HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendment LCPA2003002 - Supporting DocumentsPage 1 of 2
Medel, Rosemary
From: Ethen Thacher [Ethent@MakarProperties.com]
Sent : Monday, August 01, 2005 11:54 AM
To: Medel, Rosemary
Subject : RE: Timeshare Amendment
My fax number is (949) 255-1128.
Thanks Rosemary. Ethen
From: Medel, Rosemary [mailto:rmedel@surfcity-hb.org]
Sent : Monday, August 01, 2005 11:55 AM
To: Ethen Thacher
Subject : RE: Timeshare Amendment
What is your fax number? I can email the City Council report and fax over the notice of action letter.
-----Original Message-----
From : Ethen Thacher [mailto:Ethent@MakarProperties.com]
Sent : Monday, August 01, 2005 11:48 AM
To: Medel, Rosemary
Subject: RE: Timeshare Amendment
Thanks Rosemary, I hate to push it, but if I could get that information today I would be very grateful. The
information is being sent out to some potential capital partners.
Thank you, Ethen
From: Medel, Rosemary [mailto:rmedel@surfcity-hb.org]
Sent : Monday, August 01, 2005 9:32 AM
To: Ethen Thacher
Subject: RE: Timeshare Amendment
Will do.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ethen Thacher [mailto:Ethent@MakarPropert ies.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 6:58 PM
To: rmedel@surfcity-hb.org
Subject : Timeshare Amendment
Hi Rosemary, it just occurred to me that I never received a copy of the Staff Report and Notice of
Action for the City Council approval (March 21, 2005?) of the Timeshare amendment to Downtown
Specific Plan District 7 and 9.
Can you please send that to me. I want to have a complete file for this amendment.
Thank you, Ethen
Ethen Thacher
Project Manager
Makar Properties, LLC
4100 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 200
8/1/2005
0 •
City Huntington Beach
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Phone
Fax
July 6, 2005
536-5271
374-1540
374-1648
California Coastal Commission
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302
SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST BY COASTAL STAFF -
HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
NO. 2-05 (TIMESHARES)/CITY LCPA NO. 03-02
Dear Coastal Commission Members:
The City agrees to an extension of time for the above referenced application. However, we
request that the application be processed within six months or sooner instead of one year. We
understand the workload demands on your staff but ask that you consider a shorter period for
the extension of time. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Howard Zelefsky
Director of Planning
c: Deborah Lee, Coastal Commission Deputy Director
Karl Schwing, Coastal Commission Orange County Area Supervisor
Meg Vaughn, Coastal Program Analyst
Scott Hess, Planning Manager
Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner
Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
Shawn Milbern, The Robert Mayer Corp.
G:\AdmLtr\2005\0706rm.doc
TATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES A Y
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 SUN 2 7 2005(562) 590-5071 W 7 b
TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons
0 Arnold hwarz n er vernor
June 23, 2005
FROM: DEBORAH LEE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
TERESA HENRY, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT MANAGER
KARL SCHWING, ORANGE COUNTY AREA SUPERVISOR
MEG VAUGHN, COA FAL PROGRAM ANAL ;"ST
SUBJECT: Request to extend the ninety-day time limit for Commission action on City
of Huntington Beach LCP Amendment Request No. 2-05 (Timeshares) (for
Commission Action at the July 13-15, 2005 meeting in San Diego).
On May 19, 2005, the City of Huntington Beach submitted a request to amend its certified
Local Coastal Program (LCP), effecting both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation
Plan (IP). The proposed LUP amendment would allow timeshares in the Commercial
Visitor district, including subareas 4C and 4D, and modify Policy 3.2.4 to add reference to
the allowance of timeshares in the Commercial Visitor District and replace overnight
accommodation language with hotels/motel and timeshares in the Commercial General
land use category. The proposed IP amendment would modify the Downtown Specific Plan
to allow timeshares and provide certain restrictions on the timeshares. Proposed LCP
Amendment Request No. 2-05 was submitted for Commission certification by City Council
Resolution No. 2005-20.
On May 19, 2005, the date of submittal, the Executive Director determined that LCP
Amendment Request No 1-05 was in proper order and legally adequate to comply with
the submittal requirements of the Coastal Act and the California Code of Regulations.
Therefore, LCP Amendment Request No. 1-05 is deemed complete pursuant to the
requirements of Section 30510 of the Coastal Act.
Pursuant to Sections 30512 and 30514 of the Coastal Act, an LCP amendment that
includes changes to the LUP portion of a certified LCP must be scheduled for a public
hearing and the Commission must take action within ninety days of a complete
submittal. The ninetieth day after the City's filing of the complete submittal is August 17,
2005. In order to be heard within this time frame, the LCP amendment would need to be
scheduled for the Commission's July 13-15, 2005 meeting.
However, this deadline may be extended for good cause. Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 30517 allows the Commission to extend any time limitation established
by Chapter 6 of Division 20 of the PRC, wherein lies Sections 30512 and 30514, for up
to a year. Staff is recommending that the Commission extend the ninety-day time limit
for the review of the LCP amendment request. The time extension would allow for a
thorough review of the City's proposed changes.
•tington Beach LCPA 2-05 Timeshals
Time Extension Request
Page 2 of 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission extend the deadline for Commission action for
one year (i.e. to August 17, 2006).
MOTION: I move that the Commission extend the ninety-day time limit to act
on the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 2-05 for a period of one year.
Staff recommends a YES vote. An affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners
present is needed to pass the motion.
HNB LCPA 2-05 timeshare tm extns rqst 7.05 my
0 0
& City of Huntington Beach
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Phone
Fax
374-1648 South Coast Region
536-5271
374-1540
May 17, 2005
Theresa Henry, South Coast District Manager
South Coast Area Office
Califo rnia Coastal Commission
200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Long Beach , CA 90802-4302
MAY19 2005
CALIFORNIACOASTALCOMMISSION
SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
NO. 2-05
Dear Theresa:
The City of Huntington Beach is transmitting Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No.
03-02 pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2005-20 . Using the Californ ia Coastal
Commission 's notation, this would be LCPA No. 2-05 for the City of Huntington Beach. The
Local Coastal Program Amendment is a request to amend the City's certified Local Coastal
Program (Coastal Element and Implementing Ordinances).
Pursuant to Section 13551(a) of Article 15 of the California Coastal Commission Regulations,
the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-20 on March 21, 2005 to amend the Local Coastal
Program. A copy of the Resolution is enclosed . The proposed Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 03-02 is submitted as a major amendment that will take effect automatically
upon Commission approval pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and
30519.
1. Pro 'ect Descri tion
The Local Coastal Program Amendment is requested to allow timeshares in the Commercial
Visitor Land Use Category and within Subareas 4C (PCH /First Street) and 4D (Waterfront).
It also amends the Commercial General Land Use Category by deleting the reference to
"overnight accommodations " and adding "hotels/motels and timeshares ." The LCPA
incorporates changes reflected in Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 03-03 related to
Downtown Speci fic Plan Districts 7 and 9, which correspond to the boundaries of Subareas
4C and 4D . A detailed description of the project elements is provided below.
••
City of Huntington Beach
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Phone
Fax
536-5271
374-1540
374-1648
May 17, 2005
Theresa Henry, South Coast District Manager
South Coast Area Office
California Coastal Commission
200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302
SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
NO. 2-05
Dear Theresa:
The City of Huntington Beach is transmitting Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No.
03-02 pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2005-20. Using the California Coastal
Commission's notation, this would be LCPA No. 2-05 for the City of Huntington Beach. The
Local Coastal Program Amendment is a request to amend the City's certified Local Coastal
Program (Coastal Element and Implementing Ordinances).
Pursuant to Section 13551(a) of Article 15 of the California Coastal Commission Regulations,
the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-20 on March 21, 2005 to amend the Local Coastal
Program. A copy of the Resolution is enclosed. The proposed Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 03-02 is submitted as a major amendment that will take effect automatically
upon Commission approval pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and
30519.
1. Pro 'ect Descri tion
The Local Coastal Program Amendment is requested to allow timeshares in the Commercial
Visitor Land Use Category and within Subareas 4C (PCH/First Street) and 4D (Waterfront).
It also amends the Commercial General Land Use Category by deleting the reference to
"overnight accommodations" and adding "hotels/motels and timeshares." The LCPA
incorporates changes reflected in Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 03-03 related to
Downtown Specific Plan Districts 7 and 9, which correspond to the boundaries of Subareas
4C and 4D. A detailed description of the project elements is provided below.
r
LCPA No. 02-05
Page 2 of 7
Local Coastal Pro ram Amendment No. 03-02
The Coastal Element currently allows timeshares in the Commercial General (CG) and
Mixed Use Districts. Timeshares are also permitted in the Commercial Visitor (CV) and
CG land use districts of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO),
the City's implementing ordinance. The proposed LCPA would allow timeshares (as
defined) in the CV district to provide greater flexibility and appeal to the visitor-serving
market. Specifically, the LCPA amends the City's LCP as follows:
A. Amends the Commercial General (CG) land use category of Typical Permitted
Uses on Table C-1 of the Coastal Element by deleting the reference to "overnight
accommodations" and replacing that with "hotels/motels, timeshares."
B. Amends the Commercial Visitor (CV) land use category of Typical Permitted
Uses on Table C-1 of the Coastal Element and Subareas 4C - PCH/First Street
and 4D - Waterfront to add "timeshares" as a permitted use.
C. Modifies Coastal Element Policy C 3.2.4 to add reference to the allowance of
"timeshares" in the Commercial Visitor (CV) District.
D. Incorporates the changes reflected in Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03,
described below.
Zonin Text Amendment No. 03-03
The purpose of Downtown Specific Plan District 7 (location of the approved Pacific City
project) is to provide commercial facilities to serve seasonal visitors to the beaches as well as
to serve local residents on a year-round basis. The purpose of District 9 (Waterfront) is to
encourage large, master-planned development that is beach-oriented and open to the public
for both commercial and recreational purposes. The ZTA adopted by the City Council allows
for the possibility of timeshare uses in the visitor-serving portions of the Pacific City and
Waterfront projects. Specifically, the ZTA changes the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP -
SP5) as follows:
A. Amends DTSP Section 4.0.04 Definitions to include a definition of "timeshares."
B. Amends DTSP District 7, Section 4.9.01 Permitted Uses, and District 9, Section
4.11.01 Permitted Uses to allow "timeshares" as a permitted use subject to a
conditional use permit from the Planning Commission.
2. General Plan Conformance
The proposed LCPA and ZTA were found to be consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies contained in the City's General Plan at the time that it was adopted. Concurrent with
approval of the LCPA and ZTA, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment (GPA)
No. 03-03. The GPA added timeshares as a permitted use within the Commercial Visitor
LCPA No. 02-05
Page 3 of 7
(CV) land use category and within Subareas 4C (PCH/First Street) and 4D (Waterfront). It
also amended the reference to overnight accommodations similar to the LCPA.
3. Coastal Element
As you know, Coastal Act Policies place a high priority on visitor-serving uses: providing for
public uses; providing for public access to coastal resources; and ensuring an adequate amount
of public recreational opportunities within the coastal zone such that existing coastal
resources, e.g. in this case, beaches, are not overly impacted. Allowing timeshare
development is consistent with the goal of providing visitor-serving uses within the Coastal
Zone. The proposed LCPA is consistent with the existing LCP because timeshares , in the way
they are defined and required to be conditioned , are very similar to the hotel uses that are
already permitted within these areas. In addition, under this LCPA, any development of a
timeshare project would be required to comply with the development standards contained in
the DTSP , which address both access and open space/recreational amenities.
The existing certified Coastal Element policy on timeshares specifies that at least 25 percent
of timeshare units be reserved for tran sient overnight accommodations, i.e. hotel use, during
the summer season . The Coastal Commission included this requirement to ensure that at least
25 percent of the units/rooms would be available to the general public as opposed to being
available only to timeshare owners . The intent of this was to ensure that coastal resources are
available to be enjoyed by the general public. The proposed LCPA does not change the 25
percent availability requirement. Moreover, the City Council's action included adding the
criteria of the City's existing LCP policy to the DTSP . Thus, the DTSP would clearly state
that timeshares must meet the minimum 25 percent availability requirement that would
operate similar to a hotel (including requirements for a centralized reservations system, check-
in services , advertising , security, and daily housecleaning ). Additionally, any timeshare
project would be required to demons trate specifically how the 25 percent availability
requirement would be satisfied.
The proposed amendment language requires that timeshares be part of a master-planned
development. This is consistent with, for example, the original Development Agreement
(8/15/88) approved by the City for The Waterfront, owned by the Robert Mayer Corporation.
Under that Development Agreement, the commercial portions of The Waterfront are to be
developed pursuant to the "Master Site Plan" and are to "be considered a single integrated
development project." To further this requirement, the proposed LCPA provides flexibility in
meeting the 25 percent availability requirement during the summer season. As an example, if
a timeshare project were built on the third site (Parcel C) of the Waterfront project, then a total
of 25 percent of those units would need to be available for transient overnight
accommodations (similar to a hotel operation) during the summer months. This 25 percent
total could be entirely within the timeshare project, or a portion or all could be within the
existing Waterfront Hilton or Hyatt Hotels since they are part of the master plan. Based on
industry statistics, up to approximately 20 percent of a timeshare development's units are not
actually used by the timeshare owners at any given time; these would thus be available for
overnight stays.
LCPA No. 02-05
Page 4 of 7
As noted, the primary rationale for the 25 percent availability requirement is the importance
that the Commission places on public access to coastal resources. Our City has been
exemplary in providing public access to beach visitors. This effort is demonstrated in the
DTSP area with the availability of 2,100 beach parking spaces and another 811 spaces within
the City's Main Promenade parking structure. Further, in total there are more than 10,400
public parking spaces available for beach visitors in the City's Coastal Zone. The City also
continues to add to its stock of visitor-serving accommodations through approval of visitor-
serving commercial development within the Coastal Zone, including the recently approved
Pacific City project and The Strand, a mixed-use project with a hotel and other visitor-serving
commercial uses.
In its analysis of the proposed LCP amendment, the City evaluated other sites both in and out
of the Coastal Zone that might be conducive to timeshare development. It was determined
that there are very few commercial and mixed-use-zoned parcels in the Coastal Zone that
might meet current industry site standards for resort development and thus be conducive to a
hotel currently under construction. In addition to Districts 7 and 9 within the Coastal Zone,
there is one other property that is large enough to be potentially attractive for this type of
development, i.e., the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Goldenwest Street;
however, this property is expected to remain in oil production for at least the next 20 years
and off-limits to any other development. Remaining potential properties within the CV Zone
are built-out and therefore not presently available for timeshare development. Near but
outside the coastal zone, the Huntington Beach ZSO allows timeshares in the CG and the CV
Zones, but the vast majority of these areas are already built out. For these reasons, the City
determined that Districts 7 and 9 appear to be the only opportunity for the inclusion of
timeshares within the Coastal Zone, thereby allowing the City to diversify its inventory of
overnight accommodations.
On February 8, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed
amendments. Three public speakers spoke in favor of the project, citing options for
development of visitor serving uses, the importance of offering a diversity of visitor-serving
uses in the City, the adequacy of the existing hotel supply in the City, the similarity in
approach to timeshare uses in other coastal communities, and the Mayer Corporation's 1988
development agreement for development of the Waterfront site, which allows for a master-
planned project for hospitality visitor serving uses. One of these speakers also spoke at the
March 21, 2005 City Council public hearing. As the enclosed minutes indicate and
summarized in Attachment No. 1, there were no coastal concerns expressed by speakers at the
Planning Commission and City Council public hearings or by written correspondence.
However, during its discussion, the Planning Commission inquired about the parking demand
a timeshare project would generate as opposed to a hotel use. The ZSO requires that
timeshares be parked at the same parking ratio as a hotel/motel project as stated in the
Planning Commission minutes dated February 8, 2005. The Planning Commission and the
City Council also discussed the consistency of the master plan concept with the existing
Coastal Element policy regarding the 25 percent requirement.
LCPA No. 02-05
Page 5 of 7
I In summary, the Coastal Act encourages visitor serving commercial uses designed to enhance
public opportunities for coastal recreation within the Coastal Zone, the City supports the
project because:
a) The allowance of timeshares within Districts 7 & 9 of the Downtown Specific Plan
is consistent with the Local Coastal Program because timeshares are similar to the
hotel use that is already permitted within these areas, and
b) The amendments conform to the public access and public recreation policies of
Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act because timeshares are a visitor serving use
subject to the amenity standards of hotels and required to maintain public access to
coastal recreation uses.
The proposed request does not conflict with the policies of the Coastal Element nor
negatively impact those areas of the city that lie within the Coastal Zone boundary. The
LCPA does not impede public access to coastal resources. The proposed LCPA is submitted
pursuant to Section 13511 of the Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations which
conforms to the requirements of Chapter 6 of the Coastal Act.
4. Com atibili with Surroundin Uses
Timeshares are currently permitted in the CG and Mixed Use Districts (MH and MV) of the
Coastal Element and the CG and CV Zones of the ZSO citywide. One objective of these
districts is to provide for overnight accommodations for coastal and other visitors to the City.
The City's existing CV land use category allows for hotels/motels and "similar uses oriented
to coastal and other visitors to the City." The inclusion of timeshares in the CV category is
consistent with the existing Coastal Element language of "similar uses oriented to coastal and
other visitors." Timeshares are designed to serve the visitor market; and the primary reason to
accommodate timeshare development in Huntington Beach is the attraction of its beaches.
Timeshare development is similar in appearance and function to hotels. Timeshares have
evolved over the past two-plus decades to become a truly universal method of serving the
vacationing public who want to stay by the beach or have a premium coastal access
experience. Thus, from a land use compatibility perspective, the inclusion of timeshares as a
permitted use would not result in any land use issues different from the currently permitted
hotel use, which is a compatible use within Districts 7 and 9 of the DTSP and surrounding
area.
5. Processing
The following is a summary of processing pursuant to Section 13552 (b) (c) of the California
Coastal Commission Regulations concerning the adoption of the amendments and their
relationship to other sections of the City's certified LCP.
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, staff prepared Environmental
Assessment No. 03-03 and concluded that all potentially significant environmental effects
related to the proposal were analyzed and adequately addressed in EIR No. 94-1, prepared for
LCPA No. 02-05
Page 6 of 7
N
the comprehensive update of the General Plan and approved in 1996. The Environmental
Assessment is included in the February 8, 2005 Planning Commission staff report.
b. On January 25, 2005, the Planning Commission held a study session to discuss the
proposed amendments. The Planning Commission requested information addressing parking
ratios comparing hotels to timeshares as well as information on the economic impact of
timeshares on the City's Transient Occupancy Tax.
c. On February 8, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
amendments. As noted, three speakers spoke in favor of the project, and focused on options
for development of hospitality uses, the importance of offering a diversity of visitor-serving
hospitality uses in the City, the adequacy of the existing hotel supply in the City, the similarity
in approach to timeshare uses in other coastal communities , and the Mayer Corporation's 1988
development agreement for development of the Waterfront site which allows for a master-
planned project for hospitality uses. The Planning Commission discussed various aspects of
the request including effect on City revenue, information on the background studies, and the
implications of allowing timeshares as part of a master planned development . The Planning
Commission recommended additional text modifications to mirror the language of Coastal
Element Policy 3.2.4 to regulate the operation of timeshares and voted to recommend approval
of the subject entitlements and forward to the City Council.
d. On March 21, 2005, the City Council held its public hearing on the proposed requests. The
applicant was the only speaker at the public hearing. The applicant emphasized how the
addition of timeshares to the LCPA added flexibility in developing hospitality projects. A late
communication from the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce stated their support of the
inclusion of timeshares within Districts 7 & 9 of the Downtown Specific Plan.
6. Public Partici ation
All staff reports were made available for public review in the Planning Department and the
Huntington Beach Public Library. During the public hearing process, staff made every effort
to maximize public participation in the process. Pursuant to Section 13522(a) of the Coastal
Commission Administrative Regulations, included with this submittal are copies of the
measures taken to ensure public participation, public hearing notices, mailing labels, and
minutes from the public hearings. Please refer to the public hearing minutes for the complete
comments received at the public hearing. The public hearings were advertised in the City's
usual local newspaper and notice sent to property owners, occupants and interested parties.
All legal notices for the local public hearings made reference to the proposed Local Coastal
Program Amendment.
LCPA No. 02-05
Page 7 of 7
t•Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions
regarding this submittal pleased contact Rosemary Medel at (714) 374-1684.
Sincerely,
How Zelefsky
Planning Director
Enclosures
c: Scott Hess, Planning Manager
Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner
Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
Shawn Millbern, The Robert Mayer Corporation
Attachment No. 1
Plannin Commission Public Hearin on Februa 8 2005
SPEAKER POSITION COASTAL CONCERNS EXPRESSED
1.Shawn Milbe rn In favor No coastal conce rns.
(A licant)
2. Doug Traub In favor No co astal conce rns.
3. Ethen Thacher In favor No co astal conce rns
Ci Council Public Hearin on March 21 2005
SPEAKER POSITION COASTAL CONCERNS EXPRESSED
1. Shawn Milbern In favor No coastal concerns.
(Ap licant)
0
r
Attachment No. 2
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03 -02, Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-
03: Amendment to Downtown Specific Plan (Districts 7 & 9),
ENCLOSURES
Ordinance No. 3702 (with Exhibit A - Amended
Downtown S ecific Plan
Resolution No. 2005-20
Ci Council Minutes
Ci Council Minutes Second readin of Ordinance
Ci Council Staff Re ort
Ci Council Late Communications
Ci Council Notice of Public Hearin
Ci Council and Plannin Commission Mailin Labels
Plannin Commission Minutes
Plannin Commission Staff Re ort
Plannin Commission Notice of Public Hearin
Planning Commission Stud Session Staff Re ort
DATES
March 21, 2005
March 21, 2005
March 21, 2005
A ril 4, 2005
March 21, 2005
March 21, 2005
March 10, 2005
Jan 2005
Febru 8, 2005
February 8, 2005
Janu 27, 2005
January 25, 2005
Ior 099 Tom Daly
County Clerk-Recorder
0 C)12 Civic Center Plaza, Rm 106oPO Box 238
Santa Ana CA 927020 Q ,
4 'elF00
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Office of the Orange County Clerk-Recorder
Memorandum
SUBJECT: Environment Impact Reports
Amendment of "Public Resources Code, Section 21092.3"
00,
V/®1)
The attached notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on 04/05/2005 It remained posted for 30
(THIRTY) days.
Tom Daly
County Clerk-Recorder
In and for the C ty of Orange
By: Deputy
Public Resource Code 21092.3
The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report shall
be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county in which the project will be located and
shall remain for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative
declaration shall be so posted for a period of 20 days, unless otherwise required by law to be posted for
30 days. The County Clerk shall post notices within 24 hours of receipt.
Public Resources Code 21152
All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted
within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a
period of 30 days. Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local agency with a notation of the
period it was posted. The local agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months.
V •
0
TO
city of Huntington Bach
APR 15 2005
f
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BRBCAVED
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
Economic Development Department APR 0 7 2005
Mayor and City Council
VIA Penny Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator
FROM David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development
SUBJECT Time Share Valuation
DATE April 7, 2005
CITY OF HUN'IINGTON B CHADMINISTRATIVE OF CE
rt f
In response to Council Member Dave Sullivan's request for information on how the O.C.
Tax Assessor's Office evaluates time shares, Carol Runzel contacted the Assessor's
office. Arlene Fasola from the Assessor's Office e-mail response is attached.
The Assessor's office approach to assessed valuation takes the sales price and discounts it
by the value attributed to furnishings, services & excessive marketing costs. In general,
the percent applied to discounting the sales price has been 35%, as in the case of the
Newport Beach Marriott. The typical sales price for that project has been $25,000 per
week. Two projects near the Anaheim resort area are selling at an average price of
$15,000 per week. Attached is a brief analysis that shows two scenarios:
A. the $25,000 sales price using the 35% discounted rate results in a 260-unit
time share project generating an estimated $2 million in tax revenue.
B. the $15,000 sales price using the 35% discounted rate results in a 260-unit
time share project generating an estimated $1.3 million in tax revenue.
If needed, Carol is available to provide additional research in this matter. She may be
reached at extension 5224.
Attachments:
Time Share Scenario Analysis
O.C. Assessor's e-mail 4/6/05
Time Share •
Property Tax
Sale Price per Week
A.Unit Sale Price
Number Weeks
Number Units
Total Sales
Percent Discount
(Furnishings, Services,
Excessive Marketing
Costs)
$ 25,000
51
260
$ 331,500,000
Discounted Amount Assessed Value Tax Revenue
35%$ 116,025,000 $ 215,475,000 $ 2,154,750
B.Unit Sale Price $ 15,000
Number Weeks 51
Number Units 260
Total Sales $ 198,900,000
Percent Discount
(Furnishings, Services,
Excessive Marketing
Costs)Discounted Amount Assessed Value Tax Revenue
35% $ 69,615,000 $ 129,285,000 $ 1,292,850
timeshare / 4/7/2005
Page 1 of 1
Runzel, Carol
From: Arlene Fasola [afasola@assessor.co.orange.ca.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 3:25 PM
To: Runzel, Carol
Subject : RE: timeshare.xls
Hi Carol,
Change the number of weeks in your model to 51. This will make the total sales $198,900,000.
The actual discounted rate for the Marriott of Newport Beach timeshare is approximately 35%. The average sales
price is probably around $25,000.
Please let me know if you need any further information.
Good Luck,
Arlene
-----Original Message-----
From: Runzel, Carol [mailto:crunzel@surfcity-hb.org]
Sent : Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:29 PM
To: 'afasola@assessor.co.orange.ca.us'
Subject : timeshare.xls
Hello Arlene,
Please review the attached that we can use as a model for estimating Tax Revenue for a time share
project.
Would you be able to provide me the actual discounted rate for the Marriott of Newport Beach time share?
Do you know the sale range? This would help give us a sense of reality in our projections, as we think that
project would resemble the one contemplated for Huntington Beach.
Th anks,
Carol A. Runzel
Department of Economic Development
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-5224
runzelc@surfcity-hb.org
4/7/2005
A'j fe CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
JOAN L. FLYNN
CITY CLERK
April 7, 2005
Shawn Milbern
The Robert Mayer Corporation
660 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 1050
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: NOTICE OF ACTION - Permit Timeshares within Districts 7 and 9
Dear Mr. Milbern:
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday,
March 21, 2005 took action on the following Public Hearing : Public Hearing to Consider
Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 03-03, Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03
and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 Downtown Specific Plan - to
Permit Timeshares with in Districts 7 and 9 (North Side of Pacific Coast Highway,
between Beach Boulevard and First Street ) -Applicant , Robert Mayer Corporation, -
Adopt Resolution Numbers 2005-19 and 2005-20 - Approve for Introduction Ordinance
No. 3702 and Adopted On April 4, 2005 effective immediately upon cert ification of the
California Coastal Commission.
The action agenda pages 9 and the approved as amended Suggested Findings &
Conditions of Approval are enclosed.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227.
Sincerely,
0.41 -
Joan L. Flynn
City Clerk
Enclosure: Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval
Action Agenda Pages 9
cc: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
Scott Hess, Planning Manager
Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
(Telephone : 714 -536.5227)
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03:
1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 to amend the Downtown Specific Plan,
specifically Districts 7 and 9, to include timeshares as a permitted use and
add a definition of timeshares is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan because the
achievement of diverse land uses will sustain the City's economic viability,
while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and
character.
2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is
compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for the
zoning district for which it is proposed. Districts 7 and 9 currently allow for
hotels, and timeshares are permitted in the Commercial Visitor and
Commercial General districts elsewhere in the City. Timeshares are a visitor-
serving use that is compatible within hotels and visitor serving areas.
3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The allowance
of timeshares in the Downtown Specific Plan will strengthen and diversify the
economic base of the City's primary tourist node. Further, an adequate and
substantial availability of overnight transient accommodations has been
shown to exist within the City providing adequate access to the coastal area.
Also, an increase in such accommodations is reasonably expected to occur in
the future that will accommodate growth in the number of visitors to the City's
coastal zone.
4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and
good zoning practice. Timeshares are very similar in use to hotels, which are
already a permitted use. The allowance of timeshares will not result in any
negative impacts to the community or adjacent uses.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 03-02
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM NO. 03-02:
1. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 amends the City's certified
Local Coastal Program to allow timeshares in the Commercial Visitor Land
Use Category and within Subareas 4C and 4D, change the reference to
overnight accommodations in the Commercial General Land Use Category
to reflect hotels, motels and timeshares and in accord with Zoning Text
Amendment No. 03-03 to allow timeshares within Districts 7 and 9 of the
Downtown Specific Plan. The change is consistent with the Local Coastal
Program because timeshares are similar to the hotel use that is already
permitted within these areas.
2. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 is in accordance with the
policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act by enhancing
the variety of visitor serving uses and increasing the tourism potential from a
larger market base.
3. The amendments conforms with the public access and public recreation
policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act because timeshares are a
visitor serving use subject to the amenity standards of hotels and required to
maintain public access to coastal recreation uses.
(9) April 4, 2005 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 9
Refund Expense Account No. 70730101.69365 (contractual services) to fund the amendment to the
agreement. Submitted by the City Attorney and the Finance Officer. Funding Source: Property
Tax Override Refund Undesignated Fund Balance (Fund 707 - Fiscal Impact Statement attached).
Mayor Pro Tem Sullivan asked for clarification on funding . Amended Recommended
Action to request a written report be given to Council on how process is going, how
many protests submitted to City, how many appeals to Hearing Officer, final resolution,
how many unresolved, etc.
Approved as amended 7 - 0
F. Administrative Items - None
G. Ordinances
G-1. Ordinance for Adoption
G-1a. (City Council) Adopt Ordinance No. 3702 Amending the Downtown Specific Plan of
the City of Huntington Beach (Timeshares ) - Ordinance No. 3702 (450.30) "An Ordinance of
the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Downtown Specific Plan of the City of Huntington
Beach ." (Approved for introduction at the Public Hearing on March 21, 2005.)
Recommended Action: After the City Clerk reads by title, adopt Ordinance No. 3702, by roll
call vote.
Adopted 5 - 2 (Sullivan, Cook No)
G-2. Ordinance for Introduction
G-2a. (City Council) Approve for Introduction Ordinance No.3704 Amending Chapter
5.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Administrative Expenses for
Bingo Games (570.10) - Ordinance No. 3704 - "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 5.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to
Administrative Expenses for Bingo Games."
Recommended Action: After the City Clerk reads by title, approve for introduction Ordinance
No. 3704 , by roll call vote.
Approved 6 -1 (Sullivan No)
H. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Items
H-1a. Submitted by Councilmember Gil Coerper
(City Council) Approve and Communicate to State Assemblyman Tom Harman the City's
Position to Oppose Assembly Bill 991 (DeVore) which would Change the Structure of the
Orange County Vector Control Board of Trustees and Approve Adoption of Alternate
Resolution (120.70)
Communication from Councilmember Gil Coerper transmitting the following Statement of Issue:
Last month, the Orange County Vector Control District (OCVCD) called to order their 700th
meeting-almost 60 years of serving the people of Orange County. As the county grew and new
cities came into existence, each city had an appointed trustee to represent its interests. The Board
f 3
(6) March 21, 2005 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 6
C-3. City Treasurer's Report
C-3a. (City Council) Review and Accept Shari Freidenrich, City Treasurer's January 2005
Investment Summary Report Titled City of Huntington Beach Summa ry of City Investment
Portfolio, Bond Proceeds , and Deferred Compensation Activity (310.20)
Communication from City Treasurer Shari Freidenrich transmitting the Monthly Investment
Report for January 2005.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Review and accept the monthly investment report. Following review of the report, by motion
of Council, accept the Monthly Investment Report Summary of Investment Portfolio, Bond
Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity for January 2005, pursuant to Section 17.0
of the Investment Policy of the City of Huntington Beach.
Approved 6 - 0 (1- Green out of room)
:e G = Oo=--:e-
t'r PI - Ifr
D-1. City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 03-
3, Zoning Text Amendment No. 03 -03 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02
Downtown Specific Plan - to Permit Timeshares within Districts 7 and 9 (North Side of Pacific
Coast Highway, between Beach Boulevard and First Street) -- Applicant, Robe rt Mayer
Corporation, - Adopt Resolution Numbers 2005-19 and 2005-20 - Approve for Introduction
Ordinance No. 3702 (450.30)
Communication from the Planning Director.
Applicant: Robert Mayer Corp., Shawn Milbern
Request To amend the Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element, Huntington Beach
Coastal Element (Local Coastal Program), and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) to permit
"timeshares" as an allowed use subject to a conditional use permit from the Planning
Commission within District 7 (Visitor-Serving Commercial) and District 9 (Commercial
Recreation) of the Downtown Specific Plan.
Location: Downtown Specific Plan Districts 7 & 9 (north side of Pacific Coast Highway between
Beach Blvd. and First Street.) Robert Mayer Corporation.
Environmental Status : Notice is hereby given that an initial environmental assessment for this
agenda item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. It was determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR No. 94-1 pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR No. 94-1, nothing further is required. The environmental impact
report is on file at the City of Huntington Beach and is available for public inspection as
described below.
(7) March 21, 2005 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 7
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be
available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, March 17, 2005.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence
for or against the application as outlined above . If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there
are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items.
Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
1. Staff report
2. City Council discussion
3. Open public hearing
4. Following public input, close public hearing
PowerPoint titled Timeshares GPA 03-03, LCP 03-02, ZTA 03-03 Applicant : The Robert Mayer
Corporation Date : March 21,2005 is included in the agenda packet.
Recommended Action:
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to:
1. Approve General Plan Amendment No 03-03 by adopting Resolution No. 2005-19 -'A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan
Amendment No. 03-03" (Attachment No. 1);
and
2. Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 with findings (Attachment No. 2) and after
the City Clerk reads by title, approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3702 - "An Ordinance of
the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Downtown Specific Plan of the City of Huntington
Beach" (Attachment No. 3);
and
3. Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 with findings (Attachment No. 4)
and adopt Resolution No. 2005-20 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 to Amend the Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to Permit Timeshares in the Commercial
Visitor Land Use Category and to Reflect Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 and Requesting
Certification by the California Coastal Commission." (Attachment No. 5)
Rosema ry Medel Associate Planner gave PowerPoint presentation . Also referred to Late
Communication from Chamber of Commerce supporting recommendations . Council
discussion ensued. City Clerk reread Late Communication. Public Hearing opened, one
a ublic Hearin
Approved 5 - 2 (Cook No, Sullivan No)
D-2. (City Council) Public Hearing Opened and Continued Open from March 7, 2005 to
Consider Appeal Filed by Applicant Mike Padian, Padian Team Consulting, of the Planning
Commission's Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-08 - Good Shepherd
Cemete ry, 8301 Talbert Avenue (N/E Comer of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue)
(420.40)
•0 FILED
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION APR 0 5 20
TOM DALY, CLERK-RECORD
To: From:BY
Office of Planning and Research City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 3044 Planning Department
Sacramento, Ca 95812-3044 2000 Main St., 3rd Flr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Orange County Clerk Recorder's Office (Contact) Rosemary Medel
Public Services Division Contact Phone 714-536-5271
P.O. Box 238
Santa Ana, CA 92702
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the
Public Resources Code.
Project Title : General Plan Amendment No. 03-03 Zonin Text Amendment No. 03-03 Local Coastal
Pro am Amendment No. 03-02 Downtown S ecific Plan-Timeshares .
Applicant Name and Address: Robert Ma er Co oration Shawn Milbern 660 New ort Center
Drive Suite 1050 New ort Beach CA 92660.
Project Location : Downtown S ecific Plan Districts Nos. 7 & 9 orth side of Pacific Coast Hi hwa
between First Street and Beach Blvd. Ci of Huntin on Beach Court of Oran e.
Project Description : Amend the General Plan Downtown S ecific Plan and Coastal Element to add
timeshares a ermitted use in Districts 7 & 9.
This is to advise that the City of Huntington Beach City Council has approved the above described
( Lead Agency ) project on March 21, 2005 and has made the following determination regarding
the above described project:
The City finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially signi ficant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Environmental Impact Report No . 94-9, SCH # 94091018 , with comments and responsesn6
record of the project is available to the General Public at:
City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 9 48
March 21 2005
Date of Final Action Signature
Title
DEPUTY
ETED
APR 0 5 2005
TOM DALY, CLER
Recorded in Official Records , Orange County
Tom Daly , Clerk -Recorder
1111111 IIIII IIIII IIIII 1111111111 IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII 11111111111111111143.00
200585000354 10:30am 04105105
ORDE
DEPUTY
G Wledel\TIME SHARES\NODFORM (11-1-04) DOC 90 63 Z01
0.00 43 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT
DFG 753 5a (8-03)
Lead Agency CIT
County I State Agency of Filing-
0 2Prolb Ale.
Project Applicant Name
Project Applicant Address
8 B8Rl alk 6k CD .
12a ES TGr
Project Applicant (check appropriate box)
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
( Q) Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Co
C
CL' CD C)
Q CD C-D
af CDCD CD C
w U-1 ro
CLC CD r•7CJ
o=-1 ir! CDCD 4- CD .--t
U >-- R.) C) r.-)-s-
Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only)
Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs
County Administrative Fee
Project that is exempt from fees
TOTAL
Signature and title of person receiving payment.
WHITE-PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW-DFG/FASB
.J
(S7?-4
L cP,q #
LOW
•
252375
Date - J-
/W
s
ocumen o.-S
Phoo N mbei:53p-5Z 7
G4-92&(at)
Other pecial District
Entity
0
Local Public Agency 11 School District 1
StateAgencyE]Private
r, ("1 - I ...!LU CC H-
(M la
S `=
CL C)-4 --J-J -D -ice
CJ I- LL -,__J o- 1-I
PINK-LEAD AGENCY
i CD
a) o i r•-)
U_
$850.00
$1,25000
$850 00
$850 00
ECEIVED $
GOLDENROD-STATE AGENCY OF FILING
C7CD
J_
t C)CD
.I U)1 w
O I r•-7 O U L
-ItICMIiC _
Q
Q)
L
IIn
(J) 6
L.
I r•-) T--I
I ,=oC
-01 `) O)1I DJ I CU Co
co 6-
I LO 0
I
1
CL I QJ I-_
L L0 L=)
ro L_-1- 0
Iy LL_
=I i:D UI C) W I
I O) ^J'CC
03 I CJCL'I aZ# 4-1 (3)
U C-1 r-=
ICJ !
> I C1) C)
tr)
ate)Cf l r_-.t , w i l r4,-^ICDI ^i H-1 i C3 Cd_
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title : General Plan Amendment No. 03-03, Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03, Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. 03-02 (Downtown Specific Plan-Timeshares).
Proiect Location : Downtown Specific Plan, Districts Nos. 7 & 9 (North side of Pacific Coast Highway
between First Street and Beach Blvd.) City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange.
Proiect Descri tion : Amend the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan and Coastal Element to add
timeshares a permitted use in Districts 7 & 9.
Findin s of Exem tion:
The City of Huntington Beach has prepared an initial study for the project to evaluate the
potential for adverse environmental impacts and has determined the following:
There is no evidence before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department that the
proposed project has any potential for individual or cumulative adverse effects on wildlife
resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not
individually of cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of
the Fish and Game Code.
FILED
By
APR 0 5 2005
TOM DAL , ERK- ECORDER
By
DEPUTY
POSTED
APR05 2005
TOM DALY, C R -RE RDER
DEPUTY
Howard Zelefs
Planni Director
By: D
Si ature 4 J
Lluc,
Title
Ci of Huntin on Beach
Lead Age y
Date
G Wledel\TIME SHARES\NODFORM (11-1-04) DOC
"TC zIVED
MAR 2 5 ?004City ofyuntin t
MEMORANDUM
TO: ROSEMARY MEDEL
FROM : SHAWN K. MILL BERN
SUBJECT : NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FILING FEE
APPROVAL OF TIMESHARE USE AT 3'D HOTEL SITE
DATE : 3/25/2005
CC:
Please find enclosed a check in the amount of $43.00 payable to the County of Orange for
the filing fee associated with the Notice of Determination per your request.
(Due to the holiday period I was unable to have a company check prepared in time, so the
check enclosed is a personal check.)
0
LOG NUMBER
(-/
_7
/U q 1J
Executive Express
1-800-540-0600
ORANGE CO. RIVERSIDE CO.LONG BEACH
(949) 852-0600 (909) 275-0600 (562) 437-0600
LOS ANGELES CO. LOS ANGELES CO. SAN DIEGO CO.
(3'110) 558-0800 (213) 272.2086 (619) 280-0600
CUSTOMER CODE A IZED BY ,L
Type of Service-Please MarkBe w SPRINT: Package is picked up a delivered directly or as soon as possible.
SPECIAL: Package Is picked up and delivered within three hours. -
STANDARD: Package is picked up and delivered within five hours.
MID-DAY: Package ready by 11:00 a.m. will be delivered the same day by 5:00 p.m.
OVERNIGHT: Package ready for pick up by 5:00 p.m. will be delivered the following day
by noon.
ROUTE: Pre-schedule contract service.
Charge To:k,}17 : RT ,PAYER +Name fi..,.
Address 44i''hc'0IM hi ACH{ CA: L9t2660Y
Pick-Up Location:
Name C'A F. Al r- A C' A r" l n0 I r-
`#1 s t v I I- I 1>.d I %V v.0
Address City
Deliver To:u / 7 7 4 7,!
Name / 2 n , ,-; 1 (>
t/17 I``./3t-d (f11
Address
ECEIVED BY P 1t?EASStflftGlBL t 61 tf TITLE
v
RETURN SIGN
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
E/C'I r j
VER }Q.NOT
WRITE37 SPACE BELOW
DEL. CHG.
RETURN
WT. TM.
LBS
MISC.
Total
Charge
"Our liability for loss or damage to items described hereon is limited to $250.00. The max-imum liability stated herein may be increased by notifying Executive Express Inc. in advance
that the items to be delivered have a value In excess of $250. at a cost of $2 per $100 value
declared In excess of $250. We shall make all reasonable effort for prompt delivery but assume
no responsibility for delivery at a given lime or loss arising from late delivery."
RECEIVER
t/ 72 7 J--T1 ( ,rl P/ i1 'J JY-
A A)
Council/Agency Meeting Held:., Ad-
Deferred/Continued to: 01r
Approved Conditionally Approved Denied ury y er Sign re
Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2005 Departmen Number:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:
SUBMITTED BY:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COU IL MEMBERS
PENEL PE CU RETH-GRAFT, City d inis or
HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Plannin
PL05-11
$iy4°aq cmrmSm
APR 0 8 2005
T
City of H ngtd Beach
_r0
APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-03, LOCAL c-
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 03-02, AND ZOFM1Gy'
TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 (DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN-
TIMESHARES).
Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is a request by the Robert Mayer Corporation to amend
the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element, Downtown Specific Plan
(DTSP) and Local Coastal Program to permit timeshares in the Commercial Visitor land use
catego ry and specifically within Districts 7 and 9 of the DTSP.
The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the project because timeshares are
compatible with and will complement other visitor serving uses in the downtown area. The
Planning Commission's action included additional text changes to the DTSP to re-enforce
existing Local Coastal Program policy regulating timeshares in the Coastal Zone. Staff is in
agreement with the Planning Commission's modifications and recommends the City Council
approve the request (Recommended Action).
Fundin Source : Not applicable.
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: March 21, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PI 05-11
Recommended Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
1. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 03-03 by adopting Resolution No.VXE-1
(Attachment No. 1)," and
2. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 with findings (Attachment No. 2) and adopt
Ordinance No. an ordinance amending the Downtown Specific Plan to
permit timeshares within Districts 7 and 9," and
3. Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 with findings (Attachment No. 4
and adopt the attached Resolution No. - YE - a resolution amending the
Local Coastal Program and requesting certification by the California Coastal Commission
(Attachment No. 5)."
Plannin Commission Action on Februa 8 2005:
THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 BY APPROVING THE DRAFT RESOLUTION
AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION ; APPROVE ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 WITH FINDINGS BY APPROVING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE
AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION; AND APPROVE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 03-02 WITH FINDINGS BY APPROVING THE
DRAFT RESOLUTION AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION
(ATTACHMENT NOS. 1-5) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: LIVENGOOD, SCANDURA, RAY, BURNETT, FURHMAN
NOES: DINGWALL
ABSENT: DWYER
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED
Alternative Action s :
The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s):
1. "Deny General Plan Amendment No. 03-03, Local Coastal Program No. 03-02 and
Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 with findings for denial."
2. "Continue General Plan Amendment No. 03-03, Local Coastal Program No. 03-02
and Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 and direct staff accordingly."
PL05-1IGPA03-03Timeshares -2- 31212005 1:45 PM
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: March 21, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER : PL05-11
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Shawn Milbern, The Robert Mayer Corporation, 660 Newport Center Drive,
Suite 1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
Location: Downtown Specific Plan, District Nos. 7 and 9 (North side of Pacific Coast
Highway between First Street and Beach Blvd.)
General Plan Amendment No. 03-03 represents a request to amend the Huntington Beach
General Plan (Attachment No. 1) pursuant to California Planning, Zoning and Development
laws and the Huntington Beach General Plan as follows:
A. Amend the Land Use Element to add "timeshares" as a permitted use within the
Commercial Visitor (CV) land use category (Attachment No. 1 - pg. II-LU-25 of the
General Plan) and within Subareas 4C - PCH/First Street and 4D - Wate rfront
(Attachment No. 1 - pg. Il-LU-54 of the General Plan).
B. Amend the Land Use Element reference to "overnight accommodations" for the
Commercial General (CG) land use category (Attachment No. 1 - pg. II-LU-25 of the
General Plan) to match the wording in the CV category, i.e. hotels/motels, timeshares.
Timeshares are currently a permitted use within the CV and CG land use districts of the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). The proposed General Plan
Amendment would make the General Plan consistent with the ZSO in this regard.
Zonin Text Amendment No. 03-03 represents a request to change the Downtown
Specific Plan (DTSP -SP5) (Attachment No. 3 pg. 4 of the DTSP) pursuant to Section
247.02 of the Huntington Beach ZSO as follows:
A. Amend DTSP Section 4.0.04 Definitions to include a definition of "timeshares"
(Attachment No. 3-pg 4 of the DTSP).
B. Amend DTSP District 7, Section 4.9.01 Permitted Uses, and District 9, Section
4.11.01 Permitted Uses to allow "timeshares" as a permitted use subject to a
conditional use permit from the Planning Commission (Attachment No. 3-pgs. 51 &
56 of the DTSP).
The purpose of Downtown Specific Plan District 7 (location of approved Pacific City project)
is to provide commercial facilities to serve seasonal visitors to the beaches as well as to
serve local residents on a year round basis. The purpose of District 9 (Waterfront) is to
encourage large, coordinated development that is beach-oriented and open to the public
for both commercial and recreational purposes. The result of the proposed amendments
PL05-11 GPA03-03Timeshares -3- 31212005 1:45 PM
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: March 21, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER : PI 05-11
would be the possibility of timeshares in the visitor serving portions of the Pacific City and
Waterfront projects.
Local Coastal Pro ram Amendment No. 03-02 represents a request to amend the City's
Local Coastal Program (Attachment No. 5) pursuant to Section 247.16 of the ZSO as
follows:
A. Amend the Commercial General (CG) land use category of Typical Permitted Uses
on Table C-1 of the Coastal Element (Attachment No. 5 - pg. IV-C-26 of the LCP) by
deleting the reference to "overnight accommodations" and adding "hotels/motels,
timeshares."
B. Amend the Commercial Visitor (CV) land use category of Typical Permitted Uses on
Table C-1 of the Coastal Element (Attachment No. 5 - pg. IV-C-26 of the LCP) and
Subareas 4C - PCH/First Street (Attachment No. 5.5 - pg. IV-C-37 of the LCP) and
4D - Waterfront (Attachment No. 5 - pg. IV-C-38 of the LCP) to add "timeshares" as
a permitted use.
C. Modify Coastal Element Policy C 3.2.4 to add reference to the allowance of
"timeshares" in the Commercial Visitor (CV) District (Attachment No. 5 - pg. IV-C-108
of the LCP).
D. Incorporate the changes reflected in Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03.
The Coastal Element currently allows timeshares in the CG and Mixed Use Districts. The
proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) would also allow timeshares in the
CV District and specifically within Districts 7 and 9 of the DTSP. The LCPA will be
forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for final approval after being acted on by
the City Council.
The applicant is requesting approval of the proposed amendment to allow for greater
flexibility in reaching the visitor serving market. No development of timeshares is proposed
at this time. This action represents only the legislative process that is subject to City
Council and California Coastal Commission approval. If adopted, it will enable
development proposals to be processed in the future for these two areas of the Downtown
Specific Plan.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
On January 25, 2005, the Planning Commission held a study session to discuss the
proposed amendments. The Planning Commission requested information addressing
parking ratios comparing hotels to timeshares as well as information on the economic impact
of timeshares on the City's Transient Occupancy Tax. On Februa ry 8, 2005, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the proposed requests. Three speakers spoke in favor
of the project. The Planning Commission discussed various aspects of the request including
PL05-1 I GPA03-03Timeshares -4- 3/2/20051:45 PM
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: March 21, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER : PI 05-11
affect on City revenue, information on the background studies, and the implications of
allowing timeshares as part of a master planned development. The Planning Commission
recommended additional text modifications to mirror the language of Coastal Element Policy
3.2.4 to regulate the operation of timeshares and voted to recommend approval of the
subject entitlements and forward to the City Council.
C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The primary issues associated with this request are land use compatibility, conformance with
the Local Coastal Program and the economic impact of timeshares in the context of City
revenue impacts. Additional analysis and discussion related to general timeshare
characteristics, including parking demand, is provided in the Planning Commission staff
report (Attachment No. 6).
Compatibility
Timeshares are currently permitted in the CG and Mixed Use Districts (MH and MV) of the
Coastal Element and the CG and CV Zones of the ZSO citywide. One objective of these
districts is to provide for overnight accommodations for coastal and other visitors to the City.
The City's existing CV land use category allows for hotels/motels and "similar uses oriented
to coastal and other visitors to the City." The inclusion of timeshares in the CV category is
consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use and Coastal Element language of
"similar uses oriented to coastal and other visitors." Timeshares are designed to serve the
visitor market, and the primary reason to locate a timeshare in Huntington Beach is the
attraction of the coastal resources. Timeshares have a similar appearance and function as
hotels. Thus, from a land use compatibility perspective, the allowance of timeshares would
not result in any land use issues different than the currently permitted hotel use, which is a
compatible use within Districts 7 and 9 of the DTSP and surrounding area.
Coastal Issues
Coastal Policy places a high priority on visitor serving uses, providing public access to
coastal resources and ensuring adequate amounts of recreational opportunities within the
coastal zone such that existing resources, e.g. beaches, are not overly impacted. Staff
believes that timeshares fulfill the intended goal of providing visitor serving uses within the
Coastal Zone. In addition, development of a timeshare project would be required to comply
with the development standards contained in the DTSP, which address both access and
open space/recreational amenities.
The City's existing Coastal Element policy on timeshares specifies that at least 25% of
timeshare units be reserved for transient overnight accommodations, i.e. hotels, during the
summer season. The Coastal Commission included this requirement to ensure that at least
25% of the units/rooms would be available to the general public as opposed to only being
available to timeshare owners. The intent of this is to ensure that coastal resources are
available to be enjoyed by the general public. The proposed LCPA does not change the
PL05-1IGPA03-03Timeshares -5- 312120051:45 PM
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: March 21, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER : PL05-11
25% requirement. Moreover, as noted above the Planning Commission's action included
adding the criteria of the City's existing LCP policy to the DTSP. Thus, the DTSP would
clearly state that timeshares must meet the 25% availability requirement and operate similar
to a hotel. Additionally, a timeshare project would be required to demonstrate specifically
how the 25% requirement would be satisfied.
