @ '" lA - j 0 ~ ..,~ o~ . 'l" r @ V) '" 3 @ ll: -I!J ., . .~ ~ " @ '" " @ on N " .. v') @ ~ @ '" ~. L . LZ ,... ~ " @ ([ @ 'J " v:I 5.. ~ "2 @" @ d. \\l @ ~ N -+- 0 0 ~ ,.., 8~ t ~ l@ " p:J Btr- '"2 In <1" U .. @ cl. 0 e .. ;! - If "~ ~ \U '" E~ o~ l~ ~] . @ 0> " 0> ~ N !!l e ~ V) "0 '" ll: @- " " , .. If) ,.., S( II l I <c II 1\ <0 ;8 . - V) 0 E] 1) ~ ll: L ~ . ~e @ .. '" 0 ~!U '" '" " N N <c :=!t - ~~ o '" '" (; '" .. .. I '" @ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ...., ~ @ ~ " z.. @ o\. .. @ " @ ? .. C0 "trb-:>" @ Z LV @ o V) ll: 7r",. @;~ @ N ~ l() ~ '" -@ () '" ~ '" - E Q' I~ ?S /'1" 'G ., r . ~ '" @