The CCC unanimously approved 45 modifications to the City of HB Updated Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) on June 15, 2011.  These were significant changes to the proposed density, parking program, beach/pier access and visitor-servicing commercial uses.  HB Neighbors considers this a major win over the City’s efforts to develop a massive urban center and abolish Downtown’s “Village Concept”.  The city disagreed with these issues and was only able to lobby for a few minor changes. 

HB Neighbors’ Board view nearly all of the forty-five CCC-required changes to the DTSP as significant improvements to the benefit of DT residents, with two significant exceptions. The HB City Council is required to adopt all forty-five changes approved by the CCC in order to have the DTSP certified by the CCC.  Without the CCC certification, the DTSP will not go into effect.

 MAJOR BENEFICIAL CCC REQUIRED CHANGES TO THE DTSP

Instead of approving the 400,000 sq ft of new commercial development in the downtown core, the CCC only approved 150,000 sq ft at this time. This is a 63% decrease in the density requested.

Instead of allowing future development of Triangle Park and the historic Main Street Library, the CCC required a new zone be created for the site that restricts the development of the open space, and that preserves the historic character of the building.

Instead of allowing the City to abandon the existing Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP), the CCC required that the City continue to maintain a detailed parking plan that tracks each spot so as to ensure that off site parking spots cannot be counted more than once when allocating them to specific development projects.

Instead of allowing the City to simply list parking solutions in their “tool box”, the CCC is instituting triggers that require the implementation of parking solutions once the trigger indicates that the need exists.

Instead of allowing the City to remove parking spots, such as has been proposed on Main and 5^th Streets, the CCC requires that the City replace any removed parking spots on a one-for-one basis, and the City cannot use the in-lieu parking program to postpone the replacement.

MAJOR HARMFUL CCC REQUIRED CHANGES TO THE DTSP

The CCC has required that no establishment of preferential parking districts in the coastal zone be allowed.  This requirement means that a residential permit parking program in the coastal zone might be much more difficult to implement, if it can be implemented at all, if these CCC changes are adopted by the City Council.

The second change that HB Neighbors does not feel is to the benefit of either DT residents or HB taxpayers is the requirement to keep the beaches, pier, beach parking lots, and associated amenities open 24/7. 

The City of HB has had a beach curfew in place for over 30 years, before the formation of the CCC.  Thus, the beach curfew has been grandfathered in and allowed.  If the City gives up the right to close the beaches, as a condition of approving the DTSP, the City can never get this right back. 

Since the Updated DTSP also included the City beach and pier districts the CCC has required these areas be open at all times.  This would create major police and safety issues especially now with up to 3,000 people being emptied onto Main Streetat late night bar closing times.  The City would experience major increases in police cost to patrol beaches, pier, and City parking lots. 

HB taxpayers need to insist, before the City Council approves the CCC changes, that the City must first complete and make public a long-term cost study.  This study should analyze the costs of the increased public safety and other resources, liability risks, and insurance that will be needed to keep the beaches open 24/7.

For a detailed analysis of the 45 modifications to the Updated DTSP keep reading……

HB Neighbors board members spoke in opposition to the CCC Suggested Modifications to the DTSP.  While we are encouraged by the CCC approved lower density, more restrictive parking program and other changes, we also wrote to the CCC and spoke in opposition to the City having to give up its right to close the beach, pier, beach parking lots, and beach amenities after 10 pm  (Beach Curfew).  We listened at the hearing to the CCC state that they would work with the City of HB to address city concerns relating to nighttime beach issues.  While this sounded positive to us, the Modifications the CCC are seeking are quite clear and explicit (see below).  The City will forfeit its grandfathered curfew rights, the CCC may grant a coastal development permit to limit some night access, but this is a short term agreement and will be “reassessed periodically”.   

Density

The city ofHB DTSPwas requesting to allow 400,000 SF of new commercial development and the CCC has only agreed to allow 150,000 SF. Pg. 4, Pg 13. This is a reduction of 63% in development.  To seek approval for the additional 250,000SF the city is required to complete a cumulative parking analysis, address inadequate parking with funding, amend the DTSP, and seek CCC through a Local Coastal Program Amendment.

The CCC also requires that new development proposals shall include a Public View Analysis. Pg. 20, Pg. 22, Pg. 26, Pg. 61

The CCC also strengthens the Public Open Space requirements Pg. 21, Pg. 22,    Pg. 25 and Recreational Facilities as permitted uses Pg. 23.

