Oceanside, stay focused on hotel
By: North County Times Opinion staff - | ∞
Our view: Council complicating effort to realize downtown resort dream by mulling zoning changes
Oceanside has plenty of reasons to be wary of bringing its highly anticipated downtown hotel project before the California Coastal Commission. But it shouldn't let that sensible apprehension lead it down another route perhaps even more fraught with peril.
At issue is the 336-room Westin resort that San Diego-based developer S.D. Malkin has been tapped to build at the foot of the Oceanside Municipal Pier. Complicating matters is S.D. Malkin's intention to make 48 of the rooms it builds "fractional time shares" -- or rooms sold in weeklong increments.
Some in Oceanside worry that this aspect of an otherwise widely hailed, if increasingly expensive, proposal will doom it to founder upon the reefs of the Coastal Commission, a fate familiar to those who watched Doug Manchester's proposal stall and then sink there a few years back. The city shelled out $2.2 million to Manchester in 2003 to make him go away, and has agreed to subsidize Malkin's $187 million project to the tune of $27 million. So the Oceanside City Council's caution is understandable.
The council directed city staff on Dec. 13 to study a way to potentially shield S.D. Malkin from being caught up in the Coastal Commission by amending the city's Local Coastal Plan to authorize three new types of condo/hotel rooms near the ocean.
In Malkin's case, investors could be offered rooms to stay in up to 90 days of each year but no more than 30 in a row, and empty rooms would be available for renting to hotel guests. Developers like these arrangements because, among other benefits, they provide a more flexible portfolio of rooms to sell. Such condo hotel projects are popping up in most expensive real-estate markets.
Even the state's stingy Coastal Commission has approved about a dozen such deals, including the KSL Encinitas Resort Co. project at the northern tip of Leucadia. That project, like Oceanside's decades in the making, was approved by Coastal Commissioners in March over the objections of environmentalists and Coastal Commission staff, who fretted about eroding public access to the coast by allowing some rooms once planned as temporary lodging to be sold as time shares.
Never mind that in either case, these rooms would be too expensive for the vast majority of any "public." And the time-share arrangement would keep the residents rotating, if less frequently than a classic hotel room.
But the dynamic in the KSL case demonstrates the mixed signals Oceanside's council is getting regarding which course they should take. The Coastal Commission staff and commissioners often diverge on knotty issues such as this.
Rather than simply approve the Malkin proposal, an ad hoc committee including Councilman Rocky Chavez and then-Councilwoman Shari Mackin recommended the city go one step further and make room for Malkin's time-shares in the city's zoning plan before the hotel goes before the Coastal Commission. That's the course preferred by staff at the city and Coastal Commission; after all, that's why cities are supposed to draft Local Coastal Plans, to take these sorts of zoning matters into their own hands and not bring them piecemeal before the statewide commission.
But what about Oceanside politics suggests that local waters will be any less choppy than those surrounding the Coastal Commission? By exploring the amendments to the Local Coastal Plan, the city is unnecessarily complicating the hotel proposal by opening up other businesses and blocks to fresh controversy. Who knows what other projects will become controversial should the city choose this wider zoning question?
If the city doesn't tackle the larger zoning question, that would punt any project with new wrinkles, such as Malkin's "fractional time shares," to the Coastal Commission. although anything can happen before that body -- especially with Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez set to select a new commissioner from San Diego County.
But Oceanside's chances are probably better if it lets the Malkin project stand alone than if it attempts to tackle sure-to-be controversial zoning changes in other parts of the city. Oceanside can't afford to smother its latest best hope for a high-end downtown hotel project by surrounding it with the quicksand of other projects. It's too important for the city's future.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, email addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Nincompoops wrote on Dec 26, 2006 10:52 PM:The new troika (plus one) is nothing if not incompetent. Just a week or two ago the NCT was singing Feller's praises when he lost out on a SANDAG appointment. Now these rummys want to kill off the best chance to get a decent hotel into Oceanside. Some experience and expertise. Must be that the airport gang doesn't want it, after all they bought Oceanside in the last election. Just read all their association press releases since. WE knew it was going to be bad, we just didn't know how bad how quickly.
Hate to Say it wrote on Dec 26, 2006 11:53 PM:...told you so.
Randy wrote on Dec 27, 2006 3:50 AM:If Malkin is building time shares, why are we spending city funds to subsidize them?!?
JP wrote on Dec 27, 2006 8:10 AM:North County is becoming the new Cabo San Lucas, gross.
Confused wrote on Dec 27, 2006 8:38 AM:Do the Sanchez, Wood, Mackin crowd followed the lead of Mackin the councilmember who supported this action, or Mackin the unelected who now opposes this action? Seems to me this is all about politics. If Mackin had won, she and Sanchez would be supporting because they wanted the hotel on their watch. Now that they no longer control the council, they oppose this because they are afraid of others getting the credit. It reminds me of Mackin speaking out of both sides of her mouth at SANDAG.
Unconfused wrote on Dec 27, 2006 12:43 PM:This is not about the past or present troika, this is about a controversial coastal access issue that will surely be appealed to the Coastal Commission. Why does the city now want to change our local coastal plan midway thru the hotel project? A $27 million subsidy is more than enough; is the developer now getting greedy and wants more? We are supposed to get a resort hotel not more timeshares that are already being built on the lot next door. Hotel means TOT tax dollars to the city, timeshares do not. Let the Malkin project stand on its own without giving every other developer the keys to the city treasury. Don't give away the farm again.
Bigger problems wrote on Dec 27, 2006 12:52 PM:With the recent murder of yet ANOTHER OPD officer, and the fresh attention being paid to the significant gang problems in Oceanside, I'm sure the developer is getting very cold feet about building a resort here. And I can't blame them. I think this town has a lot more serious issues to worry about than this complication from a zoning change.
Adam wrote on Dec 27, 2006 3:43 PM:I heard it was not safe to visit Oceanside. Sort of like visiting Tijuana right now.
Randy wrote on Dec 28, 2006 8:34 AM:The 82 unit proposed timeshare project in the southwestern corner next to Carlsbad is not asking for any subsidy from the city!
o'sider wrote on Dec 28, 2006 8:41 AM:Not safe to visit O'side? Holy cow, if we use the criteria of some of these bloggers, we should not visit ANY major resort. Our recent murder was a tragedy, by any measure. That does NOT mean O'side is unsafe. I hope the new troika does heed the safety issues of our community, but since they ran by demonizing public safety employees and first responders, it will be interesting to see them eat crow. And to unconfused, yes, tis is all about the new troika and their mad rush to change anything and everything started or accomplished by previous councils. Timeshares may not mean TOT but they do mean people staying in Oceanside for more than an overnight, and that means money into Oceanside.
Call me stupid wrote on Dec 29, 2006 9:09 AM:but why would timeshares be controversial with any reasonable public agency? Oh, that's right, we're dealing with the Coastal Commission. I think the NC Times has it right, whether it's a timeshare or a typical hotel room, the public access issue is a red herring. No surprise then that the environmentalists have latched on to it. Public access is what the actual beach is for, not private property in the coastal zone.
Today's Stories
Advertisement

