You Be The Judge!
SAFTEY 2nd edition:
The Community Outreach section of the DTSP requests fewer bars. So why does the city want to drastically increase the allowable square footage of restaurants from the current 144,000 to 285,000 without placing an upper limit on the number of new bars? Where is the co commitment increase in police services?
The goal of this newsletter series, presented by HB Neighbors (HBN), is to isolate the most important issues in the recently adopted Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) and accompanying Environmental Report (EIR), to help HB residents understand the basic arguments. In this issue, a variety of knowledgeable HB residents and business people in opposition to the DTSP and EIR are set in counter to the city on the issue of Safety stemming from alcohol consumption. Read both sides of the issue presented and “You Be the Judge”!
___________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND: In 1995, thirteen (13) establishments served alcohol in DTHB. In 2009, at the time the DTSP was approved, the number has increased three-fold to 38 establishments, not counting applications pending for liquor licenses for the Pacific City site. Who benefits from the DTSP’s silence in limiting the number of bars operating downtown?
___________________________________________________________________________
DTSP Chapter 7.2.6 Police Department Services:
“At present, due to the late night activity on Main Street, the officers are often required to work overtime to adequately meet the public safety needs of the area. An increase in development within the downtown will require a proportionate increase in the amount of Police Department staff and services by the City.”
OPPOSITION DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS
DEVIN DWYER, current city councilmen and former Planning Commissioner spoke:
“One thing we have heard tonight … is “alcohol, alcohol, alcohol”, to nauseam. And at our image committee we did come up with some great recommendations. … And I’m kind of concerned as to why none of that was presented with this (gesturing to the DTSP plan before him). I can understand people’s concern for, if we are to pass this, and then bring in later legislation with, what we are going to do as far as consumption downtown. I think, in meeting with most of these people, we could put a lot of them at ease if we were able to add in whatever legislation we are planning on doing, as far as strengthening our drinking laws, or changing hours of consumption or how they can get their entertainment permit and having that all part of this one document.” Quoted from Nov 2nd during City Council meeting
MIKE ADAMS, former building/planning director for HB and land-use consultant representing many of the largest Downtown commercial properties:
“Impact – A true quantitative analysis of the potential downtown growth is not presented in the EIR. Currently the police services are challenged with the existing supply of bars and restaurants. The changes to the specific Plan will allow the current number (of bars) to nearly double.” ADAMS 14: September 1, 2009 Michael C Adams Associates Response to Draft EIR No. 08-001, 4.10 Public Services
RON MCLIN, co-owner/manager of LONGBOARD, an HB resident and active member of the Downtown BID:
“The increase of 213,467 sq. ft. of retail, 92,232, sq. ft. Restaurant, 92,784 sq. ft. office, 27,000 sq. ft. Art center, 648 units of housing and 235 hotel rooms (188,000 sq. ft.) is huge for an area that is already struggling with what is already in place. We have yet to see the burden when Pacific City comes on line. We now have what the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control and our police department consider an over saturation of liquor licenses but are planning to add 20 restaurants…..” See Nov 2 public record. October 29 letter to the City Council.
CITY RESPONSE
The City Response to the comments made by MIKE ADAMS in ADAMS 14 as follows:
“The Police Department has also been consulted regarding the DTSP Update, and it is acknowledged that an increase in development in the downtown will require a proportionate increase in Police Department staff and services which the Police Department has indicated can be absorbed, and significant impacts were not identified.”
The City Response to the comments made by RICHARD PLUMBER in PLUMBER 6 as follows:
“The EIR states that the number of officers required to accommodate the growth in population anticipated by the DTSP Update to maintain adequate staffing levels established in the General Plan is 1.5 officers. Addressing the project’s consistency with established General Plan standards to maintain adequate public services is only one aspect of the analysis. The EIR also states that new projects are subject to review by City departments, including the Police Department. Conditions of approval can be incorporated into a proposed project or use, which can serve to reduce impacts on demand for police services. Finally the net new development potential, which includes 92,332 square feet of new restaurant uses, was reviewed by the Police Department. The Police Department concluded that implementation of the DTSP Update would not result in significant impacts to police services.”
OTHERS PUBLISHED CONSERNS REGARDING DUIs
ANGELA RAINSBERGER, a downtown resident and co-founder of the HB Neighbors group writes:
“10 minutes ago a car coming from downtown drove through three (3) front yards on our block, took out a white picket fence, and then tried to drive away. The police have him now. I do not know if he was drunk; we will have to wait and see, but this is a common occurrence on our block. It’s the first time I have seen it in broad daylight. Normally it’s in the middle of the night.” HBTalk Nov 22nd 2009 5:00 pm.
The papers later reported that the driver was charged with a DUI and was 19 years of age!
POLICE CHIEF, KEN SMALL writes:
“…we are one of the most unsafe cities in California when it comes to the number of incidents of driving under the influence. In 2008, we arrested 1,831 people for DUI (about 36% of total arrests), and in 2009, we arrested 1686 people for DUI (about 34% of total arrests). In 2008 and 2009, we had 25 traffic accident fatalities in Huntington Beach. During the seven years I’ve been chief, the majority of traffic fatalities were related to someone being under the influence. People drinking in downtown Huntington Beach account for a very large percentage of the DUI and public-intoxication arrests in our city.” Orange County Register Jan 31 2010
JUDGE for yourself! “Does the city have policies in place to stop the proliferation of the nightclub atmosphere as claimed by Councilmen Don Hanson in the public hearings?” Subsequent to the Nov 2nd 2009 vote by City Council to adopt the DTSP:
- LUGGATTIS, a restaurant catering to the families and over-30 crowds, closed its doors for good.
- COACH’S was issued an entertainment license allowing them to have live music and a dance floor.