The Downtown area did not require a new DTSP to allow new development according to the CCC.  “It should be noted that some of that 400,000 sq. ft. of development would have been allowed under the currently certified DSP in the area outside the 42 acre DPMP area because the 715,000 square foot development threshold did not apply beyond the DPMP area.” Pg. 34.

Parking

The Updated DTSP discuss alternative transportation methods as an alternative to adding more parking supply, but there is no trigger to implement them.  “As proposed, the alternate transportation methods are identified and their benefits described, but there is no trigger that would actually cause them to be implemented.  This, development, with its related impacts to public access, would be allowed while the measures necessary to off-set the impacts may not be implemented. Pg. 4.  “Upon completion of construction of up to a maximum of 150,000 square feet of net new commercial development in District 1, the City shall conduct a cumulative parking analysis…” Pg. 13.

“The recommendations of the parking analysis shall be implemented through a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) processed in conjunction with an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan.  Future development shall not proceed until resolution of the measures contained in the LCPA is final.” Pg. 14.  If the City removes any parking spaces it must be replaced on a one-for-one basis and the City cannot use the in lieu parking program.  Pg.15   “Establishment of new preferential parking districts in the coastal zone shall be prohibited.” Pg.17.   The CCC is requiring a new parking requirement “For project with 10,000 square feet or more of net new commercial development that do not propose to provide 100 percent of the required parking on-site, a parking management plan shall be submitted.  The parking management plan shall identify for implementation one, all, or a combination of the following parking strategies:”  Pg. 17-18. These are parking triggers the CCC has now placed on the DTSP.

The parking in-lieu program requires a tracking program.  Pg.47, Pg. 56.

The shared Parking Agreements “Shall be tracked by the City ofHuntington Beachin order to avoid “double counting of parking spaces.” Pg. 19, Pg.48, Pg. 57.

The Updated DTSP will terminate the successful DPMP that was based upon “The amount of parking available in a area-wide parking pool.  Instead, new development would be required to provide the required parking spaces…” Pg. 35.

Beach Curfews Issues From the CCC Staff Report

Below are excerpts from the CCC Staff Report pertaining to the Beach Curfew.  These excerpts are arranged by page numbers.  The Modifications will be inserted into the DTSP and the agreement between the CCC and the City of HB.

This will be a long-term agreement and regulated by future HB CC and CCC.   It is troubling how the City will be able to police and maintain the coastal area  between 10 pm and 5 am.  We are neighbors and not land use attorneys schooled in CCC issues.  We may not be understanding all the Curfew issues and regulations.  We are requesting the City to assist us in our analysis pertaining to the Beach Curfew.

“It is important to make clear that access to State tidelands, submerged lands and public trust lands, including the area seaward of the mean high tide line, cannot be limited.  This includes access to the portions of the pier that extends over State tidelands.” Pg. 6. 

Modification No. 35 to the DTSP relating to District 6- Pier-Related Commercial States:  “This district is intended to insure that the majority of the pier will remain open and accessible to the public at all times at no charge for strolling, fishing, and/or observation.  Pg. 24.

Modification No. 38 to the DTSP states: “Any public pier curfews/closure cannot apply to any portion of the pier which is over State tidelands and within the Coastal Commission area of original jurisdiction.” Pg. 25. 

“Measures that limit public use of the pier shall be limited to those necessary to address documented public safety events that cause a risk or hazard to the general public and shall be the minimum necessary to address the risk or hazard to the general public.  The need for continuation of safety measures that limit public access shall be reassessed on a periodic basis to assure maximum public access is provided.” See Pg. 26

Modification No. 41 to the DTSP states:  Section 3.3.7.15 Public Access  “A public beach closure/curfew cannot apply to the area of Coastal Commission original jurisdiction (State tidelands, submerged lands and public trust lands) including but not necessarily limited to the area seaward of the mean high tide line.  Public access to the water’s edge and at least 20 feet inland shall be permitted at all times.  Closure to public use of any portion of the beach inland of the mean high tide line is not encouraged and requires a coastal development permit which must maintain the public’s right to gain access to State tidelands.  Measures that limit public use of the beach shall be limited to those necessary to address documented public safety events that cause a risk or hazard to the general public and shall be the minimum necessary to address the potential risk or hazard to the general public. The need for continuation of safety measures that limit public access shall be reassessed on a periodic basis to assure maximum public access is provided.” Pg. 27

“All beach amenities available to the general public on the City’s public beaches (including those owned and operated by the City and the State) shall be available to all members of the general public on an equal basis.”  Pg. 27