The draft amendment language does require that timeshares be part of a master planned
development. This provides flexibility in meeting the 25% hotel requirement during the
summer season. As an example, if a timeshare project were built on the third site within the
Waterfront Master Plan, then a total of 25% of those units would need to be available for
overnight accommodations (similar to a hotel operation) during the summer months. This
25% total could be entirely within the timeshare project, or a portion or all could be within the
existing Waterfront Hilton or Hyatt hotels since they are part of a master plan. Based on
industry trends, up to approximately 20% of a timeshare's units are not used by the
timeshare owners at any given time and are available for overnight rental.
As noted, the primary reason for the 25% requirement is the importance that the Coastal
Commission places on public access to coastal resources. The City of Huntington Beach
has been exemplary in providing public access to beach visitors. This effort is demonstrated
in the DTSP area with the availability of 2,100 beach parking spaces and another 811
spaces within the City's Main Promenade parking structure. Further, in total there are more
than 10,400 public parking spaces available for beach visitors in the City's Coastal Zone
(Attachment No. 8). The City also continues to add to its stock of visitor serving
accommodations through approval of commercial development within the Coastal Zone,
including the recently approved Pacific City project and The Strand, a mixed-use project with
a hotel currently under construction.
In reviewing the subject request, staff evaluated other potential sites in the Coastal Zone and
nearby vicinity that might be conducive to timeshare projects and other visitor serving
commercial uses. However, there are limited commercial and mixed use zoned parcels in
the Coastal Zone that would meet the current industry site standards for resort development
and thus be conducive to a timeshare project. In addition to Districts 7 and 9, there is one
other property in the Coastal Zone that is large enough to be att ractive for this type of
development. Located at the northwest corner of PCH and Goldenwest, the Aera property is
expected to remain in oil production for the next 20 years. In terms of areas near but outside
the coastal zone, the Huntington Beach ZSO currently allows timeshares in the CG and the
CV Zones, but the majority of the commercial sites outside the Coastal Zone are developed.
For these reasons Districts 7 and 9 appear to be the best opportunity for the inclusion of
timeshares within the Coastal Zone thereby allowing the City to diversify its inventory of
overnight accommodations.
Economic Issues
Various studies conducted by industry experts indicate that the timeshare market continues
to grow, as does the demand for desirable locations and a variety of visitor accommodation
PL05-1IGPA03-03Timeshares -6- 31212005 1:45 PM
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: March 21, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PLO5-11
products. A 2001 Timeshare Industry Report Update prepared for the Economic
Development Department concludes that there is a demand for timeshare units in
Huntington Beach, particularly near the beach and downtown areas. Although there are no
timeshare developments located within the City of Huntington Beach, the City has 19 hotels
and motels with a total of 1,712 guest rooms. A study prepared by PKF Consulting analyzed
the hotels in the Huntington Beach and Sunset Beach area and concluded that there was an
adequate supply of transient visitor accommodations in the area (Attachment No.9). The
addition of timeshares would diversify the City's inventory of overnight accommodations. In
this competitive tourism market, the studies indicate that the timeshare industry has evolved
to be a positive economic impact for cities and that cities should view the inclusion of
timeshares as a potential revenue source.
One of the economic benefits for cities allowing timeshares is that vacation ownership
resorts typically enjoy a significantly higher occupancy than corresponding hotels because:
1) vacations are pre-paid; 2) timeshare owners participate in exchange programs at premium
locations; and 3) rental of unused timeshares are typically marketed aggressively through a
national reservation system. The average timeshare owner stays 7.3 days in the resort area
while the average hotel stay is approximately 2 to 3 days. The average number of
occupants in a timeshare unit is approximately 3.3 visitors, while the average in a hotel is
approximately 2.1 visitors per room (Source: Price WaterhouseCoopers, Economic Impacts
of the Timeshare Industry on the U.S. Economy, 2004). This results in more sales tax
revenue associated with timeshare stays. A 2001 study indicates that occupants of
timeshare units often spend more than hotel guests per week' stay. Occupancy rates of
timeshare projects also tend to be more stable throughout the year than those of hotels.
This will provide a benefit to the City's downtown area by creating stronger demand in the
shoulder (i.e., spring, fall) and winter seasons.
Transient Occupancy Tax/City Revenue
Municipal Code Chapter 3.28, Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), regulates
occupancy tax citywide. The City has the ability to levy a tax on the privilege of occupying a
room or rooms in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging. The ordinance
(and provisions in State law) does not enable the City to collect TOT on timeshares that are
occupied by timeshare owners. However, when timeshare units are not used by timeshare
owners but are instead rented to the public as hotel rooms, a TOT tax would be collected.
The City of Huntington Beach has a TOT of 10%. The TOT rate is established by each city,
with 10% being a typical Orange County rate. Anaheim has the highest Orange County rate
at 14%, while Costa Mesa has the lowest at 6-8%. In 2000 Huntington Beach received $2.4
million of TOT from its hotel and motel rooms.
In 2002, the City amended the TOT Allocation. The intent of this amendment was to expand
the Main Pier Redevelopment Sub-area in anticipation of the future development of the
Wate rfront and the Strand hotel projects as well as the beachfront resort district. Under the
provisions of these ordinances, the Redevelopment Agency receives 60% of the TOT from
the hotels developed on the Wate rfront site in the Main Pier Redevelopment Sub-area with
PL05-1IGPA03 -03Timeshares -7- 312120051:45 PM
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: March 21, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-11
the remaining 40% going to the City. The purpose of this allocation is to assist the
Redevelopment Agency in meeting the financial obligations that facilitated the hotel
development.
As discussed at the Planning Commission public hearing, the potential loss of TOT revenue
in comparison to a traditional hotel use could be offset by the increase in property tax
revenue. Timeshares typically have a higher assessed valuation because they are
assessed based on the sales of the individual timeshare units. The applicant has provided a
sample calculation comparing the existing Hyatt Regency with a timeshare development
(Attachment No. 10). The table shows that the increased property tax revenue associated
with the timeshare use offsets the loss in TOT revenue. Staff believes that a significant
number of traditional hotel rooms would continue to be available in Districts 7 and 9, with a
minimum of 813 in District 9 alone. It should also be noted that The Strand development,
currently under construction, includes a hotel, which adds to the overall supply of hotel
rooms, and TOT, in the downtown area.
D. SUMMARY
The proposed amendments would provide the ability for applicants to request consideration
of a timeshare project within Districts 7 & 9 of the Downtown Specific Plan. From an
implementation perspective, the result of the proposed amendments would be the possibility
of timeshares in the visitor serving portions of the Pacific City and Waterfront projects.
Before any timeshares could be constructed, the Planning Commission would have the
opportunity to review each development proposal for consistency with the City's
development standards.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 03-03, Local
Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02, and Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 based on
the following:
1. The land use is compatible with existing uses in the Downtown Specific Plan.
2. The inclusion of timeshares complements other visitor serving uses in the downtown
area and is consistent with Coastal Zone policies.
3. The addition of timeshares will potentially add to the economic vitality of the City
through increased sales and property tax revenue and diversification of
accommodations.
Environmental Status:
The Environmental Assessment Committee reviewed Environmental Assessment No. 03-03
for conformity with the California Environment Quality Act and concluded that all potentially
significant effects related to the proposal to allow timeshares in the CV land use category
were analyzed and adequately addressed in EIR No. 94-1, prepared for the comprehensive
update of the General Plan. Therefore, no further review is required.
PL05-11GPA03-03Timeshares -8- 312120051:45 PM
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: March 21, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER : PI 05-11
Attachment s :
.
1. Resolution for General Plan Amendment No. 03-03 m Zoos-/y
2. Findings for Approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03
3. Ordinance for Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 6'°-ti
4. Findings for Approval of Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 03-02
5. Resolution for Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 03-02 26 •a r
6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 8, 2005
7. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 8, 2005
8. Coastal Element-Table C-3 Public Parking Opportunities
9. Study of Hotel Supply by /'JZF Consulting
10. Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort and Spa 2004 Tax Revenues
11. Power Point Presentation
RCA Author: Rosemary MedeUMary Beth Broeren
PL05-1IGPA03 -03Timeshares -9- 31212005 1:45 PM
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
JOAN L. FLYNN
CITY CLERK
April 7, 2005
Shawn Milbern
The Robert Mayer Corporation
660 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 1050
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: NOTICE OF ACTION - Permit Timeshares within Districts 7 and 9
Dear Mr. Milbern:
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday,
March 21, 2005 took action on the following Public Hearing: Public Hearing to Consider
Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 03-03, Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03
and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 Downtown Specific Plan - to
Permit Timeshares within Districts 7 and 9 (Nort h Side of Pacific Coast Highway,
between Beach Boulevard and First Street) - Applicant, Robert Mayer Corporation, -
Adopt Resolution Numbers 2005-19 and 2005-20 - Approve for Introduction Ordinance
No. 3702 and Adopted On April 4, 2005 effective immediately upon certification of the
California Coastal Commission.
The action agenda pages 9 and the approved as amended Suggested Findings &
Conditions of Approval are enclosed.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227.
Sincerely,
&-j 0-
Joan L. Flynn
City Clerk
Enclosure: Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval
Action Agenda Pages 9
cc: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
Scott Hess, Planning Manager
Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
(Telephone: 714.536-5227)
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03:
1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 to amend the Downtown Specific Plan,
specifically Districts 7 and 9, to include timeshares as a permitted use and
add a definition of timeshares is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan because the
achievement of diverse land uses will sustain the City's economic viability,
while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and
character.
2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is
compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for the
zoning district for which it is proposed. Districts 7 and 9 currently allow for
hotels, and timeshares are permitted in the Commercial Visitor and
Commercial General districts elsewhere in the City. Timeshares are a visitor-
serving use that is compatible within hotels and visitor serving areas.
3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The allowance
of timeshares in the Downtown Specific Plan will strengthen and diversify the
economic base of the City's primary tourist node. Further, an adequate and
substantial availability of overnight transient accommodations has been
shown to exist within the City providing adequate access to the coastal area.
Also, an increase in such accommodations is reasonably expected to occur in
the future that will accommodate growth in the number of visitors to the City's
coastal zone.
4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and
good zoning practice. Timeshares are very similar in use to hotels, which are
already a permitted use. The allowance of timeshares will not result in any
negative impacts to the community or adjacent uses.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 03-02
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM NO. 03-02:
1. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 amends the City's certified
Local Coastal Program to allow timeshares in the Commercial Visitor Land
Use Category and within Subareas 4C and 4D, change the reference to
overnight accommodations in the Commercial General Land Use Category
to reflect hotels, motels and timeshares and in accord with Zoning Text
Amendment No. 03-03 to allow timeshares within Districts 7 and 9 of the
Downtown Specific Plan. The change is consistent with the Local Coastal
Program because timeshares are similar to the hotel use that is already
permitted within these areas.
2. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 is in accordance with the
policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act by enhancing
the variety of visitor serving uses and increasing the tourism potential from a
larger market base.
3. The amendments conforms with the public access and public recreation
policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act because timeshares are a
visitor serving use subject to the amenity standards of hotels and required to
maintain public access to coastal recreation uses.
(9) April 4, 2005 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 9
Refund Expense Account No. 70730101.69365 (contractual services) to fund the amendment to the
agreement. Submitted by the City Attorney and the Finance Officer. Funding Source: Property
Tax Override Refund Undesignated Fund Balance (Fund 707 - Fiscal Impact Statement attached).
Mayor Pro Tem Sullivan asked for clarification on funding. Amended Recommended
Action to request a written report be given to Council on how process is going, how
many protests submitted to City, how many appeals to Hearing Officer, final resolution,
how many unresolved, etc.
Approved as amended 7 - 0
F. Administrative Items - None
G. Ordinances
G-1. Ordinance for Adoption
G-1a. (City Council) Adopt Ordinance No. 3702 Amending the Downtown Specific Plan of
the City of Huntington Beach (Timeshares) - Ordinance No. 3702 (450.30) "An Ordinance of
the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Downtown Specific Plan of the City of Huntington
Beach." (Approved for introduction at the Public Hearing on March 21, 2005.)
Recommended Action: After the City Clerk reads by title, adopt Ordinance No. 3702, by roll
call vote.
Adopted 5 - 2 (Sullivan, Cook No)
G-2. Ordinance for Introduction
G-2a. (City Council) Approve for Introduction Ordinance No.3704 Amending Chapter
5.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Administrative Expenses for
Bingo Games (570.10) - Ordinance No. 3704 - "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 5.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to
Administrative Expenses for Bingo Games."
Recommended Action: After the City Clerk reads by title, approve for introduction Ordinance
No. 3704, by roll call vote.
Approved 6 -1 (Sullivan No)
H. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Items
H-1 a. Submitt ed by Councilmember Gil Coerper
(City Council) Approve and Communicate to State Assemblyman Tom Harman the City's
Position to Oppose Assembly Bill 991 (DeVore) which would Change the Structure of the
Orange County Vector Control Board of Trustees and Approve Adoption of Alternate
Resolution (120.70)
Communication from Councilmember Gil Coerper transmitting the following Statement of Issue:
Last month, the Orange County Vector Control District (OCVCD) called to order their 7000'
meeting-almost 60 years of serving the people of Orange County. As the county grew and new
cities came into existence, each city had an appointed trustee to represent its interests. The Board
(6) March 21, 2005 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 6
C-3. City Treasurer's Report
C-3a. (City Council) Review and Accept Shari Freidenrich, City Treasurer's January 2005
Investment Summary Report Titled City of Huntington Beach Summary of City Investment
Portfolio, Bond Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity (310.20)
Communication from City Treasurer Shari Freidenrich transmitting the Monthly Investment
Report for January 2005.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Review and accept the monthly investment report. Following review of the report, by motion
of Council, accept the Monthly Investment Report Summary of Investment Portfolio, Bond
Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity for January 2005, pursuant to Section 17.0
of the Investment Policy of the City of Huntington Beach.
Approved 6 - 0 (1 - Green out of room)
D-1. City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 03-
, Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02
Downtown Specific Plan - to Permit Timeshares within Districts 7 and 9 (North Side of Pacific
Coast Highway, between Beach Boulevard and First Street) - Applicant, Robert Mayer
Corporation, - Adopt Resolution Numbers 2005-19 and 2005-20 - Approve for Introduction
Ordinance No. 3702 (450.30)
Communication from the Planning Director.
Applicant: Robert Mayer Corp., Shawn Milbern
Request : To amend the Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element, Huntington Beach
Coastal Element (Local Coastal Program), and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) to permit
"timeshares" as an allowed use subject to a conditional use permit from the Planning
Commission within District 7 (Visitor-Serving Commercial) and District 9 (Commercial
Recreation) of the Downtown Specific Plan.
Location: Downtown Specific Plan Districts 7 & 9 (north side of Pacific Coast Highway between
Beach Blvd. and First Street.) Robert Mayer Corporation.
Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that an initial environmental assessment for this
agenda item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. It was determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR No. 94-1 pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR No. 94-1, nothing further is required. The environmental impact
report is on file at the City of Huntington Beach and is available for public inspection as
described below.
(7) March 21, 2005 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 7
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be
available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, March 17, 2005.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence
for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there
are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items.
Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
1. Staff report
2. City Council discussion
3. Open public hearing
4. Following public input, close public hearing
PowerPoint titled Timeshares GPA 03-03, LCP 03-02, ZTA 03-03 Applicant: The Robert Mayer
Corporation Date: March 21,2005 is included in the agenda packet.
Recommended Action:
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to:
1. Approve General Plan Amendment No 03-03 by adopting Resolution No. 2005-19 - "A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan
Amendment No. 03-03" (Attachment No. 1);
and
2. Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 with findings (Attachment No. 2) and after
the City Clerk reads by title, approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3702 - "An Ordinance of
the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Downtown Specific Plan of the City of Huntington
Beach" (Attachment No. 3);
and
3. Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 with findings (Attachment No. 4)
and adopt Resolution No. 2005-20 -"A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 to Amend the Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to Permit Timeshares in the Commercial
Visitor Land Use Category and to Reflect Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03 and Requesting
Certification by the California Coastal Commission." (Attachment No. 5)
Rosema ry Medel Associate Planner gave PowerPoint presentation . Also referred to Late
Communication from Chamber of Commerce supporting recommendations . Council
discussion ensued. City Clerk reread Late Communication. Public Hearing opened, one
a I' ublic Hearin
Approved 5 - 2 (Cook No, Sullivan No)
D-2. (City Council) Public Hearing Opened and Continued Open from March 7, 2005 to
Consider Appeal Filed by Applicant Mike Padian , Padian Team Consulting, of the Planning
Commission's Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-08 - Good Shepherd
Cemetery, 8301 Talbert Avenue (N/E Comer of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue)
(420.40)
HUNTINGTON BEACH
0
CCAMMBRCE
March 11, 2005
Honorable Mayor Jill Hardy
And Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
MAR 42000
City
OfHuTtingtonBeach
Re: Land Use Change to Allow Timeshares in Districts 7 & 9 of the DTSP
City Council Hearing March 21, 2005
Dear Mayor Hardy:
The Board of Directors of the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce wishes to
express our unanimous support for the proposed changes to land use regulations that
would allow timeshare use in Districts 7 & 9 of the Downtown Specific Plan. Such a
change will allow future development that will benefit the local community and
businesses by providing another needed lodging alternative in the City. Additionally,
timeshare developments are a modern, growing trend in the travel industry, and offer the
benefit of providing a more stable supply of visitors to our City.
The City needs to encourage continued development of quality visitor -serving facilities in
our community . This proposal takes an import ant step in that direction. We ask you to
approve the proposal at your meeting of March 21, 2005 and to continue your support
when the matter is reviewed by the California Coastal Commission in the future.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Joyce Riddell
President
1
cc: City Administrator
Planning Director
JR/sj
19891 Beach Blvd, Suite 140
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-8888
Fax (714) 960-7654 ACCFf DIIfD
d JE
•
ACTION AGENDA
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2005
HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER
2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648
4:30 P.M. - ROOM B-8 CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL
CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER
A P P P P P P
ROLL CALL: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman
Commissioner Livengood arrived at 5:00 p.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL
A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS
A-1. INTRODUCTION OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF - Herb Fauland
STAFF PRESENTATION - NO ACTION TAKEN
A-2. PARK AVENUE MARINA - Paul DaVeiga
STAFF PRESENTATION - NO ACTION TAKEN
A-3. DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN ANNUAL REVIEW - Ron Santos
STAFF PRESENTATION - NO ACTION TAKEN
A-4. BROWN ACT/PROPOSITION 59 - Leonie Mulvihill
STAFF PRESENTATION - NO ACTION TAKEN
A-5. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PLANNERS INSTITUTE - Steve Ray
COMMISSION DISCUSSION - NO ACTION TAKEN
B. AGENDA REVIEW UPDATE ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS - Herb Fauland
Herb Fauland identified the items scheduled for public hearing and informed the
Commission that no new information was received on either item.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS - NONE
D. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting
One speaker provided comments on Item No. A-2 (Park Avenue Marina).
6:30 P.M. - RECESS FOR DINNER
(05ag0208 Action)
• 7:00 P.M. - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER
A P P P P P P
ROLL CALL: Dwyer , Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman
AGENDA APPROVAL - APPROVED, 6-0-1(DWYER-ABSENT)
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
One speaker provided comments on Public Hearing Item No. B-2 (Downtown Specific
Plan Timeshares), and one speaker provided comments on condominium conversions.
B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
B-1. ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 90-1 COMPLIANCE REPORT Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
Request: Annual review of the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement
Compliance Report. Location: Approximately 490 acres located between Ellis
Avenue on the north, Huntington Street on the east, Edwards Street on the west,
and the Seacliff Golf Course on the South. Pro'ect Planner: Mary Beth
Broeren
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Determine that the Developer is in
compliance with the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement, approve the 2004
Compliance Report and forward to the City Council for review and acceptance."
APPROVED AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, 6-0-1 (Dwyer-Absent)
B-2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 LOCAL COAST PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO. 03-02 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN-TIMESHARES : Applicant: Robert Mayer
Corp., Shawn Milbern Request: To amend the Huntington Beach General Plan
Land Use Element, Huntington Beach Coastal Element (Local Coastal Program),
and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) to permit "timeshares" as an allowed use
subject to a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission within District 7
(Visitor-Serving Commercial) and District 9 (Commercial Recreation) of the
Downtown Specific Plan. Location: Downtown Specific Plan District 7 & 9
Commercial Visitor District (north side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach
Blvd. and First Street.) Pro'ect Planner: Rosemary Medel
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A) "Recommend approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 03-03 by approving the draft Resolution and forward to the
City Council for adoption;" B) "Recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment
No. 03-03 with findings by approving the draft Ordinances and forward to the City
Council for adoption;" and C) "Recommend approval of Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 03-02 with findings by approving the draft Resolution and
forward to the City Council for adoption."
APPROVED AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, 6-1-1 (Dingwall-No,
Dwyer-Absent)
(05ag0208 Action) -2-
C. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE.
D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - NONE.
E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST ITEMS - NONE.
E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Dwyer - Absent.
Commissioner Scandura -
Commissioner Dingwall - None.
Commissioner Ray -
Commissioner Livengood -
Commissioner Burnett -
Commissioner Fuhrman -
F. PLANNING ITEMS
F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
Scott Hess Plannin Mana er - reported that no Planning Department items
were heard before the City Council on February 7, 2005.
F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING
Scott Hess Plannin Mana er - reported on the Planning Department items
scheduled before the City Council on February 22, 2005.
F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
Herb Fauland Princi al Planner - reminded the Commission that the regular
meeting of February 23, 2005 has been cancelled, and reported on the items
scheduled for March 8, 2005.
ADJOURNMENT : Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of March 8, 2005. The
February 23, 2005 meeting has been canceled.
Agenda approval Dingwall/Scandura 6-0
Oral Co mmunications
Paul Cross - opposes timesharess on PCH - not a mecca for weatlthy overnight
visitors - construction projects on PCH should be scaled back, discussed
current hotel projects, sports complex idle, oldtown mix of SF and commerical
- visitation followed by idlness - provide current occupancy rates from Hyatt
and Hilton
Ray - provide comments during B-2
Chris Zuhmeha - apartment conversion issue and should a response be requested?
Contact Scott Hess on complex conversions
Oral Comm Closed
B-1 HS
Disclosures: Scandura/staff, Ray/Staff
MBB/Staff report
Purpose-developer compliance
Background
(05ag0208 Action)-3-
Analysis
Developer completed 980 of improvements
Recommendation
Forward to CC
•
Fuhrman - parks not completed? MBB corner of Promendate/Seacliff
Minor improvements at Seapoint and Garfield
Ray - should items have been completed before this review?
MBB - items are tied to permits before issuance - not mandatory prior to
report - provisions in development agreement - landscape clean up item - goal
is this year
Ray - 14th year for review - 15 year review period; does it appear that all
requirements will be met?
MBB - yes
Ray - Areas not developed - plan call for all areas?
MBB - no, much of the area within the SP is not covered within the agreement
(CHevron, etc.) - smaller parcels within Industrial - not development
agreement properties; however, SP remains in place, even when the agreement
expires
Ray - discussion on extending the deevlopment agreement?
MBB - none
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM B-1
Bill Holman, PLC, was available for questions. introduced himself, request
approval. park improvements, landscape clean up completed this month -
undeveloped properties - owner is in sole control of developing that property
- PLC holdings, last piece of residential being developed
pleasure to work with staff and Commission
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Scandura/Livengood approve, 6-0 approved
B-2 - Timeshares
Disclosures: Burnett - driven by site, Fuhrman spoke with staff, Scandura
spoke with staff and CC Coerper, Ray visited site and spoke with staff
Staff report - Powerpoint
Analysis Compatibility
Timeshare parking demand
Coastal Issues
Master Plan Concept
Economic Issues
General Timeshare Characteristics
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Staff Reco mmendation
Questions:
Dingwall - questions by callers - page 3, 4C and 4D
Scratch "timeshares" on page 7
Comparison of Revenues on Att 12 - In a Red Area, property tax goes to the
Agency, with a small portion going to the General Fund
Duran - when the city needs money, the RED AG can provide funding - separate
legal entity
Dingwall: %? of property tax
Duran - 10% of the 1%
Dingwall: 90/10 split?
Dingwall - TOT in a RA have the same split?
Duran - City gets 40%, Agency gets 60%; Hilton/all goes to the General Fund
(05ag0208 Action) -4-
Dingwall - sales taxi •
Duran - all to city
Dingwall - ground lease?
Duran - Agency
Dingwall/membership, maintenance?
Duran - ownership until sold
Dingwall - property tax collected annually? - 260 units?
Ray - ownership, not membership - those who purchase record a deed - discussed
first year collected based on valuation
Duran - Assessor says based on the value when sold
Dingwall - will not levy transient occupancy tax on Timeshare?
Duran - correct - explaination
Dingwall - exchange between hotels - troubled by 4 hotels required to maintain
25% occupancy by the CCC during peak season
Fuhrman - relationship between Mayer Corp and District 7, and the applicant?
Medel - none
Fuhrman, page 9 - Master Plan Concept - correlates to final text
modifications, why use language that mandates this to be part of a Master
Plan?
Medel - allow for flexibility (one structure, or spread out)
Fuhrman - benefit to the City? for 25% requirement during high season, shifted
to the hotel
Medel - provide a variety of visitor accomodating uses
Fuhrman - not concerned about true timeshare structure on District 9?
Medel - land use decision as a Master Plan Concept - is appropriate - the
applicant could explain quality of product - will meet 25% requirement
Fuhrman - previous definition of timeshare prior to staff report?
MBB - proposing to include a definition of timeshares within the Specific
Plan; previous definition slightly different provided in January
Fuhrman - definition in ZSO? why not include in the General Plan
Medel - most appropriate for Downtown Specific Plan
Fuhrman - Why?
Medel - final text clarifies and modifies to reflect current industry and
includes Master Plan Concept
Hess - not unco mmon to reco mmend a slight variation of definition when related
to a specific plan and its goals and objectives
Fuhrman - 400 room hotel in district 7 - does it have to be? (page 6) - could
it completely become timeshares?
Medel - LCP would require that during peak season, 25% of the units be
available for overnight acco mmodations
Fuhrman - adequate supply of hotel rooms (Att 14.2)
MBB - developer address question during public hearing
Fuhrman - page 6 and General Plan Conformance/Land Use Element
Medel - explained spending projections, prepaid occupancy
MBB - when 3rd hotel site comes forth, the hotel industry may decide to modify
plans - the timeshare industry is more stable
Fuhrman - economic study compares timeshares spending more in one week - where
in the report? Hotel stays are 2 to 3 days, versus timeshares at 7-8 days -
compare full week to full week?
Medel - not within the report - applicant to respond
Fuhrman - page 6, coastal element - do studies show that our city is lacking
in diversity in offering visitor acco mmodations?
Medel - no, just adds to what is available
Fuhrman - applicant to explain 2 comparison cities (Att 14)
Fuhrman - substantiate the need for timeshares
MBB - growing industry, applicant requests because of a need - hotel
developers Makar and Mayer Corp both agree - staff says the request is
compatible with land use
Fuhrman - varied valuation figures from 9.10 and 50% versus Att 12 and 75%
from the assessors office
Duran - figures on Att 9 are worldwide, Att 12 is county figure, referenced
footnotes on Att 9.10 - not necessarily for HB, just projections
(05ag0208 Action) -5-
MBB - 75% represented a recent figure based on OC A0 ssor 's within the
past few weeks, verifi d by the OC Assessor
Fuhrman - page 9 - timeshare parking demand - study done? data to support?
Medel - used for hotels and motels - complies with the standards provided
MBB 1.1 ratio applies to hotels and motels in the city; however, a parking
study has not been done on all timeshares
Fuhrman - staff had any communication with district 7, Makar? Pacific City? -
have they made overtures about timeshares?
MBB - Staff has had discussions about district 7 - based on discussions with
Makar properties (top of page 7)
Fuhrman - Att 9,9.8 and 9.10 - explaination of Marriott, versus industry
standard (90%to 20%)
Ray - identified according to Marriott
Scandura - two master plan devleopments - Mayer, and Makar (Districts 7 and 9)
percentage rates (VIEW TAPE)
Dingwall - purchase requirements and buyers property tax
Duran - 35K x 51 x ...
Dingwall - operator can rent out room if occupant chooses not to use
Livengood -focus on land use item
Fuhrman - district 7 and 9 terminology - why is the applicant omitting bed and
breakfast inns?
MBB - staff proposed language change makes consistent to CV language on same
page - B&B plays very small role, certainly can be included
Dingwall - zone CV and CG?
Medel - allow timeshares within the CV land use category, and the Coastal
Element - timeshares permitted within the CG zone
Dingwall - property zone CG and timeshare conversion - what standards must be
met?
Medel - must meet hotel standards
Ray - Master Plan Concept on Mayer property - district 9 - current development
agreement for 3rd hotel?
Medel - correct
Ray -does the agreement include timeshares?
Leonie - does not specify timeshares - applicant to address
PUBLIC HEARING B-2
Shawn Milbern, Mayer Corp - w/Makar properties -underscore additional options
for devlopment hospitality uses - hotel use prices skyrocketed, - most
developments include timeshares - allow sale to provide a return on its
investments - all major hotels involved. Timehare visitors stay longer, spend
more money than traditional hotel quests - modern trends in the hospitality
industry.
PKF Consulting - leading hotel industry consultants - what is an adequate
supply? why compare with other cities? Hyatt Corp and PKF used Carmels
conversion (similarities with CCC and City) - same limitations - did
comparison - HB has a reasonable supply - Build another hotel because
experience the overall percentages that are available to the City
Ray - PKF Study listed HB and Sunset Beach together ... no revenues from
Sunset Beach hotels, why include them?
Milbern - viewed hotel supply as part of the coastal area (general supply of
acco mmodations) - inconsequential
Compare visitor hotels to timeshares - experience as hotel operators says
typical stay is 2 to 3 days with large check out bill - tend to eat at the
hotel, don't have the opportunity to venture out, and large percentage of
corporate groups for business - timeshares, 100% individual liesure - visit
local community, dine downtown, become part of the community for a longer time
- average spent $1000/week, hotel business is cyclable - timeshare is presold
- time is prepicked, even supply of visitors
(05ag0208 Action) -6-
Marriott Corp 90% pl ccupancy rate - major hotels rience 90% plus OCR -
includes use by rente W (20%) - stable base of week a* week users , layered
in by rental use raises OCR
Fuhrman - 90% from Marriott ... are you expecting a 90% OCR?
Milbern - for hotels, no ... but develop a timeshare at present location, yes
... positive results and good expectation
Millbern - valuation and economic models - exact taxes paid on the Hyatt, lets
assume half of rooms developed as timeshares - showed, generally that the two
projects are consistent for their potential of revenue generation - 75% was
ultra conservative, minus deductions for furniture
Millbern - development agreement allowed for master plan project - zoning
regulations required that a master plan be prepared - does not specifically
address timeshares - hospitality uses
Burnett - Economic Development report - Page 9.9 "multiplier effect"
Millbern - explained how dollars spent multiplies
Fuhrman - 25% requirement ... VIEW TAPE
Millbern - generally, built high quality hotel rooms pursuant to a master plan
project, now asking for another element - more than overwhelmingly satisfied
the requirement - timeshares are beneficial - CCC created conditions for
smaller communities - HB doesn't show unavailability of hotel rooms in the
summer months - more involvement with major hotel companies
Doug Traub, Visitors Bureau, resident - increase revenue in the community -
favors staffs recommendation - may not have new facts but have different
perspective - diversity of products - overnight destination - timeshares are
part of the fabric - endorsement - units for sale will be known worldwide -
amenity stabilization (restaurants) - keep them in business - increase quality
of life - influx of visitors - longterm - learn about area attractions - year
round visitation - low impact on resident amenities - won't compete for
parking - will create jobs - support industries - shopping - city sales tax,
property tax, TOT - consistent with a vision for overnight destination
Ethen Thacher - Makar properties - support -
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Livengood - Motion/Scandura second to approve -
Dingwall - revenue will be neutral to city, and positive to Redevlopment
Agency -troubling-exchange of hotel rooms to meet CC obligations ...
discussed fraud in the industry - can the present management team obligate
themselves to stick around ... fraud takes place with opportunity and need or
desire ... Boardroom sculldugery - Commissioners consider a condition that the
exchange of rooms between hotels to meet CC obligations be prohibited - each
unit provide 25% of its units to be open for TOT
MBB - Mayer Corp and Agency reporting requirements - must submit monthly
reports for revenue generation - monitoring tool
Scandura - strictly from a land use perspective, very little change -
reacreation versus hotel users - 25% TOT among hotels - don't feel the City
should be directing the Mayer Corp where to direct the TOT - various ways to
demonstrate requirements met - conditions can be put into the CUP applicant -
stick to 25% requirement for TOT - if sold, next owner must maintain also -
add langauge to ZSO Att 3.5 and 3.6 -
(05ag0208 Action) -7-
Livengood - over 800 Sh class hotel rooms - strand 22 rooms, good, solid #
of rooms, timeshares ovide diversity
0 Fuhrman - advocates looking at the law and ensure that law is fulfilled -
attorneys for the applicant's definition - manipulation of language on Att 7 -
Coastal Policy - 25% of timeshare units during high season are available for
overnight use - abiding by policy; page 9 and 10 language
MBB - intent of the CC 25% requirement - make sure rooms available to the
general public - make sure a single timeshare development, no other hotels
exist, must make available to the general public 25% overnight acco mmodations
Dingwall - amend motion prohibit exchange of rooms to meet CC 25% requirement
Ray - concerns - sharing concept, while Mayer Corp is a great owner with 3
separate properties, does not prohibit them from selling to separate
ownerships - what happens?
MBB - timeshares would require CUP and CDP - conditions would require 25% ...
if sharing is not avaiable, must be provided within the 3rd hotel... specific
to that scenario - 2 different applications - legitimate land use application
that can be proposed - same applies, looking at provision very carefully to
meet the 25% requirement
Ray - condition as part of the land use decision tonight?
MBB - future applications would have to comply with Coastal Zone policy -
include 25% within the downtown specific plan - staff supports - include in
district 7 and 9
Medel - reference Att5.3, C.3.2.4 a - put into Att 3.5 and 3.6, creating
4.9.12 and - Scandura read language ...
Livengood would accept the seconds amendment.
Dingwall - in favor of proposal without trading element
Ray - condition of future entitlements? Would it necessitate?
MBB - part of the coastal document and specific plan, becomes a development
standard
Mulvihill - add within 3.5 and 3.6 advisable (4.11.07 and 4.11.08; 4.9.12 and
4.9.13) .. MBB to propose language
Livengood will accept amendment, and second also
Fuhrman/Scandura discussed the intent of providing a definition
MBB - Motion would still allow 25% flexibility within the master plan area
Fuhrman - restrictions, ....
Livengood - allowing use of hotels to cover the 25% requirement - condition
locks in provisions if split ownership occurs in the future
Dingwall - explain what is the intent of the motion
Hess - sections (staff will modify applicable sections)
land use issue only - do not proceed into project oriented decision - stay
with minor amendment and keep flexible
Ray - try to amend sections of the specific plan without making it a project-
level situation, but to ensure the issue is addressed at the project level
Ray - solicitors?
(05ag0208 Action) -8-
b
Mayer - none ... no! 0
Dingwall - speaks to all timeshares ...0
Hess - just districts 7 and 9 (provisions apply) (standards encompass two
specific areas)
Hess - will not apply to other districts
Dingwall - Scenario of swapping rooms in another district
Hess - Zoning Text Amendment required
Ray/Mulvihill explained how the ZTA affects Districts 7 and 9 only
Fuhrman - addressed concerns about splitting of ownership and master plan
development - does it imply mono ownership
Hess - address issue at the project level
Comments
Scandura - discussed upscale hotels - proud of development - PKF report, 1/2
of hotel rooms in HB are 4 diamond resorts - we need more moderately priced
hotels - diversify stock in hotel rooms for families, seniors - concerns with
city chasing after high scale hotels - city has competition, newport, laguna
and long beach ... embassy suites, homewood suites, etc. - nice for business
travelers
Livengood - have staff report back on SRO/Ellis & Beach (project come to a
standstill... construction going forward? ... City Adminstrator newsletter.
Burnett - pleased with timeshares
Fuhrman - discussed other amendments and Roberts Rules of Order - great hotel
base - document caused questions to be raised - late delivery of material -
felt amendments were not considered - appreciates Commissioner's looking at
ideas - kept focus on ideas
Ray - thanks PC for good discussion, assure all PC work counts. terms of
procedure ... did not vote because call for the questions ... Roberts Rules
filibuster ... Commission can object to the call, and a 2/3 vote is required
for voting ... if lights are on, they will be answered. offering an amendment
to a motion on the floor, if maker and second accepts, then an amended motion
must be made, and a second received. Roberts Rules state only 2 amended
motions can be made on any particular motion for the entire body. Ask
clarification/point of information
CC/PC items heard at future meeting
Adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
(05ag0208 Action) -9-
Timeshares Staff Report Pagc 1 of 1
a
" &-J ,c
Medel, Rosemary
From: Shawn Millbern [skm@mayercorp com]",,.e V
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:00 PM S
To: Medel, Rosemary
Cc: Ethen Thacher
Subject: RE, Timeshares Staff Report
Dear Rosemary,
Thank you for an excellent report! The only minor suggestion I have is that you add two brief sentences
describing the availability of over 10,400 parking spaces in the City's Coastal Zone and 1,712 hotel
rooms in the City in the 2nd full paragraph on page 6. I have attached a page with that suggested
addition, as well as a copy of a table from the City's Coastal Element that tabulates the public parking in
the City's Coastal Zone for your reference.
Again, thank you for your hard work and cooperation.
Shawn K. Millbern
Senior Vice President
The Robert Mayer Corporation
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, California 92660
949-759-8091, ext. 251
skm ma erco com
From: Medel, Rosemary [mailto:rmedel@surfcity-hb.org]
Sent : Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:20 AM
To: Shawn Millbern
Cc: Broeren, Mary Beth
Subject : Timeshares Staff Report
<<PL05-11 GPA03-03Timeshares. DOC>>
Please review and provide your comments if any by the end of today.
Thanks
Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
City of Huntington Beach
(714) 374-1684
Fax (714) 374-1540
3/2/2005
As noted, the primary reason for the 25% requirement is the importance that the
Coastal Commission places on public access to coastal resources. The City of
Huntington Beach has been exemplary in providing public access to beach visitors.
This effort is demonstrated in the DTSP area with the availability of 2,100 beach
parking spaces and another 811 spaces within the City's Main Promenade parking
structure . Further in total there are more than 10 400
ublic arkin s aces available for beach visitors in the Ci 's Coastal Zone.
Additionall the Ci has 19 hotels and motels with a total of 1 712 uest rooms.
The City also continues to add to its stock of visitor serving accommodations
through approval of commercial development within the Coastal Zone, including
the recently approved Pacific City project and The Strand, a mixed-use project with
hotel currently under construction.
I
a
LI
City of Huntington Beach
Coastal Element
Prepared for:
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , California 92648
(714) 536-5271
I
1
Prepared by:
Lawrence Associates
32092 Via Carlos
San Juan Capistrano , California 92675
(949) 661-8175
Contact : Catherine O'Hara
LI
I
Adopted by Huntington Beach City Council : November 15,1999
Certified by California Coastal Commission : June 14, 2001
Became effective : November 13, 2001
LI
0
NATURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER
COASTAL ELEMENT
TABLE C-3
Public Parking Opportunities within Coastal Divisions
Coastal
Zone Division
(Figure C-4)
Parking
Location
Free
Parking
Spaces
Metered
Parking
Spaces
Total
Parking
Spaces Comments
Zone 1 PCH (on-street)*300 300
Peter's Landing 630 630
HH Yacht Club 76 76 $1.00/hour
Sunset Beach*672 672 4 hr.
Zone 2 Bolsa Chica State
maximum
Beach 2200 2200 $5.00/day
PCH (on-street)324 324 $1.50/hour,
Zone 3 PCH (on-street)260 260 $1.50/hour
Surf Theatre Lot 39 39 Permit Only
Zone 4 Pier Plaza 421 421 $1.50/hour
Main Promenade 815 815 $1.50/hour
PCH (on-street)486 486 $1.50/hour
Business Streets 206 206 $1.50/hour
Residential Streets 218 218 $1.50/hour
City Beach Lot 250 250 $1.50/hour
City Beach Lot 1813 1813 $7.00/day
Zone 5 HB State Beach 1200 1200 $5.00/day
PCH/River (inland)110 110
PCH/River (ocean)75 75
Beach Blvd. (1600'83 83 $1.50/hour
inland)
Newland to channel 75 75
Magnolia to channel 81 81
Brookhurst to 22 22
TOTAL
channel
1,965 8,481 10,446
Note: *Most or all located outside of the City's Coastal Zone boundary.
Commercial Parking
Much emphasis has been placed on providing adequate parking for commercial facilities in the
Coastal Zone to ensure that commercial parking demands do not negatively impact recreational
beach user parking. This issue was especially significant when planning for the re-development
of the City's Downtown area into a dense node of visitor serving commercial facilities. The
unique parking issues of the Downtown area have been resolved through the development and
implementation of the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan (see Technical
Appendix). The Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan was adopted in 1993 and
provides for shared parking facilities including on-street parking, lots and nearby municipal
parking structures. Annual reports and modifications of the Master Plan, if needed, will serve to
ensure that adequate parking facilities are provided for existing and planned commercial uses in
the Downtown area. Other commercial areas within the City's Coastal Zone, but outside the
downtown area, meet their parking needs through implementation of the City's Zoning
Timeshares Staff Report Page 1 of 2
• •
Medel, Rosemary
From: Hess, Scott
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:30 PM
To: Broeren, Mary Beth, Medel, Rosemary
Subject: RE: Shawn's Comments-Timeshares Staff Report
sure ...............
-----Original Message-----
From: Broeren, Mary Beth
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:28 PM
To: Medel, Rosemary; Hess, Scott
Subject : RE: Shawn's Comments-Timeshares Staff Report
I think the changes are helpful and should be included.
-----Original Message-----
From : Medel, Rosemary
Sent : Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:05 PM
To: Broeren, Mary Beth; Hess, Scott
Subject : FW: Shawn's Comments-Timeshares Staff Report
Importance: High
Are you both in agreement with the suggested changes and new attachment? Howard has signed
the report. However, if you both agree I will make the changes and get his final
approval. Outstanding attachments for the RCA are the PC minutes and resolutions/ord from the
Attorney's Office, which we will have before due to Admin on Monday 3/7.
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Millbern [mailto:skm@mayercorp.com]
Sent : Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:00 PM
To: Medel, Rosemary
Cc: Ethen Thacher
Subject : RE: Timeshares Staff Report
Dear Rosemary,
Thank you for an excellent report! The only minor suggestion I have is that you add two
brief sentences describing the availability of over 10,400 parking spaces in the City's
Coastal Zone and 1,712 hotel rooms in the City in the 2nd full paragraph on page 6. I have
attached a page with that suggested addition, as well as a copy of a table from the City's
Coastal Element that tabulates the public parking in the City's Coastal Zone for your
reference.
Again, thank you for your hard work and cooperation.
Shawn K. Millbern
Senior Vice President
3/2/2005
Timeshares Staff Report Page 2 of 2
• 0
The Robert Mayer Corporation
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, California 92660
949-759-8091, ext. 251
skm ma erco com
From : Medel, Rosemary [mailto:rmedel@surfcity-hb.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:20 AM
To: Shawn Millbern
Cc: Broeren, Mary Beth
Subject: Timeshares Staff Report
<<PL05-11 GPA03-03Timeshares.DOC>>
Please review and provide your comments if any by the end of today.
Thanks
Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
City of Huntington Beach
(714) 374-1684
Fax (714) 374-1540
3/2/2005
Timeshares Staff Report Page 1 of 2
Medel, Rosemary
From: Broeren, Mary Beth
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1.28 PM
To: Medel, Rosemary; Hess, Scott
Subject: RE- Shawn's Comments-Timeshares Staff Report
I think the changes are helpful and should be included.
-----Original Message-----
From: Medel, Rosemary
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:05 PM
To: Broeren, Mary Beth; Hess, Scott
Subject: FW: Shawn's Comments-Timeshares Staff Report
Impo rt ance: High
Are you both in agreement with the suggested changes and new attachment? Howard has signed the
report. However, if you both agree I will make the changes and get his final approval. Outstanding
attachments for the RCA are the PC minutes and resolutions/ord from the Attorney's Office, which we will
have before due to Admin on Monday 3/7.
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Millbern [mailto:skm@mayercorp.com]
Sent : Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:00 PM
To: Medel, Rosemary
Cc: Ethen Thacher
Subject : RE: Timeshares Staff Report
Dear Rosemary,
Thank you for an excellent report! The only minor suggestion I have is that you add two brief
sentences describing the availability of over 10,400 parking spaces in the City's Coastal Zone and
1,712 hotel rooms in the City in the 2nd full paragraph on page 6. I have attached a page with that
suggested addition, as well as a copy of a table from the City's Coastal Element that tabulates the
public parking in the City's Coastal Zone for your reference.
Again, thank you for your hard work and cooperation.
Shawn K. Millbern
Senior Vice President
The Robert Mayer Corporation
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, California 92660
949-759-8091, ext. 251
skm ma erco com
From: Medel, Rosemary [mailto:rmedel@surfcity-hb.org]
3/2/2005
Timeshares Staff Report Page 2 of 2
Sent : Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:20 AM
To: Shawn Millbern
Cc: Broeren, Mary Beth
Subject : Timeshares Staff Report
<<PL05-11 GPA03-03Timeshares DOC>>
Please review and provide your comments if any by the end of today.
Thanks
Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
City of Huntington Beach
(714) 374-1684
Fax (714) 374-1540
3/2/2005
COY
ofNyntn9tO"
CITY *HUNTINGTON BEACH g 23 2005
REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES
Gail Hutton, City Att orney
Date:
2/15/05
Request made by: Telephone: Department:
Rosema ry Medel x1684 Planning
0
INSTRUCTIONS : File request in the City Attorney's Office. Outline reasons for this request and state
facts necessary for City Attorney to respond. Please attach all pertinent information and exhibits.
TYPE OF LEGAL SERVICES REQUESTED:
® Ordinance Opinion Stop Notice
® Resolution Lease Bond
Meeting Contract/Agreement Deed
Court Appearance Insurance Other:
Is Request for Preparation of Contract form attached? Yes ® No
Are exhibits attached? ® Yes El No
If for City Council action,
Agenda Deadline March 2
Council Meeting March 21
If not for Council action,
desired completion date:
Unless otherwise specified herein, I
consent to the disclosure of th e
informa ' contained in this RLS to all
memb f the City C cil.
Si ature of Depart ment Head
COMMENTS
Legislative draft ordinance and resolutions including exhibits for GPA No. 03-03, ZTA No. 03-03 and LCPA No. 03-02 and
amendments to policies and codes to allow timeshares in the downtown area.
Routing: GCH PDA LB SL JF ADL SF JM
This Request for Legal Services has been assigned to attorney
extension . His/her secretary is
Notes: File Name:
WP No.:
[71 Shaded areas for City Attorney's Office use only.
I
extension
Date Completed:
RECEIVED
FEB 1 7 2005
City of Hunttngton Beach
City Attorney's Office
RLS No.A 605 '
AAssn To
Date
020805rm 2/15/2005 1:29 PM
•
Medel, Rosema
From: Dominguez, Dave
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 7.45 AM
To: Medel, Rosemary
Subject: RE. Beach Parking
•
No, just City Beach lots. Do you need the number of spaces in the lots north of Goldenwest as well? Let me know.
Thanks,
David D.
-----Original Message-----
From: Medel, Rosemary
Sent : Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:16 AM
To: Dominguez, Dave
Subject : RE: Beach Parking
Does the beach parking include both State and City parking? Thanks for your help.
Rosemary
-----Original Message-----
From: Dominguez, Dave
Sent : Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:52 PM
To: Medel, Rosemary
Subject : RE: Beach Parking
Rosemary:
There are 811 spaces in the Main Promenade Parking structure on Main St and 2,100 spaces in the beach
parking lots.
Hope this is what you need. Give me a call with any questions.
Thanks,
David D.
-----Original Message-----
From: Medel, Rosemary
Sent : Wednesday, January 26, 2005 7:54 AM
To: Dominguez, Dave
Subject: Beach Parking
Good morning Dave. Have a question for you. Do you know how many parking spaces are provided at the
beach paring lots including the public parking lots?
Thanks for your help
Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
City of Huntington Beach
(714) 374-1684
Fax (714) 374-1540
1
° TIMESHARES ° GPA 03-03,LCP 03-02,
ZTA 03-03
° APPLICANT: The Robert Mayer
° Corporation
DATE: February 8, 2005
PROJECT AREA MAP
11
11
C 'r
5 \
\\
D;SIRTCTa7 `.-
UISTRICI f9
°
° PROPOSED AMENDMENTS E] General Plan Amendment: Amends Land
Use Element to add timeshares as a
o permitted use in Commercial Visitor (CV)
land use category.
Zoning Text Amendment: Amend the DTSP
to permit timeshares in Districts 7 & 9
subject to CUP to PC.
° Local Coastal Program Amendment:
° Amends Local Coastal Program Coastal
Element in accordance with GPA and ZTA.
° PLANNING COMMISSION
° STUDY SESSION
o On January 25, 2005, the Planning
Commission held a study session to review
o the proposed amendments.
Requested information addressing:
o A comparison of parking ratios
hotels/timeshares, and
Economic impact of timeshares on City's
o Transient Occupancy Tax
2
11
ANALYSIS
° COMPATIBILITY
° Timeshares currently permitted:
CG and Mixed Use Districts of the
Coastal Element, and
CG and CV Zones citywide.
The inclusion of timeshares in the CV
category is consistent with the existing
o General Plan Land Use and Coastal
° Element.
11
° ANALYSIS
COMPATIBILITY (cont'd)
Timeshares are designed to serve the visitor
° market.El Timeshares have a similar appearance and
function as hotels.
The allowance of timeshares will not result
o in any different land use issues than
o currently permitted hotels, within Districts 7
a & 9 of the DTSP and surrounding area.
3
TIMESHARE PARKING
DEMAND
Chapter 231 Off Street Parking requires hotels and
motels parked at 1.1 per guest room.
Institute of Traffic Engineers classifies timeshares
under "Resort Hotel" because they are visitor
serving accommodations.
Parking Comparison: Marriott Newport Villas
provides one space per two-bedroom timeshare
unit.
Parking Ratios similar to and slightly lower than
Huntington Beach.
COASTAL ISSUES
Coastal policy places high priority on visitor
serving uses and providing public access to coastal
resources.
Intent is to provide adequate recreational
opportunities.
Specifies that 25% of units/rooms within
timeshares are available to the general public
during peak summer season.
Proposed LCPA does not change the 25%
requirement.
4
1-1
MASTER PLAN CONCEPT
The proposed amendments require that
timeshares be part of master plan
E]development.
° Amendments provide flexibility in meeting
o the 25% hotel room requirement.
Timeshare units could be entirely within a
timeshare project or could be within
existing hotels, as part of the master plan.
ASTER PLAN CONCEPT (cont'd)
F-1 Based on industry trends, 20% of
a , timeshares are not used by timeshare
o owners and are available for overnight
, rental.
