HB Neighbors

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

Dear HB Neighbors Members,

Next Wednesday, June 15th, in Marina del Ray, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) will be holding its public hearing on the HB Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP).  Written comments must be received by the CCC no later than Noon, this Friday, June 10th, by email, to Meg Vaughn, at the CCC.  Meg’s email address is mvaughn@coastal.ca.gov.

If you can, please email your written comments by this Friday’s Noon deadline.  We apologize for the late notice, but the 100+ page CCC Staff Report was first made available only last Friday, June 3rd.

Your written comments to the CCC need to contain the following information in the upper right hand corner:

Agenda Item:  W 9b
Application No.:  HNB 2-06
Your Name
Your Position (see below)

While you are, of course, free to make whatever written or oral comments you may choose on your own personal behalf, HB Neighbors officially is opposing the DTSP.  If you agree with our position, in the upper right hand corner of your written comments to the CCC, you would need to make the following notation after Your Name:

Oppose Project

If you can attend this meeting, we very much would appreciate it.  You may speak individually, as referenced above, if you are so inclined.  Public speakers are limited to five minutes or less (probably as little as two minutes), depending on the number of people who want to speak.

The DTSP is early on the CCC agenda for Wednesday, June 15th.  The meeting starts that day at 8:00 AM, but the DTSP will be considered no earlier than sometime after 9:00 AM.  Our best guess is that the DTSP will be heard sometime before Noon.  The phone number for this meeting, which is good only for the day of the meeting, is 562-972-9854.  The address for the meeting is:

Marina del Ray Hotel
13534 Bali Way
Marina del Ray, CA  90292

Some of our members, along with some people who oppose the local Poseidon project (which is not on this month’s CCC agenda), might try to organize a car pool for the meeting.  We are talking about leaving HB pretty early, at 6:45 or 7:00, and returning immediately after the DTSP hearing, possibly leaving Marina del Ray by Noon.  Please write us back if you are interested in a possible car pool.

Again, we hope that you will email your written comments by this Friday at Noon, and we hope that you will attend the hearing, on Wednesday, June 15th.  Thank you as always for your support.

The Board of Directors
HB Neighbors

HB Neighbors (HBN) assembled information from different government sources to produce a Survey of Downtown Huntington Beach Bars and Restaurants. HBN, a Downtown neighborhood organization, produced this survey as a planning tool for government decision makers.

The survey lists 39 establishments that are licensed to serve alcohol of the 62 restaurants in the Downtown area. These 39 restaurants and bars have a capacity of 6355 occupants. Most of these establishments are within two city blocks of Main and Walnut Streets. This survey highlights that the Downtown area has the highest concentration of bars in Orange County, and one of the highest in California.  Twenty-three of the locations have an Entertainment Permit allowing live music, DJs, or dancing.  Eighteen of the bars close after midnight spilling up to 3200 young bar patrons onto Main Street in the early morning hours.  This creates policing issues, littering, parking and noise issues in the surrounding residential neighborhoods, loitering, and the highest concentration of crime within the city. The nearby Pacific City Development, now stalled in the construction stage, will bring at least eight new alcohol serving restaurants or nightclubs with an estimated additional capacity of 1800 patrons. This will create a total of over 8000 patrons being served alcohol within the small Downtown core area.

Huntington Beach has the highest number of DUI’s for midsized cities in California, and the HB Police Department reported the primary source was Downtown bars.

The city states it is promoting tourism while the HB Neighbors website www.hbneighbors.com  claims the city is instead promoting kids to party in the bars on weekend nights at the expense of a more balanced retail area. “The Downtown area has become one dimensional” states Angela Rainsberger a board member of HBN. “Most of the bars and restaurants now focus on the youth below 30 years old instead of a balance of restaurants catering to families and all age groups” Angela stated.

Other beach cities such as Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Belmont Shores, Seal Beach, and Newport Beach discourage the expansion of bars and restaurants to allow retail stores to flourish.

HBN is requesting a partnership of the city planners, Downtown business owners, local residence, and the HB Police Department to create a Comprehensive Alcohol Plan with stated goals, strategies, and implementation plan. The city’s Economic Development Department should change their emphasis to promoting retail businesses catering to tourist and the local neighborhood, including non-peak time periods.

HBN acknowledges the Downtown area has a long history of bars and entertainment venues.  During the years of the Golden Bear, there was only seven places with alcohol licenses.  Today, there are 39 places and six of them are the approximate size of the former Golden Bear. Only in recent years has the Downtown area grown to the highest concentration of bars in Orange County.

HBN claims the city has missed the opportunity of creating a smaller version of Santa Monica’s Third Street Promenade (with a balance of retail stores) and instead created an unbalanced emphasis of youth bars. Angela concludes “most late night bar patrons are not tourist”.

