The Main Street Library is NOT SAFE!
Pages from the Updated DTSP regarding the Library use
The attached three pages are from the Updated DTSP prepared after the Nov 2nd City Council vote. I was personally assured by Mayor Cathy Green that there would be a 99 seat MAXIMUM theater size in allowed uses. No such wording is included in the pages that address use of the site in the final DTSP. I hope this was an oversight. Please read them for yourself and YOU BE THE JUDGE!
3) Permitted Uses a) Figure 3-36 presents uses permitted within Subdistrict 1A. The table details permitted uses. Other cultural facility-related uses that have the same parking demand as the existing use not specified herein, as well as a change of use, may be allowed subject to the approval of the Director.
Do we want the power to change the use of the Main Street Library to be left up to the “Director”? A city employee! Don’t we want it to at least go to the City Council for approval or even better to the citizens for a vote. Is that what everyone was supporting in the fight to save the library? Is this a victory?
Richardson Gray Wrote:
In addition to the possibility of a large live performance venue (community theater), with a size of as much as 25,000 SF, which could support 700 seats, and in addition to the Director of Planning’s unfettered power to change the use at the Main Street Library and Triangle Park, the newly adopted Downtown Specific Plan allows an unlimited amount of parking to be built at the library and park, in both aboveground and underground structures. Despite the HBDRA leaders’ confidence that the City will not do anything at the park and library to which downtown residents would object, I find the language regarding the library and park in the new Downtown Specific Plan unacceptable. Given that this plan is a 20+ year planning document, it is likely that none of the current HBDRA leaders will be around to protect the downtown residents from the City’s plans for the library and park in the long-term . It is for these reasons that I am strongly supporting HB Neighbors lawsuit against the City, challenging the Downtown Specific Plan concerning the library and park, and other issues as well. I encourage all downtown residents to give all of the money that they can afford, to support the HB Neighbors litigation. That is what I am doing. Without broad resident opposition, I fear that the City will continue to expand the downtown commercial district at the expense of the quality of life for all downtown residents.
We have all stopped thinking about the library and moved on to parking. Thank goodness the city had the forethought to build in a backdoor mechanism to rezone the library site to serve the primary need of the downtown, PARKING. One downtown spokesperson declared premature victory that the library had been saved. The allowable uses for the library site can be changed by the “Director”. Nothing has been saved. Now the budget for the library has been cut way back. The city is setting the stage for the administrator to sign the paperwork to have the library turned into a parking garage. Bye-bye triangle park. Bye-bye real-estate values on Pecan. Bye-bye children’s story time. Bye-bye community computer access.
Norm
The view from the window of the Kims house is the library. Why would he declare an untrue victory? He is not yet on city council. HS
The word “victory” is subjective. There are lots of unknowns here, but the city continues to show their contempt for the residents by ignoring most of our opinions on the downtown specific plan. What logical reasons do you think there are for leaving a loophole to allow the director of the library to change its USE?
Do you trust the city to do the right thing? If so, then I suppose you can call it a victory. The city through its own actions have made me a bit more cynical. They have taught me not to trust them. They have shown that they do not have my best interest in mind as a downtown resident/property owner, beach goer, environmentalist, library attendee and as a downtown patron spending $1000′s each year in the area. I do not trust that city the city will do the right thing, therefore I do not call it a victory.
In addition to the possibility of a large live performance venue (community theater), with a size of as much as 25,000 SF, which could support 700 seats, and in addition to the Director of Planning’s unfettered power to change the use at the Main Street Library and Triangle Park, the newly adopted Downtown Specific Plan allows an unlimited amount of parking to be built at the library and park, in both aboveground and underground structures. Despite the HBDRA leaders’ confidence that the City will not do anything at the park and library to which downtown residents would object, I find the language regarding the library and park in the new Downtown Specific Plan unacceptable. Given that this plan is a 20+ year planning document, it is likely that none of the current HBDRA leaders will be around to protect the downtown residents from the City’s plans for the library and park in the long term. It is for these reasons that I am strongly supporting HB Neighbors lawsuit against the City, challenging the Downtown Specific Plan concerning the library and park, and other issues as well. I encourage all downtown residents to give all of the money that they can afford, to support the HB Neighbors litigation. That is what I am doing. Without broad resident opposition, I fear that the City will continue to expand the downtown commercial district at the expense of the quality of life for all downtown residents
Mr. Gray, Being you are the man who did most of the work and who started the movement to “Save the Library” you are the go to person on this subject, in my book.
