HB Neighbors

REGISTER to VOTE in the HB Neighbors Board or Directors election. The registration will only take a minute to complete and then you will receive a ballot to elect the BOD candidates that best represent your interests.

JOIN HB Neighbors

In the recent city council meeting, which re-opened consideration of the DTSP, one of the seven council members was absent and another recused himself (we believe to avoid the conflict as he is up for re-election). The discussion seemed pretty staged as the City Staff took the opportunity for a 2^nd bite at the apple, adding additional elements to the DTSP that were only favorable to developers.

While there were some great public comments against the DTSP, the council did not seem receptive. The one person who spoke in favor for the DTSP was the owner of twelve lots on 5th Street. He stated he could not do anything with the property and needed the increased density to make development work. He made no mention of how a 45-ft building (ten feet over the houses across the alley) and the new density would impact the residents. Nor did he mention that with any likely new development being composed of restaurants and bars, the kids who play in the alley would have to share it with employees taking smoke breaks! Residents on 6th will be subjected to daylight conditions at night (created by large numbers of high pressure sodium lights), glass clanking and breaking at 3 am as bars close up shop for the night by emptying their trashcans filled with bottles in the alley, worsened summer traffic that is already impossible and the new businesses’ employees competing for parking spots that don’t exist.

Council member Bohr, using hand gestures, thought that the height would work, taking into consideration the space of the alley between the house and potential 45 ft building. Definition of “work” is of course subjective.

Everyone, including the land owner on 5th, purchased their property with the current use and plan in place.

It doesn’t make sense to me that the reward for a few has such toxic implications for the mass.

The council member who re-opened the DTSP with the idea of lowering the density was surprised when another council member bypassed her motion with an alternate motion to approve the DTSP with the additional staff recommendations. His motion won 3 to 2 and that was that.

We have plenty of available space in the downtown area for more restaurants, retail, office, etc. Unfortunately we have a number of businesses that have gone under and more that won’t last another 12 months. It’s a sad state of affairs, but it’s a reality. Why do we need to create more space when we can’t support and make what we have work?

HB Neighbors DTSP GOALS

1) Reduce density to 25 dwelling units per acre and reduce building heights to 3-story.

2) Limit the expansion of bars.

3) Create neighborhood services overlay north of Orange Ave.

4) Add neighborhood buffers for properties built adjacent to homes.

5) Institute parking improvements.

6) Limit the community theatre to 99 seats at the library site, with no new parking.

7) Add additional police services serving District 1. 

GOAL DETAILS

1)      REDUCE DENSITY AND BUILDING HEIGHTS

• Within District 1 north of Walnut Avenue, density should be reduced to 25 dwelling units per acre and building heights limited to 3-story and 35 feet.

2)      LIMIT THE EXPANSION OF BARS

• Embed the recently adopted Entertainment Permit violation and enforcement policy into the DTSP, and a maximum 2 new Entertainment Permits.
• Limit the total number of approved CUPs to allow Type 47 (restaurant with full bar) and 41 (restaurant with beer & wine) alcohol licenses allowed in Districts 1, to total a maximum of 26 and 14 respectively. This is an increase of 2 and 3 respectively.

3)      NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OVERLAY

• Place a Neighborhood Services overlay within District 1 north of Orange Avenue that changes the purpose and permitted uses to neighborhood serving commercial uses. No new Entertainment Permits. Business must close by 12:00 pm.

4)      ADD NEIGHBORHOOD BUFFERS for properties adjacent to or sharing an alley with a residence in Districts 1 and 4.

• Limit the maximum building height to 3-story and 35 feet (the same as the maximum residential height limitation).
• Not allow ABC Type 47 (full bar) licenses or any additional Entertainment Permits.
• Limit hours of operation to 8am to 7pm Mon-Fri, 8am to 9pm Saturdays and Sundays including deliveries.

5)      PARKING

• New tandem parking is only to serve two-bedroom dwelling units in all Districts 1 and 4.
•  Metered parking on the 100 block from Main Street to Goldenwest, with allowances for resident parking.
• City initiated and financed resident permit parking on 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th and 600 and 700 blocks of Main Streets.

6)      LIBRARY USE RESTRICTIONS

• Limit the theater size to no more than 99 seats. Limit hours of operation no later than a closing time of 11 pm. No new parking on site.
• Remove the “Directors” power to override the use restrictions of the Library site.

7)      POLICE SERVICES

• We are open to suggestions from the police department on ways to provide better police protection for the DT neighborhood.  The current protection is insufficient.
• Add 2 police officers on bicycle patrol on outlying neighborhoods on Friday and Saturday 8pm to 2am, and Sunday 3pm to 10pm and weekday nights during summer months.

I attended the Charter Review Commission Meeting last night. I was there to propose a responsible growth measure that would put larger developments and land use changes before public vote. There were some supporters on the commission, but there were more folks opposed. The general argument is that we have a good system now that properly vets projects and land use changes. There were a couple of city folks there to help explain the system. There was additional concern that all projects would get stopped and could hurt the city’s income. Someone likened it to Prop 13.

The reality is that several other beach communities have added similar responsible growth elements their charters. There is a reason that they have been put in place.

In my opinion, this is the only way that we can take permanent control away from those abuse it. There is talk going on about making a petition drive to get this on a ballot. I would be curious from this in this group as to their opinion on this issue. Am I the only one who feels like things are out of control and the city is not listening to us? Do we need bigger downtown? Do we need a Beach Edinger Corridor? And more to come? If the city will not listen to us – what options do we have?