The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC AG PKT 2001-06-25 Supplemental Information - Correspondence from Walter Miller re: Planning Res. 01-22City Council HAND DELIVER CITY OF SEAL BEACH City Hall - 211 8t" Street City Clerk Seal Beach, California 90740 Re: Request to waive certain conditions required under Planning Resolution No. 01 -22 229 Seal Beach Boulevard Items 4 and 5 - Agreement to participate in in lieu parking program The Coastal Commission rejected in lieu parking to satisfy their requirements for issuing a permit for my development. In its place, through extensive litigation and a binding legal agreement, they agreed to issue a permit that limited my retail space to 1,300 square feet and required that retail space to be occupied by a bicycle Ift repair shop. I do not believe the City can benefit by requiring an applicant to participate in a program that is rejected by the controlling agency, the California Coastal Commission. I hereby ask for relief on this condition. Item 6 Covenant on Title I believe the City has no right to force an owner to vacate his building if the time comes that he or she chooses or no longer is able mentally and /or physically to be involved in "non- residential" uses on the subject property, even in the event of death of husband or wife. This covenant would require that owner to sell his property in a marketplace where the acquiring owner would then be subject to the same conditions. I do not believe this provision is legal nor enforceable. I hereby ask for relief of this condition. Item 8 - Transportation Facilities Application Fees I believe the City has no logic in imposing a transportation fee on a project built to the restrictions provided under the Limited Commercial Zone, Municipal Code Section 28 -1155 F. Mixed -Use Standards. If the project is required to be designed to have the occupant work on the premises, then the transportation element is moot for such occupant. He /she does not use his car to commute as does a single or multiple family residence. There are no options provided in the L -C zone. I hereby ask for relief of this condition. Submitted by: L4k �.«^^— Dated 611V41 Walter F. Miller, Owner o, June c0, 2001 Joanne M. Yen VIA FACSIMILE City Clerk 562- 931 -9067 CITY OF SEAL BEACH City Hall - 211 8 °h Street Original by First Class Mail Seal Beach, California 90790 Re: Arguments against rezoning L -C to R -1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: In as much as the L -C zone was changed from C -2 some ten years ago and has not solicited a single building permit application save mine, does not mean it does not work. This zoning change in 1990 was made after some four years of civic input and was directed at the unique parameters of Seal Beach Boulevard from Landing to the alley at Electric. Don't take this lightly with the rush to judgment. The L -C zone has not worked for one reason and one reason only: The Coastal Commission will not accept in lieu commercial parking credits until the City provides an in lieu parking facility to make up for the lost spaces period. The Coastal Commission has jurisdiction as long as the City of Seal Beach chooses not to file an approved local coastal plan (LCP) period. The Coastal Commission staff is aware that the BE right - of -way opportunity for parking does exist in the L -C zone; they are also aware that the potential for off- street parking does exist on the Navy property across the street from the L -C zone. Now, let's take a walk down Seal Beach Boulevard starting from Pacific Coast Highway and see if we could expect to see single family residence development in the next five years. The very successful, but not attractive liquor store and bait shop sit in a sterile concrete block building at the corner. That is not likely to change. The property that was owned by Mario Musso and could not make it as retail, was sold to developers who plan to build seven two story 9 bedroom homes on the site as buyers appear. Here we have an opportunity for young children playing in the street 100 feet from an open major intersection and a liquor store parking lot open 19 hours a day. But the result of this development is instant gratification to the City with little or no outlay of cash. I remember Musso agreeing to up the park fee per house from $10,000 to $12,000 at the suggestion of Council Member Boyd. $16,000 earned in 15 seconds! How can you beat that? The next property is a non - conforming single family residence that has been on the market for several years without receiving a single offer. The next property is a three -unit low income housing single story apartment building owned by Bob O'rear. He purchased it at a very good price. He keeps it well and fully rented. He is retired and has a great cash flow. Why would he want to sell his 37.5ft lot for R -1 development? :n piopercy or, zne corner cf Lancing is an eight unit low c me housing two story apartment owned by Brian Kyle. He too purchased at a