Do you think the city council has cut back the budget for the Main Street Library so drastically, with the goal to close it and then build a parking solution? That was the original DTSP concept for the site, with a minor library function retained.
The very notion that the city would approve an ambitious high density plan and then when challenged by the impacted constituents, dismiss their concerns on the basis that “We will never build to that density. We just want to free up a few restricted underperforming parcels to be developed.” They will build to maximize the development potential of the waterfront and the downtown at the expense of the neighborhood. If they only wanted a few parcels to be developed, they would have issued CUPs for the parcels in question. They would not have spent $1,300,000 of tax payers’ money to write the DTSP if they only wanted to free up a few underutilized parcels.
Norm
If we have learned anything during this fight to preserve the library and the remaining park space in downtown it is this… no plan is ever set in stone! Even if the language adopted in the current version of the Downtown Specific Plan was an airtight promise to not build in that area, all that would ever be needed in the future to change it would be 4 votes on the Council and 3 at the Costal Commission.
As the Planning Commissioner who led the charge to preserve the Library & Triangle Park, I was very satisfied with the approval the Planning Commission voted on. We maintained the footprint of the existing building and did all for some additional space by adding to the second floor. We favored open space and historic preservation. The City Council watered our language down and allowed more building density and more latitude in allowed uses. (One sidenote: the Director approval allowed in the plan is the Planning Director and not the Library Director… and any change made by the Director is subject to Planning Commission and City Council review if appealed. His word is not final!)
While I understand filing suit to try and overturn the plan as currently presented… I have decided to focus my energy on getting elected to the City Council so that I can vote to strengthen the language that protects the Park & Library. I will also vote to restore a more neighborhood oriented approach to density and development north of Orange and on the numbered street. I will vote to place tighter controls on alcohol oriented businesses in the Downtown. And since I have the voting record to back this up, you can be sure that I will follow through with these items when elected.
We must preserve the Library and the Triangle Park!
The weakest restriction, requiring the fewest hoops for a developer to jump through, will be the path taken to exploit a development opportunity. The more restrictions, barriers and hoops the increased likelihood that the library site will be preserved as is.
I understand why some people are happy that the revised DTSP reduced the size of the previously planned “Mega Cultural Center”, down to a perceived moderate 25,000 sq/ft facility with unlimited parking. But ask yourself, if the original DTSP proposed a 14 story building on the library site and a concession was granted to reduce it to a mega cultural center, would you be happy?
The long-term way to preserve and improve our community is to have the best possible elected city council in place so they will not unwind protections. Protecting the library further by restricting the uses, the size and the authority to change the allowable uses, in the DTSP long-term plan, is not futile simply because a later council can vote to overturn it. If this were the case this argument would need to be applied across the board and citizens would have to believe that the concessions already granted were futile as well.
The stronger the protection of the site the less likely it will be developed.
Angela Rainsberger
i agree with you on this! the economic development department and the HB Visitors Bureau shot for the moon with the originally proposed 50,000 square foot project. The Planning Commission placed restrictions that essentially said you could freshen up the building and breathe some new life into it, but not really make it into something different. Cathy Green went to the mat for the theater use which is what opened the door for the additional parking and square footage. My preference would have been to maintain the approval I helped craft at the Planning Commission meeting.
That having been said… it is not a perfect zoning for sure… but the reality is that there is not much that could be done on the site even with the weakened language. A Measure C vote would likely be required for any construction on the site, especially if it is was commercial development. Because of the requirement to preserve the open space, there is not enough room to provide any parking on site. When I am on the Council I will work to roll it back to the Planning Commission approval.
If the DTSP were more restrictive the process to change the library use would be more transparent and allow people time and notification to address the impact to their neighborshood. There would be studies, reports and notices. Not back room deals with a wrecking ball waiting. If the DTSP gives the go ahead to develope the site it will happen.
