Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem Qs AGENDA REPORT DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: Initiation of General Plan and Zone Change Amendments — General Commercial (C -2) and Limited Commercial (L-C) Zoning, Seal Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue SUMMARY OF REOUEST: Authorize staff to prepare General Plan and Zone Change Amendments for alternative land uses for the existing General Commercial (C -2) and Limited Commercial (L -C) zoned areas on Seal Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue. BACKGROUND: During consideration of the General Plan Land Use Amendments and Zone Change for the Anaheim Bay Villas project (Shore Shop property) the City Council indicated a desire to have an evaluation of alternative land uses for the existing General Commercial (C -2) and Limited Commercial (L -C) zoned areas on Seal Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue. At that time, staff indicated that existing staff resources were fully committed to the processing of the various applications for the Bixby Old Ranch and Hellman Ranch projects, in addition to the processing of the normal discretionary applications filed with the Department of Development Services. The involvement of the Department of Development Services is coming to closure on the Bixby and Hellman projects, and the Boeing project is on an uncertain time schedule at this point. Staff is of the opinion that there are sufficient resources available at this time to proceed with a review of alternative land uses for the existing General Commercial (C- 2) and Limited Commercial (L -C) zoned areas on Seal Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue. C:\my Dmm=nh BBLVD\GPA -Zone Change Initiation.CC StaffRWft.doo \LWW6 -20.01 Agenda Item ,a I Initiation of General Plan Amendment & Zone Change Seal Beach Boulevard —C-2 and L-C Zone Areas between. Paces Coast Highway and Electric Avenue City Council SlaffReport June 25, 2001 Walt Miller has submitted a letter regarding this matter and requests that the letter be read into the record and distributed to the City Council, as he will be out of the state (Refer to Attachment 1) FISCAL IMPACT: Allocation of current staff resources to prepare necessary background studies, environmental analysis, and staff reports for Planning Commission and City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Department of Development Services to initiate appropriate studies to consider alternative land uses for the existing General Commercial (C -2) and Limited Commercial (L -C) zoned areas on Seal Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue Attachment 1: Letter To City Council FKm Walt Miller, Dated June 13, 2001 GPA -Zone Change Initia0on,CC Smff Report Initiation of General Plan Amendment & Zane Change Seal Beach Boulevard— C -2 and b-C Zone Areas between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report June 25, 2001 ATTACHMENT 1 LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL FROM WALT MILLER, DATED JUNE 13, 2001 GPA -Zone Change lnitiafion.CC Smff Report IV ti June 13, 2001 City Council CITY OF SEAL BEACH City Hall - 211 Bt" Street Seal Beach, California 90790 Re: Arguments against proposal to change L -C Limited Commercial Zoning to R -1, Single Family Residential on Seal Beach Blvd. Council meeting June 25, 2001. I ask that this letter to be read into the record and distributed to each member of the Council prior to the scheduled meeting. I will be in Colorado and cannot appear personally at the podium. Certain present members of the council have indicated their desire to rezone the subject area. The arguments are no development has occurred in the LC zone since its enactment in 1991. Furthermore they point to the fact that the Musso property received R -1 spot zoning in a C -2 zone, and has been awarded building permits to develop the site with eight single family residences. The Coastal Commission approved the Musso application over the objection of its own staff and several members of the Seal Beach Planning Commission based on overwhelming public support, which in fact consisted of residents and Seal Beach City Council members who do not live or work on Seal Beach Boulevard. I don't want to see this scenario happen again. The impact of any development on Seal Beach Boulevard has zero impact on inside street residents. They do not face Seal Beach Boulevard, nor does Seal Beach Boulevard traffic and /or parking occur on their streets. Conversely, any proposed development has a major impact on those who live, work and /or own property between PCH and alley at Electric. It also has a major impact on the visiting public and the fiscal responsibility of the City of Seal Beach. The only people benefiting from replacing commercial property with single family homes are the realtors and developers. Some would say that the City also benefits because it lays out nothing and receives substantial fees from the developer. There is no free lunch for the City. The City becomes responsible for services to the new residents in perpetuity without any future return. The City has a unique opportunity that will be scuttled if the Council makes good on the statement of one of its members to zone all of Seal Beach Boulevard south from Pacific Coast Highway to single family residences. I do not want to see that opportunity lost 1 r r R without all those casting their votes to first have a full understanding of the impact of their decision. The ordinance passed to support the L -C limited commercial zone attracted no takers for one simple reason. The City has refused to provide adjacent parking space to support the in lieu parking credits provided under the ordinance. As a result, the Coastal Commission will not grant their permit. A building permit cannot be obtained without a Coastal Commission permit. Result, no applications for ten years. I am the only exception. I was able to get a permit based on building a visitor serving bicycle rental and repair shop limited to 1,300 square feet of retail. This variance was the result of a litigation settlement and sets no precedent for future waivers. Secondarily the City has not addressed the needs of this street in over ten years, such as putting a sidewalk and landscaping on a dirt parkway. Amazing as it is, the Navy has grass and plants growing on their side of the fence. Drive by and take a look. The L -C Limited Commercial zoning actually makes the lots on Seal Beach Boulevard potentially the most valuable in the City, and here is why. Development is restricted to only the west side of the street. That guarantees ocean views as long as the Navy is present. If the Navy ever relinquished its rights, the view would only be enhanced to unfenced ocean