“As such, these districts present and excellent opportunity to address the question of beach closure or curfew.  It is important to note that City of Huntington Beach Ordinance No. 861 (see exhibit I), adopted on August7, 1961, approved a beach curfew on the City beach precluding public use of the beach between the hours of 12:01a.m. and 5:00 am  Additionally, City of Huntington Beach Ordinance No. 1743 (see exhibit J), adopted April 17, 1972, limits (among other things) the hours of operation of the City’s beach parking lots to from 5;00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight.  Thus, both of these ordinances took effect prior to the effective of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (aka Proposition 20, “the Coastal Initiative) which became effective on February 1, 1973.” Pg 49

“Nevertheless, it is important to make clear that access to State tidelands, submerged lands and public trust lands, including the area seaward of the mean high tide line cannot be limited.  This includes access to the portion of the pier that extends over State tidelands.  Limits on the use of the beach and parking areas inland of the state tidelands areas should also be minimized.  Further restrictions on the City’s sandy beach and parking areas are discouraged.”  Pg. 49 and Pg. 50

Visitor Servicing Commercial Uses

            There were three significant issues relating to visitor-serving uses that the CCC modified or added to the DTSP.

1.)                The city was proposing only a portion of the ground floor area be devoted to visitor-servicing commercial uses where the CCC Modification No. 22 requires the entire ground floor level be devoted to visitor-servicing commercial uses. Pg. 20.

2.)                Modification No. 22 also reduced the area of visitor-servicing commercial uses alongMain Street, between PCH and Orange Ave. Pg. 20 and Pg. 69.  Unlike the HB City Council, the CCC recognized a need for neighborhood commercial uses north ofOrange Avenue.

3.)                Modification No. 25  “Public open space and pedestrian access shall be required for development projects in order to assure a predominately visitor-servicing, pedestrian orientation.”  Pg. 21

Library and Triangle Park

“The proposed LUP amendment would revise Subarea 1D to separate out a new Subarea 1E Main Street Library.”  Pg. 29

“Uses proposed to be allowed within Subarea 1E are: Public and Open Space uses including cultural and civic uses, and open space.  Proposed subaera 1E also includes a requirement for the provision of open space areas and the preservation of historical structures.”  Pg. 29 and Pg 40

Richard Plummer

HBN Board Member

8 Myths about Downtown HB

MYTH 1)

Adding extra density will create a renaissance of retail stores and neighborhood services in DTHB. HB City Staff argues that Downtown needs future 4 to 5 story buildings and very high residential density (50 DU/Acre) to create enough demand to stimulate new retail stores. The city’s EIR estimates 648 new Dwelling Units (DU) will be developed in the Downtown core area. If the current 3-story height limit were to remain, about 448 DU would be developed. So does City Staff believes 200 more DU will cause a renaissance? There are currently over 7000 people who live within a 10 minute walk of Downtown, plus the 516 DU to be built two blocks away at Pacific City. The city has already failed at capturing the very high disposable income ($96,219) of these 7000 adjoining residents. Adding 200 more DU, and ruining the “Village Concept” with big boxy buildings will not stimulated retail development.

MYTH 2)

The existing buildings are blighted and not viable. HB City Staff believes that Main Street (north of Orange) and 5th Street (north of Walnut) is blighted and we must have new big boxy buildings with minimal parking, to create a viable neighborhood. Every retail space along Main Street north of Orange is occupied with viable tenants. Most of these businesses are neighborhood serving and bring HB locals to Downtown during non-peak times, creating a balanced Downtown. The City’s own Specific Plan (page 8-2) refers to these properties as “viable” but high density development is the only way to stimulate new development. The fact is these areas are not blighted. Let future development happen naturally, within the current scale of Downtown.

MYTH 3)

New 4 and 5 story buildings will blend into the Downtown Neighborhood. The 1983 Downtown Specific Plan established the concept that the tallest buildings would be situated at Main Street and PCH, and building heights would be reduced on city blocks moving north. Currently, three buildings along PCH are 4 storys. All buildings north of Walnut are 3 storys or less. The remaining sites for future development are skinny lots with alleys behind them. New 4 and 5 story buildings developed on these lots will seem out of scale and they will dwarf over the adjoining one and two story houses. It is not possible to build a 5 story on a small lot and have it blend into a “Village Concept” neighborhood.

MYTH 4)

Tourist will patronize shops 4 and 5 blocks from the beach. The city’s original plan was to have a large tourist destination on Triangle Park luring tourist to shops along north Main Street. The City has wisely abandoned this plan, yet they still plan on replacing the viable businesses along north Main Street without an anchor to draw shoppers. No new large garages are planned in north Main Street. So what will draw tourist to an area so far from parking and the beach? Sounds like a recipe for a ghost town during non-peak periods and many vacant retail shops.

