The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeneral Plan, Local Coastal Plan and Downtown Specific Planr AhPROVEI3 0 REDEVELOPMENT AGtA Y ACTION OIUNCIL 19� ED 94-35 Date: August 1, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor/Chairman and City Council/Agency Mem ers Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator/Executive Directo 1- c — Prepared by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Develop ent Subject: GENERAL PLAN, DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENTS --THE WATERFRONT Consistent with Council Policy? KYes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:�,f The revised development proposal for future phases of The Waterfront includes uses which are not permitted by one or more of the city's General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, local Coastal Program or circulation plans. These documents will require amendments. RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION: As the property owner of The Waterfront site, authorize the Robert Mayer Corporation as master lessee to apply for amendments to the city's General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan and local Coastal Program to consider the addition of timeshare as an allowed use, eliaama4on-af-tl"grit-off Pacifiea7— ew-Brig*e-ftom=T-win-Dol*n-Dnve=to-Beaeh B()uleuarrl and r . Ft his-roaa-segment f= e he=Git<y=and=C-o mty-o Orange ciretihn_plans: ANALYSIS: When agreements were approved with the Robert Mayer Corporation in 1988, the land use plan for The Waterfront included hotels, retail commercial and a health spa adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and residential units on the balance of the site. These proposed uses helped shape the Downtown Specific Plan and local Coastal Program and resulted in documents which require "visitor serving" activities within the commercial area of The Waterfront site. In March, 1994, the developer brought forward a new development scenario which substituted timeshare units for two of the hotels, retail commercial and health spa. Staff of the Community Development Department requested an opinion from the staff of the California Coastal Commission regarding whether timeshare units conform with the "visitor serving" requirements in the local Coastal Program. The Coastal Commission staff responded in the negative (see Attachment No. 1) and informed staff that an amendment to the coastal plan would be required. • 0 RAA ED 94-35 August 1, 1994 Page two The Robert Mayer Corporation has requested the authority of the Redevelopment Agency as the land owner to file applications for amendments to the documents enumerated above (see developer's letter, Attachment No. 2). While information available on the proposed project is preliminary, its potential benefits warrant further examination including, but not limited to, processing amendments to the pertinent city and county documents. For these reasons staff recommends the Agency's concurrence with the developer's request. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not grant authority for processing of amendments. FUNDING SOURCE: All fees or expenses necessary to process amendments for the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, Local Coastal Program, City and County Circulation Plans to be borne by the developer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Coastal Commission Staff Response 2. Robert Mayer Corporation Request Letter MTU/BAK/SVK:jar 1230j a 1"' tn THE WATERFRONT July 12, 1994 Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga Executive Director Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Revised Development Plan for The Waterfront Request for Amendment to Land Use Regulations Dear Mr. Uberuaga: RECEIVED JUL 1y1994 DEPARTMENT Oar ECONOMIC 'EVELOPIMENT, As discussed at several prior meetings, we wish to have the City revise the applicable land use regulations for The Waterfront site to allow for the possibility of the proposed Marriott time share resort project. Therefore, at the request of staff, we hereby formally request that the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and Downtown Specific Plan be amended to allow a time share resort development as a permitted use, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, within Downtown Specific Plan District #9. We will work with staff to develop precise language acceptable to the City, ourselves and Marriott. Additionally, we hereby request that the City and County Circulation Plan be amended to eliminate the extension of Pacific View Drive (Walnut Avenue) from Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard. Robert L. Mayer, Trustee of the Robert L. Mayer Trust, as Developer under the existing Development Agreement and Disposition and Development Agreement affecting the site, will pay the applicable application and processing fees associated with the above requests. Sincerely, C�c�_ Stephen K. B ne 1<'� -.-, \Ns.� for Robert L. Mayer, Trustee cc: /Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Develogpent Ray Silver, Assistant City Adminstrator Bruce S. MacIntire, V.P. Development, Marriott Ownership Resorts Robert L. Mayer Shawn K. Millbern Richard Harlow The Robert Mayer Corporation 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050, P.O. Box 8680, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8680 • Telephone (714) 759-8091 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGI PETE WILSON, Governor CA-LIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 P.O. BOX 1450 LONG BEACH, CA 90802-"16 +' (310) 590-5071 - - JUN 1 0 7Q94 June 9, 1994 T Howard Zelefsky Planning Director City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Subject: Response to your May 25th letter regarding timeshare use on a site southwest of the Waterfront Hilton Dear Mr. Zelefsky: In response to your May 25th letter, in which you inquired whether a timeshare project is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP), it is our opinion that such timeshare use is not consistent with the City's LCP. This is based on the information you provided as to the project's location and our review of the LCP. More specifically, as noted in your letter, the project site would be located southwest from the Waterfront Hilton. That places the.project site in District #9 of the Downtown Specific Plan (which is part of the LCP). District #9 is very specific as to uses, and is also very restrictive. It is the only area within the Specific Plan designated Commercial/Recreation. The purpose of the Commercial/Recreation designation, as defined in the Specific Plan, is to encourage beach oriented uses that are open to the public for commercial and recreational purposes. Office, residential or timeshare uses are not identified as permitted uses. Therefore, to allow a timeshare use in District #9 would require an LCP amendment. Any such amendment would be subject to careful scrutiny by the Coastal Commission as to whether it is reducing visitor commericial and recreational opportunities. In contrast, other Districts within the Specific Plan allow general commercial and/or residential development either as a permitted use or as a conditional use. In those situations we would certainly -be open to discussing with you any potential timeshare use as it seems those Districts contemplate a broader range of uses than is the case with District #9 Hopefully this response is of assistance to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions concerning this matter. Sincerely: Charles Damm District Director 2095F «,L