good price and remodeled. He keeps it well and fully rented. He has a number of good income properties and has good cash flow. Why would he want to take his 75 foot lot and tear it down for R -1? Across the street on Landing is the Happy Holiday motel which has been converted into low income apartment housing for the unskilled green card labor market that supports Main Street, the Seal Beach car wash, cooks, dishwashers and staff of all the restaurants and fast foods up and down Coast Highway here in Seal Beach. He is again an absentee owner, but keep the property well and fully rented, giving him a good cash flow. Furthermore, his property is configured in the shape of a trapezoid because of the diagonal common property line with the PE right of way, making it impossible to subdivide into the common rectangular lots required for R -1. This property is on the market because it no longer has a tax base for the owner. It is not being marketed for R -1 development, but as an income property. Then there is the PE right -of -way, which also impacts the adjoining property to the south with the diagonal property line. This property has never been put on the market, and extents as a right -of -way through 17" and 16`" Streets to merge into Electric. It is an eye -sore. Some adjoining property owners has planted trees and grass and store their cars and other property on the right -of -way because there is no enforcement of the property line except for the section on Seal Beach Boulevard to the alley, which is surrounded by a chain link fence and filled with weeds. Again the nature of this parcel is not suited for R -1 development because of its configuration, but is suited for the long needed parking lot, as is found on 10th Street in the 100 block supporting in lieu Main Street parking. The next property, again in trapezoidal configuration houses successful businesses including physical fitness center, insurance broker, CPA, and travel agency. They have all occupied the buildings for many years. The owner of the property also has a back office in the building and enjoys a good cash flow with minimum building maintenance. Why would he entertain tearing it down to build, at best one R -1 site and leave the diagonal portion abandoned? The next property, the animal vet building and adjoining lot was marketed under the L -C zone by Frank Prior and sold to an unsuspecting dentist for cash. The dentist was told he could build an office and a residence, but was not told that the in lieu parking provision was inoperable because of the rejection by the Coastal Commission. He subsequently listed the property with First Team who has marketed it assuming the property will be rezoned R -1. It has a contingent buyer in escrow who is waiting for the outcome. It has been months. First Team is trying to get its commission, but does not realize that the Coastal Commission does not support R -1 development for the L -C zone, and it will take the same "spot zoning" process that Musso went through to get it approved for R -1. Secondly, First Team does not realize that the City also must have public forums and hearings to study the rezoning issue before it can meet to pass such a resolution, and that takes a great deal of time, maybe years. First Team was first told by the City that the property had the potential of three R -1 lots, and has ,...::y: ---- —at - two :L -1 lots. In the meantime, the dentist has let the property go to pot in disgust. Lee Whittenberg has been notified, but has not had time to notice the owner and it remains an eyesore after six weeks have expired. Does this bode well for R -1? The next mixed use property I own. It operates under the L -C zoning configuration, and in spite of lack of support from the City, has been fully occupied since I purchased it in 1973. Presently, an architect lives and works on the second story. My son's bike shop has thrived on the first floor for twenty years, part of the time with an employee living on premises. If in lieu parking were provided, I would develop this property to its full potential under the L -C zone. I will not develop it under R -1 zoning. The next property, a 62.5 foot lot is owned by me and under development under the L -C zoning provisions, subject to special restrictions resulting from the compromise made by the Coastal Commission to justify the absence of in lieu parking to be provided by the City. I do not believe the property, in the flood zone, and only 106 feet deep can be economically subdivided into two R -1 lots and then sold. Its potential remains as one property. The second best usage would be for upscale apartments with ground floor parking. I believe such usage would also be second best for all of the street up to PCH. The next property, owned by Soretta and Peter Fielding, is most suited for development under the provisions of the L -C zone if "in lieu parking" were provided. The two story commercial building covering 1008 of the 25' wide lot already exists, and they own