It is expected that at least a portion of the
° 25% requirement would be met within the
o
timeshare building itself.
11
5
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Various Studies related to timeshares concluded:
Demand exists for timeshare units in
Huntington Beach.
Existing timeshare projects in Orange County
range from 5-units to major resorts offering 330
units.
Adequate supply of transient visitor
accommodations in Huntington Beach and
Sunset Beach.
Cities should view timeshares as a potential
revenue source.
GENERAL TIMESHARE
CHARACTERISTICS
Timeshares enjoy higher occupancy than
hotels because:
Vacations are pre-paid.
Timeshares owners participate in
exchange programs at premium locations.
Rental of unused timeshares are marketed
through a national reservation system.
6
El TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
° (TOT)11
El ; LCP requires that timeshare facilities operate
I as hotels with check-in services , reservation
system, etc...
El Timeshares rented as hotel rooms will pay a
0 10% transient occupancy tax to the City.
The potential loss of TOT revenue in
° comparison to traditional hotel use could be
offset by the increase in property tax revenue.
° STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval based on the following:
° The land use is compatible with existing uses in
o Downtown Specific Plan.
o The inclusion of timeshares complements other
o visitor serving uses in the downtown area and
consistent with Coastal Zone polices.
The addition of timeshares will potentially add to
the economic vitality of the City through increased
sales and property tax revenue and diversification
of accommodations.
F-1
7
11
END OF SLIDE SHOW
s
Broeren, Ma Beth
From: Freidenrich, Shari
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 3.32 PM
To: Hess, Scott; Broeren, Mary Beth
Cc: Zelefsky, Howard, Mulvihill, Leonie, McGrath, Jennifer
Subject: Information on time shares as they relate to business licenses
Importance: High
This was a survey done by our revenue group association for the state. As it is noted, the big issue is whether the TOT is
charged on just transients or all My only issue is to ensure that we have clear direction on what to charge and that the
City has considered the different revenues when they allow this. From talking with Mary Beth, it sounds like you have
considered the revenue from TOT, property taxes, etc in coming up with your responses.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Good luck'
C
Timeshare.doc
Shari
Shari L. Freidenrich, CPA
City Treasurer
City of Huntington Beach
714-536-5200
FAX 714-374-1603
www.surfcity-hb.org
1
SURVEY
T.O.T. ON TIMESHARES
Situation, A timeshare exchange corporation has acquired the right to 35 weeks of timeshare use in San Francisco The corporation acquired this
availability from different timeshare developers in San Francisco. The timeshare usage could be in a hotel or a resort village.
Question If your City/County has timeshares, does your City/County consider timeshare exchange corporations or timeshare developers to be
hotel operators that are required to collect the TOT tax?
CITY SOURCE FINDINGS
Anaheim CMRTA Anaheim's munici at code addresses timeshares and TOT Munici al Code Section 2.12.013
Bi Bear Lake CMRTA Onl if and when the units are rented to non-owners similar to a hotel or lod e
Buena Park CMRTA We do not, but there is a local timeshare in Anaheim.
City of Orange CMRTA If someone is not at the location charging a fee at the time of use, how would you charge TOT tax? Most
timeshare individuals make contracts and pay for a year or more of available service whether they use the
location or not If someone is in another country or state and has paid to use a timeshare in your city, how would
you tax them? Especially if they either use the timeshare one week, but they have paid for three weeks of
usage. Or they pay for three weeks of usage and never go to the location.
Based on the actual wording of our TOT Municipal Code I think it would be difficult to pursue. I am not sure how
we could ou even find timeshare locations in our cit ?
Cypress CMRTA The City of Cypress does not have any timeshares but we have addressed a company that reserves a large
block of rooms for several months for their employees or business associates. Our code states that they would
be required to pay TOT on all rooms unless an individual occupant stayed in the same room for more than 30
consecutive da s
Fresno CMRTA TOT is collected if rented timeshare is for less than 30 days. If the 35 weeks are contracted and are paid for no
matter what for the same location, they're safe and TOT is exempt But if the occupants can get a refund for the
unused da s less than 30 then the hotel is on the hook for the TOT.
Fullerton CMRTA The City of Fullerton does not have timeshares But how your code defines "hotel" and "operator" may be the
ke .
Marina CMRTA Yes, the send two se arate TOT's, one for the timeshare ortion and the other for the Hotel rooms.
Newport Beach CMRTA Newport Beach has a Marriot timeshare development and requires TOT be imposed on their non-timeshare
uses It is the Marrot timeshare ownership that conducts the "hotel" operations and they have been collecting
and remittin the TOT
Palm Springs Phone Charge TOT if rent for money 28 nights or less. Palm Springs has a timeshare section in its municipal code but it
is not implemented. The general public is subject to the TOT, but not from the owners. Palm Springs had a
timeshare court case in the late 1980's but lost the case
San Clemente CMRTA The City of San Clemente has timeshares. The operator is required to submit TOT on behalf of the owners. If an
owner rents his timeshare without letting the operator know, they are to submit the TOT individually An article
was rinted and ut in their monthl newsletter to noti all owners the re uirements of the ordinance
San Die o Phone An vacant timeshare weeks rented are treated like hotels and TOT is char ed.
•
•
SURVEY
T.O.T. ON TIMESHARES
CITY SOURCE FINDINGS
South Lake Phone There have been court cases in which a City cannot charge the timeshare owner TOT because they are
Tahoe considered to be property owners. There was a Palm Springs case in the late 1980's, maybe 1989. When a non-
timeshare owner of record rents the timeshare, then the TOT is charged South Lake Tahoe bases it on State
law, not in the munici al code.
Ventura CMRTA This came up a few years ago. I believe that timeshares are not subject to the TOT based on a court case back
in the early 90's
Our Timeshare facility did call us last year to ask if they provided "rental" of unreserved timeshares as a service
to the individual timeshare owners, could they be subject to the tax. The answer was yes While the actual
owners are not, if someone off the street were to rent an unreserved timeshare, they would be subject to the tax.
To m knowled e, our timeshare has not decided to offer this service as of et so it has not been tested.0
0
i
HUNTINGTON BEACH
City of Huntington Beach Planning Department
STUDY SESSION REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning
BY: Rosemary Medel Associate Planner 04)"
DATE: January 25, 2005
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-03, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO. 03-02, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03
(DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - TIMESHARES)
APPLICANT: Shawn Milbern, The Robert Mayer Corporation, 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050,
Newport Beach, CA 92660.
LOCATION: Downtown Specific Plan, District Nos. 7 and 9 (North side of Pacific Coast Highway
between First Street and Beach Blvd.)
OVERVIEW
These applications represent a proposal to amend the Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element,
is Huntington Beach Coastal Element (Local Coastal Program), and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) to
permit "timeshares" as an allowed use subject to a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission
within District 7 (Visitor-Serving Commercial) and District 9 (Commercial Recreation) of the DTSP
(Attachment No. 1- Area Map). The amendments affect the following sections of the General Plan, Local
Coastal Program, and Downtown Specific Plan:
> General Plan Land Use Element; Table LU-2a, Table LU-4: Subarea 4C PCH/First Street, and
Subarea 4D Waterfront (Attachment Nos. 3.1-3.2)
> Coastal Element (Local Coastal Program): Table C-l, Table C-2, Policy C 3.2.4 (Attachment Nos.
3.3-3.6)
> Downtown Specific Plan Districts 7 and 9: Definitions, Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit
(Attachment Nos. 3.7-3.10)
"Timeshares" are any development wherein a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity or for a term of
years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s), or segment of real
property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis. The Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP)
states that the purpose of the Commercial Visitor zoning category on Districts 7 and 9 is to provide
visitor-serving commercial uses to serve seasonal visitors to the beaches and to serve local residents on a
year round basis. This category is also intended to provide for a continuous commercial link between the
downtown and the visitor-commercial district near Beach Blvd.
0
Currently, "timeshares" are a permitted use in the Commercial General and Mixed Use land use categories
of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element . In addition, the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance allows "timeshares" in the Commercial General ("CG") and Commercial Visitor ("CV") zones •
subject to a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission (Attachment No. 2). The proposed
amendments would add "timeshares " as one of the permitted uses listed within the Commercial Visitor
Land Use Category of the Coastal Element . The General Plan Land Use Element would be changed to
mirror the permitted land uses in the Coastal Element, and the DTSP would be amended as noted above.
From an implementation perspective , the result of the proposed amendments would be the possibility of
timeshares in the visitor serving commercial portions of the Pacific City and Waterfront projects. Before
any timeshares could be constructed, specific project approvals would be considered by the Planning
Commission under a separate application.
-// /ro)ee -
Orange County has a total of 967 existing timeshares ranging in project size from 5 to 330 units per
development (Attachment No. 4). There are presently no timeshares in the City of Huntington Beach.
However, the City has a total of 19 hotels and motels providing 1,712 rooms . The consideration of
timeshares in Huntington Beach would allow for greater flexibility in reaching th hotel/visitor serving
market.
ATTACHMENTS :
1. Area Map
2. Existing Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
3. Legislative Drafts:
3.1-3.2 General Plan
3.3-3.6 Coastal Element
3.7-3.10 Downtown Specific Plan
4. Existing Timeshares in Orange County Survey prepared by Robert Mayer Corporation
is
•
PC Staff Report - 1/25/05 -2- (05SR02)
Attachment No. 1
Downtown S ecific Plan District No. 7 and District No. 9 Ma
[
Attachment No. 3 - Page 1
d
Emailed R Medial August ,003 - draft
EXISTING HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE
P Permitted
CO, CG, L Limited (see Additional Provisions)
and CV PC Conditional use permit approved by Planning Commission
Districts ZA Conditional use permit approved by Zoning Administrator
Land Use TU Temporary Use Permit
Controls P/U Requires conditional use permit on site of conditional use
Not Permitted
CO CG CV Additional Provisions
Vehicle Equipment/Sales & Services
Automobile Rentals -L-8 L-8 L-12
Automobile Washing -L-7 -
Commercial Parking -
Service Stations -
Vehicle Equip. Repair -
PC
PC
L-5
PC
PC
-
(P)
(E)
Vehicle Equip. Sales & Rentals ZA ZA -L-12 (3522-2/02)
Vehicle Storage ---
Visitor Accommodations
Bed & Breakfast Inns PC
Hotels, Motels -
PC
PC
PC
PC
(K)
(I)(3334-6/97)
Quasi Residential (3334-6/97)
Time Shares -PC PC (I)(J)(3334-6/97)
Residential Hotel -
Single Room Occupancy -
Industrial
PC
PC
PC
PC
(J)
(J)(O)
(J)(Q)(R)(V)(3334-6/97)
Industry, Custom -L-6 L-6
Accessory Uses (J)(V)(3334-6/97)
Accessory Uses & Structures P/U
Temporary Uses
P/U P/U
(F)(J)(V)(3334-6/97)
Animal Shows -TU -
Circus and Carnivals and Festivals -TU -(3522-2/02)
Commercial Filming, Limited -
Real Estate Sales TU
P
TU
P
TU
(M)
(3522-2/02)
Retail Sales, Outdoor -TU TU (M)(3522-2/02)
Seasonal Sales TU TU TU (M)(3522-2/02)
Tent Event TU (3522-2/02)
Trade Fairs -TU -
Nonconformin Uses G J V (3334-6/97)
(Rest of page not used)
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Chapter 211 211-4 2/02
ATIJCMEN T N O.
Emailed R Medial August W003 - draft i
EXISTING HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE
L-12 Permitted for existing facilities proposing to expand up to 20%. (3522-2/02)
L-13 For wireless communication facilities see Section 230.96 Wireless Communication
Facilities. All other communication facilities permitted. (3568-9/02)
(A) Reserved. (3553-5/02)
(B) See Section 230.40: Helicopter Takeoff and Landing Areas.
(C) Repealed (3378-2/98)
(D) See Section 230.38: Game Centers; Chapter 5.28: Dance Halls; Chapter 9.24:
Card Rooms; Chapter 9.32: Poolrooms and Billiards; and Chapter 9.28: Pinball
Machines.
(E) See Section 230.32: Service Stations.
(F) See Section 241.20: Temporary Use Permits
(G) See Chapter 236: Nonconforming Uses and Structures.
(H) For teen dancing facilities, bicycle racks or a special bicycle parking area shall
be provided. These may not obstruct either the public sidewalk or the building
entry. See also Chapter 5.28: Dancing Halls; Chapter 5.44: Restaurants -
Amusement and Entertainment Premises, and Chapter 5.70: Adult
Entertainment Businesses. (3341 -10/96)
(I)
(J)
Only permitted on a major arterial street, and a passive or active outdoor
recreational amenity shall be provided, subject to approval of the Planning
Commission.
In the CV District the entire ground floor area and at least one-third of the total
floor area shall be devoted to visitor-oriented uses as described in the certified
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Any use other than visitor serving
commercial shall be located above the ground level, and a conditional use
permit from the Planning Commission is required. Any use other than visitor
serving commercial uses shall only be permitted if visitor serving uses are either
provided prior to the other use or assured by deed restriction as part of the
development. No office or residential uses shall be permitted in any visitor
serving designation seaward of Pacific Coast Highway. (3334-6/97)
(K) See Section 230.42: Bed and Breakfast Inns.
(L) See Section 230.44: Recycling Operations.
(M) Subject to approval by the Police Department, Public Works Department, Fire
Department and the Director. See also Section 230.86 Seasonal Sales.
(N) The following businesses proposing to sell alcoholic beverages for on-site or
off-site consumption are exempt from the conditional use permit process:
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
oA UK TA CH MFNT N 0
•
W UNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTERLAND USE ELEMENT
Land Use Cate or
RESIDENTIAL
Residential Low (RL)
Residential Medium
(RM)
Residential Medium High
(RMH)
Residential Hi (RH)
COMMERCIAL
Commercial
Neighborhood
(CN)
TABLE LU-2a
Land Use Schedule'
T ical Permitted Uses
Single family residential units; clustered zero-lot line developments; and "granny"
flats.
Single family residential units, duplexes, townhomes, and garden apartments.
Townhomes, garden apartments, apartment "flats."
Townhomes, arden a artments, and a artments.
Small-scale retail commercial, professional offices, eating and drinking
establishments, household goods, food sales , drug stores, personal services, cultural
facilities, institutional, health, government offices, and similar uses . Generally,
individual establishments should not exceed 10,000 square feet. If permitted. their
frontage should be desi ed to conve the visual character of small storefronts.
Commercial General Retail commercial, professional offices, eating and drinking establishments, household
(CG)goods, food sales, drugstores, building materials and supplies, personal services,
recreational commercial, hotels /motels, timeshares *E)VefRigM
cultural facilities, government offices, educational, health,
institutional and similar uses.
Commercial Regional Anchor department stores, outlet stores, promotional ("big box") retail, retail
(CR)commercial, restaurants, entertainment, professional offices, financial institutions,
automobile sales facilities, and similar region-servin uses.
Commercial Office (CO) Professional offices and ancillary commercial services (financial institutions,
hotoco sho s, small restaurants, and similar uses).
Commercial Visitor
(CV)Hotels/motels, timeshares , restaurants, recreation-related retail sales, cultural *
uses (e.g., museums) and similar uses oriented to coastal and other visitors to the Ci
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial • Light manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, business parks and
(I) professional offices, supporting retail, financial, and restaurants, and similar uses.
• Warehouse and sales outlets.
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
Public Governmental administrative and related facilities, such as public utilities, schools,
(P) ublic arkin lots, infrastructure, religious and similar uses.
Bolded *: Proposed Text
' See LU 7 1 1 and LU 7 1 2
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
II-LU-25 , ,NT NO._TTACH ME 7-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CH,t
LAND USE ELEMENT
Subarea Characteristic
4C Permitted Uses
PCH/First
(Lake) Street
4D
Waterfront
TABLE LU-4 Cont.
Community District and Subarea Schedule
•
Standards and Princi les
Category: Commercial Visitor ("CV")
Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, hotel /motels,
timeshares , '`restaurants, entertainment, and other uses (as permitted by
the "CV" and "CG" land use categories)
Density /Intensity Category: "-F7"
• Height: eight (8) stories
Design and Category: Specific Plan ("-sp")
Development • Establish a unified "village" character, using consistent architecture and
highly articulated facades and building masses.
• Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor.
• Incorporate pedestrian walkways, plazas, and other common open spaces
for public activity.
• Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial
areas.
• Establish a well-defined entry from PCH.
• Maintain views of the shoreline and ocean.
Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor ("CV")
Hotels/motels, timeshares ,*and supporting visitor-serving commercial
uses (in accordance with Development Agreement)
Density /Intensity Category: "-F7"
• Hotel/motel rooms: 1,690
• Commercial: 75,000 square feet
Design and Category: Specific Plan ("-sp")
Development As defined by the adopted Development Agreement.
4E Permitted Uses Category: Open Space Conservation ("OS-C"), uses permitted by the
PCH/Beach Commercial Visitor ("CV") land use category, and free-standing multi-family
Northeast housing ("RM").
(Please refer to the Land Use Map for the exact boundaries of each land
use desi nation.
(Continued on Density /Intensity Category:
next page) • For RM designations, 15 units per acre
• For CV designations, F2
• Height: three (3) stories
Bolded *: Proposed Text
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
II-LU-54
-'2-ATTACHMENT K I
0 NATU 16 RESOURCES CHAPTER
COASTAL ELEMENT
COASTAL ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN
LAND USE, DENSITY AND OVERLAY SCHEDULE
TABLE C-1 (Continued)
LAND USE TYPICAL PERMITTED USES
CATEGORY
COMMERCIAL
Commercial Small-scale retail commercial, professional offices, eating and drinking
Neighborhood (CN) establishments, household goods, food sales, drug stores, personal services,
cultural facilities, institutional, health, government offices and similar uses.
Generally, individual establishments should not exceed 10,000 square feet.
If feasible, their frontage should be designed to convey the visual character
of small storefronts.
The Commercial Neighborhood (CN) designation shall utilize the
standards of the General Commercial District (CG) of the Zoning Code for
im lementation.
Commercial Retail commercial, professional offices, eating and drinking
General (CG) establishments, household goods, food sales, drugstores, building materials
and supplies, personal services, recreational commercial, hotels /motels,
timeshares *, cultural facilities, government
offices, educational, health, institutional and similar uses.
Commercial Visitor Hotels /motels , timeshares *restaurants, recreation-related retail sales,(CV)cultural uses (e.g., museums) and similar uses oriented to coastal and other
visitors to the City.
Marine related development such as marinas, retail marine sales, boat
rentals, and boat storage which are coastal dependent developments shall
have priority over any other type of development (consistent with resource
rotection on or near the shoreline.
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial (I) Light manufacturing, energy production, resource production, research and
development, warehousing, business parks and professional offices,
supporting retail, financial, restaurants and similar uses. Warehouse and
sales outlets.
Marine related activities such as boat construction and dry boat storage.
Coastal dependent development shall have priority over any other type of
develo ment consistent with resource rotection ) on or near the shoreline.
PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONAL
Public (P) Governmental administrative and related facilities, such as public utilities,
schools, libraries, museums, public parking lots, infrastructure, religious
and similar uses.
Bolded *: Proposed Text
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
IV-C-26
C11 "Vcp
NATU• RESOURCES CHAPTER
COASTAL ELEMENT
COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE
TABLE C-2 (continued)
Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princi les
4B Design and Category: Specific Plan ("-sp")
Existing Oil Development • Requires the preparation of and development in conformance with a
Property Conceptual Master Plan of Development and Specific Plan.
(Cont.)• The preparation of a Specific Plan may be phased in conformance with
the conceptual Master Plan.
• Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance
with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential
Subdivisions " (Policies LU 9.3.1 and LU 9.3.4).
• Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated
commercial sites.
• Require variation in building heights from two (2) to four (4) stories to
promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land
uses.
• Commercial development shall be prohibited along the Palm Avenue
frontage.
• Residential development along Palm Avenue shall be compatible in
size, scale, height, type, and massing with existing development on the
north side of Palm Avenue.
• Visitor Serving Commercial development shall be oriented along the
Pacific Coast Highway frontage.
• Minimize vehicular access points onto arterial streets and highways
including Palm Avenue, Golden West Street, Pacific Coast Highway,
and Seapoint Street.
• Open space and neighborhood parks, which may be private, shall be
provided on site.
4C Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor ("CV")
PCH/First Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, restaurants,
(Lake) Street entertainment, hotels /motels, timeshares *and other uses (as
permitted by the "CV" and "CG" land use categories)
Density /Intensity Category: "-F7"
• Height: eight (8) stories
Design and Category: Specific Plan ("-sp")
Development • Establish a unified "village" character, using consistent architecture and
highly articulated facades and building masses.
• Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor.
• Incorporate pedestrian walkways, plazas, and other common open
spaces for public activity.
• Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and
commercial areas.
• Establish a well-defined entry from PCH.
• Maintain views of the shoreline and ocean.
Bolded *: Proposed Text
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
IV-C-37
ATTACHMENT NO. a_-%*
9
Subarea
4D
Waterfront
4E
PCH/Beach
Northeast
NATU& RESOURCES CHAPTER
COASTAL ELEMENT
COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE
TABLE C-2 (continued)
Characteristic
Permitted Uses
Density/Intensity
Design and
Development
Permitted Uses
Density /Intensity
Design and
Development
4F Permitted Uses
Wetlands
4G Permitted Uses
Edison Plant
Design and
Develo ment
4H Permitted Uses
Brookhurst-
Ma nolia
Bolded *: Proposed Text
Standards and Princi les
Category: Commercial Visitor ("CV")
Hotels/motels, timeshares *and supporting visitor-serving commercial
uses (in accordance with Development Agreement)
Category: "-F7"
• Hotel/motel rooms: 1,690
• Commercial : 75,000 square feet
Category: Specific Plan("-sp")
As defined by the adopted Development Agreement.
Category: Open Space Conservation ("OS-C"), uses permitted by the
Commercial Visitor ("CV") land use category, and free-standing
multi-family housing ("RM").
(Please refer to the Land Use Map for the exact boundaries of each land
use desi nation.
Category:
• For RM designations, 15 units per acre
• For CV designations, F2
• Height: three (3) stories
Category:
• Establish a major streetscape element to identify the Beach
Boulevard-PCH intersection.
• Site, design, and limit the scale and mass of development, as necessary,
to protect wetlands.
• Maintain visual compatibility with the downtown.
• Incorporate onsite recreational amenities for residents.
• Minimize access to and from PCH, providing an internal roadway
system.
• Incorporate extensive landscape and streetscape.
Category: Conservation ("OS-C")
• Wetlands conservation.
Category: Public ("P") and Conservation ("OS-C")
• Wetlands conservation.
• Utility uses.
In accordance with Policy LU 13.1.8.
Category: Conservation ("OS-C")
Wetlands conservation.
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
IV-C-38
Al ACH. ENTNO0 i1.
NATU• RESOURCES CHAPTER
COASTAL ELEMENT
facilities on private land to be open to the
public. (I-C 7)
C 3.2.3
Encourage the provision of a variety of
visitor- serving commercial establishments
within the Coastal Zone, including , but not
limited to, shops , restaurants, hotels and
motels , and day spas. (I-C 1, I-C 2, I-C 3, I-
C 4)
*C 3.2.4
Timeshares may be permitted in
Commercial General District (CG), and
Mixed Use Districts (M, MH, and MV),
and Commercial Visitor District
(CV) as part of a master plan
project, provided that any such project be
conditioned as follows: (I-C 1, I-C 2, I-C 3,
I-C 7)
a) That at least twenty-five percent of
the units be permanently reserved
for transient overnight
accommodations during the summer
season (beginning the day before the
Memorial Day weekend and ending
the day after Labor Day).
b) That the timeshare facility operate
as a hotel including requirements for
a centralized reservations system,
check-in services, advertising,
security, and daily housecleaning.
C 3.2.5
Establish an ongoing program to permit
recreational vehicle camping during the
winter months at City beach parking lots.
(I-C 22j)
C 3.2.6
Encourage additional overnight recreational
vehicle camping facilities, adequately
screened, in the recreation areas on both
sides of Newland Street near Pacific Coast
Highway and on the State beach parking lots
during the winter months . (I-C 22j)
C 3.2.7
Investigate the feasibility of providing year
round camping below the bluffs, northwest
of the Municipal Pier, between Ninth Street
and Goldenwest Street. (I-C 22j)
C 3.2.8
Promote the implementation of and funding
for the proposed Orange Coast River Park
concept . The Orange Coast River Park is
envisioned as a linkage of public parks
(Talbert and Fairview Regional Parks) and
private open space lands along and near the
mouth of the Santa Ana River, including
possible linkages with open space lands
located on the inland side of Pacific Coast
Highway , between the Santa Ana River and
Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach. (I-C
1, I-C 2, I-C 17)
C 3.2.9
Promote and support the implementation of
the proposed Wintersburg Channel Class I
Bikeway . (I-C 1, I-C 2)
C 3.2.10
Promote and support the development of,
the City and County portions of the Harriett
M. Wieder Regional Park. Include a
continuous trail system from Huntington
Central Park to the beach, along the eastern
border of the Bolsa Chica wetl ands, if
feasible . (I-C 1, I-C 2, I-C 17)
C 3.2.11
Encourage and support the following
recreational facilities and design
characteristics within the Harriett M. Wieder
Regional Park: (I-C 1, I-C 2)
a) Limit above ground structures to
support facilities such as restrooms,
picnic tables, bike racks, view
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
IV-C-108
Au7ACW 5 NT N
August 24, 2004
Public o en s ace: Outdoor or unenclosed area on the ground floor or above floor
levels designed and accessible for use by the general public. Public open space may
include one of the following: patios, plazas, balconies, gardens or view areas accessible
to the general public, and open air commercial space, open to the street on the first
floor, or on at least one side, above the first floor, or open to the sky. The open space
requirement can be met anywhere in the development; however, open space provided
above the second floor will receive only fifty (50) percent credit toward this
requirement. This requirement cannot be met by open areas which are inaccessible to
the general public or are contrary to specific requirements of a district.
Public ri ht-of-wa : That property dedicated through acquisition or easement for the
public right-of-way or utility purposes which includes the area spanning from the
property line on one side of a street to the property line on the other side of a street.
Recreational Vehicle: A travel Trailer, pick-up camper or motorized home with or
without a mode of power and designed for temporary human habitation for travel or
recreational purposes.
Rehabilitation: The physical repair, preservation, or improvement of a building or
structure. Does not include an expansion of existing floor area greater than ten (10)
percent; does not increase the building height; does not result in an increase in
permitted density.
Residual arcel: A legal lot which does not meet the requirements for a building site
within the District in which it is located, and where the abutting sites are already
developed.
Ri ht-of-Wa ROW : That portion of property which is dedicated or over which an
easement is granted for public streets, utilities or alleys.
Semi-subterranean arkin : Parking structure which is partially recessed into the
development site, and which may or may not support additional structures above (e.g.
dwelling units, tennis courts, or parking structures).
Setback: A stipulated area adjacent to the lot lines which must be kept free of
structures over forty-two (42) inches high.
Street level: The elevation measured at the centerline of the public street adjacent to the
front setback at a point midway between the two side property lines.
Suite Hotel: A building designed for or occupied as a temporary lodging place which
contains guest rooms and may contain kitchenettes and a separate living room for each
unit.
Timeshares : A project within a master plan development wherein a
purc aser receives the right in perpetuity , for life , or for a term of
years, to the recurrent , exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel,
unit , room (s), or segment of real property, annually or on some other
seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been divided
and shall include , but not be limited to time -share estate , interval
ownership , vacation license , vacation lease , club membership, time-
shares use, condominium /hotel , or uses of a similar nature.
G:DWNTWNSP 4 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
TACHMENT NO.
DOWNTO^ SPECIFIC PLAN LEGISLAV E DRAFT
4.9 DISTRICT #7: VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
Purpose. This District extends southeast of the Downtown core adjacent to Pacific
Coast Highway. The principal purpose of this District is to provide commercial
facilities to serve seasonal visitors to the beaches as well as to serve local residents on a
year round basis. This District also provides a continuous commercial link between the
Downtown and the visitor-commercial/recreation District near Beach Boulevard.
Boundaries. District #7 extends from First Street to Huntington Avenue between PCH
and the proposed Walnut Avenue extension.
4.9.01 Permitted Uses.
(a) The following list of Visitor-Serving Commercial uses in District No. 7 may be
allowed. Other visitor serving related uses as described in the Land Use Plan, and
which have the same parking demand as the existing use not specified herein may
be allowed subject to the approval of the Director. Change of use shall be subject
to the approval of the Director:
. Art gallery
. Bakeries
Banks and savings and loans branch offices (not to exceed five-thousand
(5,000) square feet)
Beach, swimming and surfing equipment
Bicycle sales, rental and repair
Boat and marine supplies
Bookstores
Carts and Kiosks pursuant to Section 230.94 of the Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Clothing stores
Delicatessens
Florists
Groceries (convenience)
Ice cream parlors
Laundromats, laundries
Meat or fish markets
Newspaper and magazine stores
Newsstands
Outdoor dining pursuant to S.4.2.33
Photographic equipment sales
Photographic processing
Professional Office (not to exceed fifty [50] percent of total floor area)
Public Transportation Center
Shoe stores
Sporting goods
Tourist related public and semi-public buildings, services and facilities
Travel agency
Note: Visitor-serving commercial uses must be a part of all development proposals in
this District, with a minimum requirement that the entire street level be devoted to
Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses.
G:DWNTWNSP 50 Downtown Speci fic Plan
Revised 2/06/02
mo). 3::'Y
(b) The following list of uses and any new construction, or change of such use in
District No. 7 may be allowed subject to the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit. For example:
Automobile service stations
Dancing and/or live entertainment
Health and sports clubs
Hotels and motels
Liquor stores
Permanent parking lots and parking structures
Restaurants
Taverns
Theaters
Timeshare Projects /Units
4.9.02 Minimum Parcel Size. No minimum parcel size shall be required for this District.
However, prior to the approval of any development, including subdivision, a master site
plan for the entire District shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
Development which is in conformance with the site plan may then be permitted.
4.9.03 Maximum Densi /Intensi .
(a) The maximum intensity of development shall be calculated by Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) for the District. The floor area ratio shall apply to the whole District. The
floor area ratio shall be 3.0 calculated on net acreage.
4.9.04 Maximum Buildin Hei ht. The maximum building height shall be eight (8) stories.
4.9.05 Maximum Site Covera e. The maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50) percent of the
net site area.
4.9.06 Setback Front Yard . The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding
forty-two (42) inches in height shall be fifty (50) feet from PCH.
4.9.07 Setback Side Yard . The minimum exterior side yard requirement shall be twenty (20)
feet.
4.9.08 Setback Rear Yard . The minimum rear yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet from the
proposed Walnut Avenue extension.
Note: An additional ROW dedication will be required to provide for the Walnut
Avenue extension.
4.9.09 Setback U er Sto . No upper story setback shall be required in this District.
4.9.10 Open Space. Public open space and/or pedestrian access shall be required for
development projects in order to assure a predominantly visitor-serving orientation.
4.9.11 Corridor Dedication. Development in District #7 shall require the dedication of a
twenty (20) foot corridor between Atlanta Avenue and PCH for public access between
the southern end of the Pacific Electric ROW and PCH. This requirement may be
waived if an alternative public use is provided or if the corridor is deemed unnecessary
G:DWNTWNSP 54 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
ATTACHW 9T NO.-
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
4.11 DISTRICT #9: COMMERCIAL/RECREATION
Purpose. The purpose of this District is to encourage large, coordinated development
that is beach-oriented and open to the public for both commercial and recreational
purposes.
Boundaries. District #9 is bounded by PCH on the south, Beach Boulevard on the east,
Huntington Street on the west, and on the north by the proposed Walnut Avenue
extension.
4.11.01 Permitted Uses.
(a) The following list of commercial recreation uses in District No. 9 may be allowed.
Other visitor serving related uses as described in the Land Use Plan, and which
have the same parking demand as the existing use not specified herein may be
allowed subject to the approval of the Director. A change of use shall be subject
to the approval of the Director. For example:
Carts and Kiosks pursuant to Section 230.94 of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code
Retail sales
Tourist related uses
Outdoor dining pursuant to S.4.2.33
(b) The following list of uses and any new construction, or change of such use in
District No. 9 may be allowed subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
For example:
Dancing and/ or Live entertainment
Hotels, motels
Recreational facilities
Restaurants
Timeshare Projects /Units
4.11.02 Minimum Parcel Size. No minimum parcel size shall be required for this District.
However, prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission
for any development, a master site plan for the entire District shall be approved by the
Planning Commission. Development which is in conformance with the site plan may
then be permitted.
4.11.03 Maximum Densi /Intensi . The maximum intensity of development shall be
calculated by floor area ratio (FAR) for this District. The floor area ratio shall apply to
the entire project area. Floor area ratios shall be calculated on net acreage.
(a) The maximum floor area for developments in this District shall be calculated with
a multiple of 3.0.
4.11.04 Maximum Buildin Hei ht. No maximum building height shall be required.
4.11.05 Maximum Site Covera e. The maximum site coverage shall be thirty-five (35) percent
of the net site area.
G:DWNTWNSP 60 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
ATTACHE MEN N,1,3.I C
Existing Timeshare Properties in Orange County , California
967 Total Units
Pro e
Capistrano Surfside Inn
34680 Pacific Coast Highway
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
949-240-7681
Dolphin's Cove
465 W. Orangewood Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
714-980-0830
Four Seasons Pacifica
326 Encino Lane
San Clemente, CA 92672
949-492-6103
Laguna Shores
419 N. Coast Highway
Laguna Beach, CA
949-494-8521
Laguna Surf
611 South Coast Highway
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
949-497-6299
Marriott's Newport Coast Villas
23000 Newport Coast Drive
Newport Coast, CA 92657
1-888-765-3575
Peacock Suites Resort
1745 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
714-535-8255
Riviera Beach and Spa Resort
34630 Pacific Coast Highway
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
949-248-2944
Riviera Shores Resort
34642 Pacific Coast Highway
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
949-489-5555
San Clemente Cove Resort
104 South Alameda Lane
San Clemente, CA 92672
949-492-6666
San Clemente Inn
2600 Avenida del Presidente
San Clemente, CA 92672
949-492-6103
Number of Units
37
136
5
34
25
330
139
102
28
34
97
Prepared by: Robert Mayer Corp.1
AtTA/ CEMENT NO.l --
•
Survey date : December 9, 2004
Prepared by: Robert Mayer Corporation
Source:
Interval International
htt ://www.intervalworld.com/
Maintour.com - timeshare resort directory - San Clemente & Laguna Beach
htt ://www.maintour.com/socal /or rent2.htm
Platinum Interchange
htt ://www. latinuminterchan e.com/
RCI
h ://www.rci.com/
Vacation Resorts International
htt ://www.vrivacations.com/resortdirecto html
Verification : Telephone verification to each resort December 9, 2004 by Robert Mayer
Corporation.
Prepared by: Robert Mayer Corp. 2
ATTACHMENT
0 • 1/20/2005
10 ///
. Most major hoteliers involved
• US industry image improved
•Growing segment of travel industry
Vacation experience is emphasized
As a brief introduction, many of us are aware that in past decades the
timeshare industry acquired a less than noble reputation. However, in the
1990's major hoteliers like Marriot and Hilton entered the timeshare industry.
This, together with heightened government regulations, construction of luxury
quality resorts and better sales practices, led to a steady improvement in the
image of the timeshare product.
As a result, timeshares today are a rapidly growing segment of the travel
industry.
And, the timeshare sales approach has become more focused on selling a
perpetual, worry-free, high-quality vacation experience that provides a
fundamental lifestyle change for the buyer. No longer is vacation time, an
often postponed extravagance, it is a pre-paid, essential ingredient to a more
enjoyable life.
a
o6
1
•
I /
California:
'125 Resorts`
J I.
to 1/20/2005
Timeshare resorts exist in almost every state in the U.S.
California, with 125 resorts and still counting, ranks second in the country
behind Florida in the number of timeshare resorts.
1/20/2005
0
• Fixed
• Float
• Split Week
• Points
• Loyalty Programs
• Exchange
The original timeshare concepts were marketing driven, meaning that the
product was a simple, tangible concept that could be easily explained to the
customer. The original concept of a single, repeating fixed week interval every
year still exists with older resorts, but it quickly evolved into the concept of
floating time, where the timeshare owner enjoys the right to reserve his week
within a season on an annual basis. Typically divided into high, low or mid-
season categories, such classification affects both the original purchase price
and the flexibility to exchange the unit through various exchange programs that
all modern timeshare resorts are affiliated with.
And, in a move towards even greater flexibility, some programs allow owners
to split their week of ownership into separate blocks of days.
Today, most timeshare programs sold in affiliation with major hotel brands are
consumer driven, meaning that they over a wide array of choices for the
consumer via point programs that allow exchanges to other resorts and hotels
within the brand, or even for airfare and car rentals.
Also, frequent traveler loyalty programs are being integrated with the point
programs, so as to encourage loyalty to the brand in all forms of both business
and vacation travel.
And finally, all modern timeshare resorts are affiliated with one or more
worldwide exchange companies which provide the timeshare owner the
opportunity to exchange their timeshare interval for a vacation at thousands of
other resorts throughout the world.
3
1/20/2005
=10H F:ATION CLUB Lock-off Feature
. Trend to larger
units
• Two bedroom
most popular
• Lock-off units add
flexibility
tH
The timeshare unit today is typically much larger than a normal hotel room.
A ve ry popular option is the two-bedroom lock-off design, where the second
bedroom with its own bathroom can be locked-off from the main unit and
entered separately. This allows the flexibility for the timeshare owner to
choose to occupy only the main unit, allowing the second bedroom to be
rented to the public as a standard hotel room.
Next, I'm going to very quickly summarize several of the leading timeshare
companies in the nation today.
4
•
• 52 Resorts, 6,000 units, 225,000 families
• U.S., Aruba, France, Spain, Thailand
• Palm Desert & Newport Coast
The Marriott corporation was the first major hotel brand to enter the timeshare
industry.
Today, Marriot has developed 52 timeshare resorts with over 6,000 units and
225,000 timeshare owners. Their properties range from the U.S., the
Caribbean, Europe and Asia.
Of local note, their Palm Desert resort is one of the region's most successful
on-going timeshare developments, and they also have developed a luxury
timeshare resort at the Newport Coast.
1/20/2005
5
•
. Hawaii, Florida, Nevada, Colorado,
Mexico, Scotland
. 31 resorts
r
Hilton is also active in the industry, with reso rts in Hawaii, Florida, Nevada,
Colorado, Mexico and Scotland. They have both resorts they developed
themselves, and they directly manage other timeshare resorts previously
developed by others.
1/20/2005
6
1/20/2005
// l
® 7 resorts
Florida, New York,
South Carolina
. Disneyland, cruise line and
adventure vacation programs
In the early 1990's the Disney Corporation began developing a timeshare
resort at Disneyworld in Orlando, Florida. They now include 7 reso rts,
including a location in New York and South Carolina.
Indicative of the trend toward vacation experiences rather that just resort
amenities, ownership of a Disney timeshare interest also provides
opportunities for visiting Disneyland, voyages on the Disney cruise line, and
adventure programs such as African safaris sponsored by Disney.
7
• 1/20/2005
0 10
a . • 4
L,+ k) "1dC. Ne vv'
Do ."t t .
I
Hyatt also has developed 11 timeshare resorts at various resort locations from
Aspen Colorado, Carmel, California, and in New Mexico. Florida and Puerto
Rico
8
0 0 1/20/2005
Sheraton is another hotel brand active in the timeshare industry. Sheraton
operates six timeshare resorts oriented towards golfing in Florida, South
Carolina and Arizona.
0 0 1/20/2005
. . •0
r esO-'rt.
C:"'af rnla, Arizona, H ma h,
C:_ Dorado,. U.S. \Jirgin :Islands
Baha ma
Westin is also in the timeshare industry with resorts in California, Arizona
Hawaii, Colorado, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Bahamas
10
• 0
0 . 0 9
4 resorts, Colorado, Florida, St. Thomas
, Fractional ownership
Ritz Carlton leads the way in the luxury catego ry of timeshares with four
reso rts in Colorado, Florida and St. Thomas. The Ritz Carlton program is a
variation of traditional timeshares called fractional ownership, where the
interval period is longer than one week, typically a month. A purchaser in this
catego ry is definitely in the upper class, as benefits can include private jet
cha rters.
1/20/2005
11
• • 1/20/2005
0
4 resorts
California, Arizona, Wyoming and Mexico
. Fractional Ownership
Four Seasons is also in the luxury category of timeshare resorts with locations
in California (being the Aviara in north San Diego County), and also in Arizona,
Wyoming and a project under development in Mexico. Like Ritz Carlton, the
Four Seasons program is a fractional interest representing a one month
interval.
12
1/20/2005
6
9 resorts
California, Florida, Hawaii, Mexico,
Canada
Intrawest is a resort development firm known primarily for its ski reso rts in
Canada. They have also expanded their timeshare projects into California,
Florida, Hawaii and Mexico.
13
1/20/2005
• 56 resorts
. California, Hawaii, 17 other
states and St. Thomas
Fairfield Resorts, through direct development and acquisition of other
timeshare developments, operates 56 timeshare resorts in California, Hawaii
and 17 other states, as well as St. Thomas.
Fairfield is one of numerous brands owned by Cendant Corporation, owners of
Ramada hotels, Centu ry 21 and Coldwell Bankers real estate brokers, Avis
and Budget car rentals, and RCI, the world 's largest timeshare exchange
company.
14
• • 1/20/2005
• Anaheim, Dana Point, San Clemente, Laguna
Beach, Newport Coast - 967 units total
• Marriot's Newport. Coast Villas - 330 units
I
And closer to home, in Orange County there are currently a total of eleven
existing timeshare properties in existence, totaling 967 units. These properties
are near Disneyland in Anaheim, at Capistrano Beach in the City of Dana
Point, in Laguna Beach and San Clemente, and the newer addition is
Marriott's Newpo rt Coast Villas with 330 units that are just finishing
construction this year. This development is representative of new timeshare
development today, a premium quality resort project with a national brand
affiliation.
15
• . 1/20/2005
swine Company 's Pelican
H.i at Newport Coast
:_ r :Fom hotelh
bedroom villas
rep ?t four bedroom
oine°':
as and ho ie's as fra'..t onc:s1 in:terest`-
1: etien panned for 2(J
l
Additionally, the Irvine Company has announced plans to build a 204 room
hotel plus 52 two bedroom villas and 76 three and four bedroom homes at the
Pelican Hill site just west of Marriott's Newport Coast Villas. The new villas
and homes will be sold in fractional interests, which are timeshare interests of
longer duration that the typical one week period. In this case, the Irvine
Company anticipates that it will sell interests of 8 to 12 weeks in length.
Operation of the project by a national brand is being considered, though it is
likely that the project will be developed as an independent, boutique luxury
product. Completion is planned for the second half of 2008
16
• • 1/20/2005
I
I
1 • •
0
Source: Ragatz Associates
Who are these timeshare owners?
The average timeshare owner is 53 years old, has an income of $85,000 per
year, 84% are married, almost all own their home and more than half are
college graduates.
17
9
0
1/20/2005
• Lodging alternative for H.B.
• More stable year-round visitors
. Higher dining, shopping,
entertainment spending
in the community of
+$1,000 per timeshare visit=
. Family-oriented customers
Source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers
In conclusion, if a timeshare resort is developed in Huntington Beach in the
future, what might it mean for the community?
Huntington Beach now enjoys a sizeable hotel business, with a range of
lodgings from budget to luxury. A timeshare resort is nothing more than
another lodging alternative for future visitors and residents.
A timeshare resort ultimately sells most all of its intervals throughout the year,
and will enjoy a more stable level of year-round occupancy than traditional
hotels. Timeshare visitors don't cancel their vacation at the last moment
because of a bad weather forecast. As a result, local business will benefit in
both high season and low season.
Of particular importance is the fact that timeshare visitors stay for a longer
period than hotel guests, and therefore venture out to local restaurants and
shopping more frequently. Also, they don't face a steep hotel built at checkout.
As a result, the average timeshare visit results in over $1,000 in spending in
the local community for dining, shopping and entertainment. This is a far
greater benefit to local businesses than traditional hotel visitors.
Lastly, the timeshare owner is a family-oriented visitor that will respect and be
loyal to this community and its local businesses.
18
•0 PKF
suit!
December 17, 2004 865 South F+gueroa Street
suite 104
Los Angeles CA 90017
Telephone (213) 680.0900
Telefax (213) 6234240
Ms. Rosemary Medel ,6
Associate Planner INoICity of Huntington Beach .
2000 Main Street o
Huntington Beach, California 92648 6 %:='
Dear Ms. Medel:
PKF Consulting has been retained by the Robert Mayer Corporation to analyze for the City
of Huntington Beach the adequacy of the hotel supply within Huntington Beach and
Sunset Beach. To conduct our analysis, we have evaluated the existing supply of hotels and
hotel rooms within this market, the rooms available at each quality level, and the
monthly/seasonal occupancies and average daily rates for a representative sample. We
also looked at two comparable California destinations relative to these same criteria,
namely Carmel and Santa Barbara.
Based on the analysis presented herein, we conclude that there is an adequate supply of
transient visitor accommodations in the Huntington Beach and Sunset Beach market.
This report is subject to the attached Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions.
Our analysis and conclusions are based on the following facts and assumptions.
Huntington Beach/Sunset Beach Hotel Supply
The market comprised of Huntington Beach and Sunset Beach contains 1,795 hotel rooms
in 21 hotels. These hotels offer a wide range of quality levels, from one- to four-diamond
equivalency ratings, which translates to a wide range of rooms at differing rates available to
overnight visitors. The ratings and equivalencies are based on the AAA standards of quality
for hotel ratings, with which the majority of hotels are affiliated. The table on the following
page shows the number of hotels and hotel rooms within each quality level.
Huntington Beach/Sunset Beach
Dis rsion of Hotel uali Levels
Quality Rating
(in diamonds)
Total
Hotels
Total Number
of Rooms
2 807
4 363
8 411
7 214
Source: Automobile Association of America
and PKF Consultin
2
This chart shows that from a physicality standpoint, there are a number of hotel rooms
within the market positioned to capture a wide variety of guests.
Definition of "Transient Visitor Accommodations " and "Adequate Supply"
Based on our analysis, which is presented and substantiated in the following, we conclude
that there is an adequate supply of transient visitor accommodations within Huntington
Beach and the Huntington Beach/Sunset Beach hotel market. Before detailing our analysis
and rationale, it is important to provide definitions of "transient visitor accommodations"
and "adequate supply."
Transient visitor accommodations are defined as lodging that is available for rent for a
minimum of one night to a maximum of thirty days for the purposes of visiting a
destination for commercial, leisure, group, government, military, or other temporary
purposes. Transient visitor accommodations are subject to transient occupancy tax, which
is discussed in more detail later in this letter.
An adequate supply of rooms within a hotel market would be defined as a large enough
capacity to accommodate the demand desiring hotel rooms in that market in all seasons,
including during times of peak levels of demand. In a previous study of room supply in
another California destination, having an "adequate supply" was reported as market
occupancies lower than 95 percent during peak periods of demand. If occupancies exceed
95 percent during peak visitation months, it was deemed that a surplus of rooms was not
available and therefore the supply was not adequate. If occupancies during peak demand
periods did not exceed 95 percent, then it was concluded that an adequate supply was
available.
From the alternative perspective, adequate supply must also achieve an economic balance
that prevents an oversupply of rooms during lower periods of demand. By achieving this
balance, profitability of the individual hotels can be maintained at a level where regular
maintenance and capital expenditures can be sustained and properties are not forced into
bankruptcy due to idle capacities. An over-saturation of hotel supply within a market can
cause just such consequences. Destination markets such as Phoenix and Salt Lake City
have experienced this problem. Salt Lake City is a ski resort that is located proximate to the
city center, while Phoenix is a desert destination with self-contained resorts and resort
activities such as golf and tennis. In such markets, it may be easy to find land zoned for
hotel use, and when financing is readily available additional supply can ensue. However, if
demand does not keep pace with supply, the consequences are idle capacity, deferred
property upkeep, and potentially bankruptcies.
Based on these definitions, a market containing an adequate supply of hotel rooms would
also be considered a "healthy" and balanced market. The inverse would also be true, that
a "healthy" and balanced market contains an adequate supply of hotel rooms.
3
Effect of Rate on Occupancy Levels
An important consideration when determining adequate supply is the effect of rates on
occupancy levels. Typically there is an inverse relationship between occupancy and rates
in hotel markets. More specifically, occupancies will typically increase as rates decrease,
and alternately occupancies will decrease as rates rise. Independent of location-specific
demand, significant peaks in occupancy levels can also signify rates that are below market
levels, and low occupancy levels can be indicative of rates that are higher than the market
can bear.
Advance Reservation Accommodation
Of course, even during peak periods of demand, a visitor seeking accommodations can
very likely be accommodated if reservations are made in advance. Peaks in demand are
often fueled by last-minute reservations and walk-in demand that may not have originally
sought accommodations or planned to stay in the particular market.
Proximity to Regional Supply
Unlike other visitor destinations, which may be located in more remote areas with limited
facilities and amenities available, Huntington Beach is located within the greater Orange
County and Los Angeles County markets. With its beachfront location near the northern
border of Orange County, just a few miles from the southern border of Los Angeles, visitors
to Huntington Beach have the option to stay in the immediate area, or choose from over
50,000 hotel rooms within Orange County or over 100,000 rooms within Los Angeles
County.
Visitation to Huntington Beach
With annual visitation levels of approximately 11 million, Huntington Beach is an
attractive tourist destination. Of these visitors, a significant number are day visitors who do
not require overnight accommodations in Huntington Beach. This is due to a number of
factors, including the high quality of the surf which draws surfers from the immediate
region, as well as the accessibility of the City's beaches and the abundance of parking
proximate to the beach. Therefore, a high level of visitation does not directly translate into
a high demand for transient overnight accommodations.
Seasonality and Patterns of Demand
Huntington Beach is less of a seasonal market than other visitor destinations, for two key
reasons. First, its location within the Los Angeles Basin, as discussed in the previous
paragraph, generates demand from a number of segments (leisure, commercial, and group)
throughout the year. Of course, additional demand is captured during the summer months
and on weekends due to Huntington Beach's ocean orientation. It is important to note that
weekends are a time of high demand for Huntington Beach, even outside of the summer
months, illustrating that Huntington Beach is more of a year-round destination than several
other visitor markets.
4
Second is the weather pattern in Huntington Beach, which is mild and sunny for most
months of the year. The average temperature in Huntington Beach is 62 degrees
Fahrenheit, from a low of 50 degrees Fahrenheit in December to a high just over 80
degrees Fahrenheit in August. Much of the coastline within Orange and Los Angeles
Counties is comprised of south- and southwest facing beaches, offering a better climate
year-round than its San Diego, Central California, and Northern California neighbors. As
one moves south along the California coast to San Diego, coastal weather patterns bring
fog during the summer months, specifically in the morning hours. Moving north along the
coastline, temperatures tend to be lower on the average (57 degrees Fahrenheit in Carmel)
accompanied by wind and heavier levels of precipitation.
