HomeMy WebLinkAboutAmendment to City and County Circulation Element Plans - Pacu
y� - Ate,
/
REQUEST FIREDEVELOPMENT AGERCY ACTION
APPROVED BY CiT Y COUNCIL
l 4ll G 19 C 4 ED 94-46
Date: September 19, 1994
C LERK
Submitted to. ity Council/Agency Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator/Executive Director
Prepared by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development
Subject: AMENDMENT TO CIRCULATION ELEMENT - PACIFIC VIEW DRIVE
Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ 1 New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On August 1, 1994 the Redevelopment Agency authorized The Waterfront to make application
for amendments to the City's General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan and other land use
documents to accommodate a new development scenario. However, the request to eliminate a
segment of Pacific View Drive from the City's and County's Circulation Plans was denied.
RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION:
Authorize The Waterfront to apply for amendment to the City and County Circulation Plans to
eliminate a segment of Pacific View Drive within the site of the proposed Waterfront project for
the purposes of analyzing the impact of the deletion of this segment of the street.
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.
7 --ter
M
ti RAA ED 94-46
September 19, 1994
Page two
In its action of August 1, 1994, the Agency omitted authority for the developer to apply for the
necessary circulation amendment. The developer has requested the Agency to reconsider this
action and authorize such an application to allow a full analysis of the impact of this road
segment on the City's and County's circulation plans. 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:
None
MTU/BAK/SVK:dw
1230j