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

This Wednesday, May 11th, the HB Community Services Commission, will consider the naming of Triangle Park, at 6:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers, at City Hall, 2000 Main Street.  Please attend and speak, and email ddominguez@surfcity-hb.org, your thoughts on why it makes more sense to keep the historic Triangle Park name. 

Reportedly, there are a couple of other names which will be seriously considered at this Commission meeting, and later by the City Council, which has final authority in the matter.  Unless we flood the Commission and Council with emails and speakers, we are at risk of losing this 99-year-old park’s historic name for all future generations.  Please attend, speak, and write in your comments to keep the Triangle Park name. 

 Thank you for all of your support.

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

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.

The Main Street Library is designated as a local landmark in the City’s General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element, as is the Dwyer Middle School.  Triangle Park is the second oldest park in the City, and may be its most historic park as well.

The New Downtown Plan’s large parking structure and performing arts venue at this site almost certainly would require a demolition of the Library and a substantial degradation of the Park.  As such, these negative impacts to our historic landmarks should have been analyzed by the City as a part of its review of the New Downtown Plan.  These negative impacts were not evaluated by the City.

Does the New Downtown Plan provide enough protections for the historic Triangle Park and Main Street Library?  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 of HB responded to HBN’s opening brief (you can see the City’s reply by clicking here).

In a nutshell, the City disagreed with our position and sited various legal arguments that include they did a “credible” analysis of the impacts and worked with the residents to develop the downtown plan. We are in the process of finishing our final response which is due later this month and then we head to court which is scheduled for Thursday March 17th. Ultimately it will be a judge who decides if it was proper.

We thank you for your continued support. The Huntington Beach Neighbors organization has grown to over 2000 members that include residents, property owners and business owners. We all foster a vision to make downtown a safe place that we are proud of.

Blair Farley who is running for a seat on HB City Council recently posted a note on his Facebook page saying Triangle Park was close to becoming an “official” park.

Blair referenced that it was on the HB Community Services Commission agenda last week. Triangle Park and the downtown Library have been a hot topic as part of the DTSP (Downtown Specific Plan Update).

I called and spoke with David Dominguez who is the manager of HB Facilities, Development & Concessions to get the details. David explained that the Community Services Commission DID recommend that Triangle Park be added to the list of the city’s green space inventory and officially be made a park. He explained that this came up because the city was in the process of working on a major amendment to the general plan to account for, and adopt all the green space that will be produced by the Sunset Beach annexation (if the annexation happens). They decided to add Triangle Park to the list because of overwhelming community support and the fact that it would be easy to do as part of this general plan amendment.

The next step is for the planning commission to recommend the proposed changes to the general plan.

Then the general plan goes to the City Council for their approval/adoption.

They (the PC or City Council) can make changes to the plan which could exclude Triangle Park from the list (not sure why they would do that).

I specifically asked if Triangle Park would then be protected by Measure C and David Dominguez said once it is part of the parks inventory, it would indeed become covered by measure C.

It is worth noting that library construction on parkland does not require a citywide vote. Hence, even with Triangle Park as an official park, it is possible that the City could build a performing arts venue and an unknown number of supporting parking spaces. By calling the project a cultural center and library expansion, there can be an avoidance of a Measure C vote.

A city attorney last year pointed out that Measure C was in place when the Central Library was expanded as a Cultural Center with added parking at Central Park in 1994. No Measure C vote was taken.

However, all-in-all this sounds positive for all (residents and city folks) who have worked hard and persevered to preserve the park and library.

Pages from the Updated DTSP regarding the Library use

The attached three pages are from the Updated DTSP prepared after the Nov 2nd City Council vote.  I was personally assured by Mayor Cathy Green that there would be a 99 seat MAXIMUM theater size in allowed uses. No such wording is included in the pages that address use of the site in the final DTSP. I hope this was an oversight. Please read them for yourself and YOU BE THE JUDGE!

3) Permitted Uses a) Figure 3-36 presents uses permitted within Subdistrict 1A. The table details permitted uses. Other cultural facility-related uses that have the same parking demand as the existing use not specified herein, as well as a change of use, may be allowed subject to the approval of the Director.

Do we want the power to change the use of the Main Street Library to be left up to the “Director”?  A city employee!  Don’t we want it to at least go to the City Council for approval or even better to the citizens for a vote.  Is that what everyone was supporting in the fight to save the library?  Is this a victory?

Richardson Gray Wrote: 

In addition to the possibility of a large live performance venue (community theater), with a size of as much as 25,000 SF, which could support 700 seats, and in addition to the Director of Planning’s unfettered power to change the use at the Main Street Library and Triangle Park, the newly adopted Downtown Specific Plan allows an unlimited amount of parking to be built at the library and park, in both aboveground and underground structures. Despite the HBDRA leaders’ confidence that the City will not do anything at the park and library to which downtown residents would object, I find the language regarding the library and park in the new Downtown Specific Plan unacceptable. Given that this plan is a 20+ year planning document, it is likely that none of the current HBDRA leaders will be around to protect the downtown residents from the City’s plans for the library and park in the long-term . It is for these reasons that I am strongly supporting HB Neighbors lawsuit against the City, challenging the Downtown Specific Plan concerning the library and park, and other issues as well. I encourage all downtown residents to give all of the money that they can afford, to support the HB Neighbors litigation. That is what I am doing. Without broad resident opposition, I fear that the City will continue to expand the downtown commercial district at the expense of the quality of life for all downtown residents.