Long-Term Permanency of Hotel Supply
The economic impact of tourism is extremely significant within southern California,
especially in coastal markets. This has not only benefited hotel owners and operators in the
profitability of their hotel properties, but also provides significant revenues to individual
cities. Cities benefit from hotel developments within their borders through transient
occupancy tax (TOT) revenues charged on every hotel room night sold, and may also
receive considerable revenues from property tax income, particularly from developments
located within the redevelopment zones. These revenues can be a significant portion of the
City's revenue and budgetary considerations, and is so coveted that some cities have either
contributed to private hotel developments or developed hotel properties themselves to get
a foothold in these valuable revenue streams. Because of the importance of these revenue
sources to cities, it is highly unlikely that existing hotel properties will cease to exist or that
land available for development or redevelopment of hotels or other visitor-serving
accommodations would be rezoned for other uses. This further protects the adequacy of
supply in all markets in the long-term, including Huntington Beach.
Diversity of Hotel Product within Huntington Beach
As mentioned in the beginning of this letter, Huntington Beach offers a diverse selection of
hotel products, relative to the facilities and amenities offered, quality level, and rate. As
every quality level from one- to four-diamond is represented within the market, this ensures
that anyone seeking accommodations in Huntington Beach, regardless of price, will have
lodging options available to them. Occupancies levels in all months suggest appropriate
rate positioning of the properties within the market and a balanced supply to satisfy the
demand in the market.
Analysis of Adequate Supply
We have completed an analysis of occupancy segmented by month for the Huntington
Beach market, as well as for the markets of Santa Barbara and Carmel. We further divided
Huntington Beach into quality levels to determine whether the supply is appropriately
paired with the demand. For Huntington Beach we used a sampling of the hotel market
totaling nearly 1,200 rooms, or 67 percent of the total hotel supply within the Huntington
Beach/Sunset Beach market. The hotels in the sample represent the two-, three-, and four-
diamond quality levels.
S
The following table presents the occupancy and rate by month for the Huntington Beach
market.
Huntington Beach/Sunset Beach
Estimates of Hotel Occupancy and Rate by Month
(T ili T l M th )ra n we ve on s
TOTAL 4-Diamond 2-3 Diamond
Month Occ %ADR Occ %ADR Occ %ADR
October 2003 51.0%$138.98 54.3%$167.24 43.6%$60.03
November 54.4 137.10 59.1 163.77 44.0 56.92
December 51.8 131.10 53.1 161.99 48.9 56.00
January 2004 58.3 131.71 62.1 158.41 49.9 57.19
February 62.1 145.35 70.6 168.81 43.1 59.18
March 62.0 142.82 66.0 172.12 52.8 60.67
April 63.3 147.74 71.0 172.94 46.1 60.80
May 65.9 145.30 70.0 175.84 56.8 61.03
June 74.0 147.90 77.0 180.17 67.4 65.23
July 78.6 169.93 82.1 209 .71 70.9 66.72
August 75.4 165.08 80.4 200.08 64.1 66.72
September 63.6 148.40 67.2 180.72 55.6 60.80
Bold typeface denotes occupancies in excess of 80 percent.
Source: Individual Hotels and PKF Consulting
The occupancy levels shown above show that even during the period of highest demand,
which has historically been the month of July, an average of 384 units remain available
each night of the month to capture potential future demand. Occupancies in the summer
months have not exceed 79 percent as a market, which is well under the benchmark of 95
percent that would suggest an inadequate supply. This leads to the conclusion that there is
an adequate supply of hotel rooms in the Huntington Beach and Sunset Beach market.
As a test of reasonableness, we evaluated two other destination markets within California
as to the adequacy of their hotel supply. Both of these markets, Santa Barbara and Carmel,
are located in more remote areas, have a lower population base, require more lengthy
travel from major metropolitan areas, and have fewer amenities within their overall
vicinities. This features lead to occupancies during high periods of demand in excess of 80
percent for the Santa Barbara and Carmel markets, and in one instance, in excess of 90
percent. The following table shows the monthly rate and occupancy levels for a
representative sample of hotels within Santa Barbara and Carmel.
6
Santa Barbara and Carmel
Estimates of Hotel Occupancy and Rate by Month
(rraili Twelve Months)
Santa Barbara Carmel
Month Occ %ADR Occ %ADR
October 2003 74.2%$176.74 N/A N/A
November 67.1 164.65 84.1%$252.74
December 55.0 153.51 51.9 194.72
January 2004 59.3 152.75 60.3 207.19
February 68.1 164.97 64.4 198.33
March 70.1 157.93 69.4 220.88
April 67.4 166.67 68.7 226.49
May 67.7 176.90 77.7 241.52
June 71.8 182.78 73.1 265.97
July 84.0 206.91 76.7 275.93
August 88.0 220.52 89.8 288.09
September 76.2 184.42 92.0 325.04
October 74.1 174.51 83.4 280.16
November N/A N/A 78.0 289.00
Bold typeface denotes occupancies in excess of 80 percent.
Source: Individual Hotels and PKF Consulting
Based on our analysis and interpretation of this data, coupled with our knowledge of the
overall hotel industry and our experience in the Huntington Beach hotel market, we
conclude that there is an adequate supply of transient visitor accommodations (hotel
rooms) in Huntington Beach.
Future Hotel Development within Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach possesses opportunities for continued hotel development. Currently,
140 hotel rooms are planned in the downtown area at the intersection of Fifth Street and
Pacific Coast Highway and major portions of the downtown area remain zoned for mixed-
use and commercial developments that can support visitor accommodation in the long-
term future. Additionally, there is significant acreage along Pacific Coast Highway with
water views that is zoned for hotels and other visitor-serving uses which can be expected to
be developed as existing oil production on the sites is depleted and phased out. Therefore,
even with continued growth in population and the resulting induced demand for transient
accommodations, we believe that the additional inventory planned and proposed will
maintain an adequate supply of transient visitor accommodations in the future.
Should you have any questions relative to our assumptions and conclusions, or in the
interpretation of the information contained herein, we would be happy to provide our
assistance. We appreciate the opportunity to work on this most interesting assignment.
Most sincerely,
PKF Consulting
B ce Baltin
Senior Vice President
Huntington Beach & Sunset Beach
Hotels and Hotel Rooms by Quality Level
Name of Establishment
Minimum
Published
Rate
AAA
Diamonds Ci & State Zi /Postal Code Rooms
4-Diamond Quality (or equivalent)
HYATT REGENCY HUNTINGTON BEACH 235 4 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 51
HILTON WATERFRONT BEACH RESORT 174 4 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 29
3-Diamond Quality (or equivalent)
BEST WESTERN REGENCY INN 65 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 6
HOTEL HUNTINGTON BEACH 75 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 22
HARBOUR INN AT SUNSET BEACH 80 3*SUNSET BEACH 90742 2 0
BEST WESTERN HUNTINGTON BEACH INN 100-250 3*HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 50
2-Diamond Quality (or equivalent)
COMFORT SUITES HUNTINGTON BEACH 80 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 10
HOWARD JOHNSON EXPRESS INN & SUITES 65 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 65
PACIFIC VIEW INN & SUITES 59-199 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 21
RANCHO BOLSA CHICA INN 110-135 2*SUNSET BEACH 90742 10
EXTENDED STAY AMERICA HUNTINGTON BEACH 57-76 2*HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 10
GUESTHOUSE INNS HUNTINGTON BEACH (former S 45-85 2*HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 3
OCEAN FRONT RAMADA LIMITED 100 2*SUNSET BEACH 90742 5
ECONO LODGE SUNSET BEACH 70 2*SUNSET BEACH 90742 25
1-Diamond Quality (or equivalent)
BEACH INN MOTEL 69 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 3
SUN N SANDS MOTEL 69 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 1
HUNTINGTON SUITES 58-88 1*HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 6
777 MOTOR INN 40 1*HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 4 •OCEAN VIEW MOTEL 55 1*HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 29
HUNTINGTON SURF INN 59-129 1*HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 9
EDELWEISS INN'55 1*HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 1
1,795
1 Closed for remodeling scheduled to open in February 2005
*These are not AAA ratin s but are estimations of uali
Souce: PKF Consultin and Smith Travel Research
level based on amenities and ublished rates.
Quality Rating Total Hotels Total Number of Rooms
4 2 807
3 4 363
2 8 411
1 7 214
Addendum
Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
This report is made with the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
Economic and Social Trends - The consultant assumes no responsibility for economic, physical or demographic
factors which may affect or alter the opinions in this report if said economic, physical or demographic factors were not
present as of the date of the letter of transmittal accompanying this report. The consultant is not obligated to predict future
political, economic or social trends.
Information Furnished b Others - In preparing this report, the consultant was required to rely on information
furnished by other individuals or found in previously existing records and/or documents. Unless otherwise indicated, such
information is presumed to be reliable. However, no warranty, either express or implied, is given by the consultant for the
accuracy of such information and the consultant assumes no responsibility for information relied upon later found to have
been inaccurate. The consultant reserves the right to make such adjustments to the analyses, opinions and conclusions set
forth in this report as may be required by consideration of additional data or more reliable data that may become available.
Hidden Conditions - The consultant assumes no responsibility for hidden or unapparent conditions of the property,
subsoil, ground water or structures that render the subject property more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for
arranging for engineering, geologic or environmental studies that may be required to discover such hidden or unapparent
conditions.
Hazardous Materials - The consultant has not been provided any information regarding the presence of any material
or substance on or in any portion of the subject property or improvements thereon, which material or substance possesses or
may possess toxic, hazardous and/or other harmful and/or dangerous characteristics. Unless otherwise stated in the report,
the consultant did not become aware of the presence of any such material or substance during the consultant's inspection of
the subject property. However, the consultant is not qualified to investigate or test for the presence of such materials or
substances. The presence of such materials or substances may adversely affect the value of the subject property. The value
estimated in this report is predicated on the assumption that no such material or substance is present on or in the subject
property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. The consultant assumes no responsibility for the
presence of any such substance or material on or in the subject property, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge
required to discover the presence of such substance or material. Unless otherwise stated, this report assumes the subject
property is in compliance with all federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and rules.
Zonin and Land Use - Unless otherwise stated, the projections were formulated assuming the hotel to be in full
compliance with all applicable zoning and land use regulations and restrictions.
Licenses and Permits - Unless otherwise stated, the property is assumed to have all required licenses, permits,
certificates, consents or other legislative and/or administrative authority from any local, state or national government or
private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in
this report is based.
En ineerin Surve - No engineering survey has been made by the consultant. Except as specifically stated, data
relative to size and area of the subject property was taken from sources considered reliable and no encroachment of the
subject property is considered to exist.
Subsurface Ri hts - No opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas or mineral rights or whether the
property is subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials, except as is expressly stated.
Ma s Plats and Exhibits - Maps, plats and exhibits included in this report are for illustration only to serve as an aid
in visualizing matters discussed within the report. They should not be considered as surveys or relied upon for any other
purpose, nor should they be removed from, reproduced or used apart from the report.
Le al Matters - No opinion is intended to be expressed for matters which require legal expertise or specialized
investigation or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by real estate consultants.
STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
(continued)
Ri ht of Publication - Possession of this report, or a copy of it, does not carry with it the right of publication. Without
the written consent of the consultant, this report may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to
whom it is addressed. In any event, this report may be used only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety for
its stated purpose.
Testimon in Court - Testimony or attendance in court or at any other hearing is not required by reason of rendering
this appraisal, unless such arrangements are made a reasonable time in advance of said hearing. Further, unless otherwise
indicated, separate arrangements shall be made concerning compensation for the consultant's time to prepare for and attend
any such hearing.
Archeolo ical Si nificance - No investigation has been made by the consultant and no information has been
provided to the consultant regarding potential archeological significance of the subject property or any portion thereof. This
report assumes no portion of the subject property has archeological significance.
Corn Dance with the American Disabilities Act - The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") became
effective January 26, 1992. We assumed that the property will be in direct compliance with the various detailed
requi rements of the ADA.
Definitions and Assum Lions - The definitions and assumptions upon which our analyses, opinions and
conclusions are based are set forth in appropriate sections of this report and are to be part of these general assumptions as if
included here in their entirety.
Dissemination of Material - Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be disseminated to the
general public through advertising or sales media, public relations media, news media or other public means of
communication without the prior written consent and approval of the consultant(s).
Distribution and Liabili to Third Parties - The party for whom this report was prepared may distribute copies
of this appraisal report only in its entirety to such third parties as may be selected by the party for whom this report was
prepared; however, portions of this report shall not be given to third parties without our written consent. Liability to third
parties will not be accepted.
Use in Offerin Materials - This report, including all cash flow forecasts, market surveys and related data,
conclusions, exhibits and supporting documentation, may not be reproduced or references made to the report or to PKF
Consulting in any sale offering, prospectus, public or private placement memorandum, proxy statement or other document
("Offering Material") in connection with a merger, liquidation or other corporate transaction unless PKF Consulting has
approved in writing the text of any such reference or reproduction prior to the distribution and filing thereof.
Limits to Liabilit - PKF Consulting cannot be held liable in any cause of action resulting in litigation for any dollar
amount which exceeds the total fees collected from this individual engagement.
Le al Ex enses - Any legal expenses incurred in defending or representing ourselves concerning this assignment will be
the responsibility of the client.
MEMORANDUM
TO: ROSEMARY MEDEL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM : LARRY BROSE, SHAWN MILLBERN, THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION
SUBJECT : GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 / LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 03-02 / ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 /
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 03-07 REGARDING TIMESHARE USE
RESPONSE TO UESTION REGARDING RECORDATION OF AIRSPACE
CONDOMINIUM MAP
DATE : 9/29/2004
CC: ETHEN THACHER, MAKAR PROPERTIES
At our last meeting, you asked whether a timeshare project requires the recordation of an
airspace condominium map. We consulted with legal counsel who specializes in the real estate
law aspects of timeshare development and reviewed certain Department of Real Estate
regulations to obtain the following information. Rather than just the short "yes/no" answer, I
though you would benefit from a more thorough explanation of the manner in which timeshare
interests are conveyed, so please forgive the lengthy answer.
As you recall, timeshare interests are generally either a "right to use" interest which represents a
contractual right of occupancy without a direct ownership in the real estate, or a "timeshare
estate" which represents a right of occupancy coupled with an estate in real property.
Ri ht To Use Timeshares:
In a "right to use" project, a condominium airspace map is not necessary. The ownership of the
entire property would typically be held by a trustee, such as a bank, in trust for the benefit of the
timeshare owners, and the owners would receive their timeshare interest by a written contract in
lieu of a deed. However, any timeshare project is governed by the California Department of Real
Estate ("DRE") which requires that a governing set of timeshare CC&Rs approved by the DRE
be recorded setting forth the timeshare regime. In order to maintain inventory control and
distinguish between different types of units, the CC&Rs must describe the units with a specific
numbering system approved by the DRE and by reference to a floor plan that is attached as an
exhibit. The timeshare CC&Rs become a de-facto unit map for the project, albeit not a fully
dimensioned three-dimensional map as would be the case with a recorded condominium map.
The DRE requires that the approved system of time-share interval identification must be clearly
set forth in the CC&Rs and other projects management documents, along with a covenant by the
MEMORANDUM
PAGE 2 OF 3 0
developer not to sell more intervals than the DRE agrees will be available for shared use and
proper maintenance of the project.
Timeshare Estate Interests:
For "timeshare estate" projects where an interest in real property is being conveyed, the more
common approach is to record a conventional condominium airspace map in addition to a set of
timeshare CC&Rs. The industry standard is now a "fully floating" interval. That means that the
timeshare buyer receives title to an interest in a particular unit, but the owner's use of that unit is
restricted both under the deed and the CC&Rs. The deed would grant an undivided tenancy-in-
common ownership interest in a particular condominium unit', but it would exclude the right to
occupy that particular unit. The deed would then also grant to the timeshare owner a right to
occupy any unit of that owner's unit type for a one week period to be reserved in accordance with
certain reservation rules and the timeshare CC&Rs. Cross-use easements would be reserved and
granted in the CC&Rs to enable the floating use program to work properly among condominium
units of similar unit types.
In some instances of timeshare estate projects, a condominium map is not recorded. A DRE
approved numbering system and floor plan is attached to the recorded timeshare CC&Rs for
inventory description and control purposes as was referenced earlier in "right to use" projects.
However, a tenancy-in-common interest in a particular condominium unit is not conveyed.
Instead, the deed would convey an undivided ownership interest in the entire project to the
timeshare owner2. As in the prior case to establish a "fully floating" interval, the deed would
exclude the right to use any specific unit, but would grant to the timeshare owner a right to use
and occupy any unit of that owner's unit type for a one week period to be reserved in accordance
with the reservation rules and timeshare CC&Rs. Cross-use easements would not be required,
since all timeshare owners would have an undivided interest in the whole property.
Additional Comments:
Whether a condominium map is recorded or not, the DRE closely regulates the process to ensure
that the timeshare interests being conveyed are clearly identified, the inventory of sold and
unsold units can be easily tracked, and the project cannot be oversold. Further, title insurance is
typically provided to timeshare owners, and the title insurance company also closely monitors
the inventory of sold and unsold interests.
Lastly, modern timeshare projects built as one phase with a large number of units creates a large
unsold inventory of units for an extended period of time, which are often operated by the
developer as hotel rooms until sold as timeshare units. In order to separate the timeshare owners
' Typically, a 1/51ST interest, where 51 weeks are conveyed to timeshare owners, and the remaining week is
conveyed to the timeshare owners' association to allow time to perform significant maintenance and repairs to all
the units in the project.
2 In the example of a building with 100 units and assuming 51 weeks are sold and 1 week is conveyed to the
timeshare owner's association for maintenance purposes, the timeshare owner would receive a 1/5,100' undivided
ownership interest in the entire property.
2
MEMORANDUM
PAGE 3 OF 3 0
from the developer's temporary hotel operation, such projects are often documented separately at
the condominium and the timeshare level. A set of condominium documents is created and a
condominium structure is implemented having a condominium association responsible for the
physical components of the building and the grounds. This condominium association is
controlled by the developer. Then, a separate timesharing regime, with a separate timeshare
association (controlled by timeshare owners), is overlaid on top of the condominium structure.
The timeshare program is activated in phases representing blocks of units for which the
timeshare association becomes responsible, with the balance of the units remaining as hotel
rooms under the control of the developer's condominium association. As timeshare sales
continue, additional blocks of units are relinquished by the condominium association and taken
over by the timeshare association. Once all the timeshares are sold out, the documents provide
for the merger of the two associations into the one timeshare association.
3
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: ROSEMARY MEDEL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM : LARRY BROSE, SHAWN MILLBERN, THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 / LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 03-02 / ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 /
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 03-07 REGARDING TIMESHARE USE
COASTAL ISSUES PROPOSED STAFF REPORT DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
DATE : 9/16/2004
CC: ETHEN THACHER, MAKAR PROPERTIES
Introduction:
The subject proposed amendments to the Local Coastal Plan and Zoning text will require the
approval of the California Coastal Commission ("Commission"). In the past, the Commission
has been very cautious with respect to the approval of timeshare uses, as discussed in greater
detail below. We have received considerable expert advice regarding the past analyses and
positions that the Commission has taken on prior applications involving timeshare use. The
purpose of this memorandum is to detail certain issues that we believe are important topics for
inclusion in a staff report for the subject applications to address the special concerns that the
Commission has previously expressed. Additionally, we have discussed additional possible
findings that we recommend that the City approve in conjunction with this application to further
support the reasonableness of the City's action.
As you know, we can expect the Commission to look very carefully at the proposed application.
We believe that it would be most helpful that an approval by the City be based on a thorough and
thoughtful analysis in the City's staff report of the coastal access issues the Commission is
sensitive to. We then ask that the City's staff report and other supporting materials be forwarded
to the Commission with the application. You are free to use any or all of the following text, or
modify it as you deem appropriate. We also look forward to discussing the matter further, and
helping you in any way you request.
Current Timeshare Zonin :
Timeshares are allowed in the Commercial General District (CG) and Mixed Use Districts (M,
MH and MV) portions of Huntington Beach's Coastal Zone since at least 20011. These areas
consist generally of the downtown business core and the land northwest of Goldenwest Avenue
1 Policy 3.2.4 from Natural Resource Chapter, Coastal Element , of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach
MEMORANDUM
PAGE 2 OF 5 0
at Pacific Coast Highway. To date, no application for a timeshare project has been filed with the
City at these locations.
Summa of A lication:
The applicants to the above-referenced amendments, The Robert Mayer Corporation and Makar
Properties, has requested that timeshares be a permitted use, subject to a Conditional Use Permit
(and Coastal Development Permit) in Downtown Specific Plan Districts 7 and 9. Additionally,
the applicants have proposed that certain basic definitions of a timeshare project be added to the
Downtown Specific Plan, and have proposed language to provide that the City's policy
requirement for availability of transient overnight accommodations at a timeshare development
be considered in the context of the master site plan which is required to be approved under the
Downtown Specific Plan at these locations prior to development.
A conditional use permit or other application for a proposed timeshare development has not been
submitted at this time. The applicants are only requesting these limited changes which would
allow them the potential to seek approval of a timeshare project in these districts in the future.
Makar Properties has recently received an approved master site plan and conditional use permit
for a mixed-use development project at District 7 ("Pacific City") which contains retail, office
restaurants and a 400 room hotel, but has not yet commenced construction. If timeshares became
an allowed use at District 7, Makar Properties may in the future propose to substitute timeshares
for a portion of the previously-approved hotel use. The Robert Mayer Corporation has
previously constructed in District 9 the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort and the Hyatt Regency
Huntington Beach Resort and Spa, which hotels total 800 guestrooms. The approved master site
plan for District 9 also allows an additional third hotel to be constructed on the parcel located
between these two hotels. If timeshares become an allowed use in District 9, The Robert Mayer
Corporation may in the future propose to develop a timeshare project at that third hotel site.
The timeshare definitions provided by the applicants are consistent with definitions used in many
other cities, including Palm Desert (home of one of California's largest timeshare developments
by Marriott) and Newport Beach. The definition is broad, attempting to encompass all the
different variations of ownership existing in the timeshare industry, since the type of timeshare
programs are constantly evolving with the entry of new hospitality companies to the industry.
The California Coastal Commission Pers ective:
The California Coastal Commission ("Commission") has recognized that timeshare projects are a
visitor-serving use. However, the Commission has also concluded that such use is a lower
priority than a conventional hotel because the majority of visitors to timeshare resorts are from
the pool of timeshare owners (or timeshare owners at other resorts who exchange into the given
resort) rather than the public at large.2 As a result, the Commission argues that timeshare resorts
2 The Commission draws a distinction between timeshare owners and the general public, even though timeshare
owners are members of the general public. It can also be argued that a substantial number of hotel visitors to the
City are recurrent visitors just as are timeshare owners. Nonetheless, the Commission asserts that the ownership
2
MEMORANDUM
PAGE 3 OF 5 0
provide less availability of transient accommodations for the general public. Nonetheless, the
Commission has also recognized that with new timeshare projects, although the number of units
available to the general public may be substantially limited, any percentage that are available
represents a net increase in overnight accommodations.3,4 To ensure that there is such net gain,
the Commission has in most instances required LCP provisions to require that a percentage of
the units shall be set aside for the general public.
Such a requirement was added at the request of the Commission in their approval of the City's
comprehensive amendment to its LCP in 2001. The Coastal Element of the City's General Plan
now contains Policy 3.2.4 which requires that at least twenty-five percent of the units in a
timeshare facility be permanently reserved for transient overnight accommodations during the
summer season and that the timeshare facility operate as a hotel including requirements for a
centralized reservations system, check-in services, advertising, security, and daily housecleaning.
Overni ht Visitor Accommodations in the Cit :
The City of Huntington Beach is exemplary with respect to providing visitor access to the coast.
With its 8-1/2 miles of City and State managed public beaches and over XX,XXX parking spaces
immediately adjacent to the beach, the City hosts approximately 11 million visitors per year,
considerably more annual visitors than experienced by the entire State of Hawaii5. Further, the
City of Huntington provides a significant amount of transient overnight accommodations. There
are a total of hotel and motel rooms in the City, most within a mile or two of the beach, and
all within ready access to bus transportation to the beach. Additionally, there is overnight
recreational vehicle parking allowed totaling 250 spaces at specific locations within the beach
parking areas immediately adjacent to the beach6. Moreover, a new 140 room hotel is part of the
new "Strand" development at 5th Street and Pacific Coast Highway by CIM Group which has
recently commenced construction.
These transient overnight accommodations range from the upscale Hilton and Hyatt resorts, to
mid-level hotels to a number of economy level motels located along both Pacific Coast Highway
and Beach Boulevard. There is also a youth hostel located on Main Street in downtown
Huntington Beach. A tabulation of these facilities is contained in a report by PKF Consulting,
Inc. attached [to be attached]. Surveys of occupancy levels indicate that even in summer months
adequate inventories of available accommodations exist. Also, in addition to the new hotel
aspect of timeshares causes such projects to be closer to residential use than traditional hotels and therefore partially
exclusionary to the public.
3 See findings from Substantial Issue Determination at Carmel Highlands.
4 The Commission also finds that condominium-hotels, a type of development where the guestrooms in a hotel are
owned by individual investors with limited rights of temporary occupancy, have a higher priority in the coastal zone
than traditional timeshare projects as condominium-hotels are more likely to have a larger number of rooms
available for overnight rental by the general public. Condominium-hotels are included in the applicants' proposed
definition of timeshare use.
5 The Hawaii Tourism Authority projects 6.5 million visitor arrivals to the state in 2003.
6 City-operated parking lot on Pacific Coast Highway at Lake Street offers 150 spaces. The State Department of
Parks and Recreation allocates 100 spaces for camping at the Bolsa Chica State Beach.
3
MEMORANDUM
PAGE 4 OF 5 •
construction currently underway, additional transient accommodations can be expected at future
development sites in the City's coastal area, particularly at District 7 ("Pacific City") and in the
longer term future at the acreage northwest of Goldenwest Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway
currently zoned for mixed use development . Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the City
of Huntington Beach currently does, and will in the future, provide an adequate inventory of
transient ove rnight accommodations available to the general public irrespective of whether
timeshare use is allowed at District 7 and 9 of the downtown Specific Plan.
Additionally, it should be noted that the City of Huntington Beach spends approximately $6
million each year in lifeguard services, beach maintenance and related costs for the public
beaches. This is further evidence of the City's unusual level of excellence and commitment to
providing unparalleled public access to its coastal resources.
Master Site Plan Considerations at District 7 and District 9:
A special consideration for Districts 7 and 9 is the fact that the Downtown Specific Plan
designates these areas to be subject to the approval of a master site plan, so that the phased
approval and development of a mixed-use project at these locations can occur in a logical way.
Certain planning standards, such as site coverage, open space, parking and maximum
development is considered by the City on an overall master site plan basis in these areas, so that
a combination of uses can be better integrated, rather than separated as would otherwise be the
case if such planning standards were applied separately for each use. For example, the recently
approved Pacific City development at District 7 combines a number of different uses upon a
large-scale shared parking garage, something that might not otherwise be allowed were it not for
the master site plan perspective. And similarly, a future building at the remaining undeveloped
portion in District 9 is also planned to include additional parking for the benefit of the adjacent
Hilton hotel.
Consistent with this integrated approach to planning at these locations, the applicants have
proposed that Policy 3.2.4 of the Coastal Element of the General Plan which requires that at least
twenty-five percent of the units in a timeshare facility be permanently reserved for transient
overnight accommodations in the summer period be applied by the City on an overall master site
plan basis for each district. The practical effect of this at District 7 is to provide flexibility that
could allow a mix of hotel and timeshare use, but in separate structures within the complex rather
than in a single building. Likewise, at District 9, the remaining development site could become a
timeshare project since the existing adjacent Hilton hotel already more than satisfies the transient
occupancy Policy requirement.
7 One of the purposes of requiring a master site plan is to allow a phased development on the site. If a timeshare
project and the Hilton hotel were originally built together, a combined project would have met the transient
occupancy Policy requirement. Therefore, development of a timeshare project as a later phase after the hotel has
been previously built also satisfies the requirement.
4
MEMORANDUM
PAGE 5 OF 5
In conclusion, the application of the transient use Policy requirement on a master site plan basis
at these districts is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan, and simply
allows a more flexible development program while still satisfying the requirements of the Policy.
S ecial Findin s:
The unique circumstances in Huntington Beach as discussed above allows for certain special
findings to be reached by the City to further substantiate its approval of the applicants' requests.
In addition to other findings as are customary and/or statutory, the following special findings are
recommended:
Timeshare use is a visitor-serving use that is an alternative form of transient
accommodation compatible with the other visitor-serving accommodations available in the
City.
Timeshare use at District 7 and District 9 is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan.
Adequate and substantial availability of overnight transient accommodations exist within
the City providing adequate access to the coastal area, and an increase in such
accommodations is reasonably expected to occur in the future that will accommodate
growth in the number of visitors to the City's coastal zone.
Existing coastal policy provides adequate safeguards for continued public availability of
overnight accommodations in the City's coastal zone.
Application of the City's policy regarding availability of transient overnight
accommodations at timeshare facilities on a master site plan basis at districts 7 and 9 is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan.
5
MEMORANDUM
TO ROSEMARY MEDEL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: LARRY BROSE, SHAWN MILLBERN, THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 / LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 03-02 / ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 /
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 03-07 REGARDING TIMESHARE USE
RESPONSE TO UESTIONS
DATE: 9/14/2004
CO ETHEN THACHER, MAKAR PROPERTIES
Please find below responses to certain questions you have asked regarding timeshare use:
Does the Ma er Co oration currentl have units in o eration elsewhere?
As you know, the company and its principals are the developers , owners and operators of the
Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort and are the developers , majority owners and asset managers of
the Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort and Spa. Though the firm has not previously
developed or operated a timeshare resort, it has considerable knowledge of the industry and it
possesses the expertise necessary to develop and operate such a project. Additionally , it is likely
that The Robert Mayer Corporation would develop a timeshare resort in affiliation with a
national hotel and/or timeshare brand. Likewise, Makar Properties has previously developed the
St. Regis Monarch Beach Resort & Spa, has two potential timeshare projects it is currently
planning , and also possesses the necessary expertise to develop such a project.
How is title held on a vacation unit?
The manner in which title is held depends on the type of timeshare interest being conveyed.
Timeshare interests are generally either a "timeshare estate", which represents a right of
occupancy coupled with an estate in real property, or a "right to use" or "timeshare use" interest
which represents a contractual right of occupancy without a direct ownership in the real estate.
For timeshare estates, the buyer is given a deed. The deed specifies the recurrent right to occupy
the property on an annual or some other periodic basis, usually for a one week period. The deed
can be subject to an underlying ground lease or represent fee simple ownership . For timeshare
use interests, which interest may include such variations as "vacation license ", "vacation lease"
or "club membership" the buyer typically holds ownership through a contract that specifies the
recurrent right to occupy the property and/or a group of properties that are owned either by an
MEMORANDUM •
PAGE 2 OF 4
association of timeshare owners or a trustee pursuant to a trust for the benefit of the owners of
the timeshare interests.
Additionally, it should be noted that for many of the timeshare resorts developed today,
particularly those with national brand affiliations , the buyer acquires a bundle of rights that
includes an annual allotment of "points" which are used to "pay" for the stay at the timeshare
resort, or at other timeshare resorts or hotels in that system . Depending on the brand involved,
there are several variations in these programs regarding how the points are conveyed to the buyer
and how the buyer is allowed to use them. As a result, many of these newer programs convey
both a timeshare estate by grant deed as well as a right to use interest in the form of a point-based
program by contract.
In either case, timeshare projects are regulated by the California Department of Real Estate
("DRE"). In the additional information that is being provided to you under separate cover, you
will find an article from the DRE's website which discusses in greater detail the different types
of timeshare interests, and the DRE's requirements for such developments.
Lastly , it should be noted that these are all innovations in response to market competition and
buyer preferences, and new ideas and programs can be expected to evolve in the future. That is
why the proposed definition of a timeshare project is broad and references many of the common
variations in use today.
Does an owner build e uit on the unit like an other iece of real estate?
An owner will either pay cash for their unit purchase or will finance their purchase over a
period of 7-10 years and it could be said that the owner's investment represents equity.
However , it must be emphasized that timeshare units are not marketed as real estate investments,
but instead are sold for use, i.e., the acquisition of a perpetual high-quality vacation experience.
The purchase price is based more on the perceived value of the future vacation experiences,
including the flexibility for exchange and additional vacation options, rather than on other
traditional real estate criteria such as replacement cost or income potential . Further, if a
timeshare owner uses his unit for several years and then later decides to sell it, he has already
gained the benefit of a significant portion of his original investment and is likely to willingly sell
it for less than his original cost . Therefore, though the unit may be resold by the owner at any
time, the resale price will not appreciate as other traditional real estate investments and
timeshares are often resold at prices below their original cost . Consequently , a comparison to
other forms of real estate and related investment considerations is discouraged.
Do the have the ri t to rent the unit to another erson?
Yes, the owner typically has the right to rent the unit they own to a third party. Normally,
this is accomplished through the resort's onsite management operation, which typically runs a
centralized reservation service and an aggressive marketing campaign . Moreover , many national
hotel brand timeshare operations additionally offer various exchange programs within the hotel
2
MEMORANDUM isPAGE 3 OF 4
system as well, wherein a unit owner may release his unit to the brand's reservation system and
receive "points" to stay at other timeshare or hotel properties within the brand's system. Further,
almost all timeshare resorts are affiliated with one or more exchange companies that provide the
option for owners to exchange their interval at their own resort for an interval at another resort,
allowing the owner additional freedom to enjoy vacations at other resorts worldwide.
Do the a month' fees like an HOA to assure maintenance of the site.
Owners normally pay an annual Homeowners Association assessment which covers all the
expenses associated with ownership including utilities, housekeeping, maintenance, engineering,
management fees and reserves for replacements and capital improvements. Sometimes, but not
always, real estate taxes are included in the annual fee. Other times, owners pay those costs
separately pursuant to an individual real estate tax bill.
Based on how owners utilize the units do these units t icall have full occu anc ?
Vacation ownership resorts typically enjoy a significantly higher occupancy than
corresponding hotels for reasons including, (i) ultimately, all of the inventory is owned by people
who originally purchased the unit with the intent to use it, (ii) since the vacation is pre-paid,
owners are highly motivated to use it every year, (iii) exchange programs add to the demand for
unused intervals at premium locations like Huntington Beach, (iv) if not occupied by owners or
exchange users, the rental of unused intervals is typically marketed aggressively through a
national reservation system, (v) timeshare units are usually more desirable and enjoy a premium
demand in comparison to hotel units because of their larger size and greater amenities, (vi) the
average timeshare owner stays 7.3 days' nights in the resort area while the average hotel stay is
approximately 2 to 3 days, and (vii) The average number of occupants in a timeshare unit is
approximately 3.3 visitors' while the average in a hotel is approximately 2.1 visitors per room.
A significant factor when comparing the occupancy of traditional hotels to vacation
ownership resorts is the spending behavior of the visitors in the local community. Traditional
hotel visitors, with a much shorter average stay and facing a large hotel bill at checkout, tend to
restrict their overall spending and spend most of the dollars at the hotel property. In contrast,
timeshare owners do not face a large bill at checkout, and with their longer length of stay, are
much more likely to venture outside of the resort property to spend at nearby restaurants, shops
and attractions. Industry research shows that timeshare owners spend on the average over $1,000
per visit in expenditures in the local community for dining, shopping and entertainment', making
the timeshare visitor a valuable impact on the local economy.
I Source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Economic Im act of the Timeshare Indus on the . . Econom 2 04.
3
MEMORANDUM
PAGE 4 OF 4
We hope you find these answers informative and useful, and we stand ready to answer any other
questions you may have. Additionally, we are preparing under separate cover further
information regarding the timeshare industry for your use.
4
MEMORANDUM
TO, ROSEMARY MEDEL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: LARRY BROSE, SHAWN MILLBERN, THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 / LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 03-02 / ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 /
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 03-07 REGARDING TIMESHARE USE
REVISIO S TO ORIGINAL APPLICATION RE UEST
DATE: 9/14/2004
CO ETHEN THACHER, MAKAR PROPERTIES
We had previously provided you a memorandum dated November 24, 2003 that listed the
specific revisions we requested in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan/Land Use Element,
General Plan/ Coastal Element and the Downtown Specific Plan. The purpose of this
memorandum is to revise the details of that request in response to advice we have received from
Howard Zelefsky , from counsel with special expertise regarding the California Coastal
Commission , and our own review of prior LCP amendments and projects involving timeshare
projects in other California coastal communities.
The revisions to the prior request are summarized as follows:
1. Originally, the terms "Vacation Interval Project", "Vacation Interval" and "Vacation
Interval Unit" were proposed to be defined and used . Although this terminology may be
the latest lexicon of the industry , it is not as commonly used and understood as the words
"Timeshare Project", "Timeshare Interval" and "Timeshare Unit". Further, in all its prior
considerations and staff reports regarding timeshare uses in the Coastal Zone, the
California Coastal Commission has consistently used the term "timeshare", as has prior
coastal cities in California . We now believe that we should stay with this commonly
understood term so as to not create confusion or undue scrutiny with the Coastal
Commission . The actual definition provided would be unchanged, except as noted
below.
2. In the original definition provided of "Vacation Interval Project" (which we now propose
to be "Timeshare Project") the term "hotel/condominium " was included in the last line.
We have changed this to "condominium-hotel" since again, this is the exact term used by
the Coastal Commission in prior staff reports dealing with this use.
MEMORANDUM •
PAGE 2 OF 3
3. We believe it is more appropriate that the definitions should be placed only in the
Downtown Specific Plan, rather than in both the Downtown Specific Plan and the
glossary to the Coastal Element as originally proposed.
4. We propose below additional language in the Downtown Specific Plan to address the
transient use policy in the Coastal Element.
As a result our revised re uest is full restated as follows:
City of Huntington Beach General Plan , Land Use Element (1996):
1.Page II-LU-25, Table LU-2a, Permitted Uses: Add "Timeshare Units/Projects" to the CV
and CG Land Use Categories.
2.Page II-LU-54, Table LU-4, Subarea 4C PCH/First (Lake) Street:
"Hotels/motels/Timeshare Units/Projects" under "CV" category.
Add
3.Page II-LU-54, Table LU-4, Subarea 4D Waterfront: Add "Timeshare Units/Projects"
after "Hotels/motels".
City of Huntington Beach General Plan , Natural Resources Chapter, Coastal Element (2001):
1. Page IV-C-26, Table C-1, Commercial Visitor Permitted Uses : Add "Timeshare
Units/Projects"
2. Page IV-C-37, Table C-2, 4C PCH/First (Lake) Street: Add "Hotels/motels/Timeshare
Units/Projects" on first line of "CV" category.
3. Page IV-C-38, Table C-2, 4D Waterfront : Add "Timeshare Units/Projects" after
"Hotels /motels".
4. Page IV-C-96, item 24: Add "Timeshare Units/Projects" after "Hotel/motel rooms"
5. Page IV-C-108, Policy C 3.2.4: Add "an d Commercial Visitor District (CV)" after
"Commercial General District (CG)" in the first sentence.
City of Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan (June 1995):
1. Section 4.0.04, Definitions, add:
"Timeshare Project: Any development wherein a purchaser receives the right in
perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of
a lot, parcel, unit, room(s), or segment of real property, annually or on some other
seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the
use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and shall include, but
2
MEMORANDUM •
PAGE 3 OF 3
not be limited to timeshare estate, interval ownership, vacation license, vacation lease,
club membership, timeshare use, condominium-hotel, or uses of a similar nature."
2. Section 4.0.04, Definitions, add:
Timeshare Interval: The period or length of time of occupancy in a timeshare unit."
3. Section 4.0.04, Definitions, add:
"Timeshare Unit: Each portion of the real property or real property improvement in a
project that is divided into timeshare intervals."
4. Section 4.9.01 (b), Permitted Uses requiring a CUP, add: "Timeshare Project/Timeshare
Units".
5. Section 4.11.01 (b), Permitted Uses requiring a CUP, add: "Timeshare
Project/Timeshare Units".
Section 4.9.02 , Minimum Parcel Size , add as last sentence:
"Where part of an approved master site plan provides for timeshare use, transient
accommodations at the timeshare use required under Coastal Element policy may be
provided by hotel uses within such approved master site plan."
Section 4.11.02, Minimum Parcel Size , add as last sentence:
"Where part of an approved master site plan provides for timeshare use, transient
accommodations at the timeshare use required under Coastal Element policy may be
provided by hotel uses within such approved master site plan."
Thank you for your consideration and efforts regarding this application.
3
0
VACATION INTERVAL PROJECTS/UNITS
at
THE WATERFRONT AND PACIFIC CITY
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION
The Robert Mayer Corporation and Makar Properties, LLC are requesting approval of a
General Plan Amendment (Land Use and Coastal Elements) Zoning Map Amendment and
requisite Environmental Assessment to allow for Vacation Interval Projects/Units at The
Waterfront and Pacific City (collectively "Projects").
AREA DESCRIPTION
The Projects are located along Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and First
Street inland to Pacific View Avenue (The Waterfront) and future Pacific View Avenue
(Pacific City). The Waterfront is located within Downtown Specific Plan District 9 while
Pacific City is located with District 7.
The Waterfront site is also known as the "third hotel" which is part of the master planned
Waterfront development. Uses surrounding The Waterfront include the Hilton Waterfront
Beach Resort, the Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort and Spa and The Waterfront
Residential, presently under construction. Surrounding uses to Pacific City include the
Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort, single family and attached residential and limited
commercial.
Presently The Waterfront site is used by a pavilion/exhibition hall, passive recreation,
wedding gazebo and overflow parking for the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort. These uses
were planned as temporary in nature awaiting the "third hotel". The Pacific City site is
vacant.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENTITLEMENT RE UEST
Mayer and Makar seek to amend existing planning and zoning documents so that Vacation
Interval Projects/Units may be an allowed use within their respective parcels. This would
allow for greater flexibility in reaching the hotel/visitor serving market. At this time,
Mayer and Makar are not seeking specific project entitlement but rather an amended land
use designation. Specific project approvals are or will be included under separate
application.
The necessary entitlements to allow for the intended uses include:
V.Vacation Interval Projectsmts
At The Waterfront and Pacific City
Project Narrative
November 24, 2003
Page 2 of 2
0
1. General Plan Amendment: Both the Land Use Element and the Coastal Element
will require minor modifications. Please see attached Memorandum to Rosemary
Medel for proposed language changes.
2. Downtown Specific Plan Amendment: Districts 7 and 9 will require minor language
modifications to allow for the intended uses . Please see attached Memorandum to
Rosemary Medel for proposed language changes.
3. Zoning Map Amendment: The City's zoning map will require modification to
conform to the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.
4. Environmental Assessment: The action of the General Plan and Downtown
Specific Plan amendments will necessitate CEQA review by the City.
MEMORANDUM
1001
Y`TO: ROSEMARY MEDEL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPAI'IMEI
FROM : LARRY BROSE, SHAWN MILLBERN, THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 / LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 03-02 / ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 /
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 03-07 REGARDING TIMESHARE USE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE TIMESHARE INDUSTRY
DATE : 9/7/2004
CC: ETHEN THACHER, MAKAR PROPERTIES
Please find enclosed for your use the following items regarding the timeshare industry:
1. Print out and CD of a PowerPoint presentation we have prepared regarding the timeshare
industry. You are welcome to make this presentation on our behalf, or we will gladly make
the presentation at any future study session or public hearing.
2. 10 copies of the pamphlet "A Consumer Guide to Vacation Ownership" published by the
American Resort Development Association ("ARDA") which is the trade association for the
timeshare industry.
3. 10 copies of the pamphlet "An Inside Look at Vacation Ownership" published by ARDA.
4. 10 copies of the pamphlet "Getaway" published by American Express with general
information regarding the timeshare industry.
5. A copy of the Executive Summary of the report entitled "Economic Impact of the
Timeshare Industry on the U.S. Economy" prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for
ARDA.
6. A copy of the full report, "Economic Impact of the Timeshare Industry on the U.S.
Economy" prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for ARDA.
7. A copy of the full report , "A Study of the Timeshare and Vacation Ownership Industry"
prepared by Ragatz Associates for ARDA.
We hope this information is useful for your preparation for public hearings on our application.
Lastly, we will soon forward you some additional thoughts and recommendations on the staff report
content and findings that should be made in order to best support the proposed action with respect
to a future review by the California Coastal Commission.
LSA
April 14, 2004
Ms. Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
City of Huntington Beach Planning Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject : Waterfront and Pacific City GPA, LCPA, and ZTA
Dear Rosemary:
REC'Ervm
APR1 9 2004
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) has reviewed the application of The Robert Mayer Corporation for
processing a General Plan Amendment (GPA), an amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCPA),
and zoning text amendments to allow Vacation Interval units at The Waterfront development and the
Pacific City development. LSA's review of the relevant CEQA provisions indicates that the proposed
actions by the City and by the Coastal Commission are an exempt project as defined by CEQA. It is
LSA's opinion that an Exemption should be filed and that no further CEQA action is necessary to
allow the City to process the code and policy changes necessary to allow the proposed Vacation
Interval units as a permitted use within the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Districts 7
and 9.
As described in this letter, the Vacation Interval program should be deemed exempt from CEQA
because the actions cannot possibly cause an environmental effect as defined by CEQA. A brief
description of the Vacation Interval program is provided below, after which a discussion is provided
regarding LSA's opinion as to why the City's actions will not affect the environment and why they
are exempt under CEQA. A more detailed analysis as to the environmental implications of the
proposed actions is provided in the document titled "Environmental Checklist Form," which is on file
with the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department.
Proposed Vacation Interval Program
The City has received an application for a GPA, an LCPA, and zoning code amendments to allow a
Vacation Interval program for land within DSP Districts 7 and 9. These districts cover projects
located along Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and First Street inland to Pacific
View Avenue (The Waterfront) and future Pacific View Avenue (Pacific City). The Waterfront is
located within DSP District 9, and Pacific City is located in DSP District 7. The City has authority to
approve the requested actions to allow Vacation Interval units, while the California Coastal
Commission has approving authority to ratify the LCPA, should the City act to approve it.
There are no project plans or development plans being submitted with the current application. At this
time, the property owners are not seeking specific project entitlement but rather the amended land use
authority to permit these uses (Vacation Interval units) in the future. Specific project approvals will
be requested at an undetermined point in the future, depending upon market conditions for hotel
projects and Vacation Interval units/projects and also pending an independent decision as to the
desirability of the Vacation Interval program from a business standpoint. It is conceivable that one,
04/14/04<<P \TRM430\CEQA Submittal Letter 4-14 doc»
A SSOCIATES , INC. • OTHER OFFICES: FT . COLLINS
20 EXECUTIVE PARK , SUITE 200 949.553 .0666 TEL BERKELEY RIVERSIDE
IRVINE , CALIFORNIA 92614-4731 949.553.8076 FAX PT . RICHMOND ROCKLIN
PLANNING I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DESIGN
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC
both, or neither of the districts will actually develop with a Vacation Interval project. It is also
conceivable that one or more hotels will be built and will possibly conve rt at some undetermined time
in the future. In any case, regardless of the status of the Vacation Interval program, the physical
development of The Waterfront project and the Pacific Beach project will occur in much the same
way as is now planned and authorized. The proposed GPA, LCPA, and zoning text amendments are
not required to proceed with the projects already planned and are not part of a chain of actions that
lead to the inevitable construction of the associated projects, nor do they lead to adverse
environmental consequences.
CEQA Definition of a Project
LSA has reviewed the proposed GPA, LCPA, and zoning text amendments to determine the
applicability of CEQA. In essence, CEQA excludes or otherwise exempts governmental and private
actions if they are found not to have a significant impact on the environment and are not classified as
a project. CEQA specifically includes provisions to determine whether or not an activity is a
"project" using the following rationale:
"An activity may be excluded or exempted from CEQA for the following two reasons: (1) it
can be excluded by provisions of CEQA or the Guidelines ; or (2) it can be exempted by a
statute."
CEQA applies to "discretiona ry projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies."
This definition excludes from CEQA's purview proposed agency actions that are ministerial, rather
than discretiona ry, and actions that are not "projects."
CEQA defines the term "project" as an activity carried out, supported by, or authorized by a public
agency , "which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment ." This definition effectively excludes from
CEQA all agency actions that will have a legal , social , economic, or other effect but will not have an
effect on the physical environment.
The Guidelines also include a closely related provision, referred to as the "common sense
exemption," which provides that activities that cannot possibly have a significant effect on the
environment are exempt from CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). A proposed action that is discretionary
and that falls within the definition of "project" under CEQA and the Guidelines may also be
exempted from CEQA by a specific statutory or categorical exemption.
A public agency may not divide a single project into smaller individual subprojects to avoid
responsibility for considering the environmental impact of the project as a whole . Piecemealing a
project to avoid CEQA is not permitted where dividing a project will result in actions individually
considered that might be found to have no significant effect on the environment.
The scope of review under CEQA is not confined to immediate effects but extends to reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical changes to the environment. If the agency 's action is a necessa ry step
that starts in motion a chain of events that will foreseeably result in impacts to the physical
04/I4/04<P \TRM430\CEQA Submittal Letter 4-14 doc>> 2
LSA ASSOCIATES INC
environment , the activity must be treated as a project subject to CEQA. The key distinction is
between a "gove rnmental approval which constitutes an essential step culminating in an action which
may affect the environment ," and an approval "which portends no particular action affecting the
environment ." An ordinance could have an environmental impact because it could open the way for
development of other sites . Agency action that merely establishes its ability to take a later action that
will affect the environment but does not commit the agency to a definite course of action is not a
project subject to CEQA. This principle is reflected in part in Section 15378(b)(4), which excludes
from the definition of a "project" the creation of gove rnment funding mechanisms or other fiscal
activities that do not involve a commitment to a specific project that may result in a potentially
significant environmental impact.
Comparison of Proposed Actions to CEQA Definition of a Project
LSA has carefully reviewed the GPA, LCPA, and zoning text changes requested by the applicant to
allow Vacation Interval units within DSP Districts 7 and 9. Because the general attributes and
characteristics of the Vacation Interval program do not carry forward into any physical environmental
change that could possibly result in an environmental impact, such a program should qualify as an
exempt project as defined by CEQA. In the case before the City regarding The Waterfront
development and the Pacific City development, the Vacation Interval program may be applied to
already planned and entitled hotels permitted within both districts. A conversion from hotel use to
Vacation Interval use would cause no short-term or long-term effects to the environment. There
would be no physical change in project design that can be attributed to such a conversion that would
result from the requested amendments. For example, there would be no impacts to traffic, air quality,
noise, or land use conditions, which are typically the primary issues of concern when considering
urban visitor-serving facilities.
The Vacation Interval program will not contribute to any cumulative impacts. There is no evidence
that the Vacation Interval program would result in environmental impacts related to the change of use
from visitor-serving hotel to visitor-serving Vacation Interval units. Additionally, there is no
evidence that the Vacation Interval program would have environmental impacts, because the Vacation
Interval program will allow continuation of approved visitor-serving uses, including hotels, within the
Master Planned Waterfront project and the Master Planned Pacific City project. For the reasons
discussed in the CEQA Checklist and Responses report, the Vacation Interval program will not
contribute to any environmental impacts or to any cumulative impacts. Therefore, there is no
evidence that would indicate "unusual circumstances" or "cumulative impacts," the two tests included
in the Guidelines Section 15300.2 for determination of a project-related significant impact. LSA
finds no evidence that there should be an exception to classifying the Vacation Interval program as an
exempt action under CEQA Guidelines Article 5, Section 15060(c)(2), because the actions requested
do not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
04/14/04<<P \TRM430\CEQA Submittal Letter 4-14 docv 3
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC
Based on LSA's review of the evidence, there is no reasonable possibility of an environmental effect
related to the proposed actions . Mitigation measures are not required because there are no significant
impacts. Therefore, an Exemption can be filed on the actions at the time they are approved, and no
further action under CEQA is required.
