HB Neighbors

The Appeal to Protect Downtown Presses Ahead

On September 1st, Huntington Beach Neighbors filed an appeal, in its litigation against the City of Huntington Beach, concerning the Downtown Specific Plan update. This lawsuit questions the sufficiency of the Plan’s Environmental Impact Report under the California Environmental Quality Act. The City attempted to stop our appeal so they may proceed unimpeded with the expanded development of Downtown. The court ruled in favor of Huntington Beach Neighbors and supported our rights. David Rice, President of Huntington Beach Neighbors, commented, “Our Board of Directors and our Attorneys are convinced that the trial judge, in ruling for the City, made a number of significant errors.  Our entire set of objections is posted on our website and can be seen by clicking here.  As demonstrated by our appeal, we remain fully committed to going-the-distance in our fight with the ultimate goal of improving the quality of life in Downtown. We expect to succeed with this appeal, which should force the City to provide the due process we are entitled to. This process was created to properly inform decision makers with an accurate picture of a plan, along with the goal of protecting the residents, property owners, businesses and the environment.

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

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”.

 The LA Times has cover story

Bar scene gives Huntington Beach both headaches and a hearty revenue boost

 Welcome to Huntington Beach, the “Jersey Shore” of Orange County.

When the sun sets here, a three-block stretch of innocuous-looking stucco buildings morphs from a place where shopkeepers hawk beach towels and surfboards to one where bartenders sling bottles of vodka, illuminated by black light and neon.

But the debauchery comes with a price.

Huntington Beach is ranked No. 1 in victims killed and injured in alcohol-involved traffic accidents among cities its size in California. DUI arrests are more than twice the number in Irvine, a college town roughly the same size.

With 1,419 DUI arrests last year and a clear problem on their hands, city officials decided they needed to tackle the problem. The City Council placed restrictions on new bars — no beer pong or drink minimums, for example — and police began tracking where people had their last drink before their arrests.

Reed the full story at : http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-huntington-beach-alcohol-20110403,0,2795221,full.story

Triangle Park has been a city park for its entire history of almost 100 years.

Because of what we believe was an administrative oversight, it was not until very recently, listed on the HB City park inventory list. It was deeded to the city in 1912 as a park by the Huntington Beach Company and was named Triangle Park at that time. 

Please come to the meeting and show your support for the park to remain Triangle Park.  Triangle Park is being treated as a new park, but it has been a park for 99 years and we do not wish to have it renamed.

SUBJECT: Park Naming – 525 Main Street

If you are unable to attend please write to the city and express that you support the historic name “Triangle Park”.  ddominguez@surfcity-hb.org

Public Meeting Notice Park Naming 03 17 11

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 City claims (Page 11 of its opposition brief) that “Despite this lack of controversy at the City hearings, Petitioner [HB Neighbors] makes a series of challenges to virtually every aspect of the subject EIR.”  In fact, CEQA only allows issues raised during the City hearings or in their written records to be used to support out case.

The public record shows that 181 downtown residents and business owners spoke at the City hearings or wrote to the City about the New Downtown Plan and its EIR.  Of these 181 people, only 2 people (in addition to several City employee’s/officials) spoke in favor of the New Downtown Plan.  One who has a long resume of Downtown real estate development projects (and is business partners with then Mayor/current City Council member Kieth Bohr), and the other the owner of most of the property on 5th Street. Both would stand to benefit economically from the approved project.

Was there a lack of controversy at the City hearings?  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 Huntington Beach Independent, in its Jan 26 2011’s article titled “City Response to downtown plan lawsuit”, made a mistake in one of its quotes.

The correct information is that the only other CEQA lawsuit brought by HB residents against the City of HB was LOST by the city of HB.  This case involved the Sr. Center EIR.  Only minor points were ruled in favor of the city.

HB Neighbors has the same attorney representing our group, and the violations of the State of California Environmental Quality Act are very similar to the case recently lost by the City.  We feel we have a very good chance of winning our lawsuit and forcing the City to protect the quality of life in our downtown neighborhood.

Did the City Attorney give sound legal advice to the City Council when she told them that there were no legal grounds to challenge the Environmental Impact Reports in both of these cases?  You be the judge.