Derby Day!

HBTomorrow’s Gala Fundraiser Dinner

Put on your fancy hat and come and enjoy a mint julep to complement our southern BBQ dinner.

Citizens interested in the future of Huntington Beach are invited to this fun-filled event that features a fabulous dinner, opportunity drawings, a silent auction and a return of comedic entertainment by the renowned ”Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time Players.”

Funds raised support efforts to elect city council candidates who HBTomorrow believes will best serve the residents of Huntington Beach.  Attend this entertaining event and make a difference in  your future by helping to elect citizen-oriented city council candidates. 

Reserve your grandstand seat today!

The cost is $30 per person.  Visit the HBT website at www.hbtomorrow.com or mail you check for your event tickets to:

Posted in cooperation with HBTomorrow

Please see the artical written by Mona Shadia in the HB Independant linked below.  Here is an excerpt…….

A hearing on whether Huntington Beach violated state environmental laws in how it put together its environmental impact report for its downtown specific plan is scheduled for Thursday.

Huntington Beach Neighbors filed a lawsuit against the Huntington Beach in November, claiming the city simplified the EIR to hide the effects the developments will have on the area.

http://www.hbindependent.com/news/tn-hbi-0317-neighbors-20110314,0,64326.story

 The HB Neighbors suit, filed on February 10, 2010,  addresses seven causes of actions points.  The case goes to trial on Thursday, March 17 · 8:00am – 1:00pm at

ONE: FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

EIR: “No significant and unavoidable impacts related to land use and planning would occur.”

PETITION SAYS:

TRAFFIC

• EIR underestimated the Levels of Service at 10 out of 24 intersections.
• EIR does not consider the cumulative impact of the increased flow in the 10 intersections.
• EIR does not consider impact of buses to the proposed Cultural Arts Center.
• EIR does not consider increased trips to area because of increased density.

PARKING

• EIR traffic study took place in late August, 2007, after schools opened. The summer demographic is primarily 15 to 25-year olds.
• EIR does not consider subsequent new businesses and occupancy since 2007.
• EIR does not consider building vacancies in 2007 that would increase parking demands when occupied.
• EIR does not consider the unavailability of parking stalls/parking structures because of high fees.
• EIR does not encourage clustered use (Doctor’s offices near grocery stores) that might reduce parking/trips.
• EIR  does not consider Strand parking.
• Alternate parking solutions, such as valet and automated parking garages are not feasible because of insurance and queuing difficulties.
• EIR underestimates IN LIEU parking stalls.
• EIR does not address that reduction of minimum codes actually increased parking demands.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

• EIR does not identify the Main Street Library as an historical resource and therefore, the impacts to it.

LAND USE & PLANNING

• EIR does not address significant environmental impacts due to project’s inconsistencies with the General Plan.
• EIR does not provide for an Historical Resource Board as advisory.
• EIR does not address change of Library area from public to “downtown core mixed use.”
• EIR does not provide reasonable range of alternatives.
• EIR does not provide analysis of mitigation impacts
• Therefore, the Council did not provide adequate notice to residents in the actual area to be impacted.

TWO:  FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE IMPACTS

PETITION SAYS:

AESTHETICS

• EIR ignores impacts on scenic vistas of changes in lighting and addition of adjacent light and glare

NOISE

EIR survey of noise level was completed during non-peak mid-week at lunch time in December, 2008.

• EIR does not address impacts associated with an increase of 3 to 400,000 visitors to the area of a cultural center.
• EIR survey placed no noise monitor in the first 3 blocks of Main Street.
• EIR survey made no mention of existing noise (such as helicopters) that would increase with density.
• EIR survey did not address increased noise from increased traffic of buses, motorcycles, etc.

POPULATION/HOUSING

• EIR does not address that with population growth, density will exceed residential capacity.

UTILITIES & SERVICES

• EIR does not address impacts on water and infrastructure.
• EIR  estimation of solid waste impact dramatically underestimated.
• EIR does not examine construction waste impact.
• The Water Supply Assessment used by the EIR was not council approved.
• EIR provides no mitigation for reducing water consumption in landscape.
• EIR waste assessment fails to address impact of global warming on future water supply.
• EIR fails to adequately discuss foreseeable impacts of project.
• EIR should contain analysis to determine if project is consistent with all plans, such as the Water Allocation Plan.

