DTSP Parking Study
I attended the parking meeting held by the HBDRA last night. Thanks to the HBDRA for sponsoring the meeting. It had solid attendance and it was educational for residents’. It was disappointing that the officials on the panel had not prepared for the meeting by reading the parking study completed by Kimbely-Horn supporting the EIR associated with the recently adopted DTSP. The data presented in the parking study was relevant to the meeting.
Parking facilities are approximately 90% to 100% occupied on typical summer weekends….” Page 2 Par 3
Total downtown parking inventory is 2,703, including the Strand and the private parking lots not available to visitors. The parking inventory available to the general public is 1,927.
Another impact of a meter / permit program may be that it pushes parking demand further out into the neighborhood.” Page 50 par 6
Angela Rainsberger
[EIR Parking Study for the DTSP]
Is it futile?
As we all know, the city council slipped the DTSP into approval by a well-thought-out parliamentary maneuver: the density increased, the neighborhood services overlay removed.
Now, onto the Beach-Edinger corridor. According to part of a February 27, 2010, HB Talk blog post signed by Robert K Sternberg:
Everyone should be aware of the Monday, March 1st, 2010 HB City Council meeting. The council will be voting on some of the specific amendments related to the Beach/Edinger Corridor Specific Plan, including the HB Planning Commission’s lowering of the density from 6,400 dwelling units to 4,500 units. The Planning Commission recommended the lower density but the HB City Council could ignore this and vote for the 6,400 units. …
The process is broken. The council (with contradicting recommendations by the city staff supporting them) can overturn the recommendations of the very people (appointed by the council members), who have studied a situation, listened to residents, and asked intelligent questions: the Planning Commission.
What to do, what to do, what to do…
Did You Know . . .
DEJA VU In the September 6, 2005, city council minutes, the same criticism of the Poseidon EIR was made as is currently being made of the DTSP EIR: that its process is faulty, that the EIR was inadequate, that resultant city income would be negligible, and that the surveys were faulty.
- “Mayor Pro Tem Sullivan restated his concerns with the process being chosen by Council.”
- “Councilmember Hansen clarified that the project has not been approved at this point, only the EIR.”
Other views presented that meeting against the Poseidon EIR are:
- Nancy Donaven voiced findings and recommendations made by a task force she said was in opposition to the proposed Poseidon plant. Ms. Donaven stated disadvantages of the project to the City, and asked Council not to certify the EIR.
- Ms. El-Ahraf spoke on behalf of Dr. Amer El-Ahraf, professor for environmental health, in opposition to the desalination plant citing environmental concerns. Ms. El-Ahraf asked Council to find the EIR inadequate as some experts have.
- Eileen Murphy, affiliated with Residents for Responsible Desalination, spoke in opposition to the project and asked Council to deny the EIR as inadequate. Ms. Murphy also spoke regarding desalination task force members and their mission.
- Merle Moshiri referred to over 4,300 cards she said were submitted to Council in opposition to the proposed project. Ms. Moshiri thanked volunteers, and discredited claims made by Poseidon. (A petition signed by 6,000 voters was submitted in opposition to the DTSP.)
- Ray Roberts, resident since 1978 in 92646 Zip Code, spoke in opposition to the proposed plant. He stated opposition to the AES plant, environmental concerns, and cautioned Council to obtain adequate bonds to cover any potential construction damage.
- Doug Korthof, speaking on behalf of California Earthcorps, voiced his opposition to the project, stressed alternatives, and cited concerns with the Tampa Bay project. He alleged large desalination plants are not economically viable. Mr. Korthof stated his opinion that the EIR is inadequate.
- Pete Minko, resident, spoke in opposition to the project citing environmental concerns, concerns with turbine engines, and financial concerns. Mr. Minko asked Council to carefully consider speakers’ motives.
- Clayton King, resident since 1978, in Zip Code 92646 since 1988, stated dissatisfaction with Poseidon’s presentation and reasons for opposing the project including existence of conservation alternatives. Mr. King stated concerns that there are no customers signed up for the water to be produced by the plant.
- Lynda Hernandez, resident of 92646 Zip Code, stated opposition to the project and refuted claims that assert money will be provided to the City via increased tax dollars.
- David Geddes spoke in opposition to the project and gave a PowerPoint report enumerating perceived obstacles and impacts. The three obstacles Mr. Geddes cited were: pipeline proximity to the Ascon-Nesi site, drainage channel issues, and the sewer pipeline.
- Marinka Horack presented a PowerPoint report and voiced her opposition to the project stating concerns with the EIR, the pipeline project, the Ascon-Nesi cleanup and traffic impacts from laying of the pipeline.
- Douglas Cable, 22-year resident, spoke in opposition to the project, questioning the validity of Poseidon’s survey, and stating concerns about methane and other chemicals.
- Stephanie Pacheco urged a “No” vote on the project citing energy concerns, noise concerns from turbine pumps, funding concerns, and potential for improvement in the area of conservation.
- Carol Hughes, 30-year resident, spoke in opposition to the project stating concerns with impact on beaches, pollution, and with the Tampa Bay treatment plant.
- Larry Porter urged Council to find the Poseidon EIR insufficient. Mr. Porter referred to comments made on postcards with the majority citing inadequacies. Sarah Abramson, with Heal the Bay, asked Council to deny the REIR based on inadequacies including what she referred to as flawed biological studies. She encouraged Council to deny the project.
But, enough said. Read the HB Neighbors CEQA suit for a better comparison.