MYTH 5)

The Updated Specific Plan will solve the current parking problems. The HB City staff assures us that new high-density development will provide adequate parking and help solve the shortage of parking during peak periods. In reality, for the past 12 years the city allows up to 50% of the required parking for new development to be excused by the city through a in-lieu parking fee. The city collects a low fee from the developer to build the parking in a future city garage. The city currently has a requirement to build 263 in-lieu parking spaces. According to the DTSP the city is planning on relying on the in-lieu parking program to subsidize the development costs for the new high-density buildings. The DTSP is eliminating the 2000 Parking Master Plan and has no plan to build a new city parking garage. As new development occurs along north Main Street, the convenient surface parking lots will be eliminated and replaced with under-parked high-density development. Neighborhood services will be substantially reduced because locals will not want to patronize shops with inconvenient paid parking. The best example of this is the new CVS Drug Store in The Strand. The Updated DTSP should have a plan to build a new city garage and provide convenient free short-term parking for neighborhood services.

MYTH 6)

Adding new Downtown restaurants and bars will increase city income. Restaurants and bars generate substantial sales tax and the HB Downtown District (with 55 of these establishments) generates some of the highest taxes in HB. The Updated Specific Plan continues this plan with over a 50% increase in the number of new restaurant and bars. The problem with this plan is restaurant/bars require expensive city services such as police, fire/paramedics, cleaning and maintenance. The HB City staff is only looking at the revenue projections and not the added costs to the city. Downtown restaurant/bars are also closing because of over-saturation, and increase security issues are scarring away many HB residents. The city needs to develop a new Downtown business plan that creates a balance between residents and tourist, and promotes new office and retail uses that creates a balance during peak and non-peak periods. If the city allows bars to continue to increase without limitation this ghost town will eventually be filled with the only thing that can make money in an area so saturated by bars that the local population avoids it, more bars. The atmosphere of the bars will drive out other business and the local population and the associated crime will creep into the neighborhood. Police services are being cut back and the DTSP states that almost no new police resources will be needed.

MYTH 7)

The City knows and understands the impact Pacific City will have on the Downtown neighborhood. Pacific City was planned and entitled during 2002 to 2005. The developer started construction on this very large 31 acre, 1,000,000 square foot development with a major hotel, restaurants and 516 DU. In 2007, the financing fell apart. Similar large developments are now selling for less than 50%, and it does not appear Pacific City will be completed for at least five years. When it is completed, who knows how it will be developed. Traffic studies, security issues, demands for city services, estimated retail sales, and parking studies, are educated estimates by experts, but until a massive project like this is developed and seasoned, know one really knows the impact it will have on the Downtown neighborhood. HB Neighbors is in favor of the development of Pacific City, but the city should delay planning high-density development along north Main Street until the impacts of Pacific City are understood.

MYTH 8 )

Downtown HB needs to turn into a destination center that is pedestrian friendly. The Updated DTSP wants to turn Downtown into a walkable tourist destination center. Downtown is already a successful pedestrian friendly commercial center with large parking facilities. Our beaches and pier are major destinations for tourist, and the adjoining commercial area services these tourist during peak periods. During non-peak periods the commercial district is empty. The Downtown neighborhood is the densest neighborhood in HB with high household incomes. Over 22,000 residence live within one mile of Downtown and many of these neighbors already walk or bicycle to the main Street area. If the city would focus on higher quality shops, family oriented entertainment, and a variety of neighborhood services, the residents would shop more Downtown while leaving their cars at home.

Richard Plummer

Director of HB Neighbors

HB has 2 parking issues in the downtown!

We have the current parking shortage spilling into the neighborhoods and we have the future impact that greater occupancy and new development will have on the existing problem.  The current parking shortfall needs to be dealt with and it will be difficult to solve. The future problem is preventable by actions we take now. We have the chance to prevent the city from allowing parking to worsen downtown.

HB Neighbors CEQA lawsuit is addressing the future impacts to prevent the parking problem from degrading. 

Parking demand is generated by increased development and higher densities.  When more buildings are built, higher building densities allowed, and higher levels of uses are created within the buildings, we referred to these as “Parking Demand Generators”.   If a new development is built with adequate parking on site there will still be more increased demand for street parking but, its impact will be minimal. When new parking generators are created a parking shortage occurs. 

