HB Neighbors

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. 

YOU CAN SEE THE UPDATED SUIT HERE

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?

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?

A message and quote from Dave Sullivan – two time city council member and two time mayor of Huntington Beach.

“I fully endorse HB Neighbors challenge to the city’s woefully inadequate Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.). The report does not come close to properly analyzing the many adverse effects of the proposed massive density increases in our Downtown area.

I cannot believe that a majority of our Planning Commission and City Council have drunk the ‘New Urbanism’ Kool Aid.”

Dave Sullivan

City Council 1992-2000
Mayor 1996
City Council 2002-2006
Mayor  2006

Here’s an article by Britney Barnes from the LA Times / HB Independent announcing the suit late last week.

http://www.hbindependent.com/articles/2009/12/04/top_stories/hbi-lawsuit121009.txt

Here is an article on the suit in the OC Register.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/downtown-222994-city-plans.html

Today, we filed a CEQA lawsuit against the City of HB in connection with the Downtown Specific Plan Update’s EIR. It is unfortunate we have had to use this process to protect our neighborhoods. I think most will agree that lawsuits are generally a sad depiction of our society and should only be used as a last resort. To that end, we believe we have exhausted all of our remedies which included participation in the ad-hoc community meetings designed to help shape the Downtown Plan, participation at the Planning Commission hearings and workshops, letters, emails, meeting with some of the Planning Commissioners, meeting in person with each of the City Council members, filling a formal appeal as well as participation at the final City Council open hearing. Unfortunately, to preserve our rights we were forced to file the suit today as it was the last day of the statute of limitations. I suppose to boil it down, the City has its opinion and we have ours – we need an intermediary to help sort this out.

CEQA is a process that the State of California has put into place for the general public (in this case neighborhood groups) to challenge development plans (the City of HB). It is to ensure the City adequately assess the EIR impacts when major land use decisions are being made. While is it a lawsuit, it is more of an administrative lawsuit to review the CEQA process and determine if the City followed the rules. There are no monetary damages, no one is personally accused of wrong doing, and there is no testimony. Simply put, was the process followed correctly or not.

Generally speaking we believe the EIR and process failed to examine, analyze and disclose some major issues associated with the Downtown Plan (see the suit for the details as it provides greater detail and support of those deficiencies). It is our opinion that due to the deficiencies in the EIR and the process, those making decisions did not have all of the facts. In our opinion, this plan will significantly impact our neighborhoods and great City forever. We believe that it is not reasonable or lawful to make decisions for a plan when its impacts will survive for decades without knowing all of the facts.

We hope the court will agree.

We will post the entire suit here (early next week). You can sign up to be notified once it has been uploaded or to receive additional announcements when they become available.

We came across this June email / document called Business Attraction Recommendations by Kellee Fritzal. We believe the HB Economic Development Dept. buried these recommendations. It is alleged that she did present some to the City Council, but not these. It rebukes the portrayal that the residents and business owners helped shape the Downtown Specific Plan. The reality is that City Council did not have an opportunity to view the input provided by 60 residents and business owners on a committee the City formed with 3 Council members. These were voted upon and approved, except #6, with many City people in attendance. It is reported that some City Council members and Planning Commissioners were not aware of  all of its contents before voting.

Even those in the City Council and Planning Comission agree that there are problems with the DTSP and or EIR.  See the Jill Hardy Appeal here.