PUBLIC SERVICES

• EIR provides no quantitative analysis of potential downtown growth impact on Police.
• EIR does not discuss impact of redesigned streets and more people on Fire response.
• EIR does not adequately address impact of high concentration of bars and restaurants.

HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS WASTE

• EIR does not address project emissions within one quarter mile of existing or proposed schools.

AIR QUALITY

• NOx emissions are greater than South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds.
• Thresholds of ROG and PM10 will be exceeded by 40 to 45%.
• PM25 emissions will exceed national emission standards.
• EIR does not address toxic air contaminants within existing or future school areas.
• EIR does not address health risks based on South Coast Air Quality Management District regulations.
• Mitigation Measures (4.2-2, 4.2-3) do not include a performance standard.
• Mitigation Measure (4.2-7) only examines 5-minute idling and should also define “in use” and discuss monitoring options.
• Evidence does not support that project meets CA per capita goals in AB 32.
• EIR does not identify which project measures are consistent with CAT Report & CA Attorney General.
• EIR fails to adopt a threshold of significance required by CA Office of Panning.
• EIR should be consistent with mandatory on-site renewable energy requirements or be offset with energy credits.

GLOBAL WARMING

• EIR provides no analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming impacts from vehicles, heating, cooling, or lighting.
• EIR analysis should have included construction emissions, vehicle trips, fugitive emissions (such as leaks), and waste.
• EIR does not address electrical generation and transmission or energy consumed by supplying water.
• EIR does not a full and adequate inventory of greenhouse gas emissions or if cumulatively significant.
• EIR does not provide mitigation possibilities.
• THEREFORE, the EIR is inadequate and deficient.

NOTICE

• The Project approval was based on written findings of outweighing benefits that are not supported by evidence and additionally respondents project approval was based on one or more unwritten findings.
• Respondents failed to make all written findings per impacts.
• Respondents failed to make findings required under Public Resource Guide.
• Those findings made are not supported by substantial evidence.
• No adequate notice given to area actually impacted.
• THEREFORE, the public was not adequately informed.
• EIR does not list any overriding benefits that might outweigh negative impacts.
• Respondents did not respond to comments (per CEQA Guidelines 15088b) as to why it did not consider an alternative or if the alternative were feasible.

 THREE: IMPROPER PIECEMEALING OF PROJECT

PETITION SAYS:

• EIR reviews only one part of the project, which includes General Plan, Zone amendments, Local Coastal Program amendments, and Cultural Center and Library, which is unlawful piecemealing.

FOUR: IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN

PETITION SAYS:

• EIR recognizes project requires amendment of the General Plan, Zoning text, and Local Coastal Project, but fails to analyze environmental impacts of amendments.
• EIR cannot be adopted without amendments but amendments are inconsistent with objectives.
• EIR provides no impacts associated with such amendments.
• EIR does not provide the text of such amendments.

FIVE: FAILURE TO ANALYZE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH PACIFIC CITY PROJECT

PETITION SAYS:

• Pacific City construction might occur simultaneous to the DTSP construction.

 SIX: NO MITIGATION MEASURES

PETITION SAYS:

• EIR offers no mitigation measures for aesthetics, air quality, noise, parking, population / housing, public services creation, traffic, utilities/services.
• EIR should have examined different combinations of use.

 SEVEN: REQUEST FOR RELIEF

PETITION SAYS:

City did not comply with CEQA regulations or provisions of the CEQA guidelines.

Downtown Huntington Beach is our City’s historic heart.  A few of the area’s many historic landmarks are the Pier (though reconstructed), Triangle Park, the Main Street Library, Dwyer Middle School, and the Post Office.  As such, the New Downtown Plan should provide added protections for this area’s historic landmarks.  Instead, the New Downtown Plan provides lesser protections for the area’s historic landmarks.

For example, within our entire City government, the Council-appointed, Historic Resources Board is the sole protector and advocate for the City’s historic landmarks.  Unbelievably, given these facts, the New Downtown Plan removes the Historic Resources Board’s authority over Downtown, the only part of our City where the Board’s authority is eliminated.