Sincerely,
LSA A OCIATES,
Robert W. Balen
Principal
cc: Larry Brose
04/14/04<P \TRM430\CEQA Submittal Letter 4-14 docv 4
i
RE('31 VE iD
FEB 1 ? 2004 0
Cotrcil/.Agency Meeting Held-
Deferred/Continued to:
`Approved Conditionally Approved Denied 30U)II City r 's Si nature
Council Meeting Date: February 2, 2004 Department I umber: ED 04-03
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION
N lC.Z'-IL
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR/CHAIRMAN AND CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator/Executive Director aze*`9
C_
-I
r-PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, Director of Economic Development/Deputy
Executive Director
CLAY MARTIN, Director of Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Approve Redevelopment Agency/City Financial Modifications 'Q, COD.
38
Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: On September 2, 2003, and December 15, 2003, the
Council/Redevelopment Agency conducted study sessions on Redevelopment Agency
Financial Issues. The recommended actions in this Request for Council/Redevelopment
Agency Action begin to implement the direction outlined in the study sessions.
Fundin Source: The recommended actions and policy direction being affirmed do not
result in any expenditures. There will be a number of budget modifications and changes in
the balance sheet of the City and Redevelopment Agency as a result of the recommended
actions. These will be reflected in the FY 2003-04 Financial Statement once completed.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
City Council:
1. Approve:. a debt credit for the Redevelopment Agency applied against General Fund
debt for the following:
$39,210 for Ocean View Estates coach rental income;
$92,854 for Ocean View Estates coach sales proceeds;
$2,886,474 for Business Development expenses from FY 91/92 to FY 00/01.
2. Approve a transfer from the Ocean View Estates Fund to the Redevelopment Agency in
the amount of $197,095 from coach sales proceeds.
• .
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION
MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 04-03
3. Reclassify the $4,339,304 in General Fund overhead changes to the Redevelopment
Agency for FY 89/90 and FY 90/91, together with annual accounting charges, as the
overhead charges appropriate for the period of 1982 to 2003.
4. Authorize acceptance of the deed by the City for Shank House parcels.
Redevelopment Agency: Motion to:
1., Approve the following modifications to the Redevelopment Agency's 2003-04 Budget:
Appropriate $324,057 as General Fund Overhead Charge;
Eliminate $102,830 Accounting Charge;
Reduce Revenue by $705,000 for Hilton TOT shift to General Fund;
Reduce General Fund Debt Repayment by $926,227.
2. Adopt Resolution No. S -W , electing to remit to the City of Huntington Beach
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues for the Waterfront Beach Hilton allocated to the
Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Redevelopment Agency Ordinance Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Authorize the Agency Chairperson and Agency Clerk to execute deeds from the Agency
to the City for the Shank House parcels and send to the County for recordation after the
City Clerk has affixed the acceptance Certificate of the City.
Alternative Action s : Modify or delete individual items under the recommended
actions pursuant to Council/Agency direction.
Analysis: On September 2, 2003, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency conducted a
study session on Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues. The materials prepared for this
study session were designed to answer historic questions regarding Redevelopment Agency
finances and how they related to the City. This package included background information of
Redevelopment Agency debt, short-term cash flows, a long-term debt analysis, and
supporting materials. Policy Issues and Questions for City Council/Redevelopment Agency
consideration were outlined in a memorandum dated August 18, 2003 (copy attached).
Based on current information, it is expected that the Redevelopment Agency will be able to
fully repay its debt to the General Fund and all other City funds during the life of the Merged
Redevelopment Project Area. This information also raised a number of issues associated
with the need to manage the repayment of the Agency's debt to ensure that the City and
Redevelopment Agency are able to take the maximize advantage of the tax increment
revenues to be generated by the Merged Redevelopment Project Area given the $850 million
cap on tax increment.
On December 15, 2003, a second study session was held with the City
Council/Redevelopment to review possible responses/actions related to the policy
issues/questions raised at the September 2, 2003 study session. Given the increased
1/13/2004 1:48 PMG:\David\RCAS\financialactions.doc -2-
• •
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION
MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER : ED 04-03
likelihood that the Redevelopment Agency will be able to repay all debt and accrued interest,
many of the previously identified alternatives which would have reduced the overall Agency
debt were not recommended. At the December 15th study session, staff outlined its
recommendations for each of these policy issues/questions in a memorandum of the same
date (copy attached).
The specific actions being recommended as part of this item conform to those outlined on
December 15, 2003, with one exception. One policy issue where there were two alternatives
outlined is being deferred to be addressed in a future Request for Council Action and that
relates to Ocean View Estates and the net income from its operation prior to 2001-02. In
addition, further research resulted in a determination that the Downtown Paseo Parcels have
already been conveyed from the Redevelopment Agency to the City.
Environmental Status: N/A
Attachment s
- . ..S. . 1 - . .
1. Redevelopment Agency Resolution No
2. Grant Deeds for the Shank House Parcels.
3. Memorandum dated December 15, 2003 with attachments.
RCA Author: D. Biggs, ext. 5909
G:\David\RCAS\financialactions.doc -3- 1/21/2004 4:21 PM
••
Re devel opm ent Ag ency Res o . 3` $
ATTACHMENT #1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH ELECTING TO REMIT TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TRANSIENT
OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUES FOR THE WATERFRONT BEACH HILTON
ALLOCATED TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ORDINANCE NOS. 1 AND 2
WHEREAS, California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280.5 permits the
redevelopment agency of any city that has levied a transient occupancy tax pursuant to Section
7280 to adopt an ordinance levying a transient occupancy tax if the city's ordinance entitles any
person subject to the tax under the city's ordinance to credit the amount of taxes due to the
agency against the payment of taxes due under the city's ordinance; and
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach ("City") has adopted a transient
occupancy tax ordinance consistent with the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code Sections
7280 and 2780.5; and
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") adopted
Ordinance Nos. 1 and 2 levying a transient occupancy tax pursuant to Revenue and Taxation
Code Section 7280 applicable to the privilege of occupying a room or rooms in a hotel, inn,
tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging located within the entire Main-Pier subarea of the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project area; and
The Agency has now determined that the transient occupancy taxes for the Waterfront
Beach Hotel, which is located within the Main-Pier Redevelopment subarea, are not required to
enable the Agency to timely make payments to any developer pursuant to any outstanding
Disposition and Development Agreements and/or Owner Participation Agreements by and
between the Agency relating to redevelopment projects within the Main-Pier Redevelopment
subarea, as the same may be amended from time to time;
Commencing fiscal year 2003/2004, the Agency desires to remit to the City the transient
occupancy tax revenues collected on the occupancy of a room or rooms at the Waterfront Beach
Hotel allocated to the Agency pursuant to Agency Ordinance Nos. 1 and 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does
resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That the transient occupancy taxes applicable to the privilege of occupying
a room or rooms at the Waterfront Beach Hotel are not required to enable the Agency to timely
make payments to any developer pursuant to any outstanding Disposition and Development
Agreements and/or Owner Participation Agreements by and between the Agency relating to
redevelopment projects within the Main-Pier Redevelopment subarea, as the same maybe
amended from time to time.
l
G:\RESOLUTM2004 Agency-TOT Election.doc I
••
SECTION 2. That the transient occupancy tax revenues collected on the occupancy of a
room or rooms at the Waterfront Beach Hotel and allocated to the Agency pursuant to Agency
Ordinance Nos. 1 and 2 shall be remitted to the City of Huntington Beach commencing in fiscal
year 2003/2004.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2004.
Chairperson
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
9
Agency Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
07
i If A ency Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
IlU04
Exe ive Director Director of Economic evelopment
G: RESOLUTM2004 Agency-TOT Election doc2
Grant Deeds for Shank House Parcel
ATTACHMENT #2,
J/10)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City of Huntington Beach
Real Estate Services Division
P.O. Box 190 / 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 190 / 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
INCORPORATED AREA
APN(s): 024-147-08 & 024147-29
Location: 5t° Street & Walnut Avenue
GRANT DEED DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $ EXEMPT
S nature of Declarant or A ent determinin tax
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A PUBLIC BODY, CORPORATE AND POLITIC
hereby GRANT(S) to THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation, the real property in
the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows:
See Exhibit "A" for legal description
Dateda 2004
CATHY GREEN, Chair
Redevelopment Agency
DEED CERTIFICATION - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
This Is to certify that the interest In real property conveyed by the Deed
dated 2004, from the HUNTINGTON BEACH By:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A PUBLIC BODY, CORPORATE AND Assistant/Deputy City AttorneyPOLITIC to the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH is hereby accepted by
the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the City Council of the This document is solely for the official business of the City ofCity of Huntington Beach pursuant to the authority conferred by Huntington Beach, as contemplated under Government Code Sec.Resolution No. 3537 of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
adopted on August 7, 1972, and the grantee consents to the 6103 and should be recorded free of charge.
recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.Tax Exempt Government Agency
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Dated: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
By:
CONNIE BROCKWAY, CMC
CITY CLERK
BY:
CONNIE BROCKWAY, CIVIC
CITY CLERK
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO PARTY SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING LINE
Conni Br kwa i CI rk .f Hun 'n n Beach P. . Box 1 20 M in Hun 'n n Bea h 2
•
Project Name:
0
APN(s): 024-147-08 & 024-147-29
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of
County of
On
appeared
Date
before me, personally
Name & Title of Officer (Le, Jane Doe Notary Public)
Name(s) of signer(s)
personally known to me -OR- proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed
the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the
entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
---------------------------------------- OPTONAL ---------------------------------------
Though the data below Is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and couldprevent fraudulent
removal and reattachment of thds foram to another documentDescription of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document
Document Date:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Seller(s)
Signer's Name
Individual
Corporate Officer
Title(s):
Partner Limited General
Attorney-in-Fact Right Thumbprint of
signer
Trustee
Guardian or Conservator
Other
Signer Is Representing:
Number of Pages
Signer's Name
Individual
Corporate officer
Title(s):
Partner Limited General
Attomey-in-Fact Right Thumbprint of
Signer
Trustee
Guardian or Conservator
Other '
Signer Is Representing:
JF -11, q
••
EXHIBIT "A"
Parcel 1: Lots 2 and 4 of Block 204 in the Huntington Beach
tract, as per map recorded in Book 3, Page 36, of Miscellaneous
Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County,
California. Except therefrom the southeasterly 44 feet.
Parcel 2: Lot 6 of Block 204 in the Huntington Beach tract,
as per map recorded in Book 3, Page 36, of Miscellaneous
Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County,
California. Except therefrom the southeasterly 44 feet.
Parcel 3: The southwesterly 3 feet of the southeasterly 48
feet of Lot 8 of Block 204 in the Huntington Beach tract, as per
map recorded in Book 3, Page 36, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the
Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California.
Except therefrom the southeasterly 44 feet.
Excepting and reserving all oil, hydrocarbon substances and
minerals of every kind and character lying more than 500 feet
below the surface of said land, together with the right to drill
into, through, and to use and occupy all parts of said land lying
more than 500 feet below the surface thereof for any and all
purposes incidental to the exploration for and production of oil,
gas, hydrocarbon substances or minerals from said land or
other lands but without, however, any right to use either the
surface of said land or any portion of said land within 500 feet
of the surface for any purpose or purposes whatsoever.
••
Memorandum Dated 12/15/03
ATTACHMENT #3
5-1/t J/
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
InterOffice Communication
Economic Development Department
TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmebers
VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator
FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development
DATE: December 15, 2003
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY FINANCIAL ISSUES
On September 2, 2003, a study session was conducted with the City
Council/Redevelopment Agency Board regarding Redevelopment Agency Financial
Issues. During the course of this study session, we reviewed background information on
Redevelopment Agency Debt, Short Term Cash Flows, and a Long Term Debt Analysis.
Also included in the materials was a memorandum dated August 18, 2003, outlining a
series of Policy Issues/Questions related to Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues.
The purpose of this memorandum is to outline staffs recommendations regarding the
Policy Issues/Questions for Council/Redevelopment Agency consideration at a second
study session. Given the increased likelihood that the Redevelopment Agency will be
able to repay all debt and accrued interest, many of the previously identified alternatives
which would have reduced the overall Agency debt are not being recommended. Based
upon the input received in this study session, staff will return to the
Council/Redevelopment Agency Board with a series of actions to address the
implementation of the policy direction desired.
For ease of reference, the recommendations are ordered in the same sequence as the
Policy Issues/Questions listed in the attached memorandum dated August 18, 2003,
which was included in the study session materials.
Ocean View Estates
1. The City Council should approve a credit for the Redevelopment Agency in the
amount of $39,210 for coach rental income to be applied against Redevelopment
Agency Debt owed to the General Fund.
2. The City Council should approve a transfer from the Oce an View Estates Fund to
the Redevelopment Fund in the amount of $197,095 for coach sales proceeds
form Agency owned coaches.
3. The City Council should approve a credit for the Redevelopment Agency in the
amount of $92,854.07 for coach sales proceeds to be applied against
Redevelopment Agency Debt owed to the General Fund.
4. The City Council has a number of options related to the net income from the
operation of OVE for the year's prior to 2001-02, these include:
A. Establish an appropriate amount of debt from the General Fund to the Park
Acquisition & Development Fund reflecting the net income from OVE
through 2001/02 which was deposited in the General Fund. This debt
could be repaid over time as the financial situation of the General Fund
improves. It is recommended that we use the most recent FY year's
operating expenses versus revenues to determine a net income, including
the reserve/replacement factors, and apply this net income factor to the
$1,695,789 in revenue generated through 2001-02 rather than endeavoring
to recreate the actual net operating income for each year during the period
in question; or
B. Recognize the historic use of GF for parks as an offset to this amount,
including expenditures prior to the creation of the PA&DF.
5. The net OVE income after expenses and reserves has been going to the Park
Acquisition & Development Fund since FY 2001/02.
Emerald Cove
1 This debt should remain on the books as a debt of the Redevelopment Agency to
the Park Acquisition & Development Fund pending the eventual sale of the
project. As an pre-AB 1290 debt, it can be repaid at the end of the life of the
Merged Project Area by the Agency utilizing property tax increment after the
Agency is unable to collect tax increment other than for the repayment of Pre-
1290 debt. At the time of sale, and once the net proceeds of a sale are known, the
City Council can determine if a portion of the proceeds from the sale should be
used to retire a portion or all of this debt or if the net proceeds after repayment of
other Emerald Cove debt should be retained as revenue for the General Fund.
Business Develo ment Ex ense
1. The City Council should approve a credit against Redevelopment Debt for the
$2.886.474 in Business Development Expenses incurred by the Agency on the
City's behalf between FY 91/92 and FY 00/01.
)3
2. No adjustment for interest accrual is recommended since recreation of exact cash
flow records for the period in question would be difficult.
Overhead Char es
1. The City Council should reclassify the $4,339,304 in overhead for FY 89/90 and
90/91, together with the annual accounting charges over that period, as the
overhead charge appropriate for the period of 198'--2003..Z
2. No adjustment for interest accrual is recommended since recreation of exact cash
flow records for the period in question would be difficult.
3. To the best of our knowledge, no other direct overhead charges were paid directly
other than the accounting charge since 1989. The Redevelopment Agency should
modify the FY 2003/04 budget to transfer the full General Fund overhead charge
established in the recent cost allocation study of $324,057 with the $100,000
accounting charge being eliminated since accounting and other overhead is
addressed in the cost allocation study figure. The FY 2003/04 debt repayment to
the General Fund should also be reduced by the $324,057 overhead charge.
Beginning in FY 2004/05, when the cost allocation model is further refined, the
Housing Set-aside Fund should also begin to make the appropriate cost allocation
overhead transfer to the General Fund in each fiscal year.
Shank House
The Redevelopment Agency should convey the Shank House to the City. While
the City Council should acknowledge the value of the rent-free space provided to
the General Fund, there should be no credit against debt for an assumed rent
payment for prior years or the estimated value of the property at conveyance.
2. Not necessary since there are no annual rent credits being made.
Ca ital Pro'ect Fund Debt
1. The debt should be maintained on the books for possible repayment in the future.
Interest Rate
1. No adjustment for the interest rates used in prior years is recommended.
Land Ac uisition/Debt
1. The Redevelopment Agency should convey its publicly used properties like the
Downtown Paseos to the City. While the City Council should acknowledge the
value of the land provided to the General Fund, there should be no credit against
debt for the estimated value at conveyance.
2. The Redevelopment Agency should continue to own land leased for the purposes
of development like the Hilton and the Hyatt parcels. As the development arm of
the City, the Agency is best suited to own and manage these leased parcels which
sometimes have on-going contractual commitments associated with them. When
the parcels are conveyed to the City, perhaps at the end of the Redevelopment
Agency's life, the value of the land should be acknowledged.
Loner-Term Debt Issues
1. On an annual basis, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency should strive to
minimize to the greatest extent possible repayment of Pre-1290 debt in the form
of debt repayment to the General Fund. There should be regular updates of the
Long Term Debt Analysis to verify the continuing capacity of the Redevelopment
Agency to repay the debt over the long-term, especially once tax increment can
only be collected to repay pre-AB 1290 debt.
2. Non-tax increment revenues should not be applied to Pre-AB 1290 debt
repayment to the greatest extent possible and should be used for Post AB 1290
debt repayment, capital, and operating expenses. As discussed above under
Overhead Charges, the Redevelopment Agency should transfer its fully burdened
annual overhead charge to the General Fund.
3. To the extent possible and with the consent of the developer to whom the agency
has the contractual obligation , tax increment revenues should be used as the
repayment source for the Developer advance on a number of transactions. These
would include the Hyatt, the Strand, and the Bella Terra projects. In the case of
the Hyatt and Strand, the Redevelopment Agency's share of the Transient
Occupancy Tax can be freed up to be returned to the General Fund. The Agency
would then make its payment of a contractually committed equivalent amount
from its tax increment revenues. In the case of Bella Terra, this same approach
would be used to reduce or eliminate the use of City sales tax as a source of
repayment for the Developer Advance.
4. As discussed above, to the extent possible the Redevelopment Agency's share of
Transient Occupancy Tax should be returned to the General Fund. Since the TOT
from the Hilton is no longer contractually committed to the developer, it is
recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution for FY 2003/04
which would return the Redevelopment Agency's 6% share.of the TOT to the
General Fund. The amount of the debt repayment from the Redevelopment
Agency to the City's General Fund would be reduced by the $705,000 estimated
to be the increased amount of TOT flowing directly to the General Fund. Staff
will be evaluating this option for FY 2004/05 for the Hyatt and will make
recommendations in this regard as part of the FY 2004/05 budget process.
An updated Short Term Cash Flow for the Redevelopment Agency is attached which
illustrates the impact of the changes recommended. While, the recommended actions
ensure that the General Fund will continue to receive the same level of support as
currently budgeted, the actions do result in a lower amount considered to be debt
repayment on the pre-AB 1290 debt. Over time, the City Council/Redevelopment
Agency can make further modifications to the amount of funds provided in support to the
General Fund in the context of the debt picture and the policy objective of preserving the
pre-AB 1290 debt to the greatest extent possible for repayment after 2031.
DCB
Attachments
1. Memorandum dated August 18, 2003
2. Updated Short Term Cash Flow
Attachment I
Memorandum dated
August 18, 2003
0'//J*/?
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHAyx
Interoffice Communication
Economic Development Department
TO: Ray Silver, City Administrator
FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development
DATE: August 18, 2003
SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency Financial Policy Issues/ Questions
The issue of Redevelopment Agency debt has been a topic of concern for many years.
While Redevelopment Agency debt and financial history have been carefully documented
since the 1995/96 fiscal year, some questions remained unanswered about prior years.
The Administrative Services Department recently responded to a series of questions
designed to address many of these historical gaps in information. These very complete
responses, together with prior research, represent the best information available. Further
research is not likely to result in additional information, or at least not at a level that
would warrant additional investment of staff time or energy.
As such, this information should be presented to the City Council to provide a
comprehensive response to these lingering questions. It is suggested that the information
be the topic of a future City Council Study Session, with the policy issues addressed
through a Council action at a subsequent meeting. The goal being to "put to rest" past
issues and establish a new basis for going forward.
The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the few remaining pieces of information
needed and the policy issues to be addressed.
Ocean View Estates
1. $39,210 in Redevelopment coach rental income went to the General Fund. Should
there be a credit from the General Fund for this amount against Redevelopment
Agency debt?
2. $197,095 in sales proceeds from Redevelopment-Agency owned coaches went to
the OVE Fund. Should there be a transfer from the OVE Fund or a credit from the
General Fund for this amount against Redevelopment Agency debt?
S92,8 54.07 in much earlier sales proceeds from Redevelopment Agency-owned
coaches went to the General Fund. Should there be a credit from the General Fund
for this amount against Redevelopment Agency debt?
4. OVE generated $1,695,789 in space rental through FY 01-02. This revenue was
deposited into the General Fund. The operating costs for this same period have not
yet been identified. Once it has been identified, and we can calculate the Net
Operating Income, should this prior years' Net Operating Income be transferred
from the General Fund as rent to the PA and DF?
5. Verify the net OVE Enterprise income is currently going to the PA and DF as rent.
Emerald Cove
The recent City Council actions on Emerald Cove addressed many of the issues related to
this project. The ultimate goal now is the eventual sale of the property and the repayment
of debt.
1. _ Should the Redevelopment Agency Debt to the PA and DF proposed to be paid
upon sale be reclassified as a debt of the Emerald Cove Fund since the Agency no
longer owns the property and it has been conveyed it to the City?
Business Develo ment Ex ense
The Redevelopment Agency has paid the operating expenses for the Business
Development Division since its inception. Starting in Fiscal Year 01/02, the Business
Development operating expense has been treated as an advance from the Redevelopment
Agency and credited against Agency debt owed to the General Fund.
1. $2,886,474 has been advanced from FY 91-92 to FY 00-01. The City Council
should authorize a credit against Redevelopment Agency debt for this updated
number.
2. Should there also be an interest credit calculated for each year based upon the
interest rate used for the Redevelopment debt in that year?
Overhead Char es
The Redevelopment Agency currently pays approximately $100,000 each year for
1 accounting services. In 1989, there was $2,255,560 booked as Agency debt for a City
overhead charge. In 1990, another $2,083,744 was added as debt for overhead in that
year for a total of $4,339,304. Interest has accrued on this amount since the debt was
booked.
••
1. Should these extremely high overhead charges, together with the annual accounting
charge, be reclassified as overhead appropriate to the period of 1989-2003?
2. Should there be an adjustment to interest accrual to reflect these re-spread charges?
3. Verify that there was no other overhead charges directly paid in subsequent years.
Shank House
The Redevelopment Agency-owned Shank House has been used exclusively as a police
substation since it was acquired and rehabilitated. An April 2002 appraisal established
that the fair market rent of the building would be $6,485/month or $77,820/year.
1. Should an annual rent payment be calculated for each year of occupancy and
credited against Redevelopment Agency debt to the General Fund?
2. Should there be an adjustment to interest accrual to reflect these annual rent credits?
Ca ital Pro'ect Fund Debt
The information provided by Administrative Services documents that this debt was due to
the cost of City capital improvement projects in redevelopment areas that were made as
part of the normal course of business being booked as Redevelopment Debt.
1. Should this debt be maintained on the books for possible repayment in the future or
should it and accrued interest be reclassified as an expenditure of the originating
fund?
Interest Rate
Redevelopment Agency debt currently accrues interest at an annual rate equal to the
average annual return for the year on the City's pooled investments. This represents the
opportunity costs. In prior years, a much higher rate of interest was charged.
1. Should the total amount of accrued interest be recalculated using an annual rate
equal to the average annual return for each year on the City's pooled investments?
Land Ac uisition / Debt
A large portion of the Redevelopment Agency's debt owed to the City's General Fund is
due to the Agency's acquisition of the Waterfront site from the City. The City, as the
- Il.ao
parent entity of the Redevelopment Agency, will inherit the Redevelopment Agency's
assets at the end of its life. These assets will include all real property owned by the
Redevelopment Agency, and include properties like the Hilton site with its ground rent,
and the Hyatt site with its ground rent and participation rent.
1. Should the Redevelopment Agency convey certain real property like the Downtown
paseos to the City at current value or at cost and receive a credit against General
Fund debt?
2. Should the Hilton parcel and the Hyatt parcel be conveyed to the City at their
current values or acquisition cost, now rather than at the end of the Agency's life,
and receive a credit against General Fund debt?
Lon -Term Debt Issues
It is important that the Redevelopment Agency's debt be managed in a manner to ensure
that all tax increment revenues can be collected over the life of the Redevelopment Plan.
The Redevelopment Plan and State Law govern the duration that the Redevelopment
Agency can collect tax increment for the repayment of debt. In particular, there is a
threshold after which the Redevelopment Agency can only collect tax increment for pre-
AB 1290 debt. AB 1290 was the Redevelopment Reform Act adopted in 1994.
The Administrative Services Department advises us that all post AB 1290 debt has now
been repaid. As such, each dollar of debt repayment made for pre-AB 1290 debt will
mean we will forgo an equal amount after the AB 1290 time limit is reached in
approximately 2031. To the extent that there is Pre-AB 1290 debt remaining unpaid after
2031, tax increment revenue can continue to be collected until this debt is fully repaid as
long as it is within the $850 million cumulative cap on tax increment.
In addition, the Redevelopment Agency has a few non-property tax increment revenue
sources, including ground rent, transient occupancy taxes and participation payments. To
the extent these revenues are used to repay pre-AB 1290 debt, additional future property
tax increment will be forgone.
Long-term cash flow prepared which will assist us in analyzing these issues and the draft
is currently being updated to reflect recent debt repayments.
1. Should the Redevelopment Agency increase its capital project and/or operating
expenditures and reduce its Pre AB 1290 debt repayment to ensure no tax increment
revenues are forgone?
2. Should non-tax increment revenues be set aside for capital or other operating
expenses?
tE -alai
3. Should the Agency utilize only its tax increment revenues as the repayment source
for obligations like repayment of Hyatt Developer Advance, including non-Hyatt
generated tax increment, in lieu of non-tax increment revenues?
4. Should the Redevelopment Agency / City division of transient occupancy tax be
rescinded with the TOT revenue reverting to the City in order to obligate additional
tax increment? (Need to ensure we meet contractual obligations to developers.)
As a point of reference, in FY 2001-02, the City's "contribution" or 15% share of
property tax increment would have been $933,450. This compares to the $1,700,000 in
debt repayment made to the General Fund in the same year.
In addition, Redevelopment Agency facilitated projects directly add revenues to the
City's General Fund each year. For example, the City share of Transient Occupancy Tax
for the current fiscal year through June for the Hilton and from its opening in January
through June for the Hyatt has totaled $592,000.
DCB
0 •
Attachment 2
Updated Short Term
Cash Flow
E-1/,a3
•0
Summary - Redevelopment Cash Flow - for Long Term Debt Projections
(Non-Housing)
2001/02 2001/02 2002/03 2003104 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07
Pro'ected Actual
EST. BEGINNING CASH BALANCE :.: L6 2,871• :••..$4,9 4000 :.:. 6,354;898 2 $3 ,. 45,637, 82.•' $ , 60;405,220
Revenue
Total Tax Increment
Main Pier 3,410,738 3,601,721 5,092,000 7,673,840 8,527,317 8,913,863 9,092.140
Huntington Center 1,321,941 1,282,310 1.473,000 2.227,460 2,257.509 2,802,659 2.858,713
Oakview 626,368 573,313 558,000 569,160 580.543 592,154 603,997
Talbert Beach 415,244 383.121 441.000 449,820 458,816 467.993 477,353
Yorktown Lake 406,219 382,602 409,000 417,180 425.524 434,034 442,715
Tax Increment (100%) 6,180,510 6,223,067 7.973,000 11,337,460 12,249,709 13,210,703 13,474,917
Tax Increment Less 20% Housing Set Aside 4,944,408 4,978,454 6,378,400 9,069,968 9,799,767 10,568,563 10,779,934
Other Revenue
Interest Ean ings 333,790 338,000 308,266 380,950 363,489 335.887 322,021
Main Pier 1,819,651 3,052,120 1.676.806 2.635,294 3.152,626 2,670,383
Huntington Center 0 0 0 942,000 593.000 573,621
Oakview 0 0 110,000 0 0 0
Talbert Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yorktown Lake 4 2 0 2 0 2
Sub Total 333,790 2,155,651 3,360,386 2,167,756 3,940,783 4,081,513 3,566,025
TOTAL Revenue 6.514.300 7.134.105 11.333.386 13.505.216 16.190.492 17,292-217 17.040.942
EXPENSES
Debt Service Fund 7,621,978 6,411,288 9,734,018 14,445,969 15,439.501 15,697,563 15,823,201
Projects Fund 1,587,356 1,341,919 674,902 700,828 727.934 2,850.273 785,903
Bond Defeasance
TOTAL EXPENSES 59.209.334 57.753.20 510.408.920 515.146.797 516.167.435 518.547.837 516.609.105
NET Income ($2,695,034)(3619,102)$924,466 ($1,641,581)$23.057 ($1,255,620)$431,838
EST. ENDING Cash BALANCE :•:•.55,997 63I ••••:$6,354398 •:'•37,279,063 '•• $6,637•,782'• •'.• $6,660 ,840.$4,405,229 ,$4,837,057•
note* restricted cash=
4,759.000
r - l
CF-Aug03 Summary 1120 12003 12 46 PM
Redevelopment Debt Service Fund
2001/02 2001/02 2002/03 2003104 2004/05 2005/06 2006107
P ected Actual
EST. BEGINNING CASH BALANCE :•:•:$3,T6 , 9 •:•:S 4000:::::: :489,..154 •:• •($3, , 99 .• •'•:L .253, } :-•(58,44.6161
Revenue
Total Tax Increment
Main Pier 3,410,738 3.601.721 5,092,000 7,673,840 8,527,317 8,913,863 9.092.140
Huntington Center 1,321,941 1,282,310 1,473,000 1.502,460 1,532,509 2,302,659 2,858,713
Ezralow Increment 0 725.000 500.000
Oakvlew 626,368 573,313 558,000 569.160 580.543 592.154 603,997
Talbert Beach 415,244 383,121 441,000 449.820 458.816 467.993 477,353
Yorktown Lake 406,219 382,602 409,000 417,180 425.524 434.034 442,715
Tax Increment (100%)6.180,510 6,223,067 7,973,000 10,612,460 12,249,709 13,210,703 13,474,917
Other Revenue
Interest Earnings 143,548 191,490 50,459 36,325 (25,637)(104.529)(169,855)
Main Pier 0 0 0 0 0 0
Huntington Center 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oakview 0 0 0 0 0 0
Talbert Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0,
Yorktown Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub Total 143,546 191,490 50,459 36,325 (25,637)(104,529)(169,855)
TOTAL Revenue &324.0,56 6.414.557 8.023.459 10.648 .785 12.224.073 13.106.175 13.305.062
EXPENSES
Debt and Mandated Payments:
Special GIF Payment 4,000,000
Transfer to Low Income Housing 1,236,102 1,245,000 1,594,600 2,122,492 2,449,942 2,642,141 2,694,983
Debt Service - HBPFA 2,340,000 2,360,000 2,340.000 2,340,000 2,340,000 2,340,000 2.340,000
Transfer to General Fund(Debt Payment)1,300,000 1,345,000 1,800,000 4,192,170 4,295,000 4,295,000 4,295,000
Business Development 378,044 355,322 412,728 287,322 295,942 304,820 313,965
General Fund Overhead Charge 324,057 333,779 343,792 354,106
City Attomey Charges 485,078 207,065 313,463 500,000 500,000 500.000 500,000
Assessor's Case Adjustment 697,684 697,684 239,037 243,818 248,694
Debt Service-Huntington National Bank 332,000 99,000 255,757 0 0 0 1
Repayment of Waterfront Advance 730,808 1,270,000 1,400,000 1,428.000 1,456,560
Repayment of Hunt Ctr Advance 1,581,000 1,581,000 1,581,000
Repayment of CIM Advance'673,000 673,000 673,000
CIM Additional Parking 100,000 100,000 100,000
Sec. 108 Loan Payment 600,070 600,070 600,071 602,244 603,302 598,308 598,308
Pass Thru Agreements 253,000 199,831 200,000 210,000 220,500 231,525 243,101
Repayment of Gas Tax Fund 1,279,000
ERAF 207,591 400,000 408,000 416,160 424,483
Mulligan Lawsuit Settlement 1,500,000
TOTAL Non Housing EXPENSES 57.621 .978 56 .411.288 59.734 .018 514.445.969 515.439 .501 515.697.563 515.823.201
NET Income ($1,297,922)$3,269 ($1,710,559)($3,797,184)($3,215,429)($2,591,389)($2,518,139)
EST. ENDING Cash BALANCE .$2,469,743 .$ .244,269 17$9,184 -.•.(4 037,995)($6,253,428)•($8,$44,816)($11,362,955)
1 - $673,000 per year for 25 years
CF-AugO3 Debt
•10
Redevelopment Projects Fund
2001/02
Pro ected
2001/02
Actual
2002/03 2003/04 2004105 2005106
EST. BEGINNING CASH BALANCE -:-4 02 ;000:-:•:: $8,911 0-::-:$1S 48.::-$16;634172 •:•:$17 954;775 21.193;261
Revenue
Interest Earnings 190,244 201,000 257,807 344,625 389,126 440,415
Main Pier 2,406,373 3.601,721 3,052,120 1,676.806 2,635,294 3,152,626
Huntington Center 0 1,282,310 0 0 942,000 593,000
Oakview 0 573,313 0 0 0 0
Talbert Beach 0 383,121 0 0 0 0
Yorktown Lake 0 382,602 0 0 0 0
TOTAL Revenue 2.596.617 6.424.067 3.309.926 2.021.431 3.966.420 4.186.042
EXPENSES -
Salaries and Benefits 352,356 338,104 291,902 303,578 315,721 328.350
Operating Expenses 1,092,000 349,673 285,000 299,250 314,213 329,923
Sub Total 1,444,356 687,777 576,902 602,828 629,934 658,273
Capital Projects
5th Street Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0
Abdelmuh Contract 135,000 71,142 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
Edinger Corridor 0 0 0 0 0 0
ERAF Repayment 0 0 0 0 731,000
Housing Fund Repayment 0 0 0 0 1,363,000
SE RedevelopmentArea 0
Trustee Fees 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
Pr Year Encumbrances 575,000
Sub-Total 143,000 654,142 98,000 98,000 98,000 2,192,000
Total Projects Fund Expenses $1.587.356 81.341.919 8674.902 $700.828 $727.934 $2.850.273
NET Income $1,009,261 $5,082,148 $2,635,024 $1,320,603 $3,238,486 $1,335,769
EST. ENDING Cash BALANCE :•:•$5,Q30;Z6 •.$13,999,14@:::•:$1ti.834,172 •. $17,954j75 •:••.921;193,261:-:::422,629,030
CF-AugO3 Projects
•
Redevelopment Housing Fund
2001/02 2001/02 2002103 2003104 2004105 2005106 2000.07
Proeded Actual
EST. BEGINNING CASH BALANCE :5 494 651•:•:•'•:•$4 484000 ' ::•:$4'St1 ,576 •. •:• . $5.326 65'•:•34 351 134 '•' $6 331,557.• 510.542.6225
Revenue
Total Tax Increment
Tax Increment (20%)1,236,102 1,244,600 1,594,600 2,122,492 2,449,942 2,642,141 2,5-4,983SE Area Tax Increment (20%)320,000 326,400 332,928 339.587
Interest 329.991 150,327 101,510 119,841 97,901 142,460 239,459ERAF Repayment from 80%0 0 0 0 0 731000 0
Payment from Main-Pier 0 0 0 0 0 1363000 0
TOTAL INCOME $1,566,093 $1,394,927 $1,696,110 $2,562,333 $2,874,242 $5,211,529 $3,274,029
Expenses
Non-Discretionary
Property Tax Collection Charge 10,563 10.563 10,563 10563 10563 10563 10563
Rental Housing Acquisition 750,000 0 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 70.000
Berge Development 650,000 0 650,000 0 0 0Bowen Court 900.000 900,000 0 0 0 0 0The Fountains 2,000,000 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0Repayment to Agency 0 0 0 0 0 x:0,000
Prior Year Encumbrances 85,000 83,648
Sub-Total 4,395.563 994,211 760,563 3,410,563 760,563 760,563 1,250,563
DISCRETIONARY
Salaries & Benefits 64,703 60,665 67,938 71,335 74,902 78,647 82.579
Operating Expenses 50,400 12,475 52,920 55,566 56,344 61,262 54,325
Sub-Total 115,103 73,140 120,858 126,901 133,246 139,909 146,904
TOTAL EXPENSES $4,510 ,666 $1,067,351 $881,421 $3,537,464 $893,809 $900,472 $1,4,17,467
NET INCOME ($2,944,573)$327,576 $814,689 ($975,131)$1,980,433 $4,311,057 $1,585,562
EST. ENDING Cash BALANCE $2 55 278 -:•'•:•'-54 13 576 .•.-'•'$6 326 65 '•:•}-'•0.4 381 134 $6 331567 $10 642626•' 512.509,187
t:.:-lla )
CF-AugO3 Housing
MAIN-PIER Project Area - Revenue Projections
2001102
Projected
2001/02
Actual
2002103 2003/04 I 2004/05 2005/2006 2006120C 1
INCOME
Tax Increment (100%)3,410,738 3.601,721 4,692,000 5,193,840 7,827,317 8,697,863 9,092,140
New Tax Increment
Hyatt 120,000 1.470,000 0 0 0
Waterfront Residential 0 280,000 880,000 350,000 216,000
CIM Project 0 0 0 130,000 350,000 0 0
Tax Increment SubTotal 3,410,738 3,601,721 5,092,000 7,673,840 8,527,317 8,913,863 9,092.140
Interest 0 0 0
T.O.T. (Waterfront)795,000 705,000 705,000 0 0 0 0
T.O.T. (Hyatt)0 0 805,000 1,059,000 1,219,800 1,219,800 1,219,800
Ground Lease (Hyatt)0 0 23.775 50,000 150,000 150,000 150,000
Abdelmuti Loan 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505
Hilton Lease/RLM Ground Lease 107,126 106,936 110,340 113,651 117,060 120,572 124,189
Waterfront Interim Rent 107,126 106,936 110,340 113,651 117,060 120.572 124,189
T.O.T. (CIM)0 475,869 480,628 485,434
CIM Parking Revenue 0 185,000 190,550 196,267
CIM - Additional Parking Revenue 30,000 30,000 30,000
Lease Payments (438 Main)19,000 19,800 14025 C 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Housing Sites Reimbursements 500,000 0 0 500,000 - 0
Town Square Loan Repayment 477,615 480,474 0 9 0 0 0
Mola Settlement 60,000 60,000 55,625
Property Sale=438 Main 887.513
Other Income SubTotal 2,406,373 1,819.651 3,052,120 1,676,806 2,635,294 3,152,626 2,670,383
TOTAL INCOME ..:•:•$5,81T117•$5,421372- . •;:8,144,1211:'$9,350 646 !511 162;611 :•'$12 66 489:•:.:•:'511'762 524
CF-Aug O3 M-P
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
SUBJECT: A- D 3 --o Z i A-Flo . Q3 3 --6)
DEPARTMEN T: r t M ' -r MEETING DATE:
CO ' ACT:
/A YES NO
O ( ()Is the notice attached?
PHONE:
( ) () ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council (and/or
Redevelopment Agency )hearing?
( ) ( ( ) Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct?
( () ( ) If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice?
(Dd () () If Coastal D ivelopment Permit, does the notice include appeal language?
( ) () (Dq Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council?
( ) () (D() Is a map attached for publication?
( ) ( ( ) Is a larger ad required? Size 1
( ) . ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the
mailing list? E
Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels?
( ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels?
If Coastal DeveloPaient Permit, is the Coastal Commission pan of the maflia( C) t) g
labels?
(}`. () ()If Coastal Development Permit, are the resident labels attached?
Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept, items only)
Pleas' complete the followiag•.
1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date ()
• t
2. Number of times to be published
3. Number of days between publications
21
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 21, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a
public hearing on the following planning and zoning items:
1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.
03-03 AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 03-02
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN- TIMESHARES Applicant: Robert Mayer
Corp., Shawn Milbern Request: To amend the Huntington Beach General Plan
Land Use Element, Huntington Beach Coastal Element (Local Coastal Program),
and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) to permit "timeshares" as an allowed use
subject to a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission within District
7 (Visitor-Serving Commercial) and District 9 (Commercial Recreation) of the
Downtown Specific Plan. Location: Downtown Specific Plan Districts 7 & 9
(north side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Blvd. and First Street.)
Robert Mayer Corporation. Project Planner: Rosemary Medel
2. ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-08 NAUTICAL NORTH - SLOPE
MODIFICATIONS Applicant: Fred Tinker Request: To amend the previously
approved site plan by permitting modifications to rear slopes on four lots located
at the terminus of Marygale Circle. The modifications include construction of a
five-foot high retaining wall topped with a one-foot block wall and two feet of view
fencing in order to allow an extension of the usable rear yards ranging from
approximately 12 feet to 30 feet in depth. Location: 6454, 6455, 6464, and 6465
Marygale Circle (Terminus of Marygale Circle, south of Ellis Avenue) Project
Planner: Paul Da Veiga
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for Item No. 1
was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act. It was determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR No. 94-1 pursuant to applicable standards, and have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIRE No. 94-1, nothing further is required.
The environmental impact report is on file at the City of Huntington Beach and is
available for public inspection as described below.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 2 is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the
staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday,
March 3, 2005.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions
or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the
City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any
G•\LEGALS\COUNCIL\05\050321 DOC
further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the
above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk
Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 536-5227
G \LEGALS\COUNCIL\05\050321.DOC
•
H Air. Iu1 LIZ
24p
J :5k
$1
A M E pt IC
'000-00r:0-1a,
"' 111&-
44
FirstAmerican Title Insurance Company
602431 Form No. 1282 (Rev. 12/15/95)
GUARA NTE E
party, notwitstand rig Then alure-of any alegation 'in'-Obfainirig witnesses , prosecuting- or aerenamy--urc-
i
1349
TA Guarantee Face Page
vised 12/15/95)
., a f »
tfM,A,y.
/I r ff;J.]"rrj,6}<•r SJnN1 '^^LYY,'S j,
necessary information fro
First American Title Insurance Company
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY AND THE CONDITIONS
AND STIPULATIONS OF THIS GUARANTEE,
First American Title Insurance Company
a corporation, herein called the Company
GUARANTEES
the Assured named in Schedule A against actual monetary loss
or damage not exceeding the liability amount stated in
Schedule A, which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any
incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A.
First American Title Insurance Company
PRESIDENT.
AUTHORIZED S10HATORY
,\\w\l.E INS
ci C,pS?OR4Ic`4yV-O o
ao
04LIF6-\\\P
ISSUING OFFICE:
2 First American Way
(P.O. Box 267 - 92702)
Santa Ana, California 92707
(714) 800-3000
SCHEDULE A
PROPERTY OWNER'S NOTICE GUARANTEE
LIABILITY: $0.00
Name of Assured: MAYER CORPORATION
Date of Guarantee: JANUARY 20, 2005
FEE: $0.00
1. That, according to the last equalized "Assessment Roll" provided to First American Title for
ORANGE County -
a. The persons listed below as "Assessed Owner" are shown on the assessment roll as owning
real property within 300 feet of the property identified on the assessment roll as. Assessor's
Parcel Number 024-252-01 AND 024-252-02.
b. The Assessor 's Parcel Number and any addresses shown on the assessment roll are attached
hereto.
1
e=ll The-Assu ed for
. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims:
Termination of Liability.
In case of a claim under this Guarantee, the
ompany shall have the following additional options:
(a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of
Jability or to Purchase the Indebtedness.
The Company shall have the option to pay or settle
)r compromise for or in the name of the Assured any
claim which could result in loss to the Assured within
he coverage of this Guarantee, or to pay the full amount
)t this Guarantee or, If this Guarantee is issued for the
)enefit of a holder of a mortgage or a lienholder, the
ompany shall have the option to purchase the indebt-
,dness secured by said mortgage or said lien for the
amount owing thereon, together with any costs, reason-
able, attorneys' fees and expenses Incurred by the
fissured claimant which were authorized by the
company up to the time of purchase.
Such purchase, payment or tender of payment of
the full amount of the Guarantee shall terminate all lia-
bility of the Company hereunder. In the event after
notice of claim has been given to the Company by the
Assured the Company offers to purchase said Indebted-
ness, the owner of such indebtedness shall transfer and
assign said Indebtedness, together with any collateral
security, to the Company upon payment of the purchase
price.
Upon the exercise by the Company of the option
provided for in Paragraph (a) the Company's obligation
to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss
or damage, other than to make the payment required in
that paragraph, shall terminate, Including any obligation
to continue the defense or prosecution of any litigation
for which the Company has exercised its options under
Paragraph 4, and the Guarantee shall be surrendered to
the Company for cancellation.
(b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other
Than the Assured or With the Assured Claimant.
To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or
in the name of an Assured claimant any claim assured
against under this Guarantee, together with any costs,
attorneys' fees and expenses Incurred by the Assured
claimant which were authorized by the Company up to
the time of payment and which the Company is obligat-
ed to pay.
Upon the exercise by the Company of the option
provided for in Paragraph (b) the Company's obligation
to the Assured under this Guarantee forthe claimed loss
of damage, other than to make the payment required in
that paragraph, shall terminate, including any obligation
to continue the defense or prosecution of any litigation
for which the Company has exercised its options under
Paragraph 4.
7. Determination and Extent of Liability.
This Guarantee is a contract of Indemnity against
actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred
by the Assured claimant who has suffered loss or dam-
age by reason of reliance upon the assurances set forth
in this Guarantee and only to the extent herein
described, and subject to the Exclusions From Coverage
of This Guarantee.
The liability of the Company under this Guarantee
cea - r--
(b) the amount of the unpaid principal indebted-
ness secured by the mortgage of an Assured mortgagee,
as limited or provided under Section 6 of these
Conditions and Stipulations or as reduced under Section
9 of these Conditions and Stipulations, at the time the
loss or damage assured against by this Guarantee
occurs, together with interest theron; or
(c) the difference between the value of the estate
or interest covered hereby as stated herein and the value
of the estate or interest subject to any defect, lien or
encumbrance assured against by this Guarantee.
8. Limitation of Liability.
(a) If the Company establishes the title, or
removes the alleged defect, lien or encumbrance, or
cures any other matter assured against by this
Guarantee in a reasonably diligent manner by any
method, including litigation and the completion of any
appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed its
obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be
liable for any loss or damage caused thereby.
(b) In the event of any litigation by the Company or
with the Company's consent, the Company shall have
no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final
determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and
disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title,
as stated herein.
(c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or
damage to any Assured for liability voluntarily assumed
by the Assured in settling any claim or suit without the
prior written consent of the Company.
9. Reduction of Liability or Termination of
Liability.
All payments under this Guarantee, except pay-
ments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses
pursuant to Paragraph 4 shall reduce the amount of
liability pro tanto.
10. Payment of Loss.
(a) No payment shall be made without producing
this Guarantee for endorsement of the payment unless
the Guarantee has been lost or destroyed, in which case
proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the
satisfaction of the Company.
(b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage
has been definitely fixed In accordance with these
Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage shall be
payable within thirty (30) days thereafter.
,ver,thfl oss oFthe
subrogated io all rights
after the Assured shall
Interest, and costs of collechou.
12. Arbitration.
Unless prohibited by applicable
Company or the Assured may demand
suant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rries
0;8
ip
American Arbitration Association. Arbitrable lfti*T
may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or
claim between the Company and the Assured arising out
of or relating to this Guarantee, any service of the
Company in connection with its issuance or the breach
of a Guarantee provision or other obligation. All arbitra-
ble matters when the Amount of Liability is $1,000,000
or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the
Company or the Assured. All arbitrable matters when
the amount of liability Is In excess of $1,000,000 shall
be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company
and the Assured. The Rules in effect at Date of
Guarantee shall be binding upon the parties. The award
may include attorneys' fees only if the laws of the state
in which the land Is located permits a court to award
attorneys' fees to a prevailing party. Judgment upon the
award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in
any court having jurisdiction thereof.
The law of the •sftus of the land shall apply to an
arbitration under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules.
A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the
Company upon request
13. Liability Limited to This Guarantee;
Guarantee Entire Contract.
(a) This Guarantee together with all endorsements,
if any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire
Guarantee and contract between the Assured and the
Company. In Interpreting any provision of this
Guarantee, this Guarantee shall be construed as a
whole.
(b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not
based on negligence, or any action asserting such
claim, shall be restricted to this Guarantee.
(c) No amendment of or endorsement to this
Guarantee can be made except by a writing endorsed
hereon or attached hereto signed by either the
President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant
Secretary, or validating officer or authorized signatory of
the Company.
14. Notices, Where Sent.
All notices required tobe given the Company and
any statement in writing required to befumished the
Company shall include the number of this Guarantee
and shall be addressed to the Company at 1 First
American Way, Santa Ana, California 92707.
11. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement.
Whenever the Company shall have settled and
paid a claim under this Guarantee, all right of subroga-
tion shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of
the Assured claimant.
The Company shall be subrogated to and be
entitled to all rights and remedies which the Assured
would have had against any person or property in
respect to the claim had this Guarantee not been issued.
If requested by the Company, the Assured shall transfer
to the Company all rights and remedies against any per-
son or property necessary in order to perfect this right
of subrogation. The Assured shall permit the Company
to sue, compromise or settle in the name of the Assured
and to use the name of the Assured in any transaction
or litigation involving these nghtsor remedies.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-03
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 03-03 proposes to amend the Land Use
Element to add timeshares as a permitted use within the Commercial Visitor (CV) land use
category and within Subareas 4C (PCH/First Street) and 4D (Waterfront) and replace
overnight accommodations language with hotels/motels and timeshares for consistency in
the Commercial General (CG) land use category; and
Pursuant to the California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City
of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General
Plan Amendment No. 03-03 and recommended approval of said entitlement of the City
Council; and
Pursuant to Califo rnia Government Code the City Council , after notice duly given,
held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 03-03; and
The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 03-03 is necessary
for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, and that the inclusion
of timeshares as an allowed use within the Commercial Visitor land use category is
compatible with other permitted uses in the General Plan and is consistent with other
elements of the General Plan; and
The City Council further fords that any potential environmental considerations
associated with such allowance of timeshares has been adequately addressed in
Environmental Impact Report No. 94-1, which analyzed the approved land use plan for the
City that included the allowance of hotels and other overnight accommodations in various
land use categories throughout the City,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby adopts
said amendment to the General Plan.
SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 03-03, which amends the
General Plan Land Use Element to add timeshares as a permitted use within the
Commercial Visitor (CV) land use category and within Subareas 4C (PCH/First Street) and
4D (Waterfront) and replaces overnight accommodations language with hotels/motels and
timeshares in the Commercial General (CG) land use category, attached hereto as Exhibit
A, is hereby approved.