the adjoining 25' undeveloped lot. They want to sell their property because they do not have the net worth to develop nor the income to finance the development. If they were to sell their property under R -1, it would be at a distress sale because the building must be torn down as non- conforming, the lots are in the flood zone and are only 106 feet deep. The next property is owned by Bruce Stark, who bought it many years ago and consists of eight ground floor low income apartments on a 50' wide lot. He uses one of the street front apartments for his wife's business office, a psychotherapist, and rents the rest. Four open covered parking spaces are provided in the rear. The property is low maintenance and give him a good cash flow. Why would he tear down and sell for two R -1 lots? The next property is a two story multiple L -C use building on a 25' lot with commercial parking behind, purchased by Sandy ?, the owner of Copy Rentals. He rents the upper as residential and conducts his copy rental and repair business on the first floor. Seven years ago he bought the property because business had grown to the point he could no longer work out of his house and garage. This is ideal use of the L -C zone provisions. Why would he tear down and sell for an R -1 lot? The next two properties are 25' wide lots, each with low income four unit two story apartments built back in the 1960's. Each has garage parking for two cars, but the garages are used for storage and puts their parking on the street in front of the driveway aprons. These grey stucco buildings are not attractive, but are fully occupied and again they provide low income housing for the tenants and a great cash flow to the owner. Under the L -C zone, these apartments could be t - - -... -- space on first ara second story, ono tarrd story residential if in lieu parking spaces were provided nearby by the City. Way would the owner want to tear rue. aown for an R -1 joie Under an R -1 zoning they will most likely remain the way they are until the collapse of their own weight. The last property is a three unit apartment on an irregular lot abutting the alley. Due to the configuration of the lot and the location, it is presently enjoying the best and only use. It is well kept by the owner and fully occupied, giving the owner a good cash flow. It definitely would not benefit by being rezoned to R -1. The score is: 55 low income apartments 9 owner operated businesses 8 residential lots (Musso property) 1 single family residence (next to Musso) 1 lot under L -C development Again, take that walk, read this summary, get other views from those of us who live in the L -C zone (not those who live on the boardwalk or 17th Street), and reach your own conclusions. I believe you will support the move to provide off site in lieu parking spaces either or both on the PE right -of -way and the Navy property on the ocean side of Seal Beach Boulevard. Seal Beach Boulevard, as the Gateway to Seal Beach, is too valuable an opportunity to throw away for posterity for the instant gratification of those who hold elective office for two year periods. Thank you, Walt Miller, Owner Respectfully, Walter F. Miller, Owner Distribution: Mayor Doane Council Member Yost Council Member Larson Council Member Boyd Council Member Campbell Director Whittenberg SPACE FOR NOTES: ,i, C� C) O P ,ltl u, y C)Q-_ mC) Z m om m o�co ohm oA 2 _ m0� m 01 0 m g N a j n 7p0 r, TFROM :WALT MILLER Jun. 28 2001 11 :35AM Pl /3 a Juue ad, kuoi ;ivauue M. Yeo VIA FACSIMILE City Clerk 562 -431 -4067 CITY OF SEAL BEACH City Hall - 211 8Lh Street Oriqinal by First Class Mail Seal Beach, California 90740 Re: Arguments against rezoning L -C to R -1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council In as much as the L -C zone was changed from C -2 some ten years ago and has not solicited a single building permit application save mine, does not mean it does not work. This zoning change in 1990 was made after some four years of civic input and was directed at the unique Parameters of Seal Beach Boulevard from Landing to the alley at electric. Don't take this Lightly with the rush to judgment. The L -C zone has not worked for one reason and one reason only: The Coastal Commission will not accept in lieu commercial parking credits until the City provides an in lieu parking facility to make up for the lost spaces period. The Coastal Commission has jurisdiction as long as the City of Seal. Beach chooses not to file an approved local coastal plan (LCP) period. The Coastal Commission staff is aware that the PE right - Of -way Opportunity for parking does exist in the L -C zone; they are also aware that the potential for ot2- street parking tloes exist on the Navy property across the street from the L -C zone. Now, let's take a walk down Seal Beach Boulevard starting from Pacific Coast. Highway and see if we could expect to see single family residence development in the next five years. The very successful, but not attractive liquor store