Does the New Downtown Plan provide enough protections for the many historic landmarks in our Downtown?  You be the Judge.

In 2009, nearly 7,000 HB residents signed a petition to preserve the 100-year-old Triangle Park and the 60-year-old Main Street Library, as they are today.  All of these signatures were collected by neighborhood volunteers.   By comparison, in HB’s 2010 elections, it took something over 14,000 votes to win a seat on the City Council.

Despite this huge public outcry against a large development at the Park and Library, the New Downtown Plan permits an unlimited number of parking spaces to be built on the site, in aboveground and underground structures.  In addition, the Plan allows for a 25,000-square-foot performing arts center, or community theater.  At this size, such a facility could accommodate as many as 750 seats.

Does the New Downtown Plan provide enough protections for the historic Triangle Park and Main Street Library?  You be the Judge.

The City’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) admits that the New Downtown Plan will cause four types of air pollution to exceed California or Federal standards.  For each of these types of air pollution, the EIR further acknowledges that their impacts were unavoidable and not subject to adequate mitigation.  And finally, the EIR accepts that the vast majority of these types of air pollution are generated by car, truck, and bus traffic.

In the face of these admissions, the EIR’s traffic study did not include the busiest days of the year, summer weekends.  The City recognizes that these days are the Downtown’s peak times for traffic congestion.  For example, they included a summer weekend day in their parking study.  The traffic study, however, by excluding these peak times, assuredly understated traffic counts.  And it consequently understated the New Downtown Plan’s negative impacts on air pollution, including the four types discussed above.

Should understated traffic counts provide the basis for analyzing the New Downtown Plan’s negative impacts on air pollution from vehicles?  You be the Judge.

The Existing Downtown Plan allowed for new construction totaling 715,000 square feet, not counting the Shorebreak Hotel at the Strand.  These developments have been completely built out since the Existing Plan’s adoption in 1995.  The fully permitted Pacific City will add close to another one million square feet of new building.  And the New Downtown Plan allows for an additional 1.3+ million square feet.  When Pacific City and the New Downtown Plan are combined, the total equals almost 2.3 million square feet of new development.  This sum will increase the permitted building in our Downtown by nearly 3.75 times, or 375%.  We believe that this massive expansion will overwhelm Downtown’s surrounding established residential neighborhoods.

Will 2.3 million square feet in new development, a 375% increase, improve our residential quality of life for our Downtown neighborhoods?  You be the Judge.

The City asserts (page 32 of its opposition brief) that all additional Police personnel, needed to support development permitted by the New Downtown Plan, “‘can be absorbed within existing staffing levels.’”

Downtown’s current number of alcohol-serving establishments is approaching forty, an over-saturation of bars.  The Existing Downtown Plan allowed for these 140,000 square feet of restaurants and bars.  When combined with Pacific City, the New Downtown Plan will permit an additional 140,000+ square feet of new restaurants and bars, an absolute doubling of space for these potentially problematic uses.  Thus, we could see two times as many bars as we have today, a future number in the range of eighty total.

Will Police staffing remain adequate in our Downtown, with the plans for doubling the number of bars?  You be the Judge.

From the latest available CA statistics, for 2009, HB has the highest Per Capita rate among its 56 peer cities, for Alcohol Related traffic collisions causing death or physical injury.  HB had 195 such accidents.  HB IS THE WORST CITY IN THE WHOLE STATE FOR DUI WRECKS.

Again within this same CA peer group for 2009, HB was the fourth best in DUI enforcement, with 40% more DUI arrests than the state average.  These numbers and more are available at the California Office of Traffic Safety’s website:

http://www.ots.ca.gov/Media_and_Research/Rankings/default.asp

Comparing HB’s two rankings, you can see that our City’s record-setting epidemic in DUI collisions, deaths, and injuries is NOT the result of lax enforcement.  These accidents come from an over-saturation of bars, most importantly in our Downtown.  The many drunk drivers from our Downtown bars are totally overwhelming our City’s Police resources and their enforcement capabilities.

Is current Police staffing adequate in our Downtown, with all of our bars?  You be the Judge.