views plus a marina for small boats..without question. All the lots face the ocean and Anaheim Bay looking east. That means the 35' height limit applies to all lots because no views are obstructed on 17th Street to the rear of the properties. I can see no reason why an exception would not be made to qualify a 25' lot for the 35' height limitation, given architectural constraints, for the same reason. No where else in the City is there such a building opportunity for permanent view lots. Now, if commercial parking were provided off -site in the existing PE right of way, no commercial parking would be required on site if the 4 spaces per 25 frontage feet were not exceeded. Therefore, a 25 foot lot could support 1,000 square feet of street level selective retail /office space fronting the boulevard. A residential structure, tiered over the first floor retail and rising to a third story in the rear, could be added. Standard enclosed residential parking on the first floor would exit to the residential alley allowing for a minimum of 2,000 square feet of residence and generous landscaping opportunities in front and in the 3 foot setback residential side yards and rear. As discussed, the commercial can be built to zero property line on both sides because no curb cut is required. Once fully developed, the appearance would mirror the second and third story buildings now existing on Main Street, but with greater 2 w - V .r es attention paid to blending in commercial and residential to mimic other seaside towns on both the east and west coasts. During the period of development, those owners of undeveloped property would be motivated to take advantage of this opportunity as they see others thrive. I believe my proposed project can be the "showcase" this area needs to realize what the L -C zone potential really is. The property owner now has legally put 1,000 square feet of limited commercial plus 2,000 square feet of residential with a 180 degree ocean view and the same 180 degree view of the City from the third story, more from the open 4th level rooftop similar to Surfside, on a 25 foot lot some 11 feet less depth than the standard 117 foot depth inside residential lots in Old Town. I would also believe that an owner would be willing to pay up to $2,500 per in lieu space off -site if that money were in fact used to provide such parking on the existing Pacific Electric right of way. The entrance to the PE right of way would be on Seal Beach Boulevard, with the exit being on the Greenbelt, a very pleasant exit. A similar configuration is in place on loth Street in the 100 block serving Main Street. Along with utilizing the abandoned Pacific Electric right -of -way to provide a parking site to support the existing L -C ordinance, the City now has the opportunity to design a street with traffic slowed at Landing by a three -way boulevard stop. Again, no where else in the City does such an opportunity exist for the City. It appears that the Navy would allow a bike path that connected with the boardwalk to run through its property parallel to Seal Beach Boulevard. I assume the imminent construction to start this coming week on Seal Beach Boulevard has addressed that possibility in its plans, which were never made public by Seal Beach Public Works, to the best of my knowledge. Suddenly developers and owners would realize visitor serving commercial space can make money here. Main Street is full. Seal Beach Boulevard is waiting. There is no need to mandate that the owner of the business reside on the property. The owner should have the opportunity to live there if he chooses and lease out his space, run his business and lease out the residence, or live in the residence and work in the commercial. We then retain the "Mom and Pop" business environment that is mostly prevalent and such an attraction on Main Street. The City not only gains a larger tax base than it would with single family, but additional sales tax revenue will be generated through the City because this area becomes the "magnet" on the "Gateway to Old Town: ". The City also becomes an innovator in providing an ocean front live /work environment which is presently highly sought after. The Coastal Commission is encouraging visitor serving retail development. Single family residential is at the bottom of their 3 list and would be opposed in any zone change. As Paul Yost mentioned during the last Council meeting, "residential never changes back to commercial ". Furthermore, residential gives but once in fees to the City. Thereafter it becomes a burden to the City in the way of services, police protection and maintenance, to mention a few. Retail keeps giving back, not to mention the increased revenue generated by all commercial enterprises because of the greater selection, an exciting new area, and additional parking opportunity offered the visitors to our City. Visualize a tram running down Electric connecting Main Street and Seal Beach Boulevard, paid fully by local vendor advertising. Don't throw this "Win Win" situation away by adding another block or two of architecturally identical upscale "cookie cutter" two story residences that will further overload our local grid. I believe the campaign gathering support for conversion to residential zoning is orchestrated not by the property owners on Seal Beach Boulevard, but those on the inland streets, 17 th and down, and those living on Seal Way. The Council member for the First District should represent the property owners in the L -C zone who are the only legitimate voters, and are the only ones impacted by a rezoning. It is their property that Council member Boyd warned in his admonition to me, that would become non - conforming if his "campaign promise" becomes reality. These owners and long time tenants should be given all the facts explained above before their vote is taken in open forum. The vote of these citizens should be followed as a mandate by the City and also the Coastal Commission if zoning is to be changed. I believe politics should step aside. As mentioned above, none of the City officials, council members or planning commissioners will incur any financial impact from their vote. Their vote should represent the studied conclusions of those who will be impacted, which includes the general visiting public, and the present owners and their long term tenants on this street. Only then will the people be heard. I regret I cannot be present for this hearing to answer any of your concerns. However, I am hopeful that my friend and associate, Kent Trollen can be present at your meeting. In the future, I will try to arrange my absence so as not to conflict with future meetings on this very urgent matter. Thank kyyou, �,.,� Walt Miller, Owner 229 and 231 Seal Beach Boulevard 4