and bait shop sit in a sterile concrete block building at the corner. That is not likely to change. The property that was owned by Mario Musso and could not make it as retail, was sold to developers who plan to build seven two story 4 bedroom homes on the site as buyers appear. Here we have an opportunity for young children playing in the Street 100 feet from an open major intersection and a liquor store parking lot open 14 hours a day. But the result of this development is instant gratification to the City with little or no outlay of cash. I remember Musso agreeing I.c up the park fee per house from $10,000 to $12,000 at the suggestion of Council Member Boyd. $16,000 earned in 15 seconds! How can you beat that? The next property is a non-conforming single family residence that has been on the market for several years without receiving a single offer. The next property is a three -unit low income housing single story apartment building owned by Bob O'rear. He purchased it at a very good price. He keeps it well and fully rented. He is retired and has a groat cash flow. Why would he want. to Sail his 37.5ft lot for R -1 development- JUN -28 -2001 10:55 95Y P.01 CONTINUE FROM PREUIOUS PAGE 002 The next two properties are 25' wide lots, each with low income four unit Lwo story apartments built back in the 1960's. Each has garage parking for two cars, but the garages are used for storage and puts their parking on the street in front of the driveway aprons. These grey stucco buildings are not attractive, but are fully occupied and again they provide low income housing for the tenants and a great cash flow to the owner. Under. the L -C zone, these apartments could be JUN -26 -2001 10:57 P.02 0 - -• .... V ,. ....y •. u..vu ::al - - t -1 lots. In the meantime, the dentist has let property go to pot in disgust. Lee Whittenberg has been notitied, but has not had time to notice the owner and it remains an eyesore after six weeks have expired. Does this bode well for R -1? 'rho next mixed use property I own. it operates under the L -C zoning configuration, and in spite of lack of support from the City, has been fully occupied since I purchased it in 1973. Presently, an architect lives and works on the second story. My son's bike shop has thrived on the first floor for twenty years, part of the time with an employee living on premises. If in lieu parking were provided, I would develop this property to its full potential under the L -C zone. I will not develop it under R -1 zoning. The next property, a 6J,5 foot lot is owned by me and under development under the T, -C zoning provisions, subject to special restrictions resulting from the compromise made by the Coastal Commission to justify the absence of in lieu parking to be provided by the City. I do not believe the property, in the flood zone, and only 106 feet deep can be economically subdivided into two R -1 lots and then sold. Its potential remains as one property. The second best usage would be for upscale apartments with ground floor parking. I believe such usage would also be second best for all of the street up to PCH. The next property, owned by Soretta and Peter Fielding, is most suited for development under the provisions of the L -C zone if "in lieu parking" were provided. The two story commercial building covering 1006 of the 25' wide lot already exists, and they own the adjoining 25' undeveloped lot. They want to sell their property because they do not have the net worth to develop nor the income to finance the development. If they were Lo sell their property under R -1, it would be at a distress sale because the building must be torn down as non- conforming, the lots are in the flood zone and are only 106 feet deep. The next property is owned by Bruce Stark, who bought it many years ago and consists of eight ground floor low income apartments on a 50' wide lot. He uses one of the street front apartments for his wife's business office, a psychotherapist, and rents the rest. Four open covered parking spaces are provided in the rear. The property is low maintenance and give him a good cash flow. Why would he tear down and sell for two R -1 lots? The next property is a two story multiple L -C use building on a 25' lot with commercial parking behind, purchased by Sandy ?, the owner of Copy Rentals. He rents the upper as residential and conducts his copy rental and repair business on the first floor. Seven years ago he bought the property because business had grown to the point he could no longer work out of his house and garage. This is ideal use of the L -C zone provisions. Why would he tear down and sell for an R -1 lot? The next two properties are 25' wide lots, each with low income four unit Lwo story apartments built back in the 1960's. Each has garage FROMT:WALT MILLER Jun. 20 2001 11 :35AM P2i3 ::ext, prcperc.y cn u:e cornar or Lancing is aat eight unit low income housing two story apartment owned by Brian Kyle. He too purchased at a good price and remodeled. He keeps it