05reso/epa 03-03 1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at
a regular meeting thereof held on the 21 st day of March , 2005.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ity Adm' 'strator C' Attorn y
e
v hio5
INIT D AND APPROVED:
ector of Planning
Exhibit A General Plan Amendment
EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
Land Use Cate o
RESIDENTL4L
Residential Low (RL)
Residential Medium
Residential Medium High
Residential Hi (RH)
COMMERCL4L
Commercial
Neighborhood
(CN)
Commercial General
(CG)
Commercial Regional
(CR)
Commercial Office (CO)
Commercial Visitor
(CV)
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial(I)
TABLE LU-2a
Land Use Schedule'
T ical Permitted Uses
Single family residential units; clustered zero-lot line developments; and "granny"
flats.
Single family residential units, duplexes, townhomes, and garden apartments.
Townhomes , garden apartments, apartment "flats."
Townhomes , garden a artments, and a artments.
Small-scale retail commercial, professional offices, eating and drinking
establishments, household goods, food sales, drug stores, personal services, cultural
facilities , institutional , health, gove rnment offices, and similar uses . Generally,
individual establishments should not exceed 10,000 square feet . If permitted. their
fronta e should be desi ed to conve the visual character of small storefronts.
Retail commercial, professional offices, eating and drinking establishments, household
goods, food sales, drugstores , building materials and supplies , personal services,
recreational commercial , hotels /motels , timeshares overnight
cultural facilities , government offices, educational , health,
institutional and similar uses.
Anchor department stores, outlet stores, promotional ("big box") retail, retail
commercial , restaurants, entertainment, professional offices, financial institutions,
automobile sales facilities, and similar re 'on-se rvin uses.
Professional offices and ancillary commercial services (financial institutions,
hotoco sho s, small restaurants, and similar uses).
Hotels /motels, timeshares , restaurants, recreation-related retail sales, cultural
uses e. ., museums) and similar uses oriented to coastal and other visitors to the Ci
• Light manufacturing, research and development , warehousing , business parks and
professional offices, supporting retail, financial , and restaurants, and similar uses.
• Warehouse and sales outlets.
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
Public Governmental administrative and related facilities, such as public utilities, schools,
(P) ublic arkin lots, infrastructure, religious an d similar uses.
6 See LU 7.1.1 and LU 7.1.2
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
II-LU-25
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
TABLE LU-4 Cont.
Community District and Subarea Schedule
Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princi les
4C Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor ("CV")
PCH/First Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, hotel /motels,
(Lake ) Street
timeshares , restaurants, entertainment, and other uses (as permitted by
the "CV" and "CG" land use categories)
Density/Intensity Category: "-FT'
• Height eight (8) stories
4D
Waterfront
Design and Category: Specific Plan ("-sp")
Development • Establish a unified "village" character , using consistent architecture and
highly articulated facades and building masses.
• Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor.
• Incorporate pedestrian walkways, plazas, and other common open spaces
for public activity.
• Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial
areas.
• Establish a well-defined entry from PCH.
• Maintain views of the shoreline and ocean.
Permitted Uses Category. Commercial Visitor C'CV")
Hotels/motels, timeshares , and supporting visitor-serving commercial
uses (in accordance with Development Agreement)
Density/Intensi ty Category: "-FT'
• Hotel/motel rooms: 1,690
• Commercial: 75,000 square feet
Design and Category: Specific Plan ("-sp")
Development As defined by the adopted Development Agreement.
4E Permitted Uses Category: Open Space Conservation ("OS-C"), uses permitted by the
PCH/Beach Commercial Visitor ("CV") land use category, and free-standing multi-family
Northeast housing ("RM").
(Please refer to the Land Use Map for the exact boundaries of each land
use desi nation.
(Continued on Density/Intensity Category:
next page) • For RM designations, 15 units per acre
• For CV designations, F2
• Height: three (3) stories
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
Il-LU-54
Res. No. 2005-19
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the
City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City,
do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed
and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of
said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of
March, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES: Hansen, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Bohr
NOES: Sullivan, Cook
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Cit Jerk and ex-officio rk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO.2 0 0 5- 2 0
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO. 03-02 TO AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
LAND USE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING ORD INANCES TO PERMIT
TIMESHARES IN THE COMMERCIAL VISITOR LAND USE CATEGORY
AND TO REFLECT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 AND
REQUESTING CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090
and Public Resources Code Section 30503 and 30510, the Planning Commission of the
City of Huntington Beach held a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Huntington
Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02; and
Such amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption; and
The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by law, held at least one public
hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02,
and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Huntington
Beach General Plan, the Certified Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (including the
Land Use Plan), and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act; and
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local
Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does
hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: That Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 03-02 is the subject of
this Resolution to allow timeshares in the Commercial Visitor district of the Local Coastal
Program, including Subareas 4C and 4D, and modifying Policy 3.2.4 to add reference to
the allowance of timeshares in the Commercial Visitor District and replace overnight
accommodation language with hotels/motel and timeshares in the Commercial General
land use category for consistency (Exhibit A).
SECTION 2: That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No.
03-02 incorporates Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit B, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby
approved.
O5reso/LCP 03-02 1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at
a regular meeting thereof held on the 9 1 , t. day of 2005_.
r
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:PROVED AS TO FORM:
e
ity Adm' strator C' Attom y
Exhibits
INIT TED AND APPROVED:
rector of lanning
A. Local Coastal Program Element Amendments
B. Zoning Text Amendments
X105
05reso/LCP 03-02 2
EXHIBIT A
NATURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER
COASTAL ELEMENT
facilities on private land to be open to the
public . (1-C 7)
C 3.2.3
Encourage the provision of a variety of
visitor- serving commercial establishments
within the Coastal Zone, including , but not
limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and
motels, and day spas. (I-C'1, I-C 2, I-C 3, I-
C 4)
C 3.2.4
Timeshares may be permitted in
Commercial General District (CG), and
Mixed Use Districts (M, MH, and MV),
and Commercial Visitor District
(CV) as part of a master plan
project, provided that any such project be
conditioned as follows: (IC 1, I-C 2, I-C 3,
I-C 7)
a) That at least twenty-five percent of
the units be permanently reserved
for transient overnight
accommodations during the summer
season (beginning the day before the
Memorial Day weekend and ending
the day after Labor Day).
b) That the timeshare facility operate
as a hotel including requirements for
a centralized reservations system,
check-in services , advertising,
security, and daily housecleaning.
C 3.2.5
Establish an ongoing program to permit
recreational vehicle camping during the
winter months at City beach parking lots.
(I-C 22,x)
C 3.2.6
Encourage additional overnight recreational
vehicle camping facilities, adequately
screened, in the recreation areas on both
sides of Newland Street near Pacific Coast
Highway and on the State beach parking lots
during the winter months . (I-C 22,x)
C 3.2.7
Investigate the feasibility of providing year
round camping below the bluffs, northwest
of the Municipal Pier, between Ninth Street
and Goldenwest Street. (I-C 22j)
C 3.2.8
Promote the implementation of and funding
for the proposed Orange Coast River Park
concept. The Orange Coast River Park is
envisioned as a linkage of public parks
(Talbert and Fairview Regional Parks) and
private open space lands along and near the
mouth of the Santa Ana River, including
possible linkages with open space lands
located on the inland side of Pacific Coast
Highway, between the Santa Ana River and
Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach. (I-C
1, I-C 2, I-C 17)
C 3.2.9
Promote and support the implementation of
the proposed Wintersburg Channel Class I
Bikeway . (7-C 1, I-C 2)
C 3.2.10
Promote and support the development of,
the City and County portions of the Harriett
M. Wieder Regional Park. Include a
continuous trail system from Huntington
Central Park to the beach, along the eastern
border of the Bolsa Chica wetlands, if
feasible. (I-C 1, I-C 2, I-C 17)
C 3.2.11
Encourage and support the following
recreational facilities and design
characteristics within the Harriett M. Wieder
Regional Park: (I-C 1, I-C 2)
a) Limit above ground structures to
support facilities such as restrooms,
picnic tables, bike racks, view
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
IV-C-108
NATURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER
COASTAL ELEMENT
COMMERCIAL
Commercial
Neighborhood (CN)
COASTAL ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN
LAND USE, DENSITY AND OVERLAY SCHEDULE
TABLE C-1 (Continued)
Small-scale retail commercial , professional offices, eating and drinking
establishments , household goods, food sales, drug stores, personal services,
cultural facilities, institutional , health, gove rnment offices and similar uses.
Generally , individual establishments should not exceed 10,000 square feet.
If feasible , their frontage should be designed to convey the visual character
of small storefronts.
The Commercial Neighborhood (CN) designation shall utilize the
standards of the General Commercial District (CG) of the Zoning Code for
im lementation.
Commercial Retail commercial , professional of fices, eating and drinking
General (CG) establishments , household goods , food sales, drugstores, building materials
and supplies, personal services, recreational commercial,
hotels /motels, timeshares , cultural
facilities, gove rnment offices, educational , health, institutional and similar
uses.
Commercial Visitor Hotels /motels, timeshares restaurants, recreation-related retail sales,
(CV)cultural uses (e.g., museums) and similar uses oriented to coastal and other
visitors to the City.
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial (1)
PUBLIC
IN STITUTIONAL
Public (P)
Marine related development such as marinas, retail marine sales, boat
rentals, and boat storage which are coastal dependent developments shall
have priority over any other type of development (consistent with resource
rotection) on or near the shoreline.
Light manufacturing, energy production , resource production , research and
development, warehousing , business parks and professional offices,
supporting retail, financial, restaurants and similar uses . Warehouse and
sales outlets.
Marine related activities such as boat const ruction and dry boat storage.
Coastal dependent development shall have priority over any other type of
develo ment consistent with resource rotection) on or near the shoreline.
Governmental administrative and related facilities , such as public utilities,
schools, libraries, museums, public parking lots, infrastructure, religious
and similar uses.
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
IV-C-26
NATURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER
COASTAL ELEMENT
COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE
TABLE C-2 (con tinued)
Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princi les
4B Design and Category: Specific Plan ("-sp")
Existing Oil Development • Requires the preparation of and development in conformance with a
Property Conceptual Master Plan of Development and Specific Plan.
(Cont.) • The preparation of a Specific Plan may be phased in conformance with
the conceptual Master Plan.
• Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance
with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential
Subdivisions" (Policies LU 9.3.1 and LU 9.3.4).
• Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated
commercial sites.
• Require variation in building heights from two (2) to four (4) stories to
promote visual interest and ensure compatibili ty with surrounding land
uses.
• Commercial development shall be prohibited along the Palm Avenue
frontage.
• Residential development along Palm Avenue shall be compatible in
size, scale , height, type , and massing with existing development on the
north side of Palm Avenue.
• Visitor Serving Commercial development shall be oriented along the
Pacific Coast Highway frontage.
• Minimize vehicular access points onto arterial streets and highways
including Palm Avenue, Golden West Street, Pacific Coast Highway,
and Seapoint Street.
• Open space and neighborhood parks, which may be private, shall be
provided on site.
4C Permitted Uses Category : Commercial Visitor ("CV")
PCH/First Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, restaurants,
(Lake ) Street entertainment, hotels /motels, timeshares and other uses (as
permitted by the "CV" and "CG" land use catego ries)
Densi ty/Intensity Category: "-FT'
• Height: eight (8) stories
Design and Category: Specific Plan ("-sp")
Development • Establish a unified "village" character, using consistent architecture and
highly articulated facades and building masses.
• Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor.
• Incorporate pedestrian walkways, plazas, and other common open
spaces for public activity.
• Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and
commercial areas.
• Establish a well-defined entry from PCH.
• Maintain views of the shoreline and ocean.
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
IV-C-37
NATURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER
COASTAL ELEMENT
COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE
TABLE C-2 (continued)
Subarea Characteristic
4D Permi tted Uses
Waterfront
Density/Intensity
Design and
Development
4E
PCH/Beach
Northeast
Permitted Uses
Density/Intensity
Design and
Development
4F
Wetlands
Permitted Uses
4G Permitted Uses
Edison Plant
4H
Brookhurst-
Ma nolia
Design and
Develo ment
Permi tted Uses
Standards and Princi les
Category: Commercial Visitor ("CV")
Hotels/motels, timeshares and supporting visitor-serving commercial
uses (in accordance with Development Agreement)
Category: "-FT'
• Hotel/motel rooms: 1,690
• Commercial : 75,000 square feet
Category: Specific Plan ("-sp")
As defined by the adopted Development Agreement.
Category: Open Space Conservation ("OS-C"), uses permitted by the
Commercial Visitor ("CV") land use category, and free-standing
multi-family housing ("RM").
(Please refer to the Land Use Map for the exact boundaries of each land
use desi nation.
Category:
• For RM designations, 15 units per acre
• For CV designations, F2
• Height: three (3) stories
Category:
• Establish a major streetscape element to identify the Beach
Boulevard-PCH intersection.
• Site, design, and limit the scale and mass of development, as necessary,
to protect wetlands.
• Maintain visual compatibility with the downtown.
• Incorporate onsite recreational amenities for residents.
• Minimize access to and from PCH, providing an internal roadway
system.
• Incorporate extensive landscape and streetscape.
Category: Conservation ("OS-C")
• Wetlands conservation.
Category: Public ("P") and Conservation ("OS-C")
• Wetlands conservation.
• Utili ty uses.
In accordance with Policy LU 13.1.8.
Category: Conservation ("OS-C")
Wetlands conservation.
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
W-C-38
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
IS INCLUDED IN THIS RCA AS
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
AND WILL BE INCLUDED IN THIS
RESOLUTION UPON ADOPTION
ORDINANCE NO. 3 7 0 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN OF
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has previously adopted the
Downtown Specific Plan; and
Pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning
Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings
relative to amending the Downtown Specific Plan, wherein both bodies have carefully considered
all information presented at said hearings; and
After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission
and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and
consistent with the General Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: The Downtown Specific Plan is hereby amended as set forth in the
Legislative Draft attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 2: Except as specifically modified herein, all other sections of the Huntington
Beach Downtown Specific Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon certification of the
California Coastal Commission-
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 4th day of , 2005.
ATTEST:
Ci lerk r
REVIEWED AND APPROV D: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C ty Ad ' strator ty Atto ey t. fA1105
INITI D AND APPROVED:
ctor of Planning
ord/05zoningldowntown SP timeshares
EXHIBIT A
Public o en s ace: Outdoor or unenclosed area on the ground floor or above floor
levels designed and accessible for use by the general public. Public open space may
include one of the following: patios, plazas, balconies, gardens or view areas accessible
to the general public, and open air commercial space, open to the street on the first
floor, or on at least one side, above the first floor, or open to the sky. The open space
requirement can be met anywhere in the development; however, open space provided
above the second floor will receive only fifty (50) percent credit toward this
requirement. This requirement cannot be met by open areas which are inaccessible to
the general public or are contrary to specific requirements of a district.
Public ri t-of-wa : That property dedicated through acquisition or easement for the
public right-of-way or utility purposes which includes the area spanning from the
property line on one side of a street to the property line on the other side of a street.
Recreational Vehicle: A travel Trailer, pick-up camper or motorized home with or
without a mode of power and designed for temporary human habitation for travel or
recreational purposes.
Rehabilitation: The physical repair, preservation, or improvement of a building or
structure. Does not include an expansion of existing floor area greater than ten (10)
percent; does not increase the building height; does not result in an increase in
permitted density.
Residual arcel: A legal lot which does not meet the requirements for a building site
within the District in which it is located, and where the abutting sites are already
developed.
Ri t-of-Wa 0 : That portion of property which is dedicated or over which an
easement is granted for public streets, utilities or alleys.
Semi-subterranean arkin : Parking structure which is partially recessed into the
development site, and which may or may not support additional structures above (e.g.
dwelling units, tennis courts, or parking structures).
Setback: A stipulated area adjacent to the lot lines which must be kept free of
structures over forty-two (42) inches high.
Street level: The elevation measured at the centerline of the public street adjacent to the
front setback at a point midway between the two side property lines.
Suite Hotel: A building designed for or occupied as a temporary lodging place which
contains guest rooms and may contain kitchene ttes and a separate living room for each
unit.
Timeshares : Any master planned development wherein a purchaser
receives e right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the
recurrent , exclusive use or occupancy of a lot , parcel, unit , room(s), or
segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or
eriodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted
from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been
divided and shall include, but not be limited to timeshare estate,
interval ownership vacation license , vacation lease ,club membership,
timeshare use, conciominium /hotel , or uses of a similar nature.
Townlot: The area and parcels bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the southwest,
Goldenwest Street on the northwest, Palm Avenue on the north and northeast, and Sixth
Street on the east and southeast.
G:DWNTWNSP 4 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
4.9 DISTRICT #7: VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL
Purpose. This District extends southeast of the Downtown core adjacent to Pacific
Coast Highway . The principal purpose of this Dis trict is to provide commercial
facilities to serve seasonal visitors to the beaches as well as to serve local residents on a
year round basis. This Dist rict also provides a continuous commercial link between the
Downtown and the visitor -commercial/recreation District near Beach Boulevard.
Boundaries. District #7 extends from First Street to Huntington Avenue between PCH
and the proposed Walnut Avenue extension.
4.9.01 Permitted Uses.
(a) The following list of Visitor-Serving Commercial uses in District No. 7 may be
allowed. Other visitor serving related uses as described in the Land Use Plan, and
which have the same parking demand as the existing use not specified herein may
be allowed subject to the approval of the Director. Change of use shall be subject
to the approval of the Director:
Art gallery
Bakeries
Banks and savings and loans branch offices (not to exceed five-thousand
(5,000) square feet)
Beach, swimming and surfing equipment
Bicycle sales, rental and repair
Boat and marine supplies
Bookstores
Carts and Kiosks pursuant to Section 230.94 of the Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Clothing stores
Delicatessens
Florists
Groceries (convenience)
Ice cream parlors
Laundromats, laundries
Meat or fish markets
Newspaper and magazine stores
Newsstands
Outdoor dining pursuant to S.4.2.33
Photographic equipment sales
Photographic processing
Professional Office (not to exceed fifty [50) percent of total floor area)
Public Transportation Center
Shoe stores
Sporting goods
Tourist related public and semi-public buildings, services and facilities
Travel agency
Note: Visitor-serving commercial uses must be a part of all development proposals in
this District, with a minimum requirement that the entire street level be devoted to
Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses.
G:DWNTWNSP 51 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
(b) The following list of uses, or change of such use in District No. 7 may be allowed
subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Automobile service stations
Dancing and/or live entertainment
Health and sports clubs
Liquor stores
Restaurants
Taverns
Theaters
Hotels and motels
Permanent parking lots and parking structures
Timeshare Units pursuant to section 4.9.12
4.9.02 Minimum Parcel Size. No minimum parcel size shall be required for this District.
However, prior to the approval of any development, including subdivision, a master site
plan for the entire District shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
Development which is in conformance with the site plan may then be permitted.
4.9.03 Maximum Densi /Intensi .
(a) The maximum intensity of development shall be calculated by Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) for the District. The floor area ratio shall apply to the whole District. The
floor area ratio shall be 3.0 calculated on net acreage.
4.9.04 Maximum Buildin Hei t. The maximum building height shall be eight (8) stories.
4.9.05 Maximum Site Covera e. The maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50) percent of the
net site area.
4.9.06 Setback ront Yard . The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding
forty-two (42) inches in height shall be fifty (50) feet from PCH.
4.9.07 Setback Side Yard . The minimum exterior side yard requirement shall be twenty (20)
feet.
4.9.08 Setback ear Yard . The minimum rear yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet from the
proposed Walnut Avenue extension.
Note: An additional ROW dedication will be required to provide for the Walnut
Avenue extension.
4.9.09 Setback Sto . No upper story setback shall be required in this District.
4.9.10 Open Space. Public open space and/or pedestrian access shall be required for
development projects in order to assure a predominantly visitor-serving orientation.
4.9.11 Corridor Dedication. Development in District #7 shall require the dedication of a twenty
(20) foot corridor between Atlanta Avenue and PCH for public access between the
southern end of the Pacific Electric ROW and PCH. This requirement may be waived if
an alternative public use is provided or if the corridor is deemed unnecessary by the City.
Any proposal for an alternative public use must be approved by the Planning
Commission.
G:DWNTWNSP 52 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
4.9.12 Timeshares . May be permi tt ed as part of a master planned
eve opment and shaft be conditioned as follows:
a) At least twenty-five percent of the units be permanently reserved for
transient overnight accommodations during the peak summer season
(beginning the day before Memorial Day weekend and ending the
day after Labor Day).
b) The timeshare facility shall operate as a hotel including
requirements for a centralized reservations system , check-in
services , advertising , security , and daily housecleaning.
c) A descrip tion specifying how the twenty-five percent reserved
transient overnight requirement of Section 4.9.12 (a) will be satisfied
within the master planned development must be submitted at time of
application.
G:DWNTWNSP 53 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
4.11 DISTRICT #9: COMMERCIAL/RECREATION
Purpose. The purpose of this District is to encourage large, coordinated development
that is beach-oriented and open to the public for both commercial and recreational
purposes.
Boundaries . District #9 is bounded by PCH on the south, Beach Boulevard on the east,
Huntington Street on the west , and on the north by the proposed Walnut Avenue
extension.
4.11.01 Permitted Uses.
(a) The following list of commercial recreation uses in District No. 9 may be allowed.
Other visitor serving related uses as described in the Land Use Plan, and which
have the same parking demand as the existing use not specified herein may be
allowed subject to the approval of the Director. A change of use shall be subject
to the approval of the Director. For example:
Carts and Kiosks pursuant to Section 230.94 of the Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Retail sales
Tourist related uses
Outdoor dining pursuant to S.4.2.33
(b)The following list of uses, or change of such use in District No. 9 may be allowed
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. For example:
Dancing and/or Live entertainment
Recreational facilities
Restaurants
Hotels, motels
Timeshare Units pursuant to section 4.11.13
4.11.02 Minimum Parcel Size. No minimum parcel size shall be required for this District.
However, prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission
for any development, a master site plan for the entire District shall be approved by the
Planning Commission. Development which is in conformance with the site plan may
then be permitted.
4.11.03 Maximum Densi /Intensi . The maximum intensity of development shall be
calculated by floor area ratio (FAR) for this District. The floor area ratio shall apply to
the entire project area. Floor area ratios shall be calculated on net acreage.
(a) The maximum floor area for developments in this District shall be calculated with
a multiple of 3.0.
4.11.04 Maximum Buildin Hei ht. No maximum building height shall be required.
4.11.05 Maximum Site Cove e. The maximum site coverage shall be thirty-five (35) percent
of the net site area.
Note: A maximum of twenty-five (25) percent of the net site area can be used for
parking and vehicular accessways.
G:DWNTWNSP 58 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
4.11.06 Setback ront Yard . The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding
forty-two (42) inches in height shall be fifty (50) feet, from PCH and Beach Boulevard.
4.11.07 Setback Side Yard . The minimum exterior side yard requirement shall be twenty (20)
feet.
Exception: The minimum exterior yard requirement from Beach Boulevard shall be
fifty (50) feet.
4.11.08 Setback ear Yard . The minimum rear yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet.
Note: An additional ROW dedication will be required to provide for the Walnut
Avenue extension.
4.11.09 Setback er Sto . No upper story setback shall be required.
4.11.10 Open Space. Development projects within this District shall provide public open space.
A minimum of thirty (30) percent of the net site area must be provided for such a
purpose. This area shall be available for public or semi-public uses for recreational
purposes. Open space must have minimum dimensions of twenty-five (25) feet in each
direction . Paved areas devoted to streets, driveways and parking areas may not be
counted toward this requirement. A maximum of fifteen (15) percent of the required
thirty (30) percent may be enclosed recreation space such as gyms, handball courts,
health clubs, interpretive centers or similar facilities. A fee may be imposed for the use
of such facilities.
4.11.11 Pedestrian Ove ass. A pedestrian overpass may be required to connect the
development in this District to the City Beach, as a condition of approval for any new
development on, or further subdivision of, parcels within the District. The City may
waive this requirement if the City determines that overpasses are unnecessary or
impractical considering the type and design of new developments.
4.11.12 Mobile home District. A portion of District #9 is zoned for mobile home use. Within
this mobile home area, the provisions of the Mobile home District of the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance shall apply (see Section 4.16).
4.11.13 Timeshares . May be permi tt ed as part of a master planned
eve opment and shall be conditioned as follows:
a) At least twenty-five percent of the units be permanently reserved for
transient overnight accommodations during the peak summer season
(beginning the day before Memorial Day weekend and ending the
day after Labor Day).
b) The timeshare facility shall operate as a hotel including
requirements for a centralized reservations system , check in
services , advertising , security, and daily housecleaning.
c) A description specifying how the twenty-five percent reserved
transient overnight requirement of Section 4.11.13 (a) will be
satisfied within the master planned development must be submi tt ed
at time of application.
G:DWNTWNSP 59 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
Ord. No. 3702
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of
Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 21st da of March 2005 and was again read to said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th da of A rit 2005 and was passed
and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City
Council.
AYES: Hansen, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Bohr
NOES: Sullivan, Cook
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
I, Joan L Flynn, CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington
Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby
certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been
published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley
Independent on April 14, 2005.
In accordance with the City Charter of said City
Joan L. Fl n Ci Clerk
De u Ci Clerk
Ci lerk and ex-officio rk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
Res. No. 2005-20
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, JOAN FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City
of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed
and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of
said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on the 21st of March,
2005 by the following vote:
AYES: Hansen, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Bohr
NOES: Sullivan, Cook
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Ci lerk and ex-officio erk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
ORDINANCE NO. 3 7 0 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN OF
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has previously adopted the
Downtown Specific Plan; and
Pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning
Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings
relative to amending the Downtown Specific Plan, wherein both bodies have carefully considered
all information presented at said hearings; and
After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission
and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and
consistent with the General Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: The Downtown Specific Plan is hereby amended as set forth in the
Legislative Draft attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 2: Except as specifically modified herein, all other sections of the Huntington
Beach Downtown Specific Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall become effec tive immediately upon certification of the
California Coastal Commission.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 41-bh day of , 2005.
ATTEST:
Clerk or
REVIEWED AND APPROV D: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C ty Adm' strator
,
ty Atto ey 1 3!i 05
INIT D AND APPROVED:
ctor of Planning
ord/05zoning/downtown SP timeshares
EXHIBIT A
Public o en s ace: Outdoor or unenclosed area on the ground floor or above floor
levels designed and accessible for use by the general public. Public open space may
include one of the following: patios, plazas, balconies, gardens or view areas accessible
to the general public, and open air commercial space, open to the street on the first
floor, or on at least one side, above the first floor, or open to the sky. The open space
requirement can be met anywhere in the development; however, open space provided
above the second floor will receive only fifty (50) percent credit toward this
requirement. This requirement cannot be met by open areas which are inaccessible to
the general public or are contrary to specific requirements of a district.
Public ri t-of-wa : That property dedicated through acquisition or easement for the
public right-of-way or utility purposes which includes the area spanning from the
property line on one side of a street to the property line on the other side of a street.
Recreational Vehicle: A travel Trailer, pick-up camper or motorized home with or
without a mode of power and designed for temporary human habitation for travel or
recreational purposes.
Rehabilitation: The physical repair, preservation, or improvement of a building or
structure. Does not include an expansion of existing floor area greater than ten (10)
percent; does not increase the building height; does not result in an increase in
permitted density.
Residual arcel: A legal lot which does not meet the requirements for a building site
within the District in which it is located, and where the abutting sites are already
developed.
Ri t-of-Wa 0 : That portion of property which is dedicated or over which an
easement is granted for public streets, utilities or alleys.
Semi-subterranean arkin : Parking structure which is partially recessed into the
development site, and which may or may not support additional structures above (e.g.
dwelling units, tennis courts, or parking structures).
Setback: A stipulated area adjacent to the lot lines which must be kept free of
structures over forty-two (42) inches high.
Street level: The elevation measured at the centerline of the public street adjacent to the
front setback at a point midway between the two side property lines.
Suite Hotel: A building designed for or occupied as a temporary lodging place which
contains guest rooms and may contain kitchenettes and a separate living room for each
unit.
Timeshares : An master planned development wherein a purchaser
receives e right in perpetuity, for life , or for a term of years, to the
recurrent , exclusive use or occupancy of a lot , parcel, unit , room(s), or
segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or
periodic basis, fr a period of time that has been or will be allo tt ed
from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been
divided and shall include, but not be limited to timeshare estate,
interval ownership vacation license, vacation lease, club membership,
timeshare use, condominium /hotel , or uses of a similar nature.
Townlot: The area and parcels bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the southwest,
Goldenwest Street on the northwest, Palm Avenue on the north and northeast, and Sixth
Street on the east and southeast.
G:DWNTWNSP 4 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
4.9 DISTRICT #7: VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
se. This District extends southeast of the Downtown core adjacent to Pacific
Coast Highway. The principal purpose of this District is to provide commercial
facilities to serve seasonal visitors to the beaches as well as to serve local residents on a
year round basis. This District also provides a continuous commercial link between the
Downtown and the visitor-commercial/recreation District near Beach Boulevard.
Boundaries. District #7 extends from First Street to Huntington Avenue between PCH
and the proposed Walnut Avenue extension.
4.9.01 Permitted Uses.
(a) The following list of Visitor-Serving Commercial uses in District No. 7 may be
allowed. Other visitor serving related uses as described in the Land Use Plan, and
which have the same parking demand as the existing use not specified herein may
be allowed subject to the approval of the Director. Change of use shall be subject
to the approval of the Director:
Art gallery
Bakeries
Banks and savings and loans branch offices (not to exceed five-thousand
(5,000) square feet)
Beach, swimming and surfing equipment
Bicycle sales, rental and repair
Boat and marine supplies
Bookstores
Carts and Kiosks pursuant to Section 230.94 of the Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Clothing stores
Delicatessens
Florists
Groceries (convenience)
Ice cre am parlors
Laundromats, laundries
Meat or fish markets
Newspaper and magazine stores
Newsstands
Outdoor dining pursuant to S.4.2.33
Photographic equipment sales
Photographic processing
Professional Office (not to exceed fifty [50] percent of total floor area)
Public Transportation Center
Shoe stores
Sporting goods
Tourist related public and semi-public buildings, services and facilities
Travel agency
Note: Visitor-serving commercial uses must be a part of all development proposals in
this District, with a minimum requirement that the entire street level be devoted to
Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses.
G:DWNTWNSP 51 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
(b) The following list of uses, or change of such use in District No. 7 may be allowed
subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Automobile service stations
Dancing and/or live entertainment
Health and sports clubs
Liquor stores
Restaurants
Taverns
Theaters
Hotels and motels
Permanent parking lots and parking structures
Timeshare Units pursuant to section 4.9.12
4.9.02 Minimum Parcel Size. No minimum parcel size shall be required for this District.
However, prior to the approval of any development, including subdivision, a master site
plan for the entire District shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
Development which is in conformance with the site plan may then be permitted.
4.9.03 Maximum Densi /Intensi .
(a) The maximum intensity of development shall be calculated by Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) for the District. The floor area ratio shall apply to the whole District. The
floor area ratio shall be 3.0 calculated on net acreage.
4.9.04 Maximum Buildin Hei t. The maximum building height shall be eight (8) stories.
4.9.05 Maximum Site Covera e. The maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50) percent of the
net site area.
4.9.06 Setback ront Yard . The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding
forty-two (42) inches in height shall be fifty (50) feet from PCH.
4.9.07 Setback Side Yard . The minimum exterior side yard requirement shall be twenty (20)
feet.
4.9.08 Setback ear Yard . The minimum rear yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet from the
proposed Walnut Avenue extension.
Note: An additional ROW dedication will be required to provide for the Walnut
Avenue extension.
4.9.09 Setback r Sto . No upper story setback shall be required in this District.
4.9.10 Open Space. Public open space and/or pedestrian access shall be required for
development projects in order to assure a predominantly visitor-serving orientation.
4.9.11 Corridor Dedication. Development in District #7 shall require the dedication of a twenty
(20) foot corridor between Atlanta Avenue and PCH for public access between the
southern end of the Pacific Electric ROW and PCH. This requirement may be waived if
an alternative public use is provided or if the corridor is deemed unnecessary by the City.
Any proposal for an alternative public use must be approved by the Planning
Commission.
G:DWNTWNSP 52 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
4.9.12 Timeshares. May be permi tt ed as part of a master planned
eve opment and shall be conditioned as follows:
a) At least twenty-five percent of the units be permanently reserved for
transient overnight accommodations during the peak summer season
(beginning the da before Memorial Day weekend and ending the
day after Labor Day).
b) The timeshare facility shall operate as a hotel including
requirements for a centralized reservations system , check-in
services , advertising , security , and daily housecleaning.
c) A description specifying how the twenty-five percent reserved
transient overnight requirement of Section 4.9.12 (a) will be satisfied
within the master planned development must be submi tt ed at time of
application.
G:DWNTWNSP 53 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
4.11 DISTRICT #9: COMMERCIAL/RECREATION
ose. The purpose of this District is to encourage large, coordinated development
that is beach-oriented and open to the public for both commercial and recreational
purposes.
Boundaries. District #9 is bounded by PCH on the south, Beach Boulevard on the east,
Huntington Street on the west, and on the north by the proposed Walnut Avenue
extension.
4.11.01 Permitted Uses.
(a) The following list of commercial recreation uses in District No. 9 may be allowed.
Other visitor serving related uses as described in the Land Use Plan, and which
have the same parking demand as the existing use not specified herein may be
allowed subject to the approval of the Director. A change of use shall be subject
to the approval of the Director. For example:
Carts and Kiosks pursuant to Section 230.94 of the Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Retail sales
Tourist related uses
Outdoor dining pursuant to S.4.2.33
(b) The following list of uses, or change of such use in District No. 9 may be allowed
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. For example:
Dancing and/or Live entertainment
Recreational facilities
Restaurants
Hotels, motels
Timeshare Units pursuant to section 4.11.13
4.11.02 Minimum Parcel Size. No minimum parcel size shall be required for this District.
However, prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission
for any development, a master site plan for the entire District shall be approved by the
Planning Commission. Development which is in conformance with the site plan may
then be permitted.
4.11.03 Maximum Densi /Intensi . The maximum intensity of development shall be
calculated by floor area ratio (FAR) for this District. The floor area ratio shall apply to
the entire project area. Floor area ratios shall be calculated on net acreage.
(a) The maximum floor area for developments in this District shall be calculated with
a multiple of 3.0.
4.11.04 Maximum Buildin Hei t. No maximum building height shall be required.
4.11.05 Maximum Site Covera e. The maximum site coverage shall be thirty-five (35) percent
of the net site area.
Note: A maximum of twenty-five (25) percent of the net site area can be used for
parking and vehicular accessways.
G:DWNTWNSP 58 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
4.11.06 Setback Front Yard . The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding
forty-two (42) inches in height shall be fifty (50) feet, from PCH and Beach Boulevard.
4.11.07 Setback Side Yard . The minimum exterior side yard requirement shall be twenty (20)
feet.
Exception: The minimum exterior yard requirement from Beach Boulevard shall be
fifty (50) feet.
4.11.08 Setback ear Yard . The minimum rear yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet.
Note: An additional ROW dedication will be required to provide for the Walnut
Avenue extension.
4.11.09 Setback er Sto . No upper story setback shall be required.
4.11.10 Open Space. Development projects within this District shall provide public open space.
A minimum of thirty (30) percent of the net site area must be provided for such a
purpose. This area shall be available for public or semi-public uses for recreational
purposes. Open space must have minimum dimensions of twenty-five (25) feet in each
direction. Paved areas devoted to streets, driveways and parking areas may not be
counted toward this requirement. A maximum of fifteen (15) percent of the required
thirty (30) percent may be enclosed recreation space such as gyms, handball courts,
health clubs, interpretive centers or similar facilities. A fee may be imposed for the use
of such facilities.
4.11.11 Pedestrian Ove ass. A pedestrian overpass may be required to connect the
development in this District to the City Beach, as a condition of approval for any new
development on, or further subdivision of, parcels within the District. The City may
waive this requirement if the City determines that overpasses are unnecessary or
impractical considering the type and design of new developments.
4.11.12 Mobile home District. A portion of District #9 is zoned for mobile home use. Within
this mobile home area, the provisions of the Mobile home District of the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance shall apply (see Section 4.16).
4.11.13 Timeshares . May be permitted as part of a master planned
eve opment and shall be conditioned as follows:
a) At least twenty -five percent of the units be permanently reserved for
transient overnight accommodations during the peak summer season
(beginning the da before Memorial Day weekend and ending the
day after Labor Day).
b) The timeshare facility shall operate as a hotel including
requirements for a centralized reservations system , check-in
services , advertising , security , and daily housecleaning.
c) A description specifying how the twenty-five percent reserved
transient overnight requirement of Section 4.11.13 (a) will be
satisfied within the master planned development must be submitted
at time of application.
G:DWNTWNSP 59 Downtown Specific Plan
Revised 2/06/02
Ord. No. 3702
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of
Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 21st da of March 2005 and was again read to said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th da of A ril 2005, and was passed
and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City
Council.
AYES: Hansen, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Bohr
NOES: Sullivan, Cook
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
1, loan L. Flynn, CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington
Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby
certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been
published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley
Independent on April 14, 2005.
In accordance with the City Charter of said City
Joan L. Fl Ci Clerk
De u Ci Clerk
C Clerk and ex-officio erk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
0 JUN 2 3 M 4
Council/Agency Meeting Held:a's -s6-o2
Deferre Continued to
r JA Deniedd Conditio A A ov p gppre
.I
Council Meeting Date: May 6, 2002 Department ID Number. J - /
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR/CHAIRMAN AND CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS C r_,
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator/Executive Director o'rrP
WPREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, Economic Develop. Director/Deputy E cuti irector
CLAY MARTIN, Director of Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Amend City/Agency Transient Occupancy Tax Allocation
Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s)
It Statement of Issue: In 1988, the City and Redevelopment Agency provided for a 40/60%
split of the 10%Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) in order to assist in the Agency's financing of
certain obligations related to the hotels to be developed on the Waterfront site in the Main
Pier Redevelopment Sub-area. This allocation of TOT is proposed to be expanded to the
entire Main Pier Redevelopment Sub-area.
Fundin Source: None at this time. A portion of future TOT from hotels to be developed in
the Main Pier Redevelopment Sub-area would flow to the Redevelopment Agency when and
if additional hotels are constructed.
(-CAII, le
r 6Recommended Action: (c /yam
Redevelopment Agency Action
Adopt Agency Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach Amending Ordinance No. 1 and Levying a Tax on the Provilege of
occupying a room or rooms in a Hotel, Inn, Tourist Home or House, Motel, or Other Lodging
Located Within the Main Pier Redevelopment Sub-area of the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project.
City Council Action
Adopt Ordinance No. '3 5 8 , an Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending
Chapter 3.28 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Credit for Transient
Occupancy Taxes.6d a
-V 1IP1I1 r w•rev
C. MIEN, IDri S'ki'
C k's Si nature
k
. .
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER : ED 02-07 i
City Council Action (continued)
Adopt Ordinance No. 355'? , an Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending
Ordinance No. 2974 to Provide a Credit for the Payment of Transient Occupancy Taxes to
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency;
Alternative Action s : Do not adopt the subject Ordinances and direct staff on how to
proceed.
Analysis: In 1988, pursuant to California Tax and Revenue Code Sections 7280 and
7280.5, the City and Redevelopment Agency adopted ordinances that provided for an
allocation of a portion of the concurrently increased Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from the
City to the Agency. Under the provisions of these ordinances, the Redevelopment Agency
receives 6% of the 10% TOT from the hotels developed on the Waterfront site in the Main-
Pier Redevelopment Sub-area. The purpose of this allocation was to assist the
Redevelopment Agency in meeting its financial obligations that facilitated the hotel
development generating the TOT revenue.
A similar financing structure is contemplated for future hotel development in the Main-Pier
Redevelopment Sub-area, including the hotel proposed for the Strand project on Blocks 104 • -
& 105. In anticipation of future hotel development in the City's beachfront resort district, it is
timely to update the existing ordinances. The proposed ordinances modify the area subject
to the allocation of TOT between the City and Redevelopment Agency to include the entire
Main-Pier Redevelopment Sub-area.
Environmental Status: Not Applicable.
Attachment s :
1. Redevelopment Agency Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 1., op ' - vo• a
2. City Ordinance Amending Chapter 3.28. O•--'1-A4 • .35 5
333 j3. City Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2974. 0,1v, /,/0,
4. Ma of Huntin ton Beach Redevelo ment Pro'ect Sub-area 5.
RCA Author: D. Biggs, ext. 5909
G:\DAVID\RCAS\ED 02-07 TOT Mod.doc -2- 4/24/2002 2:30 PM
Agency Ordinance
ATTACHMENT #1
dvb
0
ORDINANCE NO. 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. I AND LEVYING
A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF OCCUPYING A ROOM OR ROOMS IN A HOTEL, INN,
TOURIST HOME OR HOUSE, MOTEL, OR OTHER LODG ING LOCATED
WITHIN THE MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT SUB-AREA OF THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280.5 permits the redevelopment
agency of any city which has levied a transient occupancy tax pursuant to Section 7280 to adopt an
ordinance levying a transient occupancy tax if the city's ordinance entitles any person subject to the tax
under the city's ordinance to credit the amount of taxes due to the agency against the payment of taxes
due under the city's ordinance; and
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach ("City") has adopted a transient occupancy
tax ordinance consistent with the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7280 and 2780.5;
and
Neal-41w 1,
On Osteb 4;-198$ the Agency adopted Ordinance No. 1 which levied a transient occupancy
tax on a portion of real property within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project sub-area of the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; and
The Agency desires to levy a transient occupancy tax to be applicable to the privilege of
occupying a room or rooms in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging located within
the entire Main-Pier sub-area of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Le of Transient Occu anc Tax. The Agency hereby levies a tax on the
privilege of occupying a room or rooms in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging
located within the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project.
Said tax shall apply to the same extent, and with the same exceptions, as is the case throughout the
balance of the city and as may be provided by state law, as the same may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 2. Rate. The rate of the transient occupancy tax imposed by this Ordinance shall be
six percent (6%). The Agency reserves the authority from time to time to amend this Ordinance to
reduce such rate to a lesser rate, provided that such lesser rate generates sufficient revenues to enable the
Agency to timely satisfy its payment obligations to the developer pursuant to all outstanding Disposition
and Development Agreements and/or Owner Participation Agreements ("DDAs") by and between the
Agency relating to redevelopment projects within the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area, as the same
may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 3. 0 erative Date. This Ordinance shall not be operative until the first day of the
first calendar quarter commencing more than one hundred eighty (180) days after adoption of this
Ordinance. The Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to notify all persons and entities
liable for collection and payment of the tax immediately after the operative date of this Ordinance.
GAORDINANC\2002\agency trans tax - Final.doc I
Ord. No. 2
SECTION 4. Termination Date. This Ordinance shall automatically terminate and be of no
further force and effect on the date that the entire Agency indebtedness pursuant to all outstanding
DDAs by and between the Agency relating to redevelopment projects within the Main-Pier
Redevelopment sub-area, as the same may be amended from time to time, is paid in full or on the date
that any unpaid balance is forgiven and discharged as provided therein.
SECTION 5. Pa ent of Excess Tax Revenue to Ci . The purpose of this Ordinance is to
implement the redevelopment plans for the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area by providing an
additional source of revenue to the Agency to satisfy its payment obligations to the developer under all
outstanding DDAs relating to any redevelopment projects within the Main-Pier sub-area of the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. Accordingly, to the extent that after the operative date of
this Ordinance the Agency collects any transient occupancy taxes not required to enable the Agency to
timely make such payments to the developer pursuant to such outstanding DDAs, the excess amount
shall promptly be paid to the City.
SECTION 6. Amendments. Pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section
7280.5(d) this Ordinance may not be amended, modified, or repealed prior to the termination date in a
manner that jeopardizes or impairs the developer's rights under a DDA without the prior written consent
of the developer (including all permitted successors and assigns of developer's right under the DDA to
any of the payments required to be made thereunder).
SECTION 7. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance and the application of such
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
SECTION 8. Attestation and Publication. The Agency Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this
Ordinance and the same shall be published in accordance with the procedures applicable to general law
cities.
SECTION 9. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2002.
ATTEST:
Agency Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
Agency Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Execut' Director Agenc Counsel Wfu N 2 tul
'i7.42
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Deputy Executive Director
G.\ORDINANC\2002\agency trans tar - Final.doc 2
ORDINANCE NO. -1-2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY LEVYING A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF OCCUPYING A ROOM
OR ROOMS IN A HOTEL, INN, TOURIST HOME OR HOUSE, MOTEL,
OR OTHER LODGING LOCATED ON CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY
WITHIN THE MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS, California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280.5 permits the redevelopment
agency of any city which has levied a transient occupancy tax pursuant to Section 7280 to adopt an
ordinance levying a transient occupancy tax if the city's ordinance entitles any person subject to the tax
under the city's ordinance to credit the amount of taxes due to the agency against the payment of taxes
due under the city's ordinance; and
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach ("City") has adopted a transient occupancy
tax ordinance consistent with the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7280 and 7280.5;
and
Y
In Accordance with that certain Disposition and Development Agreement dated August 15, 1998
("DDA"), by and between the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") and RLM
Properties, Ltd. ("Developer"), the Agency desires to levy a transient occupancy tax to be applicable to
the privilege of occupying a room or rooms in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other
lodging located on that certain real property designated herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. LEVY OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX. The Agency hereby levies a tax
on the privilege of occupying a room or rooms in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other
lodging located within that portion of the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area of the Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project. b ,
Said tax shall apply to the same extent, and with the same exceptions,
as is the case throughout the balance of the City and as may be provided by state law, as the same may
be amended from time to time.
Section 2. RATE. The rate of the transient occupancy tax imposed by this Ordinance shall
be six percent (6%). The Agency reserves the authority from time to time to amend this Ordinance to
reduce such rate to a lesser rate, provided that such lesser rate generates sufficient revenues to enable the
Agency to timely satisfy its payment obligations to the dDeveloper pursuant to all
outstanding Disposition and Development Agreements and/or Owner
Participation Agreements ("DDAs") by and between the Agency relating to
redevelopment projects within the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub area, as the same
may be amended from time to time.
A
02ord/agency trans tar 4-25
Section 3. OPERATIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall not be operative until the later of(i)
the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than one hundred eighty (180) days after
adoption of this Ordinance
The
Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to notify all persons and entities liable for
collection and payment of the tax immediately after the operative date of this Ordinance.
Section 4. TERMINATION DATE. This Ordinance shall automatically terminate and be
of no further force and effect on the date that the entire Agency indebtedness
pursuant to all outstanding DDAs by and between the Agency
relating to redevelopment projects within the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-
area, as the same may be amended from time to time, is paid in is paid in full or, as to
b , on the date that any unpaid balance is forgiven and discharged as provided therein.
Section 5. PAYMENT OF EXCESS TAX REVENUE TO CITY. The purpose of this
Ordinance is to implement the rRedevelopment pPlans for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project sub-
Aarea by providing an additional source or revenue to the Agency to satisfy its payment obligations to
the dDeveloper under the DDA all outstanding DDAs relating to any redevelopment
projects within the Main-Pier sub-area of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Proj ect. Accordingly, to the extent that after the operative date of this Ordinance the Agency collects
any transient occupancy taxes not required to enable the Agency to timely make such payments to the
dDeveloper , the excess amount shall promptly be paid to the City.
Section 6. AMENDMENTS. Pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section
7280.5(d) , this Ordinance may not be amended, modified, or repealed
prior to the termination date in a manner that jeopardizes or impairs the
dDeveloper's rights under thea DDA without the prior written consent of the dDeveloper (including all
permitted successors and assigns of dDeveloper's right under the DDA to any of the payments required
to be made thereunder).
Section 7. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance of the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance and the application of such
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Section 8. ATTESTATION AND PUBLICATION. The Agency
Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this Ordinance and the same shall be published in accordance with
the procedures applicable to general law cities.
Section 9. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage.
02ord'agency trans tax 4-25
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach at an regular meeting thereof held on
the 7th day of Nov m r , 1988.
ATTEST:
•Agency Clerk
C air
PROVED AS TO FORM:
(y-Agency Attorn 1J---)-D-a
REVIEWED AND PPROVED:INITIAT AND APPROVED:
Ci y Administrator Dire t r of Redevelopment
, [ OL .
I
ORDINANCE NO. 1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY LEVYING A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF OCCUPYING
A ROOM OR ROOMS IN A HOTEL, INN , TOURIST HOME OR HOUSE,
MOTEL , OR OTHER LODGING LOCATED ON CERTAIN DESIGNATED
PROPERTY WITHIN THE MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS , California Revenue and Taxation Code Section
7280 .5 permits the redevelopment agency of any city which has
levied a transient occupancy tax pursuant to Section 7280 to
adopt an ordinance levying a transient occupancy tax if the
city's ordinance entitles any person subject to the tax under
the city's ordinance to credit the amount of taxes due to the
agency against the payment of taxes due under the city's
ordinance; and
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach ("City")
has adopted a transient occupancy tax ordinance consistent with
the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280 and
7280.5; and
In Accordance with that certain Disposition and Development
Agreement dated August 15, 1988 ("DDA"), by and between the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") and RLM
Properties , Ltd. ("Developer"), the Agency desires to levy a
transient occupancy tax to be applicable to the privilege of
occupying a room or rooms in a hotel, inn, tourist home or
house , motel, or other lodging located on that certain real
property designated herein;
NOW, THEREFORE , THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . LEVY OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX. The Agency
hereby levies a tax on the privilege of occupying a room or
rooms in a hotel , inn, tourist home or house , motel, or other
lodging located within that portion of the Main-Pier
Redevelopment Project Area bounded on the south by Pacific Coast
Highway , on the west by Huntington Street, on the north by the
proposed alignment for the future extension of Walnut Avenue (as
shown on the City's Precise Plan of Alignment adopted prior to
this Ordinance ), and on the east by Beach Boulevard . Said tax
shall apply to the same extent , and with the same exceptions, as
is the case throughout the balance of the City and as may be
provided by state law , as the same may be amended from time to
time.
1 - 1
Section 2. RATE . The rate of the transient occupancy tax
imposed by this Ordinance shall be six percent (6%). The Agency
reserves the authority from time to time to amend this Ordinance
to reduce such rate to a lesser rate , provided that such lesser
rate generates sufficient revenues to enable the Agency to
timely satisfy its payment obligations to the Developer under
the DDA, as the same may be amended from time to time.
Section 3 . OPERATIVE DATE . This Ordinance shall not be
operative until the later of (i) the first day of the calendar
quarter commencing more than one hundred eighty (180) days after
adoption of this Ordinance or (ii) thirty (30) days after the
Agency defaults under Attachment No. 5 to the DDA and the
Developer provides to the Agency written notice.to of Agency's
default. The Executive Director is hereby authorized and
directed to notify all persons and entities liable for
collection and payment of the tax immediately after the
operative date of this Ordinance.
Section 4 . TERMINATION DATE . This Ordinance shall
automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect on
the date that the entire Agency indebtedness set forth in
Attachment No. 5 to the DDA is paid in full or, as to Paragraph
4 only, on the date that any unpaid balance is forgiven and
discharged as provided therein.
Section 5 . PAYMENT OF EXCESS TAX REVENUE TO CITY. The
purpose of this Ordinance is to implement the Redevelopment Plan
for the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area by providing an
additional source of revenue to the Agency to satisfy its
payment obligations to the Developer under the DDA.
Accordingly , to the extent that after the operative date of this
Ordinance the Agency collects any transient occupancy taxes not
required to enable the Agency to timely make such payments to
the Developer , the excess amount shall promptly be paid to the
City.
