The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC AG PKT 2001-07-09 Supplemental Information - Arguments against rezoning L-C to R-1, received from Walt MillerFRRI :WALT MILLER Jun. 28 200' 11:35AM P1 /3 Uulle ad, 2001 �j� duauue I. 'feu //�_•J�f "0�� City Clerk CITY OF SEAL BEACH City Hall - 211 S" Street fail 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 rot 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 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 wo 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 Lhe corner. That is not likely to change. The property that was owned by Marto Musso and could not make it a=- 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 cutlay of cash. I remember Musso agreeing Lo 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 31.5ft lot for R -1 development? JUN -28 -2001 10:55 95% P.01 CONTINUE FROM PREVIOUS PAGE M 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 JUN -28 -2001 10:57 P.02 CONTINUE FROM PREUIOUS PAGE - -• -. •• ....y =.+...,.. ,ac l -1 lots. In the meantime, the dentist has •let Vthe property go to pot in disgust. Lee whittenberg has been noti.ried, 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? 'rim 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 2973. 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 zoninq. The next property, a 62.b foot lot is owned by me and under development under the 2, -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 1002 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, two story apartments built back in the 1960's. Each has garage FROM :WPLT MILLER Jun. 28 2001 11:35AM P2/3 ::•_ �••:xx prGparc.y cn '.ow corner or Laroirg is ar. eight unit low income housing two story apartment owned by Brian Kyle. He too purchased at a good price and remodeled. Re 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 It -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 enfor- cement 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 10" 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, bul 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 fox 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 thn City that the property had the potential of three R -1 lots, and has FROM :WALT MILLER Jun. 28 2001 11 :36AM P3i3 "'_4" "c; w aaa o. -w � ar lai space on rirst and second story, and tnird story residential if in lieu parking spaces were provided nearby by the City. wny would the owner want to tear tnem down ror an R-1 lot': Under an R -1 zoning they will most likely remain the way they are until Eno roliapse of their own weight. 7ne iast 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 pest 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 17"` 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 pericOs. Thank you, C'6� 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: JLN -28 -2001 10:57 96% P.03