- BLACK BULLS was reorganized and applied for a new entertainment license.
- LUIGIS, a family style restaurant, applied for a license for a full bar to compete with the other restaurants with bars in the area.
- SAVANNAS reverted back to CHIMAYOS and adjusted its advertising to appeal to the 20-something age demographics with happy hour drink specials.
Who wants the consumption of alcohol downtown to grow and why?
YOU BE THE JUDGE!
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
DENSITY 1st edition:
Why does the city want to increase the density and the heights of new Downtown tourist-oriented buildings? Did the city adequately address the resident concerns about the impacts of the density in the DTSP?
The goal of this newsletter series, presented by HB Neighbors (HBN), is to isolate the most important issues in the recently adopted Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) and accompanying Environmental Report (EIR), to help HB residents understand the basic arguments. In this issue, a variety of knowledgeable HB residents and business people in opposition to the DTSP and EIR are set in counter to the city on the issue of Density. Read both sides of the issue presented and “You Be the Judge”!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND: The DTSP was initially conceived to “Create a healthy mix of land uses geared toward creating an urban village that serves as a destination to both residents and tourist.” Yet, when City Council approved the modified DTSP, removing the large tourist attraction at Triangle Park, they did not reduce the 40% increase in downtown density. Who benefits from redeveloping viable low density building into high density buildings?
___________________________________________________________________________
DTSP Chapter 8 -8.3 Economic Conditions Influencing Developmental Potential:
The following is a summary of key existing conditions that will influence the realistic range of future development opportunities in the Specific Plan Area.
§ The Specific Plan Area is largely “built out.”
§ Prevailing property values in the Specific Plan Area reflect the fact that most parcels are already developed with existing viable uses. This situation will tend to limit the financial feasibility of redeveloping these parcels with lower-density land uses. That is, in most cases, new development would need to be relatively high density in order for the ultimate value of the development to justify the costs associated with buying and clearing land that is currently occupied with other uses. While there may be some (currently underutilized) sites that are exceptions to this observation, it should apply as a good rule of thumb for defining the types of opportunities that are likely to exist for most parcels.
OPPOSITION DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS
JILL HARDY, current city council woman spoke:
“This was referenced as a controversial issue. That’s usually how we refer to issues that bring out 30-40 speakers. I actually kind of looked at it and went “wow” what unity we have. We’ve got the residents’, the business owners, heck we even have Mike Adams, and the planning commissioners and Dick Harlo coming and speaking all on the same side……It’s clear to me what the residents’ want. It’s clear to me what the business owners want. Its planning commissioners who worked many more hours……………want. Who am I to say “No. I know better than everybody else who has spoken on this issue”. Quoted from Nov 2nd during City Council meeting
MIKE ADAMS, a former building and planning director for HB and now a land-use consultant representing many of the largest Downtown commercial property owners:
“The listed project objectives are intended to reflect the reasons the Specific Plan is being updated. The stated objectives do not indicate a need for a 40% increase in downtown commercial activity, nor increased residential densities or building mass. The anticipated public improvements, including wider sidewalks, new bikeways, expanded beach parking and cultural arts building, will only add to the downtown’s problem with insufficient convenient parking and poor circulation. The limited area for downtown commercial will continue to function best if the area north of Orange Avenue addresses the needs of the residents and the area between Orange Avenue and PCH attracts the visitors along with the locals. This approach will allow for better, more cost effective implementation of the identified objectives”. ADAMS 6: September 1, 2009 Michael C Adams Associates Response to Draft EIR No. 08-001, 3.5 Statement of Objectives
RON MCLIN, co-owner/manager of Longboard, an HB resident and active member of the Downtown BID:
“The increase of 213,467 sq.ft. of retail, 92,232, sq. ft. Restaurant, 92,784 sq. ft. office, 27,000 sq.ft. art center, 648 units of housing and 235 hotel rooms (188,000 sq. ft.) is huge for an area that is already struggling with what is already in place. We have yet to see the burden when Pacific City comes on line. We now have what the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control and our police department consider an over saturation of liquor licenses but are planning to add 20 restaurants by sq.ft.?……..The plan to enlarge and increase the business area will adversely affect residents and existing and future businesses. It is too large and doesn’t conform to the Huntington Beach lifestyle. We like the village concept.” See Nov 2 public record. October 29 letter to the City Council.
JOHN SCANDURA, a current planning commissioner stated:
“The heights of 5 stories or 50 units per acre, recommended by the staff, would create significant parking and traffic problems on Main and 5th streets. The plan traffic improvement on these streets are minimal and up to 105 parking spaced could be lost on these two streets. The downtowns village character would be replaced by canyons of 4 and 5 story buildings.” Quoted from Nov 2nd during public comments at the City Council meeting
_______________________________________________________________________________
CITY RESPONSE
The City Responded to the comments made by MIKE ADAMS in ADAMS 6 as follows:
- § The allowable net increase in development included in the DTSP Update was developed in consideration of (1) project goals, objectives adopted by the City Council and the(2) market demand identified in the DTSP market study completed in July 2008 by The Natelson Dale Group.
- § Parking and circulation issues related to implementation of the DTSP Update are evaluated in adequate detail in Chapter 4.12 – Transportation and Parking in the EIR.
- § The comment regarding alternate location considerations for the downtown commercial does not raise an environmental issue under CEQA and is acknowledged, and will be provided to the decision-makers for review and consideration during their deliberations of whether or not to approve the proposed project.
NOTES(1) DTSP Section 1.5 pages 1-12 to 1-13 contain the project goals & objectives. Increasing density downtown by 40% is NOT one of the listed goals or objectives. (2) OUTDATED STATS The city’s market study, was published July 23rd 2008, before the fall of Lehman Brothers (September 2008), and has no relevance to today’s generational shift in the economy.
Recent Comments