Parking, Parking, Parking!!
Nancy Williams wrote 2/23/2010 on HB Neighbors BLOG:
“Why aren’t you guys addressing this permit parking program that the city is putting in downtown? I live South of the numbered streets. I asked around and my neighbors do not want the drunks pushed into our neighborhoods. If the drunks don’t park in the city lot now, they will not after the numbered streets drive them out. These drunken 909 partiers are parking on the streets to avoid the 4 cops standing outside the city structure. They will not park in the lot. They will park in my neighborhood. I bought my home outside of the numbered streets to avoid these problems. Now this City program will push the problem into my neighborhood. THAT IS WRONG!”
Dear Nancy, I recommend that residents’ attend the parking meeting at the Shorebreak Hotel at 6:30 pm March 4th, so that they can understand the impact of what is being proposed. Residents in the outlying areas but within walking distance of Downtown may not think this plan applies to them, but it may impact them.
Any plan devised as a solution to the parking Downtown needs to be a comprehensive plan. Pushing the problem around is not a solution. Piecemeal solutions will benefit one neighborhood to the detriment of another, and that is not right. The Old Town area (Alabama, Huntington, California for example) and Wesley Park (Main 600 to 1000, upper 11th, 12th and 13th, Crest, Park, Pine) are within walking distance of Downtown and have had crimes in the past committed by people leaving the Downtown district intoxicated. People intending to drink and drive are not likely to park in the structure. Police Chef Small is scheduled to be one of the speakers at the parking meeting and perhaps he can address the issues of the cost and feasibility of patrolling a larger area.
Richard Plummer
UPDATE…
Just a reminder to you to continue re-visiting the candidate page. New information will be added on an ongoing basis, but because it won’t be in the form of a new post, you won’t receive a heads up. Besides information for those candidates for whom we have very little. we are interested in presenting information about former or current alliances that may predict how a candidate may vote under pressure.
Amended CEQA Suit Filed
HB NEIGHBORS FILED AN AMENDED CEQA SUIT
The HB Neighbors CEQA suit (petition) was amended to include new items documented when the downtown specific plan was re-opened. These new items support our allegations that the EIR is insufficient and should not be used to allow the creation of the new downtown specific plan. HB Neighbors is in favor of balanced well planned growth downtown that takes into account concerns of the residents, property & business owners.
HB Neighbors expects a court-ordered mandatory settlement meeting to be rescheduled in the next month. All indicators lead us to believe the city council will NOT be persuaded to settle. We will be taking this take this suit all the way!
VOLENTEERS NEEDED! to help transcribe the planning commission and city council hearings from tape. If you can help with this job please contact me.
See our NEW CEQA Petition page for the summary of the new items added.
Future Forward: Which candidate do you support?
HBN needs your help to decide on whom to support for the city council election in June.
Do you know who the candidates are for the upcoming council election? Do you know any of them personally? What can you tell us about them, their backgrounds, ethics, platforms? Tell us what you know (without slander or obscenity, please). We invite the candidates to write in, as well, to tell us about themselves. Spread the word.
HBN neither agrees nor disagrees with any post. Inappropriate posts will be removed.
THE VOTES ARE IN!!
HB Neighbors is the ONLY democratic residence organization in Downtown HB representing the interests of its members. We are proud to introduce our 2010 ELECTED Board Of Directors.
If you did not join HB Neighbors JOIN NOW! and have your voice heard.
The following candidates were elected to the HB Neighbors Board of Directors by democratic, cumulative vote of the general membership:
Andre Faubert
Angela Rainsberger
David Rice
Dave Sullivan
Richard Plummer
The members ranked the ballot issues in order of importance:
1st: Reduce density to 25 dwelling units per acre and reduce building heights to 3-story.
2nd: Limit the expansion of bars.
3rd: Institute parking improvements.
4th: Create neighborhood services overlay north of Orange Ave.
5th: Add additional police services serving District 1.
6th: Limit the community theatre to 99 seats at the library site, with no new parking.
Members also made use of the write-in option to add issues of their own. While these write-ins primarily referred to parking issues and the desire to have Popcorn Sundays, several others were brought up as well. The newly elected board will be sharing and addressing each issue at the next member meeting. Once again, thank you for your participation in active citizenship by being a member of HB Neighbors.
If you did not register to vote please do so you can vote on our next ballot.
Redirecting bar patrons away from the downtown residential areas
Having lived a half a block from the old Golden Bear from 1984 until redevelopment began in 1988 I’m well aware of what happens when the bars let out. What needs to happen is bar patrons need to be redirected to a street level parking area. If the city offered free parking in their garage to anyone from 8:00 PM to 2:00 AM it would help some. The problem is most will not park there since they feel the police will be there to arrest them, which they should. I feel we could experiment using the beach side parking across from the Strand to allow them to park free until 2:00 AM, currently is closes at 12:00 PM. If this went well the city could do the same for the city parking lot south of Duke’s on PCH.
Keeping the bar patrons redirected away from the residential streets would solve a number of problems and hopeful save some money, since we would need less police. The parking lot would be rowdy and would need to have a police presence to keep order. They (the drunks) would still be loud and might still pee outside but it would be at the beach, and there are facilities at that location. The police role at these free parking areas should shift to being more concerned about people getting home safe than making arrests. But anyone caught drunk in the residential area should be dealt with in a more traditional manner.
It would be nice if we could continue to receive the revenue from the bars and at the same time keep our neighborhoods safe and clean.
Clem Dominguez
Recent Comments