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

From at least the October 12, 2009 Planning Commission vote, the New Downtown Plan restricted four story buildings to larger lots, of at least 25,000 square feet.  Similarly, the City Council re-confirmed this provision in its approval of the New Downtown Plan on November 2, 2009.

Near the end of a later meeting on January 19, 2010, called solely to consider a decrease in the number of residential units per acre, Council Member Don Hansen moved to drastically reduce the minimum lot size to only 8,000 square feet for four story buildings.  His motion passed with only three votes, by Council Members Hansen, Keith Bohr, and Devin Dwyer.  Given the difficulty in assembling larger building lots, this change could triple the amount of space devoted to future four story buildings in our Downtown.

We call Council Member Hansen’s motion the 11th Hour Amendment for good reason.  This issue was NOT on the Council’s agenda for January 19, 2010.  This issue was NOT in the Staff Report from January 19, 2010 for the New Downtown Plan agenda item for the Council.  There was NO WAY that the public could have known that this issue was going to be discussed or voted on.  Council Member Hansen’s motion was made AFTER the close of public comments.  It was literally a last minute, late night, stealth change to the density and building heights of the New Downtown Plan.  These former, lesser limits already had been approved twice over the preceding three months.

Should Council Members Hansen, Bohr, and Dwyer have made this last minute, late night, substantial change in building density and heights for the New Downtown Plan, without any notice to the public or public comments?  You be the Judge.

Compounding the understated traffic counts from our last discussion point, the City’s traffic study also failed to include nine (9) major planned projects in the vicinity of Downtown, most importantly the Beach/Edinger Corridor Study and the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Facility.  For one example among these nine (9) projects, the Beach/Edinger Corridor Study approved plans for new developments totaling 6,400 residential units, 875,000 square feet of retail, 350 hotel rooms, and 110,000 square feet of offices. 

As all of us locals know, Beach is the major route from Interstate 405 to our Downtown beaches.  And PCH is the major North-South route along the Coast serving this Beach/Edinger Corridor. 

Without question, the traffic in our City will be compounded from new developments approved for Downtown and along the Beach/Edinger Corridor.  Flying in the face of this common sense, the City did not consider the increased traffic from Beach/Edinger, among nine (9) total missing projects, in analyzing the negative environmental impacts of the New Downtown Plan’s 1.3+ million square feet of new developments.

In studying the negative environmental impacts of the New Downtown Plan, should the City have analyzed the compounded traffic from other major, nearby projects, like Beach/Edinger and Poseidon?  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.

The City claims (Page 4 & 5 of the respondents’ trial brief) that the village concept was flawed because “Nothing’s gone on in nearly …. half a century.”  This false claim is ridiculous.  The following 13 major projects have been completed in the last 30 years:  the Hyatt, the Strand, the Hilton, Pierside Pavilion, Pier Colony, Jack’s, the Promenade, Townsquare, Huntington Bayshore, Villas Del Mar, Dukes, the new Pier, and Plaza Almeria.  In addition, all entitlements were granted for the million-square-foot Pacific City and the million-square-foot new Downtown Plan, which we are challenging in our lawsuit. Has the old “village concept” put a halt to development in the Downtown over the last 50 years?

The last Downtown Plan, based on the village concept, was adopted in 1995.  With amendments, this Plan allowed for 715,000 SF of new development.  Plans such as these are based on long time horizons, 20 years or so. 

 Even so, the last Downtown Plan’s 715,000 SF were completely built-out in just over 10 years, by 2006.  This Plan’s sound yet substantial approach for incremental and appropriately sized development clearly succeeded. 

 Huntington Beach Neighbors supports further smart and sustainable development in the Downtown.  We are opposed, however, to the massive scale and density of the new Downtown Plan. 

 When combined with Pacific City, the new Downtown Plan will overwhelm our residential areas.  And Huntington Beach Neighbors is committed to maintaining and improving a strong residential quality of life for the Downtown’s surrounding established neighborhoods.

 Has the old “village concept” put a halt to development in the Downtown over the last 50 years?  You be the judge.

The City states (Page 9 of its opposition brief) that, “In determining the adequacy of an EIR, the CEQA Guidelines look to whether the report provides decision makers with sufficient analysis to intelligently consider the environmental consequences of a project.”  Contradicting this defining principle, the City’s traffic study for the new Downtown Plan did not include any summer weekend traffic counts.  Given that this traffic study failed to consider the busiest days of the year, summer weekends, it provides an inaccurate baseline of traffic counts for many other areas of analysis in the Downtown Plan’s EIR:  air pollution, noise, and levels of service at intersections, to name a few.

Do we feel that our quality of life will be negatively impacted by more traffic if we allow a 74% increase in residential density?  Were the City’s traffic studies credible and a fair reflection of what we experience each day as downtown HB residents?  You be the judge.