Section 6. AMENDMENTS . Pursuant to California Revenue and
Taxation Code Section 7280 .5(d) and Attachment No. 5 to the DDA,
this Ordinance may not be amended , modified , or repealed prior
to the termination date set forth in Section 4 in a manner that
jeopardizes or impairs the Developer 's rights under the DDA
without the prior written consent of the Developer (including
all permitted successors and assigns of Developer 's right under
the DDA to any of the payments required to be made thereunder).
Section 7 . SEVERABILITY . If any provision of this
Ordinance of the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid , the remainder of the Ordinance and
the application of such provision to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
2
Section 8 . ATTESTATION AND PUBLICATION. The Secretary of
the Agency shall attest to the adoption of this Ordinance and
the same shall be published in accordance with the procedures
applicable to general law cities.
Section 9 This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach at an regular meeting thereof held on
the 7th day of N v m r , 1988.
C irma
ATTEST:
-Agency Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
a- ,_
Agency Attorney )C>-
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Dire t r of Redevelopment
6.,,Ia.11
3 1
Ord. No. 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OR ORANGE )
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH)
1
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach, do hereby certify that,the whole number of
members of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach is
seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said Redevelopment Agency
at a regular meeting thereof held on 24th day of
19 88 , and was again read to said
Redevelopment Agency at a regular meeting
thereof held on the 7th day of November , 1988 ,
and was passed and adopted by affirmative vote of at least a majority
of all the members of said Redevelopment Agency.
AYES: Members:
Kell Green Finle Erskine, Ma s, Winchell
NOES: Members:
Bannister
ABSENT: Members:
None
Clerk of the Redevelopmen Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach, CA
G/v 1
City ordinance
ATTACHMENT #2
6.11a.12,
ORDINANCE NO.3558
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING CHAPTER 3.28 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO CREDIT FOR TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 3.28.170 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
3.28.170 Credit for Transient Occu anc Taxes Paid to Huntington Beach Redevelo ment Aaenc
Any person or persons subject to the transient occupancy tax under this Ordinance shall be entitled
to a credit against the payment of such taxes due in the amount of any transient occupancy taxes due
from that person or persons to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") pursuant
to Ordinance No..2 ,_.adopted by the Agency on , 2002, which affects
any persons occupying a room or rooms in any hotels, inns, tourist homes or houses, motels, or
other lodging within the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area of the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project. See Ordinance No.3559 for additional information reaardina
termination amendment or modification of 3.28.170.)
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
t
1PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting thereof held on the day of 2002.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City dministrator - City Attorney
(.,- I S-OZ
(, k(i51ol,
INITIA ED AND APPROVED:
Director of Economic Development
02ord/mc3-28-170-FinaVI/14102
Ordinance No. 3538'
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Chapter 3.28
UNIFORM TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
(1068-7/64, 1226-7/66, 1590-8/70, 2015-11/75, 2098-9/76, 2974-12/88)
(Res 5859-5/88)
Sections:
3.28.010 Purpose
3.28.020 Definitions
3.28.030 Tax imposed
3.28.040 Exemptions
3.28.050 Operator's duties
3.28.060 Register
3.28.070 Guests must register
3.28.080 Registration
3.28.090 Reporting and remitting
3.28.100 Penalties and interest
3.28.110 Failure to collect and report tax--Determination of tax by City Treasurer
3.28.120 Appeal
3.28.130 Records
3.28.140 Refunds
3.28.150 Actions to collect
3.28.160 Failure to register
3.28.170 Credit for transient occupancy taxes paid to Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Agency
3.28.010 Pu ose. The City Council of the city of Huntington Beach hereby declares that this
chapter, which shall be known as the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax, is adopted to provide a
tax on the rent charged in a hotel by the operator of said hotel. (1068-7/64, 2015-11/75)
3.28.020 Definitions. Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this
section govern the construction of this chapter:
(a) "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club,
fraternal organization, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver,
trustee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
(b) "Hotel" means any structure, or any portion of any structure which is occupied or intended or
designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes
any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodging house, rooming
house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobilehome or house trailer at a fixed
location, or other similar structure or portion thereof.
legisdrf /mc0328/1/9/02 I
(c) "Occupancy" means the use or possession or the right to the use or possession of any room or
rooms or portion thereof, in any hotel for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes.
(d) "Transient" means any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason
of concession, permit, right of access, license or other agreement for a period of thirty (30)
consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Any such
person so occupying space in a hotel shall be deemed to be a transient until the period of thirty
(30) days has expired unless there is an agreement in writing between the operator and the
occupant providing for a longer period of occupancy. In determining whether a person is a
transient, uninterrupted periods of time extending both prior and subsequent to the effective date
of this chapter may be considered.
(e) "Rent" means the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space
in a hotel valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise,
including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature, without any
deduction therefrom whatsoever.
(f) "Operator" means the person who is proprietor of the hotel, whether in the capacity of owner,
lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity. Where the operator
performs his functions through managing agent of any type or character other than an employee,
the managing agent shall also be deemed an operator for the purposes of this chapter and shall
have the same duties and liabilities as his principal. Compliance with the provisions of this
chapter by either the principal or the managing agent shall, however, be considered to be
compliance by both. (10687/64)
3.28.030 Tax im osed. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to
and shall pay a tax on the rent charged by the operator at a rate equal to the current, combined
state and local use tax rate. Said rate shall be declared by the City Council by resolution from
time to time. Said tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the city which is extinguished
only by payment to the operator or to the city. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of
the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of
the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient's
ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of
the hotel, the City Treasurer may require that such tax be paid.directly to the City Treasurer.
(1068-7/64, 1590-8/70, 2015-11/75, Res 5859-5/88)
3.28.040 Exem tions. No tax shall be imposed upon:
(a) Any person as to whom, or any occupancy as to which it is beyond the power of the city to
impose the tax herein provided;
(b) Any federal or state of California officer or employee when on official business;
(c) Any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express
provision of federal law or international treaty.
G -, 6 a, ,
J
Iegisdrf /mc0328/1/9/02 2
No exemption shall be granted except upon a claim therefor made at the time rent is collected
and under penalty of perjury upon a form prescribed by the City Treasurer. (1068-7/64, 2015-
11/75)
3.28.050 erator's duties. Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this chapter to the
same extent and at the same time as the rent is collected from every transient. The amount of tax
shall be separately stated from the amount of the rent charged, and each transient shall receive a
receipt for payment from the operator. No operator of a hotel shall advertise or state in any
manner, whether directly or indirectly, that the tax or any part thereof will be assumed or
absorbed by the operator, or that it will not be added to the rent, or that, if added, any part will be
refunded except in the manner hereinafter provided. (1068-7/64, 2015-11/75)
3.28.060 Resister. Every owner, keeper or proprietor of any lodging house, rooming house,
motel or hotel shall keep a register wherein he shall require all guests, roomers or lodgers to
inscribe their names upon their procuring lodging of a room or accommodations. Said register
shall also show the day of the month and year when said name was inscribed, and the room
occupied, or to be occupied by said lodger, or roomer or guest in such lodging house, rooming
house, motel or hotel. Said register shall be kept in a conspicuous place in said lodging house,
rooming house, motel or hotel, and shall at all times be open to inspection by any peace officer
of the state of California. (1226-7/66, 2015-11/75)
3.28.070 Guests must register. Before any lodging for hire to any person(s) in any lodging house,
or before renting any room to any person(s) in any rooming house, or before furnishing any
accommodations to any guest(s) at any motel or hotel, the proprietor, manager or owner thereof
shall require the person(s) to whom such lodgings are furnished, or room is rented, or
accommodations furnished, to inscribe his/their name(s) in such register kept for that purpose as
hereinabove provided, and shall set opposite said name(s) the time when said name(s) was/were
so inscribed, the room occupied by such lodger(s), roomer(s), or guest(s), and the license number
and description of the vehicle said lodger(s), roomer(s) or guest(s) drove. (1226-7/66, 2015-
11/75)
3.28.080 Re istration. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this chapter, or within
thirty (30) days after commencing business, whichever is later, each operator of any hotel renting
occupancy to transients shall register said hotel with the City Treasurer and obtain from him a
"Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate" to be at all times posted in a conspicuous place
on the premises. Said certificate shall, among other things, state the following:
(a) The name of the operator;
(b) The address of the hotel;
(c) The date upon which the certificate was issued.
(d) "This Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate signifies that the person named on the
face hereof has fulfilled the requirements of Chapter 3.28 by registering with the City Treasurer
for the purpose of collecting from transients the Transient Occupancy Tax and remitting said tax
la.
Iegisdrfdmc0328/1/9/02 3
0
to the City Treasurer. This certificate does not authorize any person to conduct any unlawful
business or to conduct any lawful business in an unlawful manner, nor to operate a hotel without
strictly complying with all local applicable laws, including but not limited to those requiring a
permit from any board, commission, department or office of this city. This certificate does not
constitute a permit." (1068-7/64)
3.28.090 Re ortin and remittin . Each operator shall file a report each month on forms
provided by the City Treasurer of the total rents charged and received and the amount of tax
collected for transient occupancies for the preceding month. The full amount of tax collected
shall be remitted to the City Treasurer. Said tax collected by each operator during a calendar
month, is due and payable on the last day of the first month following and shall be delinquent
and subject to the penalties noted in section 3.28.100 of this chapter on the first day of the second
month following. Said report shall be filed at the same time the tax is remitted. Returns are due
and payable and delinquent immediately upon cessation of business for any reason. All taxes
collected by operators pursuant to this chapter shall be held in trust for the account of the city
until payment is made to the City Treasurer. (1068-7/64, 2098-9/76)
3.28.100 Penalties and interest. The following shall give rise to penalties and interest:
(a) Original Delinquency. Any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this chapter within
the time required shall pay a penalty of 10 percent of the amount of the tax in addition to the
amount of the tax.
(b) Continued Delinquency. Any operator who fails to meet any delinquent remittance on or
before a period of thirty (30) days following the date on which the remittance first became
delinquent shall pay a second delinquency penalty of 10 percent of the amount of the tax in
addition to the amount of the tax and the 10 percent penalty first imposed.
(c) Fraud. If the City Treasurer determines that the non-payment of any remittance due under this
chapter is due to fraud, a penalty of 25 percent of the amount of the tax shall be added thereto in
addition to the penalties stated in subsections (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) Interest. In addition to the penalties imposed, any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed
by this chapter shall pay interest at the rate of one-half (1/2) of 1 percent per month, or fraction
thereof, on the amount of the tax, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which the remittance
first became delinquent until paid.
(e) Penalties Merged with Tax. Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the
provisions of this section shall become a part of the tax herein required to be paid. (10687/64)
3.28.110 Failure to collect and re ort tax--Determination of tax b Ci Treasurer. If any
operator shall fail or refuse to collect said tax and to make, within the time provided in this
chapter, any report and remittance of said tax or any portion thereof required by this chapter, the
City Treasurer shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information
U on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the City Treasurer shall procure such
facts and information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax
Iegisdrft/mc0328/1/9/02 4
imposed by this chapter and payable by any operator who has failed or refused to collect the
same and to make such report and remittance, he shall proceed to determine and assess against
such operator the tax, interest and penalties provided for by this chapter. In case such
determination is made, the City Treasurer shall give a notice of the amount so assessed by
serving it personally or by depositing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to
the operator so assessed at his last known place of address. Such operator may within ten (10)
days after the serving or mailing of such notice make application in writing to the City Treasurer
for a hearing on the amount assessed. If application by the operator for a hearing is not made
within the time prescribed, the tax, interest and penalties, if any, determined by the City
Treasurer shall become final and conclusive and immediately due and payable. If such
application is made, the City Treasurer shall give not less than five (5) days written notice in the
manner prescribed herein to the operator to show cause at a time and place fixed in said notice
why said amount specified therein should not be fixed for such tax, interest and penalties. At
such hearing, the operator may appear and offer evidence why such specified tax, interest and
penalties should not be so fixed. After such hearing the City Treasurer shall determine the proper
tax to be remitted and shall thereafter give written notice to the person and in the manner
prescribed herein of such determination and the amount of such tax, interest and penalties. The
amount determined to be due shall be payable after fifteen (15) days unless an appeal is taken as
provided in section 3.28.120. (1068-7/64, 2015-11/75)
3.28.120 A eal. Any operator aggrieved by any decision of the City Treasurer with respect to
the amount of such tax, interest and penalties, if any, may appeal to the City Council by filing a
notice of appeal with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the serving or mailing of the
determination of tax due. The council shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal, and the
City Clerk shall give notice in writing to such operator at his last known place of address. The
findings of the council shall be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the appellant in the
manner prescribed above for service of notice of hearing. Any amount found to be due shall be
immediately due and payable upon the service of notice. (1068-7/74, 2015-11/75)
3.28.130 Records. It shall be the duty of every operator liable for the collection and payment to
the city of any tax imposed by this chapter to keep and preserve, for a period of three (3) years,
all records as may be necessary to determine the amount of such tax as he may have been liable
for the collection of and payment to the city, which records the City Treasurer shall have the
right to inspect at all reasonable times. (1068-7/64)
3.28.140 Refunds. The following shall warrant a refund:
(a) Whenever the amount of any tax, interest or penalty has been overpaid or paid more than
once or has been erroneously or illegally collected or received by the city under this chapter it
may be refunded as provided in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of this section provided a claim in
writing therefor, stating under penalty of perjury the specific grounds upon which the claim is
founded, is filed with the City Treasurer within three (3) years of the date of payment. The claim
shall be on forms furnished by the City Treasurer.
(b) An operator may claim a refund or take as credit against taxes collected and remitted the
amount overpaid, paid more than once or erroneously or illegally collected or received when it is
9
Iegisdrft/mc0328/1/14/02 5
established in a manner prescribed by the City Treasurer that the person from whom the tax has
been collected was not a transient; provided, however, that neither a refund nor a credit shall be
allowed unless the amount of the tax so collected has either been refunded to the transient or
credited to rent subsequently payable by the transient to the operator.
(c) A transient may obtain a refund of taxes overpaid or paid more than once or erroneously or
illegally collected or received by the city by filing a claim in the manner provided in subsection
(a) of this section, but only when the tax was paid by the transient directly to the City Treasurer,
or when the transient having paid the tax to the operator, establishes to the satisfaction of the
City Treasurer that the transient has been unable to obtain a refund from the operator who
collected the tax.
(d) No refund shall be paid under the provisions of this section unless the claimant established
his right thereto by written records showing entitlement thereto.(1068-7/64, 2015-11/75)
3.28.150 Actions to collect. Any tax required to be paid by any transient under the provisions of
this chapter shall be deemed a debt owed by the transient to the city. Any such tax collected by
an operator which has not been paid to the city shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to
the city. Any person owing money to the city under the provisions of this chapter shall be liable
to an action brought in the name of the city of Huntington Beach for the recovery of such
amount. (1068-7/64, 2015-11/75)
3.28.160 Failure to re ister. Any operator or other person who fails or refuses to register as
required herein, or to furnish any return required to be made, or who fails or refuses to furnish a
supplemental return or other data required by the City Treasurer, or who renders a false or
fraudulent return or claim, is guilty of a MISDEMEANOR. Any person required to make, render,
sign or verify any report or claim or who makes any false or fraudulent report or claim with
intent to defeat or evade the determination of any amount due required by this chapter to be
made, is guilty of a MISDEMEANOR. (1068-7/64, 2015-11/75)
3.28.170 Credit for Transient Occu anc Taxes Paid to Huntin on Beach Redevelo ment
Agency. Any person or persons subject to the transient occupancy tax under this Ordinance shall
be entitled to a credit against the payment of such taxes due in the amount of any transient
occupancy taxes due from that person or persons to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Agency ("Agency") pursuant to Ordinance No. 4- , adopted by the Agency on October
24,19c99 on , 2002 which affects any persons occupying a room or rooms in any
hotels, inns, tourist homes or houses, motels, or other lodging within the Main-
Pier Redevelopment -eject sub-Aarea of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project. , 'b
Boulevd. (2974-12/88 See Ordinance No. 2974 for additional information
re ardin termination. amendment or modification of 3.28.170.
A
legisdrfdmc0328/I/14/02 6
City Ordinance Amending Ord. 2974
ATTACHMENT #3
G/Iot";,l
ORDINANCE NO. 3559
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2974 TO PROVIDE A CREDIT
FOR THE PAYMENT OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
WHEREAS, California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280.5 permits the
redevelopment agency of any city which has levied a transient occupancy tax pursuant to
Section 7280 to adopt an ordinance levying a transient occupancy tax if the city's
ordinance entitles any person subject to the tax under the city's ordinance to credit the
amount of taxes due to the agency against the payment of taxes due under the city's
ordinance; and
On November 7, 1988, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted
Ordinance No. 2974 allowing the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency")
to receive a portion of the transit occupancy taxes generated by hotels, inns, tourist homes
or houses , motels and other lodgings located within a portion of the Main -Pier sub-area of
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment project pursuant to Ordinance No. 1 adopted by the
Agency on , &, and
tJ m,q v'1, 1W
The Agency desires to receive a portion of the transient occupancy taxes generated
by hotels, inns, tourist homes or houses, motels, and other lodgings located within the
entire Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
to the extent necessary to enable the Agency to timely satisfy its payment obligations
under any and all outstanding Disposition and Development Agreements and/or Owner
Participation Agreements ("DDAs") by and between the Agency for redevelopment
projects located within the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area, including but not limited to
the DDA dated August 15, 1988, and all subsequent amendments thereto, by and between
the Agency and RLM Properties, Ltd., and the DDA approved in June 1999, by and
between the Agency and CIM Group, LLC ; and
The City Council desires to facilitate the implementation of any redevelopment
plan within the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area and the Agency's ability to perform its
payment obligations under any and all DDAs relating to redevelopment in the Main-Pier
sub-area by providing that persons subject to the City's transient occupancy tax ordinance
in the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area shall be entitled to a credit against the payment
of taxes due under the City's ordinance in the amount of the transient occupancy taxes due
to the Agency.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
a zL
02ord/amend 2974-final/l/14/02 I
SECTION 1. Section 3.28.170 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read in its entirety as follows:
3.28.170 Credit for Transient Occu anc Taxes Paid to Huntington Beach
Redevelo ment A enc . Any person or persons subject to the transient occupancy
tax under this Ordinance shall be entitled to a credit against the payment of such
taxes due in the amount of any transient occupancy taxes due from that person or
persons to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2 , adopted by the Agency on , 2002, which
affects any persons occupying a room or rooms in any hotels, inns, tourist homes or
houses, motels, or other lodging within the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area of
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. (See Ordinance No. 3558 for
additional information re ardin termination amendment or modification of
3.2 8.170.)
SECTION 2. Section 1 above shall automatically terminate and be of no further
force and effect on the date that the entire Agency indebtedness pursuant to all outstanding
DDAs by and between the Agency and relating to redevelopment projects within the Main-
Pier Redevelopment sub-area, as the same may be amended from time to time, is paid in
full or that any unpaid balance is forgiven and discharged as provided therein.
SECTION 3. The purpose of this Ordinance is to assist the Agency in
implementing the redevelopment plans for the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area by
providing an additional source of revenue to the Agency to satisfy its payment obligations
under any outstanding DDAs entered into by the Agency and relating to redevelopment
projects within the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area of the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project. Accordingly, to the extent that after the operative date of this
Ordinance the Agency collects any transient occupancy taxes not required to enable the
Agency to timely make such payments pursuant to any such DDA, the excess amount shall
promptly be paid to the City.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section
7280.5(d), this Ordinance may not be amended, modified, or repealed prior to the
termination date set forth in Section 2 in a manner that jeopardizes or impairs any rights
under any outstanding DDAs without prior written consent of the developer.
SECTION 5. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any
person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application
of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this Ordinance and the
same shall be published in accordance with law.
6."16(,
15
02ord.'amend 2974-final/1/2502 2
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
SECTION 8. This ordinance shall become operative concurrently with Ordinance
No. 2 adopted by the Agency on , 2002, on the first day of the
first calendar quarter commencing more than one hundred eighty (180) days after adoption
of this Ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at
a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2002.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
City dministrator
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J-1r-oL
t ,- City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Director of conomic Development
, I CL .
A,
02ord/amend 2974-final/1/14/02 3
01
0
ORDINANCE NO. 2974
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE CITY'S
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A
CREDIT FOR THE PAYMENT OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
WHEREAS, California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280.5 permits the
redevelopment agency of any city which has levied a transient occupancy tax pursuant to
Section 7280.5 permits the redevelopment agency of any city which has levied a transient
occupancy tax pursuant to Section 7280 to adopt an ordinance levying a transient
occupancy tax if the city's ordinance entitles any person subject to the tax under the city's
ordinance to credit the amount of taxes due to the agency against the payment of taxes due
under the city's ordinance; and
The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") desires to receive a
portion of the transient occupancy taxes generated by hotels, inns, tourist homes or houses,
motels, and other lodgings located within the entire Main-Pier Redevelopment Project
Area to the extent necessary to enable the Agency to timely satisfy its payment obligations
under that certain Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") dated August 15,
1988, by and between the Agency and RLM Properties, Ltd. ("Developer"); and
The City Council desires to facilitate the implementation of the Redevelopment
Plan within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area and the Agency's ability to perform
its payment obligations under the DDA by providing that persons subject to the City's
transient occupancy tax ordinance in the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area
02ord/2974-4/25/02 1
designated herein shall be entitled to a credit against the payment of taxes due under the
City's ordinance in the amount of the transient occupancy taxes due to the Agency;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A new Section 3.28.170 of the Huntington Beach Municipal
Code is hereby added amended to the to read in its
entirety as follows:
3.28.170. Credit for Transient Occu anc Taxes Paid to Huntington Beach
Redevelo ment A enc . Any person or persons subject to the transient occupancy
tax under this Ordinance shall be entitled to a credit against the payment of such
taxes due in the amount of any transient occupancy taxes due from that person or
persons to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") pursuant to
Ordinance No. 4 , adopted by the Agency on October 2 4,
438 , 2002, which affects any persons occupying a room or
rooms in any hotels, inns, tourist homes or houses, motels, or other lodging within
the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area sub-area of The
Huntington Beach Redevelopment.
Section 2. Section 1 above shall automatically terminate and be of no further force
and effect on the date that the entire Agency indebtedness pursuant to all
02ord/ 2974-3'25/02 2
outstanding DDAs by and between the Agency and relating to
redevelopment projects within the Main -Pier Redevelopment sub-
area, as the same may be amended from time to time, set foort1 in
is paid in full or s , that
any unpaid balance is forgiven and discharged as provided therein.
Section 3. The purpose of this Ordinance is to assist the Agency in implementing
the rRedevelopment pPlans for the Main-Pier Redevelopment sub-area Pr-ejeet Area- by
providing an additional source of revenue to the Agency to satisfy its payment obligations
t under any outstanding DDAs entered by the
Agency relating to redevelopment projects within the Main-Pier
Redevelopment sub-area of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project. Accordingly, to the extent that after the operative date of this Ordinance the
Agency collects any transient occupancy taxes not required to enable the Agency to timely
make such payments pursuant to the Develepef any such DDA, the excess amount
shall promptly be paid to the City.
Section 4. Pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280.5(d)
this Ordinance may not be amended, modified, or
repealed prior to the termination date set forth in Section 2 in a manner that jeopardizes or
impairs ' any rights under any outstanding the DDAs without prior
written consent of the dDeveloper.
02ord/ 2974-4/25/02 3
!f -
1-Section 5. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any
person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application
of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this Ordinance and the
same shall be published in accordance with law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th
day of November , 1988.
ayor
ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk r.-City Attorney
R EWE DN D APP VED: IN TIA D AND APPROVED:
C y Administrator
14-
Di e tor of Economic
De elopment
H. B. Redevelopment Project Sub-Area 5
Main-Pier
ATTACHMENT #4
•
C
e
Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project
Subarea 5
City ofHuntington Beach
G" -
0
0
`ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS A.:'° NI" NO.:O3
1. PROJECT TITLE: Timeshares for Downtown Specific Plan Districts 7 and 9
Concurrent Entitlements : Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-03, General Plan
Amendment No. 03-03 and Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 03-02
2. LEAD AGENCY:City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
Contact: Rosemary Medel
Phone : (714) 536-5271
3. PROJECT LOCATION: Pacific Coast Highway between First Street and Beach
Boulevard.
4. PROJECT PROPONENT : The Robert Mayer Corporation
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, California 92660
Contact Person : Shawn Milbern
Phone: (949) 759-8091, ext 257
5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Visitor (F7 density) with Specific Plan overlay
6. ZONING: Downtown Specific Plan District 7 (Visitor-Serving
Commercial) and District 9 (Commercial/Recreation)
7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later
phases of the project, and secondary support, or off-site features necessary for implementation):
To amend the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element, Local Coastal Program
(LCP) and the Downtown Specific Plan to permit timeshares as an allowed use within Districts 7 and
9. Timeshares are any development wherein a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for
a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s), or segment
of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has
been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and
G \ENVIRONM\CHECKLST Page 1
shall include, but not be limited to timeshare use, condominium-hot 'R.,or uses of a similar nature. The
amendments would establish timeshares as a permitted use within the General Plan and the two
Downtown Specific Plan districts and permit the use on a year round basis. The amendments would
allow for greater flexibility in reaching the hotel/visitor serving market. Specific project approvals
will be included under separate applications.
8. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING:
DTSP District 7: North: Vacant land (proposed Pacific City)
South: Pacific Coast Highway and beach parking lot
East: Huntington Street and The Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort
West: First Street and various mixed uses
DTSP District 9: North: The Waterfront Residential
South: Pacific Coast Highway and beach parking lot
East: Beach Boulevard and open space
West: Huntington Street and vacant land (proposed Pacific City)
9. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION:
EIR 82-2, SEIR 82-2, Addendum #1 and #2 to SEIR 82-2, EIR 94-01, EIR 02-01
10. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) (i.e.
permits, financing approval, or participating agreement):
California Coastal Commission - certification of LCP amendment
Page 2
0ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic Public Services
Population / Housing Biological Resources Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Hydrology / Water Quality Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise Recreation
Agriculture Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRON MENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or a "potentially
significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one impact (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR.
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is
re uired.
v
Signature Date
41; i A-[ e
Printed Name Title
I pi-10-r.R'
13
11
x
Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIROOENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer
is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the
project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards.
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead
agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted.
4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier
analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances ) have been
incorporated into the checklist . A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sources used or
individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions.
7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3, Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements.
(Note: Standard Conditions of Approval - The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are
considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in
reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However, because they are considered
part of the project, they have not been identified as mitigation measures.
SAMPLE QUESTION.-
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
Landslides? (Sources- 1, 6)
Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington
Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which
show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response
probably would not require further explanation).
X
Page 4
•
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(Sources: 1,2,3,4)
b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conse rvation plan or
natural communi ty conse rvation plan? (Sources: 1,4)
X
0
c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 9 1,2,3,4,5)
Discussion : a-c) The City's Local Coastal Program Coastal Element allows timeshares within the Commercial General and
Mixed Use Districts. It requires that during the Summer months (ranging from Memorial Day to Labor Day) at least 25
percent of the timeshare units be reserved for transient overnight accommodations , i.e. a typical hotel accommodation.
The proposed amendments would expand the area in which timeshares are permitted in the General Plan and the Coastal
Element by including the Commercial Visitor District . However, from a zoning implementation perspective the
amendment only proposes timeshares within Districts 7 & 9 of the Downtown Specific Plan. Hotel development has been
previously analzed in the General Plan EIR 94-01 and timeshares are already an allowed use within certain areas of the
Coastal Zone . The expansion of timeshares, as quasi hotel uses, do not conflict with any existing plans or policies adopted
for purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
The proposed timeshare use is an ownership approach to vacation units/visitor-se rving accommodations and does not
cause a physical effect to a property. The proposed and changed use has no material effect on the land uses already
approved for District Nos. 7 and 9 in the Downtown Specific Plan. The approved land uses allow visitor serving hotels or
similar projects . The change in allowable uses would not affect a project 's design nor would it affect density, height, site
coverage or other physical attribute of a proposed hotel project. As such, the proposed use modifications to the General
Plan, LCP and Downtown Specific Plan to allow the timeshare use does not have a physical effect on the environment that
was not previously analyzed and does not have a deleterious effect on any adopted plan or ordinance of the City of
Huntington Beach.
No other land use plan or policy is in effect on the properties subject to these amendments that would be affected.
Therefore, there is a less than significant impact with agency regulations affecting the project property. Development of
this type of use will require a discretionary permit. Upon application for construction of a timeshare unit development, the
project will be evaluated in detail for land use compliance. The property subject to the proposed actions is not subject to
any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The change in allowable uses to permit
timeshare projects to be established will not divide an established community. The project affects the ownership of
property and not its physical development.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(e.g., through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)?
(Sources: 1,2,3,4)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(Sources:4)
•otentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
0
0
Page 5
•
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:4)
0
Discussion: a-c) The proposed timeshare use is an ownership option to visitor serving hotel uses already allowed within the
two Downtown Specific Plan Districts and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. There are no proposed uses that would
increase population directly or indirectly. No residences exist on the property. Therefore, no existing housing will be
displaced.
III. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault ? (Sources:4)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Sources: 1,2,3,4)
iv) Landslides ? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil, or changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable , or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off-site landslide , lateral spreading,
subsidence , liquefaction or collapse ? (Sources : 1,2,3,4)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (Sources: 1,2,3,4) no physical effect of the
proposal.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater (Sources:
12,3,4)
Ootentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
X
X
0
0
0
11
11
11
0
0
0
Page 6
0
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
Ootentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Discussion: a-c) The proposed use is a modification of a use already permitted on the both sites and does not cause a
physical effect to a property that was not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed ownership approach,
as a visitor serving timeshare, has no material affect on the land uses already approved for District Nos. 7 and 9 in the
Downtown Specific Plan. In District Nos. 7 and 9 no limitations regarding fault setback or other requirement related to
known fault location have been imposed. No material effect on structure design or land use, which is already approved for
District Nos. 7 and 9 in the Downtown Specific Plan is proposed. No limitations regarding seismic ground shaking, other
than standard structural requirements for buildings to meet Uniform Building Code have been imposed in these districts.
No unusual limitations regarding liquefaction, other than standard foundation requirements already in use in the project
area.
IV. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? (Sources:2,3,4)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (Sources: 2,3,4)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off-site? (Sources: 2,3,4)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface
runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off-site?
(Sources: 2.3.4)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Sources:2,3,4)
f)
g)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Sources:2,3,4)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources:
1,2,3,4)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows ? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
X
X 11
0
0
0
X
0
0
11
11
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
Page 7
0
ISSUES (an d Supporting Information Sources):
j)
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction
activities? (Sources:4)
1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction
activities? (Sources:4)
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants
from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling,
vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery
areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (Sources:4)
n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the
beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (Sources: 4)
o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow velocity
or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
(Sources: 4)
P)Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of the
project site or surrounding areas? (Sources: 4)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Discussion: a-p) There is no physical effect from this proposal that was not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
The inclusion of timeshares as a proposed use is a modification of a hotel use, which is already permitted on the site. The
proposed use as a visitor serving timeshare has no material effect on the physical design of structures that may be
proposed. All water quality standards in effect at the time of project construction will be adhered to. Similar uses have
been built within and around District No. 7 and 9, designed to be part of a master plan development. All drainage
requirements applicable to development within District Nos. 7 and 9 would remain unchanged. There would be no effect
on groundwater. Therefore, there are less than significant impacts to water quality that result from the proposed changes to
the General Plan, LCP and Downtown Specific Plan.
V. AIR UALITY. The city has identified the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
district as appropriate to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources:
X
1,2,3,4)
b)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 1,4)
X
c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Sources: 1,4)
X
d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
X
Ootentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Page 8
•
ISSUES (an d Supporting Information Sources):
quality plan? (Sources: 1,4)
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 1,4)
X
Discussion: a-e) The proposed use of visitor serving timeshare/hotel has no material effect on the land uses already
approved and analyzed in the General Plan EIR for District Nos. 7 and 9 in the Downtown Specific Plan. The land uses
already entitled/proposed for the property that is the subject of the proposed actions allow visitor serving hotels or similar
projects. The change in allowable uses to permit timeshare projects to be established in conjunction with hotels would not
affect a project's design nor would it affect density. As such, the proposed use modifications to the General Plan, Local
Coastal Plan and Downtown Specific Plan to allow the timeshare use do not have a physical effect on air quality and do
not have a deleterious effect on any adopted air quality plan or policy.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (e.g.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections ) or incompatible uses?
(Sources: 1,2,3,4)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Sources: 1,2,3,4)
0
0
0 11
0
0
0
11
13
0 11
Discussion: a-g) The timeshare product is analyzed for traffic purposes as a hotel. Hotel uses have been analyzed in the General
Plan EIR and as such the inclusion of timeshares will not cause a change in the traffic analysis. The proposed use is an ownership
modification of a use already permitted on the site. There is no physical or policy effect of the proposal beyond the General Plan
EIR analysis.
Ootentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Page 9
•
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Sources: 1,2,3,4)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
(Sources: 1,2,3,4)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conse rvation Plan, Natural Community Conse rvation Plan, or
other approved local, regional or state habitat conse rvation
plan? (Sources : 1,2,3,4)
x
0
0
0 11
0
0 11
Discussion: a-f) The proposed use of visitor serving timeshare has no material effect on the land uses already approved for
District Nos. 7 and 9 in the Downtown Specific Plan and addressed in the General Plan EIR. No biological resources
would be affected by the proposed policy and ordinance changes.
VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-impo rtant mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
•otentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
19
0
Page 10
•
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
Ootentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Discussion: a-b) The proposed use of visitor serving timeshare has no material effect on the land uses already approved for
District Nos. 7 and 9 in the Downtown Specific Plan. No mineral resources would be affected by the proposed policy and
ordinance changes.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a signific ant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Sources:l ,2,3,4)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment ? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous material, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school ? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962 .5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or pubic use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
(Sources: 1,2,3,4)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Sources : 1,2,3,4)
X
X
X
X
11
11
11
X
X
X
11
11
h) Expose people or structures to a signific ant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildl and fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands ? (Sources :l,2,3,4)
X
Discussion: a-h) The proposed use of visitor serving timeshare has no material effect on the land uses already approved
for District Nos. 7 and 9 in the Downtown Specific Plan. No effect on adopted emergency response plans or emergency
evacuation can be reasonably anticipated under the hotel uses considered in the General Plan EIR. No effect on or from
airports or air travel can reasonably be expected. There are no significant risks associated with the proposed project
because no construction is proposed.
Page 11
0
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
X. NOISE . Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
(Sources:4)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
(Sources:4)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Sources:4)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Sources:4)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels? (Sources:4)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels? (Sources:4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
11
11
Discussion: a-f) The proposed timeshare use is an ownership approach to vacation units/visitor-serving accommodations
and does not cause a physical effect to a property. The land uses already entitled and analyzed in the General Plan EIR for
the property that is the subject of the proposed actions currently allow visitor serving hotels or similar projects. The
change in allowable uses does not affect a project's design nor would it affect density, height, site coverage or other
physical attribute of a proposed hotel project. As such, the proposed use modifications to the General Plan, LCP and
Downtown Specific Plan to allow the timeshare use does not have a physical effect beyond the hotel uses analyzed in the
General Plan EIR or on the environment and does not have a deleterious effect on any adopted noise policy or ordinance of
the City of Huntington Beach. No noise policy or ordinance in effect on the properties or adjacent properties would be
affected. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to, or conflict with City or agency noise regulations. The
proposed policy and ordinance changes will not affect construction methods or uses within the affected districts.
Therefore, there is less than significant impact to groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, there is
less than significant to ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection ? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
•otentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
0 11
Page 12
0
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
b) Police Protection ? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
c) Schools? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
d) Parks? (Sources : 1,2,3,4)
e) Other public facilities or governmental services?
(Sources: 1,2,3,4)
X
0
0
0
Discussion: a-e) The proposed use of visitor serving timeshare has no material effect on the land uses already approved for
District Nos. 7 and 9 in the Downtown Specific Plan in terms of potential impact to Public Services because the development of
hotels was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Less than significant impacts to fire or police protection will occur as a result of
the proposed amendments. There will be less than significant impacts to school services or school resources and no impact to
park facilities or park services. There will be less than significant impacts-to other city, county or other agency facilities or
services. The proposed policy and ordinance changes will not affect any uses within the affected districts. Therefore, less than
significant-impacts are anticipated for public services.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 1,4)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (Sources: 1,4)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
Drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (Sources: 1,4)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1,4)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 1,4)
f)
g)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
(Sources: 1,4)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? (Sources: 1,4)
6otentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
0
0
11
11
11
11
0
0
0 11
1K
0
Page 13
0
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
h)Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best
Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment
basin, constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources: 1,4)
C
Discussion: a-h) The proposed timeshare use is an ownership approach to vacation units/visitor-serving accommodations
and does not cause a physical affect to a property. There will be no material effect beyond those uses analyzed in the
General Plan EIR and on the land uses already approved for District Nos. 7 and 9 in the Downtown Specific Plan. The
proposed policy and ordinance changes will not affect any uses within the subject districts because the proposal includes
no construction. As such, these amendments would not increase storm water runoff or otherwise result in the need to
construct a new storm water conveyance system or drainage facility. The proposed amendments would not increase
wastewater generation or require additional facilities for wastewater treatment. No impacts to water quality would result
from the proposed changes to the General Plan, Local Coast Program and Downtown Specific Plan since no construction is
associated with this proposal. There is no effect that would increase solid waste generation or require additional facilities
for solid waste disposal. Because there is not development proposed at this time there will be no increase in solid waste
generation. Therefore, the amendments would not be inconsistent with local, state and agency requirements related to solid
waste.
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(Sources: 1,4)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1,4)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1,4)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Sources: 1,4)
0
0
0 13
0
Discussion: a-d) The proposed timeshare use has no material effect on the land uses already approved for District Nos. 7
and 9 in the Downtown Specific Plan or the General Plan EIR. The land uses already entitled for the property allow
visitor serving hotels or similar projects. The change in allowable uses to permit timeshares to be established would not
affect a project's design nor would it affect density, height, site coverage or other physical attribute of a proposed hotel
project. As such, the proposed use modifications less than significant effect on the aesthetics, lighting or other physical
aspects of a project.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in 615064.5? (Sources:l,4)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to 615064.5? (Sources: 1,4)
Gotentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
0
0
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 19resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources:1,4)
Page 14
9
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries ? (Sources: 1,4)
X
Discussion: a-d) There is no development proposed beyond those uses analyzed in the General Plan EIR that would cause any
change to a site, cause potential archaelogical disturbance, impact a potential geologic feature or disturb any human remains related
to development. The amendments allow for future consideration of the establishment of timeshares, which is a change in ownership
for uses, i.e. hotels, that are already allowed within Districts 7 &9 of the Downtown Specific Plan.
XV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood,
community and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated? (Sources:1,2)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Sources: 1,2,4)
c) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Sources: 1,2,4)
X
X
X
11
Discussion: a-c) The proposed visitor serving timeshare use has no material effect on the land uses already approved for
District Nos. 7 and 9 in the Downtown Specific Plan and the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there is a less than signigicant
impact to city, county or other agency recreation facilities or demand for services or opportunities.
XVI. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Sources:])
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
X
X
0
11
Discussion: a-c) Downtown Specific Plan District Nos. 7 and 9 do not include any agricultural uses or agricultural lands.
Page 15
•
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? (Sources:)
19
Discussion: The proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment because the proposed
action of allowing timeshares does not foreseeably result in impacts to the physical environment not previously analyzed in the
General Plan EIR. The project represents an allowance for an ownership in land uses, i.e. hotels, already allowed with the
subject areas and does not in itself initate construction or cause physical changes to the property.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
(Sources:
19 11
Discussion: The proposed actions do not constitute a "project" according to CEQA and do not contribute to any cumulative
impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? (Sources:
X
Discussion : The City's action does not constitute a necessa ry step that starts in motion a chain of events that will foreseeably
result in impacts to the physical environment, including effects on human beings . The timeshare project is not a project that
portends any particular action affecting the environment . Therefore , there is no potential to negatively affect the environment or
human beings in the environment.
.Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Page 16
XVIII . EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process , one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration . Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).
Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis:
Reference # Document Title
1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan
2 General Plan EIR 94-1
3
4
5
City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance
Local Coastal Program
Previous Environmental Impact Reports prepared for the
subject properties/area Downtown Specific Plan:
DTSP : EIR 82-2, SEIR 82-2, Addendum
#1 and #2 to SEIR 82-2
DTSP District 7: EIR 02-01 (Pacific City project)
Available for Review at:
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept.,
Planning/Zoning Information Counter, 3rd
Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
cc
ff
cc
GG
Downtown Specific Plan District No. 7 and District No. 9 See Attachment #1
6 Map
G \ENVIRONM\CHECKLST Page 17
•r-n00O-W•CPACIncCOASTHWY.
Attachment No. 2
Pro'ect Narrative
The Robert Mayer Corporation and Makar Properties, LLC are requesting approval of a General Plan
Amendment (Land Use and Coastal Elements ), Zoning Map Amendment and requisite Environmental
Assessment to allow for Timeshare Projects/Units at the Waterfront and Pacific City (collectively
"Projects").
The Projects are located along Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and First Street inland to
Pacific View Avenue (The Waterfront) and future Pacific View Avenue )Pacific City is located within
District 7.
The Waterfront site is also known as the "third hotel" which is a part of the master planned Waterfront
development. Uses surrounding The Waterfront include the Hilton Waterfront Residential, presently under
construction. Surrounding uses to Pacific City include the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort, single family
and attached residential and limited commercial.
Presently, The Waterfront site is used by a pavilion/exhibition hall, passive recreation, wedding gazebo
and overflow parking for the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort. These uses were planned as temporary in
nature awaiting the "third hotel". The Pacific City site is vacant.
In requesting the aforementioned applications, this would allow for greater flexibility in reaching the
hotel/visitor serving market while maintaining the visitor serving goals of the General Plan.
19
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA
Monday , December 20, 2004
3:00P.M.
Third Floor Conference Room # 2
1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 03-03 is for a zoning text amendment, general
plan amendment and a local coastal program amendment to permit timeshares as an
allowed use within Districts 7 and 9 of the Downtown Specific Plan . (Continued from
December 8, 2004 EAC meeting)
Applicant : The Robert Mayer Corporation
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Request : To amend the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element, Local
Coastal Program (LCP) and the Downtown Specific Plan to permit timeshares as
an allowed use within Districts 7 and 9. Timeshares are any development
wherein a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of
years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s),
or segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic
basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or
occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and shall include, but
not be limited to timeshare use, condominium-hotel, or uses of a similar nature.
The amendments would establish timeshares as a permitted use within the
General Plan and the two Downtown Specific Plan districts and permit the use
on a year round basis. The amendments would allow for greater flexibility in
reaching the hotel/visitor serving market. Specific project approvals will be
included under separate applications.
Location : Pacific Coast Highway between First Street and Beach Boulevard.
Project Planner : Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
For information on the above items, please contact the specified project planner in the
City of Huntington Beach Dept. of Planning, at (714) 536-5271.
,-'N
MEMORANDUM
To: Rosemary Medel
City of Huntington Beach Planning Department
CC: Ethen Thacher
From: Larry Brose (',b
Date: November 24, 2003
Re: General Plan/Coastal Element and Downtown Specific Plan
Time Shares/Fractional Ownership
The following language is proposed to be added per document noted:
City of Huntington Beach General Plan , Land Use Element (1996):
1. Page II-LU-25, Table LU-2a, Permitted Uses: Add "Vacation Interval Units/Projects"
2. Page II-LU-54, Table LU-4, Subarea 4C PCH/First (Lake) Street: Add
"Hotels/motels/Vacation Interval Units/Projects" under "CV" category.
3. Page II-LU-54, Table LU-4, Subarea 4D Waterfront: Add "Vacation Interval
Units/Projects" after "Hotels /motels".
City of Huntington Beach General Plan , Natural Resources Chapter , Coastal Element (2001):
1. Page IV-C-26, Table C-1, Commercial Visitor Permitted Uses: Add "Vacation
Interval Units/Projects"
2. Page IV-C-37, Table C-2, 4C PCH/First (Lake) Street: Add "Hotels/motels/Vacation
Interval Units/Projects" on first line of "CV" category.
3. Page IV-C-38, Table C-2, 4D Waterfront: Add "Vacation Interval Units/Projects"
after "Hotels/motels".
4. Page IV-C-96, item 24: Add "Vacation Interval Units/Projects" after "Hotel/motel
rooms"
5. Page IV-C-154: Add to Glossary the following definitions:
Memorandum to Rosemary Med 1
November 24, 2003
Page 2 of 2
a. Vacation Interval Project: Any development wherein a licensee, lessee or
purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the
recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s), or segment of
real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of
time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into
which the project has been divided and shall include, but not be limited to
vacation interval ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, fractional interest,
club membership, time-share estate, time-share use, hotel/condominium, or uses
of a similar nature.
b. Vacation Interval: The period or length of time of occupancy in a Vacation
Interval Unit.
c. Vacation Interval Unit: Each portion of the real property or real property
improvement in a project that is divided into vacation intervals.
City of Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan (June 1995):
1 Section 4.0.04, Definitions, add: Vacation Interval Pro'ect: Any development
wherein a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to
the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s), or segment of
real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of
time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which
the project has been divided and shall include, but not be limited to time-share estate,
interval ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, club membership, time-share use,
hotel/condominium, or uses of a similar nature.
2. Section 4.0.04, Definitions, add: Vacation Interval: The period or length of time of
occupancy in a time-share unit.
3. Section 4.0.04, Definitions, add: Vacation Interval Unit: Each portion of the real
property or real property improvement in a project that is divided into time-share
intervals.
4. Section 4.9.01 (b), Permitted Uses requiring a CUP, add: Vacation Interval
Project/Vacation Interval Units.
5. Section 4.11.01 (b), Permitted Uses requiring a CUP, add: Vacation Interval
Project/Vacation Interval Units.
VACATION INTERVAL PROJECTS/UNITS
at
THE WATERFRONT AND PACIFIC CITY
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION
The Robert Mayer Corporation and Makar Properties, LLC are requesting approval of a
General Plan Amendment (Land Use and Coastal Elements) Zoning Map Amendment and
requisite Environmental Assessment to allow for Vacation Interval Projects/Units at The
Waterfront and Pacific City (collectively "Projects").
AREA DESCRIPTION
The Projects are located along Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and First
Street inland to Pacific View Avenue (The Waterfront) and future Pacific View Avenue
(Pacific City). The Waterfront is located within Downtown Specific Plan District 9 while
Pacific City is located with District 7.
The Waterfront site is also known as the "third hotel" which is part of the master planned
Waterfront development. Uses surrounding The Waterfront include the Hilton Waterfront
Beach Resort, the Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort and Spa and The Waterfront
Residential, presently under construction. Surrounding uses to Pacific City include the
Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort, single family and attached residential and limited
commercial.
Presently The Waterfront site is used by a pavilion/exhibition hall, passive recreation,
wedding gazebo and overflow parking for the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort. These uses
were planned as temporary in nature awaiting the "third hotel". The Pacific City site is
vacant.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENTITLEMENT RE UEST
Mayer and Makar seek to amend existing planning and zoning documents so that Vacation
Interval Projects/Units may be an allowed use within their respective parcels. This would
allow for greater flexibility in reaching the hotel/visitor serving market. At this time,
Mayer and Makar are not seeking specific project entitlement but rather an amended land
use designation. Specific project approvals are or will be included under separate
application.
The necessary entitlements to allow for the intended uses include:
Vacation Interval Projects/ is
At The Waterfront and Pacific City
Project Narrative
November 24, 2003
Page 2 of 2
0
1. General Plan Amendment: Both the Land Use Element and the Coastal Element
will require minor modifications. Please see attached Memorandum to Rosemary
Medel for proposed language changes.
2. Downtown Specific Plan Amendment : Districts 7 and 9 will require minor language
modifications to allow for the intended uses . Please see attached Memorandum to
Rosema ry Medel for proposed language changes.
3. Zoning Map Amendment: The City's zoning map will require modification to
conform to the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.
4. Environmental Assessment: The action of the General Plan and Downtown
Specific Plan amendments will necessitate CEQA review by the City.
THE
ROBERT
MAYER
CORPORATION
November 24, 2003
Ms. Rosemary Medel , Associate Planner
City of Huntington Beach Planning Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
Re: GPA, LCPA, ZTA and EA for The Waterfront and Pacific City
Dear Rosemary:
The Robert Mayer Corporation is pleased to submit this application for a General Plan Amendment
(Land Use and Coastal Elements), Zoning Text Amendment and requisite Environmental
Assessment to allow for Vacation Interval Projects/Units at The Waterfront and Pacific City.
Included in this application are the following:
1. Completed and signed application.
2. Written narrative.
3. Memorandum with proposed edits to the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.
4. Hazardous Waste & Substance statement for both The Waterfront and Pacific City.
5. Check in the amount of $40,246.00
As we near the hearing date, I will provide the necessary public notification materials so that the
hearing may be appropriately noticed. Further, I am happy to provide you a draft of the
Environmental Assessment once I have a chance to discuss it with you.
I look forward to continuing to work with you and the rest of the staff at the City on this project. If
there are any questions please call me at (949) 759-8091.
Sincerely,
The Robert Mayer Corporation
Lawrence F1 Brose
Senior Vice President
LFB:hs
cc: Howard Zelefsky (w/o enclosure)
David Biggs (w/o enclosure)
Ethen Thacher
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Box 8680
Newpo rt Beach, California 92658-8680
(949) 759-8091
G3 E"I V, rpr"-F(l)
DEC'01 7003
C-
,ACACIA
OUVE
iLlWALNUT
I
L
N
z
z
PACIFIC COAST HWY
DISTRICT #7
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HUNTINGTON -H
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
4.9 DISTRICT #7- VISITOR-SERVIN ivi vL ILAL
Purpose. This District extends southeast of the Downtown core adjacent to Pacific Coast
Highway. The principal purpose of this District is to provide commercial facilities to
serve seasonal visitors to the beaches as well as to serve local residents on a year round
basis. This District also provides a continuous commercial link between the Downtown
and the visitor-commercial/recreation District near Beach Boulevard.
Boundaries. District #7 extends from First Street to Huntington Avenue between PCH and
the proposed Walnut Avenue extension.
4.9.01 Permitted Uses.
(a) The following list of Visitor-Serving Commercial uses in District No. 7 may be
allowed. Other visitor serving related uses as described in the Land Use Plan, and
which have the same parking demand as the existing use not specified herein may be
allowed subject to the approval of the Director. Change of use shall be subject to the
approval of the Director. For example:
Art gallery
Bakeries
Banks and savings and loans branch offices (not to exceed five-thousand
(5,000) square feet)
. Beach, swimming and surfing equipment
. Bicycle sales, rental and repair
Boat and marine supplies
. Bookstores
Clothing stores
. Delicatessens
. Florists
. Groceries (convenience)
Ice cream parlors
Laundromats, laundries
Meat or fish markets
. Newspaper and magazine stores
Newsstands
Outdoor dining pursuant to S.4.2.32
Photographic equipment sales
Photographic processing
Professional Office (not to exceed fifty [50] percent of total floor area)
Public Transportation Center
. Shoe stores
. Sporting goods
. Tourist related public and semi-public buildings, services and facilities
. Travel agency
Note: Visitor-serving commercial uses must be a part of all development proposals in this
District, with a minimum requirement that the entire street level be devoted to Visitor-
Serving Commercial Uses.
