DENSITY:
Why does the city want to increase the density and the heights of new Downtown tourist-oriented buildings? Did the city adequately address the resident concerns about the impacts of the density in the DTSP?
The goal of this newsletter series, presented by HB Neighbors (HBN), is to isolate the most important issues in the recently adopted Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) and accompanying Environmental Report (EIR), to help HB residents understand the basic arguments. In this issue, a variety of knowledgeable HB residents and business people in opposition to the DTSP and EIR are set in counter to the city on the issue of Density. Read both sides of the issue presented and “You Be the Judge”!
BACKGROUND: The DTSP was initially conceived to “Create a healthy mix of land uses geared toward creating an urban village that serves as a destination to both residents and tourist.” Yet, when City Council approved the modified DTSP, removing the large tourist attraction at Triangle Park, they did not reduce the 40% increase in downtown density. Who benefits from redeveloping viable low density building into high density buildings?
DTSP Chapter 8 -8.3 Economic Conditions Influencing Developmental Potential:
The following is a summary of key existing conditions that will influence the realistic range of future development opportunities in the Specific Plan Area.
The Specific Plan Area is largely “built out.”
Prevailing property values in the Specific Plan Area reflect the fact that most parcels are already developed with existing viable uses. This situation will tend to limit the financial feasibility of redeveloping these parcels with lower-density land uses. That is, in most cases, new development would need to be relatively high density in order for the ultimate value of the development to justify the costs associated with buying and clearing land that is currently occupied with other uses. While there may be some (currently underutilized) sites that are exceptions to this observation, it should apply as a good rule of thumb for defining the types of opportunities that are likely to exist for most parcels.
OPPOSITION DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS:
JILL HARDY, current city council woman spoke:
This was referenced as a controversial issue. That’s usually how we refer to issues that bring out 30-40 speakers. I actually kind of looked at it and went “wow” what unity we have. We’ve got the residents’, the business owners, heck we even have Mike Adams, and the planning commissioners and Dick Harlo coming and speaking all on the same side……It’s clear to me what the residents’ want. It’s clear to me what the business owners want. Its planning commissioners who worked many more hours……………want. Who am I to say “No. I know better than everybody else who has spoken on this issue”. Quoted from Nov 2nd during City Council meeting
MIKE ADAMS, a former building and planning director for HB and now a land-use consultant representing many of the largest Downtown commercial property owners:
The listed project objectives are intended to reflect the reasons the Specific Plan is being updated. The stated objectives do not indicate a need for a 40% increase in downtown commercial activity, nor increased residential densities or building mass. The anticipated public improvements, including wider sidewalks, new bikeways, expanded beach parking and cultural arts building, will only add to the downtown’s problem with insufficient convenient parking and poor circulation. The limited area for downtown commercial will continue to function best if the area north of Orange Avenue addresses the needs of the residents and the area between Orange Avenue and PCH attracts the visitors along with the locals. This approach will allow for better, more cost effective implementation of the identified objectives”. ADAMS 6: September 1, 2009 Michael C Adams Associates Response to Draft EIR No. 08-001, 3.5 Statement of Objectives
RON MCLIN, co-owner/manager of Longboard, an HB resident and active member of the Downtown BID:
The increase of 213,467 sq.ft. of retail, 92,232, sq. ft. Restaurant, 92,784 sq. ft. office, 27,000 sq.ft. art center, 648 units of housing and 235 hotel rooms (188,000 sq. ft.) is huge for an area that is already struggling with what is already in place. We have yet to see the burden when Pacific City comes on line. We now have what the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control and our police department consider an over saturation of liquor licenses but are planning to add 20 restaurants by sq.ft.?……..The plan to enlarge and increase the business area will adversely affect residents and existing and future businesses. It is too large and doesn’t conform to the Huntington Beach lifestyle. We like the village concept.” See Nov 2 public record. October 29 letter to the City Council.
JOHN SCANDURA, a current planning commissioner stated:
The heights of 5 stories or 50 units per acre, recommended by the staff, would create significant parking and traffic problems on Main and 5th streets. The plan traffic improvement on these streets are minimal and up to 105 parking spaced could be lost on these two streets. The downtowns village character would be replaced by canyons of 4 and 5 story buildings.” Quoted from Nov 2nd during public comments at the City Council meeting
CITY RESPONSE:
The City Responded to the comments made by MIKE ADAMS in ADAMS 6 as follows:
- The allowable net increase in development included in the DTSP Update was developed in consideration of (1) project goals, objectives adopted by the City Council and the(2) market demand identified in the DTSP market study completed in July 2008 by The Natelson Dale Group.
- Parking and circulation issues related to implementation of the DTSP Update are evaluated in adequate detail in Chapter 4.12 – Transportation and Parking in the EIR.
- The comment regarding alternate location considerations for the downtown commercial does not raise an environmental issue under CEQA and is acknowledged, and will be provided to the decision-makers for review and consideration during their deliberations of whether or not to approve the proposed project.
NOTES(1) DTSP Section 1.5 pages 1-12 to 1-13 contain the project goals & objectives. Increasing density downtown by 40% is NOT one of the listed goals or objectives. (2) OUTDATED STATS The city’s market study, was published July 23rd 2008, before the fall of Lehman Brothers (September 2008), and has no relevance to today’s generational shift in the economy.
Who wants this increase in density and why do they want it?
YOU BE THE JUDGE!
Citizens interested in the future of Huntington Beach are invited to this fun-filled event that features a fabulous dinner, door prizes, a raffle and entertainment by the renowned “Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time Players”.
Recent Comments