Norm
Norm, I have no first hand knowledge of the City’s plans to reduce funding for Main Street Library, other than the across the board budget cuts for the City, which include all of its libraries. I do believe that library funding will be a challenge for the long term, as the early trend toward e-books probably will continue. Given the 7,000 HB residents who have signed a petition asking that the City keep Triangle Park and Main Street Library as they are now, and given the City’s determination to keep a 25,000 SF (2.5 times the current library’s size) live performance venue with unlimited parking at this site in the Downtown Specific Plan, I do believe that the City would like to build a major new commercial project there, including a lot of parking. If the library use ultimately does not stay at this site, it is my hope that the City will preserve the existing historic structure and only change the building’s use to a similarly, moderately sized neighborhood-friendly cultural use.
Blair, thanks again for the work you did on the Planning Commission to preserve the library and park. I truly will feel much better if you get elected to the City Council in November, along with a few other like minded candidates. You deserve to be on the Council.
I own a home on the 500 blk of 7th St, right around the corner from Main St Library. We are subject to the homeless wandering our residential street and sleeping in motorhomes they park on the surrounding streets because of the soup kitchen that is run from this location. We have also found these same people sleeping in between our houses, in our garage, & urinating in public. While we wish no person was homeless, they threaten our safety and value of our neighborhood as these circumstances must be disclosed during a sale to a new buyer. Changing Main St Library and cleaning up these iashes improves these problems, therefore, we support the proposal to remodel and redesign the use of this parcel. In it’s current state, we do not find one other proposal that assists the safety of our family and home. Groupies with the party of NO have fought against permit parking and Library redesign, leaving us with a multitude of home and personal safety dilemmas along with cleanliness problems and more declining property values. As we’ve attempted to express our view point and concerns about this situation, we have also experienced bullying and harrassment from certain neighbors whom disagree with us. It’s hard to believe those whom have acted in such a fashion have anyone’s best interest out for the neighbors of Main St Library and the ground on which it resides on! We are open to alternative ideas about how to correct these problems and our concerns as residents very close to this parcel but from what we have experienced to date from these party of NO bullies has absolutely swayed us in the direction of the city’s proposal for this location.
Hi Anthony, thanks for your comment. It is good to see multiple perspectives on this issue. I will say the problems that you see are the same that we see on PCH & 11th. I have found condoms, syringes, and even human poop on the side of my house. We chase off homeless and vagrants on a regular basis. I think the problems stem from not enough police presence and support (just my opinion).
It feels like downtown is turning into the Venice Beach of OC.
The idea of “more” downtown development without the infrastructure required to support it frightens me.
David. Thanks for your opinion and response. Sorry to hear you are having similar problems on PCH & 11 too. Although we have police presence and neighborhood watch, most of our issues stem from the soup kitchen at Main St. Library, homeless parking their motorhomes overnight near this location, and spill over parking from Main St. and Beach Go-ers. Until we have residential permit parking on our streets, those opposing such an effective solution must be held accountable for any personal and/or property damages all residents suffer from the crowd drawn to Main St. Library and Spill-Over parking! Residential Permit Parking (RPP) programs have proved extremely successful in many cities, helping to prioritize on-street parking spaces for residents living close to major tripgenerators, such as downtowns & beaches. They have been implemented in a wide variety of settings since ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1977, ranging from small communities such as Loma Linda, CA(pop. 18,000) to major cities such as Boston and Philadelphia. I believe RPP would be a great start to protecting our neighborhoods, families, and homes.
I personally like the idea of permit parking. My close neighbors and I would like to institute permit parking on our block, but apparently there are some limitations due to the proximately of the beach. From what I understand the Coastal Commission must ensure it does not impede peoples ability to visit the beach (cool with me). Although I can’t imagine that people need access to the beach after its closed (from 10pm to 5am). Perhaps 100 block permitting could start at 10pm???
All that said, I agree with some of the folks who have commented that the process, costs and major restrictions should not be borne on the residents. The city receives the benefit from the visitors and should bear the responsibility of herding them (and protecting us). I also think that there needs to be an in-depth review of the focal areas and the impact to other residential areas. The program needs to be designed to ENSURE that the problem is not moved from one place to another. We need a system that FORCES/FUNNELS visitor parking where it belongs. I don’t think this can be done piece meal. However – with a downtown much larger and more dense, I would be willing to bet that the problem will just get worse…