well and Tully rented. He has a number or good income properties and has good cash fie-. why would he want to take his 7S foot lot and tear it down for R -1? Across the street on Landing is the Happy Holiday motel which has been converted into low income apartment housing for the unskilled green card labor market that supports Main Street, the Seal Beach car wash, cooks, dishwashers and staff of all l:he restaurants and fast foods up and down Coast Highway here in Seal Beach. He is again an absentee owner, but keep the property well and fully rented, giving him a good cash flow. Furthermore, his property is configured in the shape of a trapezoid because of the diagonal common property line with the PE right of way, making it impossible to subdivide into the common rectangular lots required for R -1. This property is on the market because it no longer has a tax base for the owner. It is not being marketed for R -1 development, but as an income property. Then there is the PE right -of -way, which also impacts the adjoining property to the south with the diagonal property line. This property has nevez been put on the market, and extents as a right -of -way through 17 "' and 16" Streets to merge into Electric. It is an eye -sore. Some adjoining property owners has planted trees and grass and store their oars and other properly on the right -of -way because there is no enforcement of the property line except for the section on Seal Beach Boulevard to the alley, which is surrounded by a chain link fence and filled with weeds. Again the nature of this parcel is not suited for R -1 development because of its configuration, but is suited for the long needed parking lot, as is found on lo" Street in the 100 block supporting in Lieu Main Street parking. The next property, again in trapezoidal configuration houses successful businesses including physical fitness center, insurance broker, CPA, and travel agency. They have all occupied the buildings for many years. The owner of the property also has a back office in the building and enjoys a good cash flow with minimum building maintenance. why would he entertain tearing it down to build, at best one R -1 site and leave the diagonal portion abandoned? The next property, the animal vet building and adjoining lot was marketed under the L -C zone by Frank Prior and sold to an unsuspecting dentist for cash. The dentist was told he could build an office and a residence, but was not told that the in lieu parking provision was inoperable because of the rejection by the Coastal Commission. He subsequently listed the property with First Team who has marketed it assuming the property will be rezoned R -1. It has a contingent buyer in escrow who is waiting for the outcome. It has been months. First Team is trying to get its commission, but does not realize that the Coastal Commission does not support R -1 development for the L -C zone, and it will take the same "spot zoning" process that Musso went through to get it approved for R -1. Secondly, First Team does not realize that the City also must have public forums and hearings to study the rezoning issue betore it can meet to pass such a resolution, and that takes a great deal of time, maybe years. First Team was first told by the City that the property had the potential of three R -1 lots, and has FROM :WALT MILLER Jun. 2e 2001 11:36AM P3i3 rC:.�a:.�ca LJ acJ JSu ai"ai 5PLca Jr. c:rsc and second story, and tnird story res- dential�if in lie" parking spaces were provided nearby by the L=ty. -by wouid the owner want t0 Cear tnem down ror an R-i lot? Under an R -1 zoning they will most likely remain the way they are until Elie calapse of their own weight. 1'ne last property is a three unit apartment on as irregular lot abutting the alley. Due to the configuration of the lot and the location, it is presently enjoying the best and only use. It is well kept by the owner and fully occupied, giving the owner a good cash flow. It definitely would not benefit by being rezoned to R -1. The scoxe is: 55 low income apartments 9 owner opernted businesses 8 residential lots (Musso property) 1 single family residence (next to Musso) 1 lot under L -C development Again, take that walk, read this summary, get other views from those of is who live.. in the L-C zone (not those who live on the boardwalk or 1711, Street), and reach your own conclusions. I believe you will support the move to provide off site in lieu parking spaces either or both on the PE right -of -way and the Navy property on the ocean side of Seal Beach Boulevard. Seal Beach Boulevard, as the Gateway to Seal Beach, Is too valuable an opportunity to throw away for posterity for the instant gratification of those who hold elective office for two year periods. Thank you, G6�� Walt Miller, Owner Respectfuliy, Walter F. Miller, Owner Distribution: Mayor Doane Council Member Yost Council Member Larson Council Member Boyd Council Member Campbell Director whittenberg SPACE FOR NCTES: JUN -28 -2001 10:57 96% P.03