51 Downtown Specific Plan
DISTRICT #7 Revised 6/1/95
C9
PA
A &C I#
p_EcAN_
9A NG.E
OLIVE
WALNUT
1
N
x
z
z
I
PACIFIC COAST HWY
DISTRICT #9
HUNTINGTON
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
4.11
4.11.01
I
I
I
.
I 4.11.02
4.11.03
4.11.04
4.11.05
DISTRICT #9: COMMERCIAL/RE REA IO
Purpose. The purpose of this District is to encourage large, coordinated development that
is beach-oriented and open to the public for both commercial and recreational purposes.
Boundaries. District #9 is bounded by PCH on the south, Beach Boulevard on the east,
Huntington Street on the west, and on the north by the proposed Walnut Avenue
extension.
Permitted Uses.
(a) The following list of commercial recreation uses in District No. 9 may be allowed.
Other visitor serving/recreational related uses as described in the Land Use Plan, and
which have the same parking demand as the existing use not specified herein may be
allowed subject to the approval of the Director. A change of use shall be subject to
the approval of the Director. For example:
Retail sales
+ Tourist related uses
. Outdoor dining pursuant to S.4.2.32
(b) The following list of uses and any new construction, or change of such use in District
No. 9 may be allowed subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. For example:
Dancing and/ or Live entertainment
. Hotels, motels
Recreational facilities
Restaurants
Minimum Parcel Size. No minimum parcel size shall be required for this District.
However, prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission for
any development, a master site plan for the entire District shall be approved by the
Planning Commission. Development which is in conformance with the site plan may then
be permitted.
Maximum Densit /Intensit . The maximum intensity of development shall be calculated
by floor area ratio (FAR) for this District. The floor area ratio shall apply to the entire
project area. Floor area ratios shall be calculated on net acreage.
(a) The maximum floor area for developments in this District shall be calculated with a
multiple of 3.0.
Maximum Buildin Hei ht. No maximum building height shall be required.
Maximum Site overa e. The maximum site coverage shall be thirty-five (35) percent of
the net site area.
Note: A maximum of twenty-five (25) percent of the net site area can be used for parking
and vehicular accessways.
4.11.06 Setback Front Yard). The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding forty-
two (42) inches in height shall be fifty (50) feet, from PCH and Beach Boulevard.
57 Downtown Specific Plan
DISTRICT #9 Revised 6/1/95
NOV-25-2003 TUE 02:34 PM MAKAR PROPERTIES FAX NO, 9492551129 P. 02
I
4100 MacArthur Blvd • Suite 200 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone 949 255 1100 • Fox 949 255 1 128
November 25, 2003
Ms. Rosemary Medel , Associate Planner
City of Huntington Beach Planning Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
Re: Hazardous Waste and Substance Site Statement - Pacific City Site
Dear Ms. Medel:
The application for the above project requires a declaration stating whether the
project site is or is not located within a Hazardous Waste and Substance site
pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
The above project is NOT located within a Hazardous Waste and Substance site.
If there are any questions please call me.
Sincerely,
Ethen Thacher
Makar Properties, L LC
is o 12003
H.\Proteclh\Acrlve_Protech\AtIonto Huntington Beach \Correspondence\Externol Correspondence\AHB_HOr- MOr_ 112503 doc
THE
ROBERT
MAYER
CORPORATION
November 24, 2003
Ms. Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
City of Huntington Beach Planning Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Hazardous Waste and Substance Site Statement
The Waterfront - Third Hotel
Dear Rosemary:
The application for the above project requires a declaration stating whether the project site is or is
not located within a Hazardous Waste and Substance site pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the
Government Code.
The above project is NOT located within a Hazardous Waste and Substance site.
If there are any questions please call me at (949) 759-8091.
Sincerely,
The Robert Mayer Corporation
Lawrence Brose
Senior Vice President
LFB:hs
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Box 8680
Newpo rt Beach, California 92658-8680
(949) 759-8091
I,
0
CASH RECEIPT
CITY OF hUNTINC;TON I €ACh
P 0 BOX 711
HUNTINGTON B ACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAUFORNIA 92648
CIT' TRE, SURER -S HARI L FREIDENRICH -1
DATE
ISSUING DEPT f 1,JV"J C TELE.#
RECEIVED FROM
r 1 l I 'S r v /\ A} C (A"(_
• i 1ADDRESS
FOR
i
AMOUNT RECEIVED CASH
PREPARED BY
CHECK # CREDIT CARD
RECEIVED BY
IF OBJECT = 50000 THRU 90000, FINANCE APPROVAL
Business Unit
l C a
Sub-Account
City of Huntington Beach
Planning
DEC 01 2003
PAID
Rec'd
No.LU
DATE
m
I
I
ISSUING DEPARTMENT COPY
HB Environmental AssessmenLP evision Page 1 of 1
ID 0
Medel, Rosema ry
From: Larry Brose [Ib@mayercorp.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 3:41 PM
To: Medel, Rosemary
Subject: RE: HB Environmental Assessment Revision
Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: Medel, Rosemary [mailto:rmedel@surfcity-hb.org]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 3:25 PM
To: 'LB@mayercorp.com'
Subject : HB Environmental Assessment Revision
Here you go.
<<Checklist (1-28-04).doc>>
Rosemary
2/25/2004
0I•010•40•.4411001-44
ARDA and the ARDA International Foundation gratefully acknowledge the sponsors whose financial
contributions made this study possible.
GOLD ISPONSOR:
STARWOOD
VAGATION OWNERSHIP
SILVER `SPO S#OR:
Branson Getaways
Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.
Silverleaf, Inc.
BRONZE SPONSORS:
J & J Limited, Inc.
Summer Bay Resort
CONTRIB °UTING SPONSORS:
Kosmas Group, Inc.
FRIEND OF THE FOU=NDATION:
Black Box Consulting
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The AIF would also like to thank three organizations, Interval International, Orange Lake Resort and Country Club and RCI,
whose fundraising efforts have raised thousands of dollars for industry research.
"I
Introduction and Acknowledgements .................................................................... 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 5
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... 5
Research Findings ............................................................................................1
Number Of Resorts ................................................................................................ 9
Number Of Units .................................................................................................10
Sales Volume ....................................................................................................11
Average Price Per Week ............................................................................................11
Average Maintenance Fees .........................................................................................13
Number Of Weeks Owned .........................................................................................14
Number Of members/Owners ...................................................................................... 15
Top Five Purchase Motivations ......................................................................................16
Utilisation Of Timeshares ..........................................................................................16
Satisfaction With Timeshare Ownership ..............................................................................16
Key Demographic (haracteristics Of Timeshare Owners ..................................................................11
Awareness And Opinions Of Timesharing Among Public .................................................................18
NOTE REGARDING PROFESSIONAL COUNSEL:
It is not ARDA's intent to provide, nor does the information herein constitute legal or other professional council. If you require
expert advice of any sort, please contact a competent professional directly.
Copyright 2003, the ARDA International Foundation. All rights reserved, No part,ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retneval`system or transmitted in-any form or by any means electronic, mechanical or, otherwise, including photocopying, distribu-
tion by facsimile, recreation as an electronic document by computer scan, etc., without prior written permission secured from the pub-
lisher. Send inquiries to: ARDA, 1201 15th Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, D.C., 20005
Page 1
Page 3
• •
'II I I 1 I
INTRODUCTION
This report presents data and estimates regarding a number of key characteristics of the vacation ownership industry
in the United States and worldwide. Characteristics described in this report were specifically requested by the
American Resort Development Association based on past experience regarding the types of information about the
industry most widely requested by the many potential users, including developers, investors, consultants, the press,
governments, and others.
A key challenge in describing the vacation ownership industry is its tremendous dispersion. Vacation ownership
resorts are scattered across 47 U.S. states and more than 95 countries . Owners/members reside in more than 270
count ries. Many resorts are in relatively rural, out-of-the -way resort areas. And although the U.S. vacation ownership
industry is increasingly consolidated , the vast majority of companies involved in vacation ownership development and
management worldwide are comparatively small concerns , which increases the number that must be contacted to
obtain representative samples. For these reasons, consistent and reliable data regarding the industry has not always
been available. A major goal of this report is to not only describe the industry as of the close of 2002 and beginning
of 2003 but , where possible , to also fill in the intervening years since similar data last was published by ARDA.
All currency figures presented in this report are in U.S. dollars, based on exchange rates as of the date of this report.
Ragatz Associates reserves the right to revise all figures presented in this report, in the event that additional data
becomes available.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ragatz Associates wishes to particularly thank the following contributors, without whom this report
would not have been possible:
• The ARDA International Foundation, which provided financial support for this study and many of the
predecessor studies relied upon in this report. The Foundation also represents a forum for knowledgeable
industry participants and users to indicate the type of information that would be most helpful, to refine
techniques for collecting the information, and to help disperse the information to those who can make best use
of it.
• The many vacation ownership members/owners worldwide who took time out of their busy lives to respond to
survey questionnaires about the industry in which they have invested their assets and vacation hopes and dreams.
Without their participation, much of the information presented in this report would be impossible to obtain.
• The vacation ownership developers, managers, and other staff who provide financial support for industry
research and take the time to respond to industry surveys. These individuals and their companies recognize that
information is part of the currency that helps the industry grow: that investors do not support, and governments
do not encourage, industries they do not understand.
• The two international vacation ownership exchange companies, Interval International and RCI, which
consistently have provided data and financial support for vacation ownership industry research over more than
two decades. In particular, this report would not have been possible without the encouragement to engage in
independent industry research, and the financial backing to do so, of RCI (the parent company of Ragatz
Associates).
STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT - Page 5
Page 7
I
NUMBER OF RESORTS
As of January 1, 2003
some 5,425 timeshare
resorts could be
identified worldwide. Of
these, 1,590 were located
in the United States.
The U.S. figure
indicates a growth rate
averaging 4.7% per year
Vacation Ownership Resorts
Janua 1, 2003
Location of Resort Timeshare
Fractional
Ownership
United States 1,590 123
Worldwide 5,425 138
from 1,204 resorts as of January 1997 1 , the last time a
comprehensive count was conducted using the same criteria, to
January 2003. Previous worldwide numbers based on precisely the
same criteria are not available, but it appears that growth has averaged
Number Of Timeshare Resorts:
Top 10 States
Janua 1,2003
about 3.0% per year since 1994, when the last similar count found State
4,145 timeshare resorts worldwide.2 Florida
Florida remains the timeshare resort leader among U.S. states, as it Californiahas been virtually from the beginning, with 366 resorts. California
follows in a distant second place with 125, while South Carolina is
third with 119.
South Carolina
Colorado
Only 138 fractional ownership resorts are known to exist worldwide.HawaiiOf the worldwide total, fully 123 are located in the United States.
These counts do not include the many individual vacation homes and North Carolina
condominium/ apartment units that are owned by multiple `Nevada
households. Credible long-term counts are unavailable against which Missourito measure the growth of fractional ownership resorts. A few resorts
include both fractional interest and timeshare units.Texas
Arizona
Resorts
366
125
119
75
73
59
56
49
49
46
The United States Timeshare Industry- Overview and Economic Impact Analysis, conducted by Steven Miner Research & Appraisal, KPMG Peat
Marwick LLP, and the University of Southern California for the American Resort Development Association, 1997.
2 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry, conducted by Ragatz Associates, Inc., for the Alliance for Timeshare Excellence, 1995
Page 9
I
NUMBER OF UNITS
As of January 1, 2003
there were about 325,000
timeshare units worldwide.
Of these, 132,000 were
located in the United
States. The average size of
a timeshare resort is about
60 units worldwide, and
83 units in the U.S.
Vacation Ownership Units
Janua 1, 2003
Location of Resort Timeshare
Fractional
Ownership3
United States 132,000 3,300
Worldwide 325,000 3,700
Among U.S. states, Florida offers by far the largest
number of timeshare units at nearly 28,000 , followed by
South Carolina with just over 12,000 and California with
nearly 12,000.
Number Of Timeshare Units: Top 10 States
January 1, 2003
State
Timeshare
Units
Florida .27,700
South Carolina 12,100
California 11,900
Colorado 6,250
Virginia 5,560
Missouri 5,530
North Carolina 5,360
Nevada 5,000
Hawaii 4,830
Arizona 4,640
3 Unit counts revised downward from previous estimates due to more complete information
Paqe 10
•
I
SALES VOLUME
During calendar
year 2002 it is estimated
that worldwide sales
volume for timeshares
sold by developers was
$9.4 billion at current
exchange rates. Of this,
$5.5 billion represented
$9
sales of U.S. timeshare inventory.
As shown in the accompanying graph,
worldwide timeshare sales volume leveled out in
the mid-1990s before resuming rapid growth
late in the decade and into the new century. The sib
mid-1990s leveling off reflected the sharp
downturn in the Asia and internal Mexico
markets that occurred at about that time, while
the up-tick in the late 1990s was due to strong
growth in the U.S. market supplemented by
strength in selected areas of Europe and Asia.
It is noteworthy that U.S. vacation
ownership sales figures for the past two years
show strong growth, indicating that the
terrorism events of third quarter 2001 had little
impact on overall industry volume.
Fractional ownership sales volume during
the past three to four years has been driven
primarily by the high end of the market.4 The
vast majority of activity is in the United States,
but several properties in active sales are located
in Canada, the Caribbean, Mexico, and Europe.
$6
$5
•
Timeshare Developer Sales-Volume
'$ 0
$8.60
$7.72
$6.72
6.13
Worldwide And U.S".
(US$000;000,000)
1 .76-
3.74
- 324
5.71
5.25-
2.20-
.20
- 3.65
3:15 -
2.70
$ 0
.80
-e- Worldwide
U.S.
so
1990 1991 -1992 1993 --1994 1995 1996 1997 `1998 -1999 2000 - 2001 2002
Source RagatzAssocirnes,.
4 Overall fractional interest sales volume declined between 2001 and 2002 by about 5% When divided into puce segments based on aggregate
sales volume per square foot of unit, both the under-$500/sq ft. and $1,000+/sq. ft segments declined, while the $500-$1,000/sq ft.
segment increased Also, sales volume estimates for 2001 and prior have been revised downward based on two factors (1) pre-sales that did not
result in closings due to a weakening economy or time lags between reservation and unit completion, and (2) improved information regarding
the under-$500/sq ft. puce segment.
Vacation Ownership Developer Sales Volume Calendar Year 2002
Fractional
Location of Resort Timeshare Ownershi
United States $5.5 billion $342 million
Worldwide $9.4 billion $373 million
Page 11
I I1
AVERAGE PRICE PER WEEK
Worldwide, the Average Vacation Ownership Developer Sales Pricesaverage price for a week
of annual timeshare use Per Week Of Annual Use
sold by developers during Calendar Year 2002
2002 is estimated as
$10,600. For U.S.
timeshares the average is
estimated as $14,500.
The 1998 worldwide
timeshare study 5
estimated the worldwide
Fractional
Location of Resort Timeshare Ownershi
United States $14,500 $31,200
Worldwide $10,600 $31,600
average price as $8,334.Timeshare Price Detail And Trends - United StatesComparison of the
current estimate with that
figure indicates that prices Average Transaction (Regardless of Number of
have increased at an Weeks or Points Purchased
average rate of 6.2% per
year in the intervening
four years, similar to the
rate of increase in the
U.S., by
market. far the largest
Since 1978 the
average rate of price
increase for U.S.
timeshares has been about
4.9% annually. A national
study of the U.S.
dintimeshare tusry
Purchases from developers $14,800
Resale purchases $6,000
Average Price Per Week Of Annual Use (Excludes
Points
Purchases from developers $14,500
Annualized rate of increase since 2000 4.3%
Annualized rate of increase since 1996 6.4%
Annualized rate of increase since 1978 4.9%
conducted on behalf of Resalepurchases $5,000
ARDA showed an average Annualized rate of increase since 2000 0.0%
price per week of $10,000
in 1996 6 . Therefore, the 2002 figure of $14,500 per week indicates an average increase of 6.4% annually during
the intervening six years. This is in keeping with other data indicating that developers increased prices significantly
during the late 1990s. Since 2000 the average rate of increase has been a more modest 4.3% annually.
In the U.S. the estimate regarding average prices for a fractional ownership week declined slightly in 2002 (from
$34,000 previously). This is due to a change in product mix in this small market, plus more complete information
this year regarding moderately priced fractions. Worldwide, the average price of a fraction increased slightly. The
average price per week for fractional ownerships remains substantially higher than for timeshares primarily because
most fractionals currently being marketed are exceptionally upscale. When offerings of similar quality are compared,
the price per week of a fractional ownership typically is lower than for a timeshare.
The 1998 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry, conducted by American Economics Group, for the American Resort Development
Association
6 Ibid, note 1
Page 12
I
AVERAGE MAINTENANCE FEES
The average Average Maintenance Fee Per Week Of Annual Usetimeshare maintenance fee
worldwide as of January Janua 1, 2003
1, 2003 was about $325 Fractionalper week of annual use.Location of Timeshare Timeshare OwnershipIn the United States it
was about $385 per week United States $385 $710
of annual use. These fees Worldwide $325 $725
include property taxes,
where applicable, but do not include any additional per night fees such as are typical of many Japanese timeshare
resorts.
Fractional interest maintenance fees worldwide average about $725 per week of annual use. For fractional
interests located in the United States the estimate is $710 per week of annual use. Average fractional ownership
maintenance fees tend to be higher than average timeshare maintenance fees due to the influence of luxurious
"private residence clubs," which skew the average. For a similar size and quality of unit, fractional interest
maintenance fees actually tend to be the same or lower than for a timeshare week. The worldwide average
maintenance fee for fractionals is higher than for U.S. resorts because most fractionals offered outside the U.S. are of
above-average quality.
Overall, it should be noted that the average timeshare worldwide is a smaller unit than the average U.S.
timeshare, which in turn is smaller than the average fractional ownership unit. This significantly affects the averages.
Page 13
1 11
NUMBER Of WEEKS OWNED
Consumers owned
the rights to utilize an
estimated 10.7 million
timeshare weeks
worldwide, or the
equivalent in points, as of
January 1, 2003. Of
these, an estimated 4.9
million represented U.S.
timeshare weeks.
Vacation Ownership Weeks Of Annual Use Owned By Consumers
Location of Timeshare
United States
Worldwide
-Owned-By-Consumers
10
Janua 1, 2003
Fractional
Timeshare Ownershi
4.9 million 221,400
10.7 million 248,600
Timeshare Weeks-Of Annual-Use-
-'(000;000)
_9.9
9.05
8:18 - _-----
7.:4
6.67--
5:96
5.28___
50 --
:3:55
.47 2 61.2.372-14
--- 190 -
0 Worldwide
- U.S.
1990 1991_.-1992- 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 :2000_::2001 2002 -2003
Source. Raga tz Associates.
Worldwide And _U.S.
_:. :..2.-3.00
Page 14
i
NUMBER Of MEMBERS/ OWNERS
Worldwide it is Vacation Ownership Member/Owner Householdsestimated that 6.7
million households Janua 1, 2003
owned timeshares as of
January 1, 2003. Of Location of Resortthese, 3.0 million owned
in the United States. The United States
accompanying graph Worldwide
shows trends in the
number of timeshare
Fractional
Timeshare Ownership
3.0 million 27,700
6.7 million 31,700
owners worldwide, and -- --- ---- --=Timeshare-Member/Owner=Households -the number owning
timeshares located in the ; ' - -Worldwide -AntU:S.
U i d Sntetates.rnnn,_Oo
The estimate of 3.0 _A
million U.S. timeshare
owners represents
households who own
timeshares in the United
States, regardless of -F - • - -0 Worldwide
where they reside. The
total number of U.S. - - - ` -__-LL--- U.S.
residents who own
timeshares anywhere is
higher than this figure
because many own in
Mexico and the
Caribbean, while a
smaller number of
foreigners own in the
U.S.
-°1990 -1991='1992 - -1993 -1994 -1995 1 996 -1997 -1998 -1999 2000-- 2001 -2002 2003
Source Ragatz Associates
Page 15
0
I I I
TOP FIVE PURCHASE MOTIVATIONS
Among buyers of timeshares located in
the United States, the top five purchase
motivations are as shown in the
accompanying table. These may be
summarized as flexibility (which has a
variety of dimensions including location,
unit size, and time of year), quality
accommodations, credibility of the
timeshare company, and an appealing
resort.
This data is based upon 1,184
responses to a random survey of RCI
members who reside in the U.S. and
Top Five Timeshare Purchase Motivations
based on % of "very important" ratings
Overall flexibility; ability to use different locations,
unit sizes, times of year, as applicable 86%
Certainty of quality accommodations 84%
Exchange opportunity with other resorts through
exchange company 80%
Credibility of timeshare company 77%
Liked timeshare resort, amenities, unit 72%
purchased a timeshare located in the U.S. between August 2001
UTILIZATION OF TIMESHARES
The 8% non-usage factor cited by timeshare owners
indicates that fully 92% of the sold time in U.S.
timeshare resorts is occupied in some manner. It should
be noted that this utilization rate applies only to time
that has been sold to consumers, and does not include
either weeks held for maintenance, or unsold inventory.
This data is based upon 1,857 responses to a
random survey of RCI members who reside in the U.S.
and owned a timeshare located in the U.S. for at least
12 months prior to August 2002.
SATISFACTION WITH TIMESHARE OWNERSHIP
Among U.S. timeshare owners the satisfaction
rate is 84%, including 55% "very satisfied" and 29%
somewhat satisfied." It should be emphasized that
these are industry averages: figures for individual
programs vary widely.
This data is based upon 1,857 responses to a
random survey of RCI members who reside in the
U.S. and owned a timeshare located in the U.S. for at
least 12 months prior to August 2002.
and July 2002.
Overall Satisfaction With Timeshare
Ownership
Very satisfied 55%
Somewhat satisfied 29%
Neutral 6%
Somewhat dissatisfied 7%
Very dissatisfied 3%
Total 100%
How U.S. Timeshare Owners Utilized Time
During Prior Year
Used personally 26%
Exchanged/space banked 58%
Given away 4%
Rented 4%
Left unused (vacant)8%
Total 100%
Page 16
0
1 11 I
•
KEY DEMOGRAPHIC (HARA(TERISTI(S Of TIMESHARE OWNERS
The accompanying table describes key demographic characteristics of U.S. timeshare owners. It should be
emphasized that these are industry averages: significant differences exist among owners in individual programs.
This data is based upon 1,857 responses to a random survey of RCI members who reside in the U.S. and owned
a timeshare located in the U.S. for at least 12 months prior to August 2002.
Ke Demo ra hic Characteristics of U.S. Timeshare Owners
Household T e A e of Household Head
Married cou le 84%Under 25 <1%
Sin le/divorced/widowed female 9%25 to 29 2%
Sin le/divorced/widowed male 4%30 to 34 3%
Other 3%35 to 39 7%
40 to 44 11%
Total 100%45 to 49 15%
50 to 54 18%
Children In Household 55 to 59 15%
0 51%60to64 11%
1 21%65 to 69 9%
2 19%70 to 74 5%
3 or more 9%75 or over 4%
Total 100%Total 100%
Mean .9 Mean 53
Median 53
Housin Tenure
Owner 95%Household Income 2001
Renter 5%Under $15,000 <1%
15,000 to $24,999 1%
Total 100%$25,000 to $34,999 4%
$35,000 to $49,999 11%
Educational Attainment of Res ondent $50,000 to $74,999 24%
Did not com lete hi h school 1%$75,000 to $99,999 25%
Com feted hi h school 24%$100,000 to $149,999 23%
Two- ear colle e d ree 20%$150,000 or more 12%
Bachelor's de ree 26%
Graduate or rofessional de ree 30%Total 100%
A roximate median $85,000
Total 100%
Educational Attainment of S ouse if a licable
Occu ation
Professional/technical 33%
Did not com fete hi h school 2%Retired 26%
Com leted hi h school 31%U er, middle mana ement 17%
Two- ear colle e d ree 20%Self-em lo ed 10%
Bachelor's de ree 23%Sales, marketin 4%
Graduate or rofessional de ree 24%Blue collar 3%
Clerical 3%
Total 100%Homemaker 3%
Student <1%
Total 100%
Note: Some items ma add to more or less than 100% due to roundin .
Page 17
•
I
•
AWARENESS AND OPINIONS OF TIMESHARING AMONG PUBLI(
Among the U.S. public with household
incomes of $25,000 or more who have
never owned timeshares:
• Heard of timesharing: When asked,
"First, have you heard of the resort
timesharing concept? It is also
sometimes known as "vacation
ownership." some 87% respond "yes."
• Opinions of timesharing: When asked,
"What is your overall opinion of the
resort timesharing concept?" responses
are distributed as follows: "very
positive," 6%; "somewhat positive,"
21%; "neutral," 41%; "somewhat
negative," 14%; "very negative," 17%
Awareness And Opinions Of Timesharing
U.S. Households, Never Owned Timeshare,
Income $25,000+
Heard of Timesharing
Opinions of Timesharing
Very positive
Somewhat positive
Neutral
Somewhat negative
Very negative
87%
6%
21%
41%
14%
17%
The survey was conducted based on a Total 100%random sample of U.S. households with
incomes of $25,000 or more - the income group representing the vast majority of existing timeshare owners. The
survey sample was supplied by Survey Sampling, Inc. Based on random digit dialing designed to encompass the
entire 50 United States and the District of Columbia, the list was then checked for working numbers, with known
business numbers eliminated. Area codes with median household incomes under $25,000 were eliminated from the
sample. Interviewees also were asked to indicate the income category representing their 1999 household incomes.
Any who did not confirm incomes of $25,000 or more were eliminated from the survey results. The overall survey
response rate was 40%.7 A total of 652 interviews with households indicating they have incomes of $25,000 or more
were completed during July 2000. Some 45 respondents indicated they are current or former timeshare owners, and
were eliminated from the analysis, leaving a net of 607 responses. Based on this number of responses, the reader can
be 95% confident that responses to the survey questions would have been within plus or minus 4% of the figures
presented in this report had all U.S. households with incomes of $25,000 or more who have never owned a
timeshare been interviewed for the study.
7 Based on responses as a proportion of completed interviews plus declines and respondent-terminated interviews.
Page 18
ram,„
I
AAf
TIMESHARE INDUSTRY REPORT
2001 UPDATE
a
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MARCH, 2001
1
Timeshare Industry
2001 Update
ASSIGNMENT
David Biggs requested an update of the report completed by Robert Charles Lesser & Co.
in 1995. The format is consistent with the 1995 consultant report. The primary
objectives of the study were to evaluate the current timeshare market; provide a current
and historical overview of the timeshare market; determine the demographic and
socioeconomic profile of timeshare purchasers; survey competitive developments in
Southern California; and conduct a quantitative demand analysis to determine potential
capture of timeshare unit sales in downtown Huntington Beach.
Research included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Review of 1995 Report by Robert Charles Lesser & Co.
Research of Periodicals
Survey of Cities
Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1998 Edition by
RCI Consulting
Telephone Interview with Dick Starr of Economic Research Associates, Chicago, Ill.
Telephone Interview with Diane Baker, Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors
Bureau
List of California Timeshare Projects from California Department of Real Estate
MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An updated analysis indicates there is demand for timeshare units in Huntington Beach,
particularly near the beach and downtown.
• Total households owning timeshares in the United States have increased from
100,000 in 1978 to almost 2 million 1998. Experts in the industry project that
future growth will continue to be strong as baby boomers mature and enjoy
increasing discretionary income.
• Supply of timeshare projects includes more than 1,200 in the United States, with
145 of these projects located in California.
• Nine projects, in four cities, were identified in the Primary Market Area that are
considered competitive to the subject site. These projects contain 1,527 units and
represent 77,877 one-week ownership periods, or intervals. Most of these
intervals remain unsold due to the early phases of construction and sales. Most of
the surveyed projects are located near the coast, with a beach orientation. Beach
access is generally the most important amenity for a timeshare development,
according to the RCI Survey of over 10,000 timeshare purchasers.
2
• Based on households and income levels in the Primary Trade Area (San Diego
County, Orange County and Los Angeles County), historical propensities to
purchase timeshare units, estimated market growths, and potential site captures,
analysis indicates there is current demand for timeshare units in the Huntington
Beach downtown area. Based upon market trends, according to the 1998 RCI
report, one of the largest untapped markets is in California, expected to purchase
138,250 timeshare intervals in the next few years.
• A timeshare project would generate several million dollars in consumer spending.
Using Marriott's reported weekly spending averages , with occupancy at 90%, a
timeshare project would generate over $7 million of purchases to local economies
per year for each 100 units ($1,568 X 100 units X 51 intervals per year X 90%
occupancy = $7,197,120). In addition to consumer spending, innovative cities are
fording ways to capture transient occup ancy taxes for timeshare units not in use
by buyers. If TOT is collected, direct revenues to the City would be greatly
enhanced.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Although no plan for timeshare has been proposed to the City, future development of the
31-acre Ocean Front Plaza site by Capital Pacific Holdings could include a
timeshare/interval ownership component . The site is located on the northeast corner of
Pacific Coast Highway an d 1St Street in the City of Huntington Beach.
The subject property is directly across Pacific Coast Highway, with the Pacific Ocean to
the south. The Pier and newly developed Pier Plaza improvements are two blocks to the
west of the beach directly across Pacific Coast Highway. Across from the pier is Main
Street and the downtown area with theaters, shops and restaurants. The site is surrounded
by a variety of residential and commercial uses. Across Huntington Street to the east is
the Waterfront Hilton Beach Resort, an upscale 290 room hotel and conference facility.
Adjacent to the Waterfront Hilton is a proposed 520 room Hyatt Regency Resort with
52,000 square feet of conference space and a pedestrian bridge over Pacific Coast
Highway to link to improved beach facilities. At the time this report was prepared, the
Hyatt Regency was in the grading phase of construction. A Marriott Residence Inn and
upscale shopping project are also proposed in the downtown area.
Overall, the area is highly desirable as a timeshare location. The location near the pier
and downtown restaurants and shops adds interest to the immediate area, making it more
attractive to repeat visitors. Recent fine dining additions and proposed quality retailers
further enhance the area as a tourist destination. Beach locations are the first choice for
timeshare buyers, according to the 1998 RCI Survey. The "Surf City" image of
Huntington Beach may make it the most famous beach on the West Coast. The Southern
California region draws visitors to the beaches, Disneyland, Knott's Berry Farm, Catalina
Island, South Coast Plaza, San Diego attractions such as Sea World and the San Diego
Zoo, and Los Angeles attractions such as Universal Studios.
3
TIMESHARE MARKET OVERVIEW
Timeshare is considered one of the fastest-growing segments in the hospitality industry.'
In 2000, there were 1,200 resorts and 64,000 units in the United States,2 and nearly 5,000
resorts worldwide. United States timeshare sales volume is approaching $3 billion
annually, with 1.9 million owners in 1998. Global sales of $8.1 billion were reported in
1998, representing only 3 percent of total hospitality sales. Major hotel companies with
corporate name recognition have expanded into the timeshare industry, therefore the
product is improved, new concepts introduced, and the "entire industry has grown in
stature and credibility."3
Buyers are likely to be married, better educated, in a higher income bracket, and traveling
with families.4 Baby boomers 45-60 are the largest group of purchasers, "reaching an
age of discretionary time, income, and a propensity for quality-of-life decisions."5
U.S. households owning timeshare properties was 1.95% in 1998. The proportion
increases with income, according to 1998 estimates:
Household Income Households Ownin Timeshares in U.S.
< $35,000 .38%
$35,000- $50,000 1.84%
$50,000 - $100,000 4.42%
>$100,000 5.93%
According to Dick Starr of Economic Research Associates of Chicago, timeshare
products can be very successful with four key ingredients:
• Good product, especially in a mixed activity with hotel use and in quality
development with amenities and year-round appeal
• Good, desirable location
• Flexibility of trade options through hotel chain point system or exchange
company
• Good management, noting timeshare projects are very management intensive6
Exchan e Corn onent
"The industry exchange is a primary motivation for buyers who seek diverse vacation
options."7 When asked why timeshare buyers made their purchase, 84.2% stated the top
reason as the "exchange opportunity with other resorts."8
` "Scaling Up," by Nancy Egan, Urban Land, August 2000, p. 99
2 "Design Driven," by Bradley Grogan, Urban Land, August 2000, p. 104
3 Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1998 Edition, RCI Consulting, p. 5
4 "Design Driven," by Bradley Grogan, Urban Land, August 2000, p. 104
5 "Scaling Up," by Nancy Egan, Urban Land, August 2000, p. 13
6 Interview with Dick Starr by telephone, Sep. 21, 2000
"Exchanges Add Value to Vacation Investments," by M. S. Baumann, H & MM, July 17, 2000, p. 18
8 "Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy," 1998 Ed., p.23
4
There are two major exch ange companies that are used by timeshare owners, Resort
Condominiums International and Interval International. Exchange companies have
become a vital component of timeshare, allowing consumers the freedom necessary for
the industry to thrive.' These exchange companies provide services, including:
Reservation and exch ange support
Back office support
Cost effective reservations, customized for members
Facilitated exchanges, owner offers week for exchange
Collect small fee for completing transaction
Internal benefits: options within management firm or developer
External benefits: industry-wide offerings
The 1998 RCI survey indicates 83.5 percent of current timeshare owners have been on at
least one exch ange vacation . Nearly all owners stated they intend to maintain
membership with their exchange company.2
SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS AND MARKET OVERVIEW
Current and Pro osed Develo ments
A survey of cities in the Primary Market Area indicates nine projects that would compete
with a potential timeshare resort in Huntington Beach:
C
Anaheim
Carlsbad
Dana Point
Hermosa Beach
Laguna Beach
Long Beach
Manhattan Beach
Newpo rt Beach
Oceanside
Redondo Beach
San Clemente
San Diego
Santa Monica
Seal Beach
Ventura
Activi
No activity
4 projects
No activity
No activity
No activity (prohibited)
No activity
No activity
2 projects
2 projects
No activity
No activity
1 project
No activity
No activity
No activity3
1 "Exchanges Add Value to Vacation Investments ," by M..S . Baumann , H & MM, July 17, 2000, p.182"Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy," 1998 ed., p. 35
3 Source: City Economic Development and Planning Departments
5
Com etitive Su 1 of Current and Pro osed Develo ments
It should be noted that each unit has 51 weekly intervals to sell, plus one week reserved
for annual maintenance.
1. Marriott's Ne ort Coast Ne ort Beach 650 units 33 150 intervals
650 2 bedroom/2 bath units, expected completion in 2006
1St phase of 55 completed units/2,805 intervals sold out
250 units under construction, sold through 2001 completions
Marriott is currently selling interval ownerships at its resort in Newport Coast, ten miles
south of Downtown Huntington Beach. The project is golf-oriented, with views of the
ocean. The beach is less accessible than in Huntington Beach, due to a greater distance,
hilly terrain and coastal bluffs above the beaches. The resort is surrounded by the Pelican
Hill Golf Course, so is more isolated than a potential downtown Huntington Beach
project. Although this would be the primary competition, Marriott's strong golf
orientation, lack of proximity to beach, and isolation from local activity would make it a
very different vacation experience than a beach-oriented project in Huntington Beach.
2. Ne ort Dunes Resort Ne ort Beach 75 units 3,825 intervals
75 units proposed in conjunction with new hotel, Subject to approval of City Council
May be impacted by recent voter-approved growth measure in Newport Beach
3. Aviara/Four Seasons Resort Carlsbad 234 units 11 934 intervals
First phase of 78 2-bedroom villas completed. Second phase of additional 78 villas
expected to be completed in mid-2001. Final 100 units expected to be completed in
2002.
4. Carlsbad Sea ointe Carlsbad
91 1 -bedroom and 2-bedroom units
5. Grand Pacific Palisades Reso rt Carlsbad
101 timeshare units (+90 hotel rooms)
6. Carlsbad Ranch Carlsbad
30 units in early stages of entitlement
7. Trendwest Oceanside
140 units under construction in harbor area
91 units 4 641 intervals
101 units 5 151 intervals
30 units 1 530 intervals
140 units 7 140 intervals
8. Manchester Resort Oceanside 150 units 7 650 intervals
Proposed 150 timeshare units and proposed hotel in early stages of entitlements
9. Harbor Li hts San Die o 56 units 2 856 intervals
San Diego historic Gaslamp District
6
Weekl Vacation Rentals
The most competitive vacation rental market in the Primary Marketing Area is the coastal
area of Newport Beach, specifically the Newport Peninsula and Balboa Island. Weekly
rents in this area can command as much as $12,000 during the peak summer season for a
newer, beachfront property in the best areas. A more typical older oceanfront beach
cottage has an average weekly rate of $1,600 for a two-bedroom home and an average
weekly rate of $2,500 for a three-bedroom home. It should be noted many of these
properties are directly on the beach. It should also be noted that the supply is of fair
quality, without the amenities many travelers have come to expect and may not appeal to
the timeshare purchaser.
By applying the standard timeshare conversion rule of weekly rental rate times a factor of
ten, the timeshare equivalent for a weekly interval prices would be $16,000. This price is
consistent with the sales prices for actively selling, beach-oriented timeshare projects.
Real estate agents report that the "demand is huge," and has grown in the last few years.'
DEMAND ANALYSIS
Demand in California
Market trends estimate that up to 10% of U.S. households earning more than $50,000 per
year will own timeshares. The largest untapped demand, at 10% penetration rate is in the
following states:
Texas 150,475
California 138,250
Illinois 114,750
New York 107,450
The percentage of timeshare owners increases significantly with higher household
income:
40.9% of timeshare owners have household income > $75,000
20.7% of timeshare owners have household income > $100,000
Where California purchasers' timeshare units are located, according to RCI survey:
Seashore/ocean beach area 50%
Golf-oriented resorts 28.9%
Snow skiing-oriented resorts 20.3%
Disney World/Orlando 13.3%
Gambling locations 7.5%
Desert area 6.7%
1 Source: Cannery Village Property Management Property Listings and Interview with agents.
7
Huntington Beach is growing in prominence as a visitor destination . The downtown area
has become a positive environment for hospit ality uses with the synergy of the "Surf
City" name, the active Conference and Visitors Bureau, the new Hyatt Regency under
construction , the existing successful Waterfront Hilton Beach Reso rt, and the proposed
Marriott Residence Inn. The proposed South Beach improvements, recently completed
Pier Plaza, and momentum of high quality development occurring in the downtown area
form a rich backdrop to the primary draw of the beach. These forces, working together,
could provide for successful sales of timeshare intervals in the Huntington Beach
downtown.
Brand names bring with them infrastructures of marketing and customer loyalty, which
could enhance the success of a proposed project. Hilton, Hyatt, and Marriott already
have a presence or planned presence in the downtown and could utilize completed
facilities to support sales and marketing for a new project. Other brands which have
expanded into timeshare projects such as Disney, Westin, Four Seasons, Ritz Carlton,
Radisson, Starwood, and Sheraton may be interested as the proposed Hyatt Regency and
Marriott Residence Inn are added to the downtown mix.
Marriott's Pro am
The Marriott definition of vacation ownershi is:
Deeded property purchase of a vacation villa for one or more weeks within a
"floating time" system, which allows scheduling each year's vacation during the
most convenient week within a specified season.
The economic impact per average visit, according to Marriott is:
•Food and beverage $475
•Airfare $387
•Entertainment $245
•Shopping $217
•Transportation $148
•Other Lodging $ 64
•Other 32
TOTAL $1,568 per average visit
The occupancy rate for timeshare-generated rooms per year is greater than 90%,
according to Marriott. This compares with the expected 2001 Orange County average
hotel occupancy rate of 73% estimated by Bruce Baltin of PKF Consulting. 1
The demographic profile for Marriott Vacation Club International, with its 41 resorts,
varies from average timeshare purchasers:
' "Anaheim Expects a Good 2001," Los Angeles Times, December 13, 2000, p. D1
8
Avera e Timeshare Purchaser Marriott Vacation Club
Household Income:$80,000 $120,000
Bachelor's Degree
or higher 63%85%
Average Age 40-49 45-55
The lifestyle profile for Marriott Vacation Club International is:
Family Status Married, kids school age to college
Education 50% with post-graduate degrees
Leisure Profile Golf, tennis, sailing, hiking, skiing
Travel Profile Weekend getaways, foreign travel, exotic culture, nature, variety
Social Profile Theaters, museums, culture, fine dining, outdoor gardens,
intellectual, family focusl
Beach areas tend to be most popular among married couples, younger persons and the
more affluent. Ski areas tend to attract the younger crowd and golf locations are most
attractive to the more affluent, according to Marriott.
According to Marriott, approximately 35% of its Newport Coast sales have been to
Orange County residents. This percentage was higher than anticipated by Marriott,
which has determined local residents purchase for a variety of reasons, including:
anticipated trades through Marriott Vacation Club, a high percentage of Orange County
residents fit within the target market/customer profile, and intention of use by business
and personal guests of local purchasers. Marriott has utilized their Newport Beach hotel
as a marketing tool to support its Newport Coast project. Fashion Island gift certificates,
Newport Beach Marriott stays, and other incentives are given to potential timeshare
interval purchasers.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Marriott example of average spending in various categories, with a per visit average
total of $1,568, indicates significant spending potential for each sold interval. It should
be noted that Marriott states a higher household income than average timeshare buyers.
However, it could also be expected that a high quality product in a prime Huntington
Beach location would also likely have buyers of higher household income than buyers of
average products and locations. Additionally, for every dollar spent by a timeshare
visitor, roughly one additional dollar is indirectly generated in the area due to the
multiplier effect. The RCI Survey notes, "when vacationers have paid in advance for the
rooms, they tend to spend more at the resort during the visit, giving the
1 Source: Marriott Lodging
9
developer/operator greater consistent occupancy from travelers with more disposable
income." 1
According to the 1998 RCI survey, the impact of timeshare units on local tourism
patterns varies from non-timeshare visitors by providing local destinations with loyal
visitors who return to an area for repeated and longer visits. In its 1998 survey report,
RCI notes, "destination-loyal visitors are the backbone of a local tourist economy." In
addition to providing repeat visitors, timeshare projects provide a steady flow of visitors
throughout the year. This is especially valuable in the Southern California coastal areas
where most tourists visit during the peak summer months.
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is added to visitor accommodation rates. TOT is fully
paid to the City in which the hotel is located. Huntington Beach has a TOT rate of 10%.
The TOT rate is established by each city, with 10% being a typical Orange County rate.
Anaheim has the highest Orange County TOT rate at 14%, while Costa Mesa has the
lowest at 6-8%. Huntington Beach received $2,400,000 of TOT in 2000 from its 1,216
hotel and motel rooms. This "bed tax" is required for stays of 30 days or less.
Although timeshare buyers and exchangers do not pay transient occupancy tax when they
use their units, TOT is collected when units become available for overnight use due to
owner exchanges. In these cases, the timeshare unit is rented out much like a hotel room.
The industry standard is that 20% of the annual usage of the timeshare units would be
nightly rentals to those other than timeshare owners or exchangers.
TIMESHARE PROJECTS IN REDEVELOPMENT AREAS
An advantage of timeshare projects in redevelopment areas is tax increment financing.
Tax increment is the difference in property taxes received prior to development and the
property taxes collected after improvements. Taxing agencies receive the same amount as
before the property was improved, and the net increase in property taxes is directed to the
Redevelopment Agency. This revenue can be a valuable financing tool.
Timeshare sales of weekly intervals allow the property valuation and assessment for
property taxes to be higher than similar intensity uses such as hotel units. For example,
the sale of 1 week at $15,000 X 51 weeks = $765,000. The assessment of $765,000 X
the number of units developed, plus other property amenities such as spas or restaurant
uses, would be used by the Tax Assessor to determine the project valuation for property
taxes. The Tax Assessor does not use the gross per unit value in establishing the final
assessed value, but typically discounts the per unit sales price to reflect the high costs of
marketing a timeshare unit for sale and the exchange rights to for intervals at other
locations. These discount rates vary from project to project, but could be as high as 50%.
1 " Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy," 1998 ed., p. 31
2" Timeshare Purchasers : Who They Are, Why They Buy," 1998 ed., p. 31
10
Recent Huntington Beach hotels sold for an average of $53,000 per room, according to a
recent Orange County Business Journal report. In comparison, the estimated completion
value of a room at the Hyatt Grand Coast Resort is $360,000 per room. It should be
noted the Hyatt Grand Coast Resort has extensive conference, restaurant and other
facilities not reflected in a per room cost. This contrast shows the significantly higher
assessed valuation and increased tax increment for timeshares than for hotels, especially
important in redevelopment areas.
TIMESHARE MARKET ANALYSIS AND TRENDS
Trends
Many reputable hotel companies have expanded into the timeshare market. Corporate
presence in the market has contributed to timeshares having become the fastest growing
segment of the hospitality industry. Brand names increase customer confidence. Brands
involved with timeshare/interval sales include:
• Hilton
• Marriott
• Disney
• Westin
• Hyatt
• Four Seasons
• Ritz Carlton
• Radisson/Carlson Companies
• Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
• Sheraton
One new trend is that of themed developments, which have become more prevalent in the
last few years. Some examples include: Disney's Key West with historic beach cottages,
Orlando's Hilton Grand Vacation Club with its Bermudan theme, and Harbor Lights
Resort in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina with lighthouse and tie-ins with local history and
architecture.
The quality is improving, and timeshare projects are focusing on establishing a sense of
place. The resort itself is becoming the focal point of resorts vacations.' Niche market
development is growing with multi-tiered products and a wider range of prices and
amenities. There is more choice, in both the more affordable range and the more
expensive range. "Greater emphasis now exists on product flexibility, brand difference
benefits, amenities and multiple variations of ownership. Today's consumers seek value,
convenience, flexibility and the highest levels of customer service."2
There is a growing trend to mix the product offerings of timeshare, hotel and single
family to reach different types of customers. Developers are also "teaming timeshares
i "Scaling Up," by Nancy Egan, Urban Land, August, 2000, p. 13, 102
2 "Scaling Up," by Nancy Egan, Urban Land, August, 2000, p. 94
11
with country clubs to increase the amenities of timeshare, spurring development of the
residential country club."'
Newer resorts have more hospitality components, with added amenities and services
usually found in more luxury hotel settings. The trend is for increased areas dedicated to
profit centers such as spa, wellness, relaxation and cosmetic services. The average used
to be 6,000 square feet for such areas, but has increased to 20,000 square feet.2
According to the 1998 RCI study, prices are increasing due to larger units, upscale
resorts, more sophisticated product and inflation. Two-bedroom units are expected to
continue to dominate the timeshare market.
Timeshare Ownershi Variations
There are now several variations of the timeshare/interval ownership concept, including:
Interval ownershi s or timeshares - give the investor the right to use properties for
specified time periods during a year. The initial investment is typically small: perhaps
$2,000 down on a total mortgage of $20,000 financed at 14 to 15 percent over five to
seven years. For the developer, this means units can be sold as 50-plus weeklong
intervals during the year. The return is substantial, even after marketing costs are
deducted. The developer also has the option to sell the purchase contracts to raise
equity.3
The standard timeshare unit usually is a two-bedroom, two-bath unit with 1,200 to 1,350
square feet. Ritz Carlton has some units that are 1,650 square feet. These kinds of
projects cater to the luxury guest, the same way a five-star hotel caters to a more affluent
guest than a four-star hotel does." The luxury vacation ownership unit is designed with
finer accommodations, larger and more exotic bathrooms with super Jacuzzi tubs and
freestanding showers, and the units are more luxuriously finished. "4
Hotel strata ownershi - purchase includes share in equity and revenue of resort. Unlike
timeshare, hotel strata ownership is actual ownership of a particular room or suite, similar
to a condo purchase. Investment buys a specific piece of a project that allows use of the
room or suite several weeks a year with actual ownership benefits. Hotel strata ownership
is a real estate investment that offers a share in equity and revenue of resort property.
Timeshares and hotel strata ownerships sell out in 3-5 years, generating revenue needed
to retire debt more quickly and offsetting cash flow of early phases or resort
development.
1"Scaling Up," by Nancy Egan, Urban Land, August, 2000, p.13.2 "Scaling Up," by Nancy Egan, Urban Land, August 2000, p.48
3 "Scaling Up," by Nancy Egan, Urban Land, August 2000, p. 99
4 "Design Driven," by Bradley Grogan, Urban Land, August 2000, p. 113
12
Residential membershi - club operations in which buyers do not purchase a single unit
but the right to a guaranteed slot. Buyers don't get the same unit each time, but receive
accommodations within the club. Similar to being a member of a country club.'
Fractional timeshare ro'ects - Instead of the typical one-week-a-year timeshare offering,
some upscale vacation ownership projects are selling 13 weeks a year. "In cases where a
timeshare project is offering a quarter-of-a-year share, the owner is buying more of a
second home."2 This can range from several weeks to '/4 year.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon market trends, according to the 1998 RCI report, one of the largest untapped
markets is in California. RCI estimates that California households earning more than
$50,000 annually will purchase 138,250 timeshare intervals in the next few years. The
demographics of Orange County and the Primary Market Area, with Orange County
median income of about $60,000, and the experience of Marriott's Newport Coast Resort
sales to local residents indicate strong buying power in the region. The industry is
projecting that timeshare sales will continue to grow 10% annually from California
households with annual incomes greater than $50,000.
Huntington Beach is increasingly becoming a desirable destination for visitors. The
downtown area is benefiting from the momentum of high quality, bold public
improvements ; a progressive specific plan in place by the City ; extensive and upscale
private investment by major hospit ality companies ; and experienced developers with
significantly sized parcels to positively contribute to the successful creation of a resort
area. A timeshare component could complement the positive synergy in the downtown
area. All of these factors will contribute to the capture of a greater Huntington Beach
share of the Southern California tourism economy. A downtown resort area will give
visitors, who are already flocking to the beaches, a reason to stay and spend their
vacation money in Huntington Beach.
1 "Design Driven," by Bradley Grogan, Urban Land, August 2000, p. 1132"Design Driven," by Bradley Grogan, Urban Land, August 2000, p. 113
S
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ORANGE
COUNTY ASSESSOR DEPT. PURPOSES ONLY.
THE ASSESSOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE AS TO
ITS ACCURACY NOR ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY
FOR OTHER USES. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
COPYRIGHT ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR 2000
23
`v
N
BEACH
151-35
1/' = 400
POR. E 1/2. SEC. 14. T 6 S. R 11 W
(HL.w lWTCW d£ACN &"J
P.M.21-24 37,11 AC.
P. lA. 48-31
RS 4 -21
DELAWARE
22
N I,
STREET
3
26
N
yam' le
1yM1 b'7
TRACT
NO. 13045
29
1 0'
148-02
(HAMPSHIRE)
593.12
n
'I
1052.24'
148-01
BOUL EVARD
30.03'
15.08
.21.33 80
,,2.673Ce.Sy -A
R.S. 17-35
253
19.282AC.
LOT I
114- 15
N
30,61' 613.16'
TRACT
15. 103 AC.
yb b
y^ y' ti^P'°a ryy OA
NO. 1,f 0
0.689 "AC.
'"LOT11A
r%• 15535
Jj 0( 'Jg Syr
si Jd
LOT 2 ti
10.89'
13.30"
164.45'
26.20'
%.
3.546AC.
1
0
029p. . yq• yy,
41.11'3.597',1ao
AC.
Jcee 'p.sf ?,s
9F(1 6)1
HUNTINCTON
27
NI/4CAt SEC.l4-`-ll -- 1111
MARCH 1948 TRACT N0. 13045 M.M. 628-46. 47
TRACT NO. 15535 M. M. 790-44 to 50.inc.NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK &
PARCEL NUMBERS
SHOWN IN CIRCLES
ASSESSOR'S MAP
BOOK 024 PAGE 25
COUNTY OF ORANGE