The “tool box” or techniques that the city of HB uses to allow developers to build less parking are:

TOOL 1: PARKING IN LIEU PROGRAM

The parking in lieu program allows a developer to purchase up to 50% of the required parking from the city with the city supposedly creating this parking at another location.  As of Sept 2009 the city has collected fees for more than  263 parking spaces at an average of $4.5k per space.  The average cost to build a new parking space in our downtown is several times more (some say more than 10 times more) than the fees collected.  

TOOL 2: MIXED-USE REDUCED PARKING

Mixed-use reduced parking allows lower required parking under the theory that complimentary uses create parking demands at different times (eg. daytime office use above a nighttime restaurant use) The city of HB misuses this theory by purposing residential over restaurants. Both of these uses crate parking demand at the same time of the day. 

TOOL 3: VALET PARKING

Valet parking is purposed to add as much as 40% more parking spaces. In fact valet parking actually adds much lower additional parking and is not often available when actually needed. 

TOOL 4: THE OUTSIDE DINING LOOPHOLE

The outside dining loophole allows any restaurant to provide no parking for their outside dining areas provided they don’t exceed 20% of the restaurant area. Downtown HB has more outdoor dining area than any other commercial center in Southern California.  Outdoor dining is a wonderful experience, but it needs to have corresponding parking.

TOOL 5: TANDEM PARKING

Tandem parking is allowing one car to block in another car in certain situations.  This reduces the allotted square footage for isle  ways and increases the amount of parking spaces on a given square footage of garage.  The problem with tandem parking is that it is only fully utilized in a small number of cases.  Even in households with 2 bedrooms the tandem system quickly degrades if the residents have different working hours or other reasons why they are unable to be present for the twice daily car shuffle.  This results in one of the two cars frequently being parked on the street.

Richard Plummer

Nancy Williams wrote 2/23/2010 on HB Neighbors BLOG:

“Why aren’t you guys addressing this permit parking program that the city is putting in downtown? I live South of the numbered streets. I asked around and my neighbors do not want the drunks pushed into our neighborhoods. If the drunks don’t park in the city lot now, they will not after the numbered streets drive them out. These drunken 909 partiers are parking on the streets to avoid the 4 cops standing outside the city structure. They will not park in the lot. They will park in my neighborhood. I bought my home outside of the numbered streets to avoid these problems. Now this City program will push the problem into my neighborhood. THAT IS WRONG!”

Dear Nancy,  I recommend that residents’ attend the parking meeting at the Shorebreak Hotel at 6:30 pm March 4th,  so that they can understand the impact of what is being proposed.  Residents in the outlying areas but within walking distance of Downtown may not think this plan applies to them, but it may impact them.  

Any plan devised as a solution to the parking Downtown needs to be a comprehensive plan.  Pushing the problem around is not a solution.  Piecemeal solutions will benefit one neighborhood to the detriment of another, and that is not right.   The Old Town area (Alabama, Huntington, California for example) and Wesley Park (Main 600 to 1000, upper 11^th, 12^th and 13^th, Crest, Park, Pine) are within walking distance of Downtown and have had crimes in the past committed by people leaving the Downtown district intoxicated.  People intending to drink and drive are not likely to park in the structure.  Police Chef Small is scheduled to be one of the speakers at  the parking meeting and perhaps he can address the issues of the cost and feasibility of patrolling a larger area. 

Richard Plummer

HB Neighbors is the ONLY democratic residence organization in Downtown HB representing the interests of its members.  We are proud to introduce our 2010 ELECTED Board Of Directors.

If you did not join HB Neighbors JOIN NOW! and have your voice heard.

The following candidates were elected to the HB Neighbors Board of Directors by democratic, cumulative vote of the general membership:    

Andre Faubert   
Angela Rainsberger   
David Rice   
Dave Sullivan   
Richard Plummer

The members ranked the ballot issues in order of importance:    

1st: Reduce density to 25 dwelling units per acre and reduce building heights to 3-story.    
2nd: Limit the expansion of bars.    
3rd: Institute parking improvements.    
4th: Create neighborhood services overlay north of Orange Ave.    
5th: Add additional police services serving District 1.    
6th: Limit the community theatre to 99 seats at the library site, with no new parking. 

Members also made use of the write-in option to add issues of their own. While these write-ins primarily referred to parking issues and the desire to have Popcorn Sundays, several others were brought up as well. The newly elected board will be sharing and addressing each issue at the next member meeting. Once again, thank you for your participation in active citizenship by being a member of HB Neighbors.

If you did not